# Can you really see the difference between 480P and 1080I on the 921.



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

I have tried both settings when viewing HD materials and have not really seen that much of a difference in the viewed picture when doing an A to B comparasion, just a great picture! I do have a Sony 61HS30, which is 4x3. I display my image as if I had a 16x9 set and view the picture in stretch mode. That allows me to view with the set's full viewing area, in other words I have a full 4x3 picture with no distortion. The only thing that bothers me is when friends come to my house and say what a great HD picture I have and I tell them it's really a 480P image (DVD type) they are viewing.  Then I show them the 1080i image and they all say that they prefer the 480P image, since it provides more picture. So if you have a 4x3 set do your own test and let me know if you really see THAT much of a difference to justify losing the top and bottom of your picture, but remember it's really not HD. :nono:


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

I'm not sure I follow. Why would you buy a $1000 HD receiver and then use it with a television which isn't really a true HD set? It seems wasteful, and seems like you're not really getting the picture benefits of HD (which is essentially what you and your friends are saying!).

On a high end 16x9 set, yes, you can usually tell the difference between 480p and 720p/1080i, assuming the source content is not just up-converted.


----------



## xgrep (Aug 15, 2002)

Have to agree with the previous comments, but ...

I currently don't have an HD display (other than the 17" flatpanel on my Mac), yet I have a Comcast HD cable box. There is a visible difference in PQ on channels that broadcast true HD content, vs those that broadcast upsampled SD material at HD res, vs those that broadcast at SD res (i.e., normal digital television as on cable or satellite), vs analog (not always terrible, though always NTSC color noise).

So even on a conventional TV (using S-video), the relative quality of these different modes is what you'd expect and can more easily see on an HD display. At least for the most part: there are times when somebody squeezed the bit rate down on HD to where pixelation is evident, while some SD material is rock solid and clean. And sometimes pixelation on SD is annoying, while analog is fine. These flaws are even more annoying with an HD display, as many have reported. But I can still appreciate the true HD content, and can't wait to get an HD display.

x


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Slordak - In the early days of HD, there were plenty of 4:3 1080i-capable sets manufactured. (They still do, actually.) And, you should know that physical screen ratio and resolution are _two entirely different things_, totally independant of each other.

OTOH, it does sound like jcord51's model is not HD. That is why it looks better when the receiver is set to 480p. The 480p setting is also better when using one of the SD outputs, and/or if the program itself is SD, eben on an HD model.


----------



## sampatterson (Aug 27, 2002)

I can tell the difference on my plasma and on my projector. 480p is not near as crisp as 1080i or 720p on HD feeds. SD feeds mostly because of Dish's overcompression don't look that great on any setting.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Since most HD ready sets have line doublers, it's not too surprising that some folks can't tell the difference between 480P and 1080i, particularly if they can't do simultaneous A-B comparisons. It's difficult to make A-B judgements unless you can do side by side comparisons (and reversing the settings on the two sets in order to rule out differences between the two sets). Even then, you'd want to use Avia or perhaps the HDNet test pattern to calibrate the two sets.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

I see day and night difference between the two on my 921.


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

Let me clear somethings up. The 61HS30 IS a 4x3 HDTV ready set (three years old) and does provide a line doubler of sorts. The setup I have does use the componest inputs. The picture at 480i (the non HD Channels) look ordinary, it's when I tune in a HD channel that the picture looks great! Why did I spend $1000...because I wanted to receive a better picture via HD. I was just glad that the picture looks great at 480P. My post is geared to those that have a 4x3 HDTV and have wondered if they too have their sets setup in the same way as mine. Both my neighbor and my sister have the new 70XBR950 16x9 LCDs, so I do know what a good HDTV should look like and mine looks great for just a 4x3 projection set.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

When they were still available, some people opted for the 4:3 ratio HD sets due to a slight price advantage, and because the great majority of programming content is still originated in a 4:3 SD format. I considered those factors myself before I decided to go widescreen. 

Properly calibrated, 4:3 HD sets are capable of displaying a picture every bit as good as a 16:9 widescreen set.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Nick said:


> When they were still available, some people opted for the 4:3 ratio HD sets due to a slight price advantage, and because the great majority of programming content is still originated in a 4:3 SD format. I considered those factors myself before I decided to go widescreen.
> 
> Properly calibrated, 4:3 HD sets are capable of displaying a picture every bit as good as a 16:9 widescreen set.


4:3 HDTV monitors are still available, and generally at a lower price than WS sets. I considered getting a RS projection receiver and abandoned it for my 32" 4:3 Sony due to concerns over burnin. 
It's interesting to note that all the currently available set types have some drawbacks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see these as disadvantages of the various technologies.  
With direct view CRT receivers, it's weight and size. With RP projectors, it's burnin, size and brightness falloff when viewed at an angle. With Plasma, it's burnin and heat. With LCD, it's bad pixels and cost. With DLP, it's size (compared to LCD & Plasma), bulb life/cost and reportedly some picture breakup with fast moving subjects. Comments/corrections?


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

All I really wanted to say is, if you have a 4x3 HDTV with Dish's 921, try setting the 921 receiver as if you have a 16x9 and select 480P. Stretch the picture and do not switch to SD. You now have a picture without the black up and down bars. At 61" diagonal my picture is larger than say that of a 70XBR950 (costing almost $7000) if you measured from top to bottom of couse not diagonally. Just try it and see.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Cholly said:


> With direct view CRT receivers, it's weight and size. With RP projectors, it's burnin, size and brightness falloff when viewed at an angle. With Plasma, it's burnin and heat. With LCD, it's bad pixels and cost. With DLP, it's size (compared to LCD & Plasma), bulb life/cost and reportedly some picture breakup with fast moving subjects. Comments/corrections?


-Direct View also have burn-in issues.

-LCD can mean LCD panel, LCD front projector, or LCD rear projector. LCD front projector, IMO, is the best value of the three from a cost/size ratio.

-DLP can be either front projector or rear projector, as well. DLP front projectors have an advantage for the same price/size value as LCD. And, also because less expensive DLP projectors, the kind used in DLP RP sets, have the motion issues you mention. The more expensive ones, generally only available as FP, do not.

In general, if one has the space, front projectors are the best displays for home theater usage.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Gary: I agree with you on all points. I guess I oversimplified a bit. Regarding burnin on direct view CRT receivers, it's much less of an issue than with CRT projection receivers and plasmas.
Personally, I'd be thrilled to have a front projector. Unfortunately, the converted bedroom in which I have my HT won't allow for it (Due to room parameters, I'm forced to have my TV on a long wall rather than short wall. Hardly an ideal setup, and viewing distance is extremely short -- of the order of 7 feet. Yikes!). My living room and (basement) family room are poorly suited for HT usage, so I gotta live with what I have.
I can't emphasize too much the problem of heat with plasma receivers. It's extremely important to provide good air circulation around them. There have been at least a few iinstances where poorly ventillated plasma receivers that were left turned on continuously have caught fire. I don't know any specifics on heat output of a plasma receiver vs. a CRT receiver, but in feeling the heat coming off a 42 inch plasma receiver in a local Wal-Mart and comparing it to a nearby 32" direct view CRT and even a few RP CRT receivers, the difference is considerable. The plasma sure does have a purty picture, tho!


----------



## jmbrooks (Jan 11, 2004)

I am on my second CRT based HD RPTV and have yet to have any issues with burn-in or viewing angles. I mean you really have to be way off center to begin to lose PQ in my experience. It certainly won't be a problem in most living rooms.

BTW my first RP HD ready TV was 4x3.

jcord51, you should be getting full 1080i resolution, be sure to go through the TV's setup. My first one had the option of choosing whether the device on the component inputs was DVD or HDTV, if set to DVD then the max res was 480p. Be sure to investigate this fully it is definately worth the trouble. Contact the manufacturer and ask for tech support if you have to. Don't just settle, your TV viewing time is worth more than that, especially with that $1000 HD DVR.


----------



## Jordan420 (Nov 11, 2003)

since you can't see a difference would you want to trade your 921 for my 721?


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

Jordan420 I already have a 508 and believe me I know the difference between the two as far as picture quality goes. I originally had the unit setup at 1080i but when I switched to 480P I had a larger picture, that filled my 4x3 61" TV without the borders and looks just great.


----------



## Ddavis (Jan 15, 2004)

Let me try, 480P and 480I is SD and native 4x3, so it matches your 4x3 TV. 720P and 1080I is HD and native 16x9, so it does not match your 4x3 TV. For native 16x9 HD, you will have bars at the top and bottom. You could use the Stretch and various Zoom settings to fill your screen.


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

Ddavis, Leave your 4x3 set in HD mode then go into you menu screen and and pick 480P mode. I have a 921 so I really don't know too much about haw this will work using the 811. Please look at the beginning of my posts that will explain what I've done. The 921 will not automatically switch to SD mode when you chose 480P but will remain in the HD mode, it's only when you change to 480I that it will change to SD mode.


----------



## laker (Dec 19, 2003)

On my 16x9 , the 1080i display is considerably better than the 480p. However, I can't notice the difference between the 1080 and 720 displays - perhaps it depends on content (film vs tape content). I use 1080 because most posts recommend it.


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

I have my 921 connected to a Hitachi 32udx10sa HDTV through the component outputs. It is a 4:3 CRT that can display 1080i and 720p as well as 480p. On a 32" screen the difference between 1080i or 720p and 480p is very slight. On the HDNET test pattern I can see the difference, but on program material I have not been able to see it. I keep the 921 set to 480p since the stretch and zoom modes when viewing 4:3 material with the 921 set to 1080i or 720p don't work very well.


----------



## laker (Dec 19, 2003)

paulcdavis said:


> I have my 921 connected to a Hitachi 32udx10sa HDTV through the component outputs. It is a 4:3 CRT that can display 1080i and 720p as well as 480p. On a 32" screen the difference between 1080i or 720p and 480p is very slight. On the HDNET test pattern I can see the difference, but on program material I have not been able to see it. I keep the 921 set to 480p since the stetch and zoom modes when viewing 4:3 material with the 921 set to 1080i or 720p don't work very well.


As dumb as it sounds - is the HDNET test pattern on the HDNET channel? I've never seen it.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

laker said:


> As dumb as it sounds - is the HDNET test pattern on the HDNET channel? I've never seen it.


Last I checked it's on at 08:00 Eastern time for 10 minutes on Tuesday mornings.


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

paulcdavis said:


> I have my 921 connected to a Hitachi 32udx10sa HDTV through the component outputs. It is a 4:3 CRT that can display 1080i and 720p as well as 480p. On a 32" screen the difference between 1080i or 720p and 480p is very slight. On the HDNET test pattern I can see the difference, but on program material I have not been able to see it. I keep the 921 set to 480p since the stetch and zoom modes when viewing 4:3 material with the 921 set to 1080i or 720p don't work very well.


I'm glad that you agree with my findings and that even if there is a difference in picture quality it's not worth watching in 1080i or 720p since one loses the realestate on a 4x3 monitor. One thing that I have surmised is that the majority of 921 owners have the unit married to a 16x9 monitor. For those that want the large the large display 16x9 monitors and can not affors the prices (or just are waiting til the prices fall) you can get great prices on large 4x3 monitors and do what paulcdavis and myself are doing to take advantage of the better picture that HD offers. You must remember that the 4x3 set must be HD ready and have Component inputs.


----------



## jcord51 (Feb 1, 2003)

boylehome, Please reread my posts, I'm talking about monitors that are 4x3. That is not what you have on your Avatar.


----------

