768p vs 1080p

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ricky tee78

couple of thoughts....

it's useless saying "768p", its 720p. The only time you will see those extra 48 lines of resolution is with an analog signal from a computer.

That is incorrect. When feeding a 1080p signal to a 768p plasma it will be downconverted to 1366x768, not to 720p and then upconverted. When feeding a 1080i signal, if the set correctly deinterlaces which most 2008 sets do, it will be deinterlaced to 1080p then downscaled to 768p, hence anytime you're sending a 1080i or 1080p signal you will be taking advantage of the extra resolution.

also, 1080i is a useless statement. a 720p tv has max resolution of 768 vertical lines. You're not going to grow over 300 lines of resolution like some kind of miracle. if you set a 720p TV to 1080i, all your doing is watching in 720i.

That is incorrect, there is no such thing as 720i.
1080i is not a "useless" statement, it merely states what the TV can handshake with. A 1366x768 panel will deinterlace a 1080i signal to 1080p and scale to 768p. What's misleading is calling a 768p set a "1080i" set, but that's the manufacturers fault for not just calling it 768p and putting the capable input signals elsewhere.

You can't "set a 720p TV to 1080i" - tv's are either interlaced or progressive.

Too many people get mixed up between source resolution, original material resolution and panel resolution.

1080i and 1080p are the same resolution.

theres only a few tv's that can do 1080i (other then 1080p TV's of course) and those are some Hitachi's...

Most 1080p sets cannot display 1080i source material properly because they are progressive displays.
All HD CRT's can display 1080i properly as CRT is an interlaced technology.

There is hardly any 1080i material out there anyway, most 1080i broadcasts are shot progressively and broadcast interlaced, so a TV worth it's weight in salt will correctly deinterlace to 1080p and scale to the native resolution, with the exception of the HD CRT's and ALIS Hitachi plasma's which will show in 1080i.

[ozzman]

Thank you,someone with some sense on this thread.

God bless you

[My_Two_Cents]

It's truly amazing how some folks without a clue want to argue facts with opinion. Thankfully dobyblue came sweeping in to lend some authority to everything that has been said all along. Thank you Jedi!

Originally Posted by ckent22

And once again can you stop using this 768p crap. Just say 720p. Actually it depends on the source material for the upteenth time.
You believe that Panasonic makes better televisions than Samsung? If you do, then that's pretty sad.

LOL. 768 vertical lines of resolution equals 768p, which is what the set will display. Source material has NOTHING to do with it. Your really need to bone-up on display resolution versus source resolution before you post anymore.

Hmmm, let me see....A Vizio TV and an HTiB? I suppose they are all connected with Monster cables to give everything an extra zing? Got a Bose Lifestyle system on order?

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Here is the oft mentioned HDTV Faceoff where a 768P Pioneer Plasma set beat out all other competitors:

Link

It is a 768P set, not a 720P set. The native resolution is what it is regardless of the source information. 1376x768 is not 1280x720.

Thanks for the link. I thought I had it saved in my "useful links" category in my AV folder. It is now.

/I'm done.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

It's truly amazing how some folks without a clue want to argue facts with opinion. Thankfully dobyblue came sweeping in to lend some authority to everything that has been said all along. Thank you Jedi!



LOL. 768 vertical lines of resolution equals 768p, which is what the set will display. Source material has NOTHING to do with it. Your really need to bone-up on display resolution versus source resolution before you post anymore.



Hmmm, let me see....A Vizio TV and an HTiB? I suppose they are all connected with Monster cables to give everything an extra zing? Got a Bose Lifestyle system on order?



Thanks for the link. I thought I had it saved in my "useful links" category in my AV folder. It is now.

/I'm done.

Look at my set up. Do you see a Vizio? That was an old TV I had. Which was very good I might add. There's a big fat Bravia XBR sitting in the living room right now. You would't know anything about that would you?


It's amazing. Okay, "768p" is so great that 1080p is pale in comparison. You are so off base here.



As a matter of a fact I've got probably 7 HDMI cables. All for different devices.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

It's truly amazing how some folks without a clue want to argue facts with opinion. Thankfully dobyblue came sweeping in to lend some authority to everything that has been said all along. Thank you Jedi!



LOL. 768 vertical lines of resolution equals 768p, which is what the set will display. Source material has NOTHING to do with it. Your really need to bone-up on display resolution versus source resolution before you post anymore.



Hmmm, let me see....A Vizio TV and an HTiB? I suppose they are all connected with Monster cables to give everything an extra zing? Got a Bose Lifestyle system on order?



Thanks for the link. I thought I had it saved in my "useful links" category in my AV folder. It is now.

/I'm done.

One more thing. Tell me how a review is a fact. That's opinion. It's not a fact.

[Skyline]

A tad off-topic, but just to add my own experience to the discussion:

I was debating betwen the 42" Panny 720 and 1080 plasmas. I went to Best Buy and convinced them to hook each model up to a blu-ray player, and play them side by side with the exact same film showing. I didn't know which TV was which, and was able to correctly identify the 1080 set between the two.

That said, I went with the 720. The difference was so minor that I truly felt like I was taking a shot in the dark on my guess except for a couple of very subtle differences. The $300 price difference was enough to sway me in the 720's direction, and I've been completely satisfied with the purchase.

Like others have said, the 1080 will buy some people peace of mind, and I understand that completely. And yes, depending on the person, TV size, and viewing distance, you might be able to see some difference. But, don't tell others that buying a 720 set is a waste of money. It's not.

[dobyblue]

Keep the tone friendly and informative or I'm locking the thread.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Skyline

A tad off-topic, but just to add my own experience to the discussion:

I was debating betwen the 42" Panny 720 and 1080 plasmas. I went to Best Buy and convinced them to hook each model up to a blu-ray player, and play them side by side with the exact same film showing. I didn't know which TV was which, and was able to correctly identify the 1080 set between the two.

That said, I went with the 720. The difference was so minor that I truly felt like I was taking a shot in the dark on my guess except for a couple of very subtle differences. The $300 price difference was enough to sway me in the 720's direction, and I've been completely satisfied with the purchase.

Like others have said, the 1080 will buy some people peace of mind, and I understand that completely. And yes, depending on the person, TV size, and viewing distance, you might be able to see some difference. But, don't tell others that buying a 720 set is a waste of money. It's not.

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.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ckent22

You got my vote for sheep of the year.

That's pretty interesting. So you're saying that the people that work at Home Theater Mag are somehow paid beforehand by Pioneer to ignore what their eyes and ears, calibration and test discs are telling them which is that the 1080p sets are all better, and come up with the rather odd opinion that the 768p Kuro is the best set out of the ones they tested?

I'm gathering that's what you're trying to get across by the insult you've made?

The TV MANUFACTURERS are the ones that want you to think that 1080p is the must have, that Monster Cable makes the best picture, that the Bose Wave Radio can reproduce lifelike music replacing floorstanding speakers, that 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio is real and because we have it we're the best, that 480Hz refresh rate makes the best telly, etc.

The people that are NOT biased who do the testing are the ones weeding out the important features in a TV, using test discs after calibrating sets to weed out the real performance of a set, that a 1,000,000:1 TV actually has an ANSI contrast of around 3,000:1 for example, that x and y sets don't deinterlace properly and will cut a 1080i signal down to doubled 1920x540 frames losing 50% of the horizontal resolution, etc., etc., etc.,....

....and you think I'm the sheep? Please explain how you reached that conclusion.

[Skyline]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Nobody said that buying a 720p television was a waste of money. I never said that.

I never said that you did

It's funny how this debate always gets so heated. We might as well discuss religion next.

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by ckent22

I don't own an Insignia. Okay, you've shown me something that says oh well a Panasonic 768p television is blah blah blah good. Okay big woop. put a rose on the panasonic. I'm not buying it. I'm sticking with my Bravia.

Wost tv they ever reviewed and you say grab it because it`s a 1080p over the panasonic

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That's pretty interesting. So you're saying that the people that work at Home Theater Mag are somehow paid beforehand by Pioneer to ignore what their eyes and ears, calibration and test discs are telling them which is that the 1080p sets are all better, and come up with the rather odd opinion that the 768p Kuro is the best set out of the ones they tested?

I'm gathering that's what you're trying to get across by the insult you've made?

The TV MANUFACTURERS are the ones that want you to think that 1080p is the must have, that Monster Cable makes the best picture, that the Bose Wave Radio can reproduce lifelike music replacing floorstanding speakers, that 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio is real and because we have it we're the best, that 480Hz refresh rate makes the best telly, etc.

The people that are NOT biased who do the testing are the ones weeding out the important features in a TV, using test discs after calibrating sets to weed out the real performance of a set, that a 1,000,000:1 TV actually has an ANSI contrast of around 3,000:1 for example, that x and y sets don't deinterlace properly and will cut a 1080i signal down to doubled 1920x540 frames losing 50% of the horizontal resolution, etc., etc., etc.,....

....and you think I'm the sheep? Please explain how you reached that conclusion.

Calling someone sheep of the year is not an insult. Saying someone is a sheep means that they follow something just because for instance in this case it is in a review site or magazine or because a sales associate says it's the best.

Actually, if you read what I said above, there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

I assuming that you and the other people realize that most 1080p televisions also are capable of displaying 720p, so you get both for the price of 1 whereas with one 720p or "768p" set you only get one resolution.

[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.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

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.

That's inaccurate. You can see that is 1080p. I mean that's not true at all. If that's reason enough for you to believe in buying "768p" then go right ahead. I can tell you that I have viewed different things on my Sony that was 720p and 1080p and there is a difference.

If this is how you feel then why even buy Blu - ray? Why not just rely on your upconverted DVDs?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Calling someone sheep of the year is not an insult. Saying someone is a sheep means that they follow something just because for instance in this case it is in a review site or magazine or because a sales associate says it's the best.

Yet you quote all the buzz terms that the companies throw at you. Who's the sheep? Why won't you address the rest of the post?

I assuming that you and the other people realize that most 1080p televisions also are capable of displaying 720p, so you get both for the price of 1 whereas with one 720p or "768p" set you only get one resolution.

Do you understand how you can go from 1080p24 to 1080i60 and back to 1080p24 with no loss? Do you understand why you can't take filmed 1080i material and show it in 1080p and ever get back to the interlaced source?

Your statement makes no sense at all. If every TV could display exactly a 1080p source material pixel for pixel for every frame then you'd have a point, but they're far from it so you don't. As I've outlined for you several 768p sets have more resolution than 1080p sets, so you're seeing more detail during movement from a 1080p source on the 768p set than you are on the 1080p set!!

In addition you get one resolution on 1080p, one resolution on 720p, one resolution on 768p, one resolution on 480p. Every TV scales to its native resolution. That's why I don't think you understand resolutions, because you wouldn't make such an absurd statement otherwise.

768p TV.
Source 480i = Display 768p.
Source 720p = Display 768p
Source 1080i = Display 768p
Source 1080p = Display 768p

1080p TV.
Source 480i = Display 1080p.
Source 720p = Display 1080p
Source 1080i = Display 1080p
Source 1080p = Display 1080p

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Yet you quote all the buzz terms that the companies throw at you. Who's the sheep? Why won't you address the rest of the post?


Do you understand how you can go from 1080p24 to 1080i60 and back to 1080p24 with no loss? Do you understand why you can't take filmed 1080i material and show it in 1080p and ever get back to the interlaced source?

Your statement makes no sense at all. If every TV could display exactly a 1080p source material pixel for pixel for every frame then you'd have a point, but they're far from it so you don't. As I've outlined for you several 768p sets have more resolution than 1080p sets, so you're seeing more detail during movement from a 1080p source on the 768p set than you are on the 1080p set!!

In addition you get one resolution on 1080p, one resolution on 720p, one resolution on 768p, one resolution on 480p. Every TV scales to its native resolution. That's why I don't think you understand resolutions, because you wouldn't make such an absurd statement otherwise.

768p TV.
Source 480i = Display 768p.
Source 720p = Display 768p
Source 1080i = Display 768p
Source 1080p = Display 768p

1080p TV.
Source 480i = Display 1080p.
Source 720p = Display 1080p
Source 1080i = Display 1080p
Source 1080p = Display 1080p

I know the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Hence, interlaced and progressive. It's not true to say that a "768p" displays more resolution. That's far from accurate.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Yet you quote all the buzz terms that the companies throw at you. Who's the sheep? Why won't you address the rest of the post?


Do you understand how you can go from 1080p24 to 1080i60 and back to 1080p24 with no loss? Do you understand why you can't take filmed 1080i material and show it in 1080p and ever get back to the interlaced source?

Your statement makes no sense at all. If every TV could display exactly a 1080p source material pixel for pixel for every frame then you'd have a point, but they're far from it so you don't. As I've outlined for you several 768p sets have more resolution than 1080p sets, so you're seeing more detail during movement from a 1080p source on the 768p set than you are on the 1080p set!!

In addition you get one resolution on 1080p, one resolution on 720p, one resolution on 768p, one resolution on 480p. Every TV scales to its native resolution. That's why I don't think you understand resolutions, because you wouldn't make such an absurd statement otherwise.

768p TV.
Source 480i = Display 768p.
Source 720p = Display 768p
Source 1080i = Display 768p
Source 1080p = Display 768p

1080p TV.
Source 480i = Display 1080p.
Source 720p = Display 1080p
Source 1080i = Display 1080p
Source 1080p = Display 1080p

Full HD was first coined by Sony. And you can call it a marketing gimmick all you want, but it's true. It's Full HD. It's not 720p. You know? Obviously you don't.

I don't understand why you support Blu - ray to begin with if you believe what you believe.

[ckent22]

And actually I do understand resolution.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ckent22

That's inaccurate. You can see that is 1080p. I mean that's not true at all. If that's reason enough for you to believe in buying "768p" then go right ahead. I can tell you that I have viewed different things on my Sony that was 720p and 1080p and there is a difference.

If this is how you feel then why even buy Blu - ray? Why not just rely on your upconverted DVDs?

I don't think you understand at all.

My TV of choice would be a Pioneer PDP-6020FD 1080p Kuro plasma, followed secondly by a Panasonic TH-58PZ800U 1080p Viera plasma.

They both have performance of close to 900/1080 for motion resolution. Hence when you're watching the majority of a 1.78:1 movie during scenes of motion you're seeing on average 900 lines resolved, not 1080.

During a static image you are seeing 1080 lines resolved, but I don't use my TV much for static images.

On most non-LED LCD's the motion resolution is 600/1080.
Hence when you're watching the majority of a 1.78:1 movie during scenes of motion you're seeing on average 600 lines resolved, not 1080.

That's is why on a good 768p plasma you can often be seeing MORE DETAIL during action scenes that you will on a poor 1080p plasma or non-LED LCD.

It's not an opinion.

In addition if you don't take viewing distance into account it's ridiculous to recommend a 1080p 42" set for someone who sits 15ft away from their TV over a 768p set unless the performance of the set outside of just the panel resolution (ie, contrast, motion, etc.) is significantly better, in which case you're not recommending the 1080p on it's panel resolution but rather on it's performance in other areas.

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by ckent22

yeah okay. Cuz you know everything about me and my intentions and everything like that. Must be a great power to be able to read people's thoughts. I wish I had that power. I really do.

Okay, I got your opinion. You think 720p is a thousand times better. Good for you. Justify your purchase. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

1) i never said i can read minds ,just read what you type like everyone eles did.

2)I never said 720p is a thousand times better Stop making things up.you`ve been doing it through the whole thread.
Lets deal just with facts not make believe