http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31089

Interesting.

I have only seen digital cable on a 60" SXRD and it didnt look that bad. The HD stuff looks great, but I was concerned with non HD and again it was pretty good.

I have seen it on a 1080P 45" Sharp Aquous and it looked pretty bad.
Good info though.

Here's a good article on 1080P

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p1/

i disagree with these articles. sure there might not be 1080p content out there, but you need a 1080p TV in order to watch even 1080i content, which there is plenty of.

...you need a 1080p TV in order to watch even 1080i content, which there is plenty of.Um, I can watch 1080i on my 1080i TV just fine. Please remember that the horizontal "resolution" on most programmes is limited to about 1400 vertical lines, due to camera and other equipment limitations.

I agree that 1080P can supply a better picture, after all, we know how good upconverted material from DVDs looks and that's starting with 480i.

The points they're making are to go in with your eyes open realizing that there is little (HTPC)/no 1080P material available and many of the current 1080P TVs don't even accept 1080P, if it were avaialble. This is changing.

Also, depending on your viewing distance, the increase in resolution is not possible to resolve with most people's visual acuity (discussed in other 1080P threads).

Also, when people look at a 1080P TV, they are usually looking at a better, much more expensive TV, with better electronics, etc. It's not simply that there are more pixels.

I just finished my HT room and ended up getting a TV what is normally considered too large for the room. 58" 1080P set and I sit about 8' from it. Before I got the TV I was mortified by the prospect the TV would fail the wife test on standard satellite. I must say even the worst looking programs are acceptable and not overly grainy. Today the BEV guy is installing the new Dish so tonight is my first HD test. Sooo excited!

Um, I can watch 1080i on my 1080i TV just fine...
no, because apart from CRTs there is no such thing as a 1080i display. fixed pixel displays are progressive. therefore anyone buying an lcd, plasma, lcos, or dlp display that wants to see 1080i must buy a 1080p tv. since virtually all HDTVs sold today are one of those, it makes perfect sense to buy a 1080p tv. not accepting 1080p input really doesnt make much difference.

What a bunch of BS this inquirer article is! And why is this thread even here? Should we link any nonsense we find on the web?

There are plenty of reasons for getting 1080p displays, and on 1080i signal, all else being equal, they are superior to every other lower resolution display.

...why is this thread even here? 1. So the subject can be discussed.

2. So that people are aware that most current 1080P HDTVs don't accept 1080P.

3. So that people who are considering 1080P HDTVs are aware that there is currently little/no 1080P material available.

We are trying to educate the consumer on this website and this thread is part of that education.

Sure, 1080P HDTVs are "better" than "lesser" HDTVs, however, are they worth the money? That's part of the discussion and would depend perhaps on how much money you have.

For example, when upconverting DVD players came out, most people assumed they were better than previous players, however, many people found out that a good PS DVD player can outperform a lousy upconverting one. I'm sure once the less expensive 1080P HDTVs come out, we'll see the same thing - some 1080i/720P/768P HDTVs may outperform them, when you consider the overall performance, not just the number of pixels (contrast, colour, etc)

Sure, 1080P HDTVs are "better" than "lesser" HDTVs, however, are they worth the money? That's part of the discussion and would depend perhaps on how much money you have.

This is so not what the original article says:

"Don't buy a 1080p telly, warns consultant
There is no such thing."

Two 100% false statements at the very beginning. How can people even read on?

Many headlines/intros are designed to grab attention. It's often in the reading of the article that the actual information comes out, and even then, the information can be full of errors, as we see on this forum all the time. Doesn't mean the topic can't be discussed.

1 I'm sure once the less expensive 1080P HDTVs come out, we'll see the same thing - some 1080i/720P/768P HDTVs may outperform them, when you consider the overall performance, not just the number of pixels (contrast, colour, etc)

I wouldn't limit this to just the inexpensivee 1080p TVs.

I took a long, hard look at the 1080p TVs on the market today before I pulled the trigger on my 768p plasma.

While there was no denying the improvement in pixel density of the 1080p displays there were simply too many other issues that made the plasma a better choice for me.

Think of it this way, the current technology is currently at or near it's peak whereas the 1080p tech is brand new. I would expect no new advancements in the 720/768 displays beyond next year whereas the 1080p sets will continue to improve and get cheaper.

The same thing happened in the RP CRT market. About 3-4 years ago the high end models started to get phased out and now the only RP CRTs that exist are mid to low end.

Well I generally think people who want a HD set shop around and do their research and if they don't then they have no one to blame but themselves. All you can do is help provide all the information and let people make up their own minds.

And here is a rebuttal from the author.

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/masses_have_spoken.html

HD DVD and Blu-Ray are both 1080p, so the lack of content will no longer be an issue soon.

Trust me, my 720P FP telly will be out the door as soon as I find a 1080P telly for a decent price.

1. So the subject can be discussed.

2. So that people are aware that most current 1080P HDTVs don't accept 1080P.

3. So that people who are considering 1080P HDTVs are aware that there is currently little/no 1080P material available.

We are trying to educate the consumer on this website and this thread is part of that education.

Sure, 1080P HDTVs are "better" than "lesser" HDTVs, however, are they worth the money? That's part of the discussion and would depend perhaps on how much money you have.

For example, when upconverting DVD players came out, most people assumed they were better than previous players, however, many people found out that a good PS DVD player can outperform a lousy upconverting one. I'm sure once the less expensive 1080P HDTVs come out, we'll see the same thing - some 1080i/720P/768P HDTVs may outperform them, when you consider the overall performance, not just the number of pixels (contrast, colour, etc)

this is doing a disservice imo. it implies that 1080p TVs offer no advantage. even if 1080p content never came out (which isnt true, but for argument sake), 1080p TVs would be far better than a 720p for obvious reasons. again, i return to my comment about them being required to watch even 1080i content (CRTs, which make up 1% of hdtv sales, being the exception)

even if 1080p content never came out (which isnt true, but for argument sake), 1080p TVs would be far better than a 720p for obvious reasons.

This is a common misconception. Except for large projection televisions (60"+) most people don't sit close enough to their TV to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p TV (even with a 1080p source). For most people there will be other factors that will have a greater impact on Picture Quality.

The BBC did some tests and came to similar conclusions. The key contributors are size of display and distance to screen.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/f_EBU_likes_progressive.shtml

"Having come down squarely in favor of 50 Hz progressive distribution, the question of which progressive format, 1080p/50 or 720p/50, remained. A series of tests conducted by the BBC revealed that the median viewing distance for a large flat screen in the home would be about 2.7 meters (8.9 feet), a number remarkably similar to the one the BBC measured 15 years ago, and to the RCA Labs Lechner Distance. Further tests on perceived detail led to the conclusion that 720p/50 would saturate the eye with detail for screens up to 50 inches at the representative viewing distance. 1080p/50 would, then, provide more detail than necessary for the screen sizes and viewing distances that would probably exist in European homes.

A survey of display manufacturers indicated to the committee that the "core" or "design target" flat-panel display for television should be the "Wide XGA" panel, a 768-line progressively scanned display. This is a good fit with the above finding that 720p would saturate the eye with detail in the screen sizes and viewing distances expected to exist in European homes.

Another question considered was what the implications would be if, as one manufacturer and several Japanese broadcasters stated, the core flat-panel display becomes a 1080p display rather than a Wide XGA one. If people were watching 1080p displays and 1080p DVDs were prevalent, would 720p broadcasts look inadequate? It was pointed out that if watched at the 2.7-meter viewing distance, the difference between 1080p and 720p would not be noticeable. It would, however, be noticeable if viewed at closer distances.

The committee concluded that it was best to begin HDTV broadcasting with the adequate, lower bit-rate 720p system. If receivers and set-top boxes were able to decode formats up to and including 1080p, this would permit broadcasters to move to 1080p broadcasting if the alternative scenario develops.

It should also be pointed out that the anticipated compression efficiencies that may be achieved with MPEG-4 AVC would likely permit 1080p/50 broadcasting, although on the other hand, 720p/50 would ensure fewer coding artifacts as well as lower emission bit-rates.

The conclusion of this work is that the EBU Technical Committee recommends progressive scanning for HD delivery for a number of reasons, the principal ones being that it obviates the requirement for interlace-to-progressive conversion at the display, and that it makes the delivery system more future-proof. The EBU Project Group B/TQE has concluded that a single standard, 720p/50, could be chosen to deliver HDTV-quality images to large flat-panel displays, providing the lowest delivery bit-rate requirement for images that satisfy the demands of the viewer, assuming the Wide XGA display.

Earlier HDTV implementations, such as those in the United States, were largely based on earlier presumptions, including the presumption of CRT displays. The European HD implementation will take place in a much different world of display choices, mainly based on progressively scanned fixed-pixel technologies, and in a world where more advanced compression technologies are available. The European broadcasters are therefore in the enviable position of starting with a "blank sheet of paper." In the world they contemplate, they see little reason to use interlaced scanning for delivery to the viewer."

Previous thread on the subject of 1080P:

http://digitalhomecanada.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36791

S&V Article on the subject of visual acuity:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1137&page_number=1

When bashing 1080i as a format and claiming absence of material, he makes one mistake
(clearly visible in the FAQ where he explains that 1080i/60 is actually 1080i/30) that turns the issue upside down:
The two fields (odd+even) represent the same frame if the material is mastered in 1080p. So are all nextgen hidef DVDs.
And if the TV set is capable of properly rebuilding the frame, it will be 1080p.
How it is delivered to the screen doesn't matter - in one frame or 2 fields that constitute a frame.

Diogen.