• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

About to purchase my first Flat Panel...

GQgeek

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
84
Originally Posted by dkzzzz
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 ******. 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.
 

Southern-Nupe

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
5
Originally Posted by dkzzzz
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.
 

Southern-Nupe

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
5
Originally Posted by GQgeek
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 ******. 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.
 

GQgeek

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
84
Originally Posted by MCsommerreid
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.
 

A Y

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
1,037
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
 

dkzzzz

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,294
Reaction score
21
Originally Posted by Andre Yew
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.
 

A Y

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
1,037
Originally Posted by dkzzzz
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
 

dkzzzz

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,294
Reaction score
21
Originally Posted by Andre Yew
That's quite a statement you're making. Do you know how inverse telecine works?

--Ander


No I don't and neither do you.
 

A Y

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
1,037
Originally Posted by dkzzzz
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
 

MCsommerreid

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by GQgeek
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.
 

CaptChaos

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
245
Reaction score
3
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser
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.
 

MCsommerreid

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by CaptChaos
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.
 

imageWIS

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
19,716
Reaction score
106
Originally Posted by Fuuma
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.
 

imageWIS

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
19,716
Reaction score
106
Originally Posted by dkzzzz
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.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,203
Messages
10,579,254
Members
223,891
Latest member
Robertiweyer
Top