1080p TVs don't always look better than 720p TVs
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Jan 8th 2008 11:36PM
posted Jan 8th 2008 11:36PM
[Thanks, Ben]
posted Jan 8th 2008 11:36PM
The percentage of electronics at the end of their lives which were recycled.
The EPA found that the percentage remained consistent from 1999-2005. Even as recycling rates went up, the amount of electronics reaching end of life outpaced the increase, leaving the figure static. (source: EPA, July 2008)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Here is one thing I can tell you, take this as you like it. I have a 50" 1080p TV. I watch a lot of football. CBS broadcasts in 1080i and Fox broadcasts in 720p. I can see an OBVIOUS difference in quality. If your TV is large enough, you will be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 720, I can.
Move to where I live and you'll see that not only is my 1080p better than this man's 720p, it is better than low altitude IMAX. "It's the MOUNTAINS."
Or, my 1080i is better than your pie in the sky?
I was at Target one day in the electronics department and some lady walked up to the counter and started talking to the associate about digital cameras. She pointed at one and asked if it was any good, the associate said yea, she bought the camera and was on her way.
Now to me and hopefully the rest of you reading this blog, what that lady did was complete madness. No research or comparison, just walked in and bought a camera. The point is: do your research and read reviews and previews. Don't buy something just because the number is bigger, which the lady in Target without a doubt did.
I agree with you - the hard part about researching HDTVs is that you need to step out from behind the computer - you really need to get out to a lot of different stores and look at these things with your own eyes to find the set with the best picture. (this all gets complicated by in-store settings, poor video sources, and crazy lighting, but I'll save that for another day)
To my eye, I'll still take my "old" 1024x768 panny 42px500u over almost any of the 1920 x 1080 LCDs that were on the front page of the Black Friday ads - you really have to consider the whole package...
Ah, but Epicurius would remind us that she is the more satisfied of the two of you.
You do not indicate that she asked for the best camera in the associate's opinion, only if the one she had picked was a good one. He answers honestly and she is rewarded with a simple transaction.
I am all for research and I do enjoy the process, but how many poor souls out there confuse themselves to death with more information than they need?
I work at a large electronics store and get no greater pleasure than hearing, "Why does that Pioneer (42") look better than all the 1080p TV's!!!??? Its only a 720p!!!???"
And trust me, I hear it over and over and over.
Its all about the 'picture quality', which in reality, doesn't have much to do with resolution, % of NTSC color gamut, contrast ratio, ultra-game-mode, etc. It only matters what the final result is. Cars are the exact same way - its why a BMW 328i can win tests with faster and quicker cars - the little things make a big difference, and those little things don't show up in the spec sheet.
Stop reading the tag and start looking at the TV.
why resolution versus contrast/color accuracy? why not have both?
exactly, why not get the best contrast and color AND 1080p? way to suck, pioneer.
Then pick up Pioneer's 1080p Kuro models - by far the best TVs on the market today. They are the best of all four of these specifications.
I'm living proof that Pioneer are right. I researched and researched, bought a 1080p LCD Sony and returned it the next day because the picture quality didn't match up to expectation once it was in my living room. I bought a 720p Pioneer plasma and haven't looked back.
...or... you could get the best of both worlds and just get a Pioneer Kuro with 1080p ;)
We've got a 50" one and it looks beautiful.
Guys, keep in mind you have to be close enough to your displays for your eyes to 'see' the resolution. Sitting too far back, beyond the point at which your eyes can resolve said resolution, renders resolution somewhat moot.
If I remember correctly, if you are sitting back 1.5 times your display's width and have 20/20 vision then you should be able to resolve about 1100 line-pairs. A line pair, IIRC, is one line of information and one line of non-information. Also, the human eye is much more sensitive to vertical resolution (number of lines) than it is to horizontal resolution (pixels on line).
Let's say that I own a 42" 1080P LCD flat panel. The screen's width would be 36.6" and I would need to sit no farther than 1.5 times 36.6", or about 55". Personally, I do not know anyone that sits that close to a 42" 1080P display. If we did, someone might think we are trying to get a suntan or something.
Of course if that 42" display used in the illustration above were to have larger pixels by the fact of lower resolution (1366x768, or 768P) then one could sit proportionally farther back (about 40% farther back). I own a 768P 42" display and I am sitting 13-14' back, and even with corrected vision have a difficult time seeing the 768P.
Of course, I know why this is and it is because, like most people, I am sitting too far back to resolve the native resolution. In fact, for my family room's setup I would be much better off with a 58" 768P display as my eyes would have an easier time resolving the native resolution.
So, while your sources (e.g. HD DVD and Blu-ray) and displays may be providing you with good resolution, your setup may make the entire setup rather moot to your eyes and more benefit to your bragging rights. Now tell that to your significant other. :)
COST...
Anyone remember this?
If a TV cost $4K compared to $2K...IT BETTER be better.
Yeah, I know I would have been much happier paying 2500 for my 50" vizio plasma last year and getting it from best buy than paying 1500 and getting it from Circuit City. I just know that Best Buy model would have been better.
Blah, blah, blah. Me use lots of words. Me sound smart. Boost my ego. You dumb. 1080p. Me got to pee. Come back, use more words.
Dwain make a good point!
I had the same experience as others above. First HDTV I ever purchased was a Pioneer plasma. Second HDTV purchased was Sharp Aquos 1080p. I never could get it close to looking as good as the older Pioneer plasma and the wife complained about its clear inferiority from day one. She doesn't even know what 1080p is or that the Sharp Aquos is/was the highest rated non-plasma flat panel TV. All she knew was that it wasn't comparable to the Pioneer plasma and I had told her that it was supposed to be better. Purchased another Pioneer plasma (still not 1080p) and gave the Sharp Aquos to the parents who don't know any better. Pioneer plasmas are very expensive, but they are clearly the best. Wife did not complain about the purchase and loves the new plasma.
While I agree with the Pioneer thing, I think you could have acheived the same ends with practically any plasma. Panasonic and Vizio come to mind, not to mention Samsung.
I think Plasma just looks better in direct view TV's. LCD is improving, but I think there's still a lot of work to be done with black level and response time, especially with moving images.
Are you kidding me Andy? Don't ever put Pioneer in the same cateragory of Panasonic and especially Vizio. You have probably never seen a Pioneer. While Panasonic makes a tremendous plasma, it still lacks in every aspect of the word in comparison to Pioneer. While plasma does have a better picture quality than LCD, Pioneer has a better picture quality that everyone. If you put a Pioneer next to a Vizio, you would be eating your words.
Jerm,
No, I still think they'd both look quite a bit better than even the nicest LCD.
Work on your reading comprehension chump.
720p is worse than 1080i on my 109" projector surface. I'd like smaller pixels, thank you. can woot please sell an $800 1080i projector this week?
And you're officially a blockhead. Of course on a 109" projector, you're going to notice a difference between 720 and 1080. The point is that on the majority of TVs (50" and under), it simply doesn't matter.
And both of you have failed to notice that digital projectors are made in either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 and ALWAYS progressive.
there is no 1080i native projector.
Which has more pixels 720p or 1080p? (not so fast)
1280*720*60hz = 55.296 Mpixels/second
1920*1080*24hz = 49.766 Mpixels/second
even 1920*1080*30hz = 62.208 Mpixels/second
Its about spacial and temporal resolution.
I can't believe pc snobs that won't take anything less than 120Hz refresh are so willing to accept 30hz motion artifacts on their tv's.
Especially on a 40" HDTV where you can't see the spacial resolution improvement past 6', but you can see the temporal artifacts from the kitchen.
Dork, we're talking about 1080p/60.
I'm not arguing the picture quality of those Pioneers, but doesn't the ISF exist to provide calibration services? It shouldn't be surprising that they downplay the importance of resolution as it can't be calibrated like contrast and color.
ISF's heirarchy of picture quality:
1.Contrast
2.Color Saturation (Vividness of Colors)
3.Colorimetry (Accuracy of Colors)
4.Resolution
This was created after studies were done proving the case, and at a time when 1080p TVs were a pipedream.
List of items ISF can come adjust on your TV for a fee:
1.Contrast
2.Color Saturation (Vividness of Colors)
3.Colorimetry (Accuracy of Colors)
List of items ISF cannot come adjust on your TV for a fee:
4.Resolution
ISF's list exists to encourage people to think that if they pay one of Joe Kane's pals to come and adjust their TV for an absurd price is still a better deal than buying a new one.
It's simple. The better the contrast, the blacks and he colors, the more "comfy" it is for your eyes.
It's nothing new, and retail shops have known this for years,tempering the settings of TV's, screwing the Chroma and contrast of TVs with lower margin and pushing the bigger margins to the max.
Now, the bigger the screen, the more resolution you need. 42" is probably about right for 720p, but anything bigger will need 1080.
Anyone that has seen 480i on a 50+" will tell you that the same picture on a 9" TV looks amazingly clear and defined.
Now, let's see that same Pioneer technology with ultra blacks, 720p vs 1080p, on a 55" :)
I'll also refer people to the 4K displays that were stretching 1080 material at the CES (also reported by Engadget)...
I work at a big box retailer and this issue drives me crazy. People buying the 42" Vizio over the 42" Panasonic because the Vizio is 1080 and the Panasonic is not (LCD vs. Plasma aside). There will be people who will stand back and pick out a TV that isn't 1080 as the one they want, but when they find out it's not 1080 they will buy something else. Occasionally somebody will come in and will understand when I tell them that 1080 doesn't mean that it will be a better picture but the black levels and color reproduction will make a larger impact on the picture than just strictly resolution. The current trend that I think is even worse is now people want their 32" and 26" in 1080 and will not accept that it will make no difference on a set that small. Retailers and manufacturers have done a good job in training people that 1080 is the most important thing and without it their set is inferior. The argument will end in the next few years as most everything will be 1080, regardless of whether its necessary or not.
Oh this article is amazing! I have a 40" 1080p Sony XBR and I KNOW it's inferior to the 720p Pioneer! I work for a large electronics retailer and customers always ask me what is the best TV you carry, Sony/Samsung right... WRONG! Pioneer, even in well lit rooms, our Pioneer's handle direct light better than majority of the LCDs! The only time I wouldn't recommend Pioneer is if you're on top of a mountain but fortunately here in Michigan we don't have any! All I hear is, I want 1080p, 1080p, 1080p... why? Comcast or DirecTV won't give you 1080p! I'm printing this article!
Nice job Ben. I've noticed this in Circuit City and all I'm waiting on is a cheap 720p Pioneer plasma 50-in or greater (I know it's an oxymoron per se). I'll be all over that like white on rice.
I find that even though I do not own one (nor can afford one at this time), that the Pioneer Pro and Kuro lines are simply the best plasmas ever made.
And yes, often times the Pioneer 720p sets look absolutely spectacular next to their 1080p Panny/Sammy/LG/Westing/etc counterparts.
I seriously drank the 1080p koolaid for a while, but after seeing the Pioneer 720p plasmas in person... I might forgo the "Full HD" blitz and just get a cheaper Pioneer Pro.
No - scratch that. Now I have to wait for the 9mm thick, immeasurable contrast Kuro line. Damnit!
I really couldn't care less whether my 50" plasma is 0.5" thick or 5" thick. It really doesn't make any difference as either one is thin enough for my mounting location.
Now that ridiculous contrast??? I could actually see someone hiding in the shadows on Halo? I NEED one of those.
Hey now, please people, don't be lumping Panny plasmas in the same category as Vizio/LG/etc. Pioneer may be the kind of the hill, but Panasonic is nipping at their heals every step of the way. And the rest of the bunch (Samsung, Vizio, LG, etc.) are down in the foothills looking up at Pioneer and Panny.
This article brings one word to mind....DUH!!! The truth is that the majority of electronics consumers in the world don't know what they're doing and I feel sorry for them when they fall victim to advertising and the drumbeat of 1080. There's nothing wrong with 720 in a set 50" and smaller. I have a Panny 50" 720 (1366x768) Plasma and I love it. My friend has a 65" DLP (full 1080 of course, he never lets me forget it) and it looks like garbage to my eyes, horrible viewing angle, uneven brightness and terrible color reproduction.
Plasma FTW!!!!
The problem with Plasma is not its quality of image, its that when I play video games on them you get screen burn. That is a huge issue to me, and as far as I know this is still an issue especially during the first 200 hours of usage. SXRD FTW (even though sony killed it, I still have mine and love it).
Uhm actually burn in is almost impossible on today's plasmas. The only one I still see it on is Samsungs because they default as such a bright panel. Half the people I work with own a plasma and all play videogames and none have reported burn in. Lower end plasmas will probably get burn in but not Pioneer, Panasonic, or other plasma manufacturers. Access Pioneer's menu system and you'll see several different features to help reduce the possibility of burn in... screen orbiter, power save mode, video pattern, etc.
I'm not sure what kind of plasma you're gaming on, but my Panny has NEVER had an issue with "burn in" and I game ALL THE TIME on it (had it for a year). Plasmas still have what is called "temporary image rentention", but that is easily wiped away by switching to a moving image, but burn-in on a plasma is a thing of the past. It simply doesn't happen anymore, even on cheap plasmas.
My Sony Bravia XBR5 has 120hz and if you get the settings right you get a contrast ratio of 18,000:1 but that is only if you make sure all the setting are on good including the black level.(most Best Buys I went to did not have the settings on right, not even the motion flow(120hz) which is pathetic) My point is don't just take this guys (BEN) word just because he loves his KURO, I know my 1080p Bravia is better than a 720 Kuro!!
You KNOW your Bravia is better than a Kuro? How did you attain this knowledge? I must seek out its source to attain the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
Well its easy, the answer to life is the Law of Attraction, you attract what happens in you life. Second, I've seen the Kuros, the Bravia 1080p and the Kuro 1080p are pretty close in comparison, so it can be easly said that hands down my 1080p is better than the Kuro 720p!!
Panasonics Plasmas are just as good (if not better) and easier on the wallet.