I've been seeing 42 inch plasma TVs for about $700 (name brands like Panasonic and Sony) but the down side is they are either 720p or 1080i..

Now my question is:

Is 1080p really that necessary?

 

I would say not really. If you are stretching for cash on 720p vs 1080p, I would go for 720p. If you have some loose change, then get 1080p.

 

It depends on viewing distance.

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

Also:

But you should also take your own impressions into account. The viewing distance chart is an average. Some people can experience the screen-door effect (when you can start making out the lines in between the individual pixels -- stand really close to a display to see what I mean) at further distances.

 

 

You maybe saw a panasonic plasma but not a sony plasma.

 

You're right, the Sony Bravia one was $700, 32 inches and that actually was 1080p.

 

I mean it is not a plasma. I highly doubt you saw any plasmas at ~$700. They are most likely LCD's. At 32" it is definitely a LCD as no plasmas are that small. And I meant it was not a sony plasma because Sony does not make plasmas anymore, they are strictly LCD and soon to be OLED as far as flat panel tv's go.

 

This is what I'm talking about:

Sony KDL-32VL130 Bravia 32" LCD HDTV, HDMI input, 1080p, 16:9, NTSC & digital ATSC HDTV tuner, remote

$695

PANASONIC TH-42PX6U 42" Diagonal Plasma HDTV Monitor, 1024x768 resolution 16:9, HDTV ready, 10,000:1 contrast ratio

$895

 

The Panasonic isn't even a 720p TV. 720p = 1280x720 in resolution. So it's 256 lines short horizontally; 20% less than what's required to display a 720p signal.

I wouldn't use resolution alone to determine if you want to buy it... black levels, sub contrast (shadow detail), color, video noise. If you have a 1080p display with horrible contrast and bad blacks (most LCD tvs) you'd be better off with the sub 720p Plasma with good contrast and better blacks.

edited

 

I wouldn't hold that chart up to be worth much. I can tell it wasn't created using a real-world scientific study. There's too many variables... At what vision level did they use to make that chart 20:20? Using near sited or far sighted people? I can tell you looking at it that it's BS. Plain and simple it's made for FUD.

I find the chart and conversations about 720p vs 1080p really only exists for those with 720p sets that need to convince them selfs that their resolution is adequate. That's about the only purpose it holds. Price differences between 1080p and 720p for new sets keeps closing. And less and less 720p sets are being made.

Reality is most people watch their sets within 10-15 feet of it. Most people purchasing HDTVs are buying 40" or larger. Most people will be able to see the 2x quality difference 1080p offers over 720p. 720p will be distant memory in 5-10 years. 1080p is what all sets will be in the near future... then what will the people say "bring back 720p! I don't need 1080p"... won't happen.

While I can't argue watching a 40" screen at 15' odds are you won't be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p. The majority of people aren't doing that... 15' is actually pretty far. I set about 9-10' from my 65".

 

I guess you missed the part where I said you have to see for yourself since everyone's eyes are different. The chart is just a guide, not the end-all-be-all of whether 1080p is noticeable.

 

No way would I sweat getting a 1080p 42 inch screen, unless it was right on top of my nose....

 

I was pointing how worthless it is... if the data can't be used why even look at it
? Perhaps if the data actually came from a scientific study it would have some credibility and could be used.

But ya, I suppose a chart is useful for anyone that's on the fence about it. Just be nice to have one made from a study not made up numbers.

 

FWIW, I have a 42" Panasonic TH-42PX75U (it's 768p actually / 1080i), and it's definitely got a superb picture from my viewing distance of 8'. I have 20/15 vision (yes, better than 20/20 thanks to laser eye surgery!), and can't notice any screen-door effect or pixelation, etc from that distance.

 

Did you happen to read the article?

 

Ya, I've read it before. Also re-read it again when you posted it. That how I caught it's not accurate. However even they claim it to be an estimate to save some face.

I've also spent a lot of time reading other discussions by ophthalmologists regarding human eye resolution. In regards to megapixels and photography. Also the perceived vision and what's actually received by the brain.

Some studies done with patients show people with 20/20 vision can distinguish lines separated by 0.6 arc-minutes or 0.01 arc degrees. Using this data it's been calculated that the human eye can see over 560 megapixels of data with both eyes combined. Your eyes actually see two different things simultaneously and your brain stitches them together.

To say the human eye with 20/20 vision can't distinguish between 1 million (720p) pixels and 2 million (1080i) pixels from 10' on a 65" screen isn't true like the chart says. Using other calculations based on vision it comes to about 10' on a 65" screen. Where as using that chart you'd need a 75" screen almost at 10'.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...features.shtml

I guess who knows who's really accurate, who who's eyes your using for the test...

To be argumentative in your defense you'll find people who cannot see the difference between 480p and 1080i no matter where they are standing. And obviously the source material matters when making a comparisons of resolutions. And also the display being used to present the data. As not all 1080p displays are created equal nor do they handle the video signal inputs the same. Some TVs butcher a 1080i signal down to 540 lines. And of course past a certain distance from the screen you can't honestly tell the difference.

Again, I'd just rather see a scientific study done by an ophthalmologist using a reference 1080p display that has excellent motion resolution. Than some made up estimated numbers... I just seemed the chart you posted was a little too far off to me.

I conceded it is good as a general chart. But I wouldn't purchase a TV using it. So knowing that I'm not sure what exactly it's good for. Anyone feeling geeky enough can use the algorithms in the link I provided to see what their actual visual resolution vs distance would be.