[LittlePhil]

Given these current broadcasting standards (SKY HD/SKYSD/FREEVIEW & ANALOGUE TV) would the average viewer be better off using 1080i spec'd set as opposed to 1080p?

By that, I mean a person who doesn't want to play games on it , just wants a large screen (42" for example) in his living room to watch TV with his family. He does have SKY HD though.

Be very interested to hear your views

[bobcar]

What do you mean by 1080i and 1080p? A lot of people mistakenly think that 1080p means the set has a screen resolution of 1920x1080 whereas 1080i has a lower resolution, this is not necessarily the case.

If you mean a 1920x1080 screen resolution then it all depends how far you sit from your TV. Unless you sit close to a largish TV then there's no advantage of the higher resolution and the money for the extra pixels is better spent elsewhere such as better video processing.

If you mean will the set accept 1080p then I would think this is useful but not the most important factor.

[paulr2006]

If you decide to add a Blu ray player in the future then the 1080P is certainly worth having as it will allow you to run the Blu ray at 1080P 24Hz (24fps) which is the framerate it is designed to run at & gives a smooth judderless playback.

With the sources you mention initially then I doubt you will be able to tell any differance. That said I have a 1080P set which I have had for a year now (40") & I'm delighted with it.

[bobcar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr2006

If you decide to add a Blu ray player in the future then the 1080P is certainly worth having as it will allow you to run the Blu ray at 1080P 24Hz (24fps) which is the framerate it is designed to run at & gives a smooth judderless playback.

No it won't necessarily do this. Firstly not all 1080p will do 1080p24 and secondly some of those that do will not actually run the display refresh at a multiple of 24Hz.

Incidentally 24fps is only one of the rates BluRay is designed to run at, it is not the rate.

[LittlePhil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

What do you mean by 1080i and 1080p? A lot of people mistakenly think that 1080p means the set has a screen resolution of 1920x1080 whereas 1080i has a lower resolution, this is not necessarily the case.

If you mean a 1920x1080 screen resolution then it all depends how far you sit from your TV. Unless you sit close to a largish TV then there's no advantage of the higher resolution and the money for the extra pixels is better spent elsewhere such as better video processing.

If you mean will the set accept 1080p then I would think this is useful but not the most important factor.

I meant that some sets are being advertised as "Full HD" 1080p.
Is it beneficial for the "normal" viewer(not in posession of a Blu Ray DVD) who, nonetheless, might have Sky HD, but still watches SD channels too.

I did briefly compare Two (budget branded) sets, and I found the 1080p set was good on Sky HD, but much worse than its 1080i counterpart on Sky SD channels & freeview.

It was only 10 mins playing around & I was seeking confirmation (or otherwise) of my own findings.

If I am correct, given the fact that Sky HD doesn't broadcast to 1080p, then would I not be better off now just buying an ordinary HD ready set, rather than a "Full HD" 1080p set?

[Gilson]

HD channels on Sky are not available in 1080p but in 1080i.
AFAIK the only sources that will deliver HD at 1080p are BluRay, (HD-DVD), and games consoles.

[LittlePhil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilson

HD channels on Sky are not available in 1080p but in 1080i.
AFAIK the only sources that will deliver HD at 1080p are BluRay, (HD-DVD), and games consoles.

Thats kind of my point really, & the 1080p sets picture quality seemed worse than the 1080i on normal standard definition channels & Freeview.
I was seeking clarification that on SD broadcasts & Freeview, would a 1080p set be worse than 1080i

Can anybody confirm (or otherwise)?

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

Thats kind of my point really, & the 1080p sets picture quality seemed worse than the 1080i on normal standard definition channels & Freeview.
I was seeking clarification that on SD broadcasts & Freeview, would a 1080p set be worse than 1080i

Can anybody confirm (or otherwise)?

As mentioned if the TV is 1920*1080 then the p/i really doesn't matter unless you change display technologies and comparing ALIS Plasma to normal plasma or DLP/LCD and Projection and then tech for tech no practical difference.

What I think you are asking is why TV's that have 1366*768 and below can look better to some 1920*1080 displays and traditionally (which means in HD terms the last year or so) only the FullHD sets could accept 1080p sources and others a max of 1080i.

The fundamental difference in practical terms is that the more upscaling is involved to get to 1902*1080 combined with upto 50" of screen has pushed already poor SD sources to the extreme where as the lower spec panels are not so demanding.
There is also the matter of cheap as chips TV's that are sold in the FullHD bracket and really have driving electronics and scalers that wouldn't do a hand held display justice

I guarantee if you do some research and are willing to spend that little bit extra you will find a FullHD display that looks as good with SD content against the vast majority of the HD Ready tagged panels (like for like display tech).

I've just swapped a 32" 1366*768 LCD for a 46" 1920*1080 Plasma, most of the SD channels have had some benefit but MotorsTV and ITV1 have suffered (both poor SD channels).

[paulr2006]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

Thats kind of my point really, & the 1080p sets picture quality seemed worse than the 1080i on normal standard definition channels & Freeview.
I was seeking clarification that on SD broadcasts & Freeview, would a 1080p set be worse than 1080i

Can anybody confirm (or otherwise)?

1080P should not be worse but it may not be any better on the sources you mention. I think the comparison may simply be down to the quality of the sets you looked at. I have a Samsung LE40M86BDX which is fantastic on Sky HD & HD DVD & Blu ray, the SD viewing is not the best on Freeview, don't get me wrong it's still ok but I have seen better. Some of the high end Sony sets appear better on SD but in my opinion the HD is better on the Sammy & since I don't often view SD that's why I chose the Sammy. Sky HD although only 1080i gives outstanding results.

I think if possible try & find a dealer who will let you view various sets as there can be a world of difference between makes & even models.

[paulr2006]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

No it won't necessarily do this. Firstly not all 1080p will do 1080p24 and secondly some of those that do will not actually run the display refresh at a multiple of 24Hz.

Incidentally 24fps is only one of the rates BluRay is designed to run at, it is not the rate.

Many of the current sets can & will display 24Hz & since 24fps is what most films are made in then logicaly 24hz is the native speed to use for blu ray, which is why the BD manufacturers give the option to do it. I'm not saying it is the only one but it does give good smooth playback.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

I was seeking clarification that on SD broadcasts & Freeview, would a 1080p set be worse than 1080i

Can anybody confirm (or otherwise)?

1080i vs 1080p makes no difference whatsoever to Freeview pictures. It doesn't even affect pictures from SkyHD because SkyHD is 1080i native.

Any differences in picture quality you have seen from Freeview or SkyHD on showroom TVs are likely due to the settings, or simply because some TVs are better than others (e.g. plasma vs LCD ).

1080i and 1080p branded TVs have the same physical resolution. The only difference is that the latter accepts a 1080p signal (e.g. from certain Blu-ray players) while the former accepts a maximum resolution of 'only' 1080i.

Comparing TVs in a showroom is pretty pointless because they are so poorly set up. The best looking TV in the showroom could actually turn out to be the worst looking one in your home.

[wakey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

Given these current broadcasting standards (SKY HD/SKYSD/FREEVIEW & ANALOGUE TV) would the average viewer be better off using 1080i spec'd set as opposed to 1080p?

By that, I mean a person who doesn't want to play games on it , just wants a large screen (42" for example) in his living room to watch TV with his family. He does have SKY HD though.

Be very interested to hear your views

For your average viewer then a 1080i set is almost certainly better a better option imho. Its the larger screen sizes that get the benefit from 1080p but with your average viewer unlikley to have anything bigger than 42" they really won't notice much difference from a 1080i source rather than a 1080p one. You can pick up a better quality 1080i set for less than you can get a budget 1080p one and probably find it gives you a better quality image on these 42" and below sets

[bobcar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr2006

Many of the current sets can & will display 24Hz

Yes many can display 24fps but many can't that's the point I was making. What you said (maybe you didn't mean it) was that a 1080p set would work with 1080p24, I corrected this by saying they may but even then they may not refresh at a multiple of 24 which is the optimum way to do it.

Quote:

& since 24fps is what most films are made in then logicaly 24hz is the native speed to use for blu ray, which is why the BD manufacturers give the option to do it.I'm not saying it is the only one but it does give good smooth playback.

No it's only the correct rate for films, it is the wrong rate for TV programmes. If you try 24fps for TV programmes then you will get the judder you were trying to avoid (or slow down).

Handling 1080p24 is well worth having especially if it's done properly but it is by no means the case that a 1080p set will handle 1080p24.

[LittlePhil]

So, to summarise

If you are on a budget & are buying a cheapo 42" TV, avoid disappointment & get a normal 1080i set because the upscalers & other internal drivers on a cheapo 1080p will be so naff that Sky SD & Freeview will look worse than on the 1080i set.

If however, you can afford a decent branded set, then you should be confident to get a full HD 1080p because even on SD & Freeview, it will be equally as good as 1080i tellys.

is that fair?

[meltcity]

To avoid disappointment don't buy a dodgy no-name brand!

1080p or even 1080i resolution isn't that important because the number of pixels is only one factor in determining overall picture quality. 1366 x 768 should be enough for most people at normal viewing distances (even 1024 x 768 on certain plasmas produces very nice pictures).

You shouldn't assume that a branded 1080p will deliver good Freeview pictures; to avoid disappointment do as much research as you can before taking the plunge.

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

So, to summarise

If you are on a budget & are buying a cheapo 42" TV, avoid disappointment & get a normal 1080i set because the upscalers & other internal drivers on a cheapo 1080p will be so naff that Sky SD & Freeview will look worse than on the 1080i set.

If however, you can afford a decent branded set, then you should be confident to get a full HD 1080p because even on SD & Freeview, it will be equally as good as 1080i tellys.

is that fair?

Those on a budget perhaps should not be spending their hard earned (or not) money on a large HD telly?
The use of cheap driving electronics has been around and was in part responsible for the price crash of HD displays, people bought cheap kit by the tens of thousands forcing higher end brands to slash prices to compete.

I've just bought a Pana 46" FullHD Plasma for £1400, my 2004 Philips 32" 1366*768 LCD cost me £2000, all hail capitalism and consumerisum

Bottom line is that depending upon viewing distance, eye-sight and other factors a 1366*768 display will be excellent and there will be no need to spend more money on higher resolution and larger screen sizes.
Each consumer has to judge the technology and it's uses on it's merits and factor functions/performance against cost and don't get drawn into the spec game, it's a never ending chase which the buyer will never win.

[paulr2006]

[quote=bobcar;24027889]

No it's only the correct rate for films, it is the wrong rate for TV programmes. If you try 24fps for TV programmes then you will get the judder you were trying to avoid (or slow down).

I have not mentioned 24fps for TV programmes? nor would I advocate trying it! my post relates to blu ray films as it plainly says.

[bobcar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

No it's only the correct rate for films, it is the wrong rate for TV programmes. If you try 24fps for TV programmes then you will get the judder you were trying to avoid (or slow down).

I have not mentioned 24fps for TV programmes? nor would I advocate trying it! my post relates to blu ray films as it plainly says.

Stop trying to wriggle, you made a post that was incorrect and misleading (your original post did not mention films and implied that all 1080p sets handled 1080p24) - it happens live with it.

Quote:

If you decide to add a Blu ray player in the future then the 1080P is certainly worth having as it will allow you to run the Blu ray at 1080P 24Hz (24fps) which is the framerate it is designed to run at & gives a smooth judderless playback.