PDA

View Full Version : 720 or 1080...whats enough?




wawathings
Jul 12, 2009, 09:03 AM
I'm not sure what format to opt for on my home media.
I have heard that 720 looks great on anything up to 42" (lcd-plasma) ?

What do people think ?

Is it worth backing up or storing 1080p considering the size, or is 720 suffice ?

note: in the future i wont be getting a tv thats bigger than 42" more then likely will end up with a 32"



Tallest Skil
Jul 12, 2009, 09:10 AM
Size? All of my 1080p files are 4 gigabytes. With that in mind, there's no excuse for doing it otherwise.

Chris Rogers
Jul 12, 2009, 09:15 AM
sounds like you'd be fine with 720. I have a 42" and I can't complain. BUT if I try to play 1080 files, it doesn't look very well.

wawathings
Jul 12, 2009, 09:21 AM
sounds like you'd be fine with 720. I have a 42" and I can't complain. BUT if I try to play 1080 files, it doesn't look very well.

why doesn't it look "look very well"if its a higher res ?:confused:

Chris Rogers
Jul 12, 2009, 09:26 AM
why doesn't it look "look very well"if its a higher res ?:confused:

The TV can't handle it. It's like putting 20" rims on a car that can only fit 18".

upinflames900
Jul 12, 2009, 09:33 AM
The TV can't handle it. It's like putting 20" rims on a car that can only fit 18".

Only if the TV is a 720p TV...otherwise it could handle it and it would look better

wawathings
Jul 12, 2009, 09:35 AM
but if you have a 180 full high def tv and play 720 it works fine ?

upinflames900
Jul 12, 2009, 09:36 AM
but if you have a 180 full high def tv and play 720 it works fine ?

Yea it will work fine, just won't be the highest resolution...just like you can play standard def on a high def tv.

Chris Rogers
Jul 12, 2009, 09:43 AM
Right, you can play lower grade just fine but if you try higher then your TV can handle then forget about it. But you're getting a 32-42, right? You should be fine with 720 then

wawathings
Jul 12, 2009, 10:00 AM
yeah 42 max..
most probably 40 or 32

Chris Rogers
Jul 12, 2009, 10:03 AM
One more thing, I had buyers remorse in regards to size. I believe most people do. It was between 42 and 50 and I opted for the 42. I really wish I had gotten the 50. Get as big as you can (and as big as you can afford).

Although I don't know where you're putting it, mine is in the living room.

upinflames900
Jul 12, 2009, 10:15 AM
Keep in mind if you go with the 720p you are behind the curve in technology. Also if you want to watch blue-ray movies in full quality u will need 1080p. 720p is cheeper for a reason...it is older technology that is not in as high of demand. You may also start to see television being broadcast in 1080p in the near term future (right now it is either 720p or 1080i). My personal opinion is toward a 1080p although I would agree the bigger the better if you can afford it.

Unprocessed1
Jul 12, 2009, 10:23 AM
1080p looks noticeably better than 720p. 1080p is really amazing resolution especially with blu-rays and video games.

Cave Man
Jul 12, 2009, 10:41 AM
Size? All of my 1080p files are 4 gigabytes.

What's the bit rate and duration of these files? I've found that with Handbrake and h.264 encoding a video bit rate of 14 mbps is the minimum without getting pixelation.

MowingDevil
Jul 12, 2009, 11:14 AM
Yea it will work fine, just won't be the highest resolution...just like you can play standard def on a high def tv.

My experience is standard def looks much much better on a high def tv. For some reason it just looks terrible on HD/flatscreen sets.

1080p looks noticeably better than 720p. 1080p is really amazing resolution especially with blu-rays and video games.

In my research it only looks better on blu-ray discs or other material that is already at true HD. With digital cable that isn't true HD it doesn't sound like 1080 sets are any better than 720 ones.

Tallest Skil
Jul 12, 2009, 11:19 AM
What's the bit rate and duration of these files? I've found that with Handbrake and h.264 encoding a video bit rate of 14 mbps is the minimum without getting pixelation.

14?! Really?

They're only around 3.6 Mbps, but I don't think they're pixellated at all... :o

Here, I'll show an old screenshot. The image quality had to be turned down to upload to the forums :p (so if you want to see it raw, I can do that, too), and it doesn't look pixellated to me... I don't know; you'd probably be a better judge.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=180885&d=1246718671

Okay, that DOES suck. It's all blurry and crap. I'll take another screenshot at full quality and post it somewhere.

ftaok
Jul 12, 2009, 11:34 AM
I'm not sure what format to opt for on my home media.
I have heard that 720 looks great on anything up to 42" (lcd-plasma) ?

What do people think ?

Is it worth backing up or storing 1080p considering the size, or is 720 suffice ?

note: in the future i wont be getting a tv thats bigger than 42" more then likely will end up with a 32"

It all has to do with viewing distance ... and in part on usage.

If you sit up close ... like with a computer monitor, then you'd probably want 1080p. Even with a 32" TV. However, for a 32" tv, if you sit back 5 feet or more, you probably wouldn't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p ... unless you're using it as a computer monitor ... and even then, the text might be difficult to read.

So my recommendation is that if you are only going up to 32", get a 720p display ... unless you plan on using it as a computer monitor as well.

As for your files, hard drive space is cheap. Buy a couple 1 TB HDDs and encode your stuff at 1080p and you won't need to worry about it. Your playback device will downconvert to 720p anyways, but at least you'd be covered if you go 1080p in the future.

ft

jamesdmc
Jul 12, 2009, 12:54 PM
...for a 32" tv, if you sit back 5 feet or more, you probably wouldn't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p ...
I have a 32" Sony 1080p television. I recently got into blu ray ripping, the mac mini as media center, Plex, the whole shebang. In my initial testing I handbraked the same blu ray rip to both 720p and 1080p and played them back-to-back using Plex. I couldn't tell a difference in image quality sitting 9 feet from my TV. So I encode to 720p at an average bit rate of 6000. File size is typically between 5 and 7 gigs. I don't know how different my test results would have been with a 720p TV. And if I someday get a larger display, I might regret going with 720p. But for now, I'm pretty happy with my current system.

ftaok
Jul 12, 2009, 01:00 PM
I couldn't tell a difference in image quality sitting 9 feet from my TV.

At 9 feet, you might not be able to see much difference between 720p and 480p. But as you say ... you might go bigger in the future and with HDD space pricing out so cheap, it's almost a crime not to encode at 1080p.

How about encoding your favorite stuff at 1080p and everything else at 720p?

upinflames900
Jul 12, 2009, 01:44 PM
In my research it only looks better on blu-ray discs or other material that is already at true HD. With digital cable that isn't true HD it doesn't sound like 1080 sets are any better than 720 ones.

Not true...digital cable broadcast in both 720p and 1080i which means any of the 1080i stations would not look full quality.

Tallest Skil
Jul 12, 2009, 01:50 PM
HERE we go.

This is a 4GB file.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5683/picture1nwt.jpg

Cave Man
Jul 12, 2009, 02:06 PM
I'll give that a try. I just started QoS transcode from Blu-ray rip at 1080p with 4 mbps in an mkv container with DTS passthrough. My experience has been that 12 mbps has noticeable pixelation in scenes with lots of movement.

ftaok
Jul 12, 2009, 02:17 PM
HERE we go.

This is a 4GB file.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5683/picture1nwt.jpg

Sweet! That's a 3.6Mbps file????? Not too shabby.

Nimiety
Jul 12, 2009, 02:48 PM
A previous thread covered this (and the math involved) to an enourmous degree, but the coles notes version is that the smaller the screen the closer you have to sit for the human eye to perceive the detail difference between 720 and 1080. For a 42" TV, I think it was around 6' and for 50" I think it was 8-9', IIRC.

As for as the tangent of bit rate, the handbrake forums cover this constantly, but popular opinion is that 2000-2500 kbps is a good compromise between file size and image quality. If money is no object, go ahead and encode at whatever you want. Most people would be satisfied with 2500. Yes, for blueray too. I have about 300-400 movies of which about 10-20% are bluerays, and they look fine.

YMMV.

Cave Man
Jul 12, 2009, 03:12 PM
As for as the tangent of bit rate,

It's hardly a tangent. Bit rate is often more important.

the handbrake forums cover this constantly, but popular opinion is that 2000-2500 kbps is a good compromise between file size and image quality.

I really doubt 2500 kbps is sufficient for a quality 1080p video experience.

dynaflash
Jul 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
Agreed, 2500 kbps would be pretty light for a 1080p video, or would require Hi profile options wich would limit your target playback device. Regardless I would use Constant Quality mode either way. ABR is throwing darts in the dark ... very unlikely you will hit you're target. Of course in terms of a device like the appleTV you are limited two what the processor can decode ... but I digress

In addition, I totally agree that bitrate is hardly a tangent. For the most part it is integral to resolution. Cripes you could encode a 1080p video at 700 kbps which would be very small .... it would be 1080p but you would never want to look at it.

Cave Man
Jul 12, 2009, 03:42 PM
Regardless I would use Constant Quality mode either way. ABR is throwing darts in the dark ... very unlikely you will hit you're target.

And I should clarify that I use CQ at the default 60.78% for my transcodes to 720p for the ATV. For one quick 1080p transcode, this was about 5500 kbps.

Thomss
Jul 12, 2009, 04:25 PM
To be honest, you're not really going to see the problem of encoding at a low bit rate by checking the stills.

Check out an action scene with a low rate, then watch the same scene with a higher rate, that's where YOU WILL see the difference.

sven-
Jul 12, 2009, 07:27 PM
Size? All of my 1080p files are 4 gigabytes. With that in mind, there's no excuse for doing it otherwise.
Then I wonder why most of the 1080p rips found on torrent websites are around 8 GB ?

Cave Man
Jul 12, 2009, 08:35 PM
They're only around 3.6 Mbps, but I don't think they're pixellated at all... :o

OK, I just watched a bit of Quantum of Solace transcoded at 4 mbps and it came in at just over 4 gb in file size. The image was better than I expected, with moderate pixelation issues only during fast moving scenes. Not too bad, but I think I'll stick to the 60% constant quality (which makes this 1080p h.264 around 6 gb in size).

Tallest Skil
Jul 12, 2009, 08:38 PM
Then I wonder why most of the 1080p rips found on torrent websites are around 8 GB ?

Because they suck at encoding. :p You can do far better than wasting eight gigabytes.

OK, I just watched a bit of Quantum of Solace transcoded at 4 mbps and it came in at just over 4 gb in file size. The image was better than I expected, with moderate pixelation issues only during fast moving scenes. Not too bad, but I think I'll stick to the 60% constant quality (which makes this 1080p h.264 around 6 gb in size).

Hey, to each his own. I found 4GB to be a good balance between filesize and quality, but if you like six, have at it with six. :D

ftaok
Jul 12, 2009, 08:46 PM
Hey, to each his own. I found 4GB to be a good balance between filesize and quality, but if you like six, have at it with six. :D

If users can get this kind of quality at 4GB and 6GB, it makes you wonder why we need 50GB BluRay at all. Couldn't we have done this with a "super DVD" at 9.5GB. Instead of all this other crap that they put on the BD movies.

I'm sure the pros could get great 1080p to fit onto a DVD-9 with the encoders they use.

Oh well, the cat's out of the bag anyways.

ft

dynaflash
Jul 12, 2009, 10:29 PM
well, the point is that blu ray is just like sd dvd in that each source will require a different bitrate to achieve the same visual quality level (whatever level that you want) a lot of still shots with little movement and dark scenes require less, many fast action complex scenes require more. this is the fundamental problem with picking an arbitrary bitrate for all sources.

... and yes, when the blu ray masters are done, quite obviously they know exactly how much storage space they have to work with. High quality at low bitrate == long encoding times. Hence they will likely use all of the storage space the blu ray disk affords them as compressing it further at high quality has no pay off for them since it takes longer.

wawathings
Jul 12, 2009, 10:31 PM
i havnt bought a tv yet as im waiting for the right time and money to come in.

Should note:

the tv i will buy will be for my bedroom, that said this is the primary area for where i will be watching tv for a few years.

from my bed watching distance from eyes = 8-9 ft (2.6 meters)
from computer desk = 5 ft (1.5 meters)

i wont be using this as a primary computer monitor at all, i will connect it up to my macpro in the future to watch movies though.

Unprocessed1
Jul 12, 2009, 10:41 PM
i havnt bought a tv yet as im waiting for the right time and money to come in.

Should note:

the tv i will buy will be for my bedroom, that said this is the primary area for where i will be watching tv for a few years.

from my bed watching distance from eyes = 8-9 ft (2.6 meters)
from computer desk = 5 ft (1.5 meters)

i wont be using this as a primary computer monitor at all, i will connect it up to my macpro in the future to watch movies though.

If you have room in your budget go for the 1080p. especially if you plan to watch blu rays or anyone is the house has a Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.

I've seen a pretty noticeable difference between my 720p TV and 1080p monitor when both watching blu rays and playing games.

If you are ever going to use the TV (32+ inch) as monitor, 720p will have very poor resolution, whereas the 1080p resolution should definitely be usable.

If you're only watching HDTV, 720p is fine.

MowingDevil
Jul 13, 2009, 06:56 PM
HERE we go.

This is a 4GB file.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5683/picture1nwt.jpg

I think I'd prefer to see Mr. Fishburne's complexion in low-res actually. :p

Gregintosh
Jul 20, 2009, 03:16 AM
Hence they will likely use all of the storage space the blu ray disk affords them as compressing it further at high quality has no pay off for them since it takes longer.

Hmmm.... I don't think movie studios/bluray makers really care to save a few hours of encoding time when they are making a mass market disc that will be manufactured in quantities of hundreds of thousands if not millions. For that kind of production time isn't really an issue (since it only has to be done once), not to mention they got some killer systems to handle it.

I think the issue is that compressed stuff always loses some quality, and with 50GB to play with they can afford to go for the best quality possible versus having to worry about cutting corners to save a few gigs. That way the blu-ray discs that are QUALITY transfers will look good on even future sets that may require less compression to fully take advantage of their features.

I guess erring on the side of caution plays a part here -- it is always better to compress as least as possible if one can get away with it, to err on the side of quality. Given that up to 50GB the movie will fit on ONE disc it is best to take full advantage of that to increase quality since there is no upside that I am aware of to not using the space available.

pprior
Jul 20, 2009, 11:07 AM
I thought ATV couldn't play 1080p anyway?

I'm confused. Are you all encoding 1080 for the ATV or for plex on a mini?

I thought we had to use 720p for the ATV.

Cave Man
Jul 20, 2009, 11:24 AM
I thought ATV couldn't play 1080p anyway?

That's correct.

I'm confused. Are you all encoding 1080 for the ATV or for plex on a mini?

For Plex (or XBMC, QT, VLC, Media Player, etc.), not the ATV.

I thought we had to use 720p for the ATV.

Yes, any content for the ATV cannot be more than 720p and 25 fps and a bit rate of <6 mbps.

K3mp
Jul 20, 2009, 02:27 PM
I would go with 1080p just so if you do to upgrade later you will already be ready.
Cave Man what settings do you use for Blu Ray rips?

Cave Man
Jul 20, 2009, 05:33 PM
Cave Man what settings do you use for Blu Ray rips?

For Plex
1. Apple TV preset.
2. Change container to mkv.
3. Set video to 1920 by xxx.
4. Set audio to DTS or AC3 passthrough

For Apple TV
1. Apple TV Preset.
2. Set video to 1280 by xxx.
3. Check to make sure track 1 is AAC and track 2 is AC3 passthrough
4. If audio is DTS, set track 1 to AAC and track 2 to none.

ChargerSteve
Jul 22, 2009, 11:43 AM
Back to the original topic...

I would not claim to be an expert, so take my 2 cents for what they're worth. If you're a typical viewer (not one of the 10% or so that watch very critically in an optimized environment), I don't think you can go too wrong with any reputable brand TV in the 32-42 inch range.

Most of my enjoyment comes from the content, not the display. Get a reasonably good display and save some money for content, source system(AppleTV, DVD or Blue-Ray player) and maybe a cheap, but decent soundsystem.

I would buy what you can reasonably afford, spend an hour or so adjusting the picture to get the most from it. Then stop reading the forums about TVs. Otherwise, you will soon be convinced that your life sucks unless you have a 60" 1080P display.

uberamd
Jul 22, 2009, 11:44 AM
Size? All of my 1080p files are 4 gigabytes. With that in mind, there's no excuse for doing it otherwise.

Really? My 720p files are ~5GB and my 1080p files are ~8GB.

http://steve.blogme.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/picture-12.png

But I guess everyone on the scene just sucks at encoding. Why don't you go teach them.

Tallest Skil
Jul 22, 2009, 12:10 PM
Really? My 720p files are ~5GB and my 1080p files are ~8GB.

But I guess everyone on the scene just sucks at encoding. Why don't you go teach them.

'Kay. Here's one of mine. The quality had to be turned down for the image to be uploaded to the forums, though. Tell me what you think.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=180885&d=1246718671

dynaflash
Jul 22, 2009, 12:28 PM
Hmmm.... I don't think movie studios/bluray makers really care to save a few hours of encoding time when they are making a mass market disc that will be manufactured in quantities of hundreds of thousands if not millions. For that kind of production time isn't really an issue (since it only has to be done once), not to mention they got some killer systems to handle it.

I think the issue is that compressed stuff always loses some quality, and with 50GB to play with they can afford to go for the best quality possible versus having to worry about cutting corners to save a few gigs. That way the blu-ray discs that are QUALITY transfers will look good on even future sets that may require less compression to fully take advantage of their features.

I guess erring on the side of caution plays a part here -- it is always better to compress as least as possible if one can get away with it, to err on the side of quality. Given that up to 50GB the movie will fit on ONE disc it is best to take full advantage of that to increase quality since there is no upside that I am aware of to not using the space available.

I cannot argue with that. I guess the main point is they have 50 gb to work with so as you said, no upside to compressing it further. I would submit that time of encoding is likely a consideration. Remember what source they are using. Nothing you would really want to throw at even a mac pro octo with serious options. But either way I think we generally had the same point, size up to 50 GB is not an issue for blu ray. :)

northy124
Jul 22, 2009, 01:49 PM
'Kay. Here's one of mine. The quality had to be turned down for the image to be uploaded to the forums, though. Tell me what you think.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=180885&d=1246718671
What settings are you using for the 1080p? as the previous one looked great and I am sure if it were not toned down this would as well :)

Are you using TV settings in HB? or are they your own? CRF or AVB?

On a side note, is it true than 62%+ is transparent quality to source after encode? I read this somewhere on HB but I can't find the topic again to ask confirmation :o I am personally betting it isn't but never know lol.

Cave Man
Jul 22, 2009, 01:56 PM
Really? My 720p files are ~5GB and my 1080p files are ~8GB.

If one encodes at 4 mbps and h.264, a 1080p 2 hour movie can come in just over 4 gb. Most of it isn't too bad - pixelation occurs in complex or fast moving scenes.

dynaflash
Jul 22, 2009, 02:12 PM
On a side note, is it true than 62%+ is transparent quality to source after encode? I read this somewhere on HB but I can't find the topic again to ask confirmation :o I am personally betting it isn't but never know lol.

Generally speaking 62% CQ is considered transparent to the *sd dvd* source. Some advanced opts can alter this somewhat but as a rule of thumb it is true. Not true of blu ray rips or other hd sources.

northy124
Jul 22, 2009, 05:30 PM
Generally speaking 62% CQ is considered transparent to the *sd dvd* source. Some advanced opts can alter this somewhat but as a rule of thumb it is true. Not true of blu ray rips or other hd sources.
Ah SD DVD not HD, thanks for the response Dyna.

Cave Man
Jul 22, 2009, 07:56 PM
Generally speaking 62% CQ is considered transparent to the *sd dvd* source. Some advanced opts can alter this somewhat but as a rule of thumb it is true. Not true of blu ray rips or other hd sources.

Dyna, what percent would you recommend for 1080p Blu-ray rips?

rspeaker
Jul 23, 2009, 12:17 AM
Dyna, what percent would you recommend for 1080p Blu-ray rips?

Haven't had the pleasure of trying it yet (I haven't moved to BR yet,) but I've read 59% CQ for HD rips. It'll be good to see what dynaflash says, though.

dynaflash
Jul 23, 2009, 11:12 AM
tbh, I haven't done alot of blu ray rips ... only some light testing. 59% would seem plenty and with decent opts 25 - 27% should look awfully nice going to the atv's 720p. Cave, I believe you've done more testing than me ;)

boast
Jul 23, 2009, 11:29 AM
I'd say stick with the scenes standard of 8GB 1080P's. Hard drives are cheap anyways, $130 for 1.5TB drive- enough for about 192 films @ 8GB.