No problem, I just spent 3 months researching a new tv purchase so I'm still in the thick of it lol. However very happy with my 58" plasma at 10ft away!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
720p vs 1080p
- Thread starter getbigg21
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CrAkD, thanks for posting that chart. Your numbers also agree with my previous post where I used the rule-of-thumb that you need to sit at a distance that is no more than 3X the height of an HDTV in order to see the full resolution of a 1080p source. Studies have shown that most people sit at about nine feet from their TVs. That means you'd need to have an HDTV with a height of 36 inches (3 feet) to watch 1080p in its full glory. Thus for a 16:9 aspect ratio that works out to a TV that is 64 inches wide and 36 inches tall or a diagonal of 73 inches.
While I get your point, your example is oddly phrased. Your suggesting that in order to appreciate a magazine in its "full glory" you should view it close enough to see the ink pattern
. Buyers should be focused on the other end of the spectrum. Your example is the distance/size where 1080p begins to become insufficient, in that your eyes start to perceive the image as fuzzier then real life. At a 10ft viewing distance you begin to perceive 720p as fuzzier then real life on screens above 50 inches; therefore at 10ft/50"+ 1080p is the right choice.This is not really true. 1080i content is not equivalent to 1080i displays.
1080i content is best served to a 1080p display. Typical 1080i content splits the source 1080x1920 frame into two fields of 540x1920. On a 1080p display these are recombined into the individual 1080x1920 frames of the source material and then displayed properly at a progressive 30 FPS.
True 1080i displays are not really made any longer. These were bulky HD CRTs and rear projection displays. Most current displays that list support for 1080i just except the signal and stretch it to fit a 768p flat panel. A True 1080i display will exhibit interlacing artifacts making the 1080i content look worse then the source material.
In practical terms the difference in 1080i vs 1080p content is the max frame rate of 1080i is 30 FPS on a 1080p display. There are other differences in things like color range, but don't get hung up on that. Unless we are talking about 60 FPS sporting events, 1080i broadcasts are essentially as good as 1080p.
Keep in mind that many early 1080p screens did not even have 1080p inputs. They existed simply because they could display 1080i content far better then a 1080i display.
In summary, if your seating distance and screen size call for 1080p, any lesser TV will be tangibly worse for 1080p or 1080i content.
Don't forget digital pictures or internet content
There are a lot of arguments that are very theoretical, and of course things like bitrate and viewing distance etc., are quite valid to consider. And for sure the end results are very much in the eye of the beholder. I just want to add a few words about content that is going to be watched. Think about this before you buy, or compare...
While I agree with many people that for movies standard definition (upscaled) content is still very watchable on a smaller size LCD, and that 720p is totally fine, I do want to add that I am extremely happy with watching my digital pictures on a 40 inch, 1080p LCD. It's great coming home from a day outdoors, and watch pictures in crisp detail. It's like watching my old slides projected on a big screen. Digital pictures do get scaled down of course, but I do see a difference if I set the display to 720p vs 1080p. Displayed websites are even more obvious, and are much crisper with the 1080p setting (duh).
Choosing a display size and resolution depends on if you just want to watch movies, or if you are going to use your screen for internet browsing (where resolution becomes very important and very noticeable), or watching your digital pictures.
My idea is, think ahead about what content you will watch, or may be watching in the future. If you can afford to get the best resolution now, you will enjoy it that much longer, and will not worry if you have bought the right thing. Well... at least not for a while.
There are a lot of arguments that are very theoretical, and of course things like bitrate and viewing distance etc., are quite valid to consider. And for sure the end results are very much in the eye of the beholder. I just want to add a few words about content that is going to be watched. Think about this before you buy, or compare...
While I agree with many people that for movies standard definition (upscaled) content is still very watchable on a smaller size LCD, and that 720p is totally fine, I do want to add that I am extremely happy with watching my digital pictures on a 40 inch, 1080p LCD. It's great coming home from a day outdoors, and watch pictures in crisp detail. It's like watching my old slides projected on a big screen. Digital pictures do get scaled down of course, but I do see a difference if I set the display to 720p vs 1080p. Displayed websites are even more obvious, and are much crisper with the 1080p setting (duh).
Choosing a display size and resolution depends on if you just want to watch movies, or if you are going to use your screen for internet browsing (where resolution becomes very important and very noticeable), or watching your digital pictures.
My idea is, think ahead about what content you will watch, or may be watching in the future. If you can afford to get the best resolution now, you will enjoy it that much longer, and will not worry if you have bought the right thing. Well... at least not for a while.
It's less obvious than you may think. This sounds like more of an issue with 1:1 pixel mapping. If possible, you should always feed a fixed pixel display with its native resolution. If your display is a native 1080p and you feed it 720p, each pixel has to be stretched to map the closest set physical pixel. Blurring is then applied to avoid artifacting. The resulting loss in fidelity creates an image that looks significantly worse then native 720p. In general this looks OK for images and video, but can make small text far more blurry then the resolution would suggest.
Is it possible (using the unofficial aTV software or XMBC or whatever) to playback 1080p files in 720p resolution? I don't mind not having 1080p output, but I would like to playback my 1080p stuff in 720p. Is that possible? and if so.. which formats?
Just yesterday at Best Buy, the guy said that they ran an in store test with Blu Ray players hooked up to two 42" TVs (Same brand). No one in the store could tell the difference from any viewing angle or distance.
FWIW. Remember, Best Buy knows the most about everything! Their word is golden! (sarcasm noted).
FWIW. Remember, Best Buy knows the most about everything! Their word is golden! (sarcasm noted).
bing bing! you've hit it on the head i reckon.
if you dont compress the BD movie at all and keep it at 720p it would look quite nice i imagine!!
tbh though, i only use 1080p where i can (uncompressed of course)
You couldn't be more correct. Just for kicks I made a true 1080p movie in hb at 1000 kbps. Looks like crap .. but is truly 1080p. 720p / 1080p refers of course to the frame size. What you fill it with is a whole 'nother matter entirely.
Yes, it's possible but the aTV is not very powerful. It can only play back low bit-rate basic-profile 1080p files without severe frame dropping.
In practical terms, it's not worth it since most files will not playback smooth.
And for the record I agree with the previous posters. Bit-Rate is by far the most important factor when determining the quality of compressed video. If your files are under 8GB for a 2 hour movie, compression will outweigh any benefit from 1080p resolution.
dont be so rediculous! the
TV is capable of decoding FULL 1080p HD CONTENT.apple just wants you to think that it cant
the
Sure it can decode 1080p, it just can't do it in real time!
YMMV
Sure it can decode 1080p, it just can't do it in real time!
YMMV
the 7300 is more then capable of decoding on the fly. purevideo anybody?