or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › About to purchase my first Flat Panel...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

About to purchase my first Flat Panel... - Page 3

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Little side note. I feel that TV shows will never be broadcast in true 1080P. I heard from TV people that even at 720P resolution the make-up and props should be completely different. Nothing cheap could be used anymore because viewers can easaely see cheap backdrops and props. Actors also not too happy with us seeing their every pimple, wrinkle and nose hair.

that's a bandwidth issue. Right now they're broadcasting in 1080i and 720p afaik, both of which require substantially less bandwidth than 1080p. You should also consider that even at these lower resolutions, hell even at normal tv resolutinos, the cable and satellite companies tend to cram too many channels on to their available bandwidth, and so they over-compress everything and it ends up looking shitty. You're right, 1080p will not be broadcast any time soon.

PS. If anyone actually wants to find out what resolution they should be considering, read the link i posted above. Read the chart and the paragraph below it.
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Little side note. I feel that TV shows will never be broadcast in true 1080P. I heard from TV people that even at 720P resolution the make-up and props should be completely different. Nothing cheap could be used anymore because viewers can easaely see cheap backdrops and props. Actors also not too happy with us seeing their every pimple, wrinkle and nose hair.
I can't say whether or not stations will ever broadcast in 1080p, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen for quite some time. There are still plenty of stations, who have yet to go HD.
post #33 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
that's a bandwidth issue. Right now they're broadcasting in 1080i and 720p afaik, both of which require substantially less bandwidth than 1080p. You should also consider that even at these lower resolutions, hell even at normal tv resolutinos, the cable and satellite companies tend to cram too many channels on to their available bandwidth, and so they over-compress everything and it ends up looking shitty. You're right, 1080p will not be broadcast any time soon.

PS. If anyone actually wants to find out what resolution they should be considering, read the link i posted above. Read the chart and the paragraph below it.
Agreed, personally I'm just as happy receiving a HD signal over the air, due to the lack of compression.
post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCsommerreid View Post
Also a thought, if you're going to use an HTPC or something like an Xbox 360 with it I definitely recommend at east 1080i. 720p is good for TV and DVDs, but when you run it off a PC, especially if you're gonna play games on it, the lack of resolution is really apparent.



Not scientific, but yes, I can. It's not really noticeable beyond "hey, that image looks better" with TV, but with games the jaggies really show up at the lower resolutions.

You're right to a certain degree, but you should be careful about which HD display you choose for gaming. A lot of them introduce lag in to the experience because of the extra processing required by the display to convert the image, not to mention the extra processing required by the computer to drive a 1900x1200 display. And btw 720p is find for gaming. It's what the xbox360 outputs so I don't know what you're talking about. And for all it's talk about 1080p games, the vast majority of PS3 games will run at 720p. It requires a significant increase in computing power to push 1080p resolutions. Some displays have game modes which are intended to decrease lag on HDTVs. They're not all equal, however.
post #35 of 71
Note that the LCD, plasma, silicon-processed (SXRD, DLP, D-ILA), and other "digital" displays only display in progressive, so there's really no such thing as a 1080i monitor. That only means the monitor's inputs can accept 1080i, and it will deinterlace and convert it to whatever the native progressive resolution is. Not really great for computer work, especially text --- it's best to configure your computer to output the native resolution of your monitor. Some TVs can figure out if a 1080i source is made from film, and do inverse telecine to reconstruct the full 1080p resolution played back at some integer multiple of 24 fps. So even if there are no broadcast 1080p sources, you can get true 1080p material at the right frame rate. Only some really high-end TVs, and a handful of standalone video processors can do this. Resolution of the human eye has estimates from 1 to 0.3 arc-minutes (there are many different numbers). You can figure out the rest from those numbers. --Andre
post #36 of 71
This is a good article on why you need 1080p:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...07-part-1.html

If I were you, I'd get a 1080p-capable monitor.

--Andre
post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
Note that the LCD, plasma, silicon-processed (SXRD, DLP, D-ILA), and other "digital" displays only display in progressive, so there's really no such thing as a 1080i monitor. That only means the monitor's inputs can accept 1080i, and it will deinterlace and convert it to whatever the native progressive resolution is. Not really great for computer work, especially text --- it's best to configure your computer to output the native resolution of your monitor.

Some TVs can figure out if a 1080i source is made from film, and do inverse telecine to reconstruct the full 1080p resolution played back at some integer multiple of 24 fps. So even if there are no broadcast 1080p sources, you can get true 1080p material at the right frame rate. Only some really high-end TVs, and a handful of standalone video processors can do this.

Resolution of the human eye has estimates from 1 to 0.3 arc-minutes (there are many different numbers). You can figure out the rest from those numbers.

--Andre

Andrew there is no way to get the TRUE anything if any processing involved. If it is not true 1080P source streaming to true 1080P receiver with a NATIVE resolution of 1080P there is a loss of quality and detail.
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Andrew there is no way to get the TRUE anything if any processing involved. If it is not true 1080P source streaming to true 1080P receiver with a NATIVE resolution of 1080P there is a loss of quality and detail.

That's quite a statement you're making. Do you know how inverse telecine works?

--Ander
post #39 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
That's quite a statement you're making. Do you know how inverse telecine works?

--Ander

No I don't and neither do you.
post #40 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
No I don't and neither do you.

Wow. What's with the hostility? I know perfectly well how inverse telecine works, and if you read the link I supplied, you will too. Once you know how it works, you will know how 1080p can be completely recovered from 1080i.

--Andre
post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
And btw 720p is find for gaming. It's what the xbox360 outputs so I don't know what you're talking about.

With the firmware update the 360 will put out 1080p, full 1920x1080. That's more useful with the 360s HD player than gaming, but useful none the less. 1080i would probably work just as well, though.
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
A salesman told me that the Sony XBR model was not worth the upcharge over the standard Sony 1080p model. I couldn't tell the difference between the two sets looking at them side-by-side.

Did you look at the Sharp Aquos and Samsung models? What made you choose the Sony?

I also did a side-by-side comparison with the XBR model and I couldn't tell much of a difference. The XBR model also had that glass bezel surround which made it weigh considerably more.

I did look at the Samsung which is built using the same panel. The Samsung was only a bit cheaper so I decided to stick with Sony.

The Aquos has (had?) banding issues so even though it was noticably cheaper and larger at 42" I decided against it.

I'm pretty happy with the Sony. The only thing I wish for would be for higher contrast (one of the main weaknesses of LCD) and more HDMI inputs.
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptChaos View Post
I'm pretty happy with the Sony. The only thing I wish for would be for higher contrast (one of the main weaknesses of LCD) and more HDMI inputs.

Better to invest in an A/V receiver for more inputs, in my opinion. Also has the added bonus of more/better surround sound. Mmm, surround sound.
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
I've seen slightly smaller screen recommended at that distance, say 32" to 36" (or is it 37"). Your points still stands though although I do believe people often aim for TVs that are too big.

No such thing, at least not in the living room. I'm a good 15 feet from the TV and oftentimes I feel a 70" would fit the room better than our 60".

Jon.
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Can human eye see the difference in details between 480P, 720P and 1080P from 8 feet away?
I am not asking for anecdotal evidence, is there scientific proof?
I would look into this topic before making a purchase of so called HDTV.

I can. I don't have proof, but I'm REALLY detail oriented, and I can see the differences.

Jon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › About to purchase my first Flat Panel...