What do you think of this trade?

[DeeChizzle]

32" Sony WEGA LCD/1080i (2004 model) + $100.00 for a Samsung 32" LCD/720P (Model # LN32B360 / 2008 model)?

I felt I need to upgrade my bedroom set to a newer model. I know there are mixed feelings regarding 1080i and 720p but I figure at 32" who really cares.

This is the Sony WEGA I traded but a 32" model.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-KLV-23M1-...353025&sr=1-19

The frame was monsterous and it lacked a lot features. I know some of you prefer 1080i but I like I said I really wanted a newer model for the room and the Samsung is less than 6 months old.

[raskal66]

Originally Posted by DeeChizzle

32" Sony Bravia LCD/1080i (2004 model) + $100.00 for a Samsung 32" LCD/720P (Model # LN32B360 / 2008 model)?

I felt I need to upgrade my bedroom set to a newer model. I know there are mixed feelings regarding 1080i and 720p but I figure at 32" who really cares.

Looks to me like you'd be trading sideways instead of upwards, but I have a bias for Sony so I'm not the most impartial of all judges on an issue like this.

[bigm]

If i were in your shoes, I would not make the deal.

[DeeChizzle]

Originally Posted by bigm

If i were in your shoes, I would not make the deal.

Really? Why?

The Wega I traded was nearly 5 years old. It's a discontinued model. It was great T.V. but it lacked alot of features that most LCD's have today like multiple HDMI connections.

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by DeeChizzle

Really? Why?

The Wega I traded was nearly 5 years old. It's a discontinued model. It was great T.V. but it lacked alot of features that most LCD's have today like multiple HDMI connections.

Pass on this one.
Current 32" are really so cheap now. Come up to a 40" and have at least
full 1080p. Even with a second decent player you're still watching
full fledged Blu-ray not 720p. In NY, when I see Kimmel(on ABC) in 720P
I start to squirm in my Lay-Z-Boy. That is, after watching Conan in glorious
1080i. It just doesn't cut it. Too soft a picture.

just a thought(on a cold rainy day in nyc)

[kwrobbins]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

Pass on this one.
Current 32" are really so cheap now. Come up to a 40" and have at least
full 1080p. Even with a second decent player you're still watching
full fledged Blu-ray not 720p. In NY, when I see Kimmel(on ABC) in 720P
I start to squirm in my Lay-Z-Boy. That is, after watching Conan in glorious
1080i. It just doesn't cut it. Too soft a picture.

just a thought(on a cold rainy day in nyc)

Isn't 720P a better picture than 1080i? With 720P you get 720 lines of res at once (progressive) vs. 540 flashed twice (interlaced), that's 180 lines more at once w/720P.

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by kwrobbins

Isn't 720P a better picture than 1080i? With 720P you get 720 lines of res at once (progressive) vs. 540 flashed twice (interlaced), that's 180 lines more at once w/720P.

I don't think so. (in NYC) when I watch FOX-Ch 5 in 720p or ABC in 720p
or one of the ESPN's in 720p, regardless of all your supportive math and data
I still think the 1080i of CBS or NBC or even PBS or The Weather Channel or
Palladia is much crisper and sharper and has lots more detail. The 720p
looks so much softer than 1080i. I even think The History Channel is in 720p.
When I watch, that's all I'm thinking about.

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

Originally Posted by DeeChizzle

32" Sony WEGA LCD/1080i (2004 model) + $100.00 for a Samsung 32" LCD/720P (Model # LN32B360 / 2008 model)?

I felt I need to upgrade my bedroom set to a newer model. I know there are mixed feelings regarding 1080i and 720p but I figure at 32" who really cares.

This is the Sony WEGA I traded but a 32" model.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-KLV-23M1-...353025&sr=1-19

The frame was monsterous and it lacked a lot features. I know some of you prefer 1080i but I like I said I really wanted a newer model for the room and the Samsung is less than 6 months old.

Do the trade, Sony makes TV's that will last A decade but why not spend only $100 more for a brand that is just as reliable and is 4 years newer with features such as multiple HDMI that you need. You can still get 1080i on a 720p tv so that is not a big deal. Somethings look better in 1080i somethings look better in 720p depends what kind of programming you are watching. I mean an HDMI splitter is $50 at monoprice and since you need two inputs you would really only be paying $50 more and what does $50 get you? two blu ray movies.

Do the trade!

[jibucha]

Hello

While this is certainly confusing to most; it actually is quite simple, and not as so many that understandably mis-understood.

720p l The clear advantage is progressive; not being interlaced, which causes considerable artifacting. Progressive is the best and proper of the two; however it is more than that, as between the two choices, it is progressive compared to resolution, and not lines as I often encounter online.

1080i l The clear advantage is resolution; regardless that there are two fields of 540-lines of information at any given moment in a defined time as compared to 720p and it's 720-lines at any given moment in defined time.

Still, the lines of resolution are the equal of 1080p in terms of resolution, with the obvious exception of interlacing artifacts, which account for the difference in picture quality between 1080i and 1080p.

1080i & 720p l Lines Issue l While the line count at any defined time differs between 720-lines & 540-lines, the resolution of 1080-lines is still a formidable factor, which is why the picture of any 1080i is so much better defined, as commonly recognized in any comparison.

It is Simple l 1080-lines, whether 1080i or 1080p, are significantly smaller than 720-lines, thus the resolution improvement. And the progressive 720p signal is smoother in quality as it is without interlaced artifacts; regardless though, the picture quality is comparatively fuzzy given the obvious loss of resolution.

Progressive & Interlaced l Between the two; progressive is always preferred. However, when comparing 1080i to 720p; it is an issue of progressive compared to resolution, with no clear winner unless you move to 1080p, which is with the advantage of both factors, which is why Blu-ray is so significant.

Certainly, all displays should be 1080p, as should be all broadcast signals; do not forget that 1080/24p is one of the available broadcast options for ATSC Digital Broadcast, so it is coming.

Television always should have been progressive, but the broadcasters care about cost and savings; not picture quality, or interlaced would never have been considered, as it is an obvious compromise in picture quality for the savings of bandwidth and cost by broadcasters.

Pixel Count l This is the single factor that really gets to the point; 720p is 921,600-pixels and 1080i & 1080p is 2,073,600-pixels of information available for the entire picture displayed. To look at it any differently, is confusing and incorrect. Without a doubt; 1080i has an equivalent picture quality of over 2-million pixels of resolution, while, without a doubt, 720p has an equivalent picture quality of less than 1-million pixels. This is the real and accurate way of looking at the resolution of the two standards, and not line-count as commonly mis-represented.

Remember, that I am fully aware of the artifacting issue, but as many already have acknowledged; typically, a 1080i picture is preferred over a 720p picture.

Biased? Absolutely not; I recognize and enjoy both regularly, and encounter times when I prefer one over the other interchangeably, but this has to do with the entire chain of production and not the issues that we have focused on here. Progressive is compelling in it's own right, and equally, resolution is compelling in it's own right.

Having said all of this, I generally, being about 87% of the time, prefer the quality of 1080i over 720p, which especially includes sports where progressive is the acknowledged better option in broadcast.

Blu-ray l It is Progressive & 1080 Lines; at least if everyone involved is awake and doing their respective jobs.

Broadcast Television l As Blu-ray becomes more popular, and more comprehend and acquire 1080p Displays; it is only a matter of time before broadcasters will have to consider 1080/24p for broadcast.

Remember, that it is already been part of the ATSC Standard for over a decade now. In time, 1080p displays will become the norm and Blu-ray the norm; broadcast will be compelled to match their picture quality with what the consumer has regularly for picture quality.

Already, from the beginning, I am easily able to see these differences.

Thank You

Quote

Isn't 720P a better picture than 1080i? With 720P you get 720 lines of res at once (progressive) vs. 540 flashed twice (interlaced), that's 180 lines more at once w/720P.

[franklinpross]

Somethings look better in 1080i somethings look better in 720p depends what kind of programming you are watching.

That's what they say. But when I watch a Yankee game(YES) in 1080i
or a Mets game (SNY)in 1080i, it still looks better than many football
games in 720p. I get no motion blurr with the XBR. I wish all programming
were in 1080i. That's just my opine.

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

Somethings look better in 1080i somethings look better in 720p depends what kind of programming you are watching.

That's what they say. But when I watch a Yankee game(YES) in 1080i
or a Mets game (SNY)in 1080i, it still looks better than many football
games in 720p. I get no motion blurr with the XBR. I wish all programming
were in 1080i. That's just my opine.

Thats true though, when I am watching the NFL some channels look better as opposed to others. Both are being presented in 1080i but you can see a huge difference.

FOR NFL

FOX=GOOD
CBS=BAD

I dont know why that is

[callas01]

I would do the trade personally, newer TV, I have that samsung and it is a great little 32", and you will still get the 1080i picture on your tv anyways because the TV supports 1080i. I have one hooked up to my spare bdp and its great for my bedroom.

[franklinpross]

qoute:
Television always should have been progressive


Good point you made. Why can't television be in 1080p ?

Takes up too much bandwidth? yea, but with analog gone, isn't there more
room?

[franklinpross]

qoute:
I have that samsung and it is a great little 32", and you will still get the 1080i picture on your tv anyways because the TV supports 1080i


I don't know. I read somewhere, once that a TV must be at least (min.)
40" just to be able to display 1080p. By shear size alone a 32" TV just doesn't
have enough room to display 1080 lines of resolution. It would be totally imperceptable to the human eye to see 1080 lines of resolution on a 32" TV.

Is that true?

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by PanasonicPlasmaMan

Thats true though, when I am watching the NFL some channels look better as opposed to others. Both are being presented in 1080i but you can see a huge difference.

FOR NFL

FOX=GOOD
CBS=BAD

I dont know why that is

Me,not a clue.

Also, I scanned your collection. The Prestige. Is it worthwhile in Blu-ray?
I was thinking of that one.
Like you, I don't buy a lot . .only good ones. The reason. I'm older than dirt and I can see the next stage of all of this down the road when all my BD's are obsolete. Some posters have over 300 in their collection . . .makes me think . .

[jibucha]

no; this is not so

Originally Posted by franklinpross

qoute:
I have that samsung and it is a great little 32", and you will still get the 1080i picture on your tv anyways because the TV supports 1080i


I don't know. I read somewhere, once that a TV must be at least (min.)
40" just to be able to display 1080p. By shear size alone a 32" TV just doesn't
have enough room to display 1080 lines of resolution. It would be totally imperceptable to the human eye to see 1080 lines of resolution on a 32" TV.

Is that true?

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

If you are watching 1080p content on a 32 inch TV you better be pretty dang close or you will not benefit from it.

As for "The Prestige" I bought it because it is one of my favorite movies of all time so for me it was a no brainier to buy it. PQ and AQ are really good and I would say it is a must buy especially since you can buy it for like $12.

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by jibucha

no; this is not so

This is a quote from the Sound and Vision review of my SONY 40" XBR.



With a screen this small, there's no way to appreciate the full resolution of 1080-format high-def programs unless you sit 5 feet or closer to the TV (the eye can't process that level of detail from any farther away). Finding 5 feet kind of claustrophobic, I decided to forego the Sony's ultra-high-rez benefits and evaluate it from my normal 8-foot viewing span.


What you're saying is that the 32" does display 1080 lines of resolution, right?
And you mentioned it's in the bedroom. Out of curiousity, do you watch
that set closer than 5 feet away? Or is it on a dresser in front of the bed . .
say 10' from your eyes? . . .

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by PanasonicPlasmaMan

If you are watching 1080p content on a 32 inch TV you better be pretty dang close or you will not benefit from it.

As for "The Prestige" I bought it because it is one of my favorite movies of all time so for me it was a no brainier to buy it. PQ and AQ are really good and I would say it is a must buy especially since you can buy it for like $12.

Many thanks PPM.

[jibucha]

Hello Again

While I have several high quality displays, I do watch a considerable amount of content on a 30" which is unusually good, hardly every bested by any other display but a very few in the past decade.

My Point l I have several of these high quality displays and typically watch from 5' to 17', able at any distance to resolve any detail available in programming whether broadcast or Blu-ray.

For example; I have compared more than 24 Blu-ray Players and it was remarkably easy to see any and all differences, at any distance, whether 5' or 17', which in my experience is difficult for many on their respective displays.

Additionally, I can easily differentiate equally, at any distance from 5' to 17',
the differences in picture quality of each channel broadcasting in our area.

Furthermore, when the picture quality varies on a specific channel either from program to program, or on different days of irregular broadcast quality; it is easily discernible,

Specifically; it is the quality of the display, professionally calibrated of course, that determines what you see, and not the size of the display or viewing distance.

I have only on a few occasions encountered any display larger, that has either the color fidelity or resolution that I encounter daily at home. And; I do mean very few in the past twenty years.

In closing, my normal preferred viewing distance is 17' on a 30' display, and I easily can appreciate the better picture quality of this size at this distance; especially, as even at 3", I am unable to detect any artifacts with a magnifying glass, which I regularly check for various reasons.

I entirely disagree with the common representations of display size and viewing distance.

Viewing Distance & Screen Size l With a high quality HD Display; these two issues of size and viewing distance are entirely subjective, as going to any movie theater, viewing from the front row or the back row, whatever is your preference.

It's just what you prefer; the picture quality is consistent, regardless of either size or distance factors.

However; the real unrecognized issue here is the display quality and the resulting quality of the image, which is commonly not very good in my experience.

Just look at your display at perhaps 1' to 3' for any picture quality issues; if they are visible at these close distances, then they will be visible at distances beyond 10' or 18'; especially with regards larger displays.

You may not perceive the specific display anomalies that you did on close inspection, but you will certainly perceive a loss of quality collectively speaking, making discernible judgments questionable.

Thank You

Originally Posted by franklinpross

This is a quote from the Sound and Vision review of my SONY 40" XBR.



With a screen this small, there's no way to appreciate the full resolution of 1080-format high-def programs unless you sit 5 feet or closer to the TV (the eye can't process that level of detail from any farther away). Finding 5 feet kind of claustrophobic, I decided to forego the Sony's ultra-high-rez benefits and evaluate it from my normal 8-foot viewing span.


What you're saying is that the 32" does display 1080 lines of resolution, right?
And you mentioned it's in the bedroom. Out of curiousity, do you watch
that set closer than 5 feet away? Or is it on a dresser in front of the bed . .
say 10' from your eyes? . . .