720 or 1080...dilemma

[Sylar]

I understand that 1080 is better as it's higher resolution. But, considering

1. 15% viewing would be either 720p or 1080i broadcast.
2. 10% viewing would be DVD's - 576p (PAL Region).
3. Remaining would be SD Broadcast - 576i.
4. BluRay - 1080p would be later in time (Would be like 10% viewing).

Considering that most of the viewing is 576 line source. Moreover, large part of my viewing would be interlaced 576 SD broadcast. An interlaced 576 source (576/2 each field), scaled all the way to 1080 display, that's a lot of made up pixels. Should my choice be 720 over 1080, or is there something that I have overlooked?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

This will give you an asnswer you're looking for:

 

[bikdav]

My Unscientific Visual Evaluation

I understand that 1080 is better as it's higher resolution. But, considering

1. 15% viewing would be either 720p or 1080i broadcast.
2. 10% viewing would be DVD's - 576p (PAL Region).
3. Remaining would be SD Broadcast - 576i.
4. BluRay - 1080p would be later in time (Would be like 10% viewing).

Considering that most of the viewing is 576 line source. Moreover, large part of my viewing would be interlaced 576 SD broadcast. An interlaced 576 source (576/2 each field), scaled all the way to 1080 display, that's a lot of made up pixels. Should my choice be 720 over 1080, or is there something that I have overlooked?

I found that that in most case 720p is fine. The only place where I found 1080 worked marginally _ and I mean marginally _ better is if the screen is close to 60 inches or larger and you are closer to it than "optimum". In other words, the difference was hardly noticeable unless I was purposely looking for it.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

To proper determine the benefit of resolution one must use the graph above.

It's not just size - but also distance.
I have smaller 42" plasma - it's 720p since it's older model - but this doesn't bother me since my distance is 11-12 ft.
Now, I if it would be 6-7ft - 720p would NOT be best for me

 

[Sylar]

This will give you an asnswer you're looking for:

I understand from the chart for a certain size TV,
1. One can sit closer with a higher resolution.
2. For each resolution, if one moves too close then pixelation effects begin to show, and if one moves too further away it is kinda pointless as the finer detail is no longer visible.

Dosent it also mean one needs to sit further away or closer with different resolution material.

Not sure how this is related to my question, from the perspective of scaling.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I understand from the chart for a certain size TV,
1. One can sit closer with a higher resolution.
2. For each resolution, if one moves too close then pixelation effects begin to show, and if one moves too further away it is kinda pointless as the finer detail is no longer visible.

Dosent it also mean one needs to sit further away or closer with different resolution material.

Not sure how this is related to my question, from the perspective of scaling.

Let me dumb it down for you: If your TV size is X and you sit from distance Y - then you will notice the difference of higher resolution, however if you'd set farther away - it wouldn't matter anyways of your source material resolution, no matter how it was scaled.

That said, if your TV size AND viewing distance would benefit from 1080p (based on the chart), even if would be used native 1080p (for now) would only for 10% of time - it still be worth it if you are interesting in futureproofing it - you don't want to replace your TV in 5 years.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There are a number of items at issue here, and while people are talking to you about screen resolution, there are things which matter more for your scenario.

Mostly, this has to do with image processing.

Secondarily is color accuracy and black levels.

Resolution of the screen is trivial. A 120" screen with a 1280x720 projector looks excellent at 14' away, and 1080p looks better, but not by a ton. But, with poor image processing on a display you end up with a cruddy image no matter how much resolution you have in the display.

So, you want to start there. You know you are going to be viewing interlaced, non-conforming material. Mostly PAL SDTV stuff. To deal with this, you want a display which does a good job of deinterlacing and then still carries good black levels and shadow details with excellent color.

This is often a go to Panasonic cry out because they tend to do a better job than most with handling of deinterlacing and scaling to match the display.

At that point, if you have a good scaler in place, then the resolution doesn't matter. You are going to get the best 'poor' image possible. Have no doubt, after viewing SDTV for a while, then switching to HDTV, you will call anything less than HD poor. I notice the difference with DVDs immediately, as well as SDTV compared to HDTV and Blu-ray.

I would not recommend anything but a Blu-ray player, especially since you can get them for $100 now and rentals are typically close to the same price... Plus, BD players will play your existing DVD collection with upconversion.

As you understand that chart, you are correct in the assumption that with lower resolution material you should sit further away or have a smaller screen for the best possible image quality.

But, it can be helped with better image processing, and good colors and black levels all come together to create a better image.

Good luck!

 

[Sylar]

There are a number of items at issue here, and while people are talking to you about screen resolution, there are things which matter more for your scenario.

Mostly, this has to do with image processing.

Secondarily is color accuracy and black levels.

Resolution of the screen is trivial. A 120" screen with a 1280x720 projector looks excellent at 14' away, and 1080p looks better, but not by a ton. But, with poor image processing on a display you end up with a cruddy image no matter how much resolution you have in the display.

So, you want to start there. You know you are going to be viewing interlaced, non-conforming material. Mostly PAL SDTV stuff. To deal with this, you want a display which does a good job of deinterlacing and then still carries good black levels and shadow details with excellent color.

This is often a go to Panasonic cry out because they tend to do a better job than most with handling of deinterlacing and scaling to match the display.

At that point, if you have a good scaler in place, then the resolution doesn't matter. You are going to get the best 'poor' image possible. Have no doubt, after viewing SDTV for a while, then switching to HDTV, you will call anything less than HD poor. I notice the difference with DVDs immediately, as well as SDTV compared to HDTV and Blu-ray.

I would not recommend anything but a Blu-ray player, especially since you can get them for $100 now and rentals are typically close to the same price... Plus, BD players will play your existing DVD collection with upconversion.

As you understand that chart, you are correct in the assumption that with lower resolution material you should sit further away or have a smaller screen for the best possible image quality.

But, it can be helped with better image processing, and good colors and black levels all come together to create a better image.

Good luck!

Thanks a lot for the post. It was very helpful. Pretty overwhelming for a newbie to get a TV with so many issues involved

 

[BMXTRIX]

Thanks a lot for the post. It was very helpful. Pretty overwhelming for a newbie to get a TV with so many issues involved

If you want it simple:
Best displays: Panasonic plasmas - looks good, good image processing.
Next: Samsung plasmas - a bit better pricing than Panasonic for very good image quality.
Next:
LCD: Samsung 6400 series or better. Especially good in brighter rooms.
Next:
LCD: Sharp

I would personally stick with 1080p at this point for the generally minimal cost increase to get it.

 

[Sylar]

If you want it simple:
Best displays: Panasonic plasmas - looks good, good image processing.
Next: Samsung plasmas - a bit better pricing than Panasonic for very good image quality.
Next:
LCD: Samsung 6400 series or better. Especially good in brighter rooms.
Next:
LCD: Sharp

I would personally stick with 1080p at this point for the generally minimal cost increase to get it.

Since we require 2 TV's, for one I am leaning towards pan plasma, but is too expensive. I found 50V20D without 3D within my range, and VT20 a little higher by 350$, too high for me. Seems to be comparable with the VT20D with few reviews so far, few at avforums (UK Based). This seems to be available only in few regions. Would you recommend to avoid this?
If highly un-recommended then I might be willing to wait for a year or so for the plasma. The Plasma I intend to use with a computer a lot, through my AV receiver. Most of my movie watching could be through this medium, also use for browsing et all.

For second TV I will look into the samsung LCD series as recommended, as it's use is for a brighter room with SD broadcast & some HD material.

 

[Stogie]

720 1080 ...dilemma

As a newbie myself I find these resolution numbers quite over-whelming and wish to understand it all better for making an informed buying decision. But I have no problem or issue with distance; it's already pre-determined. The various comments and the chart did shed a bit of light on the subject. Thanks to the System Administrator.

At present I'm befuddled by 1080p and 1080i. One HDTV I'm interested in carries both in two seperate descriptions. The on-line retailer states 1080p; the manufacturer's spec sheet, 1080i. In an on-line dictionary of HDTV terms I found that there is a frame rate difference between the two. But that's about the sum of my grasp of it. From some articles the impression is given that 1080 resolution - i and/or p - will be "required" in the not so distant future due to the further evolution of HDTV. Does this ring possible(make sense?).

 

[highfigh]

As a newbie myself I find these resolution numbers quite over-whelming and wish to understand it all better for making an informed buying decision. But I have no problem or issue with distance; it's already pre-determined. The various comments and the chart did shed a bit of light on the subject. Thanks to the System Administrator.

At present I'm befuddled by 1080p and 1080i. One HDTV I'm interested in carries both in two seperate descriptions. The on-line retailer states 1080p; the manufacturer's spec sheet, 1080i. In an on-line dictionary of HDTV terms I found that there is a frame rate difference between the two. But that's about the sum of my grasp of it. From some articles the impression is given that 1080 resolution - i and/or p - will be "required" in the not so distant future due to the further evolution of HDTV. Does this ring possible(make sense?).

The questions that need answering are:
1) What size of screen?
2) Will you be watching a lot of fast action video?
3) How far from the screen will you be sitting?

If it's a larger screen, 1080P is best but at more than roughly 12', you usually won't be able to tell if it's 1080i or 1080p. If you watch a lot of fast action video, I would buy plasma because they operate at 600Hz and LCD/LED top out at a lower frequency unless you spend a huge buttload of money. Also, a larger plasma will often be less money than an LCD/LED.

3d doesn't work on 1080i and since the manufacturers are forcing 3d on us, we'll all be getting 1080p, anyway.

 

[BMXTRIX]

At present I'm befuddled by 1080p and 1080i.

Stogie, I like to use languages as an example of what you are having issues with. Because, you may be confused by a displays native resolution, and it's accepted resolutions.

Think of yourself as an English speaker. You speak English - it's your native language.

You don't speak French, or Spanish, or anything else.

Now, when you hear things - you don't understand anything.

HUH?

That's right! You have no ability to understand English, French, or anything else that anyone says.

So, you need an interpreter between what someone else says and your ears so that you can understand and then repeat what is being said to you.

Your best results occur when someone speaks English and then it is translated to you as English that you understand. You then repeat it, in English and everything matches up - one for one - word for word.

The hard parts come when someone speaks French, or German, or Spanish. Those languages must be converted to something you understand, but because you only speak Engish, some nuances - some quality of their language is lost in translation.

Even worse, if someone speaks a language that the interpreter can't translate, you may not be able to understand or repeat that language at all!

All of this relates to displays.

Every digital display has a native resolution. It is typically listed in the specifications and is then used for marketing. Often this resolution is 1920x1080. This is called 1080p (typically). Sometimes the resolution is 1280x720, which is 720p. Sometimes it is something else. 1365x768, 1024x768, 854x480, etc.

This native resolution is the actual number of individual physical picture elements (pixels) which make up what you are viewing. If you got out a magnifying glass, and counted, one by one, all of the dots which make up the image on a digital display from your cellular phone, to an iPad, to a 102" Panasonic plasma, you could count those dots and come up with the native resolution.

If a display is 1920x1080, then that's what it is.

Period.

It can't fill the screen up with any image at all without first making that image 1920x1080. If it gets a image that is 192 pixels wide, by 108 pixels tall, it must make that image ten times as large on each side... Because it is NOT the native resolution!

Now, if you feed a 1920x1080 display a 1920x1080 image, it will be able to map every single pixel, one for one, to every single dot on screen! That's fantastic right?

Except, some displays (still!) do not accept 1920x1080 native resolution (1080p) they only accept 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i.

Wait! What's 1080i? 1080i is half the resolution of 1080p. Really? Yes, really.

1920x1080 is a lot of data to be sent at once, and in the old days (when TV first came around) 480 lines of information was a lot to be sent. So, instead of sending the full image in one shot, it was broken into two different parts. Half a frame with only the odd lines was sent, then the next half frame with the even lines was sent. Odd, even, odd, even, repeat! You get the 'full' 1080 lines of information eventually, but not as a single frame.

This sounds simple enough to deal with. Just combine the two half frames into one whole frame and you have a full 1920x1080 image!

Well, that would be great if all displays could do this properly - many can't.

It also doesn't work when material is natively 1080i. Because it's not ONE frame broken in half. It is actually two separate half frames. Each about 1/60th of a second. So, if there was motion, then the difference between every half frame produces a stair stepping effect or combing effect.

It looks like this: http://justsayyes.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/interlace1.jpg

A good TV can recognize this combing effect and can reduce or nearly eliminate it. Comb filtering!

There is a ton of reading about what interlaced (480i/1080i) video is, but the bottom line is that progressive video (480p, 720p, 1080p) sends the entire frame in one shot, while interlaced video sends half a frame at a time.

Generally, these days, if a display has a native resolution of 1920x1080 and does not accept a 1080p source, then it has poor processing inside of it and should be avoided. It may do okay, and may keep price down, but with more and more 1080p native sources coming to market, it will become more and more important for all the displays in your home to support 1080p natively. Even some cheap 19" displays I recently bought with 1365x768 resolution supported 1080p on their inputs.

 

[avnetguy]

Wait! What's 1080i? 1080i is half the resolution of 1080p. Really? Yes, really.

Just wondering if this statement is a little misleading?

Both 1080i and 1080p have the same display resolution output, as in you can not see any difference between the two when a static picture is displayed. However, 1080p can show a benefit when fast movement is involved as the screen resolution is updated at twice the rate of 1080i.

Steve

 

[BMXTRIX]

Just wondering if this statement is a little misleading?

Both 1080i and 1080p have the same display resolution output, as in you can not see any difference between the two when a static picture is displayed. However, 1080p can show a benefit when fast movement is involved as the screen resolution is updated at twice the rate of 1080i.

Steve

Unfortunately, most people see motion on their TVs, there is almost always movement of some sort with video. Kind of the concept right?

Of course, slower shows don't have as much motion, the news, for example, doesn't have as much motion.

Also, movies are generally shot on film or using digital cameras which capture progressive frames at 24 frames per second.

Then we get into the technicalities of frame judder if 24 frames needs to be converted to 60 frames and if the output needs to get converted to 60 fields interlaced, then deinterlaced, and properly combined... or perhaps shown on a 1080p display with a multiple of 24hz refresh rate.

Kind of the bottom line is that there are a ton of factors which go into what makes a quality display, and at a very basic level 1080i contains 50% of the information that 1080p does in odd then even lines being sent to the screen. Any motion will be degraded due to this which is why most sports is shot using 720p instead of 1080i to preserve clean motion.

I don't think it is chance that 1080i and 720p contain about the same number of pixels in them so the amount of overhead associated with both resolutions is nearly identical.

We could then get into compression and how that significantly affects image quality. And go on and on and on.

 

[avnetguy]

I understand the complexity of the issues at hand, I was just nitpicking on the way the resolution term was used for sake of clarity and comparison.

Steve