meh, I sit 8 feet away from the 65" which is still within THX and HD limits (7-8.5 feet). Looks great.
Eitherway that article is pure BS and very misleading.
Eitherway that article is pure BS and very misleading.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
err....
No, he's right. They drive me crazy. Every time I'm stuck behind a caddy the flickering annoys the hell out of me.
I can easily tell the diff between 30gps, 60fps and 90fps.
But the fact that nearly anyone's eyes is bothered by 60hz isnt so much a problem with the framerate as it is the way CRTs scan - they don't flick whole images, but line by line.
Anyway, if you're sitting from a moderately large TV, at a reasonable difference, there is very, very little difference between 720p and 1080i/p. You have to sit absurdly close to a huge TV (5 feet from a 65") in order to see those 1080 lines. It could very well be appropriate for a projection based home theater with a huge screen, but for a regular TV, I'd never sit that close all the time.
Unless you have eagle eyes or something.
I agree about the LED strobe effect. The most noticeable issue is when your eyes sweep side-to-side, such as looking to the left and then to the right of the car in front.
I also can pick up 60 Hz on CRT screens. People at work who have their computers set to that refresh rate are amazed when I tell them it needs to be changed. They can't figure out how I know. I don't know what percentage of the population can see the flicker. It can't be too high or computers would have a higher minimum rate. :beer:
I wouldn't say complete BS. It's written for the common consumer, but considering the group here you have other considerations (gaming). Of course, you won't see a difference on a smaller display sitting further back, but think about a picture rendered as 1080p vs 720p. Again, you would expect to see a difference (I've seen it looking at hi-res pics, for example desktops that are the same pic at different rez). This would seem to indicate the problem is source related. I also wonder about the scaler for the testing, as that to me is the limitation of most higher rez differences.
The calculators are designed to describle how to turn a TV into an HT experience (distance relative to size). That's important cause movies are designed for being seen in that way. I've said it before, some people like to sit near the front and others at the back.
Thing is, there was some difference. Consider, why pay for audio equipment that runs 5Hz-20kHz when the upper range of human hearing is like 20Hz - 17kHz? People report a warmer sound and thuds you can feel.
The calculators are designed to describle how to turn a TV into an HT experience (distance relative to size). That's important cause movies are designed for being seen in that way. I've said it before, some people like to sit near the front and others at the back.
Thing is, there was some difference. Consider, why pay for audio equipment that runs 5Hz-20kHz when the upper range of human hearing is like 20Hz - 17kHz? People report a warmer sound and thuds you can feel.
Personally, I have a Toshiba HDTV with the following resolution capabilities: 1080i, 720i, 720p, 480p, and 480i.
In my personal opinion, I do notice a difference between 1080i and 720p when watching football games. With 1080i, the image looks really sharp, but as the action gets faster, the more pixelation I see on certain spots. This problem is fixed when I switch to 720p. However, the image is not as sharp, but then again, it still looks good to me.
In my personal opinion, I do notice a difference between 1080i and 720p when watching football games. With 1080i, the image looks really sharp, but as the action gets faster, the more pixelation I see on certain spots. This problem is fixed when I switch to 720p. However, the image is not as sharp, but then again, it still looks good to me.
Me too, and I'm fine with it.
Actually, my roommate as a 55" widescreen TV here but since we don't get digital cable here we're using an analog source with it. Eh...you get used to it.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
This has a 1080i distance recommendation which I would assume would apply to 1080p as well.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Nope, the article just confirms what many users have confirmed over the years on AVSForum.
Ever wonder why, at the proper viewing distance, most people would prefer a Panasonic EDTV plasma over a competitor's HDTV plasma?
Brightness, contrast, color fidelity, response time...there are a ton of things more important than the almighty 'lines of resolution'.
I am not saying there isn't a big difference between 480P and 1080P. But when you're comparing 720P/1080i to 1080P, the gap is substantially less.
If someone is looking for a plasma HDTV under $2000, 1080P isn't an option. But with all HDTV broadcasts at 1080i/720P and the longevity of the DVD format, I think they'll be more than happy with a quality 720P set.
I think that's the conclusion that CNet is trying to make. Forget the marketing hype of the PS3/Blu-Ray; 1080P is nice, but it's certainly not the second coming.
I completely agree.
I bought the Samsung S4095D (1080p LCD TV) a few months ago and returned it a month later. At 7 feet away, I couldn't really tell the difference between my 40" 1080p TV and my roommate's 42" 1024x768 plasma. To make things worse, even though the Samsung panel was really nice for an LCD (the Sony XBR2s use the same panel, I believe), it still couldn't compare to even a decent plasma. I decided that when I'm sitting 7 feet away, the constrast and colors will be more important than the barely noticeable difference in resolution.
I got a Samsung S4253 (1024x768 plasma) yesterday and I'm very happy with it so far.
I bought the Samsung S4095D (1080p LCD TV) a few months ago and returned it a month later. At 7 feet away, I couldn't really tell the difference between my 40" 1080p TV and my roommate's 42" 1024x768 plasma. To make things worse, even though the Samsung panel was really nice for an LCD (the Sony XBR2s use the same panel, I believe), it still couldn't compare to even a decent plasma. I decided that when I'm sitting 7 feet away, the constrast and colors will be more important than the barely noticeable difference in resolution.
I got a Samsung S4253 (1024x768 plasma) yesterday and I'm very happy with it so far.
Shouldn't a 1080i screen flicker less then a 1080p because the 1080i effectively has twice the frame rate.
It's the same frame rate. 30 fps. I still want 60 fps ideally and when I finally do get my next TV it will have that ability.
You can equate 1080i and 1080p the same as 480i and 480p. 30 frames per second are displayed. Interlaced uses fields, in this case 60 fields per second to get 30 frames per second.
The problems with interlacing are the same.
As Spidey said, for a 1080p24 source like a movie you will not see any difference at all because there is no difference at all. How the hell does a tool like this become executive editor on CNET.
smack Down, you're confusing refresh rate with frame rate. These are LCDs they tested for the most part, so you won't see any flickering at all regardless of the frame rate. Most modern display devices are progressive and will deinterlace all interlace sources regardless.
The limitation on modern display devices isn't to display 1080p but rather the amount of information that must be handled by the electronics that do the signal processing. 1080p requires twice the processing and twice the bandwidth resources of a 1080i signal and that can be a problem. To give you an idea you need to process about 12 million pixels per second at 1080p and you need about 3 Gbps of bandwidth throughout your system to handle the uncompressed video stream
smack Down, you're confusing refresh rate with frame rate. These are LCDs they tested for the most part, so you won't see any flickering at all regardless of the frame rate. Most modern display devices are progressive and will deinterlace all interlace sources regardless.
The limitation on modern display devices isn't to display 1080p but rather the amount of information that must be handled by the electronics that do the signal processing. 1080p requires twice the processing and twice the bandwidth resources of a 1080i signal and that can be a problem. To give you an idea you need to process about 12 million pixels per second at 1080p and you need about 3 Gbps of bandwidth throughout your system to handle the uncompressed video stream
You won't see any flicker on any TV made it the last 20 years at least but that is besides the point an interlaced display will have less flicker because it effectively has twice the frame rate.
You're misunderstanding what I mean, in a CRT, there's an electron beam that has to refresh the screen once out of every 60 seconds. In a progressive display it would sweep all the pixels on the screen, on an interlaced display it would sweep only half the pixels. The only thing that prevents you from seeing flicker is the phosphorescence of the phosphors on your screen.
On LCD, or DLP, or LCoS (I believe this also goes for plasma) displays, there is no electron beam. The pixels are always driven, so there is no flicker at all. The frame rate (and pixel response time) only changes the fluidity of the motion of what's on screen.
theta = arctan( height / distance )
Gives you radian degrees of visual angle (theta). In the fovea you have ~60 receptors / degree. Thus highest acuity will be achieved at the distance that one pixel subtends 1 arcmin (remeber 60 min / degree ). Now go! Test it. Interlaced will look like crap when progressive looks great in this limit.
Gives you radian degrees of visual angle (theta). In the fovea you have ~60 receptors / degree. Thus highest acuity will be achieved at the distance that one pixel subtends 1 arcmin (remeber 60 min / degree
). Now go! Test it. Interlaced will look like crap when progressive looks great in this limit.Yeah and an interlaced screen would flicker less. Not that either flicker at all, but like I said that is besides the point.
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,162
- 126
People that can't tell the difference between 60hz and 85hz on a tube monitor don't know what to look for. They probably go home wondering why they have eye strain every day.
LCD's work at 60hz fine on the other hand, because they don't constantly scan like tube monitors do.
ANYHOOO...back to the subject
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 article just states the obvious but there are few people who know enough about it to have drawn this conclusion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter