Buying a new TV: How important is 1080p?

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by warlok1965

To get the best out of 1080p I got a Toshiba HC4900 projector. With rebate I paid about $1500. My "screen" is 100" diagonal and I sit about 12' away. I could never go back to watching anything smaller. The only drawback is the need for a dark room - and the fact that the resolution is so high you can actually see how crappy the cable Hi-Def channels look after all the compression they go through.

If you want to have your socks knocked off check out a 3-DLP chip projection system.

I know someone who has one in their home theater and it looks by far better than any other screen I've ever seen, in a home or otherwise.

Jon.

 

[Artisan Fan]

The Home Theater Forum is good but also check out Audio Video Sciences forum.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

If you want to have your socks knocked off check out a 3-DLP chip projection system.

I know someone who has one in their home theater and it looks by far better than any other screen I've ever seen, in a home or otherwise.

Jon.

Or a topline Sony SXRD projector which is based on LCOS technology and a little better than regular DLP.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Or a topline Sony SXRD projector which is based on LCOS technology and a little better than regular DLP.

I haven't seen one (um, actually calibrated and displaying an image; I've seen a unit sitting around waiting to be installed), so I can't comment. All I know is that the 3-Chip DLP is way beyond my monetary abilities.

Jon.

 

[gvibes]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Or a topline Sony SXRD projector which is based on LCOS technology and a little better than regular DLP.
Projector central just did a buying guide, and there were a number of LCOS projectors (both SXRD and d-ila) in their preferred models.

 

[Babar]

For smaller sizes (i.e less than 50&quot 1080p isn't really critical, and definitely not if the screen is just 32". I have a Pioneer 42" Kuro with 720p and the picture is way better in pretty much every single way than my dads 1080p 40" Bravia. As I see it it's a bit like digital cameras and the whole megapixel thing, more doesn't necessarily mean better.

The Pioneer can also handle 1080/24 BluRay signals so that it displays the material correctly even though the resolution is higher than the display. If the screen was actually 1080p, I doubt there'd be any noticeable difference due to the size from a normal viewing distance.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Babar

For smaller sizes (i.e less than 50") 1080p isn't really critical, and definitely not if the screen is just 32". I have a Pioneer 42" Kuro with 720p and the picture is way better in pretty much every single way than my dads 1080p 40" Bravia. As I see it it's a bit like digital cameras and the whole megapixel thing, more doesn't necessarily mean better.

The Pioneer can also handle 1080/24 BluRay signals so that it displays the material correctly even though the resolution is higher than the display. If the screen was actually 1080p, I doubt there'd be any noticeable difference due to the size from a normal viewing distance.

+1

The 50" kuro is what i have my eyes on. OH NOZZ ITZ NOT 1080P!@#$!@

 

[A Y]

It's basically impossible to compare 720p to 1080p sets, sometimes even for sets from the same line from the same manufacturer. The scaler and deinterlacer along with whatever processing magic they use to drive the panel, are so different and often dependent on input material.

The Pioneers have pretty OK video processing, while other brands may not. So when you see a difference between two sets, even when identically calibrated, it may not be due to their resolution, but may be (and often is) due to whatever processing they're performing on the input signal. That's why resolution alone is not a good indicator of quality.

--Andre

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

It's basically impossible to compare 720p to 1080p sets, sometimes even for sets from the same line from the same manufacturer. The scaler and deinterlacer along with whatever processing magic they use to drive the panel, are so different and often dependent on input material.

The Pioneers have pretty OK video processing, while other brands may not. So when you see a difference between two sets, even when identically calibrated, it may not be due to their resolution, but may be (and often is) due to whatever processing they're performing on the input signal. That's why resolution alone is not a good indicator of quality.

--Andre

I agree but I have also found that 1080P sets are highly correlated with better features and overall picture quality.

 

[FidelCashflow]

Well thanks for all your input over the last few days, guys. Yesterday I pulled the trigger on the Sony 32" XBR which has a killer picture. I picked up a Pioneer upconverting DVD player and a HDMI cable to go with it. It works brilliantly.

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether I should be using an HDMI or component cable to connect my DVD player to my TV. I tried both and spent a good few hours testing the image and sound quality on various DVD's, watching certain scenes over and over again to try and see/hear the difference. When I plug in the component cable, the TV says it's showing it at 480P, and when I use the HDMI, the TV says it's showing it at 1080i. I tried to compare the resolution using "I Am Legend" "Training Day" and "Casino Royale", and I couldn't tell the difference. I even sat a few inches away from my TV trying to find differences between fine details like hair, rain drops on a car, skin imperfections, licence plates on cars, etc. The only difference I could spot was at some points during Casino Royale it seemed that component cables generated slightly less visual noise. But on other DVD's, I couldn't tell them apart. Is this unusual?

 

[Brian SD]

This is because (you guys can correct me if I'm wrong), DVDs cannot go higher than 480p. Your receiver or TV is probably upscaling it to 1080i when you use the HDMI cable, but the native resolution is 480p, so you won't really notice a difference. You might notice some slight differences because the receiver might be doing a good job trying to make it look higher resolution, but it won't change the fact that it's native res is 480p.

If you want to see a difference, compare a BluRay or an HD-DVD to a standard DVD. In either case, always use an HDMI cable if you have the ability to do so. There isn't much of a pro/con discussion to be made about HDMI vs. component - HDMI will always be better.

 

[Artisan Fan]

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether I should be using an HDMI or component cable to connect my DVD player to my TV.

HDMI is generally better since it keeps the video signal in digital form.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Brian SD

There isn't much of a pro/con discussion to be made about HDMI vs. component - HDMI will always be better.

+1

Jon.

 

[Girardian]

In addition to calibration / fine turning there's a lot to be said for a decent cable.

While opinions differ wildly about "how much" to spend on cables, consider checking out a "decent" HDMI cable that you can return if you don't see the difference.

BlueJeans cables, Bettercables, and Signal Cable all get good press from "budget minded" videophiles. This may be the least expensive way (at about $50 + S/H) to squeeze additional quality out of your set up.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

When I plug in the component cable, the TV says it's showing it at 480P, and when I use the HDMI, the TV says it's showing it at 1080i.
Congrats on your purchase. I hope you enjoy your new system. First the easy part: many (most?) upconverting DVD players will not output anything beyond 480p over component, so you have to use HDMI if you want to use the DVD player's upconversion feature. Now the hard part: which one you use depends on many factors. When you use 480p from the player into the TV, you are using the player's deinterlacer, and the TV's scaler. When you use 1080i, you are using the player's scaler (and sometimes deinterlacer) and the TV's deinterlacer. Choosing 480p or 1080i in your situation depends on who does what better. Sometimes, there isn't a clear winner. There are many implementations of scalers and deinterlacers, and in general, scaling is easier to get right than deinterlacing. In fact, there is no practically available deinterlacer that will be correct all the time: it's mostly a heuristic algorithm. And as has been mentioned, HDMI may get you a better picture because it keeps the video signal in digital form througout, from the disk through to the TV. However, this difference is usually negligible to non-existent compared to the performance of the scaler and deinterlacer. This path can also introduce artifacts due to improper implementation, so you should always compare the analog and digital paths of an unknown player. To judge a scaler's performance, look at high-contrast straight lines (eg. black lines against a white background), and see if there are faint echoes of that line parallel to it. This is caused by ringing due to the upconversion filter. You generally won't see this unless you're very close or you have a very big screen. To judge a deinterlacer's performance, you should watch video-sourced material like sports or concerts which are shot with 60 fps video cameras instead of 24 fps film cameras. Watch for fast moving objects with lots of detail. Do these details shimmer? If the moving object has strong diagonal lines, are there jaggies on the diagonal lines? Do the edges of moving objects tear or have little hair-like artifacts? Deinterlacing film is straightforward, and aside from bad edits in the film, most deinterlacers will do fine with film. Video material is where the heuristics have to come in, and with few exceptions, performance is usually pretty bad. The new Oppo 983H with the ABT102 chipset has the best deinterlacer out there, but the Realtas and Gennum-based players aren't too shabby. The Pioneer DVD player you have probably uses a proprietary Pioneer chip, which is OK, but not too good. If you watch mostly Hollywood movies in NTSC, then don't worry too much about the deinterlacer. PAL film material should be as easy to deinterlace as NTSC movies, but for some reason, many deinterlacing solutions aren't well-tested for PAL, and perform badly. The ABT102 chipset mentioned above is the exception however as the thing can pretty much figure out almost any cadence. Someone else mentioned HDMI cable quality, and suggested a few good vendors. For HDMI, the only quality of cable that matters is that the cable can correctly pass the bits over the distance for the video resolution that you use. Getting a better cable beyond that makes no difference at all. Hope this helps. --Andre