I've read various articles debating the importance of the 1080p. I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p (and even 1440p.) Why? Because the 1080p resolution is the first to deliver enough detail to your eyeball when you are seated at the proper distance from the screen. But don't just take my word for it: read on for the proof.
There are a few obvious factors to being able to detect resolution differences: the resolution of the screen, the size of the screen, and the viewing distance. To be able to detect differences between resolutions, the screen must be large enough and you must sit close enough. So the question becomes "How do I know if need a higher resolution or not?". Here is your answer.
Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc), it is possible to estimate when the differences between resolutions will become apparent. Using the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet as a base, I created a chart showing, for any given screen size, how close you need to sit to be able to detect some or all of the benefits of a higher resolution screen. (Click the picture below for a larger version.)
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.
However, front projectors and rear projection displays are a different story. They make it very easy to obtain large screen sizes. Plus, LCD and Plasma displays are constantly getting larger and less expensive. In my home, for example, I have a 123-inch screen and a projector with a 1280×720 resolution. For a 123-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p starts to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 36 feet (14 feet behind my back wall) and become fully apparent at 24 feet (2 feet behind my back wall). For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 24 feet and become full apparent at 16 feet (just between the first and second row of seating in my theater). This means that people in the back row of my home theater would see some improvement if I purchased a 1080p projector and that people in the front row would notice a drastic improvement. (Note: the THX recommended max viewing distance for a 123" screen is 13.7 feet).
So, how close should you be sitting to your TV? Obviously, you need to look at your room and see what makes sense for how you will be using it. If you have a dedicated viewing room and can place seating anywhere you want, you can use this chart as a guideline. It's based on THX and SMPTE specifications for movie theaters; the details are available in the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet.
Looking at this chart, it is apparent that 1080p is the lowest resolution to fall within the recommended seating distance range. Any resolution less than 1080p is not detailed enough if you are sitting the proper distance from the screen. For me and many people with large projection screens, 1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want.
In fact, you could probably even benefit from 1440p. If you haven't heard of 1440p, you will. Here's a link to some info on Audioholics.com. It is part of the HDMI 1.3 spec, along with 48-bit color depth, and will probably surface for the public in 2009 or so. You'll partially be able to see the benefits of 1440p at the THX Max Recommended viewing distance and the resolution benefits will be fully apparent if you are just a little closer. I've read of plans for resolutions reaching 2160p but I don't see any benefit; you'd have to sit too darn close to the screen to notice any improvement. If you sit too close, you can't see the far edges of the screen.
In conclusion: If you are a videophile with a properly setup viewing room, you should definitely be able to notice the resolution enhancement that 1080p brings. However, if you are an average consumer with a plasma on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be sitting close enough to notice any advantage. Check the chart above and use that to make your decision. Also, the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Resolution is 4th on the list and plasma is generally superior to LCD in all of the other areas (but much more prone to reflections/glare.) So pick your display size, then measure your seating distance, and then use the charts above to figure out if you would benefit from the larger screen size.
"I don't like reading charts – just tell me what resolution I need"
If you don't like reading charts and are looking for a quick answer, enter you screen size below to see how close you'll need to sit to fully appreciate various screen resolutions.
Great info, thanks.
Here is my issue. I live in a Third World country, there is no HD here nor will there be in the near future. I just bought an LG 47" lcd 1080p, the colours were not that great and it seemed a bit dim so I exchanged for an LG PG20 720p 50" plasma. The clours are very good and the blacks are also very good, but the resolution seems "fuzzy" compared to the 47" lcd at my 10' viewing distance. Glare is not an issue.
Most viewing is regular tv or non-hd dvds.
I can change back but i'm not sure if it is better to have better colours and blacks or better resolution. I did see the comments earlier regarding this, but I'm kind of torn between the two sets. Any advice?
Great chart!
I got a question though, I recently got a 32" LCD 720p and I basically only use it for console gaming. I sit maybe 1m-1.4m away from the TV and I clearly see "edgy" pixels, would a 1080p eliminate those issues considering the distance and usage? Is there any difference in amount of "slurry" pixels as well between them?
Answers would be greatly appreciated!
Are you retarded?
I use a 58" Panasonic Plasma full 1080p, and I sit on my bed about 10 15 feet away, and it looks amazing.
and No David, they are not, well PS3 isn't because they're all on a 50 gig Blu-ray disc. Meaning that anything on them is gonna be in full 1080p HD.
Like take Killzone 2 for example, when you sit about 10-15 ft. away, it looks amazing, thats cause it is in FULL HD! And yet is only making the PS3 perform at 65%
Now I do agree with him on the 360 being in 720p or lower, because it's a terible console.
Erik: The majority of Xbox360 and PS3 games are rendered at 720 or lower, then upscaled to the output resolution of the console. Any image artifacts or "jaggies" would still be visible on a 1080p display.
I recommend adjusting the display's contrast and colors to soften the image a little. Factory settings on HD displays are often bright and over saturated, just to make them stand out in the store.
I found it funny that Jason Smith makes quite a statement but cannot spell Blu-ray properly.
you may be interested in reading "The Media Equation", an excellent book which deals with a lot of this. Rather than calculating scientific maximums, minimums, and human-eye resolution, they look at the experience of the person. some of their experiments /explicitly/ look at screen size and "fidelity".
i had to read it for school, but its a simple, fun, and interesting read. http://www.amazon.com/Media-Equation-Computers-Television-Lecture/dp/1575860538/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231595655&sr=8-1 id recommend it to anyone interested in this sort of thing
1080 P isn't even send by TV stations. It requires a broadband too great for today's equipment 1-16-09. Unless you have a 55+ inch screen 720p and 1080p make no difference. Most programming is standard programming which is blurry on a 1080P but not on a 702P. Most broadcast are 720P. Some stations are 1080I, but being (I) interlaced vs (P) progressive, the display is the same, progressive showing full refresh video in 1/2 time time. Anything greater than 1080P is insane and NEVER going to be accomplished within the next 20 years. Even broadband 1080P won't be in effect for another 10 years or so.
LOL. Saying 1080p will never be broadcast.. blah blah. Everytime I hear someone say a tech is too much or would never be needed I think back to when Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft stated back in the 1990's "No one should ever need more than 640k of programming RAM".
Just because it doesn't seem needed or feasible now does not mean it won't in the near future. Think back to computers 20 years ago. The Internet didn't even exist.
Come on people, use your brain a little. 20 years from now 1080p will seem so pathetic and low resolution people will wonder how we ever did anything at that resolution.
Laugh at me now, but don't get mad when I say I told you so later.
Thanks very much for the informative article and charts. I recently bought a 46" Panasonic TV 1080p TV (800u). Today I did a subjective viewing distance test and find the chart is pretty much spot-on. Watching HD channels, if I'm any closer than ~7-8 ft. it starts to look bad. I was thinking I should have gone for a 50" but one other thing to consider is there is still a lot of SD content. I try to avoid watching it but my wife does and there are a couple sports network I can't get in HD yet. So if I happen to watch these SD channels with a 46" I can watch from as close as ~12 ft. before it starts to look bad. With a 50" I would have to be at least 14 ft. away and it wouldn't be easy to get that far away in this room. With blu-ray I could get as close as I need and also there is not that much difference between 46 and 50 in terms of minimum distance for blu-ray. It's interesting that the slopes are much steeper for the lower-resolution content so that's worth taking into consideration.
One issue I've found with blu-ray is that my set has (at best) only 900 lines of moving picture resolution, and with blu-ray if I'm sitting too close there is a very noticeable discrepancy between the incredibly sharp still images vs. the slightly less sharp moving objects. So I have to move further away a little until the resolutions of still vs. moving images balance out. I think this probably means I won't enjoy the full benefits of 1080p except for still images. For this reason I probably would have been OK with a 720p set… except that in the case of Panasonic plasmas anyway the 720p model has lower contrast ratio than the 1080p models. That coupled with the steep discount I got on the 1080p, I'm fine with the set I got. Maybe some years down the road when there is 100% 1080p or better source material and moving picture resolution is no longer an issue I'll spring for a set (or projector) in the 65+ range
Hmm, very interesting … and this article is still going strong more than 2 years later!
I didn't read every article, but I thought I'd mention something that may not have come up.
Background:
I got myself a 42" 1080p LCD a year ago (and still happy coz the price then is still pretty similar today)
I connect a PC (HDMI 1080p), an HD-DVD player (HDMI 1080p), a XBox360 (HDMI 1080p) and a Wii (component 480p) and of course it has a built in HD-TV receiver (but I never watch broadcast TV)
… I guess I'll get a Blu-ray when the PS3 ever halves their price
So I definitely feel that I am utilising the 1080p – and most people should be able to now-a-days also (if they are in the position to be able to buy one).
Regarding the screen size, I had this one rather obvious issue:
Since the difference between a bigger 1080p LCD and (my) 42" 1080p LCD would probably only be the size of the actual pixels, wouldn't it seem logical (though my logic may be flawed) that for the smaller screen, it would have a better image at some point closer than the larger screens?
i.e. the area under the resolution line would have a cut-off line as the screen gets bigger?
To see the logic, consider the unrealistic example of a screen where each pixel is 1cm x 1cm (a 22m or 866" screen) there is some point where the pixels themselves become obvious and thus the image looks crappy, yet a 42" (106cm) will look fine much closer than such a big screen.
That graph completely ignores the issue, yet it is already including 120" (305cm) screens in the graph
And … just in case someone thinks gaming using 1080p is questionable:
I recently bought the XBox360 for my kids (I always vowed not to get one but finally gave in) and to my surprise, I've found many of the new games say they are 1080p
Of the 14 games I've got on and since Xmas, 8 say they are 1080p, 2 are 2nd hand (original) with a missing cover so I don't know, and the other 4 (older games) are 1080i … so from the point of view as an XBox360 display, 1080p seems to be standard in releases for a while now, though I have no idea if they are images generated in 1080p or it is just marketing … hopefully MS aren't deceiving everyone and just "up-scaling" and/or "de-interlacing" …
I'd expect the same with a PS3 – but I don't have one and don't know.
I am having trouble deciding on which HDTV to get. I know I will be buying a 32" and was stuck between 1080p and 720p. I know most, if not all HD channels on my netwok are in 1080i. I will also be doing a lot of gaming. I will be using a PS3 and a xbox360. I will also be using the TV as a monitor. I will be aprox. 3-8 feet away from the TV(depending on if im in the "gaming" mode). I am also stuck on which type of TV to get. Right now im looking at Sammy vs Panny vs Sony. Ive been looking at response time, refresh rate, dynamic contrast, native contrast, brightness, viewing angel(wont affect me much) and inputs to suit my needs. Everything will be hooked up through component or HDMI. I will also be utilizing the digital optical sound. Price really isnt a factor to me, any help will be GREATLY appricated.
If you're using it as a monitor and sitting close, definitely get 1080p. Sony and Samsung are great choices, not sure about LCD Panasonics.
I am trying to decide between a Panasonic 50" 720p plasma (th-50px80u) vs Panasonic 46" 1080p plasma (Costco – equivalent to th-46pz80u). Viewing distance for me is around 7ft – 10ft. My children sit on the floor in front of the tv at around 5ft. Looking at tv's in the store, I do see more of the screen door affect on the 720p unit when I am standing around 4ft from the screen. At the price difference of about $150 more for the 46" 1080p unit, which tv would you recommend? Thank you
Pan 50" 720p was $798 and the Pan 46" 1080p is $999
Thanks
I personally own the TH-46Pz80U.
It is a fantastic television and for the extra two hundred the picture quality is without doubt worth it as long as you are using an HD source. For me, with a 360 and a Panasonic BD30 bluray I am very happy with my 46".
Well it depends on what it is being used for. Do you plan on gaming with it on an xbox360 or PS3? Do you use a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? Do you have HD channels in a 1080i format? Also, do you plan on using it as a monitor?
BF Henry: I have the th-50px80u (was US$999 in October '08). At 7-10 feet you will be very happy with 50" 720p. On the other hand, you're getting a great price for 1080p, so maybe it's worth it for the few times you actually view 1080p content.
I've watched Blu-ray discs like Iron Man on my friend's 46" 1080p Sony XBR and watched them again later on my 720p set. Both set ups had similar viewing distance (~8-10ft.) I'm very picky about image quality (I work in a related field) and the movie did look a little sharper at 1080p, but I can't say that it significantly enhanced my enjoyment of the movie. Sharpness isn't the only measure of image quality. At that screen size (46-50), I think you would have to see both images side by side for any worthwhile comparison. If it requires that kind of scrutiny to see the difference, is it really worth the extra expense? I would put the extra $200 into the audio budget.
As for your kids' viewing distance, is this your first large screen tv? If so, I have a feeling they will naturally sit farther from the screen as they get used to the larger image.
Appreciate the replies. the only gaming system I see us using in the near future will probably be a wii. I don't plan to connect my pc to it and I will be purchasing a blu ray player mid year.
I also wanted to find out if non-hd source from cable channels (480p) will look worse when displayed on a 1080p tv vs a 720p tv?
Thanks
It will look the same. 480p can be displayed on a 720p or a 1080p and look exactly the same. Thats when you get into the specs of the TV itself. Such as black levels and brightness, contrast ratio, ect… Now, if you get a blu-ray player it will not look the same if it was played on a 720p to a 1080p. Since blu-rays play in a 1080 format, it needs to be downgraded to fit into the 720 screen. you can always upscale, but i wouldnt recommend downscaling.
I am leaning towards returning the 50" Panasonic 720p plasma for the 46" Panasonic 1080p plasma. I hope I'm making the right decision. Thanks for everyone's input. Any additional comments, please let me know. Thanks
I am setting up an building design office and would like to have my computer screen (LCD tv) on the far wall, I will be sitting about 3.5m away. This way my client can see the building model on the screen, and we don't need to rotate monitors etc on the desk. I would be using the screen almost exclusively for computer cad work and 3d/2d modelling/rendering of buildings, some text documents, web, spreadsheets etc.
I am imagining a 40" (or thereabouts)1080p running a DVI-HDMI cable, from my current computer until I have a new one built or a new card with HDMI output.
Current computer monitors are too small at that distance.
Is such a setup likely to give me good image results.
Comments negative or positive would be appreciated.
At 3.5 meters (About 14 feet) I would definitely go with 1080p and at least 50 inches or more. With CAD and renders you want the viewer to see fine detail. if your also showing CAD wire-frames the 1080p is going to show them more clearly than a 720p would ever do.
Your main concerns in this area would be sharpness and contrast.
I do 3D work myself and I use a 32 inch 1080p Samsung for production work and I'm only 1 meter away from the screen.
First of all let me say that I love this blog post and routinely refer to your chart for reference.
However it was recently brought to my attention that there may be an fundamental flaw in the chart. That is that maximum acuity for healthy eyes is actually lower than 20/20. It is actually 20/16 to 20/12. B/c I am unfamiliar with how the numbers were crunched exactly, how would this change impact the chart above? Thanks.
scyber: The charts are based on the eye being able to resolve 1/60th of an arc-degree, which is based on research identifying the capabilities of the average human eye. So the article states 20/20 vision, but that is not necessarily the reference point for 1/60th of an arc-degree, the average human eye is. I just assumed that the average eye was 20/20, but that apparently was an incorrect assumption. Having said that, there is still going to be person-to-person variation that will cause slightly different results in real-world situations, but this is still going to be a pretty close estimate.
I feel that you're stuff here has a little too much put into it, because your average person isn't gonna understand what the hell you're talking about, but they'll believe you because you have charts, and statistics, which you can make anyone believe what you want with enough bull shit.
Thanks
If you're somehow implying that anything stated here is inaccurate, please present some credible evidence as to how. The fact that it is highly technical does not invalidate the results. Now if you stating that some people don't know how to read charts to understand if how the results apply to them, then I fully agree with you. There are a few comments proving this, and perhaps those readers would be better served by a less technical website such as cnet.
Decent article.
The technical bit:
Being into astronomy, we often talk about visual acuity, the ability to resolve details. The idea of 1 arc minute (1/60 degree) is the normal number given for the ability to see detail. It turns out, it's much more complicated and depends on a lot of factors, contrast and brightness being the big ones. You can see a hair against a light background at much less than 1 arc minute but a faint galaxy in a telescope may require several arc minutes of size to see it.
I think the idea of the article is that if you move much further away than that, then you have more than one pixel on the screen mapping to one pixel on the eye and you have lost the advantage of the increased resolution. If you are closer than that, you have one pixel on the screen covering more than one pixel in the eye and it will look a little fuzzy. The idea is to match one pixel on the screen to one pixel on the eye.
The easy bit:
My rule of thumb is get close enough to see the screen door effect then back up till it just disappears. Then you are at the best distance.
nice post. very informative, i wish it covered monitor distances and resoolutions as well. because of graphics cards, lack of power, being able to play videogames on anything higher then 2560×1600 will be unlikely. right now 2560×1600 is only available, on 30\ monitors. (at least that i know about). how small will 2560×1600 monitors have to get for a better resolution to not be noticeable in a standard computer monitor distance of about 2-3 feet.
also, KDF brings up a good point. better contrast and brightness will increase the distance at which higher resolutions will be noticeable, so as technology improves, and things such as OLED's or other new TV technologies come into being, higher resolutions will be beneficial.
Hi everyone
bout the discussion is interesting i live in Santiago Chile and already not decide what system pick up, we our government incline by DVB, and i think is the worst system of all, by coverage is very small, and quality poor, i am inclined by ATSC but have a question for everyone.
how good perform ATSC in places where is mountain and urban areas ?
i live in Santiago and there is an place with much geographic accidents and urban areas, how well perform ATSC in those conditions?
This charts are very informative, but could you confirm that they are based on 16:9 screens? If so, what differences would there be for 2.35:1 screens?
One thing which has confused me (possibly because of my own poor eyesight!): the article mentions the ability to resolve pixels at various distances. But at what point does the ability to resolve pixels become a DISadvantage, because the viewer is seeing individual pixels rather than the picture?
This is for a 16:9 (1.78:1) screen. Check out my home theater calculator to see the results for a 2.35:1 screen. When anamorphically stretching a 16:9 image, keep in mind that the pixels become wider and more visible.
The distance at which the image structure breaks down varies greatly by display type. Older LCD projectors had visible "screen door" issues at distances greater than the 720p recommended distance. New projectors, especially LCoS and DLP, don't have any noticeable issues unless you're a few inches from the screen. You'll generally see content issues before you'll notice display limitations.
Thanks for the quick response. Yes, I've taken a look at your home theatre calculator, which has been very useful.
I have a further question on the discussion of viewing distance/screen size/resolution. How does individual visual acuity enter into the equation? Would, for example, an individual with 20/40 distance vision need to be at half the normal distance from the screen for the same limiting resolutions? Does the same hold for greater than normal acuity? I've still got 20/15 distance vision and am wondering if I should factor this into the screen size/viewing distance tradeoff.
Steve
Stephen, yes, this does come into play. My Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet includes a cell where visual acuity can be entered and the corresponding results displayed.
I am about to purchase a lcd tv. I am wondering what size would be the best for me at my viewing distance? I will be sitting 12-13 ft away from the tv. There will be a spot that will be around 7 ft from the tv for guests. I would appreciate any comments. I was planning on a 52" lcd, but i'm afraid it will be too big? Thanks clay
Bigger is better. I recommend 52" as the minimum size unless you have a small room that won't accommodate a big set.
Sorry if this a bit of a noob question, but being as the 1080p TVs have a higher contrast ration, does this give them an advantage? Exmaple the new Panasonic Plasma TC-P50S1 is 1080p with 40,000:1 and the TC-P50X1 is 720p with 30,000:1. Thanks in advance
Higher contrast ratio is always better, but don't put too much faith in the advertised numbers. Look at them and see if there is a difference. In real-world viewing, the difference between 30,000 and 40,000:1 is small, even if it is real.
I quite agreed that the quality of picture depending on
(1) contrast
(2) color saturation
(3) color accuracy
(4) resolution
How about the response time of LCD, can u give me some idea?
And I am at HK, we can watch HD TV program through buying a Set top Box(STB) and connect it into LCD through HDMI cable. But some STB does not equip with HDMI 1.3ver, does it affect the quality of picture…
Thanks
The issues with motion blur is rapidly disappearing with LCD. The panels have faster response time and the 120Hz refresh helps as well. The top-of-the-line Sony and Samsung LCDs have perfect scores in motion resolution, and most LCDs will probably have this in the next year or two.
HDMI 1.3 makes no noticeable improvement in picture quality. Here is no source material to take advantage of the increased bit depth, and it would be difficult to tell the difference ever if it were available.
It is my understanding that current LCDs, even Plasmas, can not display the full 16.7 million color spectrum. They use a subset, ie sRGB or Adobe RGB to display color. In other words, for every 5 shades of red the display picks the closets one and uses it? This isn't the same as contrast, but rather the ability to output the amount of color that in the real world the human eye can detect? I have seen some monitors that can display the entire color spectrum but the price tag was in the $20k for even a 17 inch display and they were not using current gen LCD/Plasma tech. I mean using even the best display you can find at retail you still know right away that your looking at a displayed pictured. However with this emerging tech the color representation is so close to "real" that your would think your looking through a hole in the wall into the next room or through a window to outside. An example of this would HDRI. You can "fake" HDR with software but your still only seeing a very limited color-set. The HDRI fakery comes into adjusting the perceived contrast between colors/brightness to make it look like the entire color spectrum is represented.
For an example of this realize that the entire visible color spectrum is much much higher than 16.7 million colors. RGB tech is 255red x 255blue x 255green (= 16.7 million possible combinations) whereas real color would be in the Billions.
GunMod cannot be correct in writing that the current digital display has limited choice of level to choose from for each sub-pixel of RGB color. The mentioned 255 is the 8-bit as used in PC processing or 24-bit per pixel.
Full 24-bit colors smoothness is already common in display media, even the small Nokia handphone LCD.
Capabilities of Flat TVs today surpassed that at 10-bit or more per RGB in their digital conversion from analog inputs, processing and physically creating each RGB sub-pixel level of colors.
HDMI version 1.3 allows for 16-bit color depth (a.k.a. deep color), giving 1.8 times more color depth than can RGB. The problem is that most HDMI sources are only 8-bit. link
Another issues is that that the backlighting on a large percentage of LCD displays isn't capable of reproducing the full NTSC color spectrum. So although 16-bit color would would eliminate banding, the full range of colors still might not be available.
As Blu-ray starts to implement deep color, combined with new display devices, all issues will be addressed.
Hi Carlton,
Thanks for this great article about 1080p vs lower resolution. I was trying to answer some myth about blu-ray, in which one argument is that blu-ray video quality is just the same as 720p.
So I found your post on Google and linked to it from the Blu-ray myths. Great work mate.
Thanks again.
[...] [...]
Jordan,
I don't know what your deal is, but you need to get real. You have almost no idea about what you are talking about, and yet you insult people and carry on.
You sit 10 – 15 feet away? Which is it? 10 or 15 feet? There is a big difference! So lets assume 12.5 ft away from the TV. According to the chart (which is very accurate and has been reproduced several times by other people), you are not even close to seeing 1080P resolution details, so quit giving other people such a hard time! Even at 10 ft away, you can just barely make out a little detail from 1080P for that size TV.
One more thing, very few PS3 games are rendered in 1080P, among which DOES NOT include Killzone 2!
Get your facts straight and stop being such a douchebag!
quick question.
) yet get the same picure clairty. i've tested this at several viewing angles that you point out, and can notice no difference.
i have two sets, both 32" lcd, one by polariod (sony) brand name vizio (if you ask i'll explain how in the hell i got this set and why it still uses the polaroid/sony chipset) and the other a sylvania – both names of… controvesy, to say the least. i got my vizio a couple years back, before they started making their own sets. to compare, my friend has a polariod hdtv, with the exact same firmware. anyway, the point is, both sets look the same to me, both display 720p (the best resolution for 32inch, t hey do have 1080i but whats the point? the distance ratio is totally thrown off with 1080 and i have family members with bad eyesight, so i cant conviently go with 1080, even tho both sets have it)
can someone tell me why the picture, side by side is the same? i was led to believe most companies do their own thing. yet on both occasions i found both teh sylvania AND the vizio to both be using sony chipsets..
i'm talking 720p here, not 1080
are we being ripped off here? i paid 300 bucks for my sylvania, it has qam and a atsc tuner as well as OTA.. so does the vizio.. i'm a little upset because i paid a lot more for my vizio (tho undboutedly dolby is nice
what gives? am i just blind or straight up, be honest, are we being given the shaft here?
Neither Vizio nor Sylvania make their own panels / "chipsets". Both use contract manufactures and their own branding. Pricing is largely based on brand perception and what they market will bear, in addition to actual product performance. Read as many reviews as possible before purchasing, including AVSforum.com.
and another thing, quit lying about the refresh rates!
it doesn't MATTER what your tv's refresh rate is beyond 60 hz, because everything is recorded in 24hz. everyone knows this. its all about what you're pluggin into your tv that matters, not the refresh rate of the television, tho a higher refresh rate might sell more tv's there is no such thing as a 'true hd' tv because all hd is true hd, and all shows are recorded in 24 hertz, with MEANS that ALL signals must be upencoded (read: FAKE LINES, filtration, blending, interlacing, etc) etc to produce the minimum (which on most newer sets actually range from 30hz to 240, depending on the model of corse)
so the real test is the televisions upencoding capapbilties, OR, your box's upencoding abilities. NOT the television, its simply not the only thing to consider anymore..
stupid buzz words.
dont get caught up in the BS you're being fed. i'm not saying this guy is wrong; he just posted a little chart.
i just wish the entire industry would quit lying about so much!
this explains the advantages of 120hz TV's for shows and movies http://pages.samsung.com/us/bluraysupport/art_new_whatsframerefreshrate.html
and also remember that people dont solely use their TV's for TV shows and movies.
ITS NOT NECESSARY, and you bloody well know it. most name brand tvs have a refresh rate of 30, some even go 24, tho i see aboslutely NO, and i mean NO reason to ever get a set with 120 or 240
To compare
my Acer H223H HD monitor. strictly a monitor, ok, displays at 60 hz. this is because hdcp from my gtx 275 (pny technologies) works thru dvi and hdmi so i get to decide wheter or not i want dvi for refresh or hdmi for bandwidth. resolution is 1920 by 1080, scare is 16:9 (on my acer i mean)
ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MONITOR FOR CLOSE VIEWING ANGLES 1080p is UNECESSARY AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MARKETING GIMMICK.. i'm not saying 1080p is bogus, or that 120hz is BAD, instead i am saying its UNECESSARY for the average user.. thats all. and atavax, i think i get what you're getting at but that article i s worth shit. sorry. get another source and may listen, but samsung? get real dude. seriously. they are like vizio. just like vizio.
I don't understand the article or the graph, please help. *cries*
Let me know your specific question. To summarize, if you have a small TV and don't sit very close to it, you don't need 1080p. To use the graph, start at the bottom axis with your screen size, go straight up to the line for your screen resolution, then go horizontally to the left to see what the minimum distance is to see what that resolution has to offer.
one of the things that annoys me is you guys act as if, if you dont get the full amount of detail, it isnt worth it. but if say you sit 10 feet away from the screen, 1080p will be noticeable at 60" or larger; so if you are looking for the best picture quality possible at 10 feet with a 60", the answer would be 1080p because although at closer distances you would notice more detail, at 10 feet, you would see more detail with 1080p then the next lowest resolution.
I ask that everyone please remain respectful of one another in the comments.
In my opinion, 120 Hz and 240 Hz refresh rates do add value because they eliminate the motion judder introduced when converting 23.976 frame/second film-based material to 29.97 frame/second (60i) video. The 4/5th ratio produces an extra frame that must be distributed between 2 interlaced frames, resulting in judder. Reverse telecine can convert the interlaced video back to 23.976 frames/second, and then multiply the frame rate (4x, 5x, 10x, etc.) to produce dramatically smoother video at 96Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz, etc.
I suggest everyone do a side-by-side comparison between film sources (be it a movie or a TV show) viewed at 1080i@60Hz (the most common format of broadcast TV) and then again when reverse telecine is applied and the frame rate is increased to give 1080p@120Hz. Also, I recommend reading the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#Telecine_judder
And again, please remain respectful of one another when commenting.
you just stated, without meaning to, my entire argument. in your case, a videophile, i would say yes, however, in my case, and in most users case who sit beyond the 6 foot range, 1080p would be totally wasted.
and even 'smooth' video is nothing more than upconversion, which you must agree is entirely dependant upon the device that is encoding, or upconverting. beyond that, i would simply say that while what you're saying is right, the entire argument is moot beyond 10 feet because you cannot notice it anyway. but once again, you stated very clearly that its CONVERTING 23.9 frames per second. which is film standard on 35/45mm, am i correct?
if this is the case, than the only thing that beyond 23.9 thats necessary is 29.9
i'm abbreviating here, and again beyond 10ft.
in my case i sit 1 foot to 2 1/2 feet from my acer. but in most cases in families i can see where your graph could help, but we were always taught (incorrectly i found out, but i digress) to sit far away from the television, not close up. as i got smarter i figured out that it was because of the blurry image all of those older screens had. but since lcd, and progression standard, that wasn't necessary anymore.. i'm getting drawn into semantics.. ok, point is. i dont see the reason why i should ever pay what you have for a television, when i sit about 10 feet away from my tv, and i sit 2 feet (approx) from my monitor. by your estimates i'm just fine, and i never even needed to be here.. cuz it's obvious while you know your stuff, you don't know what i need to know.. carlton.. thanks tho, at least i get it now. see you're into the most expensive stuff, what we call a jet setter. well i dont have the funds to even think of a 60 inch tv, so.. yeah, you dont know what i need to know.. sorry to bother you
oh and motion jutter can be corrected without a insanely high refresh rate, if your smart enough to know what to get, you dont HAVE to buy a 60 inch 6 billion dollar tv to get it. thats my point.
William, this post does not solely advocate that you must spend a lot of money and purchase a giant TV to make sure to get the full benefit of 1080p. It points out that you don't need to spend the extra money for 1080p if you're not sitting close enough to benefit from it. I provide the information to support either perspective and I don't advocate one over the other. The reader must determine which applies to them based on their objectives.
It's important not to confuse resolution up-conversion and frame rate up-conversion. I agree with you that most people don't sit close enough to their HDTVs to benefit from 1080p. But I disagree with you that 120Hz frame rate is unnoticeable based on viewing distance.
There is no way to display 23.976 Hz (24p) material at 29.97 Hz (60i) without interlacing/judder artifacts being displayed. It's not possible to display it accurately at 59.94 Hz (60p) either; there will sill be artifacts due to it not being a Least Common Multiple of 24.976.
To eliminate these judder video conversion errors, a Least Common Multiple frame rate of both 23.976 HZ and 29.97/59.94 Hz must be used. This is 119.88 Hz.
These video deficiencies are noticeable regardless of video resolution. It doesn't matter if it's a 120" 1080p display or a 27" 480i display, film-based judder motion problems are noticeable. They can be greatly minimized by a high-end video processor but using a least common multiple frame rate of 120 Hz can give improvements beyond that.
I'm about to buy a 58 inch 1080p plasma samsung 650, I will be 11ft away and will be using it for blu ray,x360 and hdtv. By your chart are you saying I should be sitting closer or getting a larger screen to get the full benefit.Thanks
Yes, the chart shows that you would notice additional detail if you got a larger screen or if you sit closer to the screen. Or if you would like to save some expense, and you can find one, a 720p TV may offer an equivalent viewing resolution.
I sit ~ 12 ft from a 126" diag 16×9 screen (using a JVC RS20 projector). As I read your chart, it says that I would get 'full benefit' from 1440p resolution; is that correct? Most 'gurus' say that 1080p is all that one will ever need for such HT situations.
Yes, that is correct, you would be one of the few to benefit from resolutions higher that 1080p. I think you and I have a very similar setup, but most people sit 12 feet from a 46 inch screen, so we are the exception.
It will be a long time before we get resolutions higher than 1080p. The technology is developed but the standards, implementation, and especially the source materials are all years and years away.
Still confused by the chart. I sit 12 feet from our tv and we will be soon be replacing a Sony that is on its last legs. New one will probably not be larger than 50". Will we benefit by 1080p at that distance.
No, you will not benefit from 1080p at 12' on a 50" screen. You need at least a 60-inch diagonal screen to even start to benefit at 12 feet and about 85-inches to fully benefit.
Dear Sir
How can I chack the brightness for projector is true or not
What are the requirements for testing (screen size, distance, ligting..etc)
Please provide us with the necessary information
Regards
Wail Albuni
The only way to check projector brightness is with a lumen meter. Or reading a review by someone who has used one. The configuration depends on the meter but it's done in a completely dark room.
Hello Carlton!!
I just bought a new LCD Toshiba 40XF300C with 100/120 Hz, it is quite good. Although it is a OLD model, it is top model of Toshiba in 2008.
Now I have a problem to watch DVD through a old DVD player w/o HDMI connection, so I plan to buy a new DVD player with upscaling function. Originally, I plan to buy PS3 that we can play game and watch DVD/VCD, as I still have a lot of DVD/VCD. Do u have any recommendation to improve the quality or any DVD player? thanks a lot
Lee, HDMI by itself won't add any quality to the DVD player. An upconverting (to 1080p resolution) model may. But I strongly suggest a cheap Blu-ray player instead. Generally great upconversion of DVDs and fantastic picture quality for Blu-rays. You can find an older model online for as cheap as $99. Checkout the hot deals forums on anadtech.com and fatwallet.com.
So what you're saying is, I can enjoy 1080p programming with a 40" depending on how far I sit from the TV? Because a lot of people say you need a 46" or higher for that.
In my opinion the pixel fill factor is critical, flat pannels often have a very poor fill factor due to using seperate red, green, blue sub-pixels, while dlp front projectors can have fill factor >95%. It is the ability to resolve the pixel structure – screen door effect that is more a limitation.
The resolving ability you are using is true if you were viewing black/white line drawings on a bright flatscreen display. They are not applicable to color images, moving images, and relatively dim displays like front projectors. In practice I think you would need to be alot closer to see a difference watching films.
The "resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)" is based on black and white lines in bright lighting conditions with at least several seconds looking at the image. The ability to resolve fine detail is dependent on contrast and display brightness. Front projectors are dimmer than the brightness used. Contrast between black and white is alot higher than between shades of grey in a black and white film. Most films are in color and perception of contrast between colors is alot less than between black and white or shades of grey. Finally movies involve moving images not still pictures.
Would a black 45 degree diagonal line on a white screen be a good test, if it looks staircased you might benefit from higher resolution. If it looks smooth you probably will not. I say might because as I point out above for color moving images acuity is going to be less.
Using the limits of human perception you could argue that higher resolution is noticeable at even greater distances. Visual acuity may average 30 line pairs per degree (1minute of a degree per line) but can be upto 45 line pairs per degree (40 seconds of a degree per line) and vermier acuity the ability to notice a line is not straight but offset is 10x visual acuity (6seconds of a degree average)
Or you could argue that higher resolution is less noticeable as contrast sensitivity – perception of shapness is highest at 1/3 to 1/7 of visual acuity (3minutes to 7minutes of a degree). So details larger than 4 line pairs per degree are most important.
Great reading.
Multi part question.
Details- We have a long and narrow room (12'x24') with full bay window (south west exposure) at one end. entrance door is on front wall where TV lives opposite bay window. Entrance door reduces front wall to less than 8'. Most common viewing area for wife and I is 15' from front wall, other places people sit range from 7' to 14'. (really long couch on one wall)
At 15' I interpret your chart to indicate that unless we install a 115" screen we will not see the benefit from 1080p resolution. Is this correct?
The largest screen we think we can aesthetically accommodate is in the 50' range. At this size your chart indicates that there is not a significant viewing perception difference in 720p and 1080p. Is this an correct interpretation.
Next if I take into account the other viewing areas in the room your chart leads me to the conclusion that we could install a 46' to 52' tv at 720p and fall within acceptable viewing perception parameters. Is this correct?
Last question. One issue we have will be glare on high gloss screens. We have found models that have lower reflectivity screens but have had trouble finding any empirical information on how to compare different screens. Samsung has models that end in *****630 that have a more matte screen. We are not finding a lot of choices in the 50" range that have more matte screens. Any suggestions for models/manufacturers?
Thanks, Rusty
Rusty, you are correct on all of your interpretations. You would need a very large screen to benefit from 1080p at 15'.
As for screens with matte finishes, I'm not sure as it changes from year-to-year and model-to-model. In general, I think Samsung has higher reflectivity, Sony has moderate reflectivity, and other brands are generally more matte, but you should go to a retail store and compare them with the screen turned off to identify the matte screens.
So I'm looking at the differences between two different budget LCD TV's, and I would like a little direction. Here are links to the two TV's.
http://tv.rca.com/en-us/modeldetail.html?MN=L40FHD41
http://www.vizio.com/product.aspx?id=3364&pid=1506
Which one seems better to everyone based on the fact that I will use it for not only normal viewing from 8-10 ft.(depending on which couch I'm sitting at) but gaming as well(5 feet away – PS3 and PC). I'm mainly worried about the extra size and better contrast ratio (RCA) vs. the better response time and seeming color depth of 1.06 billion colors (Vizio – skeptical on the colors).
Oh, and I meant to say as well that the RCA is priced at $598 + tax and the Vizio is $578 + tax.
I have found out that the display on the Vizio is manufactured by LPL, a division of LG. Still researching the RCA. I called Union Electronic Distributors to figure out about the RCA, but I didn't have the proper "y-z numbers" to differentiate between three panel companies. Also, I have seen people complaining online that the RCA does not work with universal remotes. So I guess just add that into the mix as well (although it isn't a major problem to me, only a minor annoyance).
I've heard nothing but positive reviews of Vizio if you're looking for the best bang-for-the-buck. They are the #1 seller of LCDs by volume. As for RCA, I didn't even know the RCA brand was still being used.
To be honest I have actually seen a lot of negative reviews in the customer service area for Vizio. They always say that Vizio is great until something goes wrong with your t.v. That is what I'm worried about.
I do respect the fact that more and more companies seem to be having customer service problems as time goes by.
[...] size of your screen (32", 42", etc) and the distance at which that screen is viewed (see this explained in detail). If your setup doesn't really take advantage of higher resolution video, it obviously [...]
[...] Mr. Bale has done a lot of research on HDTV resolutions and seating distance, and he does a good job of explaining it on his web site. [...]
[...] http://carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ this site shows a charter showing the tv size and when you would slightly start to notice. http://www.thebestplasmatv.com/guides/720p-vs-1080p/ "For 8 feet, the optimal size is 42" for 720p, 60-65" for 1080i/p and 32" or smaller for 480i/p" __________________ Desktop x2 7750 2gb 1066 Gskill ram 250gb hdd x1650 pro pcie gpu 2x memorex 20x dual layer sata burners [...]