Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Audio/Video & Home Theater

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-20-2010, 08:31 PM   #1
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default Is it true that 1080p is not dramatically better than 720p?

I've heard from several different sources that the difference in image quality between 720p and 1080p is not all that dramatic. That seems odd to me since 1080p obviously has 360 more lines of resolution than 720p -- that seems like it would be pretty significant.

I don't own an HDTV yet (obviously), but when I do get the money for one, I'm wondering if 720p would suffice for a 42"-46" plasma in a small bedroom. My typical viewing distance is ~ 10' or less, so would I notice much difference between 720p and 1080p? Is 1080p only more noticeable on larger TVs and/or farther distances, or is it the other way around?

If it matters, the typical source material will be HDTV channels, up-scaled standard DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs.
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 08:36 PM   #2
NutBucket
Lifer
 
NutBucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: West SFV
Posts: 22,247
Default

Depends on your viewing distance and eyesight.

From what you describe, 720 vs 1080 isn't going to be noticeable. Hell, I sit at 8.5' or so with a 65" screen. In this scenario, its very noticeable.
NutBucket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 08:56 PM   #3
Modelworks
Lifer
 
Modelworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 16,237
Default

720P is fine for most people. It really does depend on viewing distance and source material. Realize that just because something is 1080P doesn't mean it will look good its just the resolution of the final product.

For upscaled DVD it isn't going to matter. You have 720x480 to work with and no amount of processing is going to make it have more detail than that. TV channels it depends on what you watch. Most of the prime time stuff is 1080 but the other stuff is 720 or 480. For a bedroom I think 720P is fine.
Modelworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 09:24 PM   #4
Eug
Lifer
 
Eug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,013
Default

1080p has its benefits, but colour fidelity and shadow detail for example are much more important.

However, a lot of the 720p TVs are low end these days, since it seems the manufacturers tend to put more of the bells and whistles and tweaking into their (more expensive) 1080p models. That said, there are cheap no name brand 1080p TVs out there too, but many of them are not very good.
__________________

OS X: 27" iMac Core i7 870 | 13" MacBook Pro C2D 2.26 P8400 + SSD | 13" MacBook C2D 2.4 T8300 + SSD
iOS: iPad 2 | iPhone 5s
Windows: X3400 Athlon II X3 435 | 11.6" 1810TZ Pentium SU4100 + SSD | Revo R3610 Atom 330 + SSD
Android: Nexus 7 (2012)
Eug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 10:00 PM   #5
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NutBucket View Post
Depends on your viewing distance and eyesight.

From what you describe, 720 vs 1080 isn't going to be noticeable. Hell, I sit at 8.5' or so with a 65" screen. In this scenario, its very noticeable.
So you're saying the closer you sit, the more you notice the difference? Or are you saying the difference is more noticeable because of your large 65" TV?
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 10:08 PM   #6
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Modelworks View Post
For upscaled DVD it isn't going to matter. You have 720x480 to work with and no amount of processing is going to make it have more detail than that.
Yeah, good point. I hadn't thought of it before, but standard DVDs wouldn't need to be upscaled if I get a 720p TV, right? (Since they're already 720.) They would only need to be de-interlaced, right?

Quote: "Most of the prime time stuff is 1080 ...."

Is it 1080p or 1080i? And if it's 1080i, can I simply go into the TV's menu and 'tell it' to display a 1080i picture rather than a de-interlaced 1080p picture? And would there be any point in even doing that, or would a 1080i picture de-interlaced to 1080p look better? (This question is assuming a 1080p-capable TV.)

Sorry for the dumb questions. I'm still riding the learning curve here.
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 10:13 PM   #7
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
However, a lot of the 720p TVs are low end these days, since it seems the manufacturers tend to put more of the bells and whistles and tweaking into their (more expensive) 1080p models.
Yeah, I was wondering if I'd encounter that. I'd definitely do my homework reading reviews/test reports before getting a 720p TV (well, I'd do that anyway). Money's just real tight right now and I think I could save ~ $150 or so by going 720p instead of 1080p in the 42-46" realm. And yeah, I know to avoid the off brands.
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 11:10 PM   #8
slashbinslashbash
Golden Member
 
slashbinslashbash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken90630 View Post
So you're saying the closer you sit, the more you notice the difference? Or are you saying the difference is more noticeable because of your large 65" TV?
Both. It is the apparent size to your eye. A 3" screen takes up your whole field of view if it is held 1 inch from your eye. A 65" screen looks tiny if you are standing a quarter of a mile away. A 42" screen from 7' away looks roughly the same size as a 65" screen from 11' away. There is a chart that tells you where the distances start to matter, for what size of TV, based on the visual acuity of the average human eye:

http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/10...o-screen-size/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken90630 View Post
Yeah, good point. I hadn't thought of it before, but standard DVDs wouldn't need to be upscaled if I get a 720p TV, right? (Since they're already 720.) They would only need to be de-interlaced, right?

Quote: "Most of the prime time stuff is 1080 ...."

Is it 1080p or 1080i? And if it's 1080i, can I simply go into the TV's menu and 'tell it' to display a 1080i picture rather than a de-interlaced 1080p picture? And would there be any point in even doing that, or would a 1080i picture de-interlaced to 1080p look better? (This question is assuming a 1080p-capable TV.)

Sorry for the dumb questions. I'm still riding the learning curve here.
Nope, a standard DVD is 480p. Most DVD players will output a progressive-scan signal.

480p = 480 high by 854 wide. (409,920 pixels or 0.41 megapixels)
720p = 720 high by 1280 wide. (921,600 pixels or 0.92 megapixels)
1080p = 1080 high by 1920 wide. (2,073,600 pixels or 2.07 megapixels)

(Note: DVD's are kind of weird, in that they usually store the actual video information in an anamorphic format. A 16:9 video with a vertical resolution of 480 pixels should come to 854 pixels wide; but on the DVD it is actually stored as 480x704, and then stretched to be 854 pixels wide. This is similar to how the original films would be recorded on 4:3 ratio film, but through a lens that shot a wider image but smushed it up and distorted it to fill up the 4:3 film; it would then be projected through a lens that would expand it back to a widescreen ratio. Remember, DVD was introduced when almost all TV's were 4:3 ratio, and DVD players had to take that into account and add black bars at the top and bottom of the screen -- although some early DVD's just added the black bars into the encoded video itself, thereby losing much of the resolution benefits of DVD. Also, there are numerous widescreen movie formats (3:2, 16:9, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1) which have to be taken into account as well.)

Moving on.... most stuff that is broadcast (over the air, cable, satellite, etc.) is 1080i, max. I'm not sure if anybody really puts stuff in 1080p over the air, although somebody probably does it somewhere (I don't watch TV so I don't really know). But pretty much the only place where you'll get real 1080p sources are Blu-Rays, HD-DVD's, video game consoles and computers. In fact, even streaming services such as Netflix still are not streaming in 1080p yet, although supposedly they are going to start soon.

AFAIK, there is no LCD/plasma/etc. that is natively interlaced. That ended with CRT televisions. So I don't think there's any way to prevent your TV from effectively de-interlacing a 1080i source into 1080p. Many LCD's are 120Hz or 240Hz nowadays (plasmas are 600Hz) so they will refresh the panel at that speed regardless of the speed of the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken90630 View Post
Yeah, I was wondering if I'd encounter that. I'd definitely do my homework reading reviews/test reports before getting a 720p TV (well, I'd do that anyway). Money's just real tight right now and I think I could save ~ $150 or so by going 720p instead of 1080p in the 42-46" realm. And yeah, I know to avoid the off brands.
My philosophy is to spend the least amount possible. I bought a 42" Insignia 720p plasma from Best Buy for $400 over the summer. Insignia is Best Buy's house brand, so they outsource the production of their stuff to other manufacturers. The TV that I bought is actually a Samsung under the skin -- nearly identical to a Samsung model that sells for $200 more (down to the buttons, menus, remote control, etc. -- the only difference is that it's missing a couple of inputs). Plus, the Insignia has a 2-year warranty while the Samsung only has a 1-year warranty. I was looking at spending $800-$1000 on a TV, but when this deal came up, it was just a no-brainer. My wife and I have been very happy with it, and we don't have the need for anything bigger right now. The bottom of the barrel can often get you the best bang for your buck. Why would I pay 50% more for 1080p, or a better brand name? Why would I pay nearly 75% more for 4 more inches of size (46")? I could understand needing to go bigger if you were constrained by your viewing space, but 42" is plenty big enough for the majority of living rooms, and probably 99% of bedrooms.
__________________
MacBook Pro|2.2GHz Quad-Core i7|Radeon 6750 1GB|16GB|750GB|Parallels|Win7HP
Mac Pro|2xXeon 5150|12GB|128GB 840 + 2x1.5TB|Radeon 5770|Dell 2407WFP+2007FP
ASUS P5B|E6550|2GB|1.5TB|Radeon 280X|Win7HP
Canon 5D|40D|17-40L|24-105L|70-200L|50/1.4|85/1.8|100/2.8 Macro|580EX|430EX|AlienBees

The Left is not merely gauche; it is downright sinister.
slashbinslashbash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 12:04 AM   #9
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slashbinslashbash View Post
Nope, a standard DVD is 480p. Most DVD players will output a progressive-scan signal.
Sheesh ... I knew that. I don't know what I was thinking.

Actually, maybe I do. I was reading something earlier today about MPEG-2 and how it's used for DVDs. And the article said MPEG-2 is 720X480. So that's where my momentary lapse of memory originated.

So what's the deal with that? How can MPEG-2 be 720X480 and be the compression used for DVDs if they're 480X854 (or 704)? *braces self for further embarrassing education*

Thanks a mil for all that info. That's a HUGE help to me.
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 12:17 AM   #10
slashbinslashbash
Golden Member
 
slashbinslashbash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slashbinslashbash View Post
(Note: DVD's are kind of weird, in that they usually store the actual video information in an anamorphic format. A 16:9 video with a vertical resolution of 480 pixels should come to 854 pixels wide; but on the DVD it is actually stored as 480x704, and then stretched to be 854 pixels wide. This is similar to how the original films would be recorded on 4:3 ratio film, but through a lens that shot a wider image but smushed it up and distorted it to fill up the 4:3 film; it would then be projected through a lens that would expand it back to a widescreen ratio. Remember, DVD was introduced when almost all TV's were 4:3 ratio, and DVD players had to take that into account and add black bars at the top and bottom of the screen -- although some early DVD's just added the black bars into the encoded video itself, thereby losing much of the resolution benefits of DVD. Also, there are numerous widescreen movie formats (3:2, 16:9, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1) which have to be taken into account as well.)
To elaborate a bit: the 704 pixels are basically "stretched" to be 854 pixels. In the old days, this was done with a lens to distort the picture and stretch it out. Nowadays it's just an algorithm much like any upscaling algorithm, except it's only upscaled in one direction.

The plasma TV that we bought came from this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2103357

It was in September, I guess I was a little wrong on my dates.

ETA: Also, you should take "480p" with a grain of salt. There is not a well-defined standard like there is for the HDTV resolutions of 720p and 1080p. There are multiple resolutions that can reasonably be called 480p. Most people simply refer to standard def DVD's as being 480p regardless. Many 480p home theater projectors came with a native resolution of 480x854, but AFAIK they are the only displays to have that resolution.

ETA2: Again, keep in mind that the standard HDTV resolutions (and televisions) are 16:9 ratio (about 1.78:1). Many movies come in 1.85 or 2.35 (Cinemascope) ratios, so to fit on the screen they will have black bars at the top and the bottom. You can't really call such a movie "1080p" or "720p" when it's in a fundamentally different aspect ratio.
__________________
MacBook Pro|2.2GHz Quad-Core i7|Radeon 6750 1GB|16GB|750GB|Parallels|Win7HP
Mac Pro|2xXeon 5150|12GB|128GB 840 + 2x1.5TB|Radeon 5770|Dell 2407WFP+2007FP
ASUS P5B|E6550|2GB|1.5TB|Radeon 280X|Win7HP
Canon 5D|40D|17-40L|24-105L|70-200L|50/1.4|85/1.8|100/2.8 Macro|580EX|430EX|AlienBees

The Left is not merely gauche; it is downright sinister.

Last edited by slashbinslashbash; 11-21-2010 at 12:31 AM.
slashbinslashbash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 10:33 AM   #11
Number1
Diamond Member
 
Number1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posts: 7,159
Default

I own a 42 in Plasma TV and Id be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1080i and 720P. I watch it from about 10 ft away.
__________________
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4200, MSI P67A-G43 (B3) P67 ATX LGA1155, Mushkin Enhanced Silverline Stiletto 8GB 2X4GB PC3-10666 DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 Dual Channel Memory Kit, 5450 Radeon 500M X 2, 4TB storage, 600W OCZ GameXtream, Windows 7 HP 64, Samsung Syncmaster2463uw, Audio password Audio
Number1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 10:46 AM   #12
Modelworks
Lifer
 
Modelworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 16,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken90630 View Post

So what's the deal with that? How can MPEG-2 be 720X480 and be the compression used for DVDs if they're 480X854 (or 704)? *braces self for further embarrassing education*

720x480 is the max resolution for DVD, but there are a couple of sub-formats :
704 × 480 pixels
352 × 480 pixels

There are also anamorphic widescreen where they took the frame and compressed it horizontally and players with the proper hardware will stretch it back to fit 16:9 screens without the black bars.
Modelworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 10:59 AM   #13
0roo0roo
No Lifer
 
0roo0roo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 64,176
Default

As said depends on the size/distance, 42" is very very small for 10 feet away.
You wouldn't see 1080p thats for sure. for that distance sure 720p is fine.
Twice the detail is twice the detail, some cheaper tv's deliver soft picture and other nonsense meaning delivered detail is not really what was sent into the set so it isn't so simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Number1 View Post
I own a 42 in Plasma TV and Id be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1080i and 720P. I watch it from about 10 ft away.
cuz at that distance that is too small a tv. so it is like the olden days of crt, just a picture that is better than nothing. so yes, you wouldn't be able to see 1080p, barely 720p at that... actual optimal size for 10 foot distance is quite large actually.

as for 480X854 dvd, you can't use the animorphic blowup as the actual resolution, that is upscaled, the actual resolution of the dvd image is lower.
__________________
__________________

Last edited by 0roo0roo; 11-21-2010 at 11:02 AM.
0roo0roo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 11:32 AM   #14
Patranus
Diamond Member
 
Patranus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,240
Default

A lot of content is broadcast in 720p or produced in 720p and converted to 1080i for broadcast.
Patranus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 12:39 PM   #15
s44
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken90630 View Post
I don't own an HDTV yet (obviously), but when I do get the money for one, I'm wondering if 720p would suffice for a 42"-46" plasma in a small bedroom. My typical viewing distance is ~ 10' or less
You still need 50"

Another thing to note is that sub-50" 720p sets are actually often less than 1280*720: this is the last refuge of the rectangular-pixel 1024-wide (or similar) plasma. This is changing though with newer sets, but watch out.

Last edited by s44; 11-21-2010 at 12:42 PM.
s44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 01:00 PM   #16
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
 
3chordcharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s44 View Post
You still need 50"

Another thing to note is that sub-50" 720p sets are actually often less than 1280*720: this is the last refuge of the rectangular-pixel 1024-wide (or similar) plasma. This is changing though with newer sets, but watch out.
It's more of a 'be aware' than a 'watch out'. These TVs can look very good.
__________________
Similes are like metaphors.
3chordcharlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 04:16 PM   #17
Sadaiyappan
Golden Member
 
Sadaiyappan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,043
Default

My brother has a DSLR and an expensive lense. I have seen photos on that screen, and they are ridiculously sharp, and this is a small 4" screen (I think, not sure on the exact size). People always mention that you can't tell the diff between 1080p and 720p unless screen is over 42", but I can tell the difference on this screen. But I guess I am only a few inches away from the screen so that could be it..
Sadaiyappan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 05:25 PM   #18
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
 
3chordcharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadaiyappan View Post
My brother has a DSLR and an expensive lense. I have seen photos on that screen, and they are ridiculously sharp, and this is a small 4" screen (I think, not sure on the exact size). People always mention that you can't tell the diff between 1080p and 720p unless screen is over 42", but I can tell the difference on this screen. But I guess I am only a few inches away from the screen so that could be it..
Scaled to a 4" screen, a 1MP photo, taken with a good lense and sensor, will look fantastic. 3.2MP is enough for a good 8x10 print, as long as you aren't examining it at extremely close range.

Photos and video aren't 'the same' but in general, resolution gets too much emphasis when it comes to overall image quality. In a budget TV, I'll take a $500 42" plasma @ 1024x768 over a $500 42" LCD @1080p 120hz, mostly due to better black levels.
__________________
Similes are like metaphors.
3chordcharlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 09:00 PM   #19
Modelworks
Lifer
 
Modelworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 16,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadaiyappan View Post
My brother has a DSLR and an expensive lense. I have seen photos on that screen, and they are ridiculously sharp, and this is a small 4" screen (I think, not sure on the exact size).

Cameras use 3.5" LCD and those are 320x240 or 480x320 not even full D1 DVD standard. The reason they don't make them higher is because it doesn't matter at those sizes and the more pixels require a much more powerful controller.
Modelworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 11:06 PM   #20
0roo0roo
No Lifer
 
0roo0roo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 64,176
Default

Mostly it is a matter of cost.
The iphones screen is 3.5" 960 x 640
cameras use less...save cost. eventually they'll get the high dpi screens on the high end as well.
__________________
__________________
0roo0roo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 01:06 PM   #21
smitbret
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pocatello, ID
Posts: 2,552
Default

At 8-10 feet, you will get a much better experience with a 50" 720p tv than you will with a 42" 1080p. Samsung has 3 50" 720p plasmas. They all have PQ that will be better than all but the best 1080p LCD/LED and plasma HDTVs. The 720p is a true 720p, not the stretched 1024. The PN50C490 is also 3D. So, if budget is an issue........
smitbret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 03:06 PM   #22
Eug
Lifer
 
Eug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,013
Default

I bought a 1024x768 42" plasma. Detail is fine, and contrast is way better than higher priced LCD models. I'm still dialing in the colour calibration though. I haven't had the time go through Digital Video Essentials yet.

The main thing I don't like about the plasma is the glossy screen. If any lights are on, there is a reflection.

Note also that you can't just go by distance to determine screen size. My living room has a 42" screen at over 10' away. Why? Cuz I didn't want a ginormous screen in my living room. The 42" screen can fit inside a (large) armoire. When the doors to the armoire are closed, you'd never know there was a TV in the room.

OTOH, I have a 720p projector in another room. It's actually a shorter viewing distance (9') but the image size is 90".
__________________

OS X: 27" iMac Core i7 870 | 13" MacBook Pro C2D 2.26 P8400 + SSD | 13" MacBook C2D 2.4 T8300 + SSD
iOS: iPad 2 | iPhone 5s
Windows: X3400 Athlon II X3 435 | 11.6" 1810TZ Pentium SU4100 + SSD | Revo R3610 Atom 330 + SSD
Android: Nexus 7 (2012)

Last edited by Eug; 11-22-2010 at 03:09 PM.
Eug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 03:13 PM   #23
NutBucket
Lifer
 
NutBucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: West SFV
Posts: 22,247
Default

I think your projector setup would bug me. Call me an elitist if you must
NutBucket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 04:13 PM   #24
Ken90630
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitbret View Post
At 8-10 feet, you will get a much better experience with a 50" 720p tv than you will with a 42" 1080p. Samsung has 3 50" 720p plasmas. They all have PQ that will be better than all but the best 1080p LCD/LED and plasma HDTVs. The 720p is a true 720p, not the stretched 1024. The PN50C490 is also 3D. So, if budget is an issue........
Interesting post, 'cuz that's exactly what I started thinking last night: Go a little bigger, to either 46" or 50", and go 720p. Thanks for the tip re the Samsungs -- I'll definitely check them out. Know the model #s of the non-stretched ones off hand?

BTW, what's your take on 3D? I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I plan to before I buy an HDTV. It's prolly out of my price range, but doesn't hurt to look.
Ken90630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 04:34 PM   #25
BurnItDwn
Lifer
 
BurnItDwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Wauconda, IL
Posts: 19,127
Default

Differences are pretty subtle for smaller displays or longer viewing distances.

If you are running like 100+ inches and sit 6 feet away, then you'll notice a big difference ... otherwise ... it'll be much more subtle.

With a 40-50 inch screen and 10ish feet viewing distance, I don't think you'll be able to tell, but, if you sit 3-4 feet back, it should be fairly obvious...
BurnItDwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.