Is 720p enough for now?

[Ext User(Blaircam)]

Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war but,
who knows...
Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of play
on TVs is a bit up in the air.
I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models and
the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about $1,000 (or an
extra 50%).
So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now and
upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go the
whole hog now?
Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty good -
next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't know how
they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
Ok, let the diatribe begin!

[Ext User(David Z)]

As you mentioned, considering the very limited amount of HD programming, a
'standard' HD panel is definitely the go. There is absolutely no advantage
to full HD for regular SD picture sources, and these sources will continue
to provide the bulk of programming for many many years. Even so, HD still
looks superb on a 1024x768 or 1366x768 panel.

"Blaircam" <blaircam1@[nospam]aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:fma55j$7bt$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
> Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war
> but, who knows...
> Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of
> play on TVs is a bit up in the air.
> I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
> There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models and
> the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about $1,000 (or
> an extra 50%).
> So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now and
> upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go the
> whole hog now?
> Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
> programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty
> good - next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't
> know how they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
> Ok, let the diatribe begin!
>

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Blaircam" <blaircam1@[nospam]aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:fma55j$7bt$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
> Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war
> but, who knows...
> Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of
> play on TVs is a bit up in the air.
> I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
> There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models and
> the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about $1,000 (or
> an extra 50%).
> So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now and
> upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go the
> whole hog now?
> Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
> programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty
> good - next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't
> know how they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
> Ok, let the diatribe begin!
>

David Z would most likely not agree with my comments but here goes anyway.

Background -
I put off buying a new TV for ages. It wasn't because I didn't have the
cash. I was waiting for some of the interconnect "standards" to be
ratified. Realising if I continued to wait the "standards" were going to
keep changing and all I'd be sure of is that I was a procrastinating fence
sitter. :-(

So after a lot of reading, extended hour of viewing other people's sets,
spending hours in the shops and checking out a lot of comments in the
various forums I finally decided on two possibles. A 42" or a 50" or
larger. The range was based on the range of possible viewing distances and
the material (i.e. sources) I was going to be using.

I calculated that at my favourite position in the livingroom a 42" part HD
(1366 x 768 pixel panel) TV would be a reasonable compromise between FTA HD
TV broadcasts and the SD FTA and Foxtel offerings. Remembering at the same
time PAL DVD is the same as FTA SD broadcasting. But this is where it all
came undone.

Making the decision -
I saw a 52" Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixel) TV displaying a Blu-ray movie
(1080p). I was impressed by the clarity of the picture so I got the
salesperson to hook up the player to a 50" part HD (1366 x 768) TV. From a
much greater viewing distance the two weren't that easy to pick apart, but
from the recommended viewing distance of 1.5 - 2.0x the diagonal measurement
of the screen, the difference was like chalk and cheese. The Full HD set
literally blew the part HD set away. For me this was the start of the
journey of comparing the full HD sets in the 50" and over range. However
just to make sure I hadn't been conned by the salesperson comparing a dud
part HD set with a real good Full HD, I did a few more comparisons, both in
the shop and at friend's homes.

The purchased set -
After exhaustive auditions and having driven some salespeople to the edge I
finally purchased a 52" full HD set. I would have preferred one with HDMI
1.3 connectivity but alas at the time there weren't any sets in Australia
with that standard. I am happy to say that after almost a year I'm still
very satisfied with my Sony 52" X Series Bravia. IMHO SD broadcasting is
better watched on a smaller screen, but depending on how many "channels" the
digital broadcaster is sending the PQ can be quite acceptable to pretty
ordinary. However with a full HD (1080p) source from something like a
Blu-ray player you WILL notice the difference.

A bit about FTA and Foxtel -
Of the HD standard FTA digital broadcasters, the ABC and SBS use 720p.
Incidentally both aren't broadcasting any true 720p content at the moment
(its all upscaled from SD). Because both the ABC and SBS have 3 channels of
TV + 2 audio broadcast channels they can't transmit 1080i and keep within
the bandwidth requirements.
7, 9 and 10 all transmit 1080i on their HD FTA. It could be better in PQ
but they have to transmit at least one SD and one HD service within the 7MHz
transmission bandwidth allocated to them. This means that unless they
change the regulations we are not likely to see 1080p or higher definition
on FTA in this country in the foreseeable future.
Foxtel have announced they intend to launch 4 HD (1080i) channels by mid
2008.

Personal recommendation -
If you decide on a 50" or larger set, buy a full HD set (1920 x 1080 pixel
panel). Ensure it has at least a couple of HDMI 1.3 inputs. Remember this
is big $ investment. It's unlikely you'll change the set in under 5 years
unless you win Lotto. HD software (e.g. Blu-ray discs) are becoming as are
the players which upscale DVD to 1080p. (Just bear in mind you can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear). A lot of video stores are now starting to
hire Blu-ray and HD-DVD titles and in a lot of cases these are being
released at the same time as the standard DVD title hits the shelves and
shops. More and more shows on FTA TV are coming out in HD and the number of
transmission hours is increasing every week.

At the end of the day it's your decision. If you aren't in any hurry I
suggest you put the $ figure aside for a few weeks and do some serious
comparing and reading. Then when you've decided on the set size, part HD or
full HD, go do your wheeling and dealing for the $ you have to spend.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Alan

[Ext User(Pweter)]

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote

>Of the HD standard FTA digital broadcasters, the ABC and SBS use 720p.
>Incidentally both aren't broadcasting any true 720p content at the moment
>(its all upscaled from SD).

SBS is 576p. ABC do some true 720p content.


> Foxtel have announced they intend to launch 4 HD (1080i) channels by mid
> 2008.

1080i or 720p (probably sport).


>7, 9 and 10 all transmit 1080i on their HD FTA

9 is usually 1440*1080i (Melbourne at least)

[Ext User(TT)]

"Blaircam" <blaircam1@[nospam]aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:fma55j$7bt$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
> Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war
> but, who knows...
> Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of
> play on TVs is a bit up in the air.
> I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
> There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models and
> the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about $1,000 (or
> an extra 50%).
> So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now and
> upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go the
> whole hog now?
> Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
> programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty
> good - next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't
> know how they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
> Ok, let the diatribe begin!
There are some things to bear in mind:

Buy what ever looks the best to you in your price range.

Determine what you are going to use as a source. *IF* it is FTA TV then
your old CRT is still fine ;-) If you are into upscaling DVDs or
Blu-ray/HD-DVD then the 1080p screen is the only way to go.

Rule of thumb up to 42" 720p is fine for most sources. Over 42" 1080p would
be the go.

If you buy an "El Cheapo" brand then you will be replacing it in a couple of
years anyway so the above becomes a mute point ;-)

Most 720 pixelled displays will still show 1080 quite well. So again it
comes down to your wallet size (said the actress to the Bishop) :-))

Buy a 42" 720p now and in 2-3 years stick in your bedroom when you upgrade
;-)

Or bite the bullet and buy the 65" Panasonic now ;-)

Cheers TT

[Ext User(Michael Cummins)]

TT wrote:
> "Blaircam" <blaircam1@[nospam]aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:fma55j$7bt$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>> Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war
>> but, who knows...
>> Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of
>> play on TVs is a bit up in the air.
>> I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
>> There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models and
>> the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about $1,000 (or
>> an extra 50%).
>> So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now and
>> upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go the
>> whole hog now?
>> Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
>> programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty
>> good - next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't
>> know how they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
>> Ok, let the diatribe begin!
> There are some things to bear in mind:
>
> Buy what ever looks the best to you in your price range.
>
> Determine what you are going to use as a source. *IF* it is FTA TV then
> your old CRT is still fine ;-) If you are into upscaling DVDs or
> Blu-ray/HD-DVD then the 1080p screen is the only way to go.
>
> Rule of thumb up to 42" 720p is fine for most sources. Over 42" 1080p would
> be the go.
>
> If you buy an "El Cheapo" brand then you will be replacing it in a couple of
> years anyway so the above becomes a mute point ;-)
>
> Most 720 pixelled displays will still show 1080 quite well. So again it
> comes down to your wallet size (said the actress to the Bishop) :-))
>
> Buy a 42" 720p now and in 2-3 years stick in your bedroom when you upgrade
> ;-)
>
> Or bite the bullet and buy the 65" Panasonic now ;-)
>
> Cheers TT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My only additional comment to this, is make sure you spend plenty of
time in retail stores with large numbers of models.
I recently purchased a LG 720p LCD display. Only 32", but that's big
enough for me.
After staring at all the 32" LCD display of which there were true 1080p
HD's, I dragged the salesman across. I needed him to explain why his
cheapest 32"LCD on display has the best (to my eyes) picture.
Every brand seems to have it's own advantages and ideas on picture
display, check them out with your own eyes.
Cause finally, any HD TV is supposed to please your individual viewing
pleasure.

Mick from Bowen

[Ext User(..:..)]

Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were any?
--

"Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:479090a8@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> TT wrote:
>> "Blaircam" <blaircam1@[nospam]aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:fma55j$7bt$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>>> Ok, following on from my last post I'm hoping not to start a flame war
>>> but, who knows...
>>> Here's the deal - as most people here would know, the current state of
>>> play on TVs is a bit up in the air.
>>> I am tossing up getting a 42' or 50' plasma at the moment.
>>> There is a substantial price difference between the 720p 'HDTV' models
>>> and the 1080p 'Full HDTV' models - something in the range of about
>>> $1,000 (or an extra 50%).
>>> So, my question is - do I spend about $2,000 and buy a 50' 720p tv now
>>> and upgrade in a couple years to full hd OR do I bite the bullet and go
>>> the whole hog now?
>>> Obviously price is a factor, as is the relatively limited amount of HD
>>> programming on tv. I saw the 720s working and the picture was pretty
>>> good - next to the 1080p the difference was indescernable (but I don't
>>> know how they were set up or the quality of the input signal).
>>> Ok, let the diatribe begin!
>> There are some things to bear in mind:
>>
>> Buy what ever looks the best to you in your price range.
>>
>> Determine what you are going to use as a source. *IF* it is FTA TV then
>> your old CRT is still fine ;-) If you are into upscaling DVDs or
>> Blu-ray/HD-DVD then the 1080p screen is the only way to go.
>>
>> Rule of thumb up to 42" 720p is fine for most sources. Over 42" 1080p
>> would be the go.
>>
>> If you buy an "El Cheapo" brand then you will be replacing it in a couple
>> of years anyway so the above becomes a mute point ;-)
>>
>> Most 720 pixelled displays will still show 1080 quite well. So again it
>> comes down to your wallet size (said the actress to the Bishop) :-))
>>
>> Buy a 42" 720p now and in 2-3 years stick in your bedroom when you
>> upgrade ;-)
>>
>> Or bite the bullet and buy the 65" Panasonic now ;-)
>>
>> Cheers TT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> My only additional comment to this, is make sure you spend plenty of time
> in retail stores with large numbers of models.
> I recently purchased a LG 720p LCD display. Only 32", but that's big
> enough for me.
> After staring at all the 32" LCD display of which there were true 1080p
> HD's, I dragged the salesman across. I needed him to explain why his
> cheapest 32"LCD on display has the best (to my eyes) picture.
> Every brand seems to have it's own advantages and ideas on picture
> display, check them out with your own eyes.
> Cause finally, any HD TV is supposed to please your individual viewing
> pleasure.
>
> Mick from Bowen

[Ext User(Michael Cummins)]

...:.. wrote:
> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were any?
Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
that may have been 1080i maybe..

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> ..:.. wrote:
>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>> any?
> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but that
> may have been 1080i maybe..

Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native panel
resolution.
A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are of a
lower resolution.
IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to the
larger 50" or bigger screens.

Cheers,
Alan

[Ext User(Blaircam)]

Actually Amber the Panasonic website shows the RRP on this model as $3,299.
Good bargain hunting but just goes to show you - never trust what a salsman
tells you!

"amber.2" <amber.2.33czmm@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:amber.2.33czmm@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> I just bought a full Hd 42'' panasonic TH-42PZ7000A it was on sale at
> harvey normans for $2899. RRP $3999 which no one ever pays.
> First thing it did was shop around and its surprising just how much
> difference there is between retailers.
> First i went to JB hi-fi the best they would do was $3,000 with 5
> years warranty.
> then Power house $2799
> Domain came down to $2650
> and finally Harvey Norman $2600.including 5 years total warranty.
> 1920x1080
> The best thing about the Hd sets is all the extra channels that you
> can receive.
>
>
> --
> amber.2
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Ext User(atec77)]

amber.2 wrote:
> I just bought a full Hd 42'' panasonic TH-42PZ7000A it was on sale at
> harvey normans for $2899. RRP $3999 which no one ever pays.
> First thing it did was shop around and its surprising just how much
> difference there is between retailers.
> First i went to JB hi-fi the best they would do was $3,000 with 5
> years warranty.
> then Power house $2799
> Domain came down to $2650
> and finally Harvey Norman $2600.including 5 years total warranty.
> 1920x1080
> The best thing about the Hd sets is all the extra channels that you
> can receive.
>
>
The extended warranty's are very different though and the reason why
hardlys are cheaper .

[Ext User(Wayne Carr)]

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> ..:.. wrote:
>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>> any?
>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but that
>> may have been 1080i maybe..
>
> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
> panel resolution.
> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are of
> a lower resolution.
> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to the
> larger 50" or bigger screens.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced HDTV
here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home viewing 720p
is more than adequate.

[Ext User(..:..)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:4792ee76$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> ..:.. wrote:
>>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>>> any?
>>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
>>> that may have been 1080i maybe..
>>
>> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
>> panel resolution.
>> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are of
>> a lower resolution.
>> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to the
>> larger 50" or bigger screens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> 1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced HDTV
> here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home viewing 720p
> is more than adequate.
>
ABC & SBS broadcast 720p in HD.
9 & 10 broadcast 1080i in HD
7 Perth broadcast 576p in HD (Unless this has recently changed, other states
are 1080i)

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"..:.." <news.read@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4792fda1$0$17209$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
> news:4792ee76$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> ..:.. wrote:
>>>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>>>> any?
>>>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
>>>> that may have been 1080i maybe..
>>>
>>> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
>>> panel resolution.
>>> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are
>>> of a lower resolution.
>>> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to
>>> the larger 50" or bigger screens.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>> 1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced
>> HDTV here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home
>> viewing 720p is more than adequate.
>>
> ABC & SBS broadcast 720p in HD.
Only up converted from SD in WA. Don't know about the other states.

> 9 & 10 broadcast 1080i in HD
> 7 Perth broadcast 576p in HD (Unless this has recently changed, other
> states are 1080i)
Seven in Perth has been broadcasting in 1080i for some months now.
Thank goodness for that. 576p is hardly HD.

Cheers,
Alan

>

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:4792ee76$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> ..:.. wrote:
>>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>>> any?
>>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
>>> that may have been 1080i maybe..
>>
>> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
>> panel resolution.
>> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are of
>> a lower resolution.
>> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to the
>> larger 50" or bigger screens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> 1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced HDTV
> here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home viewing 720p
> is more than adequate.

99% of the population of Australia don't need fast and powerful cars but a
considerable percentage still buy them and drive them.
Most of Australia's populous is very accepting of mediocrity. You only have
to examine the TV ratings to figure that out.
In which case, by default SD would be more than adequate for the pleb masses
and their mind numbing soapies. The same type that think VHS is high
definition format along with 128k MP3 as hi-fi. LOL
However, not all of us are satisfied with mediocrity and do appreciate the
better things in life. Therefore for my personal satisfaction full HD is
the way to go with a large screen TV.

Given the bandwidth limitations of terrestrial broadcasting we are stuck
with the following standards -
2 SD + 1 720p or 1 SD + 1 1080i. Even that is a challenge due to bandwidth
constraints. Next time you are watching FTA digital TV, check out the PQ
when there are lots of quick succession scene changes or fast action.
You'll see what I mean compared to high bandwidth full HD like Blu-ray and
HD-DVD.

Anyone contemplating any of the full HD video formats such as Blu-ray or
HD-DVD would be stupid to buy a large screen (50"+) TV that was only capable
of 720p or had a panel native definition less than 1920 x 1080 pixels.

But Wayne, based on your posts in other NGs like aus.hi-fi it is clear you
are a person of extremely low standards and expectations, so your response
in the this thread is of no surprise to me. Of course it could just be your
eyesight and hearing that is impaired in which case you should seek
professional diagnosis to have both checked out.

Cheers,
Alan

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:4795b894$0$7238$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:47932279$0$17198$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:4792ee76$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>> ..:.. wrote:
>>>>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>>>>> any?
>>>>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
>>>>> that may have been 1080i maybe..
>>>>
>>>> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
>>>> panel resolution.
>>>> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are
>>>> of a lower resolution.
>>>> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to
>>>> the larger 50" or bigger screens.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced
>>> HDTV here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home
>>> viewing 720p is more than adequate.
>>
>> 99% of the population of Australia don't need fast and powerful cars but
>> a considerable percentage still buy them and drive them.
>> Most of Australia's populous is very accepting of mediocrity. You only
>> have to examine the TV ratings to figure that out.
>> In which case, by default SD would be more than adequate for the pleb
>> masses and their mind numbing soapies. The same type that think VHS is
>> high definition format along with 128k MP3 as hi-fi. LOL
>> However, not all of us are satisfied with mediocrity and do appreciate
>> the better things in life. Therefore for my personal satisfaction full
>> HD is the way to go with a large screen TV.
>>
>> Given the bandwidth limitations of terrestrial broadcasting we are stuck
>> with the following standards -
>> 2 SD + 1 720p or 1 SD + 1 1080i. Even that is a challenge due to
>> bandwidth constraints. Next time you are watching FTA digital TV, check
>> out the PQ when there are lots of quick succession scene changes or fast
>> action. You'll see what I mean compared to high bandwidth full HD like
>> Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
>>
>> Anyone contemplating any of the full HD video formats such as Blu-ray or
>> HD-DVD would be stupid to buy a large screen (50"+) TV that was only
>> capable of 720p or had a panel native definition less than 1920 x 1080
>> pixels.
>>
>> But Wayne, based on your posts in other NGs like aus.hi-fi it is clear
>> you are a person of extremely low standards and expectations, so your
>> response in the this thread is of no surprise to me. Of course it could
>> just be your eyesight and hearing that is impaired in which case you
>> should seek professional diagnosis to have both checked out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> As with all things technological you know sweet fuck all. What distance do
> you think you need to sit from a 50" screen to resolve 1080p? If you have
> normal 6/6 vison then it's only 2m. If sit further than that you cannot
> see the benefit of all that extra resolution.
>
> With a 40" screen the distance is only 1.6m. How many people sit that
> close to their display? What is wrong with you? 720p is more than
> adequate.

Nothing wrong with me Wayne. I can afford a large screen full HD TV
so I'm enjoying the viewing. If you can neither afford or want a large
screen
full HD TV, no one is forcing you to buy one, are they?

>
> You are advocating snake-oil and pseudo-science. Next time try Google.

No snake oil here or fake science. I'm not peddling anything.
I own a full HD TV. I don't sell them.

>
> As per usual you should shut the fuck up.

Sounds just like a Rod Bot reply.
All huff and puff, but alas no substance. Sigh.....

At a distance of 2.9m I can easily tell the difference between a 720p
picture and a 1080p picture when displayed on a 52" panel.
If you can't that's your problem. I suggest you get your eyes checked.

Now get back to watching your AWA Deep Image 12" portable TV.
It's about all a shallow person like you would appreciate.

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:4795b894$0$7238$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> As with all things technological you know sweet fuck all. What distance do
> you think you need to sit from a 50" screen to resolve 1080p?

This might be a bit too technical for you, but the TV is the thing resolving
1080p. It doesn't care where you sit.

> If you have normal 6/6 vison then it's only 2m. If sit further than that
> you cannot see the benefit of all that extra resolution.
>
> With a 40" screen the distance is only 1.6m. How many people sit that
> close to their display? What is wrong with you? 720p is more than
> adequate.
>
> You are advocating snake-oil and pseudo-science. Next time try Google.

All these bullshit figures are the real pseudoscience.

> As per usual you should shut the fuck up.

Take your own advice, imbecile.

[Ext User(john)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:4795b894$0$7238$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:47932279$0$17198$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:4792ee76$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4790bab8$0$30839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael Cummins" <evejane@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:47909e56$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>> ..:.. wrote:
>>>>>> Which 32" Panels were true HD (1920x1080)? I did not think there were
>>>>>> any?
>>>>> Ahh.. you could be right... they had 1080 HD written on a few.. but
>>>>> that may have been 1080i maybe..
>>>>
>>>> Let's not confuse what signals the set will accept against its native
>>>> panel resolution.
>>>> A lot of HD sets accept 1080i and 1080p signals, albeit the panels are
>>>> of a lower resolution.
>>>> IMHO, 1920 x 1080 is wasted on an under 42" set. It's more suited to
>>>> the larger 50" or bigger screens.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1080i is wasted on 50" unless you sit very close. When they inroduced
>>> HDTV here they should have made 720p the standard. For 99% of home
>>> viewing 720p is more than adequate.
>>
>> 99% of the population of Australia don't need fast and powerful cars but
>> a considerable percentage still buy them and drive them.
>> Most of Australia's populous is very accepting of mediocrity. You only
>> have to examine the TV ratings to figure that out.
>> In which case, by default SD would be more than adequate for the pleb
>> masses and their mind numbing soapies. The same type that think VHS is
>> high definition format along with 128k MP3 as hi-fi. LOL
>> However, not all of us are satisfied with mediocrity and do appreciate
>> the better things in life. Therefore for my personal satisfaction full
>> HD is the way to go with a large screen TV.
>>
>> Given the bandwidth limitations of terrestrial broadcasting we are stuck
>> with the following standards -
>> 2 SD + 1 720p or 1 SD + 1 1080i. Even that is a challenge due to
>> bandwidth constraints. Next time you are watching FTA digital TV, check
>> out the PQ when there are lots of quick succession scene changes or fast
>> action. You'll see what I mean compared to high bandwidth full HD like
>> Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
>>
>> Anyone contemplating any of the full HD video formats such as Blu-ray or
>> HD-DVD would be stupid to buy a large screen (50"+) TV that was only
>> capable of 720p or had a panel native definition less than 1920 x 1080
>> pixels.
>>
>> But Wayne, based on your posts in other NGs like aus.hi-fi it is clear
>> you are a person of extremely low standards and expectations, so your
>> response in the this thread is of no surprise to me. Of course it could
>> just be your eyesight and hearing that is impaired in which case you
>> should seek professional diagnosis to have both checked out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> As with all things technological you know sweet fuck all. What distance do
> you think you need to sit from a 50" screen to resolve 1080p? If you have
> normal 6/6 vison then it's only 2m. If sit further than that you cannot
> see the benefit of all that extra resolution.
>
> With a 40" screen the distance is only 1.6m. How many people sit that
> close to their display? What is wrong with you? 720p is more than
> adequate.
>
> You are advocating snake-oil and pseudo-science. Next time try Google.
>
> As per usual you should shut the fuck up.

I have two projectors in the last 3 years, one of them a Sony 720p and the
other Sony 1080p.
I am projecting a 96'' picture from these two projectors and I am sitting
around 3.5- 4.0 metres
away from the screen. Is there a difference between the higher resolution
1080 p projector and
720p projector of course there is and is 720p adequate for full HD source
such as BR and HD-DVD,
maybe until you see what a full HD display will do with a full HD source.
There is no snake oil and
pseudo science about Full HD display and 720p display, if you can afford
1080p buy it otherwise
stick with 720p display but stop telling people there is no difference
between the two.
>
>