Maybe the reason why those 3 picked 720p is because of the content they show: fast moving action (mostly sports). A 1080i signal, even though it has the slightly sharper appearance, has more trouble with that type of movement.
I agree pixel-by-pixel, a 1080p set would scale 1080i way better. But with my naked eye, looking at a 1080i source going into a 1080p plasma and the 720p Pioneer, I saw no difference. In fact the Pioneer had a better picture.
Count the rest of the world too...not too many people around here have 10GigE links to PAIX or SIX...
The refresh of AppleTV should also get a beefed-up CPU or something to offload the video decode on hardware if it does get a HD media player...and you get your 1080p capability.
What's the size of the sets, and from what distance are you viewing?
While 1080p is overly data intensive for most US broadband, it shouldn't require 3 times the data as 720p. Assuming 1.5GB for iTune's current format, 1080p would be about 10GB. That's assuming the same amount of encoded bits per pixel, but I think that overestimates the file size necessary.
Oops, thanks for correcting my poor math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronster
I agree pixel-by-pixel, a 1080p set would scale 1080i way better. But with my naked eye, looking at a 1080i source going into a 1080p plasma and the 720p Pioneer, I saw no difference. In fact the Pioneer had a better picture.
It really depends on the contents and display used. Because most movies shot on films have "soft" look, even standard DVD titles (in 480p glory) do not fare that badly against 1080p (HD DVD/Blu-Ray).
Where 1080p makes more dramatic impression are contents filled with significant discernible details, video-based contents (e.g., sports and news), video games, doubling it as a computer display, and for photos.
Also, you can't compare superior 720p display against inferior 1080p display. Depending on the viewing distance, 720p can be plenty high def. On the other hand, larger 720p set or closer viewing distance can reveal pixelated look not apparent on 1080p. And finally, there's more to image quality than mere resolution. Factors such as calibration accuracy, viewing angle, black level, etc. all play significant role in delivering high quality image.
All things being equal, particularly given marginal price difference ($200-300 US in most cases), I don't see why one would purchase 720p over 1080p. And one year from now, you may not have much choice. Most new sets 40" or larger are 1080p.
Comments
Maybe the reason why those 3 picked 720p is because of the content they show: fast moving action (mostly sports). A 1080i signal, even though it has the slightly sharper appearance, has more trouble with that type of movement.
I agree pixel-by-pixel, a 1080p set would scale 1080i way better. But with my naked eye, looking at a 1080i source going into a 1080p plasma and the 720p Pioneer, I saw no difference. In fact the Pioneer had a better picture.
Count the rest of the world too...not too many people around here have 10GigE links to PAIX or SIX...
The refresh of AppleTV should also get a beefed-up CPU or something to offload the video decode on hardware if it does get a HD media player...and you get your 1080p capability.
What's the size of the sets, and from what distance are you viewing?
While 1080p is overly data intensive for most US broadband, it shouldn't require 3 times the data as 720p. Assuming 1.5GB for iTune's current format, 1080p would be about 10GB. That's assuming the same amount of encoded bits per pixel, but I think that overestimates the file size necessary.
Oops, thanks for correcting my poor math.
I agree pixel-by-pixel, a 1080p set would scale 1080i way better. But with my naked eye, looking at a 1080i source going into a 1080p plasma and the 720p Pioneer, I saw no difference. In fact the Pioneer had a better picture.
It really depends on the contents and display used. Because most movies shot on films have "soft" look, even standard DVD titles (in 480p glory) do not fare that badly against 1080p (HD DVD/Blu-Ray).
Where 1080p makes more dramatic impression are contents filled with significant discernible details, video-based contents (e.g., sports and news), video games, doubling it as a computer display, and for photos.
Also, you can't compare superior 720p display against inferior 1080p display. Depending on the viewing distance, 720p can be plenty high def. On the other hand, larger 720p set or closer viewing distance can reveal pixelated look not apparent on 1080p. And finally, there's more to image quality than mere resolution. Factors such as calibration accuracy, viewing angle, black level, etc. all play significant role in delivering high quality image.
All things being equal, particularly given marginal price difference ($200-300 US in most cases), I don't see why one would purchase 720p over 1080p. And one year from now, you may not have much choice. Most new sets 40" or larger are 1080p.