768p vs 1080p

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Nobody said that buying a 720p television was a waste of money. I never said that. If that's what one can afford or what one wants then by all means.

With that said, there are obvious benefits of both 720p and 1080p, but to say as the other poster said that "768p" is better than 1080p is not accurate. In addition, you'll never get full HD with 720p.

Most LCD's have 600 lines of motion resolution at best, not including the newest LED backlit sets from Sony and Samsung that cost far too much money.

The Pioneer set tests 90% of motion resolution. 90% of 768 = 691.
60% of 1080 = 648.

So the 1080p set with 55% motion resolution resolves 648 lines of detail during action, moving sports, etc., scenes.
The 768p PDP-5080FD from Pioneer resolves 691 lines of detail.

In addition to the fact that its black levels and contrast best most television sets there is definitely plenty of instances where you are getting more detail from a 768p set (in addition to a more accurate picture) than you do on a lesser 1080p set. Those aren't opinions, they're tested facts, it's mathematics.

Saying 768p is better than 1080p is not accurate, it's not a blanket statement. But there are certainly instances where 768p sets will have better overall performance than another 1080p set and if it's a decision between a 768p Panasonic and a 1080p Insignia the best picture will be found on the Panasonic.

As for "full HD" that's another marketing term the CE's want you to adopt. HD is anything from 720p and up (it's really anything above 576i and up, which is the highest SD signal there is). There are numerous 1080p sets out there where you will only see "full HD" as you like to coin it when viewing a static image like an FBI warning or a green band before a trailer. As soon as there's movement on the screen the resolution drops well below 1080.