XstreamHD certainly sounds good, but I wonder how it will hold up in practice. 1080p sounds great, but you have to have a wall-sized screen to see the difference. On my 50" Samsung, for example, 1080p would be wasted. And a 1080p set uses a lot more power. Even HD TV is only distributed in 720p. Unless you have an enormous screen, streaming 1080p is a waste of time and money.
Right now I divide my viewing time between Blu-ray disc and DirecTV hi-def so I have a nice combination of hi-def material I own and hi-def beamed down by a satellite. And, as a fun bonus, the Playstation 3 allows me to surf the Internet on my hi-def screen. Call me old fashioned, but it works for me.
Henry
P.S. And I will be (as I just learned) downloading hi-def movies, but from iTunes. Thank you Steve Jobs.
Perceiving differences in resoltuion is a combination of screen size, distance from the screen and your visual acuity. Each person perceives differently. If you see no appreciable gain for content above 720p, then don't spend your time and money on it. But don't assume others (like me) don't appreciate the difference. 1080p is definitely not a waste of my time and money.
Also don't forget that it's not just about resolution, it's about bitrate. If I can get content streamed into my home with a quality of audio and video that rivals the best packaged media, that's the way I'm going.
Sorry, but it's not a matter of perception; it's a matter of physics. You can't drive a screen greater than the number of pixels it can physically display. Manufactures will make misleading statements because they want to sell the higher-price models, but I'm afraid physics is physics and hype is hype.
1080p sounds great, but you have to have a wall-sized screen to see the difference. On my 50" Samsung, for example, 1080p would be wasted. And a 1080p set uses a lot more power. Even HD TV is only distributed in 720p. Unless you have an enormous screen, streaming 1080p is a waste of time and money.
Not sure what science or outlook you are using here but Millers response was right on the money. The only 1080p technology that could use more power in a significant form is plasma and I'm still thinking about that one... HDTV is distributed in both 720p and 1080i.
I'm using the science I was trained in as a physicist. No matter what format HD is distributed in, the maximum resolution of a display can only be what the display is physically capable of. As a rule, maximum resolution of a screen is limited by the size of the screen and that's why only displays over 50 inches can effectively display 1080p. That's not to say that the set won't accept 1080p as an input. It just can't display it. This is not a bad thing because a good 720p 50 inch display can show a very impressive and clear picture, and, as you pointed out, HD TV only has 720p or 1080i content anyway (but not 1080p). It is my understanding that each broadcast network picks which one depending on the type of content.
...only displays over 50 inches can effectively display 1080p.
What are you smokin' Henry (and did you bring enough for everybody)?
No seriously, are you saying that a pixel has a minimum size? Are you saying that the 46" LCD TV I have, which is 1920x1080, can't display 1080 lines? I just checked, and at a distance of about 12", I can see each and every pixel. I didn't bother to count them, but I trust that there are 1080, just like my manual says.
So how can you say that a TV smaller than 50 inches can't display 1080p when it can be physically verified by counting pixels?
Please back up your "physics" with links, forumulas, etc. so that we can all become more educated.
Henry - that article doesn't say that a 50" or smaller tv can't display 1080p - it says that at a distance of 8 ft or more a normal viewer won't see a better picture with 1080p over 720p, all else being equal. If you're sitting really close to a 50" display then you will see a difference.
Let me make this short - as I just lost a long detailed letter - Many laptops and computer monitors are at and well over 2k x 1k (1080 HD). So surely 1080 can be less than 50". It is all in the pixel size and being able to make, connect, and master for it. And with the computer based monitors - you sit close, and it looks great.
I'm wondering about the 1080 using more power??? Based on what detail?
Just looking at the two sets referenced in the CNET article linked above, the 720P set Vs 1080P set is rated 499 watts vs 693 watts.
The two sets are very similar, other than resolution.
720 is designed to handle 3.2 and 1080 handles 2.5 screen heights based on how close you should be able to get without detecting pixels which will also be technology dependent; with LCD front projection it is difficult to see pixel structure at any distance.
What you are talking about is how far away can you get and still resolve delivered resolution. Both formats survive 3 screen heights, 4 is pushing it and at 5 you won't be able to see it. A multiburst pattern at that distance goes from being fine lines to a gray bar as they blend together in your vision.
The only people wasting money on 1080p product are those sitting too far away which is most folks.
720 is designed to handle 3.2 and 1080 handles 2.5 screen heights
To make the math easier, that equates to diagonal factors of 1.8x and 1.4x, respectively. I never understood why CVD was give in "screen heights" when TVs are measured diagonally. C'mon, don't make me use math to figure this stuff out.
I submit a proposal that from here on, CVD should be given in diagonal factors, not "heights" ... anyone else?
I never understood why CVD was give in "screen heights" when TVs are measured diagonally.
Because it remains the same for all aspect ratios. Another quick conversion...
4:3 = 1.33
16:9 = 1.78
? = 2.35 cinemascope
In a constant height system the above would all be at the same viewing distance. Using diagonal you would end up with 3 different viewing positions. Could write a couple of paragraphs about the explanations along with the if's and's and but's...
Most who use your method round off to 2 X the 16:9 diagonal to get a rough feel when working only with measurements. Standing in front of the display you can imagine and count out 3 screen heights easier than 2 widths. Well, at least I can and maybe from habit...
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.
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.
But you said "it's not a matter of perception". Now you are clearly admiting what I was arguing: That it is a matter of perception. I may have been taking that to the extreme with my "counting pixels" explanation, but my main point is that you must consider the viewers visual acuity and distance when determining whether 1080p is worth it for that person.
As you say, a "normal" person, with "normal" vision may not be able to tell a difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50" display at a distance of 8 feet. But if that person has better vision, they may be able to tell a difference down to 46" or even 42". Likewise, if that person has poor vision, they may not even be able to tell a difference at 57" or even 60". That's the point I'm trying to make. You must consider all three factors (size, viewing distance and visual acuity), not just 1 or 2. And because of that third factor, visual acuity, there is no hard and fast rule that applies to the entire population.
Value of 1080p on LCD's is that you can sit closer and resolve more detail, however, if it doesn't look fantastic at 3 mtrs, it won't be that much better at 1.5mtrs........when I look at 1080 close up, the PQ has more detail and vibrancy, but it's not significant IMO.
That said, 1080 res on 32-37inch LCD's should be awesome for a PC monitor....take a 32 for example, most people can fit one of their PC desk and the pixel pitch will be much smaller than at 1366x768.
Sony are releasing both 32 and 37 1080 LCD, hopefully they're both on sale in OZ.....if the 32 has the 16 000:1 dynamic contrast ratio panel, it should be close to perfect for use as a multimedia device, ie, DVD, HDTV, PC games.
As you say, a "normal" person, with "normal" vision may not be able to tell a difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50" display at a distance of 8 feet. But if that person has better vision, they may be able to tell a difference down to 46" or even 42".
- Miller
I'll be forty in a few months, and whilst I don't wear or need glasses, I can see the difference between 3 and 1.5mtrs on a 46inch LCD with 1080p playback.......the difference isn't staggering, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's there...anyway, anyone can test this for themselves at their local HDTV retailer.
In most cases, the 1080p TV also has a higher spec-ed panel...for example, till recently, Samsung had 3 40inch LCD for sale in OZ, one with 768res+8000contrast, another with 1080res+10 000contrast, and another with 1080res+15 000contrast....the last TV was highly praised for HDTV playback.
I don't think that 1080 res is such a problem, more so the cost, especially with the 52inchers.
Having said all that, Panasonic, Samsung and Pioneer 768 plasma still provide better PQ that any 1080LCD by virtue of plasma's superior contrast, colour reproduction and black levels, etc.
With the exception of Samsung LED, all flat panel LCD's are compared against plasma TV's as a PQ reference point, ie, the plasma is still the best in most cases.
Having said all that, Panasonic, Samsung and Pioneer 768 plasma still provide better PQ that any 1080LCD by virtue of plasma's superior contrast, colour reproduction and black levels, etc.
Interesting. I actually think the opposite. I've never liked the "look" of plasma, and always preferred LCD for PQ.
I am an early HDTV adopter. 1080p was not available when I purchased my 48" HDTV. I watch from just under 7 feet away. Picture quality is excellent. I would definately not say that I missed 1080p.
I would not pay much extra to go from 1080i to 1080p either. Many people will pay a significant amount for just that one feature. Progressive scan on a PC monitor close to your seating position is a benefit, but PC monitors show static images with text most of the time. TV has always been interlaced and it works very well. Most of the time you don't see any flicker except when the FBI warning is on the screen. Broadcast HDTV is at most 1080i here in the USA. The only time you will see 1080p is with HD movie players, Xbox 360, and PS3.
With that said if I was buying a new HDTV and there was only a small price difference I would buy 1080p. There is a lot of information that indicates 1080p is such a small improvement over 1080i that most people would never notice so it comes down to cost.
Guys you can waste a lot of time arguing about this. Believe me. I had a long discussion on another site with someone who implied anyone buying 1080i was a fool headed for eye problems, headaches, seizures, and his list kept going. I say buy the bext HDTV you can afford and live with it.
Thanks for the critique. I always benefit from a little editing.
I would add one other note on this topic. If I were to choose from a high end 1080i or a low end 1080p for similar cost then I would probably select the high end 1080i. 1080p would be nice, but things like extra inputs are more important in the long run.
Having said all that, Panasonic, Samsung and Pioneer 768 plasma still provide better PQ that any 1080LCD by virtue of plasma's superior contrast, colour reproduction and black levels, etc.
Interesting. I actually think the opposite. I've never liked the "look" of plasma, and always preferred LCD for PQ.
I guess that must be subjective as well.
- Miller
Do you think plasma's look coarse compared to LCD.
I have no problem with people letting their eyes do the buying, but I think it's important to examine the entire HDTV rather than a narrow focus on resolution.
I also want to point out to HDTV newbies that most popular/credible website reviewers typically use either a Pioneer or Panasonic Plasma as their reference point for PQ and flat panel performance in general......I don't know any of them that use an LCD{unless it's the hexy LED}.
I'm not by any means rubbishing LCD PQ, actually my major gripe with LCD is ghosting.
Do you think plasma's look coarse compared to LCD.
I'm not sure I can put my finger on it. I think if I had to pick a word to describe what I don't like about plasma it would be "mottled". Mosquito noise seems to be more pronounced on plasma than LCD. I know that's a compression artifact, not a display artifact ... just trying to explain what I see.
I also recall that there were visibly verified image retention issues on the few sets I looked at.
All combined, side by side ... I just liked the picture on LCD better.
I just wanted to through in my two cents:
I had a Sony 34" 1080i CRT type television and after seeing a Sony 40" 1080P LCD I had to have one. In my oppinion it is definitely a matter of personal taste. The Sony LCD had a much sharper picture and since I view from less than 8 feet away I guess it all works out, from what you have all been saying in this post
Good for you, you found a set that you like - and many many people love the Sony LCDs.
And as a side bonus, you get to retire a CRT set that might very well give you a back injury trying to move it.!
I know this is off context, but I just can't help opinionating on forums about the incredible danger of CRTs. They - over about 19" - just should not have ever been taken out of consoles, and never not moved by pros. They are an "osha" nightmare of hard to handle, heavy, and many times put on crappy stands. They have literrally blown discs leaving people in life long pain, and killed children. And contain lead shielding to keep us from being radiated!
Viva the new technologies - and I am a believer in 1080 - but still love my cousin's 720 plasma also. I just have one extra beer when we watch at his house!
When my son was 6 he was lying in the floor in our bedroom watching a 27" tube TV with his feet on the stand (unbeknownst to us). Apparently he rocked the TV stand with his feet and it fell on top of him, leaving him with 13 stitches in his forehead but no other injuries.
I blame myself for not securing the TV. I blame him for rocking the TV (lesson learned). The TV, however, was not guilty.
I know this is off context, but I just can't help opinionating on forums about the incredible danger of CRTs. They - over about 19" - just should not have ever been taken out of consoles, and never not moved by pros. They are an "osha" nightmare of hard to handle, heavy, and many times put on crappy stands. They have literrally blown discs leaving people in life long pain, and killed children. And contain lead shielding to keep us from being radiated!
What is "normal" viewing distance? I don't know whether this chart is correct. But it is interesting.
http://www.engadgethd.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg It basically says at 50" 1080p is useful if you sit closer then 10 feet.
