# 720p Vs. 1080p programming



## dstorm (Mar 25, 2008)

Need some help here and hoping I can gain some insight. Purchasing first HDTV set - Opting for Plasma 46" or 50" - Trying to decide whether to save the $300-$400 with a 720p vs. a 1080p. 

I had been set on a 1080p - going for highest quality out there - but after doing a bit of research it appears most programming is transmitted in 720P and I've read several articles that say for a 50" set or less from the correct viewing distance there is little to no difference between the 2 even when the program is transmitted in 1080p. 

I'm also curious about the up-conversion for non-HD programming. some claim it looks better on a 720p vs. 1080p -

I also wonder about how much specific Direct TV programming will even be transmitted in 1080p over the next 5 years (I realize some VOD is there already, but what about some of the major sports providers? ESPN, etc) - And back to my earlier point, does it even matter if I have a screen 50" or less watching from approx 10 feet?

Any opinions / expertise would be greatly appreciated - I'm making the plunge specifically with SuperBowl, Olympics, World Cup on the horizon - so Sports and satellite programming is my primary focus rather than blue ray movies. Don't necessarily want to replace my current DVD collection. 

Thanks.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

This is gonna have a whole lot of opinions.

I would recommend getting the 1080p set. DirecTV has 1080p content now and alot of channels are broadcasting in 1080i...not to mention that the amount of content for 1080i/p will just increase as time goes on. 

Heck, my current TV is a 50"/1080p/THX Certified plasma and it going for <$1400.

You should be able to find both LCD and plasma, in 1080p, for a decent price. IMHO, it will be well worth it.

My 2¢ FWIW. 

Mike


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dstorm said:


> does it even matter if I have a screen 50" or less watching from approx 10 feet?


1080p starts to become noticeable on a 50" set at about the 9' mark. So, you're right at the cut off point. That being said, if I were buying a 50" display, I'd certainly opt for 1080p. You may decide on Blu Ray in the future and you may decide at some point to move a bit closer to your display. Either way, you still might see the difference on 720p and 1080i TV when it's upconverted to 1080p via your display.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

i would get the 1080P. While now it might not that be as big as an advantage you might be happy in a couple years that you spent the extra money.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

If you go for 1080p, make sure that it is capable of 24 frames/second. Some of them (mostly older models) only do 60 fps and aren't compatible with Directv (they will work at 1080i or 720p). Directv uses 24 fps because that is the native frame rate of movies (which is the only 1080p programming they currently furnish). 

Most HD channels are 1080i, but ABC (including ESPN) and Fox use 720p.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

How good is your eyesight? Is your vision acute enough to notice, let alone appreciate or benefit from the slight difference between the two resolutions?

I wear corrective lenses and every year I need a new prescription because my eyesight changes over those 12 months. So a few months after I get my glasses they are not providing me with 100% correction, i.e. my vision is not being corrected to 20/20 and the difference between 720p and 1080i or 1080p is wasted on me. I am not equipped to notice the difference let alone be profoundly affected by it. I'm not walking around in a blur but I know my visual acuity while correccted and acceptable is still less than perfect. 

And as you stated, much HD content is being delivered in 720p in the first place (Fox, ABC, ESPN). Very little content is even delivered in 1080p at present and by the time it becomes mainstream the cost of a1080p set will have fallen. You may very well be ready for your second HDTV by then as well.

Go to a store and look at 720p, 1080i and 1080p side by side and decide if you see a pronounced difference (or any difference) that is worth a few hundred dollars to you. If you do see a difference then spend the money. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. Don't be intimidated into not enjoying something merely because it does not have the latest and greatest numbers.

Why spend a few hundred dollars extra for something that would very likely make no difference to you? If you cannot physically discern the difference then numbers are meaningless and 1080p is just a number. A lot of people are slaves to those kinds of numbers for no other reason than to say they have the "best". 

God help those folks when 2160p hits the market. That's right...2160p. A few sets whith that resolution already exist although the cost is prohibitive. So far the only selling point I've heard to justify it is that you can split it into 4 screens of 1080p resolution...yippee. Chasing the latest, greatest "spec" is a fools folly. Specs change and improve constantly. It's like buying a computer. Pick your poison, buy it today and accept the idea that it will be surpassed in short order.

Me personally, I'd get the 720p. I have a 58" Panasonic Plasma 720p (TH-58PX60U) and I am completely satsified with it.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else. This is just my opinion. I cannot say what is "worth it" to you. Only what is worth it to me.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

One word, 1080p.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dstorm said:


> Need some help here and hoping I can gain some insight. Purchasing first HDTV set - Opting for Plasma 46" or 50" - Trying to decide whether to save the $300-$400 with a 720p vs. a 1080p.
> 
> I had been set on a 1080p - going for highest quality out there - but after doing a bit of research it appears most programming is transmitted in 720P and I've read several articles that say for a 50" set or less from the correct viewing distance there is little to no difference between the 2 even when the program is transmitted in 1080p.
> 
> ...


Get the 1080p set. And I'd give some real consideration to the plasma sets. I've got $3000 to spend on a new TV and I wouldn't buy a 720p set.

I have five 720p Panny plasmas and one 1080p Panny plasma and the 1080p has the better picture. Not by much, compared to my 50" 720p plasma, but enough to be considered worth the price. Which isn't really much more than the 720p sets.

The one major thing to consider is that all your current DVDs (if they are wide screen) will upgrade on a BD player or a good (Sony) upscaler to 1080/60p which is so much better than 1080i or 720p that I haven't been watching much D* lately. I'm getting my content from NetFlix and usually get the standard DVDs so that my son can watch them on his XBox. After a day of watching DVDs in 1080/60p, I can really see the difference when the wife comes home and I have to switch to D*.

I was out looking at TVs yesterday, went to Costco, and the Sony LCDs actually caught my attention. The 120 hertz sets are clear from all angles. The Sonys were the only ones that I can say that about. I did see a Vizio with 240 hertz that was viewable from all angles (think of a CRT TV). They were playing a BD disc on the Vizio so I still have to see one with a regular broadband source to believe it.

I still have a lot more looking to do, but I'd be surprised if I didn't get another Panny plasma. Or two. 

Rich


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> The one major thing to consider is that all your current DVDs (if they are wide screen) will upgrade on a BD player or a good (Sony) upscaler to 1080/60p which is so much better than 1080i or 720p that I haven't been watching much D* lately. I'm getting my content from NetFlix and usually get the standard DVDs so that my son can watch them on his XBox. After a day of watching DVDs in 1080/60p, I can really see the difference when the wife comes home and I have to switch to D*.
> 
> Rich


Definitely agree. I have two inexpensive Sony upconverting DVD players, one on my 1080p Vizio LCD, and one on my 720p JVC LCoS. The difference is readily apparent. One the Vizio, the PQ is so good I have decided against going BluRay. It is very close to HD. On the 720p JVC, the PQ is very good, but not in the same league as on the 1080p set.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm moving this to the HD displays forum.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There is one and only one way to make this judgement: view examples of your favorite content on your candidate televisions.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that you need to use only the best examples. Not all TV sources are good and the best TV for you may be the one that handles the worst content (old VHS tapes, You Tube) the best.

720p probably isn't going away. It would appear to be the only way to cram two HD streams on a single broadcast channel.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

It's 2010. There is simply no reason to settle for a 768p native resolution for any TV 40" or above (most "720p" TVs actually have an oddball native resolution of 1366x768).

In the future, you may do a number of things with this TV, incluing Blu-Ray movies, computer games, "PC" applications (web browsing, etc.), using a home theater PC (HTPC) or even something we don't know about yet, and having to scale these things to a lower resolution can have a very negative effect; more than you'd have for just watching TV. Considering that most folks keep a TV for 10-20 years, and use it many hours every day, it doesn't make sense not to plan ahead.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

I have a 32" 720P SONY LCD and a 40" 1080P SONY LCD in two different rooms. I purchased the latter (to replace the former) before Christmas (got a great deal at the SONY Outlet Store for NEW Unit) and compared them side by side. With the proper program material, the 1080 set is a better, sharper picture with more detail. 

My experience in the past with different size TVs, from the same manufacturer/series, is that the larger the screen, the less the detail. Not in this case. I don't see any significant difference with programs on FOX, ESPN and other stations who transmit in 720P. But on HDNEt, HD Theatre and others who do transmit in 1080, the difference is significant (at least to me).

YMMV...


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Get 1080p, especially if going plasma. I cannot stand 720p plasmas unless I am really far away since I really can see the screen door type effect they have (you see the pixels).

There is no reason not to go 1080p at this point IMO.


----------



## jess2008 (Jan 21, 2010)

We purchased this stand on Amazon with a little trepidation, having had bad experiences with DIY assembly furniture in the past... especially items made in China. We were very very pleased however with this unit.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Grentz said:


> Get 1080p, especially if going plasma. I cannot stand 720p plasmas unless I am really far away since I really can see the screen door type effect they have (you see the pixels).
> 
> There is no reason not to go 1080p at this point IMO.


I couldn't agree more. I had a 720p plasma, actually 786p, and it down resed 1080i very well but didn't do 720p/480i very well.

1080p is the way to go.

Mike


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> Definitely agree. I have two inexpensive Sony upconverting DVD players, one on my 1080p Vizio LCD, and one on my 720p JVC LCoS. The difference is readily apparent. One the Vizio, the PQ is so good I have decided against going BluRay. It is very close to HD. On the 720p JVC, the PQ is very good, but not in the same league as on the 1080p set.


I agree. I have one BD player and the BD discs do give a better picture, but I find the upscaled standard DVDs to be really good too. Costco is selling the BX2 model right now for $109 and that's less than I paid for my two Sony upscalers a year or two ago. I expect that price to go up next week and might buy one in anticipation of buying that new TV. For that price, I don't see how you can go wrong even if you just use it to upscale standard DVDs. You do really need a 1080p TV to appreciate the 1080/60p (which is HD) upscaling.

Rich


----------



## dstorm (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks all for your advice and recommendations. 

I decided to go with a lower end 1080p and yesterday found a 46" Panasonic Viera for less than $700. That was the best price I could find on similar 720P plasmas so am very happy with the final purchase for what I could afford. 

Next on the list is to upgrade from SD to HD


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dstorm said:


> Thanks all for your advice and recommendations.
> 
> I decided to go with a lower end 1080p and yesterday found a 46" Panasonic Viera for less than $700. That was the best price I could find on similar 720P plasmas so am very happy with the final purchase for what I could afford.
> 
> Next on the list is to upgrade from SD to HD


You'll find that upgrade very rewarding. Buying a 720p at this time is kind of a waste of money. I've gotta unload five of them. Craigslist, here I come. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Even on my 42" 1080i is far more detailed and sharper than 720p. Especially in terms of background detail. 720p football and NASCAR looked positively blurry compared to 1080i, no comparison. 32" and smaller you can get by with 720p. Anything larger get true HD: a 1080p set. And don't forget resale value: a 1080p will get you far more down the road on CL.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I hate that ugly term. 1080p is not Full or True HD at all.

FWIW, 720p should not look blurry or bad at all, you really cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in most cases with good displays. The issue is that many 720p displays are not as good as the 1080p ones out there today...and as I said with plasma, you can see the screen door effect if you are too close. Most 720p plasmas have a lower resolution than actual 720p anyways.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Grentz said:


> I hate that ugly term. 1080p is not Full or True HD at all.
> 
> FWIW, 720p should not look blurry or bad at all, you really cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in most cases with good displays. The issue is that many 720p displays are not as good as the 1080p ones out there today...and as I said with plasma, you can see the screen door effect if you are too close. Most 720p plasmas have a lower resolution than actual 720p anyways.


Most 720p plasmas had a native resolution of 1366x768, slightly *higher* than 720p. Truth of the matter that over the 18-24 mpnths, you will probably start to see the disappearance of 720p sets, especially in the 40" and above models.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Most 720p plasmas had a native resolution of 1366x768, slightly *higher* than 720p. Truth of the matter that over the 18-24 mpnths, you will probably start to see the disappearance of 720p sets, especially in the 40" and above models.


Actually many entry level 720p plasmas were 1,024x768. That is what I was referring too....

In looking around some more though, it looks like the few remaining are mostly 1366x768.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Most 720p plasmas had a native resolution of 1366x768, slightly *higher* than 720p. Truth of the matter that over the 18-24 mpnths, you will probably start to see the disappearance of 720p sets, especially in the 40" and above models.


My five 720p Panny plasmas all look good, especially my 50" set and my 58" set. But when I go from the BD player (either resolution) to those sets, I can see the difference.

I agree with you about the 720ps disappearing soon. I'm surprised that people still buy them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Grentz said:


> I hate that ugly term. 1080p is not Full or True HD at all.
> 
> FWIW, 720p should not look blurry or bad at all, you really cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in most cases with good displays. The issue is that many 720p displays are not as good as the 1080p ones out there today...and as I said with plasma, you can see the screen door effect if you are too close. Most 720p plasmas have a lower resolution than actual 720p anyways.


I'm sitting three feet away from one of my 42" Panny plasmas and I don't see that "screen door" effect.

I'm curious, what is Full or True HD? Could you explain that? Are there resolutions out there that I've missed?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Most 720p plasmas had a native resolution of 1366x768, slightly *higher* than 720p. Truth of the matter that over the 18-24 mpnths, you will probably start to see the disappearance of 720p sets, especially in the 40" and above models.


All five of my 720p sets are 1366x768. Just checked the manuals.

Rich


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Right. 1366x768 is by far the most common native resolution for "720p" sets, though some were 1024x768 and a very few were 1280x720. The problem with 1366x768 is that *all* standard TV resolutions require scaling, either up or down, to fit the panel's native resolution. That's not a huge problem for normal TV content, but very bad for reading text or fine graphics, so they are poor candidates for computer displays.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Perhaps this will help the OP review this in another context (since 720p units also present video in 1080i)...this is from Home Theater Magazine a while ago...

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/#


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I'm sitting three feet away from one of my 42" Panny plasmas and I don't see that "screen door" effect.
> 
> I'm curious, what is Full or True HD? Could you explain that? Are there resolutions out there that I've missed?
> 
> Rich


Full and True HD are marketing terms. Usually referring to 1080p. It really is BS though as there is nothing "True" or "Full" about 1080p HD in comparison to other resolutions of HD. 720p is just as much HD as 1080p is. Plus there are resolutions above 1080p so it is hardly "Full" HD.



BattleZone said:


> Right. 1366x768 is by far the most common native resolution for "720p" sets, though some were 1024x768 and a very few were 1280x720. The problem with 1366x768 is that *all* standard TV resolutions require scaling, either up or down, to fit the panel's native resolution. That's not a huge problem for normal TV content, but very bad for reading text or fine graphics, so they are poor candidates for computer displays.


The thing is that because of overscan, it really does not make a difference. Here is more on that in simple terms:
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/04/21/whats-the-deal-with-1366-x-768/

If using them as a computer display you send a native 1366x768 signal to 720p TVs in most cases so there is no scaling. They are still poor monitors though as 1366x768 is a piss poor resolution as far as how much you can fit on the screen (for a screen the size of most TVs) and for the distances you sit away from the screen when being used as a monitor. Keep in mind a actual WS 19" computer monitor is normally 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps this will help the OP review this in another context (since 720p units also present video in 1080i)...this is from Home Theater Magazine a while ago...
> 
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/#


Adding on to it, as some of the info is lacking info from the latest TV tech out there....

Some (it really should be all, but some don't) 120hz TVs allow the 24 frame signal to be displayed without pulldown. This is because 120 is divisible by 60, 30, AND 24 evenly. Thus it can display each frame for frame and that is how it helps with judder, etc. This is unrelated to other technologies in 120hz and 240hz TVs that create artificial frames (they interpolate frames between actual frames) to increase the frame rate and create a "smoother" image (Motion Flow/Auto Motion Plus). These are the technologies some like and some dislike and that are most apparent when looking at 120hz and 240hz TVs (240hz TVs just build on this by inserting more interpolated frames between actual frames). This tech usually can also be turned off.

The reason 1080p TVs look so much better in many cases is because 720p TVs have a 720 resolution panel (1280x720 or as we showed above 1366x768). 1080p TVs have a 1080 resolution panel that can display 1080i AND 1080p at their native full resolution (1920x1080). Also keep in mind that modern TVs are progressive. Whenever you send an interlaced signal, the TV converts it to progressive.

Another good article:
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

The exception to all of this is 1080p/60. Which displays more info on the screen than any of the other resolutions and is better than 1080i. The problem is there is no 1080p/60 content at this time (besides using a computer and games, but that opens a whole new can of fun). 1080p/24 is the MAX you are going to see from movies and bluray players at this time as that is what they are shot at and can currently support.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Grentz said:


> The thing is that because of overscan, it really does not make a difference. Here is more on that in simple terms:
> http://hd.engadget.com/2006/04/21/whats-the-deal-with-1366-x-768/


I have no overscan on my TVs; I have it turned off as it isn't necessary or desired for what I do, which includes using my TV as a computer display.

I know what you're saying, but *my* sets are set for 1:1 pixel mapping.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> I have no overscan on my TVs; I have it turned off as it isn't necessary or desired for what I do, which includes using my TV as a computer display.
> 
> I know what you're saying, but *my* sets are set for 1:1 pixel mapping.


Still, with all the other scaling going on in most cases, 1280x720 to 1366x768 is going to be pretty much, if not completely, unnoticeable on most TVs with half decent scalers in them.

IMO the simple advice is to just get a 1080p set if you can swing the little price difference.


----------

