Can your TV easily switch resolution between 1080i and 1080p. If so, switch back and forth between i and p and see if you can notice a difference with the same Pixar Blu Ray. I've tried the experiment. I think a lot of credit given to the resolution of 1080p is actually due to a well mastered source and good equipment.
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.
Future 1080p?
- Thread starter haze
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can your TV easily switch resolution between 1080i and 1080p. If so, switch back and forth between i and p and see if you can notice a difference with the same Pixar Blu Ray. I've tried the experiment. I think a lot of credit given to the resolution of 1080p is actually due to a well mastered source and good equipment.
No, 1080p is not a "gimmick" by definition. However, retailers do try and oversell it by convincing average consumers that they need it... when they don't. Not by a long shot. The thing people never consider when deciding on the resolution of screen they need, is the distance they sit from said screen! The distance you sit is JUST as important as the resolution of the screen.
Most people don't sit close enough to their TV to see any benefit from 1080p over 720p. In general, unless you're building a home theatre, or sit abnormally close to your TV during normal use... you will NEVER see a difference between 720p and 1080p. The human eye simply can't resolve the difference between the two at normal viewing distances.
For example, if you have a 50" set, and you're sitting more than 7-8 feet away (most people would sit more than 10) you will not see ANY DIFFERENCE between 1080 and 720. Your eyes physically can't resolve the difference. It's kind of like taking a wallet-size photo with a 12mp camera and hoping to see a resolution difference between that and a 4mp camera. Ain't going to happen.
This chart might give you a better idea of what I'm talking about:
![resolution_chart.jpg]()
Bottom line... 90% of customers probably won't see any benefit whatsoever from 1080p. Analyze the chart and make your own assessment. Depending on how close you sit, how big your screen is, etc. you might. If you're in the market for a set, I recommend you go to the store yourself and find two tv sets which are identical models except for resolution. Start at about 25' back, and walk forward until you think you can see a resolution difference. And then, when you think you start seeing a difference, glance at the price tags on the set. 720p sets are usually around 50-70% of the price of their identical 1080p counterparts.
Personally, I did this... and couldn't see a difference (on a 50" set) until around 6' or so. Needless to say, now I have AppleTV hooked up to my 720 Panny Plasma, and it looks GORGEOUS! Absolutely perfect.
---
Here are what I consider to be the most important features for image quality on new HDTV sets. 5 and 6 are debatable. you could switch them, I suppose.
(Most Important)
1. High Quality Source
2. Contrast Ratio (brilliant whites, deep blacks)
3. Refresh Rate (LCDs Only)
4. Color Saturation
5. Color Accuracy
6. Resolution
(Least Important)
This post is excellent and I 100% agree.
A very nice chart.
I realize that this is an old post, but could you possibly extend the nature of that chart to include Super Hi-Vision?
That is, 7680x4320, or 4320p.
This is graph shows the relative size between the different resolutions. And basically every resolution ever...
Http://clancemasterj.net/dropbox/DisplayResolutions.pdf
Http://clancemasterj.net/dropbox/DisplayResolutions.pdf
so I need the 2ghz with 3gb ram? It wont to with a 1.83ghz with 3ram?
thx again for fast respons!
I'm sure the 1.83 gHz model will work with some Blu-ray rips and it should work fine with all (or almost all) transcodes to m4v using Handbrake. The advantage of the 2 gHz processor (besides its speed) is its 4 mb cache, which is twice that of the 1.83. I cannot tell you more because I don't have a 1.83 model.
Find me a camera that shoots "Super Hi-Vision."
"2460p ought to be enough for anyone..."
The point is not precedence. The point is innovation.
And you don't need quotation marks; that's the official name.
My issue with 720 vs 1080 for the ATV is about future-proofing. I really like how HD movies purchased through ATV / iTunes comes with a low-res version for my iPhone, and that it shows up as one movie in the menus. I haven't bought many movies this way, however, because I plan to install a monster screen in my new house and so I want as higher resolution as possible for when that happens.
So, when Apple puts Blu Ray compatibility into Snow Leopard, which is the rumour, I should be able to rip Blu Ray content at 1080p. But that's only worthwhile if I can play it through my ATV - which I can't right now until they the hardware.
I understand the bandwidth issue for downloading 1080p movies. I just hope that Apple upgrade the ATV hardware to be able to play 1080p when they add Blu Ray support to Snow Leopard.
So, when Apple puts Blu Ray compatibility into Snow Leopard, which is the rumour, I should be able to rip Blu Ray content at 1080p. But that's only worthwhile if I can play it through my ATV - which I can't right now until they the hardware.
I understand the bandwidth issue for downloading 1080p movies. I just hope that Apple upgrade the ATV hardware to be able to play 1080p when they add Blu Ray support to Snow Leopard.
How does having Blu-Ray support in Mac OS X fix anything? Current OS X plays DVDs but there's no Apple solution to get your DVD movie onto an AppleTV. I highly doubt there will be one for Blu-Ray.
I use Handbrake to rip DVDs to iTunes from where I can sync or stream to my ATV. There is a work around for ripping Blu Ray to a Mac, but it involves using Windows at some point for Blu Ray functionality, and sounds like a large ball-ache.
As and when Mac OS X supports Blu Ray, it'll be possible to rip Blu Ray directly on the Mac. What I don't know is whether iTunes can stream a 1080p file to the ATV in a format it can play (converting on the fly), or if it will have to be ripped in 720p. The latter defeats my purpose, unless they come out with a 1080p compatible ATV.
It's your basic cat-herd.
In the display settings of the most 2.3.1 there is a new setting for the display at 1080p. It used to only go up to 1080i. What do u all make of that? Is that only the output resolution as opposed to the input resolution?
I think Apple is trying to build a user base by keeping the price of the equipment down. Also their primary reason for selling the ATV is so they can rent movies to you and they don't want to have to use the bandwidth to send 1080P movies over the Internet. Put another way: Apple has no 1024 content to sell so why make a 1024 ATV?
I think Apple has it wrong. There are likely many people holding off and not buying an ATV until a 1024p version is available. I know I'm one of them.
Find me a camera that shoots "Super Hi-Vision."
I just want to make a slide show of my still photos and have them displayed on a screen with all the resolution that my camera captured. I can't do that even with a 1080P screen.
Currently I shoot with a 6MP DSLR that makes images that are 3,000 pixels across. This is about 3x more than 1080P.
But many of my images were shot on film which has an effective resolution of about 6,000 pixels across (good 35mm film images are about the same as a 24MP digital sensor)
And then I have some scans from medium format film. It would be nice if the on-screen images looked as good as same size prints made with an optical enlarger in a darkroom.
I think his point was that even now that Apple has DVD support and ability to play DVDs, Apple doesn't offer a way to rip DVDs so why would the inclusion of Blu Ray support in Snow Leopard mean that you would be able to rip Blu Rays?
1080p has been there in the display settings since at least 2.3 and maybe back to 2.2.
Yes, its the ouput resolution, has nothing to do with input.
Just FYI, I have a 46" 120Hz 1080p Samsung, and it's great. Got it for about $1,700, but when we looked at Best Buy last week, it was down to $1,499.
We also just bought a last-year's Philips, 47" 120Hz 1080p, at Sam's Club, for $1,294. The black levels aren't the best in the world, but unless you're some graphics whore or avid movie watcher, it won't matter a bit (especially at that price). And, it only uses the energy of a single incandescent lightbulb!
I just got a new Samsung 720p television and I can easily tell the "imperfections" of 720p output. It's still an amazing picture, but I pop the same BD into an older player hooked up to a much better 1080p TV and...wow. I can even tell the difference between the HD broadcasts, which are compressed, and the BD movies, which aren't. This doesn't make the compressed video bad, but the uncompressed is just better.
As far as 1080p video on ATV, first Apple needs 720p movies for purchase. I don't plan to purchase any (because I know they're gonna be $25 for new releases), but this whole video downloading as a viable alternative to discs isn't even off the ground yet. I think the studios are loving the DRM on Blu-ray Disc and therefore not quite as worried about needing to sell their content everywhere.
Definitely still compressed... significantly LESS compressed than HD broadcast TV.
In the United States, the ATSC standard allows 1080p24 and 1080p30 video. In practice, 1080p is EXTREMELY rare in broadcasting, as all major networks use a 60 Hz format in the MPEG-2 header – either 720p60 or 1080i60, and the consumer televisions do not support codecs needed to support 1080p50 or 1080p60 as of yet.
In the production world:
A new high-definition progressive scan format is not available for picture creation, but is currently being developed to operate at 1080p at 50 or 60 frames per second.[3][6] This format will require a whole new range of studio equipment including cameras, storage, edit and contribution links (such as Dual-link HD-SDI and 3G-SDI) as it has doubled the data rate of current 50 or 60 fields interlaced 1920 × 1080 from 1.485 Gbit/s to nominally 3 Gbit/s. It is unable to be broadcast in a compressed transmission to legacy MPEG-2 based HD receivers. This format will improve final pictures because of the benefits of "oversampling" and removal of interlacing artifacts.
So again how are you managing to watch the Olympics at FullHD 1080p60? if its on a HDTV then no 1080p30, if its on a computer monitor/LCD then you'd get the 1080p60 but the signal coming in (again due to hardware/bandwidth) isnt 1080p60. But you're right 1080i is 540 odd/even alternating lines of resolution displayed at 60 fps, 1080P however is all 1080 lines at 30fps again due to bandwidth/codec restrictions. If you are watching sports even on your spiffy new 1080p Full HD TV the signal coming in through your cable/satellite are much lower 720p60 (presumably 60 since its considered high motion) and then upscale'd to your 1080p set.