# Hdtv 1080p ?



## magnumis (Jan 6, 2005)

I am shopping for a new HDTV and need some advice. Has anyone purchased a HDTV with 1080P ? Is it worth the extra cost? 

I am considering the Samsung HL-S6167W. Thanks!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

We noticed a remarkable difference -- with 1080i input!!! -- between the 1080i Samsungs and the 1080p Samsungs. Even with the lower quality input, the higher quality television was so much better that was bought it.


----------



## adventurelarry (Dec 10, 2002)

I have the Sony KDS-R60XBR2 and I could not be happier with the 1080p. I have a number of friends with 1080i TV's who were at my house watching a football game and all thought there was a difference in the picture, especially when it relates to motion.


----------



## Wangooroo (Oct 9, 2006)

HOGWASH!!! I defy anybody to tell the difference. I watch two Pioneer Elite's side by side with identical HD source material. The human eye cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Save yourself the coin. 1080i is all that broadcasters are using anyway. You will not see 1080p used by cable, sat, or OTA providers for years to come. 

Go to a reputable store (Tweeter?) and check it out side by side from the same manufacturer. There is no discernible difference between them. An Elite set costs TWICE as much for 1080p Not worth it!


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

adventurelarry said:


> I have the Sony KDS-R60XBR2 and I could not be happier with the 1080p. I have a number of friends with 1080i TV's who were at my house watching a football game and all thought there was a difference in the picture, especially when it relates to motion.


heh..was there beer involved?
The football broadcast itself was not in 1080p...so maybe the difference had more to do with the TV manufacturer quality or quality of bandwidth.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Sigh. More FUD from the cling-to-old-technology-crowd.

Read this hogwash article, and the excellent rebuttals from 1080p proponents.

Yeat another '1080p is pointless' article and even better rebuttals. In particlar, read Jake's response!

In concluding, 1080i sources look better on 1080p displays (there are almost no NATIVE 1080i displays left; Many 720p native displays can ACCEPT 1080i input but DOWNCONVERT (EVIL EVIL EVIL) it to the native resolution.

Non Square pixels are also EVIL.

Sigh. I don't have the energy to keep posting this info, but given the choice, do yourselves a favor, plan ahead, and buy 1080p. It's not like the price difference is ginormous any more!

Or, succumb to the FUD and regrest it shortly. Or right away. 720P devices HAVE to downconvert almost every HD channel currently available (only 5-6 are in 720P) as well as BluRay/HDDVD sources, and PS3 output, and are obviously inadequate as anything more than average-resolution PC displays (if the pixels are't rectangular, to start with!)


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Stu_Bee said:


> heh..was there beer involved?
> The football broadcast itself was not in 1080p...so maybe the difference had more to do with the TV manufacturer quality or quality of bandwidth.


1080i signal WILL look better on 1080p displays.

Perhaps the 1080i displays his friends had were CAPABLE of ACCEPTING 1080i sources, but were rendering them after downconversion to 720P 

All new plasma/lcd/lcd proj/LCoS/D-ILA/DLP displays are inherently progressive. Only (some) CRT-type rear projection HDTVs (a dying breeed) display 1080i natively.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

It's dependent on how far you are from the screen vs. its size, and the source material (HD-DVD prob best), but many people most certainly can see an improvement on the 1080p sets. You aren't choosing between 1080i & 1080p; these are fixed pixel sets & don't display interlaced, they convert all interlaced sources to progressive for display (not scanning as a CRT would but displaying entire frames at once). You are picking between sets that are 1280x720, 1280x768, 1366 x 768 native pixel resolution, & those that are 1920x1080 resolution (approximated on many DLPs using technique dubbed "wobulation"). That's certainly noticeable given the right source. Now if you are getting a relatively small set for your viewing distance then it may not be worth the price differential (it's usually nowhere close to 2x, the Pioneer Elite plasma is an aberration), but saying no difference isn't right.

If you go to a store, make sure you know exactly what's feeding the sets before comparing. Many types of sources aren't pushing the max resolution of these sets & won't show much or any difference (certainly a reason to consider going cheaper, you are paying for improvement on only the best sources like HD-DVD/Blu-ray, & the better 1080i broadcasts that haven't had their resolution cut down by your programming provider).

Now, for film material, given a TV with 1080p *resolution* & a decent deinterlacer, there shouldn't be any difference between 1080i & 1080p *input* capabilities.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Wangooroo said:


> HOGWASH!!! I defy anybody to tell the difference. I watch two Pioneer Elite's side by side with identical HD source material. The human eye cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p.


That's idiocy. You don't have my eyes. You didn't see what I saw. Talk about your own experiences if you wish. Don't talk about mine. Get over yourself.

There was a very clear, visible difference.



> Go to a reputable store (Tweeter?) and check it out side by side from the same manufacturer.


Absolutely. That's exactly what we did. (Tweeter was closed for refurb, but we saw them side-by-side at Circuit City and at one of the big department stores.)


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

ashu said:


> Sigh. More FUD from the cling-to-old-technology-crowd.
> 
> Read this hogwash article, and the excellent rebuttals from 1080p proponents.
> 
> ...


Heh..I've never seen someone quote articles stating the opposite opinion for supporting their point.
I couldn't find anything in that first linked article or it's comments that seem to say the premise is invalid.....ie that 1080i vs 1080p is not really discernable to the average joe. You may want to drop that one from your future pro 1080p posts.

But I do understand it's all in the eyes of the beholder (and the size of the TV, distance from viewing, and media type being watched)


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

Buy a 1080P display if you can. It should look better, but almost certainly won't look worse. I would think a 720p signal would look significantly better on a 1080p screen than a 1080i screen.

Most important reason for a 1080p TV (to me) - computer compatibility. If you want to hook up your Mac mini or Windows Vista Extreme Media Center Edition to your TV - then 1080p will look a LOT better.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ashu said:


> Sigh. I don't have the energy to keep posting this info, but given the choice, do yourselves a favor, plan ahead, and buy 1080p. It's not like the price difference is ginormous any more!


BS if it's not. Find me a 1080p 46" DLP set that's not that much more than a 720p 46" DLP set.

Edit:. I'd LIKE to get a 1080p set, but at this point, it would cost a lot more. I don't even think they make them in a size that would work for me.


----------



## ZombiE (Dec 17, 2005)

Go to CC or Best Buy or somewhere where they are feeding the same HD signal to all the sets. Do a side by side comparison and see for yourself. The difference, if you can even see it, in my opinion, isn't worth the extra money. I couldn't see a difference, so I went with the 1080i picture quality. 
You won't see 1080p for a while. You can go buy a Blu-Ray or HD DVD player, but I don't think you would even see the difference between the two pictures, I couldn't. 
In short, save yourself the 1000 bucks and go by an HD DVD player or a nicer set of speakers for your home theater.

Z


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Stu_Bee said:


> Heh..I've never seen someone quote articles stating the opposite opinion for supporting their point.
> I couldn't find anything in that first linked article or it's comments that seem to say the premise is invalid.....ie that 1080i vs 1080p is not really discernable to the average joe. You may want to drop that one from your future pro 1080p posts.
> 
> But I do understand it's all in the eyes of the beholder (and the size of the TV, distance from viewing, and media type being watched)


Well, then you didn't read or understand the comments.

The native display of the resolution is waht matters, and the amount of work needed to convert an incoming signal to that native display res.

Sigh. I'm done. I have a 1080P TV and I'm glad. I can't pull everyone along into the future, kicking and screaming


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

ZombiE said:


> Go to CC or Best Buy or somewhere where they are feeding the same HD signal to all the sets. Do a side by side comparison and see for yourself. The difference, if you can even see it, in my opinion, isn't worth the extra money. I couldn't see a difference, so I went with the 1080i picture quality.
> You won't see 1080p for a while. You can go buy a Blu-Ray or HD DVD player, but I don't think you would even see the difference between the two pictures, I couldn't.
> In short, save yourself the 1000 bucks and go by an HD DVD player or a nicer set of speakers for your home theater.
> 
> Z


Suuuurreeee!


Good luck finding a 1080i TV.


----------



## ZombiE (Dec 17, 2005)

Ashu,

I guess it's been a while since I went TV shopping. So pretty much the only options are 1080p TV's now? 
My point was to go and see what the picture quility is and how much you'll pay to get it. If you want the best isn't Plasma the best PQ you can get?


Z


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ZombiE said:


> Ashu,
> 
> I guess it's been a while since I went TV shopping. So pretty much the only options are 1080p TV's now?
> 
> Z


I don't think that is the case by simply browsing the Samsung sight. They still have lots of 720p DLP sets. You have to get up into the 50" range to get 1080p. Their plasma sets don't list resolution specs. At least no what I could find.


----------



## tannebil (Mar 9, 2006)

It's a hard question because there are just too many variables to control between two sets, let alone the entire market. For example, I can tell you that everyone in my family agrees that the JVC I just bought (61" 1080p) looks better than the JVC my sister bought last year (52" 720p) but I can't tell you if it is because of the size, the way it is adjusted, the room, the source material, the improved electronics, my source devices, or the size of the set. My guess is that with the right set of changes, her set would look just as good or even better than mine. I would not give much weight to the "I saw two sets at the local Tweeters and couldn't (or could) see a big difference" comments" because all the variables make those types of comparisons of limited validity.

For a smaller set, I'd buy a 720p set if it got good reviews, met my needs, looked good in the store, gets good reviews, and I saved more than a couple of bucks. I'd also focus on usability factors like direct IR commands for programmable remotes (my JVC isn't great with the digital inputs which causes macro problems), control responsiveness, and matching the number and type of inputs to your current and future needs.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

My point is that there are no 1080i NATIVE sets any more.

That keyword is ULTRA critical.

720P(ish) sets HAVE to downconvert even 1080i sources, while 1080p displays do not. How WELL they deinterlace is another story.

Bear in mind that EVERYTHING displayed on ALL new digital sets is ALWAYS in the native resolution.

And there are two tasks ... the first involves deinterlacing (i to p) that BOTH common resolution (720p & 1080p) sets have to perform to 1080i sources (and neither needs to do this to 720P sources), and scaling, which ONLY the 720P set has to perform upon 1080i signal, and which ONLY the 1080P set has to perform on 720P signal.

And since 1080i channels and sources (including all non TV stuff except the native reoslution of most XBOX360 games) now VASTLY outnumber 720P sources, why not get a TV that is dislaying, with as little conversion as possible, most sources?

<edit> I always speak in such riddles. Can someone please put what I said into a two dimensional table, with source resolutions, native resolutions, and work needed? Gahh, I might do it myself ...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ashu said:


> My point is that there are no 1080i NATIVE sets any more.
> 
> That keyword is ULTRA critical.
> 
> ...


but you also claimed that no one should buy a 720p set. It really might be my only option. Or, should I hold out? Do you know when someone will release "small" 1080p sets? That's why I can't get a 1080p set right now.

For me, the way I see it is that the chief advantage of 1080p is for when you get an HD-DVD player or a Blu-Ray disc player. They ARE available now, and I can probably tell when I was seeing HD-DVD in 1080p. But I'm not convinced I can tell the difference between 1080i/720p source when it's displayed on 720p or 1080p. I've seen both myself. Turtleboy has a 1080p DLP set. It looks awesome. But so did the 720p DLP sets I've seen.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Jeff, 37/40" LCD 1080P units are avaialble from (respectively) 
37" - Westinghouse, Sceptre, EyeFi
40" - Sony, Samsung, LG, ...
42" - Pretty much ALL of the above and then some!

And there are a few more smaller brands.

Of course, if you're fixated on DLP or Plasma, this doesn't help. You have to, as you said, go big for 1080P.

And I didn't say no one should buy 720P. People asked WHICH one they should buy, and I offered mya dvice and mmy opinion.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I'm pretty much set on DLP. Seems to offer the best bang for the buck right now.

What about something closer to 46"?? At first, I thought I would go with 42". But I'm thinking 46" may actually be OK.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

The 40" manufacturers also have 46"

Bang for buck? How does around $1200 for a 1080P 37" LCD from Costco or $1500 for a 40/42" 1080P LCD from Costco/BJs/Sams/Crutchfield/J&R compare to your price searches so far? 

Going with older DLPs, in my relatively limited knowledge of DLP units, points to buying their last-gen models (the new ones, as you mentioned, are all large and 1080P, and brighter and have stunning specs). So why not consider 40"+ LCDs too?

Yes, LCDs have a Screen Door Effect. No they don't have Rainbows. Yes they have shocking ambient light tolerable-operation modes compared to Plasmas. No they don't have glare. Yes colors (but no clarity) start to wash out from large horizontal angles. Yes they also wash out from substantial (>45 degrees) vertical angles. Yes they're super slim and wall mountable. Yes they're light and have lower power requirements than DLP and Plasmas. (quick pre-emption of a few Q's) 

As to sizes, it is my understanding that the cheaper, generic 1080P LCD screens for the 27/42 screens come from ChiMei Optoelectronics in taiwan, and the 40/46" LCDs with greater brightness and contrast (and substantially, disproportionately higher costs) ALL come from Samsung's LCD plant. I'm OK with buying a noname brand LCD made from CMO's relatively more basic LCDs ONLY because it came from Costco. Sams Club carries Westinghouse and I think BJ's carries the rare EyeFis (easily the classiest implementation of the CMO panels)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ashu said:


> Going with older DLPs, in my relatively limited knowledge of DLP units, points to buying their last-gen models (the new ones, as you mentioned, are all large and 1080P, and brighter and have stunning specs). So why not consider 40"+ LCDs too?


well, I'm not ready to buy today. If Samsung will come out with 1080p models in he 46" range, I might want to hold off a bit more.

When I was thinking of price differences, I was looking at stuff like this.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...CategoryId=pcmcat95100050039&id=1142298457279

and this

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...CategoryId=pcmcat95100050039&id=1138085296581

Pretty significant.

Also, I never really gave LCD flat panel much thought, as I always thought they were a lot more expensive.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

47" EyeFi at Sams for $2400+
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=330677

42" Sceptre (mine) at Costco for $1500 1299 shipped (Sigh, I paid almost twice as much!)
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11098479

42" EyeFi at Sams for 1800+
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=330679

42" Westinghouse at Sams (OOS, maybe J&R, BestBuy can order them)
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=355956

<edit> I had no desire to google BJs ... I'll leave that as an entertaining exercise to the intrepid shoppers.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Hmmm. I think I see the issue. You are quoting these odd "off brands" and I'm always comapring Sony to Sony or Samsung to Samsung. That's how I got my idea about the large proce gaps between DPL and LCD or 720p DLP and 1080p DLP (within the same screen size).


Anyway, yes, 1080p would be ideal. I don't disagree, really. I just was surprised at your "they cost almost the same" comment.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

The odd off brands are sold at stores with great satisfaction policies (Extended Warranties, by any other name). I would have waited, if that weren't the case, to buy a 1080P I could afford.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Sony LCD (now), because they're just overpriced, buggy, rushed implementations of Samsung's excellent panels


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Gosh, I wish the (grab-every-word-and-twist-it) lawyer-types would stop sending me prove-yourself emails and/or PMs 

Yes, you-know-who, that's you!

So I misquoted the gist of one of the articles, and it doesn't DISS 1080P, but rather says the average joe wouldn't see the difference. Sue me!

I aspire to surround myself with above-average franks, so there. Read differently, the article even MAKES my point ... "If you're an average joe, go buy something inferior to 1080p". I never suggested no one should buy 720p, only maintained that it was inferior


----------



## shanew1289 (May 7, 2004)

I have had a 720P set for years, and can not complain (their werent any 1080P screens at CC, BB, American, Ultimate at the time)

I watched the Cardinals win the World Series in FULL HD due to FOX going with 720P. Just a plus for 720P 

If you don't have some pain-in-the-a$$ neighbor with 1080P always saying your 720P set looks bad, then you will LOVE the picture and will NOT KNOW the difference.

And in 6+ years you may upgrade to 1080P and then be amazed again! 

Baby Steps!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I have a 61 inch Samsung DLP 1080p.

I love it.

Smeek, what did you think of the quality?


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

shanew1289 said:


> some pain-in-the-a$$ neighbor with 1080P


Or forum busybody know-it-all! 

You make a great point ... buy what you can, when you can. Its always a losing battle. All I'm saying is that every cusp of technology shifts, some may be better served with the newer, potentially somewhat pricier variant


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I have a 61 inch Samsung DLP 1080p.
> 
> I love it.
> 
> Smeek, what did you think of the quality?


Thou hast smeeked the Smeek!

Henceforth, this act shall be referred to as the TeeBee!


----------



## shanew1289 (May 7, 2004)

To each is own, just never second guess it once you buy it.

Mini-rant on my 720P experience:

I almost blew a gasket at the salesman. He veamantly tried to convince me that 1080i and 720p is the same. Im like why two numbers? Why an I and a P? How can they be the same? 

it: O, its the same. (Steam rolling, ready to leave almost....)

me: BS! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU! 

it: Ill get my tech guy. 

me: Well he should be selling tv's not you.

it: One minute.

Geekier it: Yes, 720p and 1080i arent exactly the same, but we tell customer, they are visually the same, helps them......

me: WTF! You say action in 1080i is the same as 720P. Why do I want a progressive scan DVD player? Huh?

Geekier it: Well yes, Progressive scan makes for better action......

me: NEVERMIND, give me the 24 months no interest deal and let me get out of here.

it: Sir, the TV is at the warehouse, youll have to come back.... 

me: ARGH! Oh well, i need to find a tv stand anyways. AND NO, I DONT WANT YOUR GLASS ONE! SHUT IT!

and to top it all off, my statement showed only 6 months no interest, and had to raise hell to get it to 18. I'll never return to American for a TV again, they had just set up shop in St. Louis and I said hey, why not. Buy from the new guy in town. Oops, mistake.

Anyways, sorry to clog your thread up with a mini-rant! 

720P RULEZ! (Cause I have an opinion and have seen no better! I dodge 1080P displays, need a few more years to get my monies worth  )


----------



## izzy223 (Sep 25, 2003)

My 5 yr old Sony 57" CRT projection HDTV, needed a $500 fix, so I said forget it lets go new. I liked the HD quality (1080i), but was looking for newer tech.

I love my new Samsung DLP 56 inch 1080p (projection style with all the little mirrors  I got a great deal at the Big Box store (2025) , but I did see it online at Amazon for 1850 (model 5687WX, i think).

I'm not a tech pro for picture quality, but I can tell it looks much better than my older Sony. The 1080p in my opinion is making a difference, even when I compared them at the store. I use an HD cable box with WOW, and the DIRECTV HD from the east coast and my OTA. I get the best picture with the OTA, but the CABLE HD and DTV HD are very close. I agree with ASHU, I'd rather plan to buy for the future than always going cheap and fall behind.

I wouldn't run out and buy one if your HD TV is within 3-4 yrs old, but if you need to go new you can't wrong with the Samsung. Consumer Reports and other sites have it ranked very high (PC Mag is one of them). No, I don't work for them, but I am enjoying my early Xmas Tech toy I bought myself (and for my family of course 

Izzy


----------



## Wangooroo (Oct 9, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> BS if it's not. Find me a 1080p 46" DLP set that's not that much more than a 720p 46" DLP set.
> 
> Edit:. I'd LIKE to get a 1080p set, but at this point, it would cost a lot more. I don't even think they make them in a size that would work for me.


 A hell of a lot more.

Pioneer Elite 1130HD which is 1080i is about $4500-4800 street price, the new 50" 1080pElite model is $10,000! WTF? over twice the price?

Not worth the difference in price for the minimal difference in viewing quality.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Wangooroo said:


> A hell of a lot more.
> 
> Pioneer Elite 1130HD which is 1080i is about $4500-4800 street price, the new 50" 1080pElite model is $10,000! WTF? over twice the price?
> 
> Not worth the difference in price for the minimal difference in viewing quality.


He he, you were posting FUD a month ago!

That 1080i Pioneer Elite 1130HD is 1080i CAPABLE but 720P native. I'm too lazy to check specs, but it's either 1366x768 or 1280x720 (true 720p spec) or 1024x720 or something.

True 1080P (if it is true spec, i.e. 1920x1080) has twice as many pixels, and then some (2.0833 times the number of pixels). So by your own (roundabout) logic, perhapps it IS worth twice as much!


----------



## Sy- (Sep 29, 2005)

I got my 60" 1080P SXRD and haven't looked back since. Don't buy what you can afford if you are going to regret it in a couple months. Wait a couple months and buy the best without regrets.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

magnumis said:


> I am considering the Samsung HL-S6167W. Thanks!


61*6*7?

I have the HL-S6187W and I love it. Not sure what the big differences are between them.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Wangooroo said:


> A hell of a lot more.
> 
> Pioneer Elite 1130HD which is 1080i is about $4500-4800 street price, the new 50" 1080pElite model is $10,000! WTF? over twice the price?
> 
> Not worth the difference in price for the minimal difference in viewing quality.


Why would somebody pay $10,000 for 50" plasma Pioneer Elite when you can buy 1080P 52" Sharp LCD for $3,500 at Costco?


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

It's ELITE!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

720P vs 1080P. It really depends on the size TV you get. If you get somethings 50" or less your eyes will not be able to tell the difference between 720P and 1080P unless you are sitting very close to the TV. If you are sitting 8 or more feet away you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you hooked up a computer to a VGA input on the TV.

Even if you get a 1080P set, there are no 1080P sources besides blu-ray and HD-DVD movies. There most likely will never be 1080P TV at all because of the high bandwidth. Many stations broadcast at 720P and will look best for sets with a native 720P resolution (no scaling needed).

Sources:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html
http://www.projectorcentral.com/1080p_720p.htm

That said for larger screens 1080P would be worth it, but there are 2 things that are more inportant: contrast ratio and color representation.
If you pick up a 1080P set and it has a lousy contrast ratio and/or color it will not look as good as a high quality 720P set.

But basically it comes down to this, if you can afford a 1080P TV without skimping on the the quality, go for it. If you can't then get a 720P set.

One main reason to get a 1080P set is if you have a PS3 with the latest firmware patch (1.3) because that patch is causing problems for people with 720P TVs.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

morac said:


> Even if you get a 1080P set, there are no 1080P sources besides blu-ray and HD-DVD movies. There most likely will never be 1080P TV at all because of the high bandwidth.


I'm sorry, and don't take this personally, but I'm exhausted of hearing that FUD and refuting it.

You have a 1080P source at home. It's ALL your movie channels transmitted in 1080i60 obtained from movies that were either directly shot at or converted to 1080p at 24 frames a second. These benefit instantaneously with a simple (inverse telecine? Right term?) and can be displayed with perfect reproduction/recreation on a 1080P TV and suck instantly (in comparison) when down-converted to 720P. Whatever else any CNET or ProjectorJoker* review may attempt to convince you of.

In this case - on StarzHD, HBOHD, SHOHD, TMCHD, HDNETMovies, and even all the other channels including NBC, CBS, TNT, etc that occasionally transmit movies in HD - 1080i is just a convenient, available transfer medium for the 1080P TVs to be transmitted with ABSOLUTELY NO LOSS beyond that of the miserly MPEG encoding that low badnwidth necessitates. (i.e. HDDVD and BluRay are NO better in resolution, but suffer from less MPEG artefacting because they have more storage space available for transmission)

It's the 1080i TV shows captured with 1080i cameras that actually capture 1920x540 pixels every frame, 60 times a second, where the quality of the 1080P reproduction CAN suffer IF your 1080P TV lacks a good motion adaptive deinterlacer (because there is motion between adjacent 1920x540 frames).

Whew. I'm done. (I know - I say that and then pop back in and repeat all this ... repeatedly, in every thread. But like I said elsewhere, I can only try but can't force everyone into the next generation of HD if they insist on kicking and screaming!  )

* In possible defense of the ProjectorCentral reviewrs, they may be comparing 1080P TVs to 1080i projectors (which are MORE common than the rare 1080i NATIVE TVs), and they're RIGHT in that case - you do not gain any benefit from 1080P OVER 1080i. But they're not stupid enough to say 720P is also good enough (that would be CNet!)


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

> You have a 1080P source at home. It's ALL your movie channels transmitted in 1080i60 obtained from movies that were either directly shot at or converted to 1080p at 24 frames a second.


What are you nuts? That's not a 1080p source, its a 1080i source. Once a presumed 1080p movie is down-resed (interlaced) to 1080i you can't just reconstruct the original data with the receiver.

Until something transmits at 1080p it isn't going to be 1080p.

I can understand you getting exasperated trying to convince the world of something so incorrect.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> That's not a 1080p source, its a 1080i source.


Stop










1080p24 < 1080i60. Your HBO, Starz, Cinemax, TMC and plethora of other 1080i60-transmitting channels are already bringing 1080p24 movies into your home. Watch them on your 1080p TV. Oh, wait ...


You may also want to edit the part where you call me nuts - that is a personal attack.

Since you obviously seem to think I'm so full of it, you can go read this. Someone starts out saying 1080i60 is not as good as 1080p24. Then he quickly changes the topic rather than officially admitting his error and eating crow. Hilariously vindicative. To me. Enjoy.

<edit> Read post #4. I lack his succinctness.

Good night.

<edit 2> (Couldn't Resist.)
Now Playing at our favorite search engine: When is 1080i the same as 1080p

And one of the search links is too much of a love fest, even for my liking But at least nobody calls anybody else nuts


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Oh, you are talking 1080p24 which is 40% of 1080p60 and 80% of 1080i60.

You think 1080p24 gets packaged in a 1080i60 signal and the receiver rebuilds a perfect 1080p24 video? Then it gets displayed on your screen at 1080p24 instead of 1080p60?

I need more info before taking back the nuts.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Read the links in my edits in post #44. And I said 24fps in my previous post (#42) that prompted your nuts comment. And I explained why this was not (necessarily) the case with TRULY interlaced 1080i video.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Well in your love fest the person says 1080i&p will look the same. I take that as 1080p will come down to 1080i quality.

Your go read this says 1080i looks worse than 1080p.

The first two articles in your google earch say 1. 1080p is slightly better than 1080i but don't bother buying into the hype yet. 2. 1080p is better than 1080i and talks about 1080p60&24 from a disk and 1080i60 from networks.

Inside my spinning head the 1080p24 could look like maybe its getting to 1080p30 with 3:2. Certainly there is no way to transform p24 into _true _ p60, or even _true _ p30. So even if p24 can be sent over i60 its still just p24 in the end. I suppose p30 could be sent instead, but that is not true film rate - although it could be true video rate. Then what does one like better, 1080i60 or 1080p30 and under what circumstances?

Then the whole question of what is displayed - p24? p30? p60?

The bottom line is you are claiming either that 1080p60 sent as 1080i is 1080p60 or that 1080p24 sent using 1080i60 is somehow equal to 1080i60 or 1080p60/30. None of which can be the case.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

megazone said:


> 61*6*7? I have the HL-S6187W and I love it. Not sure what the big differences are between them.


Don't quote me on this, but my understanding is that the HL-Sxx*6*7W sets are "club products" -- they take out a few features or swap a few components for lower prices components, and they sell them at club stores (Costco, Sam's Club, etc.) for a much lower price.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

Hi:

In talking to folks at Tweeter, they told me that 1080 p would not be noticeable except in larger (> 46 or 50") sets. I found it interesting that they would point me to a LESS expensive TV.

It made sense to me that, although, more sets are coming out in 1080, that 720 not be noticeable in smaller sets.

Unless there is some software, program reason that 1080p offers that 720 doesn't, why would you spend the extra money for 1080 ona smaller set?

I bought the Samsung 4092 40' and love it so far.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

HDTiVo, you're a stubborn, obstinate lost cause.


----------



## wdave (Jul 16, 2000)

brebeans said:


> In talking to folks at Tweeter, they told me that 1080 p would not be noticeable except in larger (> 46 or 50") sets.


They're wrong. Smaller 1080p sets just need to be watched at a closer distance. I can watch 1080p on my 20" computer monitor at a distance of 2.5 feet away and completely enjoy the 1080p resolution.

A 40" HDTV displaying 1080p should be viewed at a distance of 5.2 feet to fully enjoy the 1080 resolution.

For 1080p: Take the diagonal screen size and multiply by 1.56 to get the distance in inches you should be from the set.

For 720p: The multiplier is 2.34.

So if you're 2.34x away from the set, you won't be able to tell the difference (or enjoy the difference) between a 720p set and a 1080p set.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

hdtivo said:


> The bottom line is you are claiming either that 1080p60 sent as 1080i is 1080p60 or that 1080p24 sent using 1080i60 is somehow equal to 1080i60 or 1080p60/30. None of which can be the case.





ashu said:


> HDTiVo, you're a stubborn, obstinate lost cause.


No, you are an idiot.

Are you also a salesperson?

I've got a 1080P source for you - its 1080p1 - and its easliy converted to 1080p60


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm amazed you're not a politician (yes, please take that as an insult - that's how I mean it)

I love how you insist on putting words in my mouth. The question was whether there were any 1080p sources out there. I said there were, they happened to be 1080p24 transmitted as 1080i60.

Like I said, YOU are a lost cause - don't use your vitriol to spread FUD.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

knock it off guys...


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

You said about 1080p24:


> These benefit instantaneously with a simple (inverse telecine? Right term?) and can be displayed with *perfect reproduction/recreation on a 1080P TV *


Its a useless comment to say 1080p24 can look like 1080p24 - which it can't exactly anyway on a 1080p60 display.

Making 1080p24 sound like 1080p60 (which is what most folks are interested in when refering to 1080p) is FUD. Salesperson style FUD.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

ashu is correct.



> Making 1080p24 sound like 1080p60 (which is what most folks are interested in when refering to 1080p) is FUD.


1080p60 is exactly what you get for this 24p material with repeat flags.

A 1080i60 signal can contain all the picture information in a 1080p24 source. CBS, NBC, and most movie channels deliver true 1080p24 content in a 1080i60 package. The content is sent with repeat flags and in interlaced format, but 100% of all original 1080p information is there. The original 1080p image can be reconstructed perfectly for every frame assuming the display can lock onto the 3/2 cadence -- this 1080p24 image is then output at 1080p60 with repeat flags for consumer displays. Some newer displays do this correctly, most do not -- on those that do not, as much as 50% of the resolution and detail is thrown away. If you would like to see a short interactive demo on how this all works, go here and choose the video on "Film Cadence & Detection."

Note 1080p24 content actually consumes less bandwidth than 1080i60 video content because there are only 24 frames with repeat flags, rather than 30 frames or 60 fields in the case of 1080i video.

While it is relatively simple to reconstruct the original 1080p image from a 1080i60 signal for 24p material like sitcoms and films [for output at 1080p60 to displays], it is much more difficult to create a quality 1080p image from 1080i60 video. With 1080i60 video, you don't have 30 frames, but rather 60 fields, each created a fraction of a second after the other. Because each field is created at a different time, they don't fit together exactly to form a progressive frame. As a result, some interpolation is required. Done well, this interpolation is computationally intensive. For a short interactive demo on how video deinterlacing works, go here and choose "Deinterlacing (video)."

There is no content acquired at 1080p60. It is a misnomer to refer to content as "1080p60," because all 1080p content is acquired at 1080p24 or 1080p30, with flags used to create 1080p60 (or 1080i60) for output to consumer televisions. [Note HD-DVD and Blu-ray both store content on the disk at 1080p24.] For 1080p30, each frame is repeated twice; for 1080p24, the first frame is repeated twice, and the next frame is repeated three times through a process known as pull-down. As stated above, video acquired at 1080i60 (ex: CBS football) is not true 1080p material, and this can only be deinterlaced into 1080p using computationally-intensive interpolation. Quite frankly, most consumer televisions *suck* at this -- blurriness during motion is a common result of the low-quality, region-based deinterlacing found in most existing 1080p consumer displays.

Hope this clears things up.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> ashu is correct.
> 
> 1080p60 is exactly what you get for this 24p material with repeat flags.
> 
> ...


Yes the information is very helpful.

What I take from all this is that saying 1080p doesn't mean that much. There's p24, p30, p60. p30 has 25% more data than p24. If a video could be shot in p60 it would have 2.5X data than p24. Try watching a slo-mo sports replay shot @ 24p and compare it too what you'd get at 30p or 60p - if there were 60p (or look @ 720p60 in that context.)

As you say there is imperfection in converting 24p to 60p for final display.

What content is typically shot p30 and which p24?

Is there a sign on the horizon that 1080p60 cameras will come into being?

I am not sure what ashu is correct about since you refuted all his statements except the ability to send 1080p24 over 1080i60, which I also agreed was possible, and confirmed mine.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> What I take from all this is that saying 1080p doesn't mean that much. There's p24, p30, p60. p30 has 25% more data than p24. If a video could be shot in p60 it would have 2.5X data than p24. Try watching a slo-mo sports replay shot @ 24p and compare it too what you'd get at 30p or 60p - if there were 60p (or look @ 720p60 in that context.)





> Is there a sign on the horizon that 1080p60 cameras will come into being?


Sony has announced a 1080p60 camera for release May, 2007 in Japan. It's expected to run $150k to $200k, which will limit its use to high-end commercial production. New technology is always expensive, but we should see price reductions in 2008-2009.

As you note, 1080p30 and 1080p60 represent substantially more data than 1080p24. For that reason, we will probably never see 1080p60 used for broadcast television -- the 19.4 Mbps available to broadcasters just isn't adequate for that format, particularly when they are stuck using MPEG-2. The HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats do not even support 1080p60 in their specification at this time. If the broadcast and cable industry ever moves to VC-1 or AVC (MPEG-4), then 1080p60 is a possibility.



> What content is typically shot p30 and which p24?


Virtually all series and episodic programming is now shot at 1080p24. Some documentary-type programming is shot at 1080p30. Recently, the 1080p30 format has also been used to archive concerts and live music performances. Virtually all the "live" high-definition 1080 material you see on television -- sports, award shows, etc -- is native 1080i60.



> As you say there is imperfection in converting 24p to 60p for final display.


When you are forced to repeat some frames twice and others thrice, over and over every second, as is necessary to create a 1080p60 signal from a 1080p24 source, something called [cadence-based] "judder" results. If we were able to eliminate this judder -- which the American public has grown accustomed to over the past 50 years with NTSC -- that content would appear smoother and more film-like.

There is a movement now within the CE industry to support 1080p24 input and 1080p48 or 1080p72 output capability. By accepting 1080p24 input and displaying at a multiple of 24 -- such as 1080p48, 1080p72, 1080p96, or 1080p120 --- the cadence-based judder is eliminated, resulting in an improved picture, particularly during motion scenes where is it most obvious. Sony (and soon Pioneer) is now shipping a Blu-ray player with optional 1080p24 output for these displays; with Blu-ray, movies are stored as 1080p24, so the Sony is just reading and outputting the video stream straight off the disk without any modification.

Currently, only a handful of $$$$ Pioneer Plasmas and 1080p front projectors support 1080p24 input, with output to the screen at 1080p48 and 1080p72. However, Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi, and others are expected to announce and demonstrate new consumer models at CES next month with this capability. By late 2007, I don't think you'll be able to buy a new $2000+ display without this feature.

Ultimately, the "holy grail" is 1080p120 display, so all sources can be displayed at one resolution without any cadence-based judder --- 1080p24 sourced content would be displayed at 5x24, 1080p30 content would be displayed at 4x30, and 1080i60 content would be displayed a 2x60 with interpolation. By 2H 2008, we won't even care whether a device outputs 1080p24, 1080p60, or 1080i60, because displays will feature video processing capable of inverse telecine. Inverse telecine is the process by which the original source format signal is recreated, regardless of output / transmission method, by eliminating the repeat frames.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

HDTivo, film based content is 24 fps. Naturally, this is usually encoded to 1080p24 as a first step. As previously stated this can be transmitted as 1080i60, & a proper deinterlacer can detect the 3:2 pattern, perfectly reconstruct the orginal frames, and display 1080p frames (usu at 60p, 3:2 judder introduced). There is *a lot* of film content out there. Almost all movies, many TV shows are shot on film not interlaced digital video. So 1080p sets have value even if they don't do as well with content shot on 1080i video (e.g. live sports, some sitcoms/soap operas).


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Thanks - great explanations!

Oh, and NOW I know where the DVD a friend lent me (and that I have since returned) came from - it was the HQV/Silicon Optix disc. Excellent benchmarks!

I paid the early 1080P adopter's penalty - my TV is less-than-satisfactory on almost all the major tests, except the noise reduction (and some cadence detection situations). But at least it's not a 720P unit 

Time to get my own copy of the HQV disc!


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Below is an excellent chart showing the viewing distances at which you get a benefit from 720p and 1080p. This assumes 20/20 vision.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I am put in the mind of computer displays which can switch between 60, 72,75,80Hz for example.

The idea of display at >60p is very appealing. Receiving sports @ 60p or above would be nice.

Will a 72p display simply hold the 24p content on the screen for 3 frames, or will it interpolate 2 new frames in between? Probably different for each model?

What are the possibilities of true 1080p60 content transmitted over cable even as MPEG-2 in the next 2, 3, 5 years? QAM tuners would have to support 1080p60?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Will a 72p display simply hold the 24p content on the screen for 3 frames, or will it interpolate 2 new frames in between? Probably different for each model?


On consumer models coming in 2007, most (all?) will probably just display each frame three times. With every frame displayed on the screen for the same amount of time, we'll see an end to cadence-based judder, but it will obviously do nothing about judder inherent to the source. Film and 24p material will always have some judder, for the simple reason that some motion can't be captured in 24 frames.

No customer wants to see a display resync every time they switch channels, which is why I don't think you'll see 72p display for anything but 24p source input (such as from a BD/HD-DVD player) until we get displays that can do 120p --- 120p eliminates the need to resync between video and film sources. Once displays move to 120Hz in 2008-2009, I think you will see interpolation become more common to reduce the judder inherent to the source. This interpolation is already necessary to create 1080p60 output from 1080i60 video, and moving to 1080p120 output should provide further opportunity for improvement in this area -- more interpolated "steps" makes for smoother motion.



> What are the possibilities of true 1080p60 content transmitted over cable even as MPEG-2 in the next 2, 3, 5 years? QAM tuners would have to support 1080p60?


I doubt it will ever happen. We could see some limited application of 1080p30 for sports, but live 1080p60 is just unrealistic for MPEG-2. Broadcasters don't have the bandwidth and too many cable providers are in a bandwidth crunch due to legacy analog carriage. Our best chance for true 1080p60 video is probably MPEG-4/AVC from a cable channel like ESPN.

[Note the Series3 does support VC-1 and MPEG-4/AVC, but it won't output at 1080p60. Assuming Tivo is still in business and manufacturing standalone boxes, I'm sure the Series4 will be out long before we see ESPN doing 1080p60.]


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

What do you think will be done with the content shot by those 1080p cameras starting next year?

How and to what will it be delivered as time goes on?

What happens to these formats we've been discussing in a 50Hz environment like Europe?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> ashu said:
> 
> 
> > HDTiVo, you're a stubborn, obstinate lost cause.
> ...


Gosh. You just don't get along with *anyone*.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Hello All, 

This thread seems like a good place to ask this question: 

I see many LCD TVs listed with 1366 x 768 resolution and a broadcast format display of 768p. But I see HD formats mentioned as either 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. 

So what are these 768p LCD TVs actually doing with either the 720p or 1080i OTA signals that are currently being broadcast? 

Thanks,


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> What do you think will be done with the content shot by those 1080p cameras starting next year?


I don't know...specialized production applications? It takes at least 11-12 cameras to televise a sporting event, and I don't think you're going to see any production companies buying that many, given the cost.



> I see many LCD TVs listed with 1366 x 768 resolution and a broadcast format display of 768p. But I see HD formats mentioned as either 720p, 1080i, or 1080p.


These displays have a built-in scaler that scales or "downconverts" the HD signal to 1366x768 resolution for display. Some displays do a better job with this than others.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

bicker said:


> We noticed a remarkable difference -- with 1080i input!!! -- between the 1080i Samsungs and the 1080p Samsungs. Even with the lower quality input, the higher quality television was so much better that was bought it.


Agreed!

I just got my Samsung this week and 1080i is fantastic.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> Below is an excellent chart showing the viewing distances at which you get a benefit from 720p and 1080p. This assumes 20/20 vision.


My TV is 37" and 720p (pixels are 1366 x 768). I view it from 10 feet away. According to that chart, I would need at least a 50" inch TV to perceive the benefit of 1080p over 720p. Even if my 37" screen was 1080p, I would not be able to detect the improvement at a viewing distance of 10'. Is that correct?

I assume that OTA transmissions in 720p are scaled 1 to 1 on my TV so I should be getting a perfect rendition of those. Otherwise, I'm concerned with the 1080 modes for OTA and HD DVD. What exactly is my TV's scaler doing when it converts those signals. How is it reducing the quality of the picture?

Thanks,

- Craig


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

I don't know about the chart but I just got a 30" widescreen tuber which is 7' away from the Lazyboy  and I see a quality betterment in 1080i transmitted in 16:9 over 720p anything. But perhaps my difference is when the stations are transmitting in 720p 4:3 and the TV stretches the picture.

Speaking of image stretching, what struck me is how much hotter some of these skinny actresses look with the illusion of a little meat on their bones. They almost look like real people! lol

Not to take the topic off on a tangent but for about the same money I found a couple of 42" plasmas but figured at such short distance and with some of the complaints about SD looking crummy on many expensive big TVs I'd stick with a tube (and this darned thing weights 117 pounds so I could never move a larger screen tube set if I needed to). My only regret is the bragging rights to having a 42" plasma, but at least my programming looks great and the screen is easy to keep clean, being glass.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Yea, that's one thing about LCD flat panels, they're relatively light. Mine weighs all of about 30 pounds. It doesn't draw much power either, slightly over 100 Watts. I do miss the ease of cleaning with glass. LCD screens are pretty delicate that way.

I think tube TV's play standard definition better than flat panels. I don't know if it's the smaller screen that makes it look better or that the signal is coming from an analog source to an analog display. In any case, I say yuck at the standard TV picture I get. Conversely, the picture I get with my upconverting DVD player is beautiful. Not quite sure what's going on there.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

BTW, I happened to go to Costco last night for something my wife wanted and was looking at their TV's. They do have a 1080p TV (1920x1080 pixels) for $1300. It's 42" and the brand is Sceptre. I don't know that I would go for one of those non-name brands they carry, but I have a feeling you're only paying for the name otherwise. If you don't mind taking the risk, it would be a good way to get the ultra resolution without paying a premium.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> Welcome to the TiVofusion!
> 
> [email protected] Chicken [email protected][email protected]$ $3 [email protected] Club
> 
> ...


----------



## passatdream (Nov 15, 2005)

magnumis said:


> I am shopping for a new HDTV and need some advice. Has anyone purchased a HDTV with 1080P ? Is it worth the extra cost?
> 
> I am considering the Samsung HL-S6167W. Thanks!


Magnumis,

I have the Samsung HL-S6187W. This is the best television I've ever owned. You won't go wrong with a Samsung HDTV. My model is a 1080p television and it is amazing.

Chris.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

passatdream said:


> I have the Samsung HL-S6187W. This is the best television I've ever owned. You won't go wrong with a Samsung HDTV. My model is a 1080p television and it is amazing.


Indeed, that's the set I have and used for my S3 review.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> My TV is 37" and 720p (pixels are 1366 x 768). I view it from 10 feet away. According to that chart, I would need at least a 50" inch TV to perceive the benefit of 1080p over 720p. Even if my 37" screen was 1080p, I would not be able to detect the improvement at a viewing distance of 10'. Is that correct?


Yes, assuming your vision is 20/20. However, that doesn't mean you wouldn't benefit from the improved contrast and video processing often found on more expensive 1080p models.



> I assume that OTA transmissions in 720p are scaled 1 to 1 on my TV so I should be getting a perfect rendition of those. Otherwise, I'm concerned with the 1080 modes for OTA and HD DVD. What exactly is my TV's scaler doing when it converts those signals. How is it reducing the quality of the picture?


If 720p signals were displayed 1:1, you would have black bars on the top and bottom of your set during that content. To create the 768p image, new information is interpolated. Depending on the quality of the display's video processing, this can either soften the picture and/or introduce new artifacts that weren't there before.

A display's built-in video processing has a massive impact on the picture quality you get on your screen. Many -- probably most -- displays drop up to half the resolution of the original signal [on 1080i channels] on a regular basis. For that reason, some 768p displays will look far superior to others. The same goes for 1080p displays.


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

CraigHB said:


> BTW, I happened to go to Costco last night for something my wife wanted and was looking at their TV's. They do have a 1080p TV (1920x1080 pixels) for $1300. It's 42" and the brand is Sceptre. I don't know that I would go for one of those non-name brands they carry, but I have a feeling you're only paying for the name otherwise. If you don't mind taking the risk, it would be a good way to get the ultra resolution without paying a premium.


i have the 1024X768 panasonic plasma (th-42px60u). costco carries the th-42px6u (no sd card slot) -- it was on sale for $1299.99 in the last month). i would take either panny over the sceptre lcd even if it (the panny) was a few hundred dollars more, although i paid a penny under a grand (before tax) for mine on black friday. i don't think you are going to see much benefit of a 1080p television unless it is over 50" (panny's 50" is 1366 X 768 -- th-50px6u is available at costco and was on sale for $1999.99 in the last month). The Pannys come with a $200 mail in rebate on installation if you buy by the end of the year (12/31/06) and install it by the end of January (01/31/07).


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

This thread has me wondering if I should have bought a 1080p TV instead of the 720p TV I bought recently. However, the picture is really great on the one I have. It's a Toshiba 37" and I've always had high satisfaction with that brand.

I was looking around on various manufacturer web sites and found most of the 1080p TV's are larger screens. Smaller screens are still 720p for the most part. Based on that, it seems manufacturers feel the benefit of 1080p is only worthy of larger screens. That makes me feel better about the one I bought.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

CraigHB said:


> This thread has me wondering if I should have bought a 1080p TV instead of the 720p TV I bought recently. However, the picture is really great on the one I have. It's a Toshiba 37" and I've always had high satisfaction with that brand.
> 
> I was looking around on various manufacturer web sites and found most of the 1080p TV's are larger screens. Smaller screens are still 720p for the most part. Based on that, it seems manufacturers feel the benefit of 1080p is only worthy of larger screens. That makes me feel better about the one I bought.


If you're pleased, don't regret your choice. From what I have read, 1080p isn't going to look better until the screen size gets over 40" (42? 46?). Even then, a first-rate 720 should out-do a run-of-the-mill 1080.


----------



## wdave (Jul 16, 2000)

bmgoodman said:


> If you're pleased, don't regret your choice. From what I have read, 1080p isn't going to look better until the screen size gets over 40" (42? 46?). Even then, a first-rate 720 should out-do a run-of-the-mill 1080.


Are we going around and around in this thread? Read my post #51 above.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

CraigHB said:


> BTW, I happened to go to Costco last night for something my wife wanted and was looking at their TV's. They do have a 1080p TV (1920x1080 pixels) for $1300. It's 42" and the brand is Sceptre. I don't know that I would go for one of those non-name brands they carry, but I have a feeling you're only paying for the name otherwise. If you don't mind taking the risk, it would be a good way to get the ultra resolution without paying a premium.


There are myriad factors that determine the quality of viewing experience. Believing that 1080P is the holy grail of PQ is like thinking that any 10MP camera will produce a better image than an 8MP camera.

Color rendition, black level, contrast ratio, viewing distance, size of panel, plasma vs LCD et. al. quality of content all probably have a greater influence on PQ than pixel count.

Buying an off-brand, cheap LCD panel just because it has 1080P is a terrible idea.
Do the research before you buy. I recently bought the Panny TH-42PH9UK industrial plasma panel and am wowed by the PQ -- and this monitor is now avaiable for about 1K! (I think the 50" is about 1.5K). Understand that this has no receiver or speakers, and you need to buy a plug-in HDMI blade if you want HDMI.

I watch at 9' distance, which would make 1080P a total waste of money, as I could not see any higher resolution.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

wdave said:


> Are we going around and around in this thread? Read my post #51 above.


Apparently we are, but I admit I hadn't attempted to read all the previous sniping, er, discussion. In any event, looking back at some of the enlightening information, I can see my post was superfluous. And unnecessary. And redundant! 

Happy holidays.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Long discussions do sometimes have a way of getting circular, but this is a meaningful topic (for me at least) so I don't mind if things are a little redundant.


----------



## GregComeLately (Nov 27, 2006)

The smaller your screen, the closer in you'll have to move your chair or sofa in order to benefit from the improved resolution. If you aren't willing to make this kind of viewing adjustment, which might even require you to change the layout of your room to make this closer proximity work, there will be very little to no point in going for a 1080p display panel. 

To recommend 37" or 40" 1080p panels without making this point very clear is, in my opinion, borderline irresponsible. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people don't sit within 7 feet of their screens, let alone 4 of 5 feet. They must be told that the increased resolution of such screens comes with this important qualification. Not doing so leaves 1080p cheerleaders open to criticism that they are more concerned with scoring points in some ideological tech battle, than in actually providing useful and relevant information.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

Not sure if this was posted already or not but a local TV station did a segment on HDTVs and said basically you're wasting your money to pay extra for 1080p over 1080i because nobody will ever broadcast in 1080p anytime soon due to the extra costs on their end. So unless you use Blue Ray or a PS3 (same difference) you'd receive no benefit at all for the extra cost.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

restart88 said:


> Not sure if this was posted already or not but a local TV station did a segment on HDTVs and said basically you're wasting your money to pay extra for 1080p over 1080i because nobody will ever broadcast in 1080p anytime soon due to the extra costs on their end. So unless you use Blue Ray or a PS3 (same difference) you'd receive no benefit at all for the extra cost.


Ok, but there aren't really any 1080i sets any more. It's either 720p or 1080p. It virtually costs the same to make a 1080p as a 1080i set.

Also, HD-DVD supports 1080P along with blue ray...


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

restart88 said:


> Not sure if this was posted already or not but a local TV station did a segment on HDTVs and said basically you're wasting your money to pay extra for 1080p over 1080i because nobody will ever broadcast in 1080p anytime soon due to the extra costs on their end. So unless you use Blue Ray or a PS3 (same difference) you'd receive no benefit at all for the extra cost.


Sounds like a case of misinformation. What I've gathered here is that any 1080x set is going to have a resolution of at least 1920x1080 pixels. So, they should have been comparing a 720p to 1080p not 1080i to 1080p. 1080i gets scaled down on a 720p set and does not get scaled on a 1080p set. 720p does not get scaled on a 720p set and gets scaled up on a 1080p set. Hopefully my understanding is correct.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

CraigHB said:


> Sounds like a case of misinformation. What I've gathered here is that any 1080x set is going to have a resolution of at least 1920x1080 pixels. So, they should have been comparing a 720p to 1080p not 1080i to 1080p. 1080i gets scaled down on a 720p set and does not get scaled on a 1080p set. 720p does not get scaled on a 720p set and gets scaled up on a 1080p set. Hopefully my understanding is correct.


Your understanding is perfect. However, the truth does nothing to dissuade the naysayers in this thread 

That said, was this a FOX or ABC station? They're inherently biased because they don't broadcast in 1080i, but use only 720P


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

My feeling is that I'd like to avoid scaling 1080 to 720 since that loses video information. a 1080p set never has to scale down like that. It always displays all of the video information. However, I have a 720p set so that's what I have. As far as what I can see at my viewing distance, I can't see any difference in video quality between signals sent to my TV in 720p versus 1080i.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

ashu said:


> Your understanding is perfect. However, the truth does nothing to dissuade the naysayers in this thread
> 
> That said, was this a FOX or ABC station? They're inherently biased because they don't broadcast in 1080i, but use only 720P


Fox and yes they ARE in 720P. 

BTW I just bought my 1080i last month and CC is still selling them.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

CraigHB said:


> My feeling is that I'd like to avoid scaling 1080 to 720 since that loses video information. a 1080p set never has to scale down like that. It always displays all of the video information. However, I have a 720p set so that's what I have. As far as what I can see at my viewing distance, I can't see any difference in video quality between signals sent to my TV in 720p versus 1080i.


...and you would see no difference in 1080P either.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

skanter said:


> ...and you would see no difference in 1080P either.


Speak for yourself. With 20-10 vision, I sure do  (PQ from) A good 1080i source pulverizes a good 720P source every time.

It's a pity my local CBS & NBC affiliates are so randomly hit-and-miss. The Sunday night NBC (NFL) game was absolutely atrocious (so-called-HD) quality! At least compared to the great stuff they sometimes had earlier in the season.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

ashu said:


> Speak for yourself. With 20-10 vision, I sure do  (PQ from) A good 1080i source pulverizes a good 720P source every time.
> .


"Pulverizes"? 

What size display, and what viewing distance? These are the factors that can make 720P/1080i/1080p comparison debates irrelevant.


----------



## gtrogue (Jun 18, 2001)

Wangooroo said:


> HOGWASH!!! I defy anybody to tell the difference. I watch two Pioneer Elite's side by side with identical HD source material. The human eye cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Save yourself the coin. 1080i is all that broadcasters are using anyway. You will not see 1080p used by cable, sat, or OTA providers for years to come.
> 
> Go to a reputable store (Tweeter?) and check it out side by side from the same manufacturer. There is no discernible difference between them. An Elite set costs TWICE as much for 1080p Not worth it!


HD DVD and BluRay are where you are going to see true 1080p material first and it probably won't be long. Also, HTPC's and other computers can also output 1080p.

My buying advice for displays is you buy the most you can afford and always buy a set one size larger than you think you need. If you can afford a 1080p set, get it.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

skanter said:


> "Pulverizes"?
> 
> What size display, and what viewing distance? These are the factors that can make 720P/1080i/1080p comparison debates irrelevant.


You forget 'what source', which is paramount and conveniently overlooked by the 720p proponents  Not to mention 'what lighting'! (which is more a pro-LCD win)

42", 7ish feet, brightly lit/windowed room, eye level, dead ahead, (mostly 1080i) HD sources, and upconverted 1080P video files & DVDs plus regular 1920x1080 desktop use from my PC.

PS3 (and BluRay) on the horizon


----------



## GregComeLately (Nov 27, 2006)

Ashu, my advice to you is to be sure to stay away from the AVS Forums.  LCD owners were getting such an inferiority complex among the plasma owners, that AVS finally allowed them to split the forums in two, one for LCD, one for plasma, in addition to their newly-formed "General Flat Panel" forum, or some such.

As a looong time shopper and reader of those forums (I have a 20" LCD monitor, but don't have any plasmas, so I think I'm pretty dispassionate here), I would venture to estimate that among those who have owned both plasma and LCD panels, and who've had the opportunity to do in home side-by-side comparisons, most preferred their plasmas over their LCDs, by at least a 3 to 1 margin (and I'm being conservative here). And this _includes 1080p LCD vs the 720/768p plasma comparisons_.

As the ISF has stated, higher resolution is good to have, provided all else is equal and your within the sweet distance spot, but it still only ranks 4th or 5th in importance when evaluating picture quality.


----------



## schizoid2k (Dec 14, 2003)

GregComeLately said:


> AshuAs a looong time shopper and reader of those forums (I have a 20" LCD monitor, but don't have any plasmas, so I think I'm pretty dispassionate here), I would venture to estimate that among those who have owned both plasma and LCD panels, and who've had the opportunity to do in home side-by-side comparisons, most preferred their plasmas over their LCDs, by at least a 3 to 1 margin (and I'm being conservative here). And this _includes 1080p LCD vs the 720/768p plasma comparisons_.


Well, as someone who just bought a 50" plasma and will get it delivered tomorrow, did I make a good choice? I was looking at LCDs for a bit and while they looked incredible, the plasma looked great and drew me to a purchase.

I read this entire thread, and now I am more confused than ever... I thought I had a handle on all of this...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

schizoid2k said:


> Well, as someone who just bought a 50" plasma and will get it delivered tomorrow, did I make a good choice? I was looking at LCDs for a bit and while they looked incredible, the plasma looked great and drew me to a purchase.
> 
> I read this entire thread, and now I am more confused than ever... I thought I had a handle on all of this...


My understanding is, while Plasma has a better picture, it burns in (so is bad for still images like video games), it is heavy, it burns a lot of power and is hot, and over time gets dimmer.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

schizoid2k said:


> Well, as someone who just bought a 50" plasma and will get it delivered tomorrow, did I make a good choice? I was looking at LCDs for a bit and while they looked incredible, the plasma looked great and drew me to a purchase.
> 
> I read this entire thread, and now I am more confused than ever... I thought I had a handle on all of this...


I like thel ook of plasma -way- over LCD, _except _if the viewing room is very bright that might cause reflections in the plasma screen -- in which case I might have to go with LCD. We mostly watch in dimly-lit room, and plasma is ideal for this environment.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> My understanding is, while Plasma has a better picture, it burns in (so is bad for still images like video games), it is heavy, it burns a lot of power and is hot, and over time gets dimmer.


All of the above are incorrect with modern plasmas.

Burn-in is a thing of the past, my 42" plasma weighs only 59 lbs., it's cool as a cucumber, and it won't get dimmer for at least 18 years based on 5-6hrs/day viewing.


----------



## schizoid2k (Dec 14, 2003)

skanter said:


> All of the above are incorrect with modern plasmas.
> 
> Burn-in is a thing of the past, my 42" plasma weighs only 59 lbs., it's cool as a cucumber, and it won't get dimmer for at least 18 years based on 5-6hrs/day viewing.


Good news! Whew.. thanks for the confirmation in my purchase.  
Looking forward to the new TV.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

GregCome... your paternizing advice notwithstanding, I hang around avsforums as much as the next person, and that wimpy story about the LCD forum creation is pointless.

As I said in the LCD vs Plasma discussion on avsforums ...



Moi said:


> Side-by-side, I imagine even I would enjoy a Plasma better for HD/movie sources, except for 1080p sources (including my HTPC). It helped that I can't tolerate non-OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) and intended to watch all 4:3 SD content with side-black-bars from day one, or face the onset of insanity! If I couldn't do justice to wearing-in a Plasma, perhaps it wasn't the right tech. for me!
> 
> And so LCD was the right choice for ME.
> 
> All I'm saying is, this Holy War is thoroughly pointless!


You will note I don't support or spread (burnin, phosphor fade ...) FUD about plasmas (because I know it to be untrue) but I WILL jump in to rebutt similar false FUD about LCDs that folks post here!

The choice between L & P and 720P and 1080P is strongly influenced by settings and personal preference as well as projected use. A Holy War is just puerile (OT: weren't/aren't they all).

The day a 1080P plasma from a reliable manufacturer bevomes available for sub 1.5K prices in 45ish" sizes, I'll switch


----------



## GregComeLately (Nov 27, 2006)

Don't sweat it John. You made a GREAT choice! (and I'm jealous, you bastard) 

skanter otm with his comments. And for whatever it's worth, I was looking at some testing data earlier, which suggested that 52" LCD panels would draw just as much power/ generate just as much heat as a 50" commercial plasmas. In general, LCD & plasma consume fairly similar amounts of power, with LCD being about 20% more efficient. Depending on the sizes in question, were talking well less than $50 difference per year, and sometimes, plasma actually consuming less power.

Plasmas power consumption fluxuates wildly, dependent upon what is being viewed, whereas LCD uses a fairly steady amount of power. If you are watching a darker movie, for example, plasma will be a lot more efficient than the LCD.


----------



## GregComeLately (Nov 27, 2006)

ashu said:


> ......A Holy War is just puerile (OT: weren't/aren't they all).
> 
> The day a 1080P plasma from a reliable manufacturer bevomes available for sub 1.5K prices in 45ish" sizes, I'll switch


Fine. Your posts up until this point within this thread have struck me as being from someone who presents many good facts, but somehow ends up with 1+1+1=17 conclusions. 17 may add up for some, but certainly not all.

In other words, what I am trying to express here is, you seem to me to be trumpeting 1080p solutions for everyone, with little thought to screen size, seating distance, usage patterns and the fact that price premium is sometimes an entirely relevant reason for not choosing a 1080p LCD (or dlp, sxrd, etc.), particularly in diminishing return usage situations.

If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. Besides, this topic seems to have become the Israel-Palestine, hot dog no ketchup-yes ketchup, NY pizza-Chicago pizza cause celeb debate in the HD video world. There are no absolute right or wrong answers here. As long as you don't disagree with me. 

(I'm annoyed by many, but I hate no one. )


----------



## schizoid2k (Dec 14, 2003)

GregComeLately said:


> Don't sweat it John. You made a GREAT choice! (and I'm jealous, you bastard)


  Thanks!


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

schizoid2k said:


> Good news! Whew.. thanks for the confirmation in my purchase.
> Looking forward to the new TV.


Which model?


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

GregComeLately said:


> If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. Besides, this topic seems to have become the Israel-Palestine, hot dog no ketchup-yes ketchup, NY pizza-Chicago pizza cause celeb debate in the HD video world. There are no absolute right or wrong answers here. As long as you don't disagree with me.


Sorry, a Palestian hot dog with ketchup with a Chicago pizza would be a very bad idea...


----------



## GregComeLately (Nov 27, 2006)

hey now!


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm one of those "Eww, hotdogs!" people anyway, so stretches & funky conclusions are part of the package. No hard feelings.

From a purists point of view I still stand by advising people to buy 1080P if they can afford it (heck - a plasma 1080P if they're RICH! And then they can talk to me - I'm available for adoption  ) , what with more and more (progressively more affordable) 1080P sources become available and on the near horizon


----------



## schizoid2k (Dec 14, 2003)

skanter said:


> Which model?


The LG 50PC1DRA. They were running a pretty good deal on it.
The built in DVR is included, but it only works if you go with cable card.

I am not sure if I will be staying with cable or moving to satellite, so I may or may not be using the built-in DVR. Regardless, the DVR is not the selling point, since it can't compare to Tivo or even satellite's DVR technology.

The TV is arriving this morning, so we shall see.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

ashu said:


> From a purists point of view I still stand by advising people to buy 1080P if they can afford it (heck - a plasma 1080P if they're RICH! And then they can talk to me - I'm available for adoption  ) , what with more and more (progressively more affordable) 1080P sources become available and on the near horizon


Personally, I plan to wait until my old 16:9 1080i native (as far as I can tell, anyway) set falls over to do anything. By then, the price on the 1080p DLP (or something better... avoiding plasma as I enjoy working remotes) sets will be down, and hopefully there will be a winner in the Blu-ray/HD-DVD war (which would be my only reason for going with HDMI at this point).

As for including 1080p output in a TiVo box, if there's that much obsession about not having the TV do it, pay the extra $1000 or so yourself for a separate video processor instead of forcing all of us to pay that much more that don't need to.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Agreed Maeglin - owning a 1080i set already is reason enough not to bother rushing out to upgrade. owning a 720p set, on the other hand, IMO ... 

And you may have missed it, but someone posted that the Broadcom chip one model number up from the one TiVo picked, and which IS capable of 1080P (upconversion/output) would have cost a mere $5-10 extra per unit, in bulk. Of course, can't really fault TiVo ... the design for the S3 was likely in place before that version was announced.

Heck, given a choice, I'd have dumped the what's-the-point THX certification instead  I bet THX makes more than $10 per unit, that I'd gladly prefer to save!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Maeglin said:


> As for including 1080p output in a TiVo box, if there's that much obsession about not having the TV do it, pay the extra $1000 or so yourself for a separate video processor instead of forcing all of us to pay that much more that don't need to.


Wouldn't it be better if the TiVo could output 1080p? Then you wouldn't have to deal with motion artifacts.

BTW someone pointed me to this post over at the Sony playstation forums by a broadcast engineer. It deals with the 720 vs 1080 and 1080i vs 1080p questions in laymans terms. It does get a bit PS3 specific but it should apply to the TiVo S3 as well (except for the 1080p source part).


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

morac said:


> Wouldn't it be better if the TiVo could output 1080p? Then you wouldn't have to deal with motion artifacts.
> 
> BTW someone pointed me to this post over at the Sony playstation forums by a broadcast engineer. It deals with the 720 vs 1080 and 1080i vs 1080p questions in laymans terms. It does get a bit PS3 specific but it should apply to the TiVo S3 as well (except for the 1080p source part).


wow that is a great writeup on that thread!


----------

