720p Decision

[matthewh]

I am wanting to get into HD. Making a decision on a HD television. I want to go some where between 37" and 50". This is due to room size and budget. Seems like all I have found so far are 720p and anything 1080i/p costs a fortune.

The set I am currently looking at most strongly due to price features and size.

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/DLPTV/HLR5067WAXXAA.asp?page=size_contents

What I mainly want to see in HD is discovery. Also my DVD's and I am sure some day HD DVD's. By going with a 720p set instead of a 1080p/i am I going to be short changing my self quite a bit on quality? If the signal coming from the satellite is in 1080i and must be converted by the set or receiver to 720p I imagine there is going to be some quality lost in the transition not?

This is a chunk of money and a big decision. Wish Dish would transmit 720p and 1080i both so everyone was happy.

Also, what do you guys think of the Samsung TV?

Matthew

 

[who_the]

The 720p vs. 1080i debate has raged on in various forms for many years. I sit 10' away from a 62" 1280x720 HD set and I have never been disappointed in either 720p or 1080i content. Some 720p sets do 'lazier' conversions on 1080i content, reducing the quality, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn't it?

Also, make sure you check out the quality of non-HD (SD TV and DVD) on the set as well, since the vast majority of content out there is still not in high definition. I think a lot of people tend to be disappointed when seeing SD on a big screen, particularly LCD and DLP, since the poor quality of SD video is magnified on big sets with a far different 'character' than our old cathode-ray sets.

 

[deno24]

If space is not an issue I would get an RPTV . The DLP and PLASMA tvs are over rated and over priced at this point of their evalution. A properly adjusted RPTV's PQ is as good or better than any DLP or PLASMA for half the price. Mitsubishi makes nice 50+" RPTV's which are very tweekable for under 2k.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Ah, but it is no longer just a 720p vs 1080i debate, as 1080p models become available. And the 1080p models are definitely better at any size of 55" or larger, at least in LCD, DLP, and LCOS technologies.

Now a 720p model may suit your needs very well, at a good price, so those models are still very viable. At least for a couple of years or so, after which 1080p models should be much closer in price. At some point 720p sets may be bumped from the market.

The Samsung 5067 is a decent set. Not the cutting edge of technology, but the price can be reasonable.

 

[T2k]

We can conclude that debate in one sentence: 720p isn't less than 1080i at all.

 

[goaliebob99]

IM a 1080I man all the way

 

[BrettTRay]

1080i here too

 

[deno24]

1080i is inherently better than 720. Unless im totaly missing the boat explain to me how 720p has better pic than 1080i . To me 1080 scan lines is 360 more lines of resolution than 720,more lines equals more information equals more resolution equals better picture regardles if its interlaced.

 

[T2k]

1080i is inherently better than 720.

You're absolutely wrong. It's the other way.

Unless im totaly missing the boat explain to me how 720p has better pic than 1080i . To me 1080 scan lines is 360 more lines of resolution than 720,more lines equals more information equals more resolution equals better picture regardles if its interlaced.

You're totally missing the boat.
There are two things, spatial and temporal resolutions - and your temporal resolution is really 540, nothing more which is clearly A LOT LESS than 720. In fact it's not too much more than a 480p DVD.
Apart from this 1080i, due to its interlaced nature, is THE WORST for ANY fast motion (ie sports, actions etc) footage. Full frame is ALWAYS better than interlaced footage, it's not a question.
Check out those aliasing problems, brrrr... and I hate frikkin interlaced flickering as well...

Interlace is a legacy leftover format.
It's a dying breed and we don't need it anymore - it made sense when old units were analog bandwidth limited but it's not the case for long years now.

DIE, interlace, DIE!:devil:

 

[matthewh]

I have heard that a native 720p set will display SD television better then a 1080i set will. I also heard that native 720p set will display 1080i better then a native 1080i will display 720p. Wether thats true or not I am not sure.

I am quite sure if the Discovery channels are broadcast at 1080i on Dish they will look better on a 1080i/p native set. Also, if eventually HD DVD's are burned at 1080i same deal I would think. Will I notice the difference on 50" set though? How much better am I gonna like this over my 28" SD set on Dish? I watch a lot of DVD's too.

Someone mentioned the Samsung 5067 is a good deal even if it is only 720p. Its also small physically for its screen size which helps me out since my room is not large. I am just debating wether to spend an extra $1200+ to get it in 1080p or not. I really need to look at more sets on display. I wish all HD was one format or the other and it would make the decision so much easier. Seems like sales guys just tell you what you want to here too.

Matthew

 

[deno24]

"There are two things, spatial and temporal resolutions - and your temporal resolution is really 540,"

that sounds like a load of crap to me, I say again, Iterlacing 540 lines to achieve 1080 is still more resolution than scaning 720 once, simple math not temperol at all.

Its pointless to argue this as you cannot convince me otherwise or I you.

 

[T2k]

I have heard that a native 720p set will display SD television better then a 1080i set will.

Ummm... what?

I also heard that native 720p set will display 1080i better then a native 1080i will display 720p. Wether thats true or not I am not sure.
[/bquote]

This one is sure.

I am quite sure if the Discovery channels are broadcast at 1080i on Dish they will look better on a 1080i/p native set.

It depends. If that 1080i is a CRT then it will look worse, due to the horrible flickering.

Also, if eventually HD DVD's are burned at 1080i same deal I would think.

Who told you this? Although they both (Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) support 720p60, 1080i60 and 1080p30 but both use the same two shiny new HD codecs and progressive is their most used format, not interlaced. Take a look here, for example:
WMVHD http://www.wmvhd.com/
H.264/AVC http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/
Only 720p and 1080p contents, to match with your display you'll watch them on...

Believe me, interlaced is dead already.

Will I notice the difference on 50" set though? How much better am I gonna like this over my 28" SD set on Dish? I watch a lot of DVD's too.
Someone mentioned the Samsung 5067 is a good deal even if it is only 720p. Its also small physically for its screen size which helps me out since my room is not large. I am just debating wether to spend an extra $1200+ to get it in 1080p or not. I really need to look at more sets on display. I wish all HD was one format or the other and it would make the decision so much easier. Seems like sales guys just tell you what you want to here too.
Matthew

Again: not only DVDs but EVERYTHING LOOKS BETTER in progressive. This is a fact and even the biggest 1080i fan won't deny this.

 

[T2k]

"There are two things, spatial and temporal resolutions - and your temporal resolution is really 540,"

that sounds like a load of crap to me, I say again, Iterlacing 540 lines to achieve 1080 is still more resolution than scaning 720 once, simple math not temperol at all.

Yes, it's simple math: 540 is smaller than 720p. Which part can't you grasp?

Its pointless to argue this as you cannot convince me otherwise or I you.

I agree, it's pointless to argue with somebody who apparently doesn't know jackshyte about what I'm talking about...

 

[T2k]

I vote for 1080p, BTW - my next TV will be 1080p, I decided already.:devil:

 

[deno24]

It is my understanding, correct me if im wrong, Im sure you will as I know shyte about it, but your saying the first 540 lines scanned contains the same exact information as the second 540 line scan? I was under the impression that the first contains half of the image and the second fills in the lines between for a total of 1080.
I guess i dont understand were you get 540 from, its not the entire pic at 540, its only half with the other half interlaced for a TOTAL of 1080 INDIVIDUAL lines of information ie resolution, vs 720P
The only advantage 720 has is in scan rate, 1/30 vs 1/60th. Which gives you better fast motion pics, but for pure resolution 1080 is the way to go.

 

[T2k]

It is my understanding, correct me if im wrong, Im sure you will as I know shyte about it, but your saying the first 540 lines scanned contains the same exact information as the second 540 line scan?

No, I'm saying it is 1920x540 at any given frame what's being displayed.

I was under the impression that the first contains half of the image and the second fills in the lines between for a total of 1080.

It's not the first or second half - imagine that, that'd be unwatchable - it's odd or even lines, taken from naighbouring but not identical time. Which means there's even a difference between them which is even worse.

I guess i dont understand were you get 540 from, its not the entire pic at 540, its only half with the other half interlaced for a TOTAL of 1080 INDIVIDUAL lines of information ie resolution, vs 720P

YThat's the point! There's no total ever. You NEVER see 1080 lines. That's the point, you just said yourself: it's 1280x720 full frame versus 1920x540 half frame at any given moment.

The only advantage 720 has is in scan rate, 1/30 vs 1/60th. Which gives you better fast motion pics, but for pure resolution 1080 is the way to go.

No, it's not. See above. You just said that!
1080i is not only 540 lines whereas 720p is truly 720 but 1080i is also really 30 full frames sliced down to 30 odd and 30 even lines of frame versus 60 full frames.
As you can see the actual pixel count is almost the same, so bandwidth is the same but 720p has no flickering, no alias artifacts, no motion artifacts.

108p - that's the good stuff. In fact 1080p24 is perfect for those movie converts - I use 1080p24 for movies when I convert streams to Xvids. Everything else goes to 720, of course.

PS: I'm thinking about your point about 1080i on 720p vs 720p on 1080i... it really depends on the machine... if a machine first deinterlaces 1080i by simply dropping every other frame, then upconverts then it sucks: 1080i -> 540p -> 720p will look worse than any 720p on 1080i.

 

[deno24]

:up its pointless. At least we agree to disagree. Cant wait for 1080p :

 

[bestboff]

The 720p DLP sets are not "overrated". They provide an excellent picture that will never degrade or need alignment. The biggest plus is no burn in. On a 50" set 720p is a great choice. 1080p might be useful in a larger set. And no one is broadcasting 1080p or using it for HD DVDs (at this point).

 

[Kandiru]

My setup:

Sanyo PLV-Z3 720p projector $1200.

Carada brilliant white 110" screen $800.

Alternative: Mitsubishi 85in RPTV for 25k

Think bfore you buy.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I agree that 1080p is the real winner.

720p vs 1080i is debatable. Definite advantages for progressive, non-interlaced frames on motion. Definite better resolution along the horizontal axis (1920 vs 1280) for 1080i. Slightly better overall resolution to 1080i too. Even more so if the set diminishes the interlace flicker - although that compounds the motion artifacts a bit more.

This debate is further compounded when considering that some 720p DLP sets use wobulation to achieve 720p, which is a kind of interlacing, although at a faster "frame" rate and with some pixel overlap.

What burns me is that TV technology is making rapid advances and we may well have true 1920x1080p, high contrast, non-wobulated, affordable sets before too long. But our content providers are moving in the opposite direction, they provided high resolution when our sets couldn't take full advantage of it, now they may provide lower resolution when our sets can show the difference.