paulcardoza wrote: ---snip---Physics are what they are and I stand by my statement that under 42" screen size, the human eye cannot tell the difference between the two resolutions. Your argument about other specification shortcomings on entry level TV's, is a separate issue.
And i said it was a different issue. On top of the several control rooms I've built, we've had the reps from Panasonic, Sony, and JVC all together in one room for a shootout with their 720 & 1080 monitors and the differences are absolutely noticeable. Even though our corp. discount with Panasonic is significant compared to the other two, Panasonic only offered 720 plates at the time, and we passed on them for the reasons of this thread. So I'd like to see the physics to back up your statement that it is "impossible". It is purely a personal thing, and I'll stand by that too.
* This post was
edited 04/13/12 05:09pm by SCVJeff *
pulsar wrote: And let's not make the thread a personal thing.
"Personal", as in comparing monitors, any monitor is a personal opinion, just as it is in any camera, stereo, car, etc., they are only what people perceive them to be. In the case with resolving HD plates is only as good as the eye evaluating it. Hence asking what a person can and cannot see from others really makes no sense. The only reason there's HD in the house is because of my picky eye. DW stands in front of it and cannot tell the difference other than the screen is wider.. Grrrr
The Texan wrote: If you are over the age of 45 or have a TV under 50+" there is NO difference that you will see. 1080p is for the young with excellent, uncorrected eyesight and the very large TV. To us old f..ts, a total waste of money, even with the large TVs.
I have to disagree and I'm 64. We have a 42" HD TV and when on the antenna on an HD channel it is better than the same channel from Directv in SD. The overall difference in not huge just that the smaller text, etc. is clearer. With that being said I agree SD is fine for me in general and if you are paying a premimum for 1080 HD it's probably not worth it for something under 50".
pulsar wrote: And let's not make the thread a personal thing.
"Personal", as in comparing monitors,
Not what I meant. Let's not have the thread become personal.
Tom
Never intended.. But if there is a white paper published somewhere indicating physical limits to the eye with respect to monitors, I would like to see it.
The truth is it boils down to a bunch of different factors.
1) The person judging eyesight.
2) The distance you will be sitting from the screen.
3) The size of the TV.
4) The quality of the image from the antenna, Blueray player, DVD or video source.
Anyone that has a computer monitor can tell the difference from a medium resolution such as 1280x1024 vs a higher resolution such as 1920x1200. The higher resolution adds many more pixels and sharpens the image to a more lifelike quality. The reason anyone can see the difference in a computer monitor is because you are usually sitting 18"-30" from it.
Now take that same difference in resolution and apply it to TV's that are SD or HD. If you sit 18"-30" from it, Everyone will be able to tell even on a 19" TV. Further away such as 4'-5' some will be able to tell and some may not, depending on their eyesight.
As the TV gets bigger, the higher resolutions help in preventing any blurry or jaggy lines from forming. This is the reason you don't see SD TV's in the 60" size. They look terrible. Some people notice and can tell a difference between SD and HD even on TV's much smaller. I can tell the difference on 19" TV's if I sit close enough to them.
Lastly, the video quality. If you are not going to be watching blueray or HD broadcasts, HD cable or HD Sat, then there is little use getting a HD TV. The TV can't take a SD image and improve it to HD quality by itself. Most Bluerays and some DVD players upscale SD video to 1080i HD images being the only exception I am aware of.
So as mentioned above, it is a personal decision with many factors.If you are going to be watching HD programming and it's a 30" or bigger TV, I advise to get the HD. If it's smaller than 30" and your not going to be sitting real close to it or are one of the folks that doesn't notice a big difference eith due to less than great eyesite or just not being that picky about picture quality, get a SD TV.
Hope this helps some of you decide if the extra $$$ are worth it for you.
One last tip - When shopping, make sure you check out the picture from the distance you will be watching it from. I've had many friends be disappointed with the picture quality because they looked at it in a store from 15' but in real life were sitting 8' from the TV. Or they bought too big a TV for the distance they were watching it from. A 60" HD tv has the same number of dots making the picture as a 30" HD tv. They are just spaced farther apart. Getting a 60" and sitting 6' from it it will look horrible compared to a 30" from that close. Big is great as long as your a decent distance from it.
2011 Silverado Crewcab 4x4
2012 Passport 238ML
Hope your travels are safe and the friendships made camping are lasting.
And don't forget that still pix show resolution better than moving images. We have the new 1080 AppleTv and the slide shows warrant the better resolution.
720p existed because 1080p used to be hard to make. Now even still cameras will shoot movies in 1080. My advice is to avoid the 720 unless you really don't care.
Offline
