[waxxy]

its been popping my head wether to buy a 1080p or 720p and wether id actually notice the difference. my living room is pretty small its only 3.5 m by 4.5m so i needed to know if it will be worth the money.to be honest it would be nice getting a 1080p but i personally think it maybe better waiting until the prices drop which they will in a year or two but if you want one now and cant wait i found a easy to understand well explained review on wether youl need it or if it would be a waste of money.

heres the link i hope it will help people out.

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006...p-does-matter/

According to that website, I shouldn't be able to tell the difference between 480 and 720 on my set.

I must have some seriously good eyesight.

[andrewfee]

Are you doing a proper test, or just comparing two different sources altogether?

Basically it means that if you had a 480p native set, a 720p native one and 1080p native set all the same size / at the same distance, fed the same source, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

However, if you're talking about using a 720p native set with a 480p source then yes, you are more likely to see a difference. This isn't because you're seeing more than 480p, but rather 480p doesn't look its full potential as it's being scaled to fit your display. This is why I wouldn't buy a 1080p set unless you're planning on sitting about 4ft from it and using 1080p sources. (if you are using test patterns you'll see the difference on a 40" set around 5ft back, but actual video content isn't that sharp/detailed, so you would have to be closer) If you're about 6ft or so back from it, you're only actually seeing 720p detail, but due to the scaling 720p sources will look worse in comparison on it. (on a 720p native display, 1080p downscaled will look as good as a native 720p source though)

On a 1080p screen, only 1080p will look great, but on a 720p screen both 720p and 1080p sources will. (assuming you're sitting 6/7ft back)

I hope that makes sense...

[scott8629]

I sit around 8.5 feet away, does that mean I can gen stop waiting for the Goodmans 1080P TV as I will not benift?

Scott

[Batch]

Originally Posted by scott8629

I sit around 8.5 feet away, does that mean I can gen stop waiting for the Goodmans 1080P TV as I will not benift?

Scott

I'd say yes. From 8.5ft you wont notice any difference between 1080p and 720p on a 42" screen.

[scott8629]

Originally Posted by Batch

I'd say yes. From 8.5ft you wont notice any difference between 1080p and 720p on a 42" screen.

What 42" 720P screen then?? ARRGHHH

[EazyE]

Originally Posted by scott8629

What 42" 720P screen then?? ARRGHHH

Samsung and Sony do the best ones. You could just get a good 40".

[neilmcl]

Originally Posted by andrewfee

On a 1080p screen, only 1080p will look great, but on a 720p screen both 720p and 1080p sources will. (assuming you're sitting 6/7ft back)

I hope that makes sense...

Considering most broadcast HD source is 1080i and only gaming tends to be in 720p, which you'll tend to be playing close up anyway then I'd say you'd definitely benefit from 1920x1080 screen.

[andrewfee]

Originally Posted by neilmcl

Considering most broadcast HD source is 1080i and only gaming tends to be in 720p, which you'll tend to be playing close up anyway then I'd say you'd definitely benefit from 1920x1080 screen.

Hmm, I guess my explanation wasn't so good, I'll try again. I should point out that I've owned 1080i, 720p and 1080p native screens.

From my own testing, I found that on a 37" 1080p screen, to see the full resolution with a test pattern (alternating black / white pixels for maximum contrast) I had to be within 5ft of the screen. With actual video content, which has lower contrast and tends to be softer, that was closer to 4ft to see the full benefit of 1080p - this was not comfortable in the slightest for me. Any closer than 6ft at this size was too close for comfort, and I preferred 7ft. (where I currently sit from my display)

At this distance, there was no benefit from 1080p, you can basically only see 720p at 7ft back. You can see a difference between the two on a 1080p native set, but that difference is just because 720p is being scaled, not because there is more detail in the 1080p image. (there is, but your eye simply cannot resolve it) After finding this out, I stopped caring about whether or not an LCD was 1080p native or not, and ended up buying a Toshiba 37WLT68, which has a 1366x768 native resolution. (pretty much all you can see at that distance)

The image processing on this set is superior to anything else I've seen, so that alone means that the image in general tends to be better. As it's 720p "native" a 720p signal (my Xbox 360 - which is my main HD source right now) looks better than it did on a 37" 1080p display at this distance. As your eye cannot resolve more than roughly this amount of detail, when sending it a 1080p signal, it looks as good as a native 1080p set at this distance. (better infact, as it has better processing) Not only that, but any artefacting caused by a source being 1080i is going to be minimised by the downscaling process.

This means that I have a TV that looks jaw-dropping with 720p and 1080i/p signals, whereas with a 1080p set would look "great" with 720p and only jaw-dropping with 1080i/p, even though the human eye can only resolve about 720p resolution at this distance. I don't feel the need to sit closer when playing games, as 7ft is close to this size of screen.


What I'm trying to say is don't base your TV purchase on numbers alone. Is 1080p a higher resolution than 720p? Yes, of course it is. But it's not necessarily a better resolution if you're not going to buy a set large enough, or sit close enough, to benefit from it.

[EazyE]

So the KDL40W2000 is actually a waste of money for the majority of consumers for that product? Its a 40" 1080P.

[andrewfee]

I wouldn't say it's a waste of money, the BRAVIAs are fairly good, and their 1366 models (U, S, V) don't accept and scale 1080p signals.

I do think that a lot of people are buying 1080p based on the numbers without taking viewing distance etc into consideration though when they won't see any benefit.

[BYF]

Also just because a TV has a higher resolution say 1080p, that doesn't mean it will have the best picture quality.

1080p/720p is just the number of pixels it has and thats where it ends, it gives no indication of how good the contrast, black detail/depth, colours, motion, viewing angle, quality of scaling and picture processing and overall detail the TV has.

[rjhurst]

I've been planning to buy the Sony 40w2000 for a while. I expect it's worth considering the 1920 x 1080 panels if you are planning to connect a computer to your TV (higher resolution)?

[RottenFox]

its all in the eye of the beholder..ive seen/used a friends samsung 40" tv,and own a goodmans 1080p 42"tv,and have to say,his samsung doenst look as good as mine.
its all subjective,and user preference.

[boingboing]

So forgive me for being thick here, but I'm considering buying a Toshiba 42WLT66 over a Panasonic 42PX60 because the Tosh has more pixels ie 1920x1080 opposed to 1024x768. The Tosh is £1030 and the Panny I can get for £882. I play a fair bit of Xbox 360 and only have Sky+ at the moment but am considering Sky HD. So would one be better than the other or is it personal choice?

[CineManno]

If you sit further then 3 mtr from the 42" screen away, there's no use buying a 1920x1080 screen. Pixel wise that is and based on 100% viewing capability. There are other factors like color, design, motion handling etc.

This thread might be not so nice to read, but quite true. I did some calculations for myself as well, for 100% view or 120% view as measured by your opticien. And such a calculation is based on distinguishing between a white and black pixel, not to mention the smooth color gradients in normal film contents. For a 1920x1080 screen you really have to sit close to the screen to benefit from that.

That doesn't mean some voice in me is not saying '1080p screen is better, isn't it?'. It's just the pure physics saying something else.....

After a very, very long time agonising about whether I should buy my 37" model TV in 1080 (and wait for more models to come out with this spec) or take the plunge now with a 768 model, I think that this short conversation so far on this forum has helped me more than many days of researching! I think I will plunge for the 37wlt68 as long as the comments made by AndrewFee are true. That with a 768 model you get a better deal with this spec of TV than a 1080 (as 1080 will not display 768 as well as 768 will display 1080)? This all also begs the question as to mid term advances - will channels on Sky be in 768 or 1080?

[Slugsy01]

Ok, this is very interesting.

The way my living room is configured, there are two vantage points for my new TV - one at about 6.5ft and another at about 10-11ft.

I was moving towards a Plasma 42" (pio) becuase we watch a lot of movies and SD and sport but would I be better, considering my vantage points and distance going back to thinking about a Sony W?

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by boingboing

So forgive me for being thick here, but I'm considering buying a Toshiba 42WLT66 over a Panasonic 42PX60 because the Tosh has more pixels ie 1920x1080 opposed to 1024x768. The Tosh is £1030 and the Panny I can get for £882. I play a fair bit of Xbox 360 and only have Sky+ at the moment but am considering Sky HD. So would one be better than the other or is it personal choice?

I would say this to summarise:

the closer you sit to the TV and the bigger the TV the more you benefit from 1080 resolution (as this increases you ability to make out individual pixels)

native resolution of your input sources is also important as this has a bearing on the amount of conversion / processing that the TV has to do to fill the screen:

- if you watch Sky HD the native resolution is 1080 so in theory you are reducing the amount of conversion and are receiving the picture as it was transmitted
- if you watch SD tv both 720 and 1080 will require scaling ... some would argue that 1080 is easier to scale to as its near to doubling the number of lines of an SD signal … hard to say what is better
- if you plan to use it as a PC monitor then 1080 has an advantage as you get more detail and scaling is less of a problem (most TVs that accept 720 signals are actually 768 lines which either results in scaling or the full screen not being used) .. 1080 screens are typically better at displaying dot by dot PC signals

Having a 46” 1080 screen and sitting about 7 feet away I can definitely see the difference but I probably wouldn’t if the screen was 37”. I would say:

- 1080p – close up / big screen – amazing picture
- 720p – close up / small screen - great picture
- 1080p – far away / small screen – great picture

P.S. Regarding the Toshiba it does not seem to be as well featured as some of the newer screens. I don’t think it accepts 1080p signals (limited to 1080i … which is Sky HD anyways). It also does not have a dot by dot mode so its not great as a PC monitor. Also, if you plan to game a lot make sure you are aware of the burn in issues with plasmas (although many would say this is not a problem).

[Benedict]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

P.S. Regarding the Toshiba..... It also does not have a dot by dot mode so its not great as a PC monitor.

It does have a dot by dot mode, called Exact Scan, which is available when a 1080i signal is present on either of the HDMI inputs or the component input.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Benedict

It does have a dot by dot mode, called Exact Scan, which is available when a 1080i signal is present on either of the HDMI inputs or the component input.

Sorry about the confusion, I went on the info from memory (about 6 or more months back when the TV first came back and I was interested in it) and at that point it the 1:1 Pixel Mapping info page said 1:1 was not supported.

Perhaps the newer models have been updated in some way as the 1:1 Pixel Mapping info page appears to imply.

http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/Toshiba+TVs

[youngsyp]

Originally Posted by RottenFox

its all in the eye of the beholder..ive seen/used a friends samsung 40" tv,and own a goodmans 1080p 42"tv,and have to say,his samsung doenst look as good as mine.
its all subjective,and user preference.

I agree. You can't say that everyone won't be able to see the difference at differing viewing distances. Everybodies eyes are different, as with picture settings, I feel it's very subjective !
I personally can see the difference between a 720p, 1080i and 1080p image on my Sony 40W and the 1080p image looks far superior (at least on my Xbox 360), in terms of definition, and I sit around 13' away from my display.

[nicp01]

hi grimaldi you say....
"Having a 46” 1080 screen and sitting about 7 feet away I can definitely see the difference but I probably wouldn’t if the screen was 37”."

this sounds just right 4 me, I sit this distance away with my headphones so all the background noise and phone calls dont disturb me so much...do you mind saying which tv it is?? I'll get one..

thks

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by nicp01

hi grimaldi you say....
"Having a 46” 1080 screen and sitting about 7 feet away I can definitely see the difference but I probably wouldn’t if the screen was 37”."

this sounds just right 4 me, I sit this distance away with my headphones so all the background noise and phone calls dont disturb me so much...do you mind saying which tv it is?? I'll get one..

thks

I've now had a couple. The first one was the Sharp 46 XD1E which was a lovely set but suffered from banding and a buzzing noise. After a month I finally sent it back.

I now have a Sony 46W2000. Again, a very good set, however it suffers from backlight bleed which has been documented well within the Sony W Series thread. Apart from the bleed its a great TV.

Both sets have great PQ aside from their faults and there are many owners who have not had those issues. The sets are also well priced for what you get, the Sharp in particular (it can be picked up online for <£1900).