[dj_mocok]

But if the TV I'm gonna buy is only 42", I think the difference won't be that noticeable right?

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if the TV I'm gonna buy is only 42", I think the difference won't be that noticeable right?

Really the best way to judge this is measure the distance you will be seated
from the display and go shopping standing or setting the same distance and
play different material if you can't see the difference save the money if you
can you will not be happy with a lesser purchase knowing this. Resolution is
but a small fraction of the things that make up a great display trust your eyes
they are the best critics in the end.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if the TV I'm gonna buy is only 42", I think the difference won't be that noticeable right?

A friend of mine has a Panasonic 37" Viera, which maxes out at 1080i (don't remember the exact model). Another friend has a 27" Westinghouse, also maxing out at 1080i. If you put up 720 material vs 1080, there is an obvious difference. 720 looks better on the smaller set, of course, (and mind you, 720 is still no slouch) but it still pales compared to 1080. It's just that incredible.

/Lets his friends do comparison buying for him.
//Learns from their mistakes.

 

[LORD-eX-Bu]

I would get a 720p over a 1080i... if you are buying something like that to save money chances are that you will probably be watching mostly SD feeds anyways.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif You mean 768p for plasma or 720p for lcd since there is no such thing as native 1080i for either unless you are referring to an hd crt which it is native 1080i but they have all but stop manufacturing them what you see on the shelves and warehouses will be it.

I think the 1080i limitation that the OP is referring to is not in the actual native resolution of the panel, but in the maximum input format that the device can process.

Even if panels have NNNNp as native resolution, they might have inputs that only take up to 1080i.


With respect to optimal viewing distance depending on resolution and screen size, check the following image, and the frequently posted link where it comes from:

1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution) » CarltonBale.com

 

[dj_mocok]

That graph is a bit confusing for me, so say, If I got 42" viewing distance around 8 feet, what does that mean?

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif That graph is a bit confusing for me, so say, If I got 42" viewing distance around 8 feet, what does that mean?

You just need to check where your setup parameters fall in the graph, and see what the legend is for that area.

42" in the horizontal axis, and 8 feet in the vertical axis corresponds to a point somewhere in the green area close to and slightly above the green line. Which indicates that the benefit of 720p resolution starts being noticeable or is clearly visible over EDTV for you (given that your panel will be 42" seen at 8 feet.)

Also according to the graph, the benefits of 1080p over 720p would start to be noticeable between 8 and 6 feet, and the full benefit of 1080p would be visible (over 720p) between 5 and 7 feet, once again, for a 42" screen.

This all depends on the format of the content you are watching though. Assuming same contrast level, color saturation/calibration and refresh rate of the devices, a 720p source material will look better natively displayed on a 720p panel than upscaled on a 1080p panel that covers the same field of view.

 

[atart]

Not to threadjack or anything, but what about the 60hz vs. 120hz debate.

Can you guys tell the difference? I've heard it white washes everything with that soap-opera look.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif You just need to check where your setup parameters fall in the graph, and see what the legend is for that area. 42" in the horizontal axis, and 8 feet in the vertical axis corresponds to a point somewhere in the green area close to and slightly above the green line. Which indicates that the benefit of 720p resolution starts being noticeable or is clearly visible over EDTV for you (given that your panel will be 42" seen at 8 feet.) Also according to the graph, the benefits of 1080p over 720p would start to be noticeable between 8 and 6 feet, and the full benefit of 1080p would be visible (over 720p) between 5 and 7 feet, once again, for a 42" screen. This all depends on the format of the content you are watching though. Assuming same contrast level, color saturation/calibration and refresh rate of the devices, a 720p source material will look better natively displayed on a 720p panel than upscaled on a 1080p panel that covers the same field of view.

Yeah I got it now. But that pretty much translate to "don't bother about 1080p" in my budget-strained situation.

I just had a look at some TVs at the shop, and was looking at Pioneer Kuro 50" 1080p one, and I asked them to play normal DVD. Then the shopkeeper played Planet Earth DVD on it (using Bluray player), but I notice that fast moving image is a tad choppy - like I can actually see the image is skipping (moving) very quickly instead of free flowing. Is this normal?

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah I got it now. But that pretty much translate to "don't bother about 1080p" in my budget-strained situation.

To some extent yes, it means don't bother. You would be paying for resolution that you won't take advantage of unless the viewing distance is short enough (or the panel is large enough to compensate.)

Quote:

I just had a look at some TVs at the shop, and was looking at Pioneer Kuro 50" 1080p one, and I asked them to play normal DVD. Then the shopkeeper played Planet Earth DVD on it (using Bluray player), but I notice that fast moving image is a tad choppy - like I can actually see the image is skipping (moving) very quickly instead of free flowing. Is this normal?

This is complex to analyze, because pretty much anything in the video playback chain might cause video artifacts:

- Source material (the mastering and encoding of the original video onto MPEGx can introduce artifacts that get stored on the DVD itself).
- Codec (some video codec chips on some DVD players are known to introduce specific artifacts)
- Rescaling process (to map the incoming video resolution onto the panel's native resolution; this can introduce lots of artifacts).
- Display (the screen itself; for instance, older LCD panels slow refresh rates caused ghost trailing motion artifacts)

Also, it's very likely that a video store may not have their exhibit panels (not even a Kuro) calibrated optimally, or the DVD - Plasma configuration properly and optimally set up.

I would tend to think that the culprit here is probably the source video material though; the Planet Earth DVD itself. Btw, were you watching a normal DVD on a Bluray player, or was it the Bluray disk version of Planet Earth, played on the Bluray player?

I have Planet Earth's standard DVD package, and on a 42" Panasonic plasma (EDTV) at adequate distance (~10 feet) it does show some blurr/choppiness for instance on aereal shots when the plane gets close to the underlying landscape, or when the camera moves around fast enough.

My current DVD player is an inexpensive Phillips but has an HDMI connection to the Plasma. Both in interlaced and progressive mode from the player, the Planet Earth video shows that same issue in some shots. Faster video in other DVDs don't show this from the same player. Take into account that EDTV is the optimal native resolution for a standard DVD (minimal/no rescaling needed at all). So I don't think this is at all related to resolution, but to MPEG artifacts and the way the original video was mastered and encoded.

Just as in audio, if the source material has any artifacts, the better the playback system the more clearly those artifacts will be exposed.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to threadjack or anything, but what about the 60hz vs. 120hz debate. Can you guys tell the difference? I've heard it white washes everything with that soap-opera look.

120Hz tech, from what I've gathered, is only necessary/used for LCDs. An LCD, as you probably know, is at it's smallest level a huge number of crystals in a matrix being turned either parallel or perpendicular to an electric field, which in turn makes them appear white, black, or anywhere in between (or for color LCDs, each pixel has 3 sub-pixels, RGB), based on if the light is being absorbed by the rear polarizing filter.

So, an LCDs ability to play motion is dependent on how quickly the crystals state can be swapped, aka a refresh rate. Typical is 60Hz. 120Hz, being twice as fast, shows fast motion better.

A traditional DLP uses a light shining through a rapidly rotating color wheel to show colors; the original ones gave about a 60Hz refresh rate. Newer ones go at twice that speed, giving about a 120Hz refresh rate. Mind you, this was mostly done to reduce the rainbow effect, not so much motion blur. LED DLPs, I have absolutely no idea. They don't use a color wheel, so, yeah...

The other big issue is the 2:3 pulldown, which is normally required since film runs at 24fps, and NTSC video runs at 29.97fps. To make it show up semi-evenly without drastically changing the speed of the video, 24fps is slowed down to 23.976 fps. 29.97/23.976 = 5/4. Much easier math. 4 frames of film for 5 films of NTSC video. 4 frames, call them ABCD. NTSC is interlaced, so for the 5 NTSC frames, you've got odd and even frames. They are put on screen so quickly that your brain makes them work together. The 5 frames, odd and even, are ABBCD, ABCDD. Now, to make the 4 become 5, you basically just mix some of the frames together, so ABCD becomes, for instance, AB(B&C)(C&D)D. Wikipedia has a great image showing this.

So why does this matter? While 24/23.97 doesn't come out evenly, 120/24 does (so does 48/24 and 72/24, which have been used to a limited degree). The result is perfectly smooth video without any jumping about. Too smooth, some say. We've become rather accustomed to seeing film being a little choppy, a little blurry on fast action shots. It's kind of disconcerting to see it so perfect.

Sorry for the hugely long, rambling post. Maybe it'll help explain some questions, though.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif To some extent yes, it means don't bother. You would be paying for resolution that you won't take advantage of unless the viewing distance is short enough (or the panel is large enough to compensate.) This is complex to analyze, because pretty much anything in the video playback chain might cause video artifacts: - Source material (the mastering and encoding of the original video onto MPEGx can introduce artifacts that get stored on the DVD itself). - Codec (some video codec chips on some DVD players are known to introduce specific artifacts) - Rescaling process (to map the incoming video resolution onto the panel's native resolution; this can introduce lots of artifacts). - Display (the screen itself; for instance, older LCD panels slow refresh rates caused ghost trailing motion artifacts) Also, it's very likely that a video store may not have their exhibit panels (not even a Kuro) calibrated optimally, or the DVD - Plasma configuration properly and optimally set up. I would tend to think that the culprit here is probably the source video material though; the Planet Earth DVD itself. Btw, were you watching a normal DVD on a Bluray player, or was it the Bluray disk version of Planet Earth, played on the Bluray player? I have Planet Earth's standard DVD package, and on a 42" Panasonic plasma (EDTV) at adequate distance (~10 feet) it does show some blurr/choppiness for instance on aereal shots when the plane gets close to the underlying landscape, or when the camera moves around fast enough. My current DVD player is an inexpensive Phillips but has an HDMI connection to the Plasma. Both in interlaced and progressive mode from the player, the Planet Earth video shows that same issue in some shots. Faster video in other DVDs don't show this from the same player. Take into account that EDTV is the optimal native resolution for a standard DVD (minimal/no rescaling needed at all). So I don't think this is at all related to resolution, but to MPEG artifacts and the way the original video was mastered and encoded. Just as in audio, if the source material has any artifacts, the better the playback system the more clearly those artifacts will be exposed.

I was watching a normal Planet Earth DVD played using Pioneer Bluray Player on Kuro 50" Plasma.
You know the beginning scene where a guy jumps into a cave (parachuted?), and it was so choppy I could see it moving frame by frame, it's so annoying and totally killed the experience. I hope it's just the source (DVD) itself, not the TV's lack of refresh rate - It's top of the range Kuro, if it can't handle it, what chance do I have with mid range Panasonic Plasma?

 

[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...

Thanks, explained a lot I always wondered about.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was watching a normal Planet Earth DVD played using Pioneer Bluray Player on Kuro 50" Plasma. You know the beginning scene where a guy jumps into a cave (parachuted?), and it was so choppy I could see it moving frame by frame, it's so annoying and totally killed the experience. I hope it's just the source (DVD) itself, not the TV's lack of refresh rate - It's top of the range Kuro, if it can't handle it, what chance do I have with mid range Panasonic Plasma?

No don't worry it wasn't the plasma. Plasma technology regardless of brand has absolutely no refresh rate problem. It's LCD's that use to have slow refresh rates, but current LCDs are much better at that.

 

[dj_mocok]

Hmmm, must be the DVD (source) then. Now my aim is to get the New upcoming Panasonic plasma (in case for US residents, that's the newly introduced Panasonic plasma lines).

In Australia maybe we have to wait for a few more months before they arrive.

So either the New Panasonic Plasma, or hopefully in a few months time before new generation Pioneer Kuro comes here, I can get the previous gen Kuro cheaply. Because as far as I understand (and what my eyes see), the 'current' Kuro we have now is still a pretty damn good TV anyway.