For every source you cite there's another that says otherwise and your link to the 2005 article on 1080p artifacts doesn't work. 1080P Does Matter: http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html Your articles point to the lowest common denominator which is the regular consumer. These are people who still connect their VHS decks by composite to their HDTV's. I'm referring to the high end enthusiasts market. We don't get our equipment from regular retail chains and we don't care what the regular consumer thinks. We have the equipment and the eyes to see a difference and our verdict is 1080p/24 from disc to display is still the best.
If you read the 1080p does matter article it says "What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV."Read the entire article not just the headline. IT confirms everything I say about distance. Again it comes down to size,,, the other article has been going around trying to make 1080i to 60 frames, but it wasn't shot in 60 frames from one field, they're pasting 2 interlaced fields on the screen together at the same time that were not progressive from the start.... in other words they are not 60 consecutive frames from one field. They are not 60 consecutive motion frames as you get in a real 720p/60 broadcast. That issue has become weak in 1080ps defense. That will make a difference when watching a 1080i/30 signal on a 1080p/60 set rather than watching the 1080i/30 signal on a 1080i/30 set, but it will render no motion difference when compared to a 768p/60 set... That is about "The downside on an interlaced format" Even though you will not understand the language... they did a blue ray blind test with 768p and 1080p and half the people picked the 768 set .... conclusion... there was nothing substantial that stood out. So what does that tell you? See the video here.. http://media.ncom.dk/index.php/video/id=535 Plus your 2nd link is mainly an example for 1080 signals... on 768 sets they don't fill in over 1 million filler gaps that dilute... ABC...FOX... ESPN 1 & ESPN 2 as 1080p sets do. Like I said before, you have to evaluate what you watch the most. 768 sets are best... like the abortion issue... you will never settle this debate.
I still agree with eatsushi here. At this day and age you cannot achieve HD nirvana without: What is good enough for the common consumer is usually not good enough for the video enthusisast. This is the reason why Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic and others have enabled 1080p/24fps transmission in their HD DVD and BluRay players and this is why more and more displays are enabling 1080p/24 input with 72, 96 or 120Hz playback. The CE manufacturers are listening to what video enthusiasts are clamoring for and are making it happen. For me, the days of 720p and 768p displays are numbered. They will be relegated to smaller seconday TV's for the bedroom, the kitchen or the den. For the main HT setup - the larger 1080p displays will always be first choice for HD enthusiasts. BTW, I think eatsushi has a Sony VPL-VW50 1080p projector on a 110-inch screen so the article totally applies to his setup.
That is still irrelevant to the point... yet here is another confirmation from an advanced source. "1080p vs 720p (1080i). Is 1080p worth it? Reviewer: William Becker October 2007 Copyright © 2007 LCDTVBuyingGuide.com. All Rights Reserved. The question I am most frequently asked about this resolution comparison is, "Should I get 1080p resolution in my LCD Television?" There are a few obvious questions I ask in response: What size is the TV? Are you using it for professional editing? Do you have a Sony Playstation 3 or XBox 360 for gaming (both consoles have 1080p games and the PS3 is also a Blu Ray player)? Do you have a Sony Blu Ray DVD player? Generally, the answer to the above questions is, "no" and the answer to whether or not the consumer should get a 1080p display is usually no as well. It's just not worth the extra $$. Here's why: The 1080p question is really the result of a technology battle between LCD and Plasma. Higher resolutions are easier for LCD manufacturers to produce, and more cost effective. It's a specification bragging battle as in, "we've got the 1080p resolution and you don't." Now that plasma manufacturers have caught up let's analyze what is does for you the consumer. Unless you are into video editing, or extreme graphic computer use, 1080p does hardly anything at all except hit you in the pocket book! It took years of pressure for broadcasters to finally produce 1080i or 720p and there are NO plans to pump out 1080p on cable, satellite, or broadcast. There is ONE DVD format that puts out a 1080p signal and that is Blu Ray. Blu Ray, is a great DVD technology and the picture quality is awesome, however it's no better than 1080i or 720p in my opinion. I base this opinion on some pretty thorough testing. Recently, our staff reviewed a 65" Panasonic 1080p plasma, a 52" Sharp 1080p LCD and a Sony 46" 1080p LCD TV. We viewed several movies via the Sony Blu Ray player which conveniently has a resolution toggle button on the remote control. In order to perform a fair test of 1080i vs. 1080p we sent participants out of the room after having shown them the DVDs with both resolutions several times. Then we called them back in with one of the resolutions displaying and asked them whether it was the 1080p or 1080i signal. We repeated this process 10 times and, guess what? They had no clue and could not differentiate at all between the two. This feedback came from a team who knows TVs. In fact they seemed to favor the 1080i signal slightly (60/40). It's incredibly difficult to see the difference even in a side by side test. So why make it? Why produce 1080p? So you'll pony up and buy it crazy!! Spend more money! Open up that billfold! The manufacturers need to produce products that will sell for more in an environment of ever falling TV prices. That, and the aforementioned LCD vs. Plasma battle. So what to buy? Find yourself a nice 1366 X 768 TV produced by a Tier 1 manufacturer and let it go at that. Put the $1000 you will save into a good set of speakers and receiver for your home theater. A 1080p display does not look any better than a 720p (1080i) TV when viewing 1) A High Definition signal via cable, satellite or broadcast 2) a DVD signal 3) And the biggest question of all, "Does it even look better with the limited Blu Ray content available?" 4) A lowly non-HD cable or satellite signal may view better on the lower resolution 1080i (720p) LCD TV due to the fact that a 1080p display will have to perform some extreme up conversion to get to its native resolution." http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/1080p-vs-720p.html
William Becker's article is full of holes. I guess this guy is completely unaware of HD DVD?? This method of testing is extremely flawed. All his displays are fixed pixel displays and all are 1080p. Therefore, in essence they cannot display 1080i they can only display 1080p. What he's comparing is not the signal itself but the deinterlacing of the player (1080p signal) vs the deinterlacing of the TV (1080i signal). What he should have done is compared 1080p and 720/768p displays using a BluRay or HD DVD source. This test is totally useless and did not prove his point. His "limited content" comment is laughable considering the fact that HDM sales in both hardaware and software have been very impressive lately. Every major new release has become available in HD DVD or BluRay or both. This guy is clearly out of touch with reality. Not when your HD signal is originally 1080i - all the 1080p has to do is deinterlace. If you have a 720p TV it has to scale then deinterlace. "Extreme upconversion" - another laughable quote. 1080p displays are getting better and better at this. The 1080p Kuros are still very watchable with SD broadcasts. ..and going back to his questions: Starting at 50 to 60 inches the advantages of 1080p become more and more visible at normal viewing distances - see eatsushi's link and graphs. This question's scope is too narrow. Just becuase I don't do professional video editing doesn't mean that a 1080p display won't benefit me. It's been argued that any HTPC application benefits greatly from increased resolution. An HTPC connected to a 720p display might as well be connected to a 19 inch monitor. Yes, yes and yes. Now can I have my 1080p display please? This is a very poor article if want to advance the case of 720p.
Yea another poor article... the many of them all saying the same things for the most part. "Extreme upconversion" - another laughable quote. 1080p displays are getting better and better at this. The 1080p Kuros are still very watchable with SD broadcasts." They are getting better but 720 sets shows up conversions much better. I picked up on the HD DVD thing too but I think he wrote the article before HD DVD went 1080p and it was printed in 07 or he was speaking of High def Disks in a very broad sense as many people I have come across have done that as well. The fact is all the experts and tests by professionals, even stores are all coming to the same conclusions. Funny isn't it? They really have more clout than opinions on forums. Have a good day.
No they don't. I prefer to rely on my own senses than listen to the uninformed opinions of people like William Becker. The verdict hasn't changed: 1080p/24 from disc to display is still the best.
LOL ....even as far as 1080p 24.. if your eyes can't see the difference at an average distance on a 768 set it doesn't matter and that it what all the evidence leads to my friend. So that settles the 1080p signal. When you consider all the other signals, 720....etc, and features, 768 sets top 1080p ones. If you're happy with your set that is all that matters. It is evident that I provided enough multiple articles, distance calculators and videos to prove my point. In regard to your last comment, I will agree you have the right to believe uninformed opinions or who ever you wish.
Wrong again. Your articles haven't proven anything except that the regular consumer's needs are different from the enthusiast's. Like I said the verdict remains the same: 1080p/24 from disc to display = HD Nirvana
Interesting exchange of ideas here but I feel I have to agree with error5 and eatsushi on this one. Whatever advantages 720p/768p had before are now totally wiped out when it comes to filmed-based material now that 1080p/24fps transmission and display has been enabled. Think of it this way: no more 3:2 pulldown artifacts, no more scaling and deinterlacing errors, no more judder. Just a smooth, film-like picture made possible by a pristine, unadulterated 1080p/24fps signal passing unchanged from the disc to the display. For me there's just no other way to watch a film at home. (I have a JVC RS-1 projector diplaying 1080p/24 at 96 HZ on a 110 inch screen...and I sit 12 feet away so I can see an improvement over 720p!) This is brand-spanking new, cutting edge technology that has been enabled because the CE companies have started listening to the video enthusiasts. Sorry HDNut but this is incorrect. It's no longer a matter of pixel sizes and resolution. If your display cannnot accept 1080p/24 natively then you have to deal with the effects of 3:2 pulldown and film judder. With 1080p/24 it has become a whole new ballgame folks. And 720p/768p just lost the film-based battle.
I agree with the difference in larger screens "a 110 inch screen...and I sit 12 feet away so I can see an improvement over 720p!)" There you will see a difference. Over 60 inches you will want 1080p.... But I don't like projectors anyway..... But again, in average conditions all the tests have shown no differences in set ups to like 50 inches even with 1080/24. We can go on with other signals as well... leave well enough alone... all the 1080p people will jump in with their support and I'll keep quoting the articles and the pros. The customers at CC made the choice, I'll leave it at that. It will never end. IT's what you watch and what you're happy with.
Again with the misinformation... No way will you or your sources convince anyone that 1080p/24 is as good or better on a 768p display.
most of HDTV broadcasts is in 1080i all of hd film is 1080p24 no scaling with 1080P TV scaling with 720P TV scaling bad what else is there to say.......... you have a case with regular dvd's and standard TV but buying for those 2 items alone is not future proofing.
Alleged artifacts were more of a figure on paper that what the eye perceived. You seen the video of the blu ray test... half the people picked the 768 set. The 720 point is get the set that maxes out the resolution of the eyes at the average distance that has the fastest temporal resolution. 720/60 is still the best signal out there. It still delivers more pixels per second than 1080p/24. It is fact you can't argue with. It's math. And please, lets not get into the 2 fields of 540 being glued together, that is still a combined interlaced source that has a big color saturation loss compared a single 720p frame. 768p & 720p has more pixels per second that 1080p 1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second 720p/60 55296000 pixels per second. 720p on 1366x768p 62945280 pixels per second 720p/60 is HD Nirvana.
Stop spreading lies and misinformation HDNut. Your numbers are wrong. You forgot that each 1080p/24 frame is shown 3x in a 72Hz display so you have to multiply that number by 3! 1080p/24 at 72Hz = 149,299,200 pixels per second (my Pioneer Kuro) At 96 Hz = 199,065,600 pixels per second (eatsushi's and dblbogey7's projectors) At 120 Hz = 248,832,000 pixels per second (some new Sony XBR4 and XBR5 models, etc) Sorry but your 768p panel has less pixels at just 60Hz. It's simply not the nirvana you were hoping for. I guess these alleged and unseen artifacts were serious enough to warrant the CE manufacturers to enable 1080p/24 transmission and display. I guess the thousands of AV enthusiasts who clamored for 1080p/24 on forums like AVS were just "seeing things." Give me a break.
I agree with this. For the HDTV manufacturers the profit margin for 720/768 sets are shrinking rapidly especially with 1080p sets becoming cheaper and cheaper. Eventually they will all opt out and stop manufacturing these sets altogether. They will all go to 1080p since these are the ones that are profitable.
LOL... Lets not get into that.... a repeat of the frames and pixels. A 720 signal has 60 unique frames and unique pixels, that is a difference from more pixels as a result from repeated higher rates of a lower frame rate. All the evidence is from pros & leads to no differences at normal conditions. 720/60 is #1.
I was expecting this retort from you and as usual your logic is wrong. Remember that we are dealing with film based material her which is captured at 24 frames per second. Even if the same pixels are displayed 3 times with a 72 Hz display, it's still more faithful to the original film based material than converting it to 768p/60fps. The result is silky smooth and artifact-free. If you haven't seen it before then you're missing something significant. Fidelity to the source material is most important. That's why 1080p/24 transmission and display has been enabled by the CE manufacturers. That's why 1080p/24 from disc to display is still the best for film viewing and is, at this point in time, HD nirvana.
Like you said repeated 3 times... what I'm talking ABOUT IS 60 FRAMES ONCE. 720/60 Thanks for the confirmation! My point is the 720/60 signal is still the fastest frame rate and delivers the most individual unique pixels per second (not repeated) when presented in its true form. When you put 720/60 on a 1080p set you have more filler gap pixels to fill the 2 million pixel set than the original pixels that were in the 720p signal. Again you have to figure what you watch the most... and again as the tests concluded with blu ray 1080/24, half the people picked the blu ray in 768 as the better picture. My point made once again. 720/60 is the best signal of the ATSC.
I'm sure the test didn't use 1080p/24 from disc to display as the display was not a 1080p/24 set. So the test is invalid. Converting to 768p/60 produces artifacts and judder. A pure 1080p/24 signal from disc to display is still the way to go and still the best for film based sources.
