Why are manufacturers still pushing out 720p?

[3db]

I can't imagine that the economies of scale of production between 720p and 1080p are that much to still warrant 720P displays. Is this a marketing scam just like oil prices or is there really that much of a difference still associated between 720/1080p? Anyone have any input on this?

 

[GlocksRock]

I've been wondering the same thing. I think that making smaller sets in 720p is ok, since who really needs 1080p in a 22" tv anyway, but anything 46" and above should be 1080p.

 

[rgriffin25]

It's all about hitting certain price points. Brand "x" doesn't want to be undersold by brand "y". Some people have a set budget and will not go over that price even if it is only $100 to get 1080p.

 

[its phillip]

I've been wondering the same thing. I think that making smaller sets in 720p is ok, since who really needs 1080p in a 22" tv anyway, but anything 46" and above should be 1080p.

If you ever wanted to use that 22" tv with a computer, you certainly would appreciate the additional resolution

 

[Pyrrho]

If you ever wanted to use that 22" tv with a computer, you certainly would appreciate the additional resolution

Yes. Required resolution is not a function solely of the size of the TV. How far one sits from it is equally important, and one's eyesight is yet another factor, in addition to the source used and one's preferences regarding required clarity.

Most people seem to sit too far from their screens for it to matter whether they have 720p or 1080p; with a 42" TV, and if you have 20/20 vision, you need to sit closer than about 8.19 feet. At that distance or further away, a person with 20/20 vision (or worse vision) will not be able to see any difference in resolution. With a 50" TV, it would be 9.75 feet. With a 32" TV, it would be 6.24 feet.

See:

http://www.digital-digest.com/articles/HDTV_Viewing_Distance_Calculator_Guide_page1.html

Or just the calculator:

http://www.digital-digest.com/articles/viewing_distance.php

 

[rekced]

Ha! I used to work in TV sales and I can't tell you the number of people who would ask these kind of questions about TVs. I asked about their room's lighting condition and viewing distance. Usually people sitting 15' feet away in darker rooms were looking at mere 50-52'' displays. They ALWAYS had two requirements: 1. "I don't want plasma because they 'burn out'"2. "It MUST be 1080p resolution".

It all came down to people looking for the cheapest LCD, regardless of brand. Right before I quit I would always "cook" the sh1tiest TVs we had that met all the dummies demands, while keeping the color somewhat in the ballpark. I'd push the blue channel of the white balance up a full 30-50% and absolutely crush all the shadow detail with the contrast and brightness. People LOVED what they saw. The store's numbers were the highest in the region on house brands and budget models.

What do I own after seven years of extensive years of experience in televisions and 15+ years of experience with photography and graphic design? A 720p plasma.

 

[GranteedEV]

I have a 46" 1080P plasma and I can't honestly say i've ever seen a difference in resolution between a good 720P encode and the equivalent 1080P Blu Ray. Most current consoles games are 720P as well. To me the only thing I don't like about my Panasonic plasma is that the flesh tones are a bit on the red side, even calibrated. I don't think I would regret buying a cheaper 720P set.
I like the idea of not having to downscale 1080P but i really don't see the difference. Black Levels and color accuracy are what matters.

If the manufacturer saved money by having a fraction of the pixels and the same general image, so be it. Remember, a 720P TV has about a quarter of the total physical pixels of a 1080P TV.

Now a modern 54" 720P tv, does not make sense. You can see the difference between 720P and 1080P on such sets.

 

[Pyrrho]

I have a 46" 1080P plasma and I can't honestly say i've ever seen a difference in resolution between a good 720P encode and the equivalent 1080P Blu Ray. Most current consoles games are 720P as well. To me the only thing I don't like about my Panasonic plasma is that the flesh tones are a bit on the red side, even calibrated. I don't think I would regret buying a cheaper 720P set.
I like the idea of not having to downscale 1080P but i really don't see the difference. Black Levels and color accuracy are what matters.

If the manufacturer saved money by having a fraction of the pixels and the same general image, so be it. Remember, a 720P TV has about a quarter of the total physical pixels of a 1080P TV.

Now a modern 54" 720P tv, does not make sense. You can see the difference between 720P and 1080P on such sets.

If you have 20/20 vision and sit more than about 10.53 feet away, you cannot see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 54" TV. Distance from the screen is as important as screen size in deciding between 720p and 1080p.

In other words, with 2 otherwise identical TVs, it would be a waste to spend extra to get 1080p on such a TV at such a viewing distance. It is only worthwhile if one sits closer than 10.53 feet (or one has better than 20/20 vision).

In my case, I have a 768p 42" TV from which I sit at just over 8'. At that distance, with that size TV, 1080p would make no visible difference unless I had better than 20/20 vision. (To be more precise, for such a TV, it is 8.06 feet that is the distance that a person with 20/20 vision would have to be closer than to see a difference in resolution with a 1080p TV. For 720p, it would be 8.19 feet.)

See the links in my post above for a calculator for this:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=814853&postcount=5

The only reason for me to consider upgrading to 1080p would be if I wanted a larger TV or wanted to sit closer. Otherwise, it would be money for nothing, assuming that the TV is otherwise identical.

With your 46" TV, if you sat with your eyes closer than 8.97 feet, and if you have 20/20 vision, you could see the difference between 1080p and 720p. If you were just barely closer than that, you would barely see a difference, but you would see a significant difference at 6 feet.

 

[Pyrrho]

Ha! I used to work in TV sales and I can't tell you the number of people who would ask these kind of questions about TVs. I asked about their room's lighting condition and viewing distance. Usually people sitting 15' feet away in darker rooms were looking at mere 50-52'' displays. They ALWAYS had two requirements: 1. "I don't want plasma because they 'burn out'"2. "It MUST be 1080p resolution".

It all came down to people looking for the cheapest LCD, regardless of brand. Right before I quit I would always "cook" the sh1tiest TVs we had that met all the dummies demands, while keeping the color somewhat in the ballpark. I'd push the blue channel of the white balance up a full 30-50% and absolutely crush all the shadow detail with the contrast and brightness. People LOVED what they saw. The store's numbers were the highest in the region on house brands and budget models.

What do I own after seven years of extensive years of experience in televisions and 15+ years of experience with photography and graphic design? A 720p plasma.

At 15 feet away, to see all the detail of 720p, the TV would have to be about 77" (assuming 20/20 vision). So for people who want to sit that far from their screens, they need a huge TV for 1080p to be worthwhile (i.e., larger than about 77"). And this also shows that there is good reason to make large TVs of 720p resolution, if it is significantly less expensive than 1080p.

 

[3db]

At 15 feet away, to see all the detail of 720p, the TV would have to be about 77" (assuming 20/20 vision). So for people who want to sit that far from their screens, they need a huge TV for 1080p to be worthwhile (i.e., larger than about 77"). And this also shows that there is good reason to make large TVs of 720p resolution, if it is significantly less expensive than 1080p.

Thats just it. Is it signifcantly less to manufacture 720p than 1080p? I'm not so sure as the technology for both are mature, manufacturing has been automated, and processes to manufactured them matured.

 

[GlocksRock]

If you ever wanted to use that 22" tv with a computer, you certainly would appreciate the additional resolution

I have a 23 and a 24 inch 1080p computer monitor, and the resolution for those are great, but for strictly television use, why not make them all 1080p.

 

[highfigh]

I have a 23 and a 24 inch 1080p computer monitor, and the resolution for those are great, but for strictly television use, why not make them all 1080p.

It costs more and for a small screen, 1080 isn't necessary.

 

[3db]

It costs more and for a small screen, 1080 isn't necessary.

Can you tell me why it costs more? Like I said before, I'm very skeptical that 1080p costs siginifcantly more than 720p.

 

[Pyrrho]

Thats just it. Is it signifcantly less to manufacture 720p than 1080p? I'm not so sure as the technology for both are mature, manufacturing has been automated, and processes to manufactured them matured.

I don't know the price difference to make them. But there is a significant difference in the prices in the stores, so presumably, it is significantly cheaper to make 720p than 1080p. Also, all else being equal, it is cheaper to continue making the same thing on an assembly line than to switch it to something else. Thus, even if the cost to set up were exactly the same (which I doubt), it would be cheaper to continue making whatever was made previously on a particular assembly line.

Also, for a particular screen size, the pixels must be smaller for 1080p than for 720p, and 1080p has more than twice the number of pixels of 720p. So I would expect that it would cost more to make 1080p than 720p.

 

[highfigh]

Can you tell me why it costs more? Like I said before, I'm very skeptical that 1080p costs signifcantly more than 720p.

If they have to re-tool for a completely different run on smaller displays, it costs more. A lot more. The time required to re-tool is lost production time and if they have a dedicated production line, they don't lose money by that line being down. Also, LCD, LED and plasma screens aren't 100% good- the defective ones need to be pulled out as they go or, in the case of Samsung, they need to be sorted so the lower quality ones can be sold to other companies like Sony. They would also need to build/buy and stock 1080 electronics, too. That alone would increase their costs considerably.

edit- I should have read the other posts before answering.

 

[pock3trock3t35]

just the industry doesnt want to rush

 

[highfigh]

just the industry doesnt want to rush

You mean, like they way they're shoving 3D and HDMI down our throats? HDMI is Hollywood's way of telling us "You'll get crap, and you'll like it!" so people won't make copies of their precious movies, which are more full of technical features than actual cinematic quality. They're completely forgetting the fact that, if someone comes up with a way to copy-protect, they also have to come up with a way to get around it and since people tend to be curious and deviant, someone will always try to defeat it while someone else is telling someone elses' secrets. Any 3d technology that requires the use of some gadget in order for it to work is doomed and those who are early-adopters will waste a lot of money being
the first on their block".

 

[rulebritannia19]

I think it just has to do with price point

 

[sam415]

I think it just has to do with price point

I also think this is it. For a college student like I was when I got my first HDTV, 720p worked just fine and the price was right.

 

[j_garcia]

Of course it is price point. There are still a lot of people out there who don't have Blu-ray players or access to other 1080p content, and since even most broadcast HD is 1080i/720p, 720p displays will work just fine with most of the content out there. Not to mention, not everyone cares about ultimate quality.

My 32" LCD in the second system is 720p and it looks very good with BDs.