|
||||||||
1080p LCD TV's Are they worth it? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 456
|
1080p LCD TV's Are they worth it?
Considering the extra cost involved and especially sub 50" TV's which most people have with 32" being the norm.
Would you notice the diff say using a PS3 on a 32" 1080p as opposed to a 1080i TV? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 601
|
Unless your screen is over 60" it's a waste of money. It's like using a 20 megapixel camera and then printing out postage size prints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
|
50" and over I'd say go 1080p.
50" and under then 720p will suffice. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Unless your screen is over 60" it's a waste of money. It's like using a 20 megapixel camera and then printing out postage size prints.
I don't know why people keep making this mistake. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Sorry but it depends completely on how close you sit to it. A 32" at 6' is bigger than a 60" at 12' and is bigger than a 100" at 19'.
I don't know why people keep making this mistake. theres no mistake, viewing distance has nothing to do with it. on a 32'' you wouldnt possibily be able to see that many lines on the screen, 50'' and above would be ideal for full hd obviously standing eyes touching a 32'' screen will make the viewed pic worse that standing 15metres away, but its not got anything to do with viewable resolution/lines |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
theres no mistake, viewing distance has nothing to do with it. on a 32'' you wouldnt possibily be able to see that many lines on the screen, 50'' and above would be ideal for full hd
obviously standing eyes touching a 32'' screen will make the viewed pic worse that standing 15metres away, but its not got anything to do with viewable resolution/lines |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
I'm sorry that's patently wrong, the viewed pixel size (as seen by your eyes) has everything to do with how close you are to the TV. I suggest you google perspective, something that was understood centuries ago, if you think about it you'll realise what nonsense you've just written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Isles of Scilly
Posts: 1,023
|
Of course viewing distance matters, can you read a number plate from 10 meters away? should be easy, 100 meters away - gets more difficult because the image gets smaller your eye cant resolve the image.
[to quote father ted - those cows are small (pointing to a toy)- those are far away (pointing out the window)] good article http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09...o-screen-size/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Of course viewing distance matters, can you read a number plate from 10 meters away? should be easy, 100 meters away - gets more difficult because the image gets smaller your eye cant resolve the image.
Good example though!. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moon Base Alpha
Posts: 386
|
Quote:
Of course viewing distance matters, can you read a number plate from 10 meters away? should be easy, 100 meters away - gets more difficult because the image gets smaller your eye cant resolve the image.
[to quote father ted - those cows are small (pointing to a toy)- those are far away (pointing out the window)] good article http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09...o-screen-size/ I'm surprised that carefree cook doesn't believe that there is a direct correltion between viewing distance and the ability to perceive different screen resolutions, but while I enjoyed checking-out the "viewing-distance-to-screen-size" chart, I wondered what other people think about it's calibration? I have a Bravia 32V2500, and my viewing distance is 10 feet. The highest definition signal I can input at the moment is 576p from my Pany DVDR (looks fantastic to me), but the chart suggests that at my viewing distance I wouldn't be able to percieve any benefit from a 720p signal unless I went up to a 37" screen. I've been itching to pick up a 2nd hand Sky HD box and/or a PS3 so that I can start viewing some HD content. Does this actually mean that it would be pointless me getting these items as my screen size and viewing distance restrict me to a maximum perceivable resolution of 576p? I'd like to hear the opinions from anyone with a similar screen to viewing distance ratio, that recently got Sky HD or a PS3. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
I have a Bravia 32V2500, and my viewing distance is 10 feet. The highest definition signal I can input at the moment is 576p from my Pany DVDR (looks fantastic to me), but the chart suggests that at my viewing distance I wouldn't be able to percieve any benefit from a 720p signal unless I went up to a 37" screen. I've been itching to pick up a 2nd hand Sky HD box and/or a PS3 so that I can start viewing some HD content. Does this actually mean that it would be pointless me getting these items as my screen size and viewing distance restrict me to a maximum perceivable resolution of 576p?
With SD you should be a certain number of times the screen size away (used to be recommended as minimum 2.5 times screen size) so you don't see the scan lines of the TV. With LCD and Plasma it still applies, even though there's no scan lines - but it prevents you seeing the digital artifacts on the picture, caused by MPEG compression and the upscaling in the set. Now this means you're viewing from far enough away NOT to see fine detail in the picture (the lines or the artifacts) - with HD you WANT to see the fine detail, so you need to view from closer - essentially the closer you view, the more HD detail you can see. So really, regardless of screen size, you should view from different distances for HD and SD. Viewing HD from too far away still improves your picture, but no where near what it should - this is probably why people complain about HD not being much better?. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moon Base Alpha
Posts: 386
|
Thanks Nigel. Seems like a good rule of thumb.
Did you look at the viewing-distance-to-screen-size chart? Would you say that it's values should be taken as accurate, or does it simply serve to illustrate that there is a relationship between percieved resolution and viewing distance? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Thanks Nigel. Seems like a good rule of thumb.
Did you look at the viewing-distance-to-screen-size chart? Would you say that it's values should be taken as accurate, or does it simply serve to illustrate that there is a relationship between percieved resolution and viewing distance? |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
im sorry ive come across totally wrong here. what i mean is, or course the viewing distance makes a difference (like the number plate eg), however, whatever the distance your standing at, there is still a fixed amount of lines on the screen, and the human eye can only see so many on a small(er) screen, no matter what the distance
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,894
|
You know what I think the answer would be? Have a mode on large screen HD TVs that allows SD pictures to be displayed small, in the centre of the screen.
The problem at the moment is that large screens, that show off HD to great effect at normal viewing distances, are also big enough to show all the defects present in an SD signal when viewed at the same distance. This is in addition to the problems with SD highlighted by LCD screens as compared to CRTs (which tend to smooth out and mask the same defects in SD signals). Either that, or mount your viewing chair on rails so you can move it further away from the screen when watching SD pictures!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
im sorry ive come across totally wrong here. what i mean is, or course the viewing distance makes a difference (like the number plate eg), however, whatever the distance your standing at, there is still a fixed amount of lines on the screen, and the human eye can only see so many on a small(er) screen, no matter what the distance
1080 lines on a small screen close up, looks EXACTLY the same as 1080 lines on a screen further away. If you were talking about a 2 inch handheld portable, fair enough - your eyes can't focus close enough to resolve 1080 lines on a screen that small. But my 19 inch LCD computer monitor is perfectly fine at 1080x1024, so a 32 inch (or even a 23 or 26 inch) would be no problem at full 1080. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
1080 lines on a small screen close up, looks EXACTLY the same as 1080 lines on a screen further away.
. never mind this is way of topic |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
You know what I think the answer would be? Have a mode on large screen HD TVs that allows SD pictures to be displayed small, in the centre of the screen.
The problem at the moment is that large screens, that show off HD to great effect at normal viewing distances, are also big enough to show all the defects present in an SD signal when viewed at the same distance. This is in addition to the problems with SD highlighted by LCD screens as compared to CRTs (which tend to smooth out and mask the same defects in SD signals). Either that, or mount your viewing chair on rails so you can move it further away from the screen when watching SD pictures! ![]() 1. There could be problems with remnance on plasmas. 2. People would complain about not using all the screen (they do that at the moment with 4:3 and use fattyvision). 3. Not enough people would use it to make it worthwhile (see 2). |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
think im on a different wave length mate, im comparing 1080 picture on a 32'' vs a larger screen like say 65'' for eg
never mind this is way of topic As an example I sit 2' from my 17" computer monitor, if in my lounge I were to sit 12' away I would need a 102" screen to get the same results. Basically I need higher resolution from my 17" than I would from any large screen TV I can afford. That's why when people say there's no point in 1080p for 32" they're talking tosh unless they specify viewing distance ("typical viewing distance" is meaningless). It does mean that people sitting closer to a small screen get the same picture as those sitting further away from a large set. If the room allows it sitting closer is a lot cheaper than getting a bigger set yet we get some people complaining that their room isn't big enough to get a large set, they should actually be pleased about this but I think there's a lot of snobbery involved. Of course with a larger set it is usually easier to get more people watching it comfortably from sensible viewing angles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,355
|
1080p
Its all down to a "selling Point", after loads of 50hz 1080P set have been sold, then apparently its no good unless you have 100Hz as well, otherwise you get "Flicker". Then after you've bought one of those, no doubt some other "Must Have" gimmick will come in!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Assuming the same signal processing etc a 32" at 6' is the same as a 65" at 12.2', that's the point. You can resolve pixels or artefacts just as easily on either set.
As an example I sit 2' from my 17" computer monitor, if in my lounge I were to sit 12' away I would need a 102" screen to get the same results. Basically I need higher resolution from my 17" than I would from any large screen TV I can afford. That's why when people say there's no point in 1080p for 32" they're talking tosh unless they specify viewing distance ("typical viewing distance" is meaningless). It does mean that people sitting closer to a small screen get the same picture as those sitting further away from a large set. If the room allows it sitting closer is a lot cheaper than getting a bigger set yet we get some people complaining that their room isn't big enough to get a large set, they should actually be pleased about this but I think there's a lot of snobbery involved. Of course with a larger set it is usually easier to get more people watching it comfortably from sensible viewing angles.im off to go kill my self now |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 456
|
What have I started?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Assuming the same signal processing etc a 32" at 6' is the same as a 65" at 12.2', that's the point. You can resolve pixels or artefacts just as easily on either set.
As an example I sit 2' from my 17" computer monitor, if in my lounge I were to sit 12' away I would need a 102" screen to get the same results. Basically I need higher resolution from my 17" than I would from any large screen TV I can afford. That's why when people say there's no point in 1080p for 32" they're talking tosh unless they specify viewing distance ("typical viewing distance" is meaningless). It does mean that people sitting closer to a small screen get the same picture as those sitting further away from a large set. If the room allows it sitting closer is a lot cheaper than getting a bigger set yet we get some people complaining that their room isn't big enough to get a large set, they should actually be pleased about this but I think there's a lot of snobbery involved. Of course with a larger set it is usually easier to get more people watching it comfortably from sensible viewing angles.ie this pic; http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-conten...tion_chart.png |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,409
|
Anyway, that's the science part.Here's my opinion, Is there a difference between 1080i or 1080p? Yes there is. Is it worth it? Since you can get some decent 1080p sets now for a little under(not over 50" though) £1000, I would say yes.
Let common sense guide you. Don't go getting a 50" plus screen, if you're living room is the size of a shoe box, errr lets say size 10.... UK....Clarks and don't be paying £1000 more for 10 more inches.Although I hear some women do. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:52.


they should actually be pleased about this but I think there's a lot of snobbery involved. Of course with a larger set it is usually easier to get more people watching it comfortably from sensible viewing angles.