1080p < 50" ... Maybe Not The Best Choice?

[SteveO]

So I'm contemplating an LCD TV in the 42" to 47" range. In researching deals, I've noticed that of course some of these are 768p and some are 1080p (along with varying other specs). The latter being perceived as more desirable. But according to this white paper being quoted, 1080p is not discernible unless you're closer to your TV than 2.7 meters, which is about 8' 10"...or unless you have a 50" or larger screen.

It’s a fascinating read and has pretty much turned my thinking about 1080p on its head. To cut to the chase, it explains, that for most European living rooms, that have the TV placed at an average viewing distance of 2.7 metres (mine is actually 3.5m), there’s no point having a 1080 display. For almost everyone, it’s not possible to actually see the extra detail in a 1,920 x 1,080 display unless you move closer. The author works out mathematically that to see the difference at the same viewing distance you’d need a display with a diagonal of 63.7in!

To quote from the paper - “According to this calculation, it really doesn’t make any sense for those with normal vision to buy a set with more than 1,366 x 768 (HD Ready) format unless they want to view from closer than normal 2.7m viewing distances or the size planned for the set is 50in or more.”

I found all this quite interesting. For those among us who are looking to save perhaps a few hundred more on a purchase like this, it can make a difference on the right deal. Here's the link to the quoted article:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/editorial/...d-1080p/p2

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this as well.

[M A V I C]

A friend of mine has been doing a lot of research on this. The other issues he's found are that the majority of content is not authored for 1080p, the majority of cable and satellite providers do not offer full 1080p and DLP cuts down the res further.

Viewing distance is always something to take into account, but for less than 42" I think he also said something like 1080p is pointless.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

[quote M A V I C]A friend of mine has been doing a lot of research on this. The other issues he's found are that the majority of content is not authored for 1080p
True for broadcast content, not for high def media (i.e. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD). It will be years before content providers broadcast in 1080p, if ever. It's important to note, however, that a 1080p set will deinterleave a 1080i signal (which are currently broadcast) to a 1080p signal, while the 768p set can only deinterleave and downconvert the signal to the lower resolution.

I recently purchased a 42" plasma for my bedroom -- went with 768p, as the TV is located about 11 feet from my viewing position. Watching the Rose Bowl as I type this -- the image looks absolutely fabulous. No buyer's remorse here.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Duplicate post deleted.

[shadow]

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

[mrbigstuff]

thanks for the info, I think this is the year I replace the old CRT thing. i'm also waiting to see what happens on the HD-DVD front with formats, players and screens.

[Article Accelerator]

[quote SteveO]...according to this white paper being quoted, 1080p is not discernible unless you're closer to your TV than 2.7 meters
So, the lesson is--sit closer.

[SteveO]

[quote Article Accelerator][quote SteveO]...according to this white paper being quoted, 1080p is not discernible unless you're closer to your TV than 2.7 meters
So, the lesson is--sit closer.
Aye. If you're comfortable with that. What's kind of interesting is that I think 1080p is fast becoming the standard. I'm not seeing a whole lot of < 1080p sets out there.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

[quote SteveO]What's kind of interesting is that I think 1080p is fast becoming the standard. I'm not seeing a whole lot of < 1080p sets out there.
That is correct. 1080p was always the ultimate goal, one which only recently became economically feasible across the board.

[Will Collier]

There's no reason to pay extra for 1080p. If you can get it at a minimal added cost, go ahead, but as noted above, there's very little content available at that resolution, and you most likely can't tell the difference under 50" (or really at 50") anyway.