First foray into Hi-Def and Blu-ray; a quick question.

[JohnWestCoast]

Last weekend I puchased my first high-def TV (a 42" JVC 1080p, model# LT42X788). In the paperwork that was enclosed it reads...
"This JVC television can accept a variety of HD signals, including 720/60p, 1080/60i and 1080/60p. It DOES NOT accept a 1080/24p signal. Please note that in some cases a Blu-Ray player may only offer the choice of 1080/60i or 1080/24p. In this case it is necessary to choose the 1080/60i output."

My question is this: How discernable is the difference between the 1080/24p and the 1080/60p signal?
It is my limited understanding that the 24p signal is the way the movies were meant to be viewed but am now learning the HDTV I purchased will not support it.

I have 30 days to take this TV back and upgrade it.
Obviously I am on a budget but don't want to feel totally shorted on his purchase. I can find a little more money to upgrade to a HDTV that will support the 1080/24p signal if it is that important.

Any help would be great here. The clock is ticking...
I will read some threads about the purchase of a Blu-Ray player before asking some ridiculous questions.

Thanks.

[tofur69]

For 42", 1080i and 1080p do not really mean that much if you are sitting a good distance away from it (more than 7-10'). There is some very small improvement from 1080i to 1080p but you will be hard pressed to see it. However, when you move into the larger screens (65" and higher) you will start to notice the differences in the two. You will probably be fine but somebody else should chime in on this as well.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by tofur69

For 42", 1080i and 1080p do not really mean that much if you are sitting a good distance away from it (more than 7-10'). There is some very small improvement from 1080i to 1080p but you will be hard pressed to see it. However, when you move into the larger screens (65" and higher) you will start to notice the differences in the two. You will probably be fine but somebody else should chime in on this as well.

For the most part I agree... except that the difference between 1080i and 1080p will be noticeable at a smaller size TV than 65". I've noticed the difference between the two distinctly on my 52" LCD TV from approx 8' away. I remember reading somewhere that with a 46" TV the difference is just starting to be noticeable if you are any closer than 6'.

So, ultimately, there shouldn't be a noticeable difference in the case of the OP's situation.

[Deciazulado]

If you have a player that outputs movies only as a 1080i60 signal the JVC will have to deinterlace that into 1080p60, and it may do that perfectly, or not (depends on it's circuits). But don't all Blu-ray players have the ability to output 24p discs as 1080p60 so far? Your JVC will accept the 1080p60 signal and display it that way (in 1080p60).


24p is the frame rate theatrical movies use so that gives the smoothest motion for watching them, although most of us in America have been watching movies converted to 60Hz at home so you have to know what to look for to see what difference 3:2 repeated frames (the way 24 frames per second are converted to 60 frames per second) make. So you would have to watch films at both outputs, 24p -> 24p and 24p -> 60p, carefully and compare to see if the difference is important enough to you.


Be aware that a TV may accept at 1080p24 signal, but only if it can display it at a refresh rate multiple of 24 (48, 72, 96, 120 Hz) you will see the 24p smooth motion, otherwise the TV will add the 3:2 repeats, just like the BD player's 1080 60 outputs would do, to make it 60p.



Note: There are also some programs (usually live concerts and such) that are shot in 1080i60 natively, so those always have to be deinterlaced and watched in 1080p60. (Unless you have a 1080i60 CRT that can display them in 60i)

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Note: There are also some programs (usually live concerts and such) that are shot in 1080i60 natively, so those always have to be deinterlaced and watched in 1080p60. (Unless you have a 1080i60 CRT that can display them in 60i)

What's with the fine print? I know that it sounds like you were writing a manual... or is that part of the joke???

[bageleaterkkjji]

why wouldnt there be....ive never had a 1080p tv yet but its hard for me to believe you wont notice a difference unless its 50" or over...i only have a 32" walmarter right now that is 1366x768 and you can believe there would be a difference even at my size if you added 554x312 more pixels in the same space..i dont believe what anybody says about no point of having a 1080p unless its over 50"
update ..lol i thought you had a 1080i tv and wanted a 1080p or something? i dunno

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

why wouldnt there be....ive never had a 1080p tv yet but its hard for me to believe you wont notice a difference unless its 50" or over...i only have a 32" walmarter right now that is 1366x768 and you can believe there would be a difference even at my size if you added 554x312 more pixels in the same space..i dont believe what anybody says about no point of having a 1080p unless its over 50"

If you are sitting 2' from the screen then a difference might be noticeable on a 32" screen. But, that TV (1366x768) is actually only outputting a resolution that is slightly better than 720p. They say that it's 1080i because the horizontal lines exceed the "720" classification, but are nowhere near the 1080 lines necessary to be classified as such. This is one of those things that pisses me off about inexpensive Walmart HDTV's (or, as I like to call them, CHEAP - because CHEAP refers to lack of quality and inexpensive refers to a good price on quality merchandise). So, yes, there will be a noticeable difference if you were to see a 50" TV displaying 1080i/p compared to a 32" TV displaying 768 lines of horizontal resolution.

[JohnWestCoast]

I have a 1080p TV now and am going to stay with that as opposed to a 720p/1080i set. This was not a debate over the resolution of these sets...it was a question about how the TV will display different Blu-Ray formats.

The question was this: Is there a huge difference between watching movies in 1080/60p and 1080/24p? Should I upgrade to a TV that will support 1080/24p if I can afford it?

Also, I have not as of yet purchased a Blu-Ray player but am going to this week. Let's just say it is a little Christmas present to myself. Looking at the entry-level Sammy and Sony models.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by JohnWestCoast

I have a 1080p TV now and am going to stay with that as opposed to a 720p/1080i set. This was not a debate over the resolution of these sets...it was a question about how the TV will display different Blu-Ray formats.

The question was this: Is there a huge difference between watching movies in 1080/60p and 1080/24p? Should I upgrade to a TV that will support 1080/24p if I can afford it?

Also, I have not as of yet purchased a Blu-Ray player but am going to this week. Let's just say it is a little Christmas present to myself. Looking at the entry-level Sammy and Sony models.

At 42" there is no need to worry. Any difference is negligible to the point that the human eye will not be able to perceive it.

Not looking at a PS3? Quickest load times and easiest firmware upgrade factor with wireless internet capabilities built right into the unit.

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by JohnWestCoast

The question was this: Is there a huge difference between watching movies in 1080/60p and 1080/24p? Should I upgrade to a TV that will support 1080/24p if I can afford it?

Also, I have not as of yet purchased a Blu-Ray player but am going to this week. Let's just say it is a little Christmas present to myself. Looking at the entry-level Sammy and Sony models.

IMO i've played with 1080/24p on my HDTV and at that setting I found that the picture was smoothed out (less film grain) a little too much for my taste. That's the only difference I could see.

BTW don't get a Samsung player. Stick with either the Sony BDP-s300 or the new Panasonic.

I hope this helps.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by JohnWestCoast

I have a 1080p TV now and am going to stay with that as opposed to a 720p/1080i set. This was not a debate over the resolution of these sets...it was a question about how the TV will display different Blu-Ray formats.

The question was this: Is there a huge difference between watching movies in 1080/60p and 1080/24p? Should I upgrade to a TV that will support 1080/24p if I can afford it?

Didn't I answer that with this? :

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

24p is the frame rate theatrical movies use so that gives the smoothest motion for watching them, although most of us in America have been watching movies converted to 60Hz at home so you have to know what to look for to see what difference 3:2 repeated frames (the way 24 frames per second are converted to 60 frames per second) make. So you would have to watch films at both outputs, 24p -> 24p and 24p -> 60p, carefully and compare to see if the difference is important enough to you.


Be aware that a TV may accept at 1080p24 signal, but only if it can display it at a refresh rate multiple of 24 (48, 72, 96, 120 Hz) you will see the 24p smooth motion, otherwise the TV will add the 3:2 repeats, just like the BD player's 1080 60 outputs would do, to make it 60p.

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

At 42" there is no need to worry. Any difference is negligible to the point that the human eye will not be able to perceive it.

Petra he's not looking at the difference in spatial resolution between i and p, he's looking at the difference in temporal resolution/motion artifacts between 24p native motion vs 24p converted to 60p. Image size and resolution have nothing to do with motion

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Petra he's not looking at the difference in spatial resolution between i and p, he's looking at the difference in temporal resolution/motion artifacts between 24p native motion vs 24p converted to 60p. Image size and resolution have nothing to do with motion

Ah... I tip my hat to you and, as it were, sit corrected.