720p is common for most users. Not many people are rich enought to own 1080p resolution TV's. Anyway 720p is enough for home use unless your house is soo freaking huge that you very very very farrrr from your TV, besides imagine how big the movie size goin to be if Apple offer it in 1080p resolution.
You guys do not speak for all owners and viewers that is for sure!
On a 52" lcd 720p WOULD SUCK!!!!!!!!
1080p IS NOT A MARKETING GIMMICK!!!!
Just go to your local best buy and look at any 720p signal on a large screen vs a 1080p signal. Why the hell do you think blu-ray and hd-dvd are battling it out over who gets your money???
I'm sure as hell not going to run a 720p movie on a 1080p 52" lcd thats for dang sure!
If you want to waste your money on a 1368x768 based tv screen you all go right ahead.
At Bestbuy you can walk right up and look at the screen from 12" away of you like (be careful or you can experience eyeball chafing). That's not a realistic way to decide which TV to buy. The point some are trying to make here is that at optimal viewing distance, you'd need a very large screen to truly note and appreciate the differences between the two resolutions.
No one is saying you *shouldn't* go ahead and buy a 1080p set. If you're that hung up on it then go ahead. If you don't then regardless of what quality the picture has you'll always be worrying that "you're missing out" on something that depending on several factors may, or may not, be noticeable.
You guys do not speak for all owners and viewers that is for sure!
On a 52" lcd 720p WOULD SUCK!!!!!!!!
1080p IS NOT A MARKETING GIMMICK!!!!
Just go to your local best buy and look at any 720p signal on a large screen vs a 1080p signal. Why the hell do you think blu-ray and hd-dvd are battling it out over who gets your money???
I'm sure as hell not going to run a 720p movie on a 1080p 52" lcd thats for dang sure!
If you want to waste your money on a 1368x768 based tv screen you all go right ahead.
Perhaps, you can do a little experiment to convince yourself.
Hook up mac/pc/appleTV to your 52" 1080p TV. Then download 720p & 1080p movie trailer of a same movie. Play them back to back in full screen mode and see if you can tell the difference from your viewing distance.
Currently, 1080p is marketing gimmick, because only about 15 to 20% of all the BD & HD-DVD title releases come with 1080p worthy transfer. If you go visit these review sites for BD & HD releases, only few gets the top PQ transfer scores, for now.
You just have to remember that not all 1080p material equal to 1080p worthy material.
Olternaut, I think you just need to learn how to chill out.
It was pretty clear - long before the keynote - that with your spastic desire to see the keynote live on the web and almost uncontrolable excitement, that you would be bitterly disappointed with virtually any keynote address.
Take a deep breath, try to think realistically, and realize that its all OK. Apple is niether the greatest thing ever (pre keynote) nor a bottomless pit of suck (post keynote).
The thing that sucks about 720p is that eventually there will be 1080p movies and a 1080p
apple TV and you will have to buy everything all over again when 1080p comes out.
To me this is crippleware. Sell it at 720p and the sell it at 1080p. Lame
720p is pretty good resolution for online delivery. I think that 1080p online delivery is further into the future than we need to worry about currently. If Netflix' upped their online delivery to that resolution and introduced a Mac friendly model, aTV would have some serious problems. As it is, Apple's choice is understandable.
For more than a year now, many flat panel manufacturers are advertising 1080p displays as "Full HD." This is a marketing term and means nothing as far as standard HD is concerned. The ATSC defines high-definition (16:9 1080i/720p), extended definition (480p), and standard definition (480i). There are no degrees of high-definition.
But there should be degrees of HD. 1080p is higher quality than 720p - the majority won't notice concerning movies but if you try and use an HD display with a computer like a Mac Mini, 1920x1080 is far better than 1280x720. The latter isn't even Macbook resolution.
With a true HD display, you could use it as both a computer display and an HD TV like so:
Olternaut, I think you just need to learn how to chill out.
It was pretty clear - long before the keynote - that with your spastic desire to see the keynote live on the web and almost uncontrolable excitement, that you would be bitterly disappointed with virtually any keynote address.
Take a deep breath, try to think realistically, and realize that its all OK. Apple is niether the greatest thing ever (pre keynote) nor a bottomless pit of suck (post keynote).
Your reason and logic are no match for his emotion.
Forget it. Let him get it out of his system. Eventually he'll feel better, just like after a big shit that needed to be relieved.
For the digital projection of movies, there are 2k and 4k (which refer to the number of horizontal pixels. However, digital cinema projectors are very expensive. Level 2 and Level 3 digital projection have 1080 vertical pixels, just like 1080p consumer HDTV sets. Level 1 doubles that to 2160. If 1080p is good enough for the silver screen in a commercial movie theater, then it is more than adequate for the TV at home.
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.
16:9 720p60 is not called HD, it is HD. HD comes in two primary flavors:
16:9 720p60
16:9 1080i60
There are two secondary flavors:
16:9 1080p30
16:9 1080p24
The number of pixels/second displayed by 720p content is about 80% of the number of pixels/second displayed by 1080i60. However, the amount of data that you see at 720p may actually be greater because 1080i providers are more likely to cheat on the specifications.
Sports channels tend to use the 720p standard because 720p is superior for fast moving action. This is why ESPN/ABC and Fox chose 720p over 1080i.
All flat-panels display progressive scans, irrespective of the source. If the source is 1080i or 480i, then the monitor buffers the first half-frame, interlaces it internally, and then progressively displays the interlaced full frame.
For more than a year now, many flat panel manufacturers are advertising 1080p displays as "Full HD." This is a marketing term and means nothing as far as standard HD is concerned. The ATSC defines high-definition (16:9 1080i/720p), extended definition (480p), and standard definition (480i). There are no degrees of high-definition.
The biggest improvement in your picture comes from the switch from analog to digital. Even digital 480i content looks great because images are of uniform quality irrespective of signal strength and have no multi-path reflections (ghosts). Going up to 480p takes you to DVD quality, but it is not as much of an improvement over 480i as 480i digital is over analog. 720p high-definition is spectacular. 1080i high-definition is also spectacular. However, it often takes a keen eye to distinguish high-definition from progressive-scan DVD or 480p.
Post Script: Most HDTV sets advertised as "Full HD" have astonishingly beautiful pictures. This is due to a number of factors. However, they can be summarized as superb engineering. Rather than explain all of the engineering that goes into the sets, their manufacturers advertise them simply as "1080P."
Poppycock. Here goes the "It can't be better than mine because everybody else is cheating" conspiracy. Give me a break.
Move over audiophiles, golden-ear arguments will have to share center rink nowadays with golden-eye arguments.
I'm of the mindset that 1080i/1080p/720p is indiscernible to most people at their normal viewing distance. But human senses are vastly different. Even our brains hooked up those sensory organs are quite different.
There are definitely people that can tell the difference. But I'd also bet that most of the people that claim to be able to, are actually experiencing placebo effect. Even me, a self-proclaimed audiophile, had my world shattered recently after A/Bing 128 and 256 kbps aac files. Tens of thousands of dollars of audio gear... and I couldn't reliably discern one from another.
Move over audiophiles, golden-ear arguments will have to share center rink nowadays with golden-eye arguments.
I'm of the mindset that 1080i/1080p/720p is indiscernible to most people at their normal viewing distance. But human senses are vastly different. Even our brains hooked up those sensory organs are quite different.
There are definitely people that can tell the difference. But I'd also bet that most of the people that claim to be able to, are actually experiencing placebo effect. Even me, a self-proclaimed audiophile, had my world shattered recently after A/Bing 128 and 256 kbps aac files. Tens of thousands of dollars of audio gear... and I couldn't reliably discern one from another.
Correct and some people need to go over to CNET and read about the factors that make up PICTURE QUALITY. Hint, its not all about the screen resolution.
That's why 720p sets can and do rate as high or higher than 1080p sets.
Poppycock. Here goes the "It can't be better than mine because everybody else is cheating" conspiracy. ...
You are reading way more into my post than I wrote. In act, I own a 1080p Sharp Aquos HDTV. I love it, but my love it for it is not blind. The fact is that some broadcasters cheat. There is no doubt about this. This does not mean that all broadcasters cheat. Understanding why some cheat will help you to understand the technology and its limitations.
Correct and some people need to go over to CNET and read about the factors that make up PICTURE QUALITY. Hint, its not all about the screen resolution.
That's why 720p sets can and do rate as high or higher than 1080p sets.
I agree. The most irritating aspect of h264 encoded material is visible macroblocks. Just watch the smooth background areas behind the actor - and you'll suddenly find it immensely distracting.
You can keep 1080p , but these color quantization errors are nasty.
You are reading way more into my post than I wrote. In act, I own a 1080p Sharp Aquos HDTV. I love it, but my love it for it is not blind. The fact is that some broadcasters cheat. There is no doubt about this. This does not mean that all broadcasters cheat. Understanding why some cheat will help you to understand the technology and its limitations.
Actually I thought when you said providers you meant TV providers / Like the manufacturers are cheating the specs on the sets. I didn't know you were talking about broadcasters.
When I was waiting in line at the Apple store for the iPhone; they wanted to interview me for our local news in HD. The freelance camera man had an HD broadcast unit on his dinky little camera, but it wasn't an HD camera, just an HD broadcast unit. I was suspicious of that so I asked him about it, and he ignored me after that.
Comments
On a 52" lcd 720p WOULD SUCK!!!!!!!!
1080p IS NOT A MARKETING GIMMICK!!!!
Just go to your local best buy and look at any 720p signal on a large screen vs a 1080p signal. Why the hell do you think blu-ray and hd-dvd are battling it out over who gets your money???
I'm sure as hell not going to run a 720p movie on a 1080p 52" lcd thats for dang sure!
If you want to waste your money on a 1368x768 based tv screen you all go right ahead.
No one is saying you *shouldn't* go ahead and buy a 1080p set. If you're that hung up on it then go ahead. If you don't then regardless of what quality the picture has you'll always be worrying that "you're missing out" on something that depending on several factors may, or may not, be noticeable.
You guys do not speak for all owners and viewers that is for sure!
On a 52" lcd 720p WOULD SUCK!!!!!!!!
1080p IS NOT A MARKETING GIMMICK!!!!
Just go to your local best buy and look at any 720p signal on a large screen vs a 1080p signal. Why the hell do you think blu-ray and hd-dvd are battling it out over who gets your money???
I'm sure as hell not going to run a 720p movie on a 1080p 52" lcd thats for dang sure!
If you want to waste your money on a 1368x768 based tv screen you all go right ahead.
Perhaps, you can do a little experiment to convince yourself.
Hook up mac/pc/appleTV to your 52" 1080p TV. Then download 720p & 1080p movie trailer of a same movie. Play them back to back in full screen mode and see if you can tell the difference from your viewing distance.
Currently, 1080p is marketing gimmick, because only about 15 to 20% of all the BD & HD-DVD title releases come with 1080p worthy transfer. If you go visit these review sites for BD & HD releases, only few gets the top PQ transfer scores, for now.
You just have to remember that not all 1080p material equal to 1080p worthy material.
apple TV and you will have to buy everything all over again when 1080p comes out.
To me this is crippleware. Sell it at 720p and the sell it at 1080p. Lame
It was pretty clear - long before the keynote - that with your spastic desire to see the keynote live on the web and almost uncontrolable excitement, that you would be bitterly disappointed with virtually any keynote address.
Take a deep breath, try to think realistically, and realize that its all OK. Apple is niether the greatest thing ever (pre keynote) nor a bottomless pit of suck (post keynote).
The thing that sucks about 720p is that eventually there will be 1080p movies and a 1080p
apple TV and you will have to buy everything all over again when 1080p comes out.
To me this is crippleware. Sell it at 720p and the sell it at 1080p. Lame
720p is pretty good resolution for online delivery. I think that 1080p online delivery is further into the future than we need to worry about currently. If Netflix' upped their online delivery to that resolution and introduced a Mac friendly model, aTV would have some serious problems. As it is, Apple's choice is understandable.
For more than a year now, many flat panel manufacturers are advertising 1080p displays as "Full HD." This is a marketing term and means nothing as far as standard HD is concerned. The ATSC defines high-definition (16:9 1080i/720p), extended definition (480p), and standard definition (480i). There are no degrees of high-definition.
But there should be degrees of HD. 1080p is higher quality than 720p - the majority won't notice concerning movies but if you try and use an HD display with a computer like a Mac Mini, 1920x1080 is far better than 1280x720. The latter isn't even Macbook resolution.
With a true HD display, you could use it as both a computer display and an HD TV like so:
http://lifehacker.com/software/featu...ini-158677.php
Olternaut, I think you just need to learn how to chill out.
It was pretty clear - long before the keynote - that with your spastic desire to see the keynote live on the web and almost uncontrolable excitement, that you would be bitterly disappointed with virtually any keynote address.
Take a deep breath, try to think realistically, and realize that its all OK. Apple is niether the greatest thing ever (pre keynote) nor a bottomless pit of suck (post keynote).
Your reason and logic are no match for his emotion.
Forget it. Let him get it out of his system. Eventually he'll feel better, just like after a big shit that needed to be relieved.
But there should be degrees of HD. ...
For the digital projection of movies, there are 2k and 4k (which refer to the number of horizontal pixels. However, digital cinema projectors are very expensive. Level 2 and Level 3 digital projection have 1080 vertical pixels, just like 1080p consumer HDTV sets. Level 1 doubles that to 2160. If 1080p is good enough for the silver screen in a commercial movie theater, then it is more than adequate for the TV at home.
When you sit 12 feet away from a 50" screen, No one can tell the difference!
Not with the best eyesight in the world.
C.
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.
16:9 720p60 is not called HD, it is HD. HD comes in two primary flavors:
16:9 720p60
16:9 1080i60
There are two secondary flavors:
16:9 1080p30
16:9 1080p24
The number of pixels/second displayed by 720p content is about 80% of the number of pixels/second displayed by 1080i60. However, the amount of data that you see at 720p may actually be greater because 1080i providers are more likely to cheat on the specifications.
Sports channels tend to use the 720p standard because 720p is superior for fast moving action. This is why ESPN/ABC and Fox chose 720p over 1080i.
All flat-panels display progressive scans, irrespective of the source. If the source is 1080i or 480i, then the monitor buffers the first half-frame, interlaces it internally, and then progressively displays the interlaced full frame.
For more than a year now, many flat panel manufacturers are advertising 1080p displays as "Full HD." This is a marketing term and means nothing as far as standard HD is concerned. The ATSC defines high-definition (16:9 1080i/720p), extended definition (480p), and standard definition (480i). There are no degrees of high-definition.
The biggest improvement in your picture comes from the switch from analog to digital. Even digital 480i content looks great because images are of uniform quality irrespective of signal strength and have no multi-path reflections (ghosts). Going up to 480p takes you to DVD quality, but it is not as much of an improvement over 480i as 480i digital is over analog. 720p high-definition is spectacular. 1080i high-definition is also spectacular. However, it often takes a keen eye to distinguish high-definition from progressive-scan DVD or 480p.
Post Script: Most HDTV sets advertised as "Full HD" have astonishingly beautiful pictures. This is due to a number of factors. However, they can be summarized as superb engineering. Rather than explain all of the engineering that goes into the sets, their manufacturers advertise them simply as "1080P."
Poppycock. Here goes the "It can't be better than mine because everybody else is cheating" conspiracy. Give me a break.
I'm of the mindset that 1080i/1080p/720p is indiscernible to most people at their normal viewing distance. But human senses are vastly different. Even our brains hooked up those sensory organs are quite different.
There are definitely people that can tell the difference. But I'd also bet that most of the people that claim to be able to, are actually experiencing placebo effect. Even me, a self-proclaimed audiophile, had my world shattered recently after A/Bing 128 and 256 kbps aac files. Tens of thousands of dollars of audio gear... and I couldn't reliably discern one from another.
Move over audiophiles, golden-ear arguments will have to share center rink nowadays with golden-eye arguments.
I'm of the mindset that 1080i/1080p/720p is indiscernible to most people at their normal viewing distance. But human senses are vastly different. Even our brains hooked up those sensory organs are quite different.
There are definitely people that can tell the difference. But I'd also bet that most of the people that claim to be able to, are actually experiencing placebo effect. Even me, a self-proclaimed audiophile, had my world shattered recently after A/Bing 128 and 256 kbps aac files. Tens of thousands of dollars of audio gear... and I couldn't reliably discern one from another.
Correct and some people need to go over to CNET and read about the factors that make up PICTURE QUALITY. Hint, its not all about the screen resolution.
That's why 720p sets can and do rate as high or higher than 1080p sets.
Poppycock. Here goes the "It can't be better than mine because everybody else is cheating" conspiracy. ...
You are reading way more into my post than I wrote. In act, I own a 1080p Sharp Aquos HDTV. I love it, but my love it for it is not blind. The fact is that some broadcasters cheat. There is no doubt about this. This does not mean that all broadcasters cheat. Understanding why some cheat will help you to understand the technology and its limitations.
Correct and some people need to go over to CNET and read about the factors that make up PICTURE QUALITY. Hint, its not all about the screen resolution.
That's why 720p sets can and do rate as high or higher than 1080p sets.
I agree. The most irritating aspect of h264 encoded material is visible macroblocks. Just watch the smooth background areas behind the actor - and you'll suddenly find it immensely distracting.
You can keep 1080p , but these color quantization errors are nasty.
C.
You are reading way more into my post than I wrote. In act, I own a 1080p Sharp Aquos HDTV. I love it, but my love it for it is not blind. The fact is that some broadcasters cheat. There is no doubt about this. This does not mean that all broadcasters cheat. Understanding why some cheat will help you to understand the technology and its limitations.
Actually I thought when you said providers you meant TV providers / Like the manufacturers are cheating the specs on the sets. I didn't know you were talking about broadcasters.
When I was waiting in line at the Apple store for the iPhone; they wanted to interview me for our local news in HD. The freelance camera man had an HD broadcast unit on his dinky little camera, but it wasn't an HD camera, just an HD broadcast unit. I was suspicious of that so I asked him about it, and he ignored me after that.