Next you'll tell me the sky isn't blue, and the Earth is flat.
Haha... So, in your world, every 1080p release on BD is tier 0? Nice world of fantasy you live in. I do envy your fanaticism, but placebo effect is something not too reproducible with everyone.
It depends on how you look at it though. If you compare the total streamed content available: Youtube, Netflix, mainstream cable TV etc and compare it to content viewed on a physical disc, streaming vastly outnumbers it.
There is only one way to look at it, the money made from DVD rental is still higher than the money made from streaming rental, that is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
According to an article in USA Today, consumers are even still buying DVDs to play on their Blu-Ray players:
Nothing says consumers are happy with low quality content more than buying SD content even when they own a Blu-Ray player. The main reason given is price, the same issue raised about VOD. Is 1080p worth spending $15 more to get?
That really depends, I purchased three DVD sets in the last week, none of which I could get on Blu-ray, or by digital download. Am I happy about the low quality, no I am not, but since they were mastered in SD, and aren't available on Blu-ray the only choices I had were to buy it on DVD, or not buy it at all.
Now I have chosen not to reply to the rest of your message, as it had nothing in connection to what I replied to in the first place.
There is only one way to look at it, the money made from DVD rental is still higher than the money made from streaming rental, that is a fact.
The thread is about Blu-Ray vs streaming mainly and streaming makes more revenue. Why are you reverting back to using DVD as the benchmark? Also, there's no indication that the revenue measurements include advertising revenue.
It's obvious that DVD makes more just now but the sales have dropped considerably. People aren't going to drop the format quickly though. iTunes took 5 years to displace (not replace) physical CD distribution and it was far easier on the networks.
DVD revenue is at $14b, Blu-Ray $2.3b and digital is $2.5b. If both rise 50% year on year, the combination will surpass DVD in 3 years from now, which is close to the same 5 year music displacement.
I think prices and accessibility (not quality) will determine which gets more uptake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
That really depends, I purchased three DVD sets in the last week, none of which I could get on Blu-ray, or by digital download. Am I happy about the low quality, no I am not, but since they were mastered in SD, and aren't available on Blu-ray the only choices I had were to buy it on DVD, or not buy it at all.
It proves though that there are factors beyond picture quality that influence a buying and distribution decision. It is not the ultimate decider of the most popular format. If it was available as a 720p HD download for a 50% higher price, would you have chosen it or DVD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Now I have chosen not to reply to the rest of your message, as it had nothing in connection to what I replied to in the first place.
Ok but what is your take on the buy vs rent decision? Streaming is the only option for running TV shows and disposable content. For rental and purchase there is both. You said that you purchased 3 DVD sets, how many times do you reckon you will watch those DVDs? Also, if the Blu-Ray set gets released eventually, will you buy the sets again?
The problem I've personally come across with ownership is that I used to buy DVDs and have a small stack of about 20-30. I very rarely watch them over new content. Adult content is different as it is much more reusable but mainstream content is difficult to watch again and again. I already know who Kaiser Soze is and that Johnny gets Jake and Marjorie Houseman's approval in the end. I forgot what Memento was about though so I might need to watch that again but I'd just rent it.
If purchasing goes down and rental migrates to instant-on streaming, that could spell trouble for the Blu-Ray format as a whole because the revenues won't be enough to sustain the distribution.
You sound surprised. Now, remove animation films from the list and you'll get less than 5% worthy of 1080p.
Bite, I'm truly amazed at your bizarre statement. From my experience with BD I find anything in AVS's tier ranking of 0 -3 is definitely worthy of 1080p. Tier 0 is the cream of the crop but movies in the afore mentioned tiers are superior in picture and sound quality to any other present delivery system.
As I've said before, people should go with what works for them.
Bite, I'm truly amazed at your bizarre statement. From my experience with BD I find anything in AVS's tier ranking of 0 -3 is definitely worthy of 1080p. Tier 0 is the cream of the crop but movies in the afore mentioned tiers are superior in picture and sound quality to any other present delivery system.
As I've said before, people should go with what works for them.
Pulling a sentence out of context does make this bizarre. The particular sentence was led by evaluating potential of HD video format variants as well as evaluating the potential of individual encoding resolution in HD video format.
I think many people reading this thread are confused by 1080p as the only viable HD format and when comparing 1080p vs. any other HD resolution, such as 1080i or 720p, it would automatically trigger a notion of comparing HD vs. SD; hence, the redundant rebuttal based on the incorrect premise.
I do agree with your assessment on the tiers ranking and do agree that tiers 0-2 (in my assessment) is worthy of HD format, based on the format potential. However, the full potential of 1080p format have been rarity as we are aware that how great 1080p can be as demonstrated by the tier 0 ranking, and we just don?t see enough of them. One thing I have learned during my encoding experience in the process of providing my own streaming movie library at home, only those few titles on tier 0 list did benefit from 1080p encodes while 720p encodes did reproduce identical PQ from the original disc for tier 1-5 contents. This is how it was led to the bizarre sentence. BTW, this is based on PQ attributes only, but not on audio offering.
The thread is about Blu-Ray vs streaming mainly and streaming makes more revenue. Why are you reverting back to using DVD as the benchmark? Also, there's no indication that the revenue measurements include advertising revenue.
Because optical is still king.
But the message I replied to stated that more people choose to stream 720p than get 1080p Blu-ray, they don't, the vast majority of streaming is SD or below, nowhere near 720p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
DVD revenue is at $14b, Blu-Ray $2.3b and digital is $2.5b. If both rise 50% year on year, the combination will surpass DVD in 3 years from now, which is close to the same 5 year music displacement.
You have grouped all streaming/VOD into one figure, regardless of the quality, that includes all the SD and below streaming as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think prices and accessibility (not quality) will determine which gets more uptake.
At the moment streaming and VOD is more expensive than DVD and Blu-ray rental, hence the lack of uptake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It proves though that there are factors beyond picture quality that influence a buying and distribution decision. It is not the ultimate decider of the most popular format. If it was available as a 720p HD download for a 50% higher price, would you have chosen it or DVD?
How would I know if I would get it or not, it isn't available to me in that media, and if it was, how do you know the DVD wouldn't have been cheaper still? It is a unknown answer.
But in saying that, it was mastered in SD, so there is next to no benefit from getting it in 720p. Also, it depends on what provider would be selling it by streaming, if it was a provider that I don't have hardware to play back, then I would still chosen the DVD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Ok but what is your take on the buy vs rent decision? Streaming is the only option for running TV shows and disposable content. For rental and purchase there is both. You said that you purchased 3 DVD sets, how many times do you reckon you will watch those DVDs? Also, if the Blu-Ray set gets released eventually, will you buy the sets again?
The DVDs will be watched a number of times, by various members of the family. I am lost by why you say streaming is the only option for running TV shows? Are you talking about a current running series?
And regarding repurchasing them on Blu-ray, no I wouldn't get those ones on blu-ray, and of the 300 DVDs I do have I have probably only repurchased around 10 on Blu-ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The problem I've personally come across with ownership is that I used to buy DVDs and have a small stack of about 20-30. I very rarely watch them over new content. Adult content is different as it is much more reusable but mainstream content is difficult to watch again and again. I already know who Kaiser Soze is and that Johnny gets Jake and Marjorie Houseman's approval in the end. I forgot what Memento was about though so I might need to watch that again but I'd just rent it.
The thing about purchasing is, it is a personal thing, you either purchase them or you don't, you can assume your viewpoint is the same as everyone elses.
Personally I purchased most of mine when I didn't have easy access to any rental methods, I don't purchase that much of anything these days, and don't rent much until it hits the discount bins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If purchasing goes down and rental migrates to instant-on streaming, that could spell trouble for the Blu-Ray format as a whole because the revenues won't be enough to sustain the distribution.
It will go down at some point, just like all media formats before it, just like the current streaming methods that exist at the moment, something else will come along
Like I say, you can't displace a popular format overnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
But the message I replied to stated that more people choose to stream 720p than get 1080p Blu-ray, they don't, the vast majority of streaming is SD or below, nowhere near 720p.
Which surely tells you that those people value convenience over picture quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I am lost by why you say streaming is the only option for running TV shows? Are you talking about a current running series?
Yes, streaming is the only viable option for a currently running TV series and I can't think of many TV series where I've watched the episodes more than twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
And regarding repurchasing them on Blu-ray, no I wouldn't get those ones on blu-ray, and of the 300 DVDs I do have I have probably only repurchased around 10 on Blu-ray.
But how can you be content with SD quality when 1080p will be available for a lot of those movies and series?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The thing about purchasing is, it is a personal thing, you either purchase them or you don't, you can assume your viewpoint is the same as everyone elses.
It's not about viewpoint though, it's about habits that most of us have without realising until some TV comedian points it out. Same goes for built-in optical drives in computers. We think we need them but most of us rarely use them.
Out of the 300DVDs and however many Blu-Ray discs you have, what is the highest watch-rates of those films? I've never in my life seen a single movie more than 5 times and on average my watch-rate for a favourite movie is 3 times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Personally I purchased most of mine when I didn't have easy access to any rental methods, I don't purchase that much of anything these days, and don't rent much until it hits the discount bins.
That's the trend though. You've moved from purchasing to rentals too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
It will go down at some point, just like all media formats before it, just like the current streaming methods that exist at the moment, something else will come along
I think current streaming methods will evolve but they should be more of the same. I expect the mobile networks to take over eventually so you can get 20MBits streaming anywhere you go. Then you can watch a movie on your phone on the way to the rental store only to find it's closed down.
Which surely tells you that those people value convenience over picture quality.
The is the same in any industry, cheap and nasty always is the winner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Yes, streaming is the only viable option for a currently running TV series and I can't think of many TV series where I've watched the episodes more than twice.
But it isn't about you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
But how can you be content with SD quality when 1080p will be available for a lot of those movies and series?
Because if it is only available in SD and I want to own it, then I only have the choice of getting it in SD regardless of the quality. If they sell some of the series in Blu-ray and I wanted to buy it, then I would get the Blu-ray versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's not about viewpoint though, it's about habits that most of us have without realising until some TV comedian points it out. Same goes for built-in optical drives in computers. We think we need them but most of us rarely use them.
It is about viewpoints, not everyones purchasing habits are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Out of the 300DVDs and however many Blu-Ray discs you have, what is the highest watch-rates of those films? I've never in my life seen a single movie more than 5 times and on average my watch-rate for a favourite movie is 3 times.
It depends, some have been watched once, some have been watched over 10 times, remember you aren't the only consumer in the world.
Also, when I got the majority of my videos it was going to cost me around €4 to rent a movie, or €4 from a discount shop to purchase them, so I would just purchase them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's the trend though. You've moved from purchasing to rentals too.
No, that isn't what I said. I used to purchase a lot of movies and rent a few, now I purchase a few, and rent even less, both my purchasing and renting has decreased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think current streaming methods will evolve but they should be more of the same. I expect the mobile networks to take over eventually so you can get 20MBits streaming anywhere you go. Then you can watch a movie on your phone on the way to the rental store only to find it's closed down.
Like I said, it is a 4 minute walk to my video store, I wouldn't get much past the opening credits by the time I get there.
I don't think the streaming service buz will compensate 1080p over the 720p when capable, since it is bigger marketing gimmick.
Apple is a prime example...they compensate with both resolution and bit rate.
Quote:
I was not intending to claim 720p is better than 1080p for all materials, but we do have about 5 to 10% of released titles on bluray worthy of 1080p contents and I do appreciate and value the efforts of those titles on bluray and streaming. As I have noted in the prior post, one of the critical quality attribute of PQ is how it's mastered and transferred on to a disk. One of the living example is the case of " The Element". The initial release was 1080p garbage compared to the remastered release version.
I just watched Avatar in 3D and was playing around the files in 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p, and 1080p did look better than 480p but not much noticeable with 720p file I've created as MPEG4 from the bluray disk. My assessment may change once the 4K displays are available on 4k contents, but my current assessment with 720p vs. 1080p contents with sufficient bit rate does not seem to produce noticeable differences with 1080p vs. 720p. The 720p content was 6GB and the 1080p versoon was 12GB file with 5.1 audio generated in DVDFab on 67" 1080p screen sitting from 10-12 ft away.
You're turning three different quality knobs (resolution, bit rate and transfer) and then generalizing based on your own threshold of acceptable quality. That's fine.
My original comment was simply that the statement that a good 720 image will scale to be equivalent to a good 1080 image is mostly an untrue generalization, even for you 5-10% of the time...more so for other folks.
A good scaler will make a 720p image look pretty good on a 1080 display even at 10-12 feet. But it will be softer. Whether you notice or care or not is a different issue. I would agree that mostly folks don't notice and don't care...especially since most of them, like you, sit a little too far from their TVs anyway. For a 67" display you want to be sitting 9 feet away for 30 degrees HVA. If you're sitting inside 10.5 feet you're within the THX range (26 degrees HVA) and within 11 feet you're inside the SMPTE range (4 picture heights).
These distances represent the very back row in a movie theater. The front seats are between 5 and a half feet (SMPTE) and 7 and a half feet (THX). The reference position is about 8 feet (3 times picture height).
If you like sitting in the middle rows that's more or less the reference position. I think at 8 feet you might notice more image difference than you do at 12 feet. But for a lot of folks, while this is great for a movie theater, it feels a little close for a TV...so sitting at 12 feet is fine. It just isn't quite a movie like experience as much a big TV experience.
I'll take screen size over picture quality almost every time for watching movies. Even SD Netflix movies vs bluray. It's just more immersive that way for me and there are measured physiological reasons for that. Your preference may vary.
Blockbuster caved in to Video Ezy in Australia and Civic might too or vice versa. The franchise store model means it's up to the owners to individually try and recoup the $300k setup cost. In the heart of a major city, that can be done, especially when there is little to no competing service but not everyone is so conveniently located.
"The final rental of the evening comes at 7.55 pm. He turns off the lights and closes the door behind him. He's made no more than $200. Not much of a Hollywood ending, but he's had worse Saturday nights."
"they don't rent well due to not enough customers having blu-ray players. You do get maybe 1 out of 15 customers renting blu rays, but the true blu-ray fans buy them, including me. i actually get free rentals because i work at video ezy but i still buy my movies from jbhifi."
"my local 'Video Ezy' closed down years ago."
"Our local Video Ezy has gone bust and my son works for a Blockbuster who after making a push to corner the market with a bigger store and expanded stock, is now in administration. Cheap DVD and downloads have killed the video store."
"The Video Ezy store near me closed down about a month ago"
"Just take a look around your local high street, how many small DVD rental shops have closed in the past few months," he warned.
"They are the dinosaur of the industry because they are not prepared to change.
"If they do not get out now, they will lose their homes if the franchise business is secured against their property."
Mr Uniacke, who runs a chain of about 800 Video Ezy and Blockbuster stores, has already felt the cold winds of the global downturn with sales of DVDs remaining flat.
That was in 2009 though he was still upbeat (as you would be owning 800 stores).
"Australians like buying DVDs to build their own movie library. Retail sales of DVDs reached $1.4billion last year. In 1995, it was less than $300million," he said.
Yet, Mr Uniacke said his margins are far bigger when he rents out DVDs. "At best, I get a margin of 20 per cent when I sell a DVD compared to 70 per cent when I rent one out."
"People may say it's a sunset industry but video rentals will continue well into the next decade."
In places where the broadband + streaming services don't offer a better deal, it makes sense that physical discs will stay strong for a while but it doesn't apply everywhere or to everyone.
Apple is a prime example...they compensate with both resolution and bit rate.
Not for long. It seems next gen AppleTV will do 1080p and the software support should follow. Once again, for the best potential example of streaming video, you should judge based on what VuDu is currently offering. Try out their free HDX trailers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You're turning three different quality knobs (resolution, bit rate and transfer) and then generalizing based on your own threshold of acceptable quality. That's fine.
My original comment was simply that the statement that a good 720 image will scale to be equivalent to a good 1080 image is mostly an untrue generalization, even for you 5-10% of the time...more so for other folks.
A good scaler will make a 720p image look pretty good on a 1080 display even at 10-12 feet. But it will be softer. Whether you notice or care or not is a different issue. I would agree that mostly folks don't notice and don't care...especially since most of them, like you, sit a little too far from their TVs anyway. For a 67" display you want to be sitting 9 feet away for 30 degrees HVA. If you're sitting inside 10.5 feet you're within the THX range (26 degrees HVA) and within 11 feet you're inside the SMPTE range (4 picture heights).
These distances represent the very back row in a movie theater. The front seats are between 5 and a half feet (SMPTE) and 7 and a half feet (THX). The reference position is about 8 feet (3 times picture height).
If you like sitting in the middle rows that's more or less the reference position. I think at 8 feet you might notice more image difference than you do at 12 feet. But for a lot of folks, while this is great for a movie theater, it feels a little close for a TV...so sitting at 12 feet is fine. It just isn't quite a movie like experience as much a big TV experience.
I'll take screen size over picture quality almost every time for watching movies. Even SD Netflix movies vs bluray. It's just more immersive that way for me and there are measured physiological reasons for that. Your preference may vary.
You are preaching to the choir here about basic recommendations and theories about home theater. All I can tell you is that you be the judge from you own source material for your own viewing environment. For the sake of the thread discussion, we are not talking about theoretical differences comparing streaming video PQ vs. PQ on the disc, but whether the streaming service is able to reproduce comparable/equivalent PQ of the HD source from the disc. My answer is still yes, with both 1080p & 720p streaming contents at proper bit rate. Vudu is clearly demonstrating now that it is possible to stream full HD experience with 4.5Mbps HDX format offering 1080p HD video and HD audio.
I just hope that more streaming services like iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, and etc. to soon be as capable as Vudu streaming is offering right now. Especially for Amazon. I get $ credit on their streaming service on every bluray purchase.
Encoding H.264 continues gaining more efficiency. Broadband speeds continue to improve. More people are subscribing to streaming content. 1080P streaming will be here soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
Not for long. It seems next gen AppleTV will do 1080p and the software support should follow. Once again, for the best potential example of streaming video, you should judge based on what VuDu is currently offering. Try out their free HDX trailers.
Which is somewhat related to resolution no? You can compute needed resolution if you have pixel density and distance. And of course you can compute pixel density given distance and resolution.
If you use around 3 times picture height as your distance and 60 pixels per degree density ("retina" level) then the result is around 1080 resolution...not around 720 resolution.
And no, we weren't just talking about pixel density but picture quality. You pointed out that a more expensive Sony looked better than a cheapo Dynex. However both have the same pixel density when viewed at the same distance (assuming they are the same size and are both 1080p anyway).
No pixel density is not directly related to resolution. just because two monitors are 1080P does not at all mean they use the same number of pixels to create the picture. This is why just using these numbers just isn't that simple.
I'm not sure why you have so associated pixel density with viewing angle.
Pixel density is the number of pixels that are used to make up the picture. And its variable for different types of LCD panels. Its not directly related to viewing angle, even though more pixels will improve the viewing angel.
It doesn't matter from which angle you are viewing, a monitor with more pixels will produce finer detail and sharper color.
Viewing distance however does make a difference. At a certain point you are sitting so far away that at a point more pixels won't add much improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Which is somewhat related to resolution no? You can compute needed resolution if you have pixel density and distance. And of course you can compute pixel density given distance and resolution.
If you use around 3 times picture height as your distance and 60 pixels per degree density ("retina" level) then the result is around 1080 resolution...not around 720 resolution.
And no, we weren't just talking about pixel density but picture quality. You pointed out that a more expensive Sony looked better than a cheapo Dynex. However both have the same pixel density when viewed at the same distance (assuming they are the same size and are both 1080p anyway).
No pixel density is not directly related to resolution. just because two monitors are 1080P does not at all mean they use the same number of pixels to create the picture. This is why just using these numbers just isn't that simple.
I think you need to think about that statement for a while. Two monitors with same size and the same number of pixels do have the same pixel density...and they have exactly the same number of pixels since 1080P describes how many pixels they have...
Quote:
I'm not sure why you have so associated pixel density with viewing angle.
Because it is an important aspect of pixel density in HDTVs. A 100", 60", 40" 30" 1080p display have the exact same pixel density at a distance of 30 degrees HVA.
Quote:
Pixel density is the number of pixels that are used to make up the picture. And its variable for different types of LCD panels. Its not directly related to viewing angle, even though more pixels will improve the viewing angel.
It is variable for difference sized 1080 LCD panels. At a sub-pixel level the number differs, especially in pattern, for different types (TN, IPS, etc) but there's no difference in the actual number of pixels in any 1080 display. They are all 1920x1080 by definition (ignoring the few oddballs that are the exceptions that prove the rule).
Physical pixel density obviously differs in different panel sizes. A big 1080 panel obviously must have lower pixel density measured in pixels per inch than a smaller panel. But at the same seating distance (in terms of screen height or HVA or whatever) they are all the same number of pixels per degree density. PPD is a more important measure than PPI IMHO because that is the pixel density at the eyeball.
Quote:
It doesn't matter from which angle you are viewing, a monitor with more pixels will produce finer detail and sharper color.
Not angle of viewing but the total angle the image occupies in your field of view. 30 degrees HVA isn't you're sitting 30 degrees off center but that the image occupies 30 degrees of your horizontal field of view.
Why 30 degrees? It induces eye and head movement to focus on different parts of the scene. We have almost 180 degrees (horizontal) field of view but we only really focus on a small part. Move our attention off center a little and the eyeball moves to focus on it. Move it a little more and we naturally turn our head a little to keep our eyeballs at a slightly more comfortable angle. That seems to help us get into the movie illusion more.
When the image is below this rough threshold we can just move our eyeballs to focus on any interesting part of the image. This is apparently less engaging.
So the combination of size of the image on our eyeball and the density of pixels is what makes something "HDTV"...when you transition from a big TV image to a movie-like "home theater" image. Sitting in the right distance in front of a HDTV replicates pretty much the last row in a decent movie theater. Just enough pixel density that more probably doesn't matter and just big enough size to be engaging.
More pixels would be better if you don't like sitting in the back row of a theater.
Quote:
Viewing distance however does make a difference. At a certain point you are sitting so far away that at a point more pixels won't add much improvement.
Which is why optimal, minimum and maximum viewing distances are specified as "30 degrees HVA", "2 times screen height", etc...(actual numbers depends on which spec you use for what distance: min optimal, max).
I think you need to think about that statement for a while. Two monitors with same size and the same number of pixels do have the same pixel density...and they have exactly the same number of pixels since 1080P describes how many pixels they have...
Because it is an important aspect of pixel density in HDTVs. A 100", 60", 40" 30" 1080p display have the exact same pixel density at a distance of 30 degrees HVA.
It is variable for difference sized 1080 LCD panels. At a sub-pixel level the number differs, especially in pattern, for different types (TN, IPS, etc) but there's no difference in the actual number of pixels in any 1080 display. They are all 1920x1080 by definition (ignoring the few oddballs that are the exceptions that prove the rule).
Physical pixel density obviously differs in different panel sizes. A big 1080 panel obviously must have lower pixel density measured in pixels per inch than a smaller panel. But at the same seating distance (in terms of screen height or HVA or whatever) they are all the same number of pixels per degree density. PPD is a more important measure than PPI IMHO because that is the pixel density at the eyeball.
Not angle of viewing but the total angle the image occupies in your field of view. 30 degrees HVA isn't you're sitting 30 degrees off center but that the image occupies 30 degrees of your horizontal field of view.
Why 30 degrees? It induces eye and head movement to focus on different parts of the scene. We have almost 180 degrees (horizontal) field of view but we only really focus on a small part. Move our attention off center a little and the eyeball moves to focus on it. Move it a little more and we naturally turn our head a little to keep our eyeballs at a slightly more comfortable angle. That seems to help us get into the movie illusion more.
When the image is below this rough threshold we can just move our eyeballs to focus on any interesting part of the image. This is apparently less engaging.
So the combination of size of the image on our eyeball and the density of pixels is what makes something "HDTV"...when you transition from a big TV image to a movie-like "home theater" image. Sitting in the right distance in front of a HDTV replicates pretty much the last row in a decent movie theater. Just enough pixel density that more probably doesn't matter and just big enough size to be engaging.
More pixels would be better if you don't like sitting in the back row of a theater.
Which is why optimal, minimum and maximum viewing distances are specified as "30 degrees HVA", "2 times screen height", etc...(actual numbers depends on which spec you use for what distance: min optimal, max).
You're very confused here. Horizontal Viewing Angle (HVA) has nothing to do with pixel density or screen resolution. As you noted in your post, it has to do with horizontal length of the screen size only to enhance movie viewing experience.
It has nothing to do with streaming video content PQ vs. PQ on a bluray disc.
Nope, unable to articulate my point perhaps but not confused.
Quote:
Horizontal Viewing Angle (HVA) has nothing to do with pixel density or screen resolution.
Except it does because it defines the distance you need be at to achieve a desired HVA. You can state this as a desired HVA (30 degrees) or as a function of screen height (2 times). For whatever reason it is specified as 30 degrees for HDTV and screen height by SMPTE and THX.
Distance, screen size and screen resolution gives you final pixel density on the eyeball. Miss any one of these values and you cannot calculate pixel density anymore.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with streaming video content PQ vs. PQ on a bluray disc.
Nope, it doesn't...but this tangent is about the quality of displays not content. The Sony vs Dynex thing.
Content pixel density doesn't mean anything IMHO. It doesn't have a density per se until it gets on the display or on your eyeball. Content has a resolution that is part of the pixel density equation at some point.
Comments
Haha... So, in your world, every 1080p release on BD is tier 0? Nice world of fantasy you live in. I do envy your fanaticism, but placebo effect is something not too reproducible with everyone.
It depends on how you look at it though. If you compare the total streamed content available: Youtube, Netflix, mainstream cable TV etc and compare it to content viewed on a physical disc, streaming vastly outnumbers it.
There is only one way to look at it, the money made from DVD rental is still higher than the money made from streaming rental, that is a fact.
According to an article in USA Today, consumers are even still buying DVDs to play on their Blu-Ray players:
Nothing says consumers are happy with low quality content more than buying SD content even when they own a Blu-Ray player. The main reason given is price, the same issue raised about VOD. Is 1080p worth spending $15 more to get?
That really depends, I purchased three DVD sets in the last week, none of which I could get on Blu-ray, or by digital download. Am I happy about the low quality, no I am not, but since they were mastered in SD, and aren't available on Blu-ray the only choices I had were to buy it on DVD, or not buy it at all.
Now I have chosen not to reply to the rest of your message, as it had nothing in connection to what I replied to in the first place.
There is only one way to look at it, the money made from DVD rental is still higher than the money made from streaming rental, that is a fact.
The thread is about Blu-Ray vs streaming mainly and streaming makes more revenue. Why are you reverting back to using DVD as the benchmark? Also, there's no indication that the revenue measurements include advertising revenue.
It's obvious that DVD makes more just now but the sales have dropped considerably. People aren't going to drop the format quickly though. iTunes took 5 years to displace (not replace) physical CD distribution and it was far easier on the networks.
DVD revenue is at $14b, Blu-Ray $2.3b and digital is $2.5b. If both rise 50% year on year, the combination will surpass DVD in 3 years from now, which is close to the same 5 year music displacement.
I think prices and accessibility (not quality) will determine which gets more uptake.
That really depends, I purchased three DVD sets in the last week, none of which I could get on Blu-ray, or by digital download. Am I happy about the low quality, no I am not, but since they were mastered in SD, and aren't available on Blu-ray the only choices I had were to buy it on DVD, or not buy it at all.
It proves though that there are factors beyond picture quality that influence a buying and distribution decision. It is not the ultimate decider of the most popular format. If it was available as a 720p HD download for a 50% higher price, would you have chosen it or DVD?
Now I have chosen not to reply to the rest of your message, as it had nothing in connection to what I replied to in the first place.
Ok but what is your take on the buy vs rent decision? Streaming is the only option for running TV shows and disposable content. For rental and purchase there is both. You said that you purchased 3 DVD sets, how many times do you reckon you will watch those DVDs? Also, if the Blu-Ray set gets released eventually, will you buy the sets again?
The problem I've personally come across with ownership is that I used to buy DVDs and have a small stack of about 20-30. I very rarely watch them over new content. Adult content is different as it is much more reusable but mainstream content is difficult to watch again and again. I already know who Kaiser Soze is and that Johnny gets Jake and Marjorie Houseman's approval in the end. I forgot what Memento was about though so I might need to watch that again but I'd just rent it.
If purchasing goes down and rental migrates to instant-on streaming, that could spell trouble for the Blu-Ray format as a whole because the revenues won't be enough to sustain the distribution.
You sound surprised. Now, remove animation films from the list and you'll get less than 5% worthy of 1080p.
Bite, I'm truly amazed at your bizarre statement. From my experience with BD I find anything in AVS's tier ranking of 0 -3 is definitely worthy of 1080p. Tier 0 is the cream of the crop but movies in the afore mentioned tiers are superior in picture and sound quality to any other present delivery system.
As I've said before, people should go with what works for them.
Bite, I'm truly amazed at your bizarre statement. From my experience with BD I find anything in AVS's tier ranking of 0 -3 is definitely worthy of 1080p. Tier 0 is the cream of the crop but movies in the afore mentioned tiers are superior in picture and sound quality to any other present delivery system.
As I've said before, people should go with what works for them.
Pulling a sentence out of context does make this bizarre. The particular sentence was led by evaluating potential of HD video format variants as well as evaluating the potential of individual encoding resolution in HD video format.
I think many people reading this thread are confused by 1080p as the only viable HD format and when comparing 1080p vs. any other HD resolution, such as 1080i or 720p, it would automatically trigger a notion of comparing HD vs. SD; hence, the redundant rebuttal based on the incorrect premise.
I do agree with your assessment on the tiers ranking and do agree that tiers 0-2 (in my assessment) is worthy of HD format, based on the format potential. However, the full potential of 1080p format have been rarity as we are aware that how great 1080p can be as demonstrated by the tier 0 ranking, and we just don?t see enough of them. One thing I have learned during my encoding experience in the process of providing my own streaming movie library at home, only those few titles on tier 0 list did benefit from 1080p encodes while 720p encodes did reproduce identical PQ from the original disc for tier 1-5 contents. This is how it was led to the bizarre sentence. BTW, this is based on PQ attributes only, but not on audio offering.
The thread is about Blu-Ray vs streaming mainly and streaming makes more revenue. Why are you reverting back to using DVD as the benchmark? Also, there's no indication that the revenue measurements include advertising revenue.
Because optical is still king.
But the message I replied to stated that more people choose to stream 720p than get 1080p Blu-ray, they don't, the vast majority of streaming is SD or below, nowhere near 720p.
DVD revenue is at $14b, Blu-Ray $2.3b and digital is $2.5b. If both rise 50% year on year, the combination will surpass DVD in 3 years from now, which is close to the same 5 year music displacement.
You have grouped all streaming/VOD into one figure, regardless of the quality, that includes all the SD and below streaming as well.
I think prices and accessibility (not quality) will determine which gets more uptake.
At the moment streaming and VOD is more expensive than DVD and Blu-ray rental, hence the lack of uptake.
It proves though that there are factors beyond picture quality that influence a buying and distribution decision. It is not the ultimate decider of the most popular format. If it was available as a 720p HD download for a 50% higher price, would you have chosen it or DVD?
How would I know if I would get it or not, it isn't available to me in that media, and if it was, how do you know the DVD wouldn't have been cheaper still? It is a unknown answer.
But in saying that, it was mastered in SD, so there is next to no benefit from getting it in 720p. Also, it depends on what provider would be selling it by streaming, if it was a provider that I don't have hardware to play back, then I would still chosen the DVD.
Ok but what is your take on the buy vs rent decision? Streaming is the only option for running TV shows and disposable content. For rental and purchase there is both. You said that you purchased 3 DVD sets, how many times do you reckon you will watch those DVDs? Also, if the Blu-Ray set gets released eventually, will you buy the sets again?
The DVDs will be watched a number of times, by various members of the family. I am lost by why you say streaming is the only option for running TV shows? Are you talking about a current running series?
And regarding repurchasing them on Blu-ray, no I wouldn't get those ones on blu-ray, and of the 300 DVDs I do have I have probably only repurchased around 10 on Blu-ray.
The problem I've personally come across with ownership is that I used to buy DVDs and have a small stack of about 20-30. I very rarely watch them over new content. Adult content is different as it is much more reusable but mainstream content is difficult to watch again and again. I already know who Kaiser Soze is and that Johnny gets Jake and Marjorie Houseman's approval in the end. I forgot what Memento was about though so I might need to watch that again but I'd just rent it.
The thing about purchasing is, it is a personal thing, you either purchase them or you don't, you can assume your viewpoint is the same as everyone elses.
Personally I purchased most of mine when I didn't have easy access to any rental methods, I don't purchase that much of anything these days, and don't rent much until it hits the discount bins.
If purchasing goes down and rental migrates to instant-on streaming, that could spell trouble for the Blu-Ray format as a whole because the revenues won't be enough to sustain the distribution.
It will go down at some point, just like all media formats before it, just like the current streaming methods that exist at the moment, something else will come along
Because optical is still king.
Like I say, you can't displace a popular format overnight.
But the message I replied to stated that more people choose to stream 720p than get 1080p Blu-ray, they don't, the vast majority of streaming is SD or below, nowhere near 720p.
Which surely tells you that those people value convenience over picture quality.
I am lost by why you say streaming is the only option for running TV shows? Are you talking about a current running series?
Yes, streaming is the only viable option for a currently running TV series and I can't think of many TV series where I've watched the episodes more than twice.
And regarding repurchasing them on Blu-ray, no I wouldn't get those ones on blu-ray, and of the 300 DVDs I do have I have probably only repurchased around 10 on Blu-ray.
But how can you be content with SD quality when 1080p will be available for a lot of those movies and series?
The thing about purchasing is, it is a personal thing, you either purchase them or you don't, you can assume your viewpoint is the same as everyone elses.
It's not about viewpoint though, it's about habits that most of us have without realising until some TV comedian points it out. Same goes for built-in optical drives in computers. We think we need them but most of us rarely use them.
Out of the 300DVDs and however many Blu-Ray discs you have, what is the highest watch-rates of those films? I've never in my life seen a single movie more than 5 times and on average my watch-rate for a favourite movie is 3 times.
Personally I purchased most of mine when I didn't have easy access to any rental methods, I don't purchase that much of anything these days, and don't rent much until it hits the discount bins.
That's the trend though. You've moved from purchasing to rentals too.
It will go down at some point, just like all media formats before it, just like the current streaming methods that exist at the moment, something else will come along
I think current streaming methods will evolve but they should be more of the same. I expect the mobile networks to take over eventually so you can get 20MBits streaming anywhere you go. Then you can watch a movie on your phone on the way to the rental store only to find it's closed down.
Which surely tells you that those people value convenience over picture quality.
The is the same in any industry, cheap and nasty always is the winner.
Yes, streaming is the only viable option for a currently running TV series and I can't think of many TV series where I've watched the episodes more than twice.
But it isn't about you
But how can you be content with SD quality when 1080p will be available for a lot of those movies and series?
Because if it is only available in SD and I want to own it, then I only have the choice of getting it in SD regardless of the quality. If they sell some of the series in Blu-ray and I wanted to buy it, then I would get the Blu-ray versions.
It's not about viewpoint though, it's about habits that most of us have without realising until some TV comedian points it out. Same goes for built-in optical drives in computers. We think we need them but most of us rarely use them.
It is about viewpoints, not everyones purchasing habits are the same.
Out of the 300DVDs and however many Blu-Ray discs you have, what is the highest watch-rates of those films? I've never in my life seen a single movie more than 5 times and on average my watch-rate for a favourite movie is 3 times.
It depends, some have been watched once, some have been watched over 10 times, remember you aren't the only consumer in the world.
Also, when I got the majority of my videos it was going to cost me around €4 to rent a movie, or €4 from a discount shop to purchase them, so I would just purchase them.
That's the trend though. You've moved from purchasing to rentals too.
No, that isn't what I said. I used to purchase a lot of movies and rent a few, now I purchase a few, and rent even less, both my purchasing and renting has decreased.
I think current streaming methods will evolve but they should be more of the same. I expect the mobile networks to take over eventually so you can get 20MBits streaming anywhere you go. Then you can watch a movie on your phone on the way to the rental store only to find it's closed down.
Like I said, it is a 4 minute walk to my video store, I wouldn't get much past the opening credits by the time I get there.
There is a reason why Dynex is selling 40" TV's for $480 while Sony's 40" TV's are $1000+. You see the difference in the quality.
Resolution is but one aspect of quality. Not THE most important but still very important to the end goal.
I don't think the streaming service buz will compensate 1080p over the 720p when capable, since it is bigger marketing gimmick.
Apple is a prime example...they compensate with both resolution and bit rate.
I was not intending to claim 720p is better than 1080p for all materials, but we do have about 5 to 10% of released titles on bluray worthy of 1080p contents and I do appreciate and value the efforts of those titles on bluray and streaming. As I have noted in the prior post, one of the critical quality attribute of PQ is how it's mastered and transferred on to a disk. One of the living example is the case of " The Element". The initial release was 1080p garbage compared to the remastered release version.
I just watched Avatar in 3D and was playing around the files in 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p, and 1080p did look better than 480p but not much noticeable with 720p file I've created as MPEG4 from the bluray disk. My assessment may change once the 4K displays are available on 4k contents, but my current assessment with 720p vs. 1080p contents with sufficient bit rate does not seem to produce noticeable differences with 1080p vs. 720p. The 720p content was 6GB and the 1080p versoon was 12GB file with 5.1 audio generated in DVDFab on 67" 1080p screen sitting from 10-12 ft away.
You're turning three different quality knobs (resolution, bit rate and transfer) and then generalizing based on your own threshold of acceptable quality. That's fine.
My original comment was simply that the statement that a good 720 image will scale to be equivalent to a good 1080 image is mostly an untrue generalization, even for you 5-10% of the time...more so for other folks.
A good scaler will make a 720p image look pretty good on a 1080 display even at 10-12 feet. But it will be softer. Whether you notice or care or not is a different issue. I would agree that mostly folks don't notice and don't care...especially since most of them, like you, sit a little too far from their TVs anyway. For a 67" display you want to be sitting 9 feet away for 30 degrees HVA. If you're sitting inside 10.5 feet you're within the THX range (26 degrees HVA) and within 11 feet you're inside the SMPTE range (4 picture heights).
These distances represent the very back row in a movie theater. The front seats are between 5 and a half feet (SMPTE) and 7 and a half feet (THX). The reference position is about 8 feet (3 times picture height).
If you like sitting in the middle rows that's more or less the reference position. I think at 8 feet you might notice more image difference than you do at 12 feet. But for a lot of folks, while this is great for a movie theater, it feels a little close for a TV...so sitting at 12 feet is fine. It just isn't quite a movie like experience as much a big TV experience.
I'll take screen size over picture quality almost every time for watching movies. Even SD Netflix movies vs bluray. It's just more immersive that way for me and there are measured physiological reasons for that. Your preference may vary.
Like I said, it is a 4 minute walk to my video store, I wouldn't get much past the opening credits by the time I get there.
For everyone else who doesn't live within 4 minutes of the store though, they have to get stuff by old-fashioned post or services like Foxtel:
http://www.foxtel.com.au/default.htm
Blockbuster caved in to Video Ezy in Australia and Civic might too or vice versa. The franchise store model means it's up to the owners to individually try and recoup the $300k setup cost. In the heart of a major city, that can be done, especially when there is little to no competing service but not everyone is so conveniently located.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-...d-ending--1678
"The final rental of the evening comes at 7.55 pm. He turns off the lights and closes the door behind him. He's made no more than $200. Not much of a Hollywood ending, but he's had worse Saturday nights."
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1570563
"they don't rent well due to not enough customers having blu-ray players. You do get maybe 1 out of 15 customers renting blu rays, but the true blu-ray fans buy them, including me. i actually get free rentals because i work at video ezy but i still buy my movies from jbhifi."
"my local 'Video Ezy' closed down years ago."
"Our local Video Ezy has gone bust and my son works for a Blockbuster who after making a push to corner the market with a bigger store and expanded stock, is now in administration. Cheap DVD and downloads have killed the video store."
"The Video Ezy store near me closed down about a month ago"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1111119071302
"Just take a look around your local high street, how many small DVD rental shops have closed in the past few months," he warned.
"They are the dinosaur of the industry because they are not prepared to change.
"If they do not get out now, they will lose their homes if the franchise business is secured against their property."
Mr Uniacke, who runs a chain of about 800 Video Ezy and Blockbuster stores, has already felt the cold winds of the global downturn with sales of DVDs remaining flat.
That was in 2009 though he was still upbeat (as you would be owning 800 stores).
"Australians like buying DVDs to build their own movie library. Retail sales of DVDs reached $1.4billion last year. In 1995, it was less than $300million," he said.
Yet, Mr Uniacke said his margins are far bigger when he rents out DVDs. "At best, I get a margin of 20 per cent when I sell a DVD compared to 70 per cent when I rent one out."
"People may say it's a sunset industry but video rentals will continue well into the next decade."
In places where the broadband + streaming services don't offer a better deal, it makes sense that physical discs will stay strong for a while but it doesn't apply everywhere or to everyone.
Apple is a prime example...they compensate with both resolution and bit rate.
Not for long. It seems next gen AppleTV will do 1080p and the software support should follow. Once again, for the best potential example of streaming video, you should judge based on what VuDu is currently offering. Try out their free HDX trailers.
You're turning three different quality knobs (resolution, bit rate and transfer) and then generalizing based on your own threshold of acceptable quality. That's fine.
My original comment was simply that the statement that a good 720 image will scale to be equivalent to a good 1080 image is mostly an untrue generalization, even for you 5-10% of the time...more so for other folks.
A good scaler will make a 720p image look pretty good on a 1080 display even at 10-12 feet. But it will be softer. Whether you notice or care or not is a different issue. I would agree that mostly folks don't notice and don't care...especially since most of them, like you, sit a little too far from their TVs anyway. For a 67" display you want to be sitting 9 feet away for 30 degrees HVA. If you're sitting inside 10.5 feet you're within the THX range (26 degrees HVA) and within 11 feet you're inside the SMPTE range (4 picture heights).
These distances represent the very back row in a movie theater. The front seats are between 5 and a half feet (SMPTE) and 7 and a half feet (THX). The reference position is about 8 feet (3 times picture height).
If you like sitting in the middle rows that's more or less the reference position. I think at 8 feet you might notice more image difference than you do at 12 feet. But for a lot of folks, while this is great for a movie theater, it feels a little close for a TV...so sitting at 12 feet is fine. It just isn't quite a movie like experience as much a big TV experience.
I'll take screen size over picture quality almost every time for watching movies. Even SD Netflix movies vs bluray. It's just more immersive that way for me and there are measured physiological reasons for that. Your preference may vary.
You are preaching to the choir here about basic recommendations and theories about home theater. All I can tell you is that you be the judge from you own source material for your own viewing environment. For the sake of the thread discussion, we are not talking about theoretical differences comparing streaming video PQ vs. PQ on the disc, but whether the streaming service is able to reproduce comparable/equivalent PQ of the HD source from the disc. My answer is still yes, with both 1080p & 720p streaming contents at proper bit rate. Vudu is clearly demonstrating now that it is possible to stream full HD experience with 4.5Mbps HDX format offering 1080p HD video and HD audio.
I just hope that more streaming services like iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, and etc. to soon be as capable as Vudu streaming is offering right now. Especially for Amazon. I get $ credit on their streaming service on every bluray purchase.
Resolution is but one aspect of quality. Not THE most important but still very important to the end goal.
Not for long. It seems next gen AppleTV will do 1080p and the software support should follow. Once again, for the best potential example of streaming video, you should judge based on what VuDu is currently offering. Try out their free HDX trailers.
We were talking about pixel density.
Which is somewhat related to resolution no? You can compute needed resolution if you have pixel density and distance. And of course you can compute pixel density given distance and resolution.
If you use around 3 times picture height as your distance and 60 pixels per degree density ("retina" level) then the result is around 1080 resolution...not around 720 resolution.
And no, we weren't just talking about pixel density but picture quality. You pointed out that a more expensive Sony looked better than a cheapo Dynex. However both have the same pixel density when viewed at the same distance (assuming they are the same size and are both 1080p anyway).
I'm not sure why you have so associated pixel density with viewing angle.
Pixel density is the number of pixels that are used to make up the picture. And its variable for different types of LCD panels. Its not directly related to viewing angle, even though more pixels will improve the viewing angel.
It doesn't matter from which angle you are viewing, a monitor with more pixels will produce finer detail and sharper color.
Viewing distance however does make a difference. At a certain point you are sitting so far away that at a point more pixels won't add much improvement.
Which is somewhat related to resolution no? You can compute needed resolution if you have pixel density and distance. And of course you can compute pixel density given distance and resolution.
If you use around 3 times picture height as your distance and 60 pixels per degree density ("retina" level) then the result is around 1080 resolution...not around 720 resolution.
And no, we weren't just talking about pixel density but picture quality. You pointed out that a more expensive Sony looked better than a cheapo Dynex. However both have the same pixel density when viewed at the same distance (assuming they are the same size and are both 1080p anyway).
For everyone else who doesn't live within 4 minutes of the store though, they have to get stuff by old-fashioned post or services like Foxtel:
I don't live in Australia.
No pixel density is not directly related to resolution. just because two monitors are 1080P does not at all mean they use the same number of pixels to create the picture. This is why just using these numbers just isn't that simple.
I think you need to think about that statement for a while. Two monitors with same size and the same number of pixels do have the same pixel density...and they have exactly the same number of pixels since 1080P describes how many pixels they have...
I'm not sure why you have so associated pixel density with viewing angle.
Because it is an important aspect of pixel density in HDTVs. A 100", 60", 40" 30" 1080p display have the exact same pixel density at a distance of 30 degrees HVA.
Pixel density is the number of pixels that are used to make up the picture. And its variable for different types of LCD panels. Its not directly related to viewing angle, even though more pixels will improve the viewing angel.
It is variable for difference sized 1080 LCD panels. At a sub-pixel level the number differs, especially in pattern, for different types (TN, IPS, etc) but there's no difference in the actual number of pixels in any 1080 display. They are all 1920x1080 by definition (ignoring the few oddballs that are the exceptions that prove the rule).
Physical pixel density obviously differs in different panel sizes. A big 1080 panel obviously must have lower pixel density measured in pixels per inch than a smaller panel. But at the same seating distance (in terms of screen height or HVA or whatever) they are all the same number of pixels per degree density. PPD is a more important measure than PPI IMHO because that is the pixel density at the eyeball.
It doesn't matter from which angle you are viewing, a monitor with more pixels will produce finer detail and sharper color.
Not angle of viewing but the total angle the image occupies in your field of view. 30 degrees HVA isn't you're sitting 30 degrees off center but that the image occupies 30 degrees of your horizontal field of view.
Why 30 degrees? It induces eye and head movement to focus on different parts of the scene. We have almost 180 degrees (horizontal) field of view but we only really focus on a small part. Move our attention off center a little and the eyeball moves to focus on it. Move it a little more and we naturally turn our head a little to keep our eyeballs at a slightly more comfortable angle. That seems to help us get into the movie illusion more.
When the image is below this rough threshold we can just move our eyeballs to focus on any interesting part of the image. This is apparently less engaging.
So the combination of size of the image on our eyeball and the density of pixels is what makes something "HDTV"...when you transition from a big TV image to a movie-like "home theater" image. Sitting in the right distance in front of a HDTV replicates pretty much the last row in a decent movie theater. Just enough pixel density that more probably doesn't matter and just big enough size to be engaging.
More pixels would be better if you don't like sitting in the back row of a theater.
Viewing distance however does make a difference. At a certain point you are sitting so far away that at a point more pixels won't add much improvement.
Which is why optimal, minimum and maximum viewing distances are specified as "30 degrees HVA", "2 times screen height", etc...(actual numbers depends on which spec you use for what distance: min optimal, max).
I think you need to think about that statement for a while. Two monitors with same size and the same number of pixels do have the same pixel density...and they have exactly the same number of pixels since 1080P describes how many pixels they have...
Because it is an important aspect of pixel density in HDTVs. A 100", 60", 40" 30" 1080p display have the exact same pixel density at a distance of 30 degrees HVA.
It is variable for difference sized 1080 LCD panels. At a sub-pixel level the number differs, especially in pattern, for different types (TN, IPS, etc) but there's no difference in the actual number of pixels in any 1080 display. They are all 1920x1080 by definition (ignoring the few oddballs that are the exceptions that prove the rule).
Physical pixel density obviously differs in different panel sizes. A big 1080 panel obviously must have lower pixel density measured in pixels per inch than a smaller panel. But at the same seating distance (in terms of screen height or HVA or whatever) they are all the same number of pixels per degree density. PPD is a more important measure than PPI IMHO because that is the pixel density at the eyeball.
Not angle of viewing but the total angle the image occupies in your field of view. 30 degrees HVA isn't you're sitting 30 degrees off center but that the image occupies 30 degrees of your horizontal field of view.
Why 30 degrees? It induces eye and head movement to focus on different parts of the scene. We have almost 180 degrees (horizontal) field of view but we only really focus on a small part. Move our attention off center a little and the eyeball moves to focus on it. Move it a little more and we naturally turn our head a little to keep our eyeballs at a slightly more comfortable angle. That seems to help us get into the movie illusion more.
When the image is below this rough threshold we can just move our eyeballs to focus on any interesting part of the image. This is apparently less engaging.
So the combination of size of the image on our eyeball and the density of pixels is what makes something "HDTV"...when you transition from a big TV image to a movie-like "home theater" image. Sitting in the right distance in front of a HDTV replicates pretty much the last row in a decent movie theater. Just enough pixel density that more probably doesn't matter and just big enough size to be engaging.
More pixels would be better if you don't like sitting in the back row of a theater.
Which is why optimal, minimum and maximum viewing distances are specified as "30 degrees HVA", "2 times screen height", etc...(actual numbers depends on which spec you use for what distance: min optimal, max).
You're very confused here. Horizontal Viewing Angle (HVA) has nothing to do with pixel density or screen resolution. As you noted in your post, it has to do with horizontal length of the screen size only to enhance movie viewing experience.
It has nothing to do with streaming video content PQ vs. PQ on a bluray disc.
You're very confused here.
Nope, unable to articulate my point perhaps but not confused.
Horizontal Viewing Angle (HVA) has nothing to do with pixel density or screen resolution.
Except it does because it defines the distance you need be at to achieve a desired HVA. You can state this as a desired HVA (30 degrees) or as a function of screen height (2 times). For whatever reason it is specified as 30 degrees for HDTV and screen height by SMPTE and THX.
Distance, screen size and screen resolution gives you final pixel density on the eyeball. Miss any one of these values and you cannot calculate pixel density anymore.
It has nothing to do with streaming video content PQ vs. PQ on a bluray disc.
Nope, it doesn't...but this tangent is about the quality of displays not content. The Sony vs Dynex thing.
Content pixel density doesn't mean anything IMHO. It doesn't have a density per se until it gets on the display or on your eyeball. Content has a resolution that is part of the pixel density equation at some point.