Is 1080p any different than 720p?

[PaulDHolloway]

Right now I have a 720p 32 Sanyo for the family room. I am thinking of saving and getting the biggest I could get around a 42' to 52' HDTV which would probably contain 1020p. Is there any significant difference between 720p and 1020p?

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by PaulDHolloway

Right now I have a 720p 32 Sanyo for the family room. I am thinking of saving and getting the biggest I could get around a 42' to 52' HDTV which would probably contain 1020p. Is there any significant difference between 720p and 1020p?

i think you mean 1080p and yes, it's not only better than 720p but it's the highest HD resolution currently available. It is only truly available with either blu-ray or HD-DvD movie players. a set with 1080p will also support HD resolutions from the PS3 & Xbox 360 as well as cable & OTA broadcast of up to 1080i.

hope this helped.

[SammyG]

1080p

[troyus]

at 32", no, not alot of difference.
As your screen gets bigger, you will notice lower resolutions more and at 50", yes you will notice 1080p
*edit* as someone said, you have to have a Hi Def source to show in 1080p.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by troyus

at 32", no, not alot of difference.
As your screen gets bigger, you will notice lower resolutions more and at 50", yes you will notice 1080p

Agree with this ~ The Bigger the Better !

[Blove23]

Only depends on the size of the television, any thing under 42' inches you will not be able to tell the difference. Anything larger than 46' inches go 1080p /120 for an LCD or just a 1080p for a plasma.

I hope that helps

[dobyblue]

Base your purchase on ANSI contrast ratio, colour accuracy, calibration options, video processing....THEN on panel resolution. 720p or 1080p should be quite a few marks down your list on things to look for when choosing a television. You may find plenty of 720p options on the market that handily outperform other lesser-performing 1080p panels.

[Alan Brown]

Many of the responses posted so far in this thread contain misinformation, most likely due to a reliance on marketing hype and/or hobbyist forum discussions rather than imaging science. Resolution has very little to do with the size of the screen and much more to do with how far from the TV you sit. Our human vision has limits to the detail it can recognize at a given distance. The average person with 20/20 vision can see maximum detail in a 1920 x 1080 image at about 1.5 x the screen diagonal away from the display. Sit closer and the individual pixels start to become detectable. Move farther back and the finest details in the picture will start to get lost.

If you sit much farther away from the TV location in your family room than 6.5 feet, even a 52" diagonal screen may not be big enough to make much of a difference between "720p" (more likely WXGA- ???? x 768) vs 1080p. There are still several 50 inch diagonal "720p" flat panels available on the market with excellent picture quality. They are commonly used in professional applications and for digital signage. As dobyblue mentioned, there are more important characteristics to consider in the hierarchy of video image quality than resolution.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[Al_The_Strange]

I have a 32" TV, and I can tell the difference between a 720p video game and a 1080p one (the former is much more pixilated than the latter).

As far as BDs go, I haven't seen any 720p BDs, so I can't comment. But any 1080p BD looks brilliant.

I'd say go for it. But having something greater than 32" would still be ideal.

[progers13]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

Many of the responses posted so far in this thread contain misinformation, most likely due to a reliance on marketing hype and/or hobbyist forum discussions rather than imaging science. Resolution has very little to do with the size of the screen and much more to do with how far from the TV you sit. Our human vision has limits to the detail it can recognize at a given distance. The average person with 20/20 vision can see maximum detail in a 1920 x 1080 image at about 1.5 x the screen diagonal away from the display. Sit closer and the individual pixels start to become detectable. Move farther back and the finest details in the picture will start to get lost.

If you sit much farther away from the TV location in your family room than 6.5 feet, even a 52" diagonal screen may not be big enough to make much of a difference between "720p" (more likely WXGA- ???? x 768) vs 1080p. There are still several 50 inch diagonal "720p" flat panels available on the market with excellent picture quality. They are commonly used in professional applications and for digital signage. As dobyblue mentioned, there are more important characteristics to consider in the hierarchy of video image quality than resolution.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

This statement falls into the category of the difference between book smart and street smart, IMHO. All valid points and certainly with merit. However, I will say in the real world, a bit of a generalization. I'd concede that distance makes a difference to a point, but I would contend the estimate of 1.5 x the screen diagonal to be way understated. I sit 10.5' away from my 52" TV, and I can easily see the difference between 720p and 1080p. On my 100" projector screen, it's not even worth having the debate.

Like dobyblue said, there are other factors to consider as well, many of which could be more important than resolution. But I don't think the consideration of resolution should be dismissed so easily either. Likewise, I don't think it is an accurate statement to say that I can't see a difference from greater than 6.5' in my living room. I've heard the same arguments that people can't hear the difference between lossless and lossy encodes either. In theory perhaps, but in practice it is a whole other story.

[tilallr1]

I would go by this chart. Pretty accurate for most people. Please note how far you sit from the screen, this could be the most important factor in determining whether you will see any difference between 720p and 1080p.

[Alan Brown]

Originally Posted by progers13

This statement falls into the category of the difference between book smart and street smart, IMHO.

Your opinion is fallacious. What you call "book smart" is based on over a century of proven human perceptual studies, conducted by numerous physiology, optical, and imaging science disciplines and industries. We're not talking about theoretical speculation here, but analysis of actual people and the human visual system. 'How Visual Acuity Is Measured', https://forum.blu-ray.com/newbie-dis...ml#post1954716

Street smart? Are you actually insinuating and presuming that I lack practical experience evaluating video display performance? You presume too much, and your lack of humility is showing, Mr. "Guru." Your 52" TV changes its resolution? LCD TVs are fixed pixel devices. You are confusing the display's resolution with that of the program being sent to it.

All valid points and certainly with merit. However, I will say in the real world, a bit of a generalization.

Of course it was a generalization. No two humans are identical. The calculations and formulas used in imaging science human factors studies, display industry standards and recommended practices, are a guide for reference, a starting point in designing imaging systems.

I'd concede that distance makes a difference to a point, but I would contend the estimate of 1.5 x the screen diagonal to be way understated. I sit 10.5' away from my 52" TV, and I can easily see the difference between 720p and 1080p. On my 100" projector screen, it's not even worth having the debate.

Here, again, you are confused about the difference between the display resolution and the program's resolution.

Like dobyblue said, there are other factors to consider as well, many of which could be more important than resolution. But I don't think the consideration of resolution should be dismissed so easily either. Likewise, I don't think it is an accurate statement to say that I can't see a difference from greater than 6.5' in my living room. I've heard the same arguments that people can't hear the difference between lossless and lossy encodes either. In theory perhaps, but in practice it is a whole other story.

You make my case about hobbyist forums. People can be confused and still sound confident. I was not "dismissing" resolution, just putting it in its proper perspective when evaluating the suitability of a particular screen size in a video system design. You are also wrong in stating that I said you "can't see a difference...." etc. I wasn't talking about you. Your audio encode analogy is ill conceived and not a fitting parallel to this discussion. You are having difficulty following a clearly stated context. Please stay focused on what is actually said, and your posts will make more sense. The original poster was inquiring about display resolution and screen size.

[progers13]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

Your opinion is fallacious. What you call "book smart" is based on over a century of proven human perceptual studies, conducted by numerous physiology, optical, and imaging science disciplines and industries. We're not talking about theoretical speculation here, but analysis of actual people and the human visual system. 'How Visual Acuity Is Measured', https://forum.blu-ray.com/newbie-dis...ml#post1954716

Street smart? Are you actually insinuating and presuming that I lack practical experience evaluating video display performance? You presume too much, and your lack of humility is showing, Mr. "Guru." Your 52" TV changes its resolution? LCD TVs are fixed pixel devices. You are confusing the display's resolution with that of the program being sent to it.

Of course it was a generalization. No two humans are identical. The calculations and formulas used in imaging science human factors studies, display industry standards and recommended practices, are a guide for reference, a starting point in designing imaging systems.

Here, again, you are confused about the difference between the display resolution and the program's resolution.

You make my case about hobbyist forums. People can be confused and still sound confident. I was not "dismissing" resolution, just putting it in its proper perspective when evaluating the suitability of a particular screen size in a video system design. You are also wrong in stating that I said you "can't see a difference...." etc. I wasn't talking about you. Your audio encode analogy is ill conceived and not a fitting parallel to this discussion. You are having difficulty following a clearly stated context. Please stay focused on what is actually said, and your posts will make more sense. The original poster was inquiring about display resolution and screen size.

Lighten up, buddy. It's not like my signature claims me to be an expert or anything. It was meant to be lighthearted, hence the smilies I deliberately added to try to convey that effect. My apologies if it came across as anything else. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just a hobbyist quack who's eyes and judgements can't be trusted. It'll be ok buddy. It's not like any of us can see that a display has 2x the amount of pixels from greater than 6.5'. That's all I'm saying.

[Alan Brown]

Originally Posted by progers13

Lighten up, buddy. It's not like my signature claims me to be an expert or anything. It was meant to be lighthearted, hence the smilies I deliberately added to try to convey that effect. My apologies if it came across as anything else. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just a hobbyist quack who's eyes and judgements can't be trusted. It'll be ok buddy. It's not like any of us can see that a display has 2x the amount of pixels from greater than 6.5'. That's all I'm saying.

Your curt dismissiveness profoundly undermines the legitimacy of your apology. All of my "buddies" have better manners. Smilies don't excuse repeated misrepresentations of what I clearly said. Words have meaning and can also have consequences. You are persistently confused and unskilled in the public discourse of this thread. It's your choice to reject the correction of your errors, but why prolong and compound the embarrassment? The first rule of holes is: "If you have found yourself stuck in a hole and want to get out....stop digging."

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by progers13

Lighten up, buddy. It's not like my signature claims me to be an expert or anything. It was meant to be lighthearted, hence the smilies I deliberately added to try to convey that effect. My apologies if it came across as anything else. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just a hobbyist quack who's eyes and judgements can't be trusted. It'll be ok buddy. It's not like any of us can see that a display has 2x the amount of pixels from greater than 6.5'. That's all I'm saying.

Hey dont worry about it. I agree with you entirely. The exact same thing happened to me on a similar thread. I also can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p pretty easy (when the source it bluray). Its not much of an issue really anymore like it was a few years back. Then you would see a lot of 1080p tvs that would be terrible at everything else. These days its pretty easy to find 1080p displays that perform well in all areas for not much money.

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by PaulDHolloway

Right now I have a 720p 32 Sanyo for the family room. I am thinking of saving and getting the biggest I could get around a 42' to 52' HDTV which would probably contain 1020p. Is there any significant difference between 720p and 1020p?

Lets just say you switched out that 720p 32" Sanyo to a bigger set from a better manufacturer like Samsung or Panasonic and went 1080p, the difference will be huge. Dont forget to pick up a bluray calibration dvd.

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

Your curt dismissiveness profoundly undermines the legitimacy of your apology. All of my "buddies" have better manners. Smilies don't excuse repeated misrepresentations of what I clearly said. Words have meaning and can also have consequences. You are persistently confused and unskilled in the public discourse of this thread. It's your choice to reject the correction of your errors, but why prolong and compound the embarrassment? The first rule of holes is: "If you have found yourself stuck in a hole and want to get out....stop digging."

You used the same tired "rule of holes" line on me. I think you need a new line.

[Alan Brown]

It's not just a line, it's enduring wisdom.

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

It's not just a line, it's enduring wisdom.

I think I work with your twin brother.

[drummerboy_2002]

Although I agree with Mr Brown's message, I can understand your problem with his delivery. Let me see if I can paraphrase (the intent) to everyones satisfaction.

To make the claim that you can see the difference between 1080p and 720p (at a given distance outside the norm), you would almost need two TV's of equivalent performance, calibrated the same, side-by-side, playing the same material. Although, one TV would have to be 1080p native, and the other 720p native, playing the material in those respective formats. The problem with trying to identify differences between two source formats on a single display, is that the display's resolution is fixed, and all material played on that display have to adhere to that fixed resolution through processing of the image. To say you can see the difference, you'd have to remove that processing, as it may be the element you are noticing.

[Disclaimer: I make no claim to know anything about what I'm talking about]