1080p vs 720p Video File on 50" to 60" LED TV

[gonwk]

Hi folks,

I searched VH and I saw multiple threads which kind of hit on this subject, but those threads were from 2008 & 2011 and I didn't want to revive old threads ... so here it goes ...

I also searched the net and found multiple articles on Sizing, Distance, and so forth ... but still left some Questions for me.

So, I figured I need people with the Actual TV Sizes to provide feedback on their feeling and which file format they think looks Better in the following scenarios.

What I mean by "BETTER" ... is the 1080p MKV file look NOTICEABLY better than the 720p MKV by the "Same Encoder". So, the only variable here is the file type ... 1080p vs 720p.

Also, I realize different TV Brands might perform a bit better than the other ... but let's not discuss that part ... let's assume we are using Flat Screen LED TV of any Brand ... Samsung, Sony, Vizio, etc ...

> > > All I am trying to FIGURE OUT if the Larger File Size of 1080p Files are REALLY Worthed ... since usually the 1080p file size of the same Video is usually Double the size of 720p.

I am going to give Specific Scenarios so the answers can be a little more realistic & controlled ... and the Choices will be

A - 1080p looks Better than 720p

B - Can't really tell the difference.


1) 50" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 8 feet?

2) 50" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 10 feet?

3) 55" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 8 feet?

4) 55" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 10 feet?

5) 60" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 8 feet?

6) 60" Flat Screen LED TV, Sitting Distance from TV 10 feet?


BTW, if you have the size of TV's mentioned above BUT your Viewing Distance is different (Farther or Nearer), please mention that.


Thanks,

G!

[johns0]

I have a 46" sony lcd tv,led are just backlighting on lcd tvs and i can't tell much difference from 8 ft with 720p videos compared to 1080p as long as the bitrate is high enough.

[Hoser Rob]

I've seen stuff where they crunched the numbers, based on pixel size more and not taking the encoder into account.

Basically if you have normal average 20:20 vision you need to be sitting at most 1.5 times the screen size from the tv to be able to actually see the detail possible in 1080p video.

Increase the distance from the set to about 2.5 times the screen size you may as well be watching 720p because you won't be able to see the difference.

In that study they found the median viewing distance from the screen was 9 feet. So at the median distance you need at least a 70" screen to see 1080p detail.

Talking about encoders and video formats complicates the issue way too much for me. But if you want to rip and re encode one of your blurays it's not such a bad idea to resize to 720p if you want smaller file sizes. You'll get better quality all else being equal than the same bit rate at 1080p.

[newpball]

Link to full size image: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Source: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

[fritzi93]

Ah, the Carlton Bale chart. I read the first post and was gonna upload it (again) and see I got beaten to the punch.

You know, there's a contingent over at AVS that insist that chart is inaccurate, I've noticed, though, that many of the critics have bought in big on 4k. They *want* it to be inaccurate. Of those that claim to own a UHD (4k) TV and say the viewing distances should be increased because they see a difference at X distance which the chart says they shouldn't...well, I think they're mistaken. A premium set with improved processing, contrast, 10 bit 4-4-4 panel, etc, is gonna look better than their old set, most times (one would hope so). A pleasing picture doesn't mean they're seeing more resolution.

And if I'm wrong, all I can say is it goes against my experience. By the chart, I can see the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p at the size/viewing distance pretty near to where the chart would lead me to expect. BTW, I have a 70" set, viewing distance 8 feet.

[Cornucopia]

Here's a sample you can use to figure it out for yourself. It is 4 panels Side-by-Side "tryptich"-style, at progressively smaller resolution: 1080p, 720p, 480p and 240p (wanted to make the last obvious and show how far we've gone since VCD). I'm uploading it as PNG so there shouldn't be any quality loss due to compression (except for what was on the 8K master jpg). All downsizing was bilinear to maintain smoothness but also to avoid ringing/halos (which might skew the impression of sharpness), all upsizing back to 1080p was nearest neighbor in order to demonstrate NOT the capabilities of an upscaler but rather what the equivalent pixel size difference would be. All was done in 16bit color (aka 48bit) until after all the resizing and compositing was done.

Put that on your screen and sit where you normally sit. See where you can and can't tell the difference.



Only downside is this doesn't show motion, which does affect the perception of detail (in both good & bad ways).

Scott

<edit>I'll post a 4k/UHD version soon...</edit>

[cornemuse]

In my experience, 720 is better for 'fast action' stuff & 1080 is better for slower 'drama' type movement. At 1080, the fast stuff seems to 'smear' a bit on the screen, & I really cant tell 'enough' difference 'twixt the two with slower stuff.
-c-

[gonwk]

Hi folks,

I feel so bad, I asked you good people my Q Dec 2014 and I just got around THANKING You people.

Thanks Johns0, Hoser Rob, newpball, fritzi93, cornucopia, and cornemuse ... all your answers confirmed my Suspicion that for joe average with TV in 50" plus ... 720p video files would be just fine.

Appreciate everyone's input.

G!

[newpball]

Here is a video comparing SD, HD, QHD and UHD:

[johns0]

Youtube videos prove nothing in comparison quality since they get re-encoded once they are uploaded unless that has changed.

[hello_hello]

Youtube videos prove nothing in comparison quality since they get re-encoded once they are uploaded unless that has changed.

I've tried explaining the resolution vs compression thing before, but not everyone seems to get it.

I was looking at this today. 4K UHD TV vs. 1080p HDTV - Side by Side Comparison

It really does make me wonder if the manufacturing/marketing goal has headed off in the wrong direction with 4K. It's like the decision's been made to crank up the resolution and sell LCD that way.
"Second, we chose to compare a plasma TV to an LED TV on purpose as well. Our theory (which proved to be right) was that the superior picture quality afforded by a plasma display would trump the resolution improvement afforded by a 4K display, regardless of whether the higher resolution was visible."

Maybe that's why I'm not as overly excited about resolution as some (I own a Plasma), and I don't know how accurately the difference is portrayed in the video, but if it's even remotely indicative of the difference between 4K LED and 1080p Plasma, give me 720p Plasma any day.

I do wonder, when people start viewing lots of 4K content on 4K TVs and claiming the higher resolution makes so much difference, how much of that difference won't have anything to do with resolution as such.
The Color's the Thing That Will Make 4K So Amazing

[Cornucopia]

I agree, hello_hello, but I think it will be: 4k+extended color gamut+extended/high dynamic range (probably what your plasma is giving you) - and maybe a little 3D and/or hfr thrown in- that combined will wow everyone next.

4k isn't THE missing piece of the puzzle, but it is ONE of the IMPORTANT pieces of the puzzle.

**************

Not only are youtube videos re-encoded (sacrificing important detail differences along the way), but there is a 720p or 1080p max rez to the output and the current/default html5 player can often only show 360p! How can anyone make any comparison with that?

Scott

[Cornucopia]

Here's that UHD(2160)+ comparison clip I said I was going to make...



(optimal comparison viewing only on a UHD TV)

Scott

[newpball]

Youtube videos prove nothing in comparison quality since they get re-encoded once they are uploaded unless that has changed.

What do mean means nothing?

You either see or do not see a difference despite it being re-encoded at YouTube.

I clearly see differences up to QHD.

The idea that YouTube is crap may be true for many videos but certainly not to all, look at this QHD upload, it looks very good to me:



Resolution is good, no visible artifacts, only some chroma issues but how can that be prevented?