# Another 1080p/1080i/720p discussion, pulled from D11 thread



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...

Currently I just stick with 720p for DirecTV as I did not think the chance for 1080 would happen on DBS, or the "latest" revelation of BSS (that Tom pointed out over a year ago).


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

morgantown said:


> Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...


I doubt it, you're talking about DirecTV halvng their capacity for a marginal picture improvement on panorama stretched HGTV


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

morgantown said:


> Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...
> 
> Currently I just stick with 720p for DirecTV as I did not think the chance for 1080 would happen on DBS, or the "latest" revelation of BSS (that Tom pointed out over a year ago).


You already need a 1080p TV now if you want to display the full resolution of 95% of DirecTV's HD channels (which are broadcast in 1080i). With a 720p set, you are only displaying half of the pixels of resolution that are present in DirecTV's 1080i broadcasts.

As for 1080p broadcasts, the improvement that 1080p offers over 1080i is so marginal, that the doubling of bandwidth that would be required to broadcast 1080p makes such broadcasts from DirecTV very unlikely.


----------



## rotomike (Feb 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You already need a 1080p TV now if you want to display the full resolution of 95% of DirecTV's HD channels (which are broadcast in 1080i). With a 720p set, you are only displaying half of the pixels of resolution that are present in DirecTV's 1080i broadcasts.
> 
> As for 1080p broadcasts, the improvement that 1080p offers over 1080i is so marginal, that the doubling of bandwidth that would be required to broadcast 1080p makes such broadcasts from DirecTV very unlikely.


Lots of DTV channels are broadcast in 720P and 720P is considered to be better by many then 1080i especially with motion. A 720P set will display satellite signal as good as a 1080p in my opinion. I install HD tv's and hi-def Dish and HD Direct all the time and many 1080p sets look horrible in my opinion. Cant beat a Panasonic plasma for the price and even the 720 Panasonics look as good as the 1080ps. I think thats a misleading statement that you "need a 1080p tv or your only seeing half the pixels of resolution" It makes it look like you need a 1080p set but that is wrong. My 720 Panny looks as good or better then any other 1080p set i have installed. Just wanted any readers out there to not run out and waste money on a 1080P set unless you have blu-ray or video games in 1080p. Satellite is either 1080i or 720p.

mike


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"Satellite is either 1080i or 720p" - just today !

Tell me what was on your TV from DTV/Dish 4 years ago ? Did you dreamed that time about HD from sat Co ?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

HelenWeathers said:


> I am in need of education. My understanding of 1080i vs 1080p was that they both required the same basic number of bits of data for a given picture quality but the difference was in how they were "painted" on screen. 1080i had two frames containing 540 lines each (one odd lines and one even lines) that were displayed in an alternating fashion. 1080p had one frame containing 1080 lines that are displayed simultaneously. 2X540=1X1080=same amount of data/bandwidth. Yes? No?


has to do with the number of lines per second. I has half the lines of P because it only uses 540 per sweep, and both us the same number of sweeps per second. P uses 1080 lines per sweep/


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well I hope there doesn't start to be lots of broadcasting in 1080p. All this high tech stuff no matter what I do it is wrong. I got my HD TV last year 1080i. And then this year I see HD TVs in Ads saying 1080p. I can't win


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Dolly said:


> Well I hope there doesn't start to be lots of broadcasting in 1080p. All this high tech stuff no matter what I do it is wrong. I got my HD TV last year 1080i. And then this year I see HD TVs in Ads saying 1080p. I can't win


worry Not. 1080I is still gonna be really really good. 1080P currently is DVD only as near as I can remember


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Dolly said:


> Well I hope there doesn't start to be lots of broadcasting in 1080p. All this high tech stuff no matter what I do it is wrong. I got my HD TV last year 1080i. And then this year I see HD TVs in Ads saying 1080p. I can't win


The only thing you will see in 1080p for a long time is Blu-ray and HD DVD. If we ever see TV broadcast done in 1080p it will be a long time down the road and I doubt we ever see it.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Michael D'Angelo;1646910 said:


> The only thing you will see in 1080p for a long time is Blu-ray and HD DVD. If we ever see TV broadcast done in 1080p it will be a long time down the road and I doubt we ever see it.


I wouldn't be too sure about that (remember the original "leaked" photos of the HR21 Pro that clearly showed a 1080P indicating light), the bandwidth required to broadcast 1080/24P is pretty much the same as 1080/60i so I would not be too surprised to see PPV movies broadcast in 1080/24P...just me speculating of course...


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

bluemoon737 said:


> I wouldn't be too sure about that (remember the original "leaked" photos of the HR21 Pro that clearly showed a 1080P indicating light), the bandwidth required to broadcast 1080/24P is pretty much the same as 1080/60i so I would not be too surprised to see PPV movies broadcast in 1080/24P...just me speculating of course...


The main reason I moved to 1080p last autumn was that I was already downloading the occasional tech piece from the Web that was produced in 1080p.

True, like many, I don't perceive any special difference between 1080i and p - though I wouldn't include 720p in that statement. Still, it's nice to have that capability.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Michael D'Angelo;1646910 said:


> The only thing you will see in 1080p for a long time is Blu-ray and HD DVD.


Also video games. Basically, anything that isn't broadcast.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1080p is not likely in the near future for D11 or DIRECTV. So...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> 1080p is not likely in the near future for D11 or DIRECTV. So...


Tom, you should reconsider that, if you'll count how many years ago wasn't any 720p or 1080i content at DTV or DIsh. So ?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Tom, you should reconsider that, if you'll count how many years ago wasn't any 720p or 1080i content at DTV or DIsh. So ?


Yeah, that would be like 7 or 8 years ago. He said "near future" which means 1-2 years at the very most. And we won't see any 1080p broadcast channels in that timeframe, so Tom is correct.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> P Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Tom, you should reconsider that, if you'll count how many years ago wasn't any 720p or 1080i content at DTV or DIsh. So ?
> ...


And 10 years ago it was in the books, well planned for broadcast and cable alike. 1080p is not.

So now I'll spell it out: lets go back to topic for D11 please. :backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rotomike said:


> Lots of DTV channels are broadcast in 720P and 720P is considered to be better by many then 1080i especially with motion.


You might think that, but take a look at any place where NFL football PQ is discussed and the leader in most discussions is CBS who is offering a 1080i signal.

'nuff said.


----------



## Paul A (Jul 12, 2007)

I'll take every program, every station, 24/7/365 broadcast in 1080i with a decent quality transfer WAY before I would take only some channels broadcast in 1080P. 

If a movie is really special, I'll purchase it on blu-ray.

So, D11, are we there yet??? I can't wait unitil August!!!


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> You might think that, but take a look at any place where NFL football PQ is discussed and the leader in most discussions is CBS who is offering a 1080i signal.
> 
> 'nuff said.


Well, not quite "nuff said." Maybe we should look at an _actual_ source that is a bit less arbitrary.

From CNET:


> ...There are two main HD resolutions in use today by HD broadcasters and other sources: 1080i and 720p. One is not necessarily better than the other; 1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion...
> 
> ...Despite the obvious difference in pixel count, 720p and 1080i both look great. In fact, unless you have a very large television and excellent source material, you'll have a hard time telling the difference between any of the HDTV resolutions. It's especially difficult to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources...
> 
> ...


Not to mention, on _DirecTV_'s mpeg4 channels, they just pass along the resolutions they get.

As for the subject at hand. I wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV started a few new HD channels in July and/or Aug. September will probably be a bigger bang, so to speak, as more HD networks will probably come on line.


----------



## ziltomil (Jan 14, 2008)

"1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion..."

Too bad should doesn't always work out. I've seen ATSC documentation showing 1080i offers a sharper picture during motion than 720p can.

http://www.atsc.org/news_information/papers/1995_acats/tsreport.pdf

________________________________
Anyway, how would Directv integrate this BSS technology into their current plans and hardware?


----------



## dewey (Oct 7, 2007)

jazzyjez said:


> Just as a curious side point... last night I was thinking about the moon and its effect on the earth (tides, etc.) and wondered just how much does it affect the orbit of a satellite such as D11. Getting online this morning, I did a quick search of this thread and saw a few comments that refer to this, but I didn't find anything that says how much of an effect it is.
> Is this something that needs to be routinely corrected every 28 or 14 days, or are DBS allowed to drift because of lunar and other gravitational forces, drag, solar wind(?), and other cumulative errors until such time that a correction has to be made? Perhaps these effects are so small that there are no routine adjustments and they're just done as needed.
> Are there actually rules that define how far a satellite may drift before the FCC step in with a warning, or does it never even come close to that - presumably because there would simply be a customer outcry due to poor reception before that would occur?
> Hey guys - once again, as with D10, this thread is a fascinating read - many thanks to the people that really take the time explaining this (we all know who they are!).


What does this question have to do with 780p vs. 1080i resolution? Stay on topic!  
Seriously, I was hoping for an informed response to this question. thx


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

ziltomil said:


> "1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion..."
> 
> Too bad should doesn't always work out. I've seen ATSC documentation showing 1080i offers a sharper picture during motion than 720p can.
> 
> ...


From the report to which you linked:



> The 720P mode showed no artifacts in tests for motion-compensated overload with horizontal, vertical, or diagonal motion up to 0.8 picture heights per second. The 1080I mode showed no artifacts for horizontal motion, *but did show increasing quantization noise and blockiness for vertical and diagonal motion.*


I believe that the BSS technology would be used for broadband services, perhaps replacing land lines for on demand services?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Start yet another thread for the 720p/1080i diatribe. There are at least 10 lingering out there. Please do not dillute this thread further with a discussion that has been ongoing for years.


Back on topic, I still wonder if the actual (re-)release date for EncoreHD will be a signal for the first use of D11. I don't recall seeing a date more specific than July for this launch. It would be a bit odd for DirecTV not to be the first to carry it, since it is a Malone channel.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

rotomike said:


> Lots of DTV channels are broadcast in 720P and 720P is considered to be better by many then 1080i especially with motion. A 720P set will display satellite signal as good as a 1080p in my opinion.


Actually, when you display a 1080i signal on a 720p set you only have half the pixels of resolution compared to what you would see on a 1080p set. That might be good enough for you in your opinion, but it's not as good as displaying it on a 1080p set since displaying a 1080i signal on a 720p set yields a significantly lower resolution picture.



> I think thats a misleading statement that you "need a 1080p tv or your only seeing half the pixels of resolution" It makes it look like you need a 1080p set but that is wrong.


There is nothing misleading whatsoever about that statement. It is an absolute fact. A 720p set displays half the pixels of resolution that you would see on a 1080i set when watching a 1080i signal.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

STOP THE 1080i v. 720p DEBATE. PLEASE TAKE IT TO PMs!!! 

Geez, you've already been asked obliquely and then again DIRECTLY by a Moderator! What more do you need? 

:backtotop:


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bluemoon737 said:


> I wouldn't be too sure about that (remember the original "leaked" photos of the HR21 Pro that clearly showed a 1080P indicating light), the bandwidth required to broadcast 1080/24P is pretty much the same as 1080/60i so I would not be too surprised to see PPV movies broadcast in 1080/24P...just me speculating of course...


A 24fps movie that is broadcast in 1080i/60 format already contains all the information in the 1080i video that would be present in 1080p/24 video, so it's just a matter of deinterlacing it into a 1080p24 signal.... there is no need to broadcast it as 1080p/24, although there might be some bandwidth savings from doing so.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well while I can't say I understand all this stuff about resolution on a TV. It doesn't sound like I will have to worry about having a worthless TV in the near future. That was my main concern.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Hey, I haven't mentioned my cousin's work at Panavision on quad-hi definition cameras in ages. Who cares about 1080 or 720 in any format, when one can have 7680x4320p ? :lol:


----------



## cekowalski (Aug 19, 2007)

I don't totally get why this is such a huge debate, other than the fact that it is poorly explained, in general, and poorly understood.

Drop the "i" vs. "p" as it doesn't matter with most modern displays. An interlaced picture is de-interlaced on most modern televisions, before it gets displayed. The difference is that in 1080i, you get a 540 line image 60 times per second (which get combined to become a 1080 line image that displays every 1/30th of a second, on modern displays). At 1080p, you get a 1080 line image the displays every 1/60th of a second. Effectively, you're looking at a 1080 line image on 1080i displays, but at a lower frame rate (30 fps) than 1080p (60 fps). That's the only difference.

So do you want 30 frames per second, or 60 frames per second? If bandwidth is no consideration, everyone would say 60. But if every 2nd frame is a repeat of the previous one, do you really care? Films are 24fps. That can't be upconverted unless you speed the film up. So the vast majoriy of Hollywood films don't look any better in 1080p than they do in 1080i.

Movies are 24fps, so the 1080i format has that covered when upconverted to 1080p. In fact, I think Blu-Ray being 1080p(60) is a marketing thing. How can a 1080 line, 24 fps image, look better when reproduced on a 1080 line 60 fps display, vs. a 1080 line 30 fps display?

Now, do you want more HD channels, or more frames per second on the ones you have?

What about this? (and the debate of 720p vs 1080i repeats)... do you want 1080 lines at 60 fps, or 2160 lines at 30 fps?

I think TVs will get bigger yet again, and the next era will bring higher resolutions, not higher frame rates, for most material.

My main thought here -- don't think of this in terms of your circa 1990 CRT computer monitor. Interlacing looks bad on CRT monitors, not LCD or Plasma panels, or even projection LCD/DLP/LCOS. These displays don't "fade" out and cause flicker. The debate is not "flicker" vs. "not flicker." It's frame rate.

1080i vs 1080p is a 30 fps vs. 60 fps debate. So which is more bang for the buck -- more pixels per frame, or more frames per second?

I think the requirements of 1080p, bandwidth-wise, would give birth to a new, lower frame rate, higher resolution format, and the debate will continue.


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

This opinion is purely subjective, but I completely agree with the statement that 1080 is better than 720 just because it can display twice as much detail.

I have two Sony's using the same LCOS technology with rear projection (I deliberately sought out the last of the rear projection runs for cost effectiveness and picture quality -- good decision). Both TVs look great, but the 50" 1080p is significantly better than the 37" 720p despite the screen size increase (which will display flaws more easily). Sitting at 12 feet, the difference is minimal and shows mainly as slightly less crispness in the 720p. At 2 feet (obviously not a viewing distance) you can see why -- the 1080p is drop dead gorgeous with magnificent 3-D effect. At 2 feet, the 720p has lost it's smooth image and is broken up into pixels, dots, screen door effect, whatever. Even with DirecTV broadcasts, I can usually tell when the image is 1080i vs. 720p. (A crappy broadcast will always be crappy and 1080i doesn't make it better.) My decision? I would buy 1080p for a primary system -- especially if the viewing distance will be relatively short (8-10 feet). Any other set becomes more of a price/performance question with the 1080p as the reference point.

I don't buy the 720p for sporting events (high speed action) at all. I think it's more dependent on the quality and speed of the set. 720p just takes advantage of the fact that many sets just aren't good enough to display the difference.


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

Mods - thank you so much for pulling this discussion from the D11 thread! I hesitated to ask about 1080p and BSS, but could not resist. Sorry it ended up in a thread-jack.

For the record - I still have not completely decided which to get for my newly finished rec. room / bar area. Given that people can sit at the bar and be very close richlife's post has me thinking more about 1089p. 

However I'm only looking at a 32" set for the bar part and most people wil be 6' to 30' away which makes me think 720 should be just fine. The "main" TV on the otherhand - I think I'll just wait untill the Fall and get a whopper of a 1080p as it will eventually become the most used TV in the house.

Great discussion and good information. It is always good to get input from folks that are looking at the same DirecTV source as me when comparing TVs.

Thank you to all.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

A few threads where the aspects discussed intensively:

http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=126130
http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=122146
http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=117146
http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=110101
http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103373
and many more.

[Just used Search for "1080p bandwidth"]


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Well I just go by my eyes and after viewing ESPN, ABC, and Fox for a few years now I think 720p sucks.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

rotomike said:


> A 720P set will display satellite signal as good as a 1080p in my opinion. I install HD tv's and hi-def Dish and HD Direct all the time and many 1080p sets look horrible in my opinion. Cant beat a Panasonic plasma for the price and even the 720 Panasonics look as good as the 1080ps.


I must *strongly* disagree with you here.

There is a large and very noticable difference between the picture quality of TVs with native resolutions of 1366x768 (the most common native resolution below "full-HD", and commonly referred to as a "720p" TV) and those at 1920x1080.

I agree that not all content can show the difference, but there is plenty of programming on DirecTV that does, and even more with Blu-Ray and computer content.

IMO, it is much more important to have a TV with a true 1920x1080 native resolution than to worry so much about progressive vs. interlaced (1080p vs. 1080i). Yes, progressive does look slightly better in higher-motion frames IF there is enough bandwidth to prevent compression artifacts. And, yes, because sat broadcasts have limited bandwidth, they often use 720p instead of 1080i for high-motion content. But 720p content looks as good on a 1080 TV as it does on a 720p TV, but the reverse is not true.

And while 1080p satellite or cable broadcasts are at the very, very least a decade or more away, 1080i has been here for years and is the standard for MOST HD content.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Here's some interesting info.



> While 1080i has more scan lines than 720p, they do not translate directly into greater vertical resolution. Interlaced video is usually blurred vertically (filtered) to prevent twitter. Twitter is a flickering of fine horizontal lines in a scene, lines that are so fine that they only occur on a single scan line. Because only half the scan lines are drawn per field, fine horizontal lines may be missing entirely from one of the fields, causing them to flicker. Images are blurred vertically to ensure that no detail is only one scan line in height. Therefore, 1080i material does not deliver 1080 scan lines of vertical resolution. However 1080i provides a 1920-pixel horizontal resolution, greater than 720p's 1280 resolution.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=115434


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

cekowalski said:


> I don't totally get why this is such a huge debate, other than the fact that it is poorly explained, in general, and poorly understood.
> 
> Drop the "i" vs. "p" as it doesn't matter with most modern displays. An interlaced picture is de-interlaced on most modern televisions, before it gets displayed. The difference is that in 1080i, you get a 540 line image 60 times per second (which get combined to become a 1080 line image that displays every 1/30th of a second, on modern displays). At 1080p, you get a 1080 line image the displays every 1/60th of a second. Effectively, you're looking at a 1080 line image on 1080i displays, but at a lower frame rate (30 fps) than 1080p (60 fps). That's the only difference.
> 
> ...


Actually, even in the digital world, there is an issue with interlacing. De-interlacing doesn't just "lien double" the picture. It actually has to interpolate between lines that have different timing. It's that difference in timing between odd and even numbered scan lines that introduces some potential loss of crispness to the picture. Having said that, it's very doubtful that the average consumer watching average HD programming on an average HDTV would even notice. The biggest advantages of 1080i over 720p are two things: One, the increase in horizontal pixel resolution from 1366 to 1920, and two, one less step in converting the resolution since a 1080p HDTV is going to be able to display pixel-for-pixel the incoming 1080i signal, where the 720p signal is going to have to go through a conversion to the native resolution of the screen (likely either 1920x1080 or 1366x768).


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

P Smith said:


> The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
> And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=115434


Really? still looks like vaporware to me. Albeit very sexy vaporware.


----------



## John in Georgia (Sep 24, 2006)

morgantown said:


> Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...
> 
> Currently I just stick with 720p for DirecTV as I did not think the chance for 1080 would happen on DBS, or the "latest" revelation of BSS (that Tom pointed out over a year ago).


I currently have DirecTV HD and Blu-Ray as video sources. I enjoy motion sports and have a 720p CRT and a 1080p DLP. If I were buying today, it would definitely be 1080p.

John


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

cekowalski said:


> So do you want 30 frames per second, or 60 frames per second? If bandwidth is no consideration, everyone would say 60. But if every 2nd frame is a repeat of the previous one, do you really care? Films are 24fps. That can't be upconverted unless you speed the film up. So the vast majoriy of Hollywood films don't look any better in 1080p than they do in 1080i.
> 
> Movies are 24fps, so the 1080i format has that covered when upconverted to 1080p. In fact, I think Blu-Ray being 1080p(60) is a marketing thing. How can a 1080 line, 24 fps image, look better when reproduced on a 1080 line 60 fps display, vs. a 1080 line 30 fps display?


It can't and that's the dirty little secret of 1080p. For the way 1080p is used by most people more than 90% of the time... to watch 24fps film source material on Blu-Ray discs... delivering the video as 1080p provides *ABSOLUTELY ZERO* benefit over delivering it in 1080i, as long as the 1080i video is properly deinterlaced.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.
> 
> So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


REALLY ?!

I would concurr reading Broadcom specs.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.
> 
> So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


Thanks  I still don't understand all this resolution business. I just want to know that the HD TV I just got last year and is still not completely paid for is not going to be a piece of junk any time soon! I'm still stuck with one SD TV as it is  Because it isn't old enough to even think about replacing it yet


----------



## CKNAV (Dec 26, 2005)

P Smith said:


> The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
> And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=115434


Not really a broadcast. They way it is supposed to work is, that films will be downloaded to the DVR.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.
> 
> So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


Did you provide citation for your source ?

Little fact if you're not aware - Blu_ray DVD player use SAME *decoder*.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.
> 
> So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


Did you provide citation for your source ?

Little fact if you're not aware - Blu-Ray DVD players use SAME *decoder*.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Broadcom's BCM7401 is capable of 1080p in 24 and 30 frames per second. So the HR21 DVRs are capable of producing it. Though it comes back to source and if they are programmed to produce it. I think the HDMI port may be 1.1 though, but I don't know if that limits it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact;


The other major fact, is that the majority of consumers sit too far away from their sets (distance vs. screen size ratio) to distinguish between 720p and 1080p anyway.

Everyone wants 1080p because they believe it's the best, but then they sit 10' away from their 50" set and don't realize that they're eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> The other major fact, is that the majority of consumers sit too far away from their sets (distance vs. screen size ratio) to distinguish between 720p and 1080p anyway.
> 
> Everyone wants 1080p because they believe it's the best, but then they sit 10' away from their 50" set and don't realize that they're eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.


I think you nailed the perception between one's eyes and one's brain. :lol:


----------



## jeffman (Sep 9, 2007)

Dolly said:


> Thanks  I just want to know that the HD TV I just got last year and is still not completely paid for is not going to be a piece of junk any time soon!


- If you want some interesting opinions tell us the make and model.

- It was obsolete the day you bought it.

- Seriously though...if YOU think it looks good, and YOU enjoy it. Who cares what your peers think.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Draconis said:


> Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite *decoder* chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.
> 
> So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


a) you stated not a fact

b) "satellite providers are already preparing to offer full HD channels in the next few years"


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

P Smith said:


> a"satellite providers are already preparing to offer full HD channels in the next few years"


The above referenced article is full of misinformation.

First it implies that cable and satellite broadcasts of movies aren't "Blu-ray quality" because they are in 1080i instead of 1080p, which is complete nonsense. 1080i can produce 30 full progressive non-interlaced frames per second at the same resolution as 1080p&#8230;.. more than enough progressive frames to encode the 24 frames per second frame rate of movies that are typically on Blu-ray discs. The quality difference between Blu-ray and cable/satellite comes from the higher bitrate that Blu-ray uses, not from being in 1080p. Reproducing a 24fps movie in 1080p offers nothing whatsoever that 1080i cannot deliver given the same bitrate.

Secondly, the idiot from Tanberg TV who is the source of the 1080p predictions seems to think that satellite operators have an abundance of spare unused bandwidth that they will use to provide the "Blu-ray quality" broadcasts that he is predicting.

In short, the guy's company has a vested financial interest in providing advanced digital TV technology, so of course he's going to try to push the proposition that the current video delivery technology and methods will soon need to be vastly improved.... of course, with the help of a company like his.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sure, there is a push, but all gadgets including HDTV and FullHD TV sets cames after such pitches.


----------



## Joe Spears (Dec 24, 2010)

Bumped since there was a request to continue this type of discussion from the HD Anticipation thread.



maartena said:


> I would like to suggest we take the 720p vs 1080i discussion to its own topic. It's not really related to DirecTV, nor HD channel anticipation, and completely depends on how the channel in question broadcasts.
> 
> If someone would PLEASE be so kind and create a topic in another forum - perhaps "General Satellite Discussion" - it would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks


----------



## larry55 (Jun 3, 2010)

thank you.


----------



## smitbret (Mar 27, 2011)

What's the point?

720p vs. 1080i is a subjective preference and tastes will vary.

It's like Vanilla vs. Chocolatae or Ford vs. Chevy

Virtually the same amount of information per second is passing through with either format.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

At least some of the immediacy of the topic has been dulled with the passage of four years: Not many 1080i TVs around; it's all 1080p, vs. 720p sets. Then the main question becomes: At what size set would it make no perceptible difference to go with 720? I'm guessing 30" or less.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

It's just amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people can simultaneously hold the belief that the "p" in 1080p makes it better than 1080i, but the "p" in 720p does. . . nothing.

Umm, what?

Having said that, are modern 1080p TV's essentially upconverting 1080i to 1080p thru buffering and post-processing? Does it actually make it a little better? Not like native 1080p, but better than it would be otherwise?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

georule said:


> It's just amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people can simultaneously hold the belief that the "p" in 1080p makes it better than 1080i, but the "p" in 720p does. . . nothing.
> 
> Umm, what?
> 
> Having said that, *are modern 1080p TV's essentially upconverting 1080i to 1080p thru buffering and post-processing?* Does it actually make it a little better? Not like native 1080p, but better than it would be otherwise?


It's well known fact - if you want learn - read what chips ( using in HDTV ) doing for video processing...
Yes, and it's big market where new chips are better and better.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

P Smith said:


> It's well known fact - if you want learn - read what chips ( using in HDTV ) doing for video processing...
> Yes, and it's big market where new chips are better and better.


I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.

You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

georule said:


> I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.
> 
> You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?


The part you're not posting is the frame rates.
1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.
720p/60 simply has more frames for that 100 MPH fastball, but movies don't normally have 100 MPH fastballs, so the higher resolution is preferred, be it 1080i, de-interlaced to 1080p/30, or "true" 1080p/24.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

veryoldschool said:


> The part you're not posting is the frame rates.
> 1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.
> 720p/60 simply has more frames for that 100 MPH fastball, but movies don't normally have 100 MPH fastballs, so the higher resolution is preferred, be it 1080i, de-interlaced to 1080p/30, or "true" 1080p/24.


Let me be clear. Anybody who prefers, on balance, 1080i over 720p, for their mix of content, I have no problem with. Taste is inarguable unless you're a glutton for punishment, in my book.

I do object to the idea, that several people in the originating thread put forward, that 720p brings absolutely nothing to the party. There were people accusing ABC/ESPN/FOX of "being cheap", and that's why they held on to 720p.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> 1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.


Not to mention it isn't part of the HDTV standard that the Grand Alliance came up with in 1993 and refined in 1997 or 1998 (I can't remember which). It has been updated since then but the basic parameters of HDTV haven't changed. 1080p remains outside the standard.

Beyond the practical ones mentioned by *VOS*, there are huge marketing considerations. We here are cutting edge folks. The general public isn't. Imagine the hue and cry from your next door neighbor who finally bought his first HDTV last year, spending $299 for a 32" Samsung that's only capable of 720p, when he finds out that his set can't receive ESPN because they just switched to broadcasting 1080p. There might be enough of an general outcry that even Congress would get involved. These are FCC standards, after all.

As much as we might like greater definition in broadcast technology, 1080p isn't going to be a broadcast standard for at least a dozen years. People don't like change this rapidly. Widespread acceptance of Blu-ray has been slow. Lots of people still have a row of VHS tapes on a bookshelf at home and their DVDs look perfectly fine, thank you.

The lack of consumer acceptance of 3D television isn't just because of the funky glasses you have to wear. It's because 95% of the folks out there are happy with the new HDTV they bought just a few years ago.

You can't force feed new technology on the public. They will reject it and it will fail.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Good points, Carl, but would there really be a problem with 720p sets processing the higher resolution signal? Certainly DIRECTV® boxes would do it if necessary, so would other providers, presumably. A problem with OTA?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Yes, the problem would be that older sets couldn't understand it OTA. They never were designed to receive a 1080p signal. Certainly 1080p could be down-converted to 720p or whatever you want but first the microprocessor in the tuner needs to know how to receive it.

I should have used NBC instead of ESPN as the station that might switch to 1080p. That gets to the heart of the matter. The built in ATSC tuners in HDTV sets can't decode 1080p. Adding 1080p as a broadcast standard would immediately outdate all current HDTV sets, except for those set up to receive 3D.

The industry would also have a problem with a lot of set top boxes. There's the rub if it was ESPN which switched to 1080p. DirecTV's DVRs, with the exception of the HR20, could all receive 1080p but could all of the Motorola, Pace and Scientific Atlanta cable boxes out there handle 1080p, too? I'd be surprised if that was the case. There are tens of millions of those puppies in people's homes. Can you imagine the cost of replacing all of those? I'm sure we'd be talking about a billion dollar upgrade here. Is it worth a billion dollars just to receive a live broadcast in 1080p?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

georule said:


> I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.
> 
> You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?


Yes, it does, but final quality is depend on these chips and IP inside. Told yeah - it's big business.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Carl Spock said:


> Yes, the problem would be that older sets couldn't understand it OTA. They never were designed to receive a 1080p signal. Certainly 1080p could be down-converted to 720p or whatever you want but first the microprocessor in the tuner needs to know how to receive it.
> 
> ..


Well, you selected wrong part. Tuner is OK for anything new.

Exactly tuner chip(s) (with its uP ? OK, we can count its small part/uP) is tolerable to OTA signal as long it's still 8VSB. Transport stream after tuner/demod combo (could be one chip) can carry anything, say 2048p120 also if someone would invent H.401 compressing algo, to fit it into 19.4 Mbps bitrate of each OTA transmitter.

Perhaps you should look after tuner/demod - that chip what demuxing transport stream, collecting frames, parsing PES, etc for next step - decompress video/audio. That's where new algos would require !


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

^ Thanks for the technical explanation.

You know the old saying:

_Same chip, different day._

:grin:


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

I doubt we'll ever see 1080p as a OTA standard. OTA is on its way out, under pressure from mobile. Yeah, not next week, but in the meanwhile I just don't see the powers that be allowing OTA to increase its BW requirements, or/and require another costly, major hardware upgrade cycle to consumers.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

Don't forget 4k in the future.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> At least some of the immediacy of the topic has been dulled with the passage of four years: Not many 1080i TVs around; it's all 1080p, vs. 720p sets. Then the main question becomes: *At what size set would it make no perceptible difference to go with 720? I'm guessing 30" or less.*


The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.

And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

HoTat2 said:


> The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.
> 
> And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.


Yes, and I am sure no consensus was reached, nor will be reached. Also, as sets improve over time, differences may be reduced. Heck, manufacturers may discontinue manufacturing 720 sets before long.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Have you looked at the selection of sets in a Best Buy in a while? The majority of sets 32" and under are only 720p. Yes, eventually those will go away but I think their sales right now are being driven by hitting a price point. Cheap sells.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> Have you looked at the selection of sets in a Best Buy in a while? The majority of sets 32" and under are only 720p. Yes, eventually those will go away but I think their sales right now are being driven by hitting a price point. Cheap sells.


Haven't looked, and yes, pricing is very important. At some point, it may be cheaper to manufacture only 1080p sets even in small sizes, rather than two lines mfg. the same size. 
And it's also ca. 32" and below where it's hard to see the difference between 720p and 1080i or p.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Agreed. 

The only reason I know about Best Buy is I bought a 32" TV within the past 3 months and was shocked by the predominance of 720p sets. Heck, I bought a 15" set for my kitchen 3 years ago that was 1080i, and it wasn't that expensive. Since then the manufacturers have definitely set up a two tiered pricing structure with all the cheap sets 720p.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The only reason I know about Best Buy is I bought a 32" TV within the past 3 months and was shocked by the predominance of 720p sets. Heck, I bought a 15" set for my kitchen 3 years ago that was 1080i, and it wasn't that expensive. Since then the manufacturers have definitely set up a two tiered pricing structure with all the cheap sets 720p.


And it wouldn't surprise me that the hardware is identical, but higher res. is disabled in order to maintain higher prices for the 1080 sets.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> And it wouldn't surprise me that the hardware is identical, but higher res. is disabled in order to maintain higher prices for the 1080 sets.


FW selectable - if the mfg will use 1920x1080 panel instead of 1280x720 (there in no "i" panels !).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> And it wouldn't surprise me that the hardware is identical, but higher res. is disabled in order to maintain higher prices for the 1080 sets.





P Smith said:


> FW selectable - if the mfg will use 1920x1080 panel instead of 1280x720 (there in no "i" panels !).


I really doubt the hardware [panels] are identical.

When the manufacturing costs of the 1080 panels drop so much that it isn't economical to make 720s, then all the TVs will be 1080.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> *I really doubt the hardware [panels] are identical.*
> 
> When the manufacturing costs of the 1080 panels drop so much that it isn't economical to make 720s, then all the TVs will be 1080.


Have no doubt - they are DIFFERENT. I'm do repairs/fixing and know these ...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720?? 
Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it *will* be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720??
> Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it *will* be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]


Doesn't really make sense.
If you limit a 1080 panel to 720, you're still going to need to scale the image to fill the screen. 
Everything is really geared to the manufacturing costs of the panel, so if it's cheap enough, there isn't any reason to limit it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> *Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720?? *
> Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it *will* be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]


Easy.

But if you still use 1920x1080 panel (BTW, panels has the parameter as VxH) you'll see the picture's pixels [1280x720] as a rectangle (usually centered).


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

veryoldschool said:


> Doesn't really make sense.
> If you limit a 1080 panel to 720, you're still going to need to scale the image to fill the screen.
> Everything is really geared to the manufacturing costs of the panel, so if it's cheap enough, there isn't any reason to limit it.


Yes, of course it'd scale to 720.

The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, of course it'd scale to 720.
> 
> The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.


That would be awesome to get a 1080p TV through a firmware update, but I honestly don't think it's happening. I would never buy a 720p TV regardless. The first thing I look at when I see a great price is whether the TV is 720p or 1080p. It's really not worth it anymore. 1080p can usually be had for like $50-$100 more depending on the size.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

banditt76 said:


> That would be awesome to get a 1080p TV through a firmware update, but I honestly don't think it's happening. I would never buy a 720p TV regardless. The first thing I look at when I see a great price is whether the TV is 720p or 1080p. It's really not worth it anymore. 1080p can usually be had for like $50-$100 more depending on the size.


No disagreement; I wouldn't either. But a lot of folks would, to save the bucks. Again, under 32" it's barely noticeable. A portion of those good folks might also tune SD channels and still think they're in HD land.


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

I actually bought my HDTV online at ShopNBC. They let your break down payments of six months no interest. Got a much better TV than I would have been able to get otherwise.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> No disagreement; I wouldn't either. But a lot of folks would, to save the bucks. Again, under 32" it's barely noticeable. A portion of those good folks might also tune SD channels and still think they're in HD land.


Except for DirecTV's technical enhancements to make it easier to tell the difference between HD and SD channels. :lol:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

bobnielsen said:


> Except for DirecTV's technical enhancements to make it easier to tell the difference between HD and SD channels. :lol:


Heh.... Still, some won't get it! Better a big flashing text warning!


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.
> 
> And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.


Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Laxguy" said:


> Yes, of course it'd scale to 720.
> 
> The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.


Except you can do the same thing and just have two lines with two different screens. The rest can be the same and firmware can adjust which screen it is talking to. Since the single largest cost is the screen (by far), you save even more by using a 720p screen for the 720p set. The rest, spare firmware for the screen driver, would be the same. The single line cost savings would not overcome the price of a 1080p screen on a pet unit basis. And if all the rest is the same, you can control your lines based on sales pretty tightly.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

mechman said:


> Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:


Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.

Thanks for the post, *mechman*!  :righton:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> Except you can do the same thing and just have two lines with two different screens. The rest can be the same and firmware can adjust which screen it is talking to. Since the single largest cost is the screen (by far), you save even more by using a 720p screen for the 720p set. The rest, spare firmware for the screen driver, would be the same. The single line cost savings would not overcome the price of a 1080p screen on a pet unit basis. And if all the rest is the same, you can control your lines based on sales pretty tightly.


If you assume there's a big differential between the two costs, then my hypothetical doesn't start at all!


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Currently Samsung Plasma's use the same boards for a majority of their TV models. This means that you can unlock functions only allowed in higher models if you know what you're doing, you can also do a lot of damage if you don't, so it wouldn't be unheard of for companies to use 1 board and sell a 720/1080 set. However I don't think they will. Manufacturers want to limit settings not really resolution. If someone can offer a 1080 tv for the same price as a 720 version of their competitor they will because the average employee in Walmart, best buy, or other big box store will sell the numbers that marketing feeds them instead of what is actually better about the TV.

If people really knew how to spec out electronics the market would shift significantly. Instead of dynamic contrast ratios there would be calibration level settings on the signs.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

mechman said:


> Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:





Carl Spock said:


> Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.
> 
> Thanks for the post, *mechman*!  :righton:


No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

fleckrj said:


> No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.


Each viewer's point [distance] may vary.
There is something I've wanted to add that may help:
When I first used a PC HD tuner card and watched it on my 19" [1600x1200] monitor, it showed a picture quality that was much different than TVs.
I think it simply comes down to dot pitch [or pixel dimensions], where when they're so close/tight, the eye can't distinguish them and sees something that looks like film.
When I went looking for my next TV, I saw the same quality on a fairly small panel, but not on the larger ones being displayed.
My 1080p 46" does come very close [and why I picked it].
The chart posted does suggest similar sizes & distances.
I also have a 720 32", but I don't care how far I'm back from it, it doesn't look as good as my 1080p.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

fleckrj said:


> No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.


The dispute is ridiculous and I was replying to someone directly discussing matters similar to my post:



> The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.


The differences between 1080i and 720p have been discussed here ad nauseum. Resolution is resolution. I've seen 720p that is better than 1080i and vice versa on my 100" screen. It rarely has anything to do with resolution.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mechman said:


> The differences between 1080i and 720p have been discussed here ad nauseum. Resolution is resolution. I've seen 720p that is better than 1080i and vice versa on my* 100" screen*. It rarely has anything to do with resolution.


I've really only seen one this size, but what struck me the most were the lines/dot sizes were HUGH, which is the opposite "quality" I was describing in the post before this.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.
> 
> Thanks for the post, *mechman*!  :righton:


Six feet for my 47" 1080p? Man that is sitting on top of it. I did discover that I can fit that 90" Sharp in my room, if I had $10K! Perhaps some white paint and a projector will do :grin:


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

machavez00 said:


> Six feet for my 47" 1080p? Man that is sitting on top of it. I did discover that I can fit that 90" Sharp in my room, if I had $10K! Perhaps some white paint and a projector will do :grin:


I sit about 8 feet away when watching blu-ray movies on my 47" LCD. From about 10 feet back even 720p looks crystal clear to me.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

banditt76 said:


> I sit about 8 feet away when watching blu-ray movies on my 47" LCD. From about 10 feet back even 720p looks crystal clear to me.


If I'm not changing glasses, it would be no difference if I sit 8 or 10 feet.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I've really only seen one this size, but what struck me the most were the lines/dot sizes were HUGH, which is the opposite "quality" I was describing in the post before this.


I would categorize the change from my first projector (720P Mitsubishi HC3000U) to my second projector (1080p BenQ W5000) as noticeable. But only in a very subtle way. I could never see a pixel on my 720p pj unless I was right on top of the screen.

If my math is correct there are roughly 15 lines per inch vertically for 720p on a 100" screen. I have a tough enough time seeing a sixteenth of an inch when in the workshop, let alone on my display. 1080p would add ~7 more lines of resolution.

On your 46" set, there is roughly 47 lines per inch vertically. I really d on't think you could see those without help. And your 32" 720p display has almost the same amount of lines as the 46" - ~45.

If you were to have a 175" screen the viewing height would be 90". With that setup, the 720p lines would be ~1/8". That would probably be noticeable for some folks within 6 feet or so.

Again, assuming my math is correct. :grin:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mechman said:


> I would categorize the change from my first projector (720P Mitsubishi HC3000U) to my second projector (1080p BenQ W5000) as noticeable. But only in a very subtle way. I could never see a pixel on my 720p pj unless I was right on top of the screen.
> 
> If my math is correct there are roughly 15 lines per inch vertically for 720p on a 100" screen. I have a tough enough time seeing a sixteenth of an inch when in the workshop, let alone on my display. 1080p would add ~7 more lines of resolution.
> 
> ...


Your math maybe, and it's hard for me to explain the quality of the image that I'm trying to.
I first saw it in the 70s on a very small [5"?] Sony color TV. The CRT didn't show "dots", which all TVs had. Now I sure didn't want to watch a TV that small, so my color TVs grew over time from 17" to 27", and then the move to HD with a 51" 1080 RPTV. I wasn't very happy with this RPTV, as "the dots" were more like blotches of blurry color. This was the same time I got the HDTV tuner card and really noticed the difference in PQ on the monitor, which reminded me of that small Sony long ago.
I checked out your link, and frankly expected to disagree with what I saw in the chart, but after using the calculator and plugging in the sizes, distances, and resolutions, from "those that have had this quality", I can't really disagree. "For me", I'd tend to use the chart as a "not to exceed", in that one wouldn't want to be to detect the difference.
We all have different viewing preferences, so this isn't in any way meant to degrade what you have and seem to be happy with.


----------



## fjames (Nov 25, 2010)

The Bale article was one of the few I've seen that pointed out the obvious - current HDTV standards just happen to coincide perfectly with minimum distance in terms of viewing angle. That's where I sit (plus a few inches for room use) and it's wonderful. What's interesting is if you could push a magic button and have 4K, and you're already sitting at the minimum angle distance, you couldn't get any closer really. I'm 80" from a 1080, 64" plasma for the record.

It amazes me continually how people discuss picture quality while sitting several feet farther than they should if PQ is a priority. Of course, they don't suffer from poor basic technical issues or SD like I do either


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

Picture quality actually increases the further away you are from a larger screen TV, assuming HD of course. About 10 feet from my 47" LCD is optimal viewing distance for best picture quality regardless of if it's HD or SD, for me at least. A lot probably has to do with your own vision too. I have great vision, sometimes it's a burden cause I notice every little artifact if I sit too close.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

First off PQ never changes when looking at the same set. Distance only allows you to perceive it based on your eyesight and other variables. The pixels and colors themselves don't get any more clear or distorted. Your perception of them does.

Secondly changing from a 720 item to a 1080 item will look better mainly due to the difference in technology at the level you're buying. If you're buying professional grade equipment that is properly calibrated you really won't see a huge differences unless it's something you've been trained to do.

There have been many surveys done around this and every time it's come down to calibration or other factors that make people think something is clearer than actual resolution.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> There have been many surveys done around this and every time it's come down to calibration or other factors that make people think something is clearer than actual resolution.


This part I don't agree with. Once the viewer "is trained" to see the dot/pixel size, it can't be mistaken, or calibrated out.
"Survey says", most viewers don't know what they're looking at.


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

veryoldschool said:


> This part I don't agree with. Once the viewer "is trained" to see the dot/pixel size, it can't be mistaken, or calibrated out.
> "Survey says", most viewers don't know what they're looking at.


Calibration used to be a prolbem with DLP and projection TVs, but not so much with LCDs. I had an old Samsung digital projection HDTV that was always out of calibration, even after I just adjusted it. It was from 2001 and died a couple years ago.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

banditt76 said:


> Calibration used to be a prolbem with DLP and projection TVs, but not so much with LCDs. I had an old Samsung digital projection HDTV that was always out of calibration, even after I just adjusted it. It was from 2001 and died a couple years ago.


I wasn't trying to say calibration isn't important, but that it can't change the pixel/dot size of flat panels.


----------



## banditt76 (Jul 18, 2012)

veryoldschool said:


> I wasn't trying to say calibration isn't important, but that it can't change the pixel/dot size of flat panels.


I wasn't saying you were. I was just pointing out that it really doesn't have anything to do with LCD picture quality anymore. I guess I should have quoted the previous post, not yours.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

banditt76 said:


> Picture quality actually increases the further away you are from a larger screen TV, assuming HD of course. About 10 feet from my 47" LCD is optimal viewing distance for best picture quality regardless of if it's HD or SD, for me at least. A lot probably has to do with your own vision too. I have great vision, sometimes it's a burden cause I notice every little artifact if I sit too close.


Perceived PQ improves the further one is away from any size monitor, HD or SD! It's just more noticeable the larger the screen.

I prefer 8' from a 58" plasma, underscoring that personal preferences are what rules.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

^ You and me, *Laxguy*. I'm 7' away from my 50" plasma and that is about right for me. It still makes it a "big screen".

I'm far enough away that the pixel detection issues in this thread are not a factor but close enough so that the video is impactful.


----------

