is 1080p Marketing Hype?

[dobyblue]

Unless the TV you're watching is a CRT, you're not watching "1080i" - it's deinterlaced, whether correctly or not, then displayed progressively at the panel's native resolution.

[ixlegitballinxl]

i've owned 5 hdtv's...i'd have to say 1080p is awesome. PQ also has to do with what kind of display ( dlp,lcd.plasma).....and of course what name brand of tv. I'm a firm believer if your going to get an hdtv, and you own a blu ray player, or plan to get one....buy a 1080p tv....at least a 42 inch.....you only buy a tv every so often...so get something that is future proof.....i agree with other posters....anything under 37 inch, i wouldnt worry about 1080p.....imo, i wouldnt get 720p/1080i, unless it was for a secondary system, like a bedroom.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

i agree with other posters....anything under 37 inch, i wouldnt worry about 1080p

Those other posters are incorrect.
It completely depends on where you are sitting.
If you sit 4-5ft from your TV, you'd appreciate the benefits of 1080p on a 32" screen.
If you sit 20ft away from your TV, there's no benefit to 1080p on a 50" screen.

[hagar852]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Screen sizes have NOTHING to do with interlaced and progressive. That is different. Here is a graph on screen sizes and viewing distances.



And here is a calculator for figuring out the optimal size and distance:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html


They list progressive on the image because it is the best quality. For interlaced, although distance can effect this as well, it is a side effect of the distance. If you view an interlaced image far away, it is still interleced, just harder to tell. But the image is still 720 or 1080 so you will be missing details if you are too far away.

No hype about interlaced and progressive there either. The viewing distance and size determines the best resolution, not interlacing.

All linear graphs are theoretical, and not experimental values..

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by hagar852

All linear graphs are theoretical, and not experimental values..

They are rough estimates based on approximately 20/20 vision, so some people will appreciate 1080p further away than that, others may not.

I have 20/25 vision, 15/15 with glasses. I find 1080p very much appreciable over 720p on a 32" LCD at 6ft.

The fact remains that viewing distance and screen size best determine desired resolution, NOT some line around 37" that makes 1080p necessary.

[mogumbo]

I have tested that "Viewing Distance When Resolution Becomes Important" chart using my own TV and I think it's flawed. I have a 34" 1080i CRT and a 9 foot viewing distance. That puts me pretty squarely on the "Full benefit of 480p" line. But I can still see a big improvement when looking at 720p or 1080i. My eyes aren't quite 20/20 anymore. So I'm thinking this problem is more complex than the math in this chart suggests. Can anyone else confirm this?

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by mogumbo

I have tested that "Viewing Distance When Resolution Becomes Important" chart using my own TV and I think it's flawed. I have a 34" 1080i CRT and a 9 foot viewing distance. That puts me pretty squarely on the "Full benefit of 480p" line. But I can still see a big improvement when looking at 720p or 1080i. My eyes aren't quite 20/20 anymore. So I'm thinking this problem is more complex than the math in this chart suggests. Can anyone else confirm this?

Yes. As posted earlier, I sit over 10 feet away from my 37" 1080p LCD. That means I should barely begin to appreciate 720p. However, not only does a 720p broadcast completely annihilate SDTV and upconverted DVDs, but there is a clear improvement in 1080p over 1080i whenever the picture is in motion.

That graph has no significant accuracy in my personal situation. The fact that my vision is still perfect may have something to do with it, but nevertheless, I have to respectfully disagree with the assertions that graph makes.

[BluCrew]

Is 1440p going to come out soon?!?!?! Man, I already feel behind with my 1080p TV....

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by BluCrew

Is 1440p going to come out soon?!?!?! Man, I already feel behind with my 1080p TV....

You wasted your money..... you should have saved..... everyone is going to laugh at you when they see you're only running a 1080p set

I don't think our eyesight warrants much more resolution than 1080p (in 'most' sizes) I think Color levels will be improved... but 1080p will become, and remain standard for years to come.

[My_Two_Cents]

Maybe I'm not thinking this through all of the way, but my understanding is the chart above is in reference to display resolution (meaning ED/480 vs 768p/1080i vs 1080p), not the signals being fed into them. So if you fed the same 1080p signal into a 40" ED set, you wouldn't start noticing an improvement using a 768p set until around 12' or not until you were closer than 7.5' for a 1080p set (give or take based on your eyesight, and assuming the sets were identical except for resolution).

Of course SD (480i) programming will look worse than 1080p at just about any resonable viewing distance, but that's not what the chart is trying to present.

Does that make sense? Be gentle....

Where is Dobyblue when you need him????

[Captain Fryyy]

I think it makes sense

[Bonifax]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Maybe I'm not thinking this through all of the way, but my understanding is the chart above is in reference to display resolution (meaning ED/480 vs 768p/1080i vs 1080p), not the signals being fed into them. So if you fed the same 1080p signal into a 40" ED set, you wouldn't start noticing an improvement using a 768p set until around 12' or not until you were closer than 7.5' for a 1080p set (give or take based on your eyesight, and assuming the sets were identical except for resolution).

Of course SD (480i) programming will look worse than 1080p at just about any resonable viewing distance, but that's not what the chart is trying to present.

Does that make sense? Be gentle....

I agree, It all depends on the signal being fed to the TV in order to understand the viewing chart mentioned... I think

[Sonny]

Oh the good O'l "i" vs "p" crap......I have had many many HDTV's & I still love my 50" 720p Panasonic which happends to accept 1080p (its a good old 60 series.) "Old" ROTFLMAO. Anyway I prolly use that set more than any other . Why, I don't know??? Its almost hard to buy an HDTV now a days with out being a 1080p set...

[mogumbo]

Maybe I'm not thinking this through all of the way, but my understanding is the chart above is in reference to display resolution (meaning ED/480 vs 768p/1080i vs 1080p), not the signals being fed into them. So if you fed the same 1080p signal into a 40" ED set, you wouldn't start noticing an improvement using a 768p set until around 12' or not until you were closer than 7.5' for a 1080p set (give or take based on your eyesight, and assuming the sets were identical except for resolution).

Of course SD (480i) programming will look worse than 1080p at just about any resonable viewing distance, but that's not what the chart is trying to present.

Ricshoe, I'm not sure I follow you, but it gives me another idea:

I think signal res vs. display res could make a big difference among LCDs. I have never seen quality upscaling on an LCD, so DVDs at 480p always look extra soft to me. That could bias people into thinking that 480p is worse than it really is.

I'm using a CRT, and quality doesn't suffer due to scaling on CRTs. On the other hand, quality for all signals does suffer on CRTs because the pixels are just plain blurry. That would mean my tests were done at lower effective resolutions than I thought.

So it would be hard to make a good test of that chart on LCD or CRT, but for a different reason on each one so the chart might still be correct. Does any of that make sense? I can't think of any way to organize this into a nice linear essay and still have time to get any work done today...

[ixlegitballinxl]

who sits 20 ft away from their tv? lol


people who buy 1080p tv's, never regret buying one
so why ask if its hype? its about PQ , and P is better then I
Is blu ray capped at 720p/1080i? NO, its max is 1080p..why is that?????? hmmm

Case Closed

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

who sits 20 ft away from their tv? lol


people who buy 1080p tv's, never regret buying one
so why ask if its hype? its about PQ , and P is better then I
Is blu ray capped at 720p/1080i? NO, its max is 1080p..why is that?????? hmmm

Case Closed

P is not better than I though - they're the exact same thing.

You can send a 1080i and a 1080p signal of the same material to a 1080p set with good deinterlacing and you get the EXACT SAME PICTURE, pixel for pixel, frame for frame.

As for 20ft, I've seen people with their own theatre in their house and there are seats more than 20ft away, but most often they've got a 120+" screen.

The case isn't closed and you don't understand what you're talking about.

Those 720p tv's....THEY DON'T DISPLAY 1080i. You've probably never even seen a 1080i signal displayed properly, because all those TV's that say "720p/1080i" on them are PROGRESSIVE DISPLAY PANELS.

[ixlegitballinxl]

"with good de-interlacing"

i've owned 5 hdtv's, trust me..i know what im talking about....if u compared side by side 1080i content and 1080p content, at the same viewing distance, 1080p would be a sharper picture!!!

I dont doubt 20ft+ away with projector's , most discussions on this thread are about 32-50 inch screens

IMO, people buy 720p tv's because they dont want to spend the money on the higher priced tv. Not that people can't afford them, but can't justify the extra money for the higher resolution.
I'd pick a 1080p tv over a 1080i tv anyday. I must be somewhat accurate, that's why most BB stores don't carry as many 1080i tv's, and are dropping prices on them, because they are not selling as fast as 720p sets and 1080p's.

[Destro187]

Well I have a 55 inch Sony (which doesnt do 1080P sursprisingly just 1080i)
and my brother has a 42 inch Toshiba which does 1080P. I beat Metal Gear Solid 4 on my TV now we are doing it on his.

My observation? The P seems to make a more "solid" picture. The I seems a lil more shaky (if thats the word) like comparing how a typical TV with a PC monitor in terms of frame rate if that makes since. Really crisp and solid.


BUT is "progressive" 1080 worth another $1500 for the same size TV???

I don't think so and here's why

so FAR nothing besides Blu-ray/PS3 and Xbox supports that resolution and no over the air HD or sat or cable does "P" for now. Considering its took this LONG for the TV industry to give us something better then color then its unknown how long it will take for full HD 1080 P to set in BUT if dish network and direct TV don't even allow that option that should tell ya something cause them guys know all about money and marketing.

However I ain't knockin 1080P, is it superior? hell yeah! BUT at the end of the day I got 13 more inches of TV for what that "P" is gonna cost ya

So do you future proof and shell out an extra whatever amount of money NOW ???for a service thats prolly a decade away and we'll prolly have ultra HD OR future proof now and need not worry?? (note i aint factoring BD or upconvert DVD at 1080P just general TV) hard to say but Its something to think about.

[richieb1971]

I just took my PS3 to my friends house who has a 1080p TV and it just happens to be the TV up from mine which is a 768p panel at the same 40" size. The difference was negligible. We are both quite close, i'm 10ft max from the screen and he is about 6ft. My TV does however take a 1080p input and downscales the image to 768p. It works like a charm and I have decided upgrading isn't necessary at this point in time. Just my 2c.

Two Tv's are KDL40D3000 and KDL40D3500 (1080p) one. My TV even has an extra HDMI.

[Canada]

From what I hear 1080p is mostly hype, but not having seen a picture on one for more than about 2 min I could not actually give you my opinion. One thing also I have not seen a 1080p vs 1080i picture face off.