I know 1080p is supposedly better, but why not get 720p for cheaper? It's still looks great.
1080p isn't 'supposedly' better, it is better (unless you're talking about the same data rates for each). Why would you buy a Rolex when a McDonald's Happy Meal watch tells the time just as good?
P-Worm
A Mac fan site is not your only source of information. There are other sites on the World Wide Web that deal with the facts of HDTV.I know 1080p is supposedly better, but why not get 720p for cheaper? It's still looks great.
A Mac fan site is not your only source of information. There are other sites on the World Wide Web that deal with the facts of HDTV.
That said, 720p is shorthand for 720p60 or 720 progressive scan lines and refreshed 60 times each second. US broadcast networks ABC and FOX broadcast in 720p. Cable networks ESPN and ESPN2 also broadcasts in 720p. Compared to the other US broadcast HDTV standard, 1080i, 720p is better for broadcasting the fast action of sporting events. It sacrifices the total data displayed onscreen, however. The other broadcast standard, 1080i displays about 20% more data on the screen each second. US broadcast networks NBC and CBS chose 1080i. A 1080i display displays a 540 line half-frame of odd-numbered scan lines and a second 540 line half-frame of even-numbered scan lines to produce a 30 fps moving image. Because 1080i is interlaced, in theory is suffers some of the same problems as the old analog standards. In particular, it may suffer dot-crawl and flicker.
The term 1080p is really more of an advertising term than a technical term. In the most naïve construction, 1080p means that each frame is composed of 1080 progressively scanned lines. However, important information is usually omitted:
All fixed-pixel flat panel 1080 displays display their images progressively. They buffer the half-frame of odd-numbered scan lines, interlace them with the half-frame of even-numbered scan lines, and then displays each 1080 frame progressively.
No commercial broadcast or cable network distributes 1080p content.
Blu-ray disc is a primary source of 1080p content.
You may have noticed that cheap HDTV sets display 720p. All 1080 LCD models advertise themselves as 1080p. Many of these advertise 120 Hz. There is no 120 Hz content. The faster refresh rate is intended to mitigate the limitations of LCDs. With the faster clock, each frame of 60 fps content is refreshed twice, each frame of 30 fps content is refreshed four times, and each frame of 24 fps content is refreshed five times. If video cameras and monitors were all capable of 120 Hz, then there would be no need for 3:2 pull down or 2:3 pull up. You may have also seen that some manufacturers are going to 240 Hz. Pointless.
In closing, it is difficult to impossible to tell the difference between 1080i and 720p on smaller displays. If you are a spec sheet john, then you will settle for nothing less that 120 Hz 1080p. If you just want to watch the Final Four, NASCAR, or the Masters, then just about any HDTV will blow you away.
For acquisition 1080p is pretty much limited to 24fps. Which is fine for some things and not fine for others. Currently 720p has much more flexibility in terms of acquisition because you can shoot in more frame rates and have longer record times.But when TAKING videos?
Because 1080i is interlaced, in theory is suffers some of the same problems as the old analog standards. In particular, it may suffer dot-crawl and flicker.
For acquisition 1080p is pretty much limited to 24fps.
I said "pretty much" for a reason.USD $600 makes that untrue: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sanyo-Xacti-VPC-HD2000-Camcorder-Review-36280.htm#
…
With 1080p standard on just about every single TVs 40" or larger, and creeping into smaller sets at small price premium, I don't see why anyone would intentionally hunt and purchase 720p set.
… US broadcast networks ABC and FOX broadcast in 720p. Cable networks ESPN and ESPN2 also broadcasts in 720p. Compared to the other US broadcast HDTV standard, 1080i, …
I know 1080p is supposedly better, but why not get 720p for cheaper? It's still looks great.
A 1080p set may be an improvement over a 720p set. However, this is because the 1080p set is better engineered. It is not because the 1080p set has more scan lines.1080p is a HUGE improvement over 720p. Not debatable
1080p is a HUGE improvement over 720p. Not debatable
If there were affordable 2000p TVs I'd buy one. I don't care much about Hollywood movies or TV but I have a DSLR and I'd like a large screen that could display the a full resolution image.
I don't own an HD video camera but I can still make and show HD content. I'll composite multiple SD sources. The end result looks better on 1080.
While 1080 is really better you eyes can only see the difference if you have a large enough screen or a close enough viewing distance. Which to get depends on screen size the distance.
That is EXTREMELY HIGHLY DEBATABLE. IN FACT, IT'S A HUGE ISSUE. MOST PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
A 1080p set may be an improvement over a 720p set. However, this is because the 1080p set is better engineered. It is not because the 1080p set has more scan lines.
I said "pretty much" for a reason. There are a few cameras that can shoot at, or beyond, 1080p60 but the vast majority of cameras out there currently cannot.
Yeah, good point. I usually forget about 30p as it's a bit of lame duck frame rate. People typically either want 24p for the film look or 60p for the super smooth motion.But most cams that shoot 1080 can shoot 30p.
Yeah, good point. I usually forget about 30p as it's a bit of lame duck frame rate. People typically either want 24p for the film look or 60p for the super smooth motion.
Lethal