Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...
Currently I just stick with 720p for DirecTV as I did not think the chance for 1080 would happen on DBS, or the "latest" revelation of BSS (that Tom pointed out over a year ago).
Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720??
Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it will be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]
Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720??
Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it will be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]
Doesn't really make sense.
If you limit a 1080 panel to 720, you're still going to need to scale the image to fill the screen.
Everything is really geared to the manufacturing costs of the panel, so if it's cheap enough, there isn't any reason to limit it.
Are you saying that one couldn't make a 1080 panel, and software limit it to 720??
Note I am not saying it's being done currently, nor am I really saying it will be done, only that it's technological feasible. [And that there are marketing reasons why it might be done.]
But if you still use 1920x1080 panel (BTW, panels has the parameter as VxH) you'll see the picture's pixels [1280x720] as a rectangle (usually centered).
Doesn't really make sense.
If you limit a 1080 panel to 720, you're still going to need to scale the image to fill the screen.
Everything is really geared to the manufacturing costs of the panel, so if it's cheap enough, there isn't any reason to limit it.
The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.
The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.
That would be awesome to get a 1080p TV through a firmware update, but I honestly don't think it's happening. I would never buy a 720p TV regardless. The first thing I look at when I see a great price is whether the TV is 720p or 1080p. It's really not worth it anymore. 1080p can usually be had for like $50-$100 more depending on the size.
That would be awesome to get a 1080p TV through a firmware update, but I honestly don't think it's happening. I would never buy a 720p TV regardless. The first thing I look at when I see a great price is whether the TV is 720p or 1080p. It's really not worth it anymore. 1080p can usually be had for like $50-$100 more depending on the size.
No disagreement; I wouldn't either. But a lot of folks would, to save the bucks. Again, under 32" it's barely noticeable. A portion of those good folks might also tune SD channels and still think they're in HD land.
I actually bought my HDTV online at ShopNBC. They let your break down payments of six months no interest. Got a much better TV than I would have been able to get otherwise.
No disagreement; I wouldn't either. But a lot of folks would, to save the bucks. Again, under 32" it's barely noticeable. A portion of those good folks might also tune SD channels and still think they're in HD land.
The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.
And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.
Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:
The reason for so doing is marketing. It's been done in other industries, computer and camera are what I am thinking of: If you can maximize profits by selling 4,000,000 720 sets @ $300 and 6,000,000 1080 sets @ $400 whereas if you had only a 1080 model, but that would sell only 7,000,000 sets @400, you're better off with offering a cheaper alternative. And if that cheaper alternative can be manufactured at a lower cost by using the same innards but crippling it a bit, you'd do this.
Except you can do the same thing and just have two lines with two different screens. The rest can be the same and firmware can adjust which screen it is talking to. Since the single largest cost is the screen (by far), you save even more by using a 720p screen for the 720p set. The rest, spare firmware for the screen driver, would be the same. The single line cost savings would not overcome the price of a 1080p screen on a pet unit basis. And if all the rest is the same, you can control your lines based on sales pretty tightly.
Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:
Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.
Except you can do the same thing and just have two lines with two different screens. The rest can be the same and firmware can adjust which screen it is talking to. Since the single largest cost is the screen (by far), you save even more by using a 720p screen for the 720p set. The rest, spare firmware for the screen driver, would be the same. The single line cost savings would not overcome the price of a 1080p screen on a pet unit basis. And if all the rest is the same, you can control your lines based on sales pretty tightly.
Currently Samsung Plasma's use the same boards for a majority of their TV models. This means that you can unlock functions only allowed in higher models if you know what you're doing, you can also do a lot of damage if you don't, so it wouldn't be unheard of for companies to use 1 board and sell a 720/1080 set. However I don't think they will. Manufacturers want to limit settings not really resolution. If someone can offer a 1080 tv for the same price as a 720 version of their competitor they will because the average employee in Walmart, best buy, or other big box store will sell the numbers that marketing feeds them instead of what is actually better about the TV.
If people really knew how to spec out electronics the market would shift significantly. Instead of dynamic contrast ratios there would be calibration level settings on the signs.
Diagonal image and viewing distance should both be factored in. May be worth pointing out the excellent article on Carlton Bale's site as well as his chart:
Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.
No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.
No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.
Each viewer's point [distance] may vary.
There is something I've wanted to add that may help:
When I first used a PC HD tuner card and watched it on my 19" [1600x1200] monitor, it showed a picture quality that was much different than TVs.
I think it simply comes down to dot pitch [or pixel dimensions], where when they're so close/tight, the eye can't distinguish them and sees something that looks like film.
When I went looking for my next TV, I saw the same quality on a fairly small panel, but not on the larger ones being displayed.
My 1080p 46" does come very close [and why I picked it].
The chart posted does suggest similar sizes & distances.
I also have a 720 32", but I don't care how far I'm back from it, it doesn't look as good as my 1080p.
No one disputes that, at a close enough distance (which is determined by the size of the screen), 1080p is better than 720p. What is missing from the chart is the point that is most disputed - at what point, if any, is there a difference between 720p and 1080i.
The dispute is ridiculous and I was replying to someone directly discussing matters similar to my post:
The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.
The differences between 1080i and 720p have been discussed here ad nauseum. Resolution is resolution. I've seen 720p that is better than 1080i and vice versa on my 100" screen. It rarely has anything to do with resolution.
The differences between 1080i and 720p have been discussed here ad nauseum. Resolution is resolution. I've seen 720p that is better than 1080i and vice versa on my 100" screen. It rarely has anything to do with resolution.
I've really only seen one this size, but what struck me the most were the lines/dot sizes were HUGH, which is the opposite "quality" I was describing in the post before this.
Great article and chart. I plugged my 50" screen in the utility at the bottom of the page and I'm just on the edge of benefiting from 1080p. That fits my experience.
Six feet for my 47" 1080p? Man that is sitting on top of it. I did discover that I can fit that 90" Sharp in my room, if I had $10K! Perhaps some white paint and a projector will do :grin:
Six feet for my 47" 1080p? Man that is sitting on top of it. I did discover that I can fit that 90" Sharp in my room, if I had $10K! Perhaps some white paint and a projector will do :grin:
I've really only seen one this size, but what struck me the most were the lines/dot sizes were HUGH, which is the opposite "quality" I was describing in the post before this.
I would categorize the change from my first projector (720P Mitsubishi HC3000U) to my second projector (1080p BenQ W5000) as noticeable. But only in a very subtle way. I could never see a pixel on my 720p pj unless I was right on top of the screen.
If my math is correct there are roughly 15 lines per inch vertically for 720p on a 100" screen. I have a tough enough time seeing a sixteenth of an inch when in the workshop, let alone on my display. 1080p would add ~7 more lines of resolution.
On your 46" set, there is roughly 47 lines per inch vertically. I really d on't think you could see those without help. And your 32" 720p display has almost the same amount of lines as the 46" - ~45.
If you were to have a 175" screen the viewing height would be 90". With that setup, the 720p lines would be ~1/8". That would probably be noticeable for some folks within 6 feet or so.
Again, assuming my math is correct. :grin:
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
DBSTalk Forum
3.6M posts
111.9K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!