Is 1080p a waste of money?

[Richard]

What is "normal" viewing distance?

In my mind it would be the distance most folks use. Based on service calls and ISF calibrations that would be 5-10 screen heights.

The chart has come up before and there is a point where more pixels starts to become noticeable as they say but in my experience it is like my son trying to make my wrong by proving a technicality... OK kiddo, you might see a benefit but you are still too far away to clearly resolve a 1920 pixel response!

viewtopic.php?p=30268#30268

[perfectinght]

Right, that's why I used the word "effectively" meaning what you can physically see at a normal viewing distance. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The point I was trying to make, and the point in the article, is that for the purposes of normal viewing you're probably wasting your money buying a 1080p set that's 50 inches or less. If you want to sit close and count pixels, then that's an entirely different purpose.

Henry

It appears what you really meant by "effectively" is what YOU can see and what YOU consider a "normal" viewing distance. I use a 1920 x 1200 widescreen display on my 17" laptop and sit at typing distance. The image is smooth and marvelously sharp. If I lean forward only a couple of inches I can detect pixels. I watch movies and do typical computer work on this display. It's not a waste of money for ME to have such a high resolution.

I don't "sit close" to count pixels. The viewing distance I prefer for movies is as close as possible without detecting pixel structure in the image. This is to provide maximum image width for a sense of envelopment. For my casual viewing of television programming, greater viewing distance is preferred. In my case, critical viewing of more valued programming warrants a desire for a greater sense of involvement and envelopment. Sitting too close will make the compositional elements of the physical image become detectable and this tends to distract me from the program. I prefer a more natural depiction of a scene and sky doesn't normally have texture in my natural world. My front projection theater currently has a 1.78:1 screen and a 720P DLP projector. I sit at about 3.5 screen heights away and can only rarely detect pixels on small, bright objects. When I replace it with a 1080P projector, I will move a bit closer. I have better vision than many people I know, but not all.

Is 1080P a waste of money? For me, or for you? For me, it depends. It would be foolish for me to attempt to answer for you, unless I know your viewing habits, visual acuity, and many other lifestyle issues.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
www.cinemaquestinc.com

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[akirby]

As Richard pointed out, the average viewing distance for most people is more than 3 screen heights. So for the average viewer using a viewing distance of 5 screen heights or more - 1080p might not be necessary. Doesn't mean it's wrong - there are other factors to consider including a future change in viewing distances or other features.

The problem is the average buyer doesn't understand the difference between 720p and 1080p in their environment - they just automatically assume 1080p will be a better picture for them. And I'm sure the big box stores don't correct them or help them understand the differences.

When I thought I had to replace my 35" Mits Tube CRT, I was looking for a 720p set because of the relatively long viewing distances (this was for casual viewing - I have a dedicated HT in the basement). However, I suspect most people only buy 720p sets based on cost.

[stevekaden]

If this conversation is rooted in financial value - then it should be considered that many people will upgrade their TV before it dies. Assuming typical behavior vis-a-vie specmanship and buyers, then the investment in 1080 will at least partially be made up by resale value.

I doubt I could sell my 720 RPTV, but I am fairly sure my 1080 would fly out the door (both Sony). Plain ol' market emotion does have a cost and value even if not really rational.

Then of course are the times 1080 (and SXRD chips) are of value to me when I walk right up to the screen - look at the pixels and sigh - 'wow, they really are smoother have have a lot less screen door effect'. That may sound really stupid, but it has value in the overall emotional aspect of spending too much money! Then I sit in my lounger and really like the overall picture. (and I do see the screen door effect at 14' from my 60" 720 set).

[Richard]

Gotta brand and model number?

[stevekaden]

If that question is for me...

I am not at home so I may not get the first one correct: the 768, Sony KF-60WE610. It was the top of the non-XBR line at the time.

The other again Sony, 1080, is the KDS-60A2000.

[Richard]

Thanks, the screen door effect, pixel fill factor, on that product was awful. A 720p DLP would not have been like that...

[stevekaden]

Yeah, once I tuned into it, it was making me crazy - but I got over it (and sit a little farther back). Both of them, and maybe this is an aspect of the plastic screen, have a very fine speckling or twinkling...like the plastic somehow alters the light flow at a very fine level. I notice it more one the 1080. But, again, I got over it. Everything seems to have one peculiarity or another if noticed and then focused on!

[Richard]

True, it is difficult to find that totally refined beast.

The artifact you are describing is SSE, Silk Screen Effect, and is part and parcel of the outer anti glare screen. CRT RP did not have that problem. Brillian used a screen that greatly minimized that - unfortunately they are gone.

[simoncable]

So far, I haven't seen difference between 1080I and 1080P.

Anybody have found difference in vedio and audio?



Regards,

Simon