DS Forums

 
 

1080p LCD TV's Are they worth it?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-09-2007, 13:40
brattbakkk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 456

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?
brattbakkk is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-09-2007, 15:06
uncle_sam_ie
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.
uncle_sam_ie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 15:08
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
50" and over I'd say go 1080p.

50" and under then 720p will suffice.
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 21:43
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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.
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 22:01
carefree cook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
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
carefree cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 00:52
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 09:53
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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.
Yes, he's not got a clue what he's talking about!
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 10:19
Truan
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/
Truan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 11:12
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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.
Number plate at 100m? - I probably couldn't even see the car!

Good example though!.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 15:57
Apollo 1875
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moon Base Alpha
Posts: 386
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 don't get it Ted, run it by me again." Gotta love that Father Ted episode.

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
Apollo 1875 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 16:06
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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'll repeat my usual line!

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?.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 16:37
Apollo 1875
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?
Apollo 1875 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 16:52
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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?
I hadn't, but I just have, looks about like what I said? - but if you're concerned about 768 sets vs 1080 sets, go in a shop and ask to see them side by side on the same picture, both SD and HD. Generally you would do this from far closer than you would normally view at home as well - due to space constraints in a shop.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 19:46
carefree cook
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
carefree cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 21:18
GDK
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!
GDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 21:40
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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
You still seem a little confused?.

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.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 00:57
carefree cook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
1080 lines on a small screen close up, looks EXACTLY the same as 1080 lines on a screen further away.
.
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
carefree cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 01:02
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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!
I was thinking of that solution earlier and it would make sense, I can only think of 3 reasons why it's not done.

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).
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 01:29
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 07:22
roddydogs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,355

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!
roddydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 16:37
carefree cook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
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
carefree cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 17:25
brattbakkk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 456
What have I started?
brattbakkk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 17:55
carefree cook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
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.
wait hang on i didnt realise you were talking about a correlation between viewing distance AND screen size
ie this pic;

http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-conten...tion_chart.png
carefree cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2007, 18:49
dfgh
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.
dfgh is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:52.