Ask Engadget HD: Does Blu-ray show enough love to 720p HDTV owners?
By Darren Murph 
posted Feb 27th 2008 12:00PM
posted Feb 27th 2008 12:00PM
"Now that Blu-ray vanquished HD DVD, is there a compelling reason for 720p HDTV owners to upgrade from upconverting DVD players? Is there a noticeable improvement in picture quality for those of us who can't see the 1080p/24fps glory to warrant dropping 400 bucks on a player? Is the Blu-ray spec finalized enough that we can purchase a player without worrying about future compatibility issues or missing features?"
Yeah, this one's chock full of intricacies and complexities, but that doesn't mar its validity one bit. What says you, dear reader? Is making the leap to Blu-ray a sensible decision for 720p HDTV owners, or is the difference really only enjoyed at 1080p?
[Image courtesy of TheDigitalBits]
Got a burning question that you'd love to toss out for Engadget HD (or its readers) to take a look at? Tired of Google's blank stares when you ask for real-world experiences? Hit us up at ask at engadgethd dawt com and keep an eye on this space -- your inquiry could be next.
Yes, it is absolutely worth it for 720p HDTV owners to get bluray. I have a Panasonic TH-42px60u plasma. It's 1024x768. Bluray blows upscaled DVD out of the water on my set. Bluray's resolution is not the only improvement. The colors are much more vibrant and lifelike as well. Don't forget the major sound improvements. PCM and lossless surround tracks are a lot better than Dolby Digital 5.1.
As for whether there is a decent player to get: after this latest firmware update, the Panasonic DMP-BD30 seems like a pretty good player if you have a newer HDMI 1.3 recevier. If you have an older receiver, it might be worth it to wait for the Panasonic DMP-BD50, which will decode Dolby Tru-HD and DTS-HDMA internally; that is good for people with older receivers.
I have a TH-42PX60U as well and a recently purchased (late last year) RCA HD DVD player. It is definitely worth the upgrade. I'm holding out for a Blu-Ray player like the DMP-BD50 as I have a non-HDMI Yamaha receiver (RX-V2500).
http://www.blu-ray.com/players/
I agree, resolution is only one aspect. While there is the ongoing debate about what resolution looks better at what TV sizes, Blu-ray also does have much better color quality, sound, special features like the upcoming BD Live (if you're into that) and more.
I Agree, Using 42" 720p PanaPlasma with PS3, with unbelievable sharp image quality.. Hard to watch DVD, and Downloads are not even considered anymore.
yea because the color of dvd is not lifelike, it looks like a cartoon....so fake
All I know is that I get annoyed that many movies still have the black bar on top and bottom.
However, my oppo digital upscaled movie is "good enough" until prices of Blu-ray players come down to the $100 mark.
sigh.... It goes like this: many movies are shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. This will completely fill your 16x9 TV.
Many other movies are shot in 2.35:1. This will still be letterboxed on your 16x9 TV.
This is the art of filmmaking vs. technical shortcomings of an all-for-one TV standard.
I'm the opposite. I only feel like I'm watching a real movie when it's 2.35. If it fills the whole screen I always wonder if they chopped it.
Historically (and I assume today as well), movies are made so that people are encouraged to see them in theaters. If the theater had no advantage over your TV at home then the Studios would make less profit. This is one of the reasons (some think the real reason) why they started making movies in a widescreen format when standard def TVs became readily available. A future where movies dont have black bars would require Studios to reconsider their business model.
I'd go to the movie theatre more if it wasn't such a crab shoot. There are too many disappointing movies and add the cost plus the annoying talking and candy munching people... The experience isn't what it used to be.
@DreadPR,
Actually the FullHD movie quality is better then in theatres (at least here is Sweden).. Noticed a big diff after seeing Cloverfield at the cinema and then at home watching the FullHD trailer... alot of details became more visible...
@Peetah
what the HELL is a crab shoot???? that has to be one of the biggest botches of a cliche ever....
crapshoot you mean??
@ DeadPR
Actually, to alleviate black bars from movies would all be dependent on the directors of the films. They're the ones that decide on what aspect ratio they want to shoot their films in. That are no standards for aspect ratios. But there needs to be. See this is where it gets confusing. You can shoot a movie at the full 4K resolution standard, but you can still have a different aspect ratio which can be anything the director chooses. So eventually when TVs get to the 4K resolution, we STILL may not have films that fill up the entire screen.
I own a 4-year-old 1080i rear projection TV and can say without a shred of doubt that Blu-Ray is absolutely worth it. Beats standard DVDs and even HDTV broadcasts hands-down.
The picture difference between upscaled DVD and Blu Ray (Sony BDP S300)on my 42inch 720p/1080i is immediately apparent and significant. Granted, I haven't tried it on 720p and I don't know if the person who sent the email can do 1080i on his tv. But, frankly, I've spent hours looking between 1080i and 1080p in stores and I really can't see a difference even on 50inch and above size screens.
the only time i notice the dif is when there's fast motion against still backgrounds, then their is a sharpness blur that becomes quite irritatingly obvious to me. but it happens rarely, when it's a high quality shot, and only i actully care about what i'm watching
But 1080i is going to look much different on a TV thats 720p only either. It just means it can play a 1080i signal on a lower resolution TV.
The difference between 1080i and 1080p is the "i" and the "p". People seem to have difficulty understanding that the TV they purchased, while it SUPPORTS 1080P or 1080I, the native resolution of the TV could be completely different. I have a TV whose native resolution is 720P and that's what I set the output from all of my devices as. The reason for this is simple, while my TV may be capable of showing 1080I, it has to take the 1080i signal, downgrade the image to 720, then it has to take the interlaced image and make it a progressive scan... Not a simple task. You're better off having your image SOURCE do this for you because it is probably DESIGNED to do this as a selling point.
With that said, if you have a TV who supports 1080p, your image will look better with a 1080p output. If you have a tv with 1080i, your image will look better with a 1080i input. 1080i GENERALLY has more artifacts when it has to convert a progressive image. You have pixel crawl, screen door effect, and combing to name a few.
Long story short, yes there is a difference between the two signals. The better your processor is (the actual device doing the conversion) the less noticeable the difference is. But there is no difference in RESOLUTION.
P.S. I have a PS3 and it does a crappy job upconverting standard def DVD's compared to my older Oppo 971H. For $200, it was the best purchase I've made and it features the DCDi by Faroudja (sp?)
I plan on getting a blu-ray around the Christmas sales, hoping they will be close to $200-300. I will need analog 5.1 audio outs to a receiver that has analog 5.1 in.
I would stick with upscaling with 720p TV and wait to purchase a 1080p. By that time, bluray players would be cheaper. Spending 300+ dollars for minimal 720p difference via depreciation is not worth it. If you plan to purchase 1080p TV within a year, then get bluray if you feel it's cheap enough during holiday 2008.
I disagree. If you have a 720p tv that's 50" or smaller and are happy with it (i.e. it's only the fact it isn't 1080p is what bothers you). Then going off and buying a 1080p tv JUST for 1080p isn't worth it. You're buying into the marketing hype. Contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy are far more important. However, if that 1080p tv also excels in other areas, most importantly contrast ratio, then that's an entirely different matter and would probably be well-worth the upgrade.
You already answered your own question: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
In other words, the standard line is you need a big enough TV to appreciate 1080p, otherwise you won't notice the difference. As a long time PC gamer, I think higher resolutions are always better, but I couldn't say if that applies to TVs.
True. On a 720p TV the difference may be negligible ... if you sit where you are supposed to.
But on a side note that graph is from back in 2006. Before 24fps (on a 120Hz sony tv for example) was a big part of the discussion. I would think that the graph in your link will need to be revisited for this. 1080p24fps on the XBR4 from sony is freaking ridiculous IMO.
@ Gaurav Lumba:
The advent of 24fps _content_ does not change size of the pixels or their density on a _display_, nor the ability of your eye to perceive those pixels at varying distances. Maximum viewing distance is 100% a function of resolution (and lighting/luminance); and framerate (24p vs. 60p/i) has nothing whatsoever to do with vertical and horizontal resolution.
So the charts are still good. And will be until the next evolution of the human eye. ;-)
I'm seriously going to start busting some heads until people figure out that on a 50" or smaller screen sitting more than 8 feet back, there is no discernible difference between 720 and 1080 to your average earthling. 720 still looks amazing and is technically an HD spec. DVDs look like crap (even upscaled ones) compared to 720. Plus there is more to an HD picture than just resolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the HD spec allow for more color depth and other improved specs over the DVD standard?
Resolution is totally over rated. Just look at the recent review by Home Theater magazine. They compared several 50" TV's with different display technologies:
Sharp 1080p LCD
JVC 1080p LCD
Mitsu 1080p DLP
Sony 1080p SXRD
Panny 1080p Plasma
Pioneer 720p plasma (1365x768)
The 720p pioneer won hands down in a blind comparison. Resolution is not nearly as important as people think. I don't have a Blu-ray player, but HD-DVD looks incredible on my 106" 720p DLP projector. It was definitely worth the upgrade for me.
Yes, I would take a 50" Pioneer Kuro 5080HD which is 720p and costs $2K+ over a 1080p HDTV. The blacks on my Panny are great, but the Kuros are a bit better.
cckrobinson how can it be a Blind comparison?? lol. Did Hellen Keller do the research on each TV to see which one was darker?? lol I bet she does a study next week comparing a Bose Surround System with a Sony one... lol
Shitty Reply system...
My 1024x768 HD plasma benefits greatly from HD DVD and Blu-ray. There is a noticeable difference over upscaled content.
cckrobinson how can it be a Blind comparison?? lol. Did Hellen Keller do the research on each TV to see which one was darker?? lol I bet she does a study next week comparing a Bose Surround System with a Sony one... lol
I have a 720p projector firing on a 92" screen, and yes, the difference between upscaled DVD and real HD video (Blu-ray, HD DVD or anything else) is very noticeable. Don't forget that DVDs are encoded in 480i, and even with a great deinterlacer/scaler, there is still a bit of vertical softening present in the source, making the difference even with real 480p content (some HD DVD bonuses, like on The Kingdom, are in 480p and look good) obvious. As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot more difference between DVD and 720p than between 720p and 1080p. The pixels of my 720p projector are noticeable when looking at the windows desktop, not so much when watching video content.
Yes, even though 1080p is the best of the best, watching Blu-ray or even HD DVD on a 720p monitor still looks great--much better than upscaled DVD in my opinion. After watching HD DVD and Blu-ray on my 720p projector on a 90" screen, it's really hard for me to watch DVDs. I can't wait to see what it would look like on a 1080p projector. I'm just not sure that watching a Blu-ray on a screen size less than 42" will make much of a difference from normal seating distances.
Even on my 1024x768 "rectangular pixel" (50") plasma it looks great. However, the color depth is the big difference. Upscaled DVDs come close in perceived resolution, but the colors are not near as vivid, and the increase in color depth also gives better contrast. Still, if you take color out of the picture, its like getting a new eyeglasses prescription after going about 2 years(IIRC, in my late teens/early 20s when it was still getting worse - have since been LASIK'd).
I personally don't feel the need for a 1080 set at the distance I sit from the set. I would need at least a 60" I imagine to take advantage. I do agree with Pioneer's statement by one of their people a while back that a good 720 set will best the picture of current 1080 ones any day.
Hit the nail on the head. A good upscaler comes close to looks as "sharp" as HD-DVD or BR on a 720p display. But image is only a little bit about resolution and sharpness. The vibrance, intensity, and brilliance of colors and whites are more important factors in terms of perception, and it is here that the HD formats shine. They simply have more color and chrominance/luminance information compared with DVD.
For a good understanding of what we are talking about, tune your 720p TV in to any primetime program in HD, and then quickly flip to the same show on an SD channel. See how flat and dull the colors look (aside from the blurriness) on the SD version? It is the same when comparing HD-DVD/BR to DVD (although admittedly not _quite_ as pronounced). ;-)
I, too have a 720p projector (dlp) and the benefit of blu-ray is stark. Blazing saddles is a very old flick, and the diff b/t br and dvd is huge. Not just resolution, but color.
I could argue all day that there is a bigger difference between DVD and 720p then 720p and 1080p
In my opinion a downscaled hd/br film into a 720p/60 set is still roughly 50-60% improvement over upscaled sd dvd on a comparable film with equal config on the same set.
Obviously the ideal setup is a 1080p/24 compatible set, but lack of such setup should not be a detracting factor from jumping into HD movies.
The main determining factor will always be how the film was mastered and the cost vs. pic quality ratio. That can be debated though seeings how the BR players still cost $350+
I would submit that it's basically the same difference as watching an upscaled SD TV show versus the high-def broadcast (mostly). Even moreso if you consider that some HD broadcasts aren't up-to-snuff as far as bitrate comparison with HDM.
I agree BR is visually superior than upscale DVD on a 720p monitor...my question is, is BR superior over a 720p HD broadcast?
I have a Samsung 42 DLP 720p connected to a Tivo Series3 and to Samsung BR 1400. Will the BR releases of LOST episodes show more detail than the saved LOST episodes (ABC HD) in my Tivo Series3? If not, should I start saving my pennies for a 1080p monitor to take advantage of BR?
That all depends on whether or not its broadcast or cable/satellite. OTA HD can most of the time have better quality than subscriber HD. Basically it's all about the compression. I don't have experience with BD yet, but I would imagine that the bit rates would be much higher than what OTA/subscriber HD could produce.
In my experience, most 720p and 1080i broadcasts look pretty close to Blu-ray quality... that is until something on the picture moves. Then its block city.
Keep in mind that your ABC HD digital copies of Lost max out at 720P while the BR version of Lost is the highest available at 1080P. As far as differences between the ABC HD and BR output at 720P goes, with the BR, you don't have the annoying ads. :-)
120-someodd diagonal inches of Epson (Home Cinema 400) 720p and Blu Ray movies via HDMI using a PS3 as the player...there is an unbelievably large improvement in the video quality, compared to the same set-up using standard resolution DVDs. And the PS3 is a wonderful DVD up-scaler, too. For those with 720p displays...the jump to Blu (vs DVD) is similar to FOX HD (720p) vs plain'od ESPN (480i).
Well this is very easy to see for yourself. Presumably if the questioner has a HD capable monitor, he/she also has some true HD source, be it cable, satellite or OTA. Assuming that they do have an HD source, they should find a movie being broadcast in HD (and be sure that it is really HD and not merely upscaled SD) that they already own on DVD. Then compare the image from the HD source to that on the upscaled DVD. If you prefer the HD source, then know that the Blu-Ray version will look even better. On my one 720p set, the comparison is not even close. I'd even go as far as saying that either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray looks as much better than DirectTV HD as DirectTV HD does over upscaled SD.
I have a 50" LG Plasma (1366x768) and the difference between upconverted DVD and Blu-Ray on my PS3 is night and day. As others have mentioned, resolution is only the beginning. There is a dramatic difference in dynamic range and the colors are much more vibrant on Blu-Ray. I have also noticed the same with upconverted DVD and HD-DVD on my Toshiba HD-A2 (if anyone cares anymore.)
I have a 720P TV and HD DVD. I presume that the same will apply to Blu-Ray. HD DVD is clearly much better than DVD on 720P. Any one can notice-- it doesn't take an videophile. However, the question is always how much better would you be willing to pay. The only Blu-Ray player I would buy now is the PS3 and it's $399. I don't think the step up in quality is worth an extra $399. I'll jump in when the price point is around $150.
Absolutely it's worth it. I have a 40" 1366x768 Samsung and BluRay/HD is so worth the money! JUST DO IT!
I would say that it IS worth it. If you can tell the difference between HD and 480p, then HD material (regardless of source) will provide a noticeable improvement in PQ.
Oh Lord, when will these 720p owners (who secretly covet 1080p and regret their early adoption of 720p) stop whining about how 1080p doesn't "look" awl dat much diffrunt?
Simple fact: everyone is or will be soon hooking up "computerized" graphical sources to their HDTVs, such as HTPCs, Windows Media Extenders, PVRs, etc. All of these sources -- which throw onto the screen small typefaces and other "computer graphics" -- render dramatically better with 1080 vertical pixels than with 720 vertical pixels. Get it?
To put it another way, does anyone in the known universe market a computer monitor today with 720 lines of vertical resolution?
Strange, my media center extender looks fine on my 768p display. So did my HTPCs.