CNet: 1080i and 1080p- little to no difference

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Staples
Um yeah, you still need a 1080p TV to see the effective resolution of 1080i. The support for 1080p is just a bonus.

This article just states the obvious but there are few people who know enough about it to have drawn this conclusion.

This is like people saying you don't need SM 3.0 because games don't support it yet (ATI fanbois). Remember that argument in the X800 vs 6800 era?

Same deal. This is retarded.

3 years later people will laugh at you for buying 1080i when 1080p is the mainstream. Then what do you say?

It's just like dual core didn't really matter when it first came out. A lot of people still went for fast single core processors because their reasoning was "gaming." Now whether you game or not, is there even a reason to go single core? It doesn't make sense. When dual core is the standard, you don't save much by going single core unless you're trying to build a $500 computer. When your budget is $1000, I don't get why anyone would go single core.

Similarly, if your budget is reasonable, you should be getting 1080p and not 1080i. If you're going cheap on HDTV sets today, then you're thinking wrong. You're still an "early adopter" if you get such technology today, and if you expect to get away spending very little, don't expect much.

Sure 1080i and 1080p might look the same from 10 feet away... but how about this..

WHY do people play games at high resolutions? Shouldn't you play it on low resolutions and then max out AA and AF? Because if you're at a certain distance, you shouldn't notice right? (Note my argument applies for CRT monitors because we all know LCDs need to be at native resolution or else quality = sux).

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Staples
Um yeah, you still need a 1080p TV to see the effective resolution of 1080i. The support for 1080p is just a bonus.

This article just states the obvious but there are few people who know enough about it to have drawn this conclusion.

This is like people saying you don't need SM 3.0 because games don't support it yet (ATI fanbois). Remember that argument in the X800 vs 6800 era?

Same deal. This is retarded.

3 years later people will laugh at you for buying 1080i when 1080p is the mainstream. Then what do you say?

It's just like dual core didn't really matter when it first came out. A lot of people still went for fast single core processors because their reasoning was "gaming." Now whether you game or not, is there even a reason to go single core? It doesn't make sense. When dual core is the standard, you don't save much by going single core unless you're trying to build a $500 computer. When your budget is $1000, I don't get why anyone would go single core.

Similarly, if your budget is reasonable, you should be getting 1080p and not 1080i. If you're going cheap on HDTV sets today, then you're thinking wrong. You're still an "early adopter" if you get such technology today, and if you expect to get away spending very little, don't expect much.

Sure 1080i and 1080p might look the same from 10 feet away... but how about this..

WHY do people play games at high resolutions? Shouldn't you play it on low resolutions and then max out AA and AF? Because if you're at a certain distance, you shouldn't notice right? (Note my argument applies for CRT monitors because we all know LCDs need to be at native resolution or else quality = sux).

You can see a hell of a lot more pixels from 2 feet away than from 10 feet away.

But otherwise, your argument is silly, because you're comparing apples to oranges.

Yeah, dual core isnt a big deal now, but will be in the future - when games catch up.

1080p isnt important now, because they arent broadcasting in it. When it does eventually become more commonplace, sure, you'll get that nice 1080p image - but your eyes won't catch up.

I'm all for technology, but you have to know what youre getting. The difference between 1080i and 1080p is the difference between 4gb of ram and 8gb of ram. Sure, one is better than the other - but for the vast majority of people, they're both overkill.

 

[foghorn67]

cnet sucks. You techies should know that. I wrote one of their editors to correct a simple camera test they screwed up. Their response was quite dumb.