Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions 720p vs. 1080p

Is there really a significant difference in the viewing quaility between 720 & 1080? Are there other considerations? I'm getting ready to purchase a DLP but I'm still researching the different sets. Pretty decided on either Toshiba or Samsung but my mind is still wet concrete--not totally settled yet. Who else has gone through this maze of selection???

I have the Sanyo Z2 LCD 720P projector and true High Def material is jaw dropping to say the least. I also have a Panasonic S97S HDMI upconverting DVD player which is very popular on AVSforum. 480p over component looks very good, however, when using 720p or 1080i over HDMI, it is better, and at times seems very close to HD, when the DVD is high quality. I perfer 720p mode over 1080i on my DVD player, and also use 720 mode on my Samsung OTA HD tuner.

Randy

if your main thing for it is watching dvd's 480p is all you need. theres no upconversion that well make it look any better. If hd tv is what you want then go for the higher res projectors. projector central is a good place to start.

I have the Toshiba 52HM84 DLP and I love it. I'm using it with a Cambridge Azur 540D DVD player and the results are great.

You should also be aware that most of the 1080p sets now available will not take a 1080p signal. I forget which, either the new Hitachi or Mitsubishi 1080p sets is the first that will actually take a 1080p signal. Not a big deal right now because no-one is broadcasting in 1080p. In the future this will not be the case with HD dvd and Blu-ray formats coming out. It still remains to be seen how all this will shake out as well as broadcaters moving to 1080p signals. Kind of the chicken and the egg question. Why broadcast in 1080p when no-one can display it, why make the sets when no-one produces the signal? So we are still not really getting this step fully implemented. If you are really waniting the best display you will probably be looking at upgrading again in the next year or three.

Beyond that there does seem to be some improvement in picture quality with the new 1080p sets from the review I read of the new Mitsubishi 52" set. It will depend somewhat on screen size and viewing idstance as to how much benefit you see.

For my money none of the technologies has matured sufficiently. With the large scale production facilities for flat panels (plasma & LCD) coming on line this year prices are expected to drop steadily and I've seen predictions of the end of rear projection sets alogether. Nothing yet really beats in all respects, the quality picture of the best direct view CRT displays which only go up to 34" in size. So for me, I can get past the likely upgraditis I would experience from almost the day I bought anything on the market today.

The only problem I've had with my Sony XBR960 is when I had to move it up a flight of stairs to my new apartment. It took me and three other guys. Oh man that thing is heavy. Picture quality is great though. I don't thnk CRTs are going to be around much longer. I think I read that Sony lost money this last year on thier CRTs. Don't quote me on that one though.

I disagree with Smokey on this one. 720p and 1080i over HDMI on my Panny S97S DVD Player is much better quality than 480p over component. Also a D/D conversion will be better than D/A - A/D conversion. Personally I prefer the 720p setting over 1080i. Not sure where he can say that no upconversion can improve the quality, there are hundreds of AVS'rs that would also disagree. Granted it is not HD quality, but it visually is obvious the picture is better. I've had lots of company over and everyone has noticed the difference. Now if you have a poor quality DVD, or if you have one of the upconverting DVD players that have had problems with macroblocking, black push, etc... then what he says might be true. I doubt he has personally tested the S97S, but I'm sure he'll say he has.

Cgolf, your best option would be to demo various projectors if possible and make the selection that best works for your needs and makes you happy.

good luck

I'm with Sirquack. I noticed an improvement on my Zenith upscaling player at 1080i over standard 480p. High quality DVD transfers at 1080i look close to HD. There can be a difference.

Thanks TNTguy, usually I'm the only one around here that doesn't know anything about projectors Oh wait Nickbuol knows a little bit

I hate to disagree, but I do. I have the Sanyo Z3 and the Panny S97 connected via HDMI (and component through my receiver).. Anyway, if I run regular DVD through to the projector with my cheap Memorex DVD player that I can switch progressive can on and off, I notice a big difference in the picture quality. With my nice Panny S97, I see an even better improvement from progressive scan to upconverted progressive scan. It is not just marketing trickery. At least with the Panny S97. When I was looking for a nice DVD player, I have heard of mixed results with many of the upconverting DVD players not showing much better of a picture than over regular progressive scan, but (at least with the S97 and Z3 combo) it is significant. I only use regular DVDs at this point. No plans for a VCR or D-VCR, and at some point I will hook up over-the-air HD content, but not yet. HD DVDs will have an impact in the future, but at a starting price of $1000 for a HD-DVD player, I will wait.

Have you seen a different set up that wasn't better? If so, please share so that others know to be aware of it.

cgolf, now be sure that you really mean 1080p and not 1080i... I don't know about 1080p as far as inputs and so forth since my Z3 is 1080i, but for the level of technology, and the lack of input devices that can feed it (from what I have heard), you may be paying too much to be on the "bleeding edge" of the technology. Now if it is 1080i, I would stick with 720p. Alan from Axiom has even gone into it before about the 720p signal feeding more data to the display that the 1080i and it many times gives the appearance of a higher quality image since the 720p imapge is progressive and the 1080i image is not.

I'm glad I came across this post. My dvd player is sending 1080i information to the monitor but in progressive mode. Should I change it to 720p or change the mode to interlace and leave it at 1080i?

Thanks,
John

you might disagree but thats besides the facts. even the people who make them acknolegde that 480p is the best it can get for dvds. So mabey it does look better to you in 720p or 1080i but its still a 480p dvd. which puzzles me why you would want to convert it to anything else. mabey it does look better to you but why would you tell me or anybody else that it well improve the picture. Mabey for you it does but for 99% of other people it don't. i've had this disscusion with you before. your eyes might see a difference but the fact is its a 480p dvd which means 480p is the best possible veiwing mode for it. so everytime you argue your point. mabey it does work for you but it don't for most. mabey its your eye sight. i hear a lazy eye can make things much more to your liking if you keep only one directed at the screen.

also sirquack i have owned many projectors over the past 10 years. so my answers due have some merit. Personally half the replies at avsforum are no more comments by people such as yourself or i. experminting with there projectors. So before you go as far as to say the majority of people agree with you at any forum is complete b.s. Phone anybody truly thats knows anything about projectors would not argue over something as striaght forward as this. But some due find it hard to sink in. i like to think my car could be a porsche but at the end of the day it is what it is. the same as dvds they are 480p not 1080 not 720. it doesn't matter if you have an onkyo sp1000 for 2000 grand it ain't going to make it any more then it is. well except mabey for you. you are truly lucky then.

OK, I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but aren't the displays pretty much all fixed format (eg. 720 vertical native, 480, 576 etc...) ? In other words, whatever you feed into the projector is going to get upconverted anyways, the only question is (a) what does the upconverting (player, receiver, projector) and (b) what refresh rate goes out to the actual display device ?

Some TVs now seem to automatically de-interlace when you send them XXXi signals, so it seems to me that any two people with even the slightest difference in system configurations are going to have a totally different experience in terms of whether or not changing from one player mode to another makes a visible difference.

dvds are 480p until that is changed thats all they can be. yes you can convert it to 720 or 1080. but that is pointless simply because its a 480p disk. so to buy a projector to convert a dvd to 720 or 1080 is like pissing in the wind. Its simple dvds can not be converted to a true 720 or 1080 simply because there decoded as 480p. Hence even if you put your projector too 720 or 1080 it isn't displaying that disk truly to that level. being that they are a 480p disk. go to projector central and read what they wrote about what type of projector is best suited for dvd veiwing. they state 480p is all you need and anything else for dvd is a waste of money.

bridgeman take a look at projector central. it on the front page under commentary. the article is called choosing a resoulution. It'll explain my point to the fullest. hopefully sirquack takes a look to. mabey then he can see his arguing was in vain. It always pays to know before you speak.

I think Sirquack and others are discussing a different question :

"Assuming that I have already decided to go with a reasonably priced projector capable of displaying off-the-air HD content (720p or 1080i) at native resolution, which of those two resolutions is going to work best for me ?

I think there probably is agreement here that for DVD only going with a 480p projector is going to be at or close to the performance limit (I say close becuse it seems believable that a really good scaler plus a higher resolution display could look better (less pixellated) than a 480-line native projector).

John, I agree with your summary on the projector/player question, but more importantly, my grenades are filthy and certainly need washing, but your links don't connect.

Not sure why I'm having so much trouble with the link. I uploaded it to my own site, let's see how this works. My father once told me that the most dangerous job in the world was being a bored soldier (WW2 British army in his case). I think he was right.

www.interlog.com/~johnb/ht/how_to_wash_a_hand_grenade.wmv

OK. There is something wrong with this forum. There has been a battle or sorts going on with Smokey and a few other people here. There is a lot of "my stuff is better" and "I am right, you are wrong" going on that needs to stay out of the forums....

Smokey and I have been in some interesting "conversations" in the past, and for the most part, fasts play into it, but not always.

I am not trying to start a battle with Smokey, but when he himself makes accusations about facts that he himself knows nothing about, to a respected member of these forums (good ol' Sirquack), I get a little ticked.

Anyway.... I have to 110% disagree, and yet agree with Smokey on this one. DVD is 480p, no doubt about it, Smokey scores 100 points. Woohoo Smokey!

A point I brought up about upconversion is that in some upconversion units, the Panasonic S97 for one, the upconversion makes a noticable improvement in picture if your display can handle the higher res image. You bet, the source is still 480p, and no, it is NOT HiDef, I agree 100% with you. Some people were mis-lead into thinking that an upconversion unit would make the image "HD" but it doesn't. It can NOT increase the actual resolution of the source.

What it can do is interpolate the image. Instead of just blowing up the image, and having a blocky, pixelated picture, it looks at the data in each pixel and calculates what it thinks would be a pixel the is between the pixels on the source 480p image. By doing this, it "stuffs" more pixels that it has created inbetween the pixels that are in the source and this allows for a 480p image to be displayed to 720p or 1080i image quality. Is it a "true" 720p or 1080i source, no way. It is, however, very good at increasing the resolution of the image to something that is better than a 480p DVD and a 720p or 1080i source.

For those people that think that this is just like blowing up a .jpg image in Photoshop or something, it isn't. I know a guy that thought that he could get a higher resolution image of a photo he took by changing the DPI from 72 (screen quality) to 600 (publish quality). What he got was a very large, blocky image. If you could take the same technology in the S97 (and others by now, I am sure) and apply it to Photoshop, you would get a 600 DPI image that may not be as sharp as the original when viewed at 100%, but is at an extremely higher resolution, and without the blocks (or "jaggies")...

i am new to all these....and planning to use the oppo dvd player with the new mits 1080p along with the epic 80-600 package....is there any advantage of these latest mits over the previous mits.....will it improve the picture quality ? appreciate input and feed back

Excellent post Nick. As was said, DVD is encoded for 480 lines. But with a quality upscaling player the image is "simulated" at 1080 or 720 to give you a higher resolution even though the DVD itself is only 480. It does not look like true HD but sometimes it gets quite close. On very good transfers like the Matrix or the Star Wars trilogy, I would say the improvement is 50% better than standard 480p. It's a cheap way of getting the most out of standard DVDs until true HD discs are here.

Thanks TNTguy!

Upconversion is still hit or miss with some manufacturers, so be sure to get one that has proven their technology like I did.

nickbuol i love the fact you stick up for your boyfreind. very cute. every post theres been on projectors you and your girlfreind have argued with me over this. you both still don't get it. a dvd is 480p. upconversion actually makes the picture less sharp and more soft. Alan from axiom even replyed on the one thread agreeing with this. But your friend sirquack even said let me see if i remember. oh yes he said alan is not always right. Well its not about whos right or wrong its about facts. there are only 480 lines of information on dvds. so to watch it as 720 or higher the projector has to redistrubute it from its natural 480p to 720p or 1080. to fill in the lines of information which is called scaling. when doing this the best you can hope for is that it does a really good job at scaling the image. and if it does you won't lose much sharpness. but generally a picture scaled into a non native format like this well appear a bit softer then in its native 480p state. which translates into a less sharper image. that was taken from an article at projector central. I'm sure nickbuol and sirquack well say they aren't always right either. Also the only problems i have in this forum are you two. I can't stand people who argue and have no facts to back it up. dvds are 480p not 720 not 1080. scaling does not improve picture quality for the majority of projector owners for dvd. except drastically with you two. I sure you'll reply with one of your post that show how dence you truly are. first though talk to someone that nows something about projectors.

OK, now you are resorting to personal attacks. Once again, you claim to have facts, and yet never offer them. You just offer your opinion, which we are all welcome to share, but others admit that they are just that, opinions.

And AGAIN, just like the post about screens and projectors in the home theater section of this forum, I have backed up everything there with facts, and you, once again, don't read my messages.

Even others here (Sorry to point you out TNTguy.) read my messages completely and understand that I HAVE agreed with your single statement that DVDs are 480. I've even stated that upconversion alters the image to calculate what it beleives to be inter-pixels between the actual pixels of the 480 source DVD.

I will extend this offer out to ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE here.

If you want to see the difference between 480p and upconverted DVDs at either 720p or 1080i, let me know and I will set it up. You will have to drive to my house near Des Moines. See for yourself, everyone, and post your thoughts here.

Only then will each and every one of you know what is better for you.

you agrue to disagree. your point is not valid. the post where you say you agree well you just contradicted yourself with the last post you made. come you said and i'll show how much better my pic looks scaled. also that post i made. most that was typed on my part was from projector central. scaling does not create a better picture for most for dvds. if anything it takes away from the sharpness of the picture. mabey your z3 has problems showing a good picture in there natural state. also i bought axiom speakers just like sirquack and yourself. so your comments of how i could talk to your beloved sirquck. is b.s. If telling people the truth that spending money on true hd projector for dvds is a waste of money as of now. then i guess the forum isn't ment to help people. more like misguide them. your doing a fine job. I hate to see the poor chap that goes to buy a true hd projector to upscale dvds. then finds out he could have had the same picture or better with a machine half the price.

OK, fine.
(Standing on large soapbox)
"EVERYONE. LISTEN TO SMOKEY! Go buy a projector with NO MORE than 480 lines of horizontal resolution if you want DVDs! You WON'T get a better picture than that. Grab that old 640x480 projector and you'll have the best DVD watching system ever! After all, aren't all projectors just 640x480?!?!"

Geez...

funny guy. but not really the sharpest pencil in the stack. My point to everyone is. if your in the market for a projector strictly for movies (dvd) 480p is going to give you the best picture for it at this time. but get a 480p that is hometheater projector. Nick is a little confused on what 480p i'm talking about. theres no reason to waste money on a hd projector for dvds. Hd t.v if thats what you want it for then all means get the 720p or 1080 capable projectors. when hd dvds do arrive price drops well no doubt happen on all projectors for new ones coming out. then buy a true hd projector. the dlp true hd projectors well be along the same price as the z3. hands down dlp hd projector then. nick is just mad he over paid for his pj. That it burns him that a 480p projector can put out a better picture then his for dvd. even though he claims his upscaling brings movies almost to hd. but why bother when there only 480p. all things i've heard scalining to different formats does not help but takes away overall quality from images. the 480p pj's out there put out the best picture for the money. for dvds peroid.

Hey, you guys aren't going to the gathering together, are you? Just kidding.

Really, this is an open forum where members should refrain from personal attacks and although this thread has not overheated, its coming pretty close. Just offer up your opinion, whatever your position, and let others either agree or disagree. Then move on.

I, for one, have learned some valuable information and will test my setup to see which one offers, in my opinion, the best resolution for watching dvds.

Thanks guys.

John, your question may have become lost in the conflict, so I'll have a go. You didn't fully describe your TV, in particular the key point of whether its "native resolution" is 720 or 1080 pixels(picture elements). Both your player and your TV have a "deinterlacer" to convert an interlaced picture to the generally smoother progressive scan picture. Likewise both player and TV have a scaler which processes the incoming signal so that its number of pixels matches the native resolution of the display. Regardless of whether the incoming signal is interlaced or progressive or its number of pixels, it has to end up matching the display so that a full picture can be shown; a 720p display has to have 720 pixels with progressive scanning, a 1080i display has to be interlaced with 1080 pixels. Either the player or the TV can be used for its deinterlacer(if needed)and either can be used to scale the picture up(or down). So, for example, if your TV is 720p you need to deinterlace the DVD material to progressive and scale the 480 pixels of the DVD up to 720(which doesn't change the 480 resolution)to fill the 720 pixels in the screen. You definitely don't want to send a 720p set 1080i material, because then the TV would have to deinterlace it and partially scale it back down(i.e. compress it)to 720.

The question is whether to use the player or the TV to scale or deinterlace. Since this is still a developing technology either one might do a better job of processing, or they might be essentially identical. So, experiment to see if using the player's processing looks better than letting the TV handle it.

Oops. Forgot to mention the set is 1080i native.

Thanks for that information. I've been trying out different scenarios and don't really see difference when sending either 720p or 1080i. I have not tried sending anything lower.

Thanks again!

In response to:

Poster: donjuanmiguel
Subject: Re: 720p vs. 1080p

Hey, you guys aren't going to the gathering together, are you? Just kidding.
---------------------
I wish! That guy just slings mud. He must be a politician who thinks it is an election year. We know how much truth they tell.

In case people haven't figured it out, I really like my Z3. I don't think I paid too much for anything. It shows in his posts that he can't have a "friendly" debate. That shows signs of desperation, like a scared animal that has been cornered, resorting to whatever means it can to get away.

See, now he has me heading that direction. I'm done. I am sure that Smokey will reply with something, and that is fine. I am going to stop responding to him. Too bad there wasn't an "ignore" filter on these forums. That'd be nice. He could filter me and I could filter him, and we could both go on with our happy lives... Or at least, I can go on with mine. I wouldn't want to speak for him. He'll just come back with a personal attack.

Argh! He's still pulling me in.

I'm done. Sorry for my piece of this everyone.

So... ARE you guys coming to the picnic ?

Nope. Wish I could, but I would have to drive 15 hours each way, and it would be cost prohibitive to do so. Should be quite the party! Maybe next year. I'd carpool with Sirquack, but despite what others have insultingly said about it, I have never met the guy even though he lives on the other side of town.

sorry people for this going on longer then it had too. were just like two bulls bunting heads. now i've got a head ache and i'm sure nick does too. a good debate though can only help give more sense for people on what to buy. and a little more knowledge also.

Smokey - first off, DVDs are encoded in 480i, not 480p. The DVD player or the TV (depending on the type of set you have, and whether it can even display a 480p signal) deinterlaces the interlaced frames of the 480i encoded DVD to create 480 progressive lines. There is no loss in quality when doing this, because the de-interlacing, at its most basic level, just holds the first frame (odd lines) while the second frame (even lines) is displayed. This de-interlacing process helps to smooth out screen flicker and scan line problems. So, no matter what, the DVD signal from the DVD to the progressive scan monitor/display device is ALWAYS going to be altered, unless an interlaced signal is displayed.

Next, I agree with you, in principle, regarding whether it you will get a "sharper" or "better" picture displaying a DVD on a monitor with a resolution of 480 pixels or using one with 720 pixels. Whenever you can get 1:1 pixel mapping, and you remove a level of processing, your image SHOULD remain closer to the source. This is because, when upscaling, or scaling in any sort, for that matter, complex algorithms are applied to the image in very quick fashion and in a constantly changing fashion. The algorithms often make mistakes, incorporating errors into the picture. On the other hand, some scalers are very good at what they do. They analyze pixels over time, looking at the surrounding pixels, interpretting these changes as movement. From this, it can predict or interpolate which pixels should go in the spaces between encoded information. This often results in what you have called "softness" but which others may refer to as "smoothness" with less pixelation, making it harder to see individual pixels, resulting in a more film-like picture. I guess it's a matter of choosing your poison - do you want a large image that is 1:1 pixel-mapped, but which might look pixelated or blocky when blown up to 100 inches, or do you want a slightly smoother picture that eliminates some of the pixelation when blown up. Most choose the latter, since the eye doesn't necessarily see this "softness" as decreased resolution.

That said, I think the original poster was getting at whether there is a real difference between 720p and 1080p, from normal viewing distances. Applying your logic, it would appear that the television with a higher resolution would make his DVD images softer. I doubt you will find that quote on the projector boards said by anyone reputable. GIVEN SOME UPSCALING, which is assumed in the original post, and also assuming a decent scaler, I view the question as is 1080p better than 720p? And if so, is it that much better to justify the difference in price. My answer is - I don't know - I haven't viewed a 1080p set. But, my guess is that, given some upscaling is going to take place, I choose the set with the ABILITY to resolve more detail. Is it worth the price difference - I have heard that from normal viewing distances or screen sizes less than 50 inches or so, the answer is "No". We will all find out soon enough.

In any event - take what I have to say with a grain of salt, as I have little experience with large screen HD projectors (my brother in law has a large screen, 480p projector - that I don't think looks that great when projected at 85 inches - I woudl bet dollars to donuts that the picture would improve if his projector had a higher resolution, and could "create" in between pixels, thus reducing the blocky look of his image), but ease the personal attacks a little and try to have a more constructive conversation. You claim that these boards are for educating people, not misguiding them. Yet you sling sh*t like you think Ape culture is on the verge of extinction. Heed your own advice, and use the boards for constructive discussion, not ad hominem attacks on other posters.

Hi all,

Thanks to JohnK and Capn_Pickard for pointing out some essential truths, including the fact that DVDs hold interlaced signals (if they were encoded as progressive images, consumers with older TV sets wouldn't be able to view them). I'm late posting to this thread because other Axiom tasks kept me away, though I've followed the thread.

One fact that everyone should understand is that if you have an HD CRT set, its "native resolution" is 1080i -- it will scale any incoming signals to an interlaced 1080i presentation.

All other HD fixed-pixel arrays (DLP, LCD, plasma) have a native resolution of 720p. This means that although broadcasters prefer to transmit a 1080i signal rather than 720p, because less bandwidth is required (the video information is transmitted in alternating fields every 1/60th second, whereas a 720p signal presents all the video information 30 times per second). So if you ask which looks better, 720p or 1080i, it's meaningless, because if you are using a DLP or LCD front or rear-projector, it will automatically scale the incoming 1080i signal to 720p in order to display it. Such a comparison would only be possible if you had an HD CRT direct-view set (or projector) displaying the native 1080i signal next to a DLP/LCD device displaying the 1080i signal scaled to 720p, which it must do to display it.

A small correction to Capn_Picard's post: the deinterlacer in a DVD player may indeed add aberrations and video artifacts if it's a cheap or poorly designed deinterlacer. It's fairly costly to put in a high-quality deinterlacer so you generally won't find it in cheap DVD players. Consequently, the deinterlacer in your HD set or HD projector may be superior to the one in the DVD player, in which case you'd get a better quality picture with fewer artifacts by setting the DVD player to interlaced output and using the HD set's deinterlacer and scaler to do the processing.

This also applies to some inexpensive DVD players that have built-in scalers with DVI or HDMI outputs. The chip set is mediocre, so often the "upconverted" 720p signal done by the DVD player and sent through its DVI or HDMI output is not an improvement over using the analog component video outputs. In some cases, it may actually be inferior.

Added to these factors are certain personal judgments and biases brought by the viewer as to what "looks better." Joe Kane, the guru of Video Essentials, likes everything to have a kind of "filmic" look, which to my eye appears slightly soft, smooth, a bit dark, and lacking contrast. With video material, I don't want a "filmic" look. It's video we're watching (admittedly, with lots of DVD movies, it's film transferred to video) and I prefer a slightly punchier, contrastier, sharper image. I certainly don't want a soft "filmic" presentation for live HDTV sports and outdoor events. So keep your own biases in perspective when engaging in discussions of video image quality.

Finally, another question posed is whether 1080p looks better than 720p (because a new generation of Texas Instruments DLP chips will display signals as 1080p). Viewed side by side, which I've done, there is a slight improvement. Sometimes it's really hard to discern. At the moment, no broadcasters are transmitting 1080p, and I doubt it will happen for a long time because of the huge bandwidth requirements. The comparison I viewed was on two 61-inch HD DLP rear-projection sets, side by side. With larger screen images and front projection, the differences would likely be more apparent, but I haven't seen a demo like that yet.

Regards,

Quite a thread hijack/flame war we had going on here...

And yes I realize you want to compare 720p to 1080p but here are my thoughts on 1080I vs 720P...

Anyways, like StPatGuy I also have the Sony XBR960 which has support for most resolutions except for 1080p of course. I have viewed over the air HD programs in both 720P and 1080i and MY PERSONAL PREFERNCE is 1080i. It simply looks cleaner and more detailed in my opinion. I'm not trying to say that 720p doesn't look good because it does, but that 1080i looks a little better. For instance, 720p is WOW but 1080i is OMG that's not a tv, you're looking at the real thing.

Of course for sporting events (with lots of motion) 720P is preferred so you don't get pixelized (blocky) images, but most of the stuff I watch doesn't have fast motion objects. In the end, simly look at the lines, 720 vs 1080...sure the 720 lines are refreshed faster than the 1080 but it all depends on the source material. For sports, 720 and for everything else 1080i.

I also heard that ESPN would be the first to start broadcasting in 1080p since that would benefit them the most. It remains to be seen when and if they come out with it.

If you have patience and some extra money go for the 1080P. After all the amount of pixels is significantly increases, more than doubles, with 1080P (~2.07Mpixels vs 720 which has 920Kpixels). Again, 720 looks good and who knows when 1080P content will be out but if you have patience go with the higher res.

Thanks, Alan, for jumping in. We've gotten off topic from the first post. I think that it has been noted that the difference between 720p and 1080p is slight, and might not justify the difference in price, especially at normal viewing distances. But, if we're talking minute differences - this may be enough to influence your decision. It's certainly not a bad feeling to be a little future-proofed, however minimally.

Let me also note that I agree that any type of conversion (whether it be de-interlacing or scaling) can introduce errors in the end product.

Filmic vs. Video-like presentation preferences aside, for a moment - can you weigh in on Smokey's point regarding whether a DVD encoded image (480i or 480p for argument's sake) will look better (again, the above preferences aside) than the same signal displayed on a higher resolution monitor? For argument's sake, assume that there are no scaling or de-interlacing errors.

Do you think that the same image will look "softer" or equally as sharp or sharper on a 1080i or 720p set vs. a 480p set?

Working from some of your other comments, though, let me suggest the following... If "upconverting" a 480p signal to a 720p is analogous to "upconverting" a 720p or 1080i signal to 1080p, and you claim that the 1080p picture looks slightly better, then it would also be true (by analogy) that the upconverted image to 720p or 1080i from 480i/p would look similarly and slightly better.
Thus, it would seem that the "theoretical" softness which internal scalers introduce is just that - theory - and that in real life, we actually perceive that extra resolution (even if it is made up of "fake" pixels) as providing more detail, and thus, a sharper image.

i don't want to argue anymore for it is folly here to do so. T.v. was what the post was concerning. what me an nick were debating over were projectors. like me and nick talked last night and with some projectors if the scaling of the projector is good really good you would not see a difference in a picture scaled up. And some like nick and sirquack might see an improvement. but for most that do not have a z3 scaling a dvd well create the same pic if not a less colorful picture. i guess the main thing is go demo them for yourself and find what you like best.

this well be my last post here. for all of you jumping in the air right now i'm happy also. this forum and some of the people in it have left a bad smell. For this is not highschool and no one should have to suck up to people who have senoirity here. after recieving pms from freinds of sirquack and nickbouls. I feel like this is more of a click then a forum. there have been other posts by others whom have felt the same about the people here. i'm happy with my axiom setup i bought. three qs8s and the m60's and the vp150. I'm very delighted with them. As for the forum i did make some comments that were to say the least not classy. i am sorry to all i offended. but i was not the only one without class in some posts. but as most of the people that have contacted me threw pms have singled me out which is fine. debating with some people does get me flustered and i do act rash to some comments.
I'm just an average guy who works everyday like most of you. I have a passion for home audio and theater.

My posts on projectors were to more so help to find out what a guy really needs for a projector. so mabey in the end it would help a guy save some hard earned cash. But i did not want it to end up like it did but it has. so i have said my two bits. For trolls like myself like some would say. there are other places to mingle. But it seems here all the trolls stick together.

Last shout out goes to axiom. Great speakers for a decent price. couldn't be happier with them. Best customer service i've seen. great website and forums to help axiom owners out for the most part. It would be a lot nicer to see a little more canadians here. Much easy to have conversations with fellow canucks.
For all the guys who helped me out thanks. Every question i asked was answered with good opinions. Just to any newcomers speak your mind. Don't get caught up with this click crap that has gotten out of hand at this forum. Someone wants to be sarcastic give it right back. Highschool was fun but that was 10 years ago. i don't want to go to forum to relive it.

ummm...it's "clique"....with a q. sorry, it was just irking me.

I was flipping through my September 2005 issue of Sound & Vision, and they have a multi page article about 1080p in regards to the new Mitsubishi WD-52627. The article starts on page 38, and on page 40-41 they talk about 1080p vs. 720p

In the end they state the most of their first looks in a side by side test with a 720p display next to this 1080p display, showed little improvement at all. They switched to a Discovery HD show and that is when they finally saw a better picture. It wasn't much, but it was a little better in regards to text, and a computer illustration. They said that the display was good at it's 52" size, but 1080p really would be better in displays larger than this as the added resolution will really help in the larger images so that they have more data to feed the larger screen.

Also, they noted that this "cutting edge" 1080p TV really does NOT have 1920x1080 resolution, but has 960x1080 resolution (only half of real 1080p), but uses "wobulation" (TI calls it SmoothPicture) which is actually an optical actuator that moves the set of mirrors that make up the 960x1080 field, back and forth alternating images reflected on this mirror field so that it is able to shoot half the image every 8 miliseconds.

They say that it is not noticable to the human eye, but almost sounds like 1080i, but at a killer refresh rate. I know it is different, but this MAY be how all 1080p devices are at this point, so take it for what it's worth. They question if it is worth the price, but for someone who does not have a nice HD display, and who wants to be a little more "future proof", the premium cost might be acceptable.

Good luck!

Hi,

To me there's more to the new 1080p tv's than just Future proofing.

Here's a thread that might be of interest over at HT spot:

>http://www.hometheaterspot.com/htsthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/731606/an/0/page/0#731606


Worth a read at any rate.

Leaf