When is 1080p too much and 720p more than enough.

[Ukrainianoiler]

I'm trying to figure out what tv to buy, 720p or 1080 p. I usually watch cable, sports and movies I've downloaded and burned to a dvd...usually 800mb in size...so i want decent quality, but I don't like pixels. Am i better off if i never really intend to buy a bluray, to get 720p and save some coin? I'd for sure get a 720p but I'm looking at 50'' sets so its kind of borderline if i understand correctly, if its going to be noticeable or not...

[guns1inger]

If you download 800 MB movies and want them to look OK then you need to go and buy yourself a 20" CRT. Any good LCD, being 720p or 1080p, will show up these files for what they are - over-compressed, low quality video

[jagabo]

Standard definition (or lower) material will look about the same on 720p and 1080p HDTVs of the same size.

[yoda313]

The general rule of thumb I've heard is 32" and under is suitable for 720p. Once you start reaching 40" and up 1080p is better.

These of course aren't true "rules" but guideposts. I have a 32" hdtv and a ps3 and bluray looks just fine on it (1366x768 resolution).

Fyi most if not all cable/sat sources are really 1080i and 720p. There may be a few that say 1080p don't I don't know if any tv shows are authentically recorded in 1080p so it might be upscaled before getting to you.

This is also still subjective so you should really look for yourself. Set a firm budget and then make the decision between screen size and whether or not you want full 1080p. With the money you save on sticking to 720p you can go a little bit larger at any given screen size versus a 1080p set (in general - of course this time of year with all the sales out there that isn't a fixed factor right now).

[jagabo]

Another thing to keep in mind is that cheaper 720p displays tend to be older models with inferior LCD technology and electronics (poor black level, deinterlacing, viewing angles, switching time, etc).

[jman98]

If you buy a 720p TV to save money, are you going to regret it in 1+ years when everybody you know has 1080p? With BluRay player prices dropping (WARNING - we don't at this time know if the new cheap players fully support version 2.0 of the spec - buyer beware), you may not plan to buy a player now, but you might in the near future if the price drops enough. Will you regret having a 720p system then? You have to decide that.

jagabo is right. The industry is moving towards 1080p for all TVs now and any 720p TVs will use older inferior technology.

[rumplestiltskin]

Remember viewing distance. Be realistic; that sharpness you might see up close on a 1080 set disappears as you move further away (to, perhaps, your normal viewing distance). You need to view the same content on various sets but not at a constant viewing distance; this will vary depending on the size of the set.

I have a 720p 32" set and even SD-DVD looks great. SD-TV (like well-crafted podcasts) also look fine. HD podcasts (and other 720p media) are even better. However, maybe I'm the stick-in-the-mud that favors intelligent content over HD garbage.

Speaking of HD garbage: I do see FoxTV's football broadcasts have fewer motion artifacts but I believe this is due to their broadcasting in 720 and not 1080 (as has been discussed in another thread, I believe). (No, football's not garbage; it's Fox.)

[slickster]

I have a 42" SHARP LCD TV 720p and I'm about 10 feet away for viewing.
SD channels look good and HD content looks great!!
Especially HD Discovery and TSN for Hockey of course.
I also have found that some HD content is not as clear as some others, I guess there may be different qualities of HD cameras.
I do especially agree with rumplestiltskin as viewing distance plays a major factor in clarity.

[gll99]

You say you "don't like pixels", I don't either and with most larger screen lcd I see them clearly to the point of distraction, unless the set is 1080p. Even from as little as 6 feet away I don't see the pixels with a 1080p 52" set and really close up they are very small and near impossible to see on most scenes. Go to the store and check out various models and see how the resolution, distance and size affects you. That's what convinced me to stop looking at the larger 720p sets even though the lower price was enticing.

I'm still in the market for my first hd tv which will likely be a 52" but my issue is whether to spend more on the 120hz or save about $600 to $800 by buying a 60hz. I have a feeling that if I wait a few more months there won't be any more 60hz sets and the price of the 120hz will drop to replace them so it might be worthwhile waiting. There are other things to consider also such as a glossy screen vs flat mat, 24 fps capability for movies, brightness and contrast ratio, input connectors and their location, etc...

I have the money already saved for one but I'm just not ready to commit.
I didn't take this much time when I bought the house or cars.

[jagabo]

This site:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

has a pretty good summary of screen size vs. viewing distance vs. source resolution.

It's a good starting point but I think the lines on the graph should be moved up a bit. I have a 46" 1080p LCD. I can see a difference (just barely, and I really have to look for it) between good 1080i/p and 720p sources at my usual 11 foot viewing distance. The chart indicates you need to be within 8 feet to start seeing a difference.

Keep in mind that not all 1080i/p sources are "good". Many have gone though a 1440x1080 or less encoding at some point during transmission. And of course, some comes from 720p (or lower) sources upscaled to 1080i/p for transmission.

[cal_tony]

My own 2 cents to your question....1080p is never too much. If nothing else, 1080p will give you peace of mind over the long run. And over the long run, how far you sit from the TV might also change. Get a great looking Bluray movie and if your home alone, you might want to try 4 or 5 feet. With a 720p that great movie might not look so good at 4 feet. The prices for 1080p are not that much more than a 720 set. So, even if I was getting a 30" set I'd still go 1080.

Tony

[edDV]

Most of the picture quality you see has nothing to do with 1080p vs. 720p until you get to very large screen size. The picture quality depends on source quality first and TV image processor second.

At a given LCD brand and screen size you are often given a choice of picture quality, cheap to premium, for example

Budget Model: 1366x720p @ 59.94fps with generic chip set (poor motion especially for sports)
Value 1080p: 1920x1080p @ 59.94fps with generic chip set (poor motion especially for sports)
Premium 1080p: 1920x1080p @ 59.94fps with proprietary image processor (e.g. Samsumg 550, Sony Bravia S series)
Advanced 1080p: 1920x1080p @ 120fps with advanced proprietary image processor (e.g. Samsumg 650, Sony XBR 6 series)
Top Line 1080p: 1920x1080p @ 120fps with state of art interpolated image processor (e.g. Samsumg 750, Sony XBR 7 series)

For plasma the story is slightly different
Budget Model: 1024x768 @ 59.94fps with generic chip set (poor motion especially for sports)
Premium 720p: 1366x768 @ 59.94fps with proprietary image processor (e.g. Panasonic VIERA)
Premium 1080p: 1920x1080p @ 59.94fps with advanced proprietary image processor (e.g. Panasonic VIERA)*

* Note that 1080p plasmas consume huge amounts of power and add to air conditioner load (pay twice). Best value may be the 1366x768 with the better VIERA processor.

[redsandvb]

Like the previous posters mentioned, it really depends on screen size and your viewing distance. If you're watching a 50 incher from up close, you might benefit from 1080p's extra res. Another thing is that the difference between 720 and 1080 when watching HD, for example, probably won't be as obvious as the difference between watching SD and HD material.

BTW, if you ever do go Blu, I bet you'll immediately notice how much better it looks than the stuff you download. Of course, the price won't be the same...

[jagabo]

If you're watching a 50 incher from up close, you might benefit from 1080p's extra res.

To clarify this a bit... only when watching 1080i/p material. Upscaled 720p and SD will look about the same as on a 720p display. If you're sitting very close you are more likely to see the LCD cell raster (screen door effect) on a 720p display.

[redsandvb]

^^^ Yeah, what he said. ^^^ 8)

[gll99]

When he says he doesn't like "pixels" if he's like me he means pixel size not input quality. I have seen sd, 720p and 1080p input on 720p and 1080p native (maximum) resolution televisions and unless your sitting a mile away, you can always see the larger pixels of the 720p set regardless of input source but the smaller pixels on a 1080p set are always practically invisible.

One can argue which set does the best rescaling and which image looks better but for me it starts with pixel density and everything else comes after. With a 1080p native resolution set you almost never have to worry about sitting too close.

If seeing the pixels doesn't affect you or you will be sitting 20 feet from the set then this is a non issue and you might as well save some money. I became much more pixel size sensitive when I bought my first svga projector and then built my own xga and 720p diy projectors using lcd monitors of various resolutions.

[edDV]

When he says he doesn't like "pixels" if he's like me he means pixel size not input quality. I have seen sd, 720p and 1080p input on 720p and 1080p native (maximum) resolution televisions and unless your sitting a mile away, you can always see the larger pixels of the 720p set regardless of input source but the smaller pixels on a 1080p set are always practically invisible.

I guess your perception differs from mine. For static images I can see some pixel bumps on diagonals for 1080p vs 480p but much less so for 1080i or 720p vs 1080p.

When i watch a high action football game in a TV showroom, I see pixels around and trailing motion, not during the wide band shot at half time. It is motion related pixelation that draws my eye. This varies by image processor quality. Of course one never sees these deinterlace defects on an interlace CRT.

[jagabo]

Without pixels there would be no digital video. Or is it the other way around?

[gll99]

@edDV
What you describe sounds more like pixel lag where it stays lit too long which might show up on slow refresh screens with fast action. As you suggest, it could also be the effect of the quality of the video image processor.

jagabo kind of described what I mean with the cell raster idea. The lcd pixel is really a 3 colour component which some sneaky portable lcd dvd player producers often use to over-inflate their pixel count. They'll say that their screen is 960 pixels wide when in fact its only 320 pixels. They are counting the individual colours (RGB) which some also refer to as pixels. Both terms may be acceptable but when major tv manufacturers speak of pixels they are referring to the 3 colour cell as a pixel.

To restate the obvious, a 720p tv has less pixels than a 1080p tv so for the same size lcd screen they have to be larger to cover the same area. So it's being able to tell where one pixel ends and the next one starts. As jagabo said, a good description of what I am referring to is a "screen door effect" caused by seeing the dark lines of unlit areas around the pixels. With a low-rez projector this is very visible and the effect can spoil a good show. With any HDTV (720p or 1080p), as you move further back and/or focus more on the tv show or movie itself this effect is usually not extreme or disappears but it just bugs me when I focus my gaze on the surface of the lcd and see it especially in lighter scenes. That's why I will only consider a 1080p tv (or some day better) in any future purchases.

[MJA]

I'm trying to figure out what tv to buy, 720p or 1080 p. I usually watch cable, sports and movies I've downloaded and burned to a dvd...usually 800mb in size...so i want decent quality, but I don't like pixels. Am i better off if i never really intend to buy a bluray, to get 720p and save some coin? I'd for sure get a 720p but I'm looking at 50'' sets so its kind of borderline if i understand correctly, if its going to be noticeable or not...

1080p these days are cheap. you can get for an example Sharp LC42SB45U 42 inch 1080p for $799

[edDV]

I'm trying to figure out what tv to buy, 720p or 1080 p. I usually watch cable, sports and movies I've downloaded and burned to a dvd...usually 800mb in size...so i want decent quality, but I don't like pixels. Am i better off if i never really intend to buy a bluray, to get 720p and save some coin? I'd for sure get a 720p but I'm looking at 50'' sets so its kind of borderline if i understand correctly, if its going to be noticeable or not...

1080p these days are cheap. you can get for an example Sharp LC42SB45U 42 inch 1080p for $799

That is an example of a "SB" = budget series with lowest quality deinterlacer-scaler. Read about it here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1065715

In the Sharp line the higher end AQUOS models produce a much better picture. Sharp calls the SB budget models "Traditional LCD". They have generic panels and chipsets.

1080p does not necessarily mean great picture quality.

[vhelp]

My head is still spinning from all this HD quality nonsense. There are just so many factors at play that any number of (or combination thereof) can and do effect the final viewing experience..not to metion each persons pair of eyes and how *they* interpret what is quality to them.

I have a 1680 x 1050 LCD monitor* 3ns speed, with an external image processor, ATI Radeon 3450 chip.
It has its own hardware image processing (or, noise reduction/enhancement) circuitry just as those tv set have, though built-in.

* no image processor, or IP.

From what I've observed over many months, these tvs, with their built-in IP seem to operate according to the video feed and its internal structure setup or flags..ie, the mpeg; flags; resolution; fps; etc. And these help the IP determine how to deal with that given video feed in terms of processing..ie deinterlace; ivtc; noise reduction; image enhancement; etc.

Part of the problem with these tv's is that these IP's, in many cases, mis-read or overdo a certain IP function. The result has been disapointing in many cases, and in some, even worse.

As was indicated earlier in this thread, there are several kinds of video feeds. Some (or many, at this time) do originate from SD-720x480, but as we get closer in this HD ERA, they are moving towards 720p* or 1080ip.

* Actually 720p is either a downscaled 1440 / 1080, or upscaled SD-720x480 source, but same thing.

But I speculate that the majority of HD tv content will originate from some SD-720x480 source unless they come from a new repository, where they re-stream (condition) the content to meet the new standard, 720 or 1080.

(I don't work for these studios, so I'm guessing at some of these points)

So, say there is a SD-720x480 source that is slated for HD broadcast, if there is no original 1440 or 1080 or 4096 source that can be re-streamed down to the new broadcast HD standards of 720p or 1080ip, then that source will be upscaled to SD-720x480 -> 720p or 1080ip.

Now, there may be a repository (a place that houses all the videos in hollywood/etc) that have the original video content from when it was created. I am only guessing when I mentioned, 4096. It could be lower. I don't know. But in any case. This repository prob has this 4096 source and all it does is downscale it to the current HD standard, which is either of the two, 720p and 1080ip. This in essence is still considered true HD or, 720p/1080ip. And when viewed on a true 1080 widescreen, it is a true 1080ip representation for a true 1080ip tv screen. Only a SD-720x480 -> 720p/1080ip is not a true representation, it is a synthisized version.

And I close with this last note..

The problem with provider salesmen (tv ads etc) is they exagerate or misplace ther term, HD, though neighther is untrue since the content will be broadcasted as HD -- 720p/1080ip, leaving out the fine print, "SD - upscaled" yada yada.

-vhelp 4946