Is 1080p too much?!?

[miahallen]

I'm posting this just to vent my frustration towards CE journalists in general (and no, probably not the guys from TG or Anand, they're usually not this dumb). But, I've been reading a lot of info bashing 1080p:

CNET talks about a 37" LCD panel ..."screen size too small for most viewers to really appreciate 1080p".

I am just now reading an "Ask the Pro" Q/A section in the Oct06 issue of GamePro magazine, where the editor states, "only the HD enthusiasts will really be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p".

These are not the only instances I've seen. Lots of comments are coming from commentaries about Blue Ray and HD-DVD. But none seem to be very well thought out.

First, as a refrence - different resolutions expressed in megapixels:
standard aspect ration (4x3)
640x480 = 0.31
800x600 = 0.48 55% increase from 640x480
1024x768 = 0.79 64% increase from 800x600
1280x960 = 1.23 55% increase from 1024x768
1600x1200 = 1.92 56% increase from 1280x960
2048x1536 = 3.15 64% increase from 1600x1200

widescreen aspect ratio for TVs (16x9)
848x480 (aka 480p) = 0.41
1280x720 (aka 720p) = 0.92 125% increase from 848x480
1920x1080 (aka 1080p)= 2.07 125% increase from 1280x720

widescreen aspect ratio for computer monitors (16x10)
1440x900 = 1.30
1680x1050 = 1.76 35% increase from 1440x900
1920x1200 = 2.30 31% increase from 1680x1050
2560x1600 = 4.10 78% increase from 1920x1200

Geez, after writing out these figues, I'm even more confused with the comments. THE TWO LARGEST INCREASES WERE BOTH 125% FROM 480P TO 720P AND FROM 720P TO 1080P! Any one of these CE pro's will cite a drastic increase in image quatity going from 480p to 720p, why can't they see the same increase froming from 720p to 1080p?

Now, let me appeal to all you PC gamers out there. Like me, you have probably been dealing with high resolutions for years. I remember playing Far Cry with my brand new R9700Pro in the spring of '03. This was on a 19" CRT (18" viewable). I debated for a long time whether 1024x768 with AAx4 or 1600x1200 with noAA was better. I usually ended up playing at 1600x1200, it just looked better. But, if we take the AA out of the equation, and you asked me if I can tell the difference between 1024x768 and 1600x1200.....I'd ask you if you were blind. Anybody can see the difference. Now, in another year, if you take a well designed game for a test spin on the PS3, and compare it at 720p and 1080p, I'm sure you'd have similar results.

For movie buffs, the same holds true, if you can tell the difference between current DVD movies quality (480p) and most broadcast HDTV content (720p, and I'm not talking about the old crap that has been upconverted). Then you will be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Things will only become more defined as the technology developes. Recording method for the studios will become more streamlined, and camera's will evolve to take advantage of these higher resolutions. So, the difference will wide even more over time.

But, my point is this, If I can see the difference between the two resolutions on my little 19" computer screen, the 37" would be even more pronounced (as long as you are appropriatly close to it).

 

[schwinn]

First off, comparing images on CRT vs LCD is futile. The problem is that even with the "right" signal, watching a 1080p image on a 720p LCD will get you nowhere fast. In fact, it would probably look worse that way, due to the need to downsample.

Second, LCDs of larger sizes typically use larger pixels or other "shortcuts" to make the size work. This results in a poorer picture, generally speaking.

Also, there is no really good quality HD 1080 picture out there for a true comparison. Most of the junk we get today is simply resampled to higher resolutions (so that they can "say" they are 1080) or it's a 720 signal. Heck most of the junk is still 4:3, so you lose out on the sides anyway.

Lastly, image quality is also connected to viewing distance. As TVs have gotten bigger, the rooms they are in have not... and so you get to see more pixels (especially with LCDs) because you are simply closer to the set. It's all a big game to get people to buy bigger TVs... I just don't get it.

I can say that my friend's 46" 720p LCD RP HDTV looks terrible, honestly. Even with a "good" HD signal, the LCD is just horrible, to my eyes. It's dull, and very blocky. My 20" cheapie LCD (direct view, non-HD) TV looks ok, but certainly not good like a CRT. My main TV is a 32" CRT (nonHD) and looks better than the signal it's fed (Crapdelphia Cable).

For these reasons, I won't bother with HD anytime soon, nor will I get anything LCD related. All these big-screen TVs simply compromise image quality for "quantity" (ie, size). I'm not interested in any of them. Plasma is the only thing that looks good to me these days, and some direct view LCDs (brightness/contrast-wise) but neither is promising.