http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Hitac...oductDetail.do

 

Wrong forum, try Home Theater & Electronics: https://acurazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45

I'll see if I can get this moved...

 

For 1k not bad, but it's 720p, though it has input for 1080i/1080p. Do you plan on getting PS3 (blueray) and HDDVD? If so, I'd get a TV with 1080p display.

 

i have a plasma with a 1080p input but the tv only supports 1080i... will the tv downconvert if i get a 1080p bluray movie?

 

I just got a Polaroid 42" 1080p TV this past Saturday. I'm really excited. I also picked up a Sony Blu-Ray player with it. I want to rent 300 this weekend too!

 

There is essentially no difference between 1080i and 1080p. The key difference right now is whether your TV can accept 1080p/24.

Here's why:

Movies (and most TV shows) are shot at 24 frames per second (either on film or on 24-frame-per-second HD cameras). Every TV sold in the United States has a refresh rate of 60 hertz. This means that the screen refreshes 60 times per second. In order to display 24-frame-per-second content on a display that essentially shows 60 frames per second, you need to make up or create new frames. This is accomplished by a method called 3:2 pulldown (or, more accurately, 2:3 pulldown). It doubles the first frame of film, triples the second frame, doubles the third frame, and so on, creating a 2-3-2-3-2-3 sequence. (Check out Figure 1 for a more colorful depiction.) So, the new frames don't have new information; they are just duplicates of the original film frames. This process converts 24-frame-per-second film to be displayed on a 60-Hz display.

HD DVD and Blu-ray content is 1080p/24. If your player outputs a 60-Hz signal (that is, one that your TV can display), the player is adding (creating) the 3:2 sequence. So, whether you output 1080i or 1080p, it is still inherently the same information. The only difference is in whether the player interlaces it and your TV deinterlaces it, or if the player just sends out the 1080p signal directly. If the TV correctly deinterlaces 1080i, then there should be no visible difference between deinterlaced 1080i and direct 1080p (even with that extra step). There is no new information—nor is there more resolution, as some people think.

 

A note about the importance about 1080. According to the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution.

Yes, resolution is last. Resolution becomes important only if you're are sitting close enough to your set. The general rules of thumb is multiply the screen size by 1.5. So for a 55" screen, if you're sitting within 82.5" (a little less than 7 feet) to the screen, you won't notice a difference between 1080 and 720.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

 

^^ You will notice the difference in a blu ray disc or game, than just a HD DVD or 360 game. I've seen them both hooked up to my TV non 1080p and my buddies 1080p set. His looks A LOT better. I'm refraining myself hard from not spending another 4-5k.

 

Well, you need to compare apples to apples. Which two TVs are you comparing? But with gaming, you'll probably notice more of a difference because most people sit closer when they game -- at least I do because of the controller cord.

 

Well it was two Sony SXRD's mine a 1080i a year old, his 1080p 2 months, both projections. I wasn't just a game it was a blu ray movie on the PS3. We're always trying to to one up each other every other year or so.

 

Since it's Sony vs. Sony, the improvement could be in the improved processing and not necessarily the 1080p. I'm not saying 1080p isn't noticeable, but after doing extensive research, I opted for the Pioneer 5080, which isn't 1080p. IMO, LCDs have horrible black levels, which throws off color accuracy, contrast and shadow detail. I would take a display with better blacks over 1080p, unless you're sitting very close.

 

I just telling what I've seen in real world use. I think plasmas do have better blacks, but I don't think LCD's are horrible. I won't own a plasma just because I trust LCD more. I think the blacks in LCD's have gotten better in the last few years.

I think plasma's need to be in a dark room and LCD's in shiny rooms. They both have there place.

 

Agreed. I can control the lighting conditions in my viewing area. LCDs work much, much better in bright rooms.

 

Do you think the black levels in the Samsung 4665 model are horrible? I understand that a 2 year old Sony XBR has blacks that look gray--I've seen that. But the newest Samsung looks jet black to me. Have you ever compared DLP blacks to LCD blacks? I'm just curious.

 

Horrible is an overstatement. But in comparison to Pioneer plasmas, it's no contest. Even the blacks levels between Panasonic and Pioneer is evident.

The new Samsungs, IMO, have very good blacks. The best I've seen for any LCD so far. And the new 81-series Samsungs with local dimming, due out soon, should provide even better blacks, although at a much higher cost.

And it seems like LCDs have production issues. Sony has had problems with clouding; Sharps have banding issues; and the new Samsungs are having HDMI handshaking problems, with people having to get boards replaced. Not that plasmas are problem-free, but I haven't seen consistent problems like I've seen with LCDs.

If I were getting a display to go in a bright room where I couldn't control the lighting, I'd opt for a Samsung 5265f.

I haven't looked at DLPs.