Why Sell 1080P TV's Smaller Then 46"??

[blurayjunkie]

Why do they sell TV's smaller then 50" in 1080p? according to you guy's the screen must be ove 46" for anyone to even see a diffirence. Yet there are 32" sets that are 1080p. How can a tv that small hold 1080p lines of resolutione. Why you guys say it has to be 46" or higher to make a diffirence.

[curse]

because their actually is a difference specially if you use it as a monitor.

[HiDefRev]

Why sell 1080p sets smaller THAN 46" ?? Hype. More sales. More $$$ for the manufacturers.

[Rob J in WNY]

It's all in the marketing, and also seating distance from the screen. I have a Sony 40" XBR4. It is 1080p and I'm glad I got it.

[blurayjunkie]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

It's all in the marketing, and also seating distance from the screen. I have a Sony 40" XBR4. It is 1080p and I'm glad I got it.

do you notice a diffirence between 1080p and 720p?

[JasonR]

So you are telling me on your computer monitor if you decrease the resolution, you don't see a difference? It all comes down to size and distance for that difference to be realized.

[Jwilly019]

Marketing, plain and simple.

How many of us use everyone of our receiver's inputs? Very few of us, but every manufacturer likes to say that they offer one more S-Video input than their competitor.

[xneox]

Originally Posted by JasonR

So you are telling me on your computer monitor if you decrease the resolution, you don't see a difference? It all comes down to size and distance for that difference to be realized.

This.

There are popular opinions on this board that are...well, dumb.

One of them is that there is no place for the extra processing features found in all modern HDTVs, and that if you actually have any of them turned on, you are spitting in the director's face. Please. They have their place, and while some are poorly implemented, others can greatly enhance your personal viewing experience...and after all, you paid for it. Also, something tells me that Mr. Spielberg couldn't care less whether I crank my tint so far out that ET looks like he's green.

Another one is that 1080p is only a benefit on a gigantic screen, when viewed from an arm's length. Again, please. That chart that people like to post whenever this discussion comes up is BS. The possibility that you may not be able to distinguish between the actual lines of resolution at certain screen sizes/viewing distances does not translate into seeing no difference at all. Overall picture clarity, whether seen as a whole, or in certain detailed elements, is better in 1080. I've seen it for myself. The shine of a body of water is better. The texture of someone's skin on a closeup is better. Hair...better.

Now, if you want to save money and buy a 720p display because it's going to produce a picture that's fantastic (it will), and will serve your needs well, then please do. But people should really stop trying to justify that fact by convincing themselves, then others, that it's just as good as 1080p, whether due to screen size or viewing distance, because it isn't. Just be ok with your gear and move on.

[rkolinski]

Here's an interesting article; just food for thought so to speak!

http://www.productwiki.com/home/arti...-to-my-tv.html

[JasonR]

Actually, what I posted is fact not opinion. I sit approximately 8 feet from my 1080P 40" TV. Would I see more detail if I moved closer, would I lose more detail if I moved further away? Would I see more detail if I had a larger screen, would I lose more detail if I decreased screen size? I think to answer no to any of those "opinions" would be well.....dumb.

I bought 1080P, because I wanted the best possible resolution no matter where I sit. And no, I don't believe that chart always holds true. But to say you can see a difference between 720P and 1080P on an iPhone from 20 feet away (extreme circumstance), well that's the bullsh*t.

Not trying to justify my purchase, because I own a 1080P TV.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by JasonR

I don't believe that chart always holds true.

EXACTLY.......

People act as if their Eyesight, and hearing are identical to every random stranger who posts here...... THAT, is ridiculous.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by blurayjunkie

Why do they sell TV's smaller then 50" in 1080p? according to you guy's the screen must be ove 46" for anyone to even see a diffirence. Yet there are 32" sets that are 1080p. How can a tv that small hold 1080p lines of resolutione. Why you guys say it has to be 46" or higher to make a diffirence.

Because some people cannot afford larger tellies and they still want the better resolution. My TV is only 42 inches and I am more than happy that I can see a difference between 720p and 1080p.

Saying that, I do not dispute the fact that 1080p is better for the larger sizes of TV and projectors.

[langn08]

I don't understand why people can not understand that it is relative to viewing distance... seriously

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by xneox

Overall picture clarity, whether seen as a whole, or in certain detailed elements, is better in 1080. I've seen it for myself. The shine of a body of water is better. The texture of someone's skin on a closeup is better. Hair...better.

Now, if you want to save money and buy a 720p display because it's going to produce a picture that's fantastic (it will), and will serve your needs well, then please do. But people should really stop trying to justify that fact by convincing themselves, then others, that it's just as good as 1080p, whether due to screen size or viewing distance, because it isn't. Just be ok with your gear and move on.

This may hold true in most cases due to manufacturers adding features and better panels to their higher end 1080p sets, but when you venture outside of panel by manufacturer and compare across manufacturers it is not accurate at all.

http://hometheatermag.com/flat-panels/208hdface/

• Samsung HL-T6187S LED DLP RPTV
• Sharp LC-52D64U LCD HDTV
• JVC LT-47X898 LCD HDTV
• Mitsubishi WD-57833 DLP RPTV
• Sony KDS-60A3000 SXRD HDTV
• Panasonic TH-50PZ750 Plasma HDTV
• Pioneer PDP-5080HD Plasma HDTV

There were 7 HDTV's in a shoot-out here, 6 of them are 1080p. The 720p panel won. Not surprisingly it was a Pioneer Kuro, the PDP-5080FD. Narrowly behind was the TH-50PZ750U 1080p panel from Panasonic.

If all things are equal other than the panel then the difference between 720p and 1080p does come down to viewing distance and of course source, that's simple human science; however it's rare that a company makes a 720p panel identical to another 1080p panel produced outside of panel resolution which is why it's not advisable to choose a TV just based on panel resolution, but rather on all it's factors combined...ANSI contrast, motion resolution, calibration options, processing capabilities, these things are all more important than me than panel resolution but with today's pricing and availability of 1080p panels it's pretty much a moot point.

[tilapiah6]

So what you are all saying is that if I get a 32 inch TV for a monitor, it needs to be 1080p for it to be sharp with me sitting that close? I was planning on getting one from Walmart that was 720p, but I might not now.

[slaizer2000]

native resolution support always provides the best quality. As in no conversion or downsampling. If you put a 1080p signal into a 1080p device there is no conversion and you get 1080p. If you dump a 1080p signal into a 720p device there is some type of conversion going on in order for the TV to display the video in its native format.

At less than 46" Tv will you be able to see the difference or not I am not sure. But whenever you do any type of conversion with audio or images/video you always loose some data/quality. If done right this loss is not noticeable to the naked eye but there still usually is some type of loss. Same reason why you would want to stick with an all digital path and not use analog cables as you convert and loose quality.

also similar reasoning why you want a TV that can handle a 24hz source because the blu-rays are in this format and if you Tv can handle this format or evenly handle it (times 5 and not 3/2 pulldown) then the quality if better.

There may also be some cost savings during manufacturing. why produce eletronics to support 720p and 1080p when you can jsut product 1080p products. Fewer componants equals fewer different parts and manufacturing lines for the company.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by slaizer2000

native resolution support always provides the best quality. As in no conversion or downsampling. If you put a 1080p signal into a 1080p device there is no conversion and you get 1080p. If you dump a 1080p signal into a 720p device there is some type of conversion going on in order for the TV to display the video in its native format.

Sorry, but that's not correct at all. There are some panels tested, by name brands like Sony as well, that won't even display a static image properly when sending a 1920x1080 image. Several sets actually resolve 880/1080 lines of static resolution in "TORCH" mode. Depending on TV technology and settings you don't resolve even 720p during scenes of motion on a 1080p set. Numerous sets fail 1:1 pixel pattern tests also.

Too many people keep putting panel resolution ahead of far more important features and it's not as cut and dry as that.

At less than 46" Tv will you be able to see the difference or not I am not sure.

I am sure that a 22" at home on my PC I can tell a difference between 720p and 1080p on a 1680x1050 monitor.

But whenever you do any type of conversion with audio or images/video you always loose some data/quality.

All video and audio is converted, so I guess we're always losing quality? Blu-ray video has to be converted from MPEG-4 to uncompressed video, PCM or TrueHD or dts-ma has to be converted to analog.

also similar reasoning why you want a TV that can handle a 24hz source because the blu-rays are in this format and if you Tv can handle this format or evenly handle it (times 5 and not 3/2 pulldown) then the quality if better.

No, the quality is not better, you're simply avoiding 3:2 judder. What's better, a TV with ANSI contrast of 200:1 and motion resolution of 330/1080 lines with 24Hz capability or a TV with ANSI contrast of 3,000:1 with motion resolution of 1080/1080 and no 24Hz capability?

There may also be some cost savings during manufacturing. why produce eletronics to support 720p and 1080p when you can jsut product 1080p products. Fewer componants equals fewer different parts and manufacturing lines for the company.

There is no such thing as what you're describing. You think manufacturers are going to build a TV that you can't use a VHS on, watch SD cable/ota/satellite/fo on, watch your Progressive Scan DVD on?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

So what you are all saying is that if I get a 32 inch TV for a monitor, it needs to be 1080p for it to be sharp with me sitting that close? I was planning on getting one from Walmart that was 720p, but I might not now.

Choose the one with the best specs, research it. Panel resolution isn't the #1 thing to look for regardless of size.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Choose the one with the best specs, research it. Panel resolution isn't the #1 thing to look for regardless of size.

I think my money is probably best spent elsewhere. This 19 inch monitor has served me well enough for the last couple of years.