Home› TV and Home Entertainment Technology
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Tech section for the latest news, updates, reviews and cheap deals.

32" - any difference between 720 and 1080 HD?

howard hhoward h Posts: 23,369
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in TV and Home Entertainment Technology #1
Looking for a 32" telly, to be used for TV and computer monitor only - ie. no games, bluerays etc etc.

Already have a 26" HD-ready (720) via freesat HD which seems to do the job just fine, but want a bigger screen to see comfortably from my fave armchair.

I'm getting mixed messages from all over the place that verge from there's no difference at all between 720/1080 for ordinary HD (tv) viewing to it's the best thing since unsliced bread.

Been round all the shops - and I can't tell the difference, the best picture I saw was on a 720.

So, help!! What are your experiences of the two, and is there really a difference?

Cheers in advance :)

Comments

  • grahamlthompsongrahamlthompson Posts: 18,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    A good 768 line HD-Ready TV will look better than a poor full HD one, certainly at normal viewing distance. My son has the previous model HD-Ready 40" Sony LCD and mine has the full HD display. With broadcast 1080i near impossible to see any difference. His is not as good with bluray buts that's likely down to lack of 1080p24 support rather than less pixels. New HD-Ready tv's generally work with 1080p24. Most broadcast 1080i only has 1440 horizontal pixels anyway.
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    You say you want to use it as a computer monitor as well?

    In my experience a 1920 x 1080 resolution is more likely to be supported by a computer graphics card than a 1366 x 768 one.
    A lot of modern laptops do now use that resolution, but older desktop computers may struggle to give you that exactly.
    They may do 1360 x 768, but that will likely result in a slightly unsharp picture, especially on text, unless you are prepared to fiddle with the size and placement settings.

    Obviously if you are just wanting to play computer videos on it, rather than use it as your main desktop, then it won't really matter, as long as you can fill the screen with the picture.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,508
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    howard h wrote: »
    Been round all the shops - and I can't tell the difference, the best picture I saw was on a 720.

    Almost no sets are 720, they are 768 or 1080.

    A good 768 set will be better than a cheap 1080 set, but if you want to use it as a monitor then it's worth getting a good 1080 set for the extra computer resolution.
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    emptybox wrote: »
    You say you want to use it as a computer monitor as well?

    In my experience a 1920 x 1080 resolution is more likely to be supported by a computer graphics card than a 1366 x 768 one.
    A lot of modern laptops do now use that resolution, but older desktop computers may struggle to give you that exactly.
    They may do 1360 x 768, but that will likely result in a slightly unsharp picture, especially on text, unless you are prepared to fiddle with the size and placement settings.

    Obviously if you are just wanting to play computer videos on it, rather than use it as your main desktop, then it won't really matter, as long as you can fill the screen with the picture.
    Yes, I'd better explain that as a "computer monitor" it will simply be used for live streaming of stuff from the web - eg Eurosport player from my laptop, rather than more general computer stuff such as writing here!
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    Nigel Goodwin wrote: »
    Almost no sets are 720, they are 768 or 1080.

    A good 768 set will be better than a cheap 1080 set, but if you want to use it as a monitor then it's worth getting a good 1080 set for the extra computer resolution.

    Yeah, thicko me hasn't quite got the hang of these numbers. I do actually mean 768 - dunno where I got the 720 from?

    Looking around, there are 1080 sets that are cheaper than 768, Argos are selling one which used to be a Matsui - it's absolute bobbins, had one once and it went back within 4 hours!

    Looking like a toss-up between LG and Samsung right now.
  • grahamlthompsongrahamlthompson Posts: 18,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    howard h wrote: »
    Yeah, thicko me hasn't quite got the hang of these numbers. I do actually mean 768 - dunno where I got the 720 from?

    .

    It's because of the confusion between the 720P broadcast standard at 1280 x 720 and the resolution of HD-Ready sets. For some reason these have been described as 720P sets, as Nigel says TV.s with 1280 x 720 pixels are quite rare.
  • moogheadmooghead Posts: 771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    Good question... 'true' HD only comes into play at 37" or more in my opinion
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    What is it with Giant TV's 42" 50" 60" ? there is house up the road, must be a 50" stuck on the wall, can see it clearly from the road, must dwarf everything in the room!

    I used to have a 26" D ready, but went to a 32" HD, room size approx 16' x 12', and 32" is plenty big enough!
  • stafsstafs Posts: 1,540
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    As someone who's just replaced their 32" HD Ready set with with a "true" HD one, I can definitely see the difference. Of course, the old set was getting to the end of its life but I could tell the difference between an SD and HD picture and it's definitely even more pronounced at 1080.

    Having said that, I spend more time watching the programmes that looking at the picture quality so I usually forget I'm watching HD or SD after five minutes anyway,
  • pocatellopocatello Posts: 8,813
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    foxla wrote: »
    What is it with Giant TV's 42" 50" 60" ? there is house up the road, must be a 50" stuck on the wall, can see it clearly from the road, must dwarf everything in the room!

    I used to have a 26" D ready, but went to a 32" HD, room size approx 16' x 12', and 32" is plenty big enough!

    It is on the wall, you don't even see it after a while.
    A 2.35" aspect ratio film on even a 50" is only about 1 foot and a half strip of image across the wall, and back 6-8 feet, that isn't much. That is why 50" isn't giant at all.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    An old work colleague, he is nearly 80, watches HD on his Panasonic TV, he had not got Sky or cable or even a DVD player but he has received for nearly a year when he bought the TV a beautiful HD picture (according to him) from his TV aerial from a transmitter that has a DSO date later this year.

    I cannot even attempt to explain to him that he is not watching HD because he tells me the set is "full HD" so he picks up all the stations in HD now. At least he is happy with the picture:D
  • Echo1Echo1 Posts: 7,719
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    emptybox wrote: »
    You say you want to use it as a computer monitor as well?

    In my experience a 1920 x 1080 resolution is more likely to be supported by a computer graphics card than a 1366 x 768 one.
    A lot of modern laptops do now use that resolution, but older desktop computers may struggle to give you that exactly.
    They may do 1360 x 768, but that will likely result in a slightly unsharp picture, especially on text, unless you are prepared to fiddle with the size and placement settings.

    Obviously if you are just wanting to play computer videos on it, rather than use it as your main desktop, then it won't really matter, as long as you can fill the screen with the picture.

    Both my HD Ready TVs display perfect picture for both my oldish (2005 and 2006) PCs. No "unsharp picture" for either and they're displayed in the correct 1360x768 ratio as well.
  • c4rvc4rv Posts: 29,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    If you are using it for a monitor then I would say go for a decent 1080 if you can afford it else go for a good 720 screen rather then a cheap 1080.

    OP I was just wondering if you want to use it for a monitor then why not just get a monitor ?
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    c4rv wrote: »
    If you are using it for a monitor then I would say go for a decent 1080 if you can afford it else go for a good 720 screen rather then a cheap 1080.

    OP I was just wondering if you want to use it for a monitor then why not just get a monitor ?

    It's to be used for video/TV web streams (such as Eurosport) connected to my laptop via HDMI - so clarity of text isn't really that important.

    My main computer is situated elsewhere.

    Take the point about going for a good 720, probably the best option.
  • 2Bdecided2Bdecided Posts: 4,416
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    foxla wrote: »
    What is it with Giant TV's 42" 50" 60" ? there is house up the road, must be a 50" stuck on the wall, can see it clearly from the road, must dwarf everything in the room!

    I used to have a 26" D ready, but went to a 32" HD, room size approx 16' x 12', and 32" is plenty big enough!
    ...it's not actually big enough to fully appreciate HD, unless you use binoculars.

    http://www.burnyourbonus.info/hdtv-faq/faq3.html
    (out of date, but the calculations are still correct)

    Cheers,
    David.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,508
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    2Bdecided wrote: »
    ...it's not actually big enough to fully appreciate HD, unless you use binoculars.

    Just view from closer - it's hardly technical :D
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    Wash wrote: »
    Both my HD Ready TVs display perfect picture for both my oldish (2005 and 2006) PCs. No "unsharp picture" for either and they're displayed in the correct 1360x768 ratio as well.

    Except that 1360x768 is not the correct ratio. No TV (AFAIK) has that resolution. HD Ready sets typically have 1366x768, and those 6 little pixels can make all the difference to the sharpness of text on webpages etc. :D

    I've had 2 HD Ready sets, and they've both been a hassle to use as monitors. They both would give you a sharp picture if you wanted to display your desktop as a 1024x768 window, but filling the screen with a sharp image was problematic.

    My main TV now is a 40" 1080p one, and there have been no problems using that as a monitor.
    Of course that might just be because it's a newer set, and developments have occurred? But I doubt they are doing much development work now on 1366x768 panels.
    Might be wrong?
  • Echo1Echo1 Posts: 7,719
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #19
    emptybox wrote: »
    Except that 1360x768 is not the correct ratio. No TV (AFAIK) has that resolution. HD Ready sets typically have 1366x768, and those 6 little pixels can make all the difference to the sharpness of text on webpages etc. :D

    I've had 2 HD Ready sets, and they've both been a hassle to use as monitors. They both would give you a sharp picture if you wanted to display your desktop as a 1024x768 window, but filling the screen with a sharp image was problematic.

    My main TV now is a 40" 1080p one, and there have been no problems using that as a monitor.
    Of course that might just be because it's a newer set, and developments have occurred? But I doubt they are doing much development work now on 1366x768 panels.
    Might be wrong?

    I stand by my previous coment. Both HD Ready TV's give a perfect image without distortion or give off an unsharp image. The TV I'm using right now was made in October 2005 (Samsung 26" LCD) and it's perfect and the one in the living room is from late 2008/early 2009 (Toshiba 37" LCD). As I said, both PCs are old and have dated graphics cards in them, too.
  • 2Bdecided2Bdecided Posts: 4,416
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #20
    Nigel Goodwin wrote: »
    Just view from closer - it's hardly technical :D
    True - but it's uncomfortable sitting in the middle of the floor (unless you drag your settee unto the middle of the room too!)

    Actually, not even the middle - closer to the TV than the middle (at a quick guess, from the OP's room measurements).

    Cheers,
    David.
Sign In or Register to comment.