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, it is possible to estimate when the differences between resolutions will become apparent. A person with 20/20 vision can resolve 60 pixels per degree, which corresponds to recognizing the letter “E” on the 20/20 line of a Snellen eye chart from 20 feet away. 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 flat panel on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be close enough to notice any advantage. Check the chart above and use that to make your decision.
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. So be sure to calibrate your screen! I recommend the following for calibration.
Recommended Calibration Tools
- Disney WOW: World of Wonder Blu-ray
- Disney WOW: World of Wonder DVD
- Alternative options:
- DVD: Digital Video Essentials (the original calibration disc dating back to the 1990s)
- Blu-ray: Spears & Munsil High-Def Benchmark Disc (my favorite but hard to find)
- Blu-ray: Digital Video Essentials: HD Basics (an update to the original, but I don’t like it as well)
- Automatic Hardware Calibrator: Datacolor Spyder 3
“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.
Note about “or closer” viewing distances calculated above: if you sit closer than the distances shown above, you will be able to see some (but not all) of the detail offered by the next higher resolution.
So here’s my dilemma.
I am looking at a budget of between $1000-$2000.
I will be sitting, (if I put it on a stand, 12′, if on the wall 14′) from the t.v.
I will be watching mostly sports and action movies, as well as hdtv and some Wii games.
I have looked at the charts, and from the viewing distance I would have to get a 75″ screen to get full effect of 1080p. NO Way…wifey says..lol.
My input will be from Bell HD (Canadian here) and probably for now a regular dvd player with a upconverting unit.
Should I get the 720p 50″ or what?
Really would like some help here.
Gordie, unless you’re very rich, only option I can see is to sit closer (a lot closer).
This of course, will change the look of the room. Wifey’s tend to be more into how the overall room looks rather than technical side to HD, so you may come up against an ice wall with anything that makes the room look Geeky.
One wife friendly suggestion is to put plants behind your seats so you can sit closer without a big empty gap behind. I’ve been considering this myself (and/or lamps)
“Not all men are stupid, some stay single”
Give me a break! In all honesty how many people come to your place and say “I can’t watch that TV because the seating area is too close” or how about this one “Wait before we start watching that big Tv whats the resolution on it?” Big screen TV’s are over pirced and over rated. Please get everyone get a life.
So if i am planning to have my computer hooked up to my 42in plasma hdtv quite a bit, is it worth spending several 100 to get the 1080p because of the text? I’m going for bargain. The 42 720 i would get would be 800 and the 1080 would be 1k. I would probably be sitting about 5 to 7 ft away. Thanks for the help.
Am considering a +/- 50 inch. LCD or Plasma? 1080 or 720?
Background:
Family with 3 year old kids.
Lot of Disney videos and kids programs (Angelina Ballerina, Caillou, etc).
Seating about 15 feet away.
May purchase Wii in next 6 months.
Would like to show digital pictures/clips of the kids on the screen.
Potential for burn with Plasma when chasing kids around the house, leaving digital photos/videos on screen?
Thanks
Axel
I thank you for your research, but I don’t thing the charts are entirely correct. For those who don’t know, the THX recommendations are distances recommended to get top (100%) quality of the television.
I’m very picky on any display, and let me tell you that I notice the difference of 1080p beyond 15ft on my 46in LCD. I may not be able to differenciate the sources beyond 20ft, but I can assure you that 480p is DISGUSTING at in comparison to 1080p from 15ft away, which isn’t what your chart suggests.
This is too theorethical to be recommended. For a normal living room, I wouldn’t never recommend anything under 1080p on anything over 37inches.
This has to be the dumbest article I have seen reguarding 720 vs. 1080. Let me make it very simple for those who are not sure of what to buy.
If you have a PSP or other high end gaming system, or you have a Blue Ray player, or plan to purchase either within the next 5 years, then buy 1080.
If you do not have a PSP or other high end gaming system, and do not have a Blue Ray player and don’t plan on buying either within the next 5 years buy a 720.
NOTHING IS BROADCAST IN 1080!!!!!!! So unless you have the above mentioned, you will not benefit at all from 1080 no matter what anyone tells you. Don’t be fooled by the autor trying to compare A PC with a TV, they are totaly different mediums. If you the type of person who “has to have it” when it comes out, then buy 1080 or above. If your the type of person who is smart enough to realize that by the time programming is broadcast in 1080 or above, and by the time Blue Ray even comes close to pushing aside regular DVD’s as the main media that your TV no matter what you buy will likely need replacing again, then you buy 720 now and wait until Blue Ray further expands until you purchase 1080 or higher, and pocket a large sum of money to boot. If you want to tell the difference between 720 and 1080, go to a place that has them on display side by side (like an HH Greg type store) and view them without the aid of a Blue Ray player, and no matter how far away or how close you stand, you will not be able to tell any difference. The broadcast technology is behind the TV technology right now, which is why in most cases buying higher than 720 is a huge waste of money.
Jason Smith: Your comment has to be one of the dumbest I’ve read in a long time.
Reference this article.
As I mentioned multiple times on this site, 1080i can be perfectly de-interlaced to 1080p with a descent image processor.
The PSP is a hand-held gaming system and it is not HD-capable. If you have a PSP, it doesn’t matter what resolution your TV is.
The PS3 contains a Blu-ray player. New Blu-ray titles are now selling at significant volumes, undoubtedly due in part to the large number of lower-cost players that have been purchased by non-early-adopter consumers.
And by the way, the correct spelling is Blu-ray, not Blue Ray.
It’s amazing how many people criticize the article when they barely read it properly or have close to zero knowledge. The article is so clear and simple. I really enjoyed.
Okay, let’s all get together for a hug now… The argument is over.
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.