1080p or 720p

[manofsteel2397]

hi im looking to buy a new tv in the coming future but as of right now im looking at a 42 or 46 or 47 inch lcd not sure wich model yet but i was wondering if i would be wasting my money if i got a 1080p one cause i heard you can tell much difference till you get to about 50 or more inches and help would appreciated

 

[mtrycrafts]

hi im looking to buy a new tv in the coming future but as of right now im looking at a 42 or 46 or 47 inch lcd not sure wich model yet but i was wondering if i would be wasting my money if i got a 1080p one cause i heard you can tell much difference till you get to about 50 or more inches and help would appreciated

If you are planning to use that Tv for HD DVD movies in the near future, I would suggest the 1080p type TV. If, it will only or mostly be used to TV, then 720 should be fine for you as I seriously doubt TV broadcasters will do 1080p as it is so demanding on the video bandwidth.

 

[MDS]

hi im looking to buy a new tv in the coming future but as of right now im looking at a 42 or 46 or 47 inch lcd not sure wich model yet but i was wondering if i would be wasting my money if i got a 1080p one cause i heard you can tell much difference till you get to about 50 or more inches and help would appreciated

Hmmm...I was just reading the same thing last night. I am slowly changing my mind that maybe I should go with flat panel LCD over rear projection LCD.

You may be referring to the tests from CNet and recommendations of the Imagaing Science Foundation. I find their argument very cogent. I think the crux of the decision comes down to the distance at which you will sit from the TV. If you are going to be 6' - 8' from the TV, 1080p may be better but if you will be farther back than that then you won't notice any difference between 720p and 1080p.

I'm now thinking a 47" 720p flat panel LCD would be sufficient for my roughly 11' seating distance. The only problem is that a 47" flat panel is much more expensive than a 50" 1080p rear projection LCD.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I forget where I saw it, there was something about with lcd panels the difference is much less noticeable between 720p and 1080p at regular seating distances on displays with a 40'(?) or smaller screen. 1080p was still better, just it wasn't a huge improvement on smaller screens. On screens over that size the difference began to become much more apparent.

Any one recall the sizes or specifics?

Jack

 

[MDS]

The specifics were from a test by the editors of CNet and recommendations of the ISF (they basically say that contrast, brightness, and color accuracy are far more important than resolution).

Google '1080p human eye'. That will find that particular test and a whole lot of technical articles on the visual acuity of the human eye.

 

[Sleestack]

I have a 37" 1080P LCD and a 65" 1080P Plasma. My opinion is that under 45", if you are sitting beyond 7', you won't see much of a difference. That being said, if you plan on using it as a computer monitor, there is a very good reason to get 1080p and an LCD panel.

 

[evilkat]

Man:

I've been facing the same dilemma that you have, and I am pretty sure 720p is the way to go.

1. Nothing is broadcast in 1080p. Everything is in 1080i, which leads us to two...

2. ...54% of the 2006 1080p TVs fail to de-interlace 1080i properly. So even if you had a 1080p TV, you won't get the full benefit of the resolution. Also about 80% of the 1080p TVs failed the 2-3 pull down test.

3. The only real sources of PS3, 1080p are HD-DVD, BD-DVD and the internet. Because of the format war it's hard to see the point in investing in either of the DVD techs given the current situation. If you're a PS3 gamer though, it might make sense to get a 1080p TV, since u'll be close enough to see the detail anyway.

4. SD programming that is so prevalent today looks like crap on a 50-60" 1080p TV IMHO. If you go smaller than 50" on a 1080p set, the size is probably too small for you to see the detail anyway.

Since I'm not a console gamer, and the current 1080p tech SUCKS (unless you get an uber expensive Pioneer @ ~$7K) I don't see the point in paying the massive premium for 1080p. The jump from SD to 720p will be HUGE. The jump from 720 to 1080i will only be marginal considering everything.

In short, you're better off paying less now and getting a 720p set and saving up to buy a 1080p set when the tech has matured and the content is more freely available IMHO.

I've settled for a Panasonic x60u Plasma (720p) which I plan to watch from around 7ft. I'm burning my cash on the sound system for the time being!

 

[Sleestack]

All very good points. If you are looking for 1080p on the cheap, I don't think now is the time to buy. That being said, the newer panels do look amazing and and certainly don't suck. They are expensive, but aren't outrageoulsy priced. The PROFHD-1 can be bought for $6,500 and I picked up my Panny for $10K. Also, most people buying 60" + 1080P panels aren't really worried about SD content. Many people in that market also use external scalers and bypass the internal scaler.

Man:

I've been facing the same dilemma that you have, and I am pretty sure 720p is the way to go.

1. Nothing is broadcast in 1080p. Everything is in 1080i, which leads us to two...

2. ...54% of the 2006 1080p TVs fail to de-interlace 1080i properly. So even if you had a 1080p TV, you won't get the full benefit of the resolution. Also about 80% of the 1080p TVs failed the 2-3 pull down test.

3. The only real sources of PS3, 1080p are HD-DVD, BD-DVD and the internet. Because of the format war it's hard to see the point in investing in either of the DVD techs given the current situation. If you're a PS3 gamer though, it might make sense to get a 1080p TV, since u'll be close enough to see the detail anyway.

4. SD programming that is so prevalent today looks like crap on a 50-60" 1080p TV IMHO. If you go smaller than 50" on a 1080p set, the size is probably too small for you to see the detail anyway.

Since I'm not a console gamer, and the current 1080p tech SUCKS (unless you get an uber expensive Pioneer @ ~$7K) I don't see the point in paying the massive premium for 1080p. The jump from SD to 720p will be HUGE. The jump from 720 to 1080i will only be marginal considering everything.

In short, you're better off paying less now and getting a 720p set and saving up to buy a 1080p set when the tech has matured and the content is more freely available IMHO.

I've settled for a Panasonic x60u Plasma (720p) which I plan to watch from around 7ft. I'm burning my cash on the sound system for the time being!

 

[evilkat]

All very good points. If you are looking for 1080p on the cheap, I don't think now is the time to buy. That being said, the newer panels do look amazing and and certainly don't suck. They are expensive, but aren't outrageoulsy priced. The PROFHD-1 can be bought for $6,500 and I picked up my Panny for $10K. Also, most people buying 60" + 1080P panels aren't really worried about SD content. Many people in that market also use external scalers and bypass the internal scaler.

Sleestack, the Pioneer PROFHD is an INSANE beast of a machine! I saw a BD player hooked up to it, and it's DISGUSTING how detailed things look. The price is also disgusting. And not in a good way

I just don't think that if I shell out $2.7K+ for a decent 50" screen, I should get EXACTLY what I paid for: a properly working de-interlacer that does it's job AS ADVERTISED. Which apparently 50% of the TVs do not. And if they do, then they fail 80% of the pull-down tests

This to me is simply NOT acceptable situation. The tech is simply not up to what it SHOULD be at. If they're only going to include half-assed implentations of the de-interlacing, then just discard the whole thing and give us external deinterlacers (which I might add, runs at a cool 1K-3K). That's just crazy!!!

If 1080p is what you want, then make sure that the TV you buy will accept 1080p over it's inputs.

Be warned though, even if it does accept 1080p over the inputs, the signal better be 1080p/60. If it's 1080p/24 (and I believe that's what most of the HD/BD players put it out at), you better be sure that the TV's 2-3 pull down is working right!!

 

[manofsteel2397]

evilkat
whats the difference between 3 2 pulldown and 3/3 pull down i noticed some of my dvds say 3 2 1pulldown on my receiver and some say 3 3 1 pull down

 

[Sleestack]

Sleestack, the Pioneer PROFHD is an INSANE beast of a machine! I saw a BD player hooked up to it, and it's DISGUSTING how detailed things look. The price is also disgusting. And not in a good way

I just don't think that if I shell out $2.7K+ for a decent 50" screen, I should get EXACTLY what I paid for: a properly working de-interlacer that does it's job AS ADVERTISED. Which apparently 50% of the TVs do not. And if they do, then they fail 80% of the pull-down tests

This to me is simply NOT acceptable situation. The tech is simply not up to what it SHOULD be at. If they're only going to include half-assed implentations of the de-interlacing, then just discard the whole thing and give us external deinterlacers (which I might add, runs at a cool 1K-3K). That's just crazy!!!

If 1080p is what you want, then make sure that the TV you buy will accept 1080p over it's inputs.

Be warned though, even if it does accept 1080p over the inputs, the signal better be 1080p/60. If it's 1080p/24 (and I believe that's what most of the HD/BD players put it out at), you better be sure that the TV's 2-3 pull down is working right!!

I was actually not overly impressed with the FHD-1. Having had the PRO1130HD, I think it had to do with the size. After seeing 60"+ panels and living with a 50" panel for a year, it just seemed to small. Plus, even t $7K, it seemed to pricey for a 50". Fortunately, the TH-65PF9UK came out right when I was searching for a new panel.

As for scalers, I think when you are talking about the high end market, the view is that no internal scaler will be good enough or provides enough versatitlity. Personally, I see video equipment as a bargain compared to audio gear, so the cost of a scaler is well worth the money. Nevertheless, I don't really need one at this time, so I have yet to pick one up.

I think 1080p will be more affordable in the coming year. That being said, there are great 1080p panels out there already. I'm just not sure there are any in a reasonable price bracket. For me, I just can't go back after seeing what Blu-ray looks like on a 65"1080p panel. I'm hoping for a great 85"+ panel in the next year that comes in under the $50k mark. The 103" Panny is seelling for $75K at this time.

 

[evilkat]

evilkat
whats the difference between 3 2 pulldown and 3/3 pull down i noticed some of my dvds say 3 2 1pulldown on my receiver and some say 3 3 1 pull down

Here's my understanding of it.

Different media is recorded at different frame-rates. For instance, HD programs are recorded at 24fps and broadcast at 1080i/30fps. If you have a TV, it needs to display this at 1080p/60fps.

The way to up the frame-rate is by duplicating some frames in the movie (telecine). Typically this cadence would be the infamous 3:2 cadence used by most recorded material (the first frame is doubled twice, and the next 3, and the pattern repeats. So this is supposed to be 2:3, but it's not a ratio, and so should be written 2-3, as the experts tell me).

Anyway, a good TV should be able to detect the proper cadence on the source material and inverse telecine it properly to be able to reconstruct a correct image at full resolution.

So the numbers on your DVDs acutally indicate what candence should be used by the inverse telecine process in your TV. Anime for instance has a different cadence than 1080i broadcasts and BD/HD discs, etc.

 

[evilkat]

I'm hoping for a great 85"+ panel in the next year that comes in under the $50k mark. The 103" Panny is seelling for $75K at this time.

Holy cow! Can you please please please invite me over when you DO get that monster 85" screen setup

 

[Sleestack]

That's a great explanation.

How would I test this with my sources on my two 1080p panels?

It seems the 37D90U has issues with both categories. I'm interested in seeing how that translates into picture quality. I also have 32" Sony XBR2 and the Sharp looks much better to me. The TH-65PF9UK isn't on that list, but I have yet to see any HD material look anything but amazing on it. Even DVDs through the 5910ci look stunning... just not with the perfect clarity of Blu-ray. Watching movies at 7' on the 65" has me completely sold on the new formats.

My sources are the 5910ci, Panasonic Blu-ray player and Comcast cable box.

I'm also keeping my eye on the larger LCDs that will become available. Aside from normal LCD off-axis viewing issues, the latest generation of LCDs are very impressive. Not quite top notch plasma impressive, but close enough that for most viewers, I don't think it matters. The versatiltiy of LCD is also a big benefit.

Here's my understanding of it.

Different media is recorded at different frame-rates. For instance, HD programs are recorded at 24fps and broadcast at 1080i/30fps. If you have a TV, it needs to display this at 1080p/60fps.

The way to up the frame-rate is by duplicating some frames in the movie (telecine). Typically this cadence would be the infamous 3:2 cadence used by most recorded material (the first frame is doubled twice, and the next 3, and the pattern repeats. So this is supposed to be 2:3, but it's not a ratio, and so should be written 2-3, as the experts tell me).

Anyway, a good TV should be able to detect the proper cadence on the source material and inverse telecine it properly to be able to reconstruct a correct image at full resolution.

So the numbers on your DVDs acutally indicate what candence should be used by the inverse telecine process in your TV. Anime for instance has a different cadence than 1080i broadcasts and BD/HD discs, etc.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...this is supposed to be 2:3, but it's not a ratio, and so should be written 2-3, as the experts tell me...

Wouldn't 2:3 be a ratio, mathematically, if it was written 2/3, i.e. 0.666...?

In Engineering, 2:3 represents a scale (though not one in common use). Isn't this what's meant in video parlance; a scale factor?

 

[evilkat]

That's a great explanation.

How would I test this with my sources on my two 1080p panels?

To my mind, your best bet would be to try and find the HQV benchmark DVD. HQV is a chip manufacturer that produces extremely good scalars, and also provides a test DVD which contains a battery of tests from noise reduction and jaggie destruction to cadence detection.

I believe Audioholics uses this test for many of their TV reviews (see bottom of this page for instance). I think however, this DVD costs a ridiculous amount, although I have not personally confirmed this. I'm sure Clint or one of the core staff can tell you more about it.

I should warn you though, there are those who doubt the validity of this test, because HQV does manufacture it's own chips afterall, and one has to wonder if this test is truely impartial or is it geared more towards showcasing their own chip. Having said that, this test is widely respected in the industry.

A cheaper solution might be to use the AVIA test disc, but again, I have no first hand experience with this product either

Personally, if you think you're already getting an incredible picture, don't go hunting for trouble! I am sure with the kind of high-end gear you have, your PQ must be off the charts!

Wouldn't 2:3 be a ratio, mathematically, if it was written 2/3, i.e. 0.666...?

In Engineering, 2:3 represents a scale (though not one in common use). Isn't this what's meant in video parlance; a scale factor?

When viewed that way, you're absolutely right. In fact, to be honest it doesn't matter whether you call it 2-3 or 3-2. A 3-2 pull down is actually a 2-3 pull down shifted by 1 frame. It seems to only be a matter of reference.

But to understand that you need to understand a bit about the 2-3 pull down process. Just to recap, the POINT of 2-3 pull down is to convert 24fps film to ~30 FPS NTSC video.

The first step of the 2-3 pull down is to slow the 24fps film down to 23.blah FPS.

23.blah/~30 = 4/5.

So ad 23.blah fps, for every 4 frames of film, you will have 5 NTSC vid frames @ ~30 fps. So basically 2-3 is adding an extra frame. How does it do this? It takes advanatage of interlacing!

So each frame of video actually contains two fields. 1 field for the odd scan lines, and the other field for the evens. 2-3 doubles up some of the FRAMES across FIELDS to achieve this. So let's look at the following 4 FRAMES in film:

ABCD

We split these frames into FIELDS but using the 2-3 cadence:

AABBBCCDDD

The BC boundary is actually ONE FRAME and so is the CD boundary! That's how we end up with 5 frames (i.e: AA, BB, BC, CD, DD).

So this brings us back to my original point. If you start your frame of reference at frame A, then it's 2-3. If you start it at B it's 3-2.

Clear as mud? Great.

That's exactly how clear it will be if your TV's 2-3 does not work properly. U'll end up with ghost images from the previous frame at the BC and CD boundary iif the damn thing screws up.

Hopefully my limited understand of this hasn't served to confuse you even more!