1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

Posted by Carlton Bale on November 15th, 2006

I've read various articles debating the importance of the 1080p. I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p (and even 1440p.) Why? Because the 1080p resolution is the first to deliver enough detail to your eyeball when you are seated at the proper distance from the screen. But don't just take my word for it: read on for the proof.

There are a few obvious factors to being able to detect resolution differences: the resolution of the screen, the size of the screen, and the viewing distance. To be able to detect differences between resolutions, the screen must be large enough and you must sit close enough. So the question becomes "How do I know if need a higher resolution or not?". Here is your answer.

Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc), it is possible to estimate when the differences between resolutions will become apparent. Using the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet as a base, I created a chart showing, for any given screen size, how close you need to sit to be able to detect some or all of the benefits of a higher resolution screen. (Click the picture below for a larger version.)

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.

However, front projectors and rear projection displays are a different story. They make it very easy to obtain large screen sizes. Plus, LCD and Plasma displays are constantly getting larger and less expensive. In my home, for example, I have a 123-inch screen and a projector with a 1280×720 resolution. For a 123-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p starts to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 36 feet (14 feet behind my back wall) and become fully apparent at 24 feet (2 feet behind my back wall). For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 24 feet and become full apparent at 16 feet (just between the first and second row of seating in my theater). This means that people in the back row of my home theater would see some improvement if I purchased a 1080p projector and that people in the front row would notice a drastic improvement. (Note: the THX recommended max viewing distance for a 123" screen is 13.7 feet).

So, how close should you be sitting to your TV? Obviously, you need to look at your room and see what makes sense for how you will be using it. If you have a dedicated viewing room and can place seating anywhere you want, you can use this chart as a guideline. It's based on THX and SMPTE specifications for movie theaters; the details are available in the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet.

Looking at this chart, it is apparent that 1080p is the lowest resolution to fall within the recommended seating distance range. Any resolution less than 1080p is not detailed enough if you are sitting the proper distance from the screen. For me and many people with large projection screens, 1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want.

In fact, you could probably even benefit from 1440p. If you haven't heard of 1440p, you will. Here's a link to some info on Audioholics.com. It is part of the HDMI 1.3 spec, along with 48-bit color depth, and will probably surface for the public in 2009 or so. You'll partially be able to see the benefits of 1440p at the THX Max Recommended viewing distance and the resolution benefits will be fully apparent if you are just a little closer. I've read of plans for resolutions reaching 2160p but I don't see any benefit; you'd have to sit too darn close to the screen to notice any improvement. If you sit too close, you can't see the far edges of the screen.

In conclusion: If you are a videophile with a properly setup viewing room, you should definitely be able to notice the resolution enhancement that 1080p brings. However, if you are an average consumer with a plasma on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be sitting close enough to notice any advantage. Check the chart above and use that to make your decision. Also, the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Resolution is 4th on the list and plasma is generally superior to LCD in all of the other areas (but much more prone to reflections/glare.) So pick your display size, then measure your seating distance, and then use the charts above to figure out if you would benefit from the larger screen size.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006 at 5:20 pm and is filed under Home Theater. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Print This Post Trackback Address for this EntryRSS Feed for Entry Comments

« Commentary on the Cnet "1080p Isn't Important" Article

1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution) - Greek Translation »

254 Responses to “1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)”

Georg Says:
December 9th, 2006 at 2:53 am
What is this chart based on?

Testing it on my Laptop with a display that is the equivalent of a 1080p screen I can spot a single pixel from roughly twice the distance suggested in this chart. And my sight is pretty bad. Movie images usually are of a different nature but the article is talking about the ability of the human eye and that seams to be much higher to me.
Gerald.d Says:
December 9th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Great work Carlton. Much appreciated.

Georg - I believe the basis here is not the ability to see a single pixel, but the ability to resolve two.
smokeonit Says:
December 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
i don't get it, how can a 480p picture be better from further away than 1080i or 720p???????? can it be that the figures are inadvertently inverted? in my logic a 1080i/p should be better from further away than a 480i/p, no? and the closer one gets to the screen the better the higher rez pic get, no??? the graph suggest the exact opposite…., @ least to me and my logic…
Carlton Bale Says:
December 9th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
smokeonit Says:
i don’t get it, how can a 480p picture be better from further away than 1080i or 720p???????? can it be that the figures are inadvertently inverted?

The idea is not that 480p is better than 1080p a great viewing distances, but rather that the two are equivalent. When you're sitting really far away, you are unable to detect the extra resolution of 1080p.
SouthPaw Says:
December 9th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
1) contrast ratio
2) color saturation
3) color accuracy
4) resolution

That right there is why CRT still blows away all other TV tech.

Here is hoping for SED and FED in coming year.
phaythe Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 3:42 am
2160p? Maybe nothing more than a gee-whiz for video viewing… But, how about multi-player gaming? Although it would simply be a luxury, it would make 4-player split screen gaming a joy. And would open up 6 and 8 way splits on large screens where everyone ends up within 6-8 feet anyways. Think Wii Sports Extreme! (Nintendo got it wrong on this little part–HD output would have really opened up the "party console" appeal for the middle age/middle income market!) Playing games in split screen modes would be gorgeous. And megapixel displays open up a whole new world of computer user interfaces and interaction. Imagine your computer monitor being the wall in your office…literally grab and drag items on the screen a la Minority Report… All the naysayers need to open their eyes to the real reasons and applications for such high resolution displays.
topher Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 11:06 am
This is backwards a higher resolution and screen size demands a longer viewing distance to be "ideal"! Sorry, 480p is bad but sitting 25-30 feet away does not help.

Cool that this misinformation got so highly ranked on Digg though.

Topher5
Carlton Bale Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Quoting Topher: This is backwards a higher resolution and screen size demands a longer viewing distance to be "ideal"!

Topher, sorry, but I think you need to re-read the article. If you sit too far away, you will not be able to see any of the benefits of higher resolutions.

Sorry, 480p is bad but sitting 25-30 feet away does not help.

You are correct, 480p is "bad" and sitting further away does not help. But if you sit too far away the benefits of higher resolution are not apparent at all either. 480p=1080p at long viewing distances. At long viewing distances, all of the resolutions look the same because your eye can't detect the differences. You have to sit close enough to the screen to detect the advantages of higher resolutions. This article gives an idea of about how close you'd have to sit for each resolution.

Cool that this misinformation got so highly ranked on Digg though.

If this article was ranked highly on Digg, it's probably because the readers understood the content.
Chris Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
While this is an informative article, most people do not realize that 1080p content is not available (besides PS3/Blu-Ray discs) at this time. So if you buy a 1080p tv, there is not much out there that will take advantage of it… so is it worth it? Maybe, but you might not get to utilize the progressive scanning for a couple years.
Carlton Bale Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
While this is an informative article, most people do not realize that 1080p content is not available (besides PS3/Blu-Ray discs) at this time. So if you buy a 1080p tv, there is not much out there that will take advantage of it… so is it worth it? Maybe, but you might not get to utilize the progressive scanning for a couple years.

This was not really intended to be a comparison between scan rates (1080i vs. 1080p) but rather a comparison of resolutions. Since virtually no display capable of 1920×1080 is analog, the image they produce is always progressive 1080p even if the source is not. The question is whether or not the deinterlacer in the video processor is capable of converting 1080i to the display-native 1080p without negative side-effects. The one exception is film-based material presented at 1080i — it can be perfectly converted to 1080p if the video processor is capable of 2:3 pulldown (because film-based material is a 24 frames per second). So, if the video processor is capable, the display can project a near-perfect 1080p signal from a 1080i source for film-based material. Obviously, the latest generation gaming consoles, computers, and HD-DVD players can produce 1080p perfectly as well.
MartinB Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
I would assume that this is for "natural" images, not for non-antialiased, CG-rendered images from video game consoles. Any idea where those lines would be for gaming?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 11th, 2006 at 9:18 am
I would assume that this is for "natural" images, not for non-antialiased, CG-rendered images from video game consoles. Any idea where those lines would be for gaming?

This is a great question but I unfortunately don't have a great answer. The resolution-based viewing distances are more rough guidelines than exact values (due to person-to-person variation, differences between display technologies, etc.) So it's impossible for me to give an exact difference between a natural anti-aliased and a non-anti-aliased image. But I'm positive that you are correct in assuming that the display resolution deficiencies would become apparent sooner on non-anti-aliased material; the jagged edges on lines would make individual pixels much more apparent (at a distance where they would be undetectable otherwise).
Bert Iverson Says:
December 11th, 2006 at 11:32 am
There may be limited 1080p video sources today but I use my 65" 1080p HDTV to view my high quality 6 MegaPixel pictures (2MP on screen) at 5-8 feet viewing distance. Everyone seems to enjoy.
William Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 5:53 am
This piece of information is incredibly handy. I know there is an optimal distance:resolution ratio, but I've never seen any 'viewing tests' done. Now there is, and I appreciate it a lot.
Very useful to know if 1080 res is useless or not given a particular room size.
Mark Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 8:33 am
A good chart, because it provides a range rather than a single value.

However, projector resolution is irrelevant. It is the source resolution which is relevant. A 480p DVD projected by a 1080p projector is no better than projected by a 720p projector. In either case, the 480p image has to be scaled. In other words, if you project a 480p DVD out of a 1080p projector, you cannot sit closer to it than if you projected it out of a 720p projector.

The result is your argument is not a good argument for 1080p projectors, but is an excellent argument for Blu-ray and HD-DVD players (and more importantly, Blu-Ray disc and HD-DVD sources) for home theaters.

The visual acuity distance is useful, because it provides a rough "no closer than" distance. Some people mistakenly believe the visual acuity distance is a maximum distance. But if you sit closer, you will start to lose the picture in the pixels. If you sit further, you will lose some detail, but still see the picture. Sitting inside or the visual acuity distance can be big deal for some watching rear-projection LCD systems because of screen door effect.

The visual acuity distance varies tremendously with individuals, so the number should only be used as a reference. So if you only have a single row of seats, it is better for that row to be a little further back than the visual acuity value.

So those reading this data should take it as guidance, not gospel. Too many people are buying 60" DLP sets based on data like recommended THX distance, HD visual acuity distance, or maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance, only to realize 90% of the content they watch looks bad on it because they are too close. This is because they are sitting well inside the visual acuity distance for SD television or 480p DVD content for a screen of this size.

This, in my opinion, is the most overlooked issue for an HD purchase, the minimum viewing distance of a 4:3 SD image presented on the HD display. And if you zoom or stretch that 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 screen, you further reduce the resolution, and increase the visual acuity distance.

Because of this, source content (480p DVDs vs. HD-DVDs or Blu-ray discs) must be considered. As your chart demonstrates, the resolution of current 480p DVD content does not adequately support THX and SMPTE configured home theaters. But Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content does.
Carlton Bale Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Mark, I agree with you regarding source material resolution. Both the source material and the display need to be at the same high resolution to fully appreciate the benefits of either.

The resolution of the display is of little benefit if the source is low resolution. A high quality HD video processor can make some improvements to SD content shown on a HD screen, but it will never look HD — there is no substitute. Most of my time is spent watching HD content recorded to a HD TiVo over-the-air using the ATSC tuner (it's hooked to a giant antenna in my attic.) After making the switch, watching SD television shows now seems like a chore.
Tim Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Your basis for the eye's ability to resolve detail to "1 arc minute" and the corresponding graphs seems sound enough. It seems to be well documented, but it also seems to be quoted as a figure for resolving detail in a static image…

So how does a moving image effect that?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Tim, you are correct that the figure does relate to a static image. I'm not sure how to apply it to a dynamic image. Based on the fact that a high-motion scene can look crisp at full speed but extremely blurred when played frame-by-frame, I positive motion would tend to make resolution deficiencies more difficult to detect. On the other hand, motion artifacts seem to bring out weaknesses in video processors and displays and, if this is the case, might exaggerate resolution deficiencies (due to pixelation, ghosting from from slow pixel refreshes, etc.) I wish I could give a more definitive, numeric answer but this is a somewhat non-precise measurement to begin with, so the best answer I have is that high motion makes resolution deficiencies less apparent except for when there are motion artifacts and/or refresh rate problems.
Simon Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 2:44 am
I hope the 1440p standard you talk about will be in 50 or 60 frames per second, 1080p30 is ridiculous on fast moving scenes and that is a limiting factor.

I know 1080p60 exists, but nobody will use it…
Jeff Hawkes Says:
December 17th, 2006 at 2:06 am
The easiest way to look at the problem is: the larger the screen the further away you have to view it for the brain not to see any imperfections. Alternatively if you do not want to move away from a larger screen then you need a higher resolution display otherwise any imperfections will become visible.
Ian Says:
December 17th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Hi! Your mathematical calculations are interesting - but not the whole story! Have just bought a Samsung 40" 1080p LCD after much viewing of many models. I can clearly see the difference between 1080p and 720 at over 10 feet.
Carlton Bale Says:
December 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Ian: The calculations are based on the resolution of the display and do not include any compensation for source material (nor quality of video processor, vision of the viewer, etc.) The differences you see are probably due to differences in the quality of the source material and/or the method used to process it before it is presented on the display. Or maybe some other form of variation not accounted-for in the calculations. The charts are not absolute cut-offs, but rather a general guideline, so results will vary by person and for each type of equipment setup combination. Thanks for the feedback!
Brian Kammerer Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
I am contemplating purchasing a Samsung 46" LCD and looking at 780p vs 1080p and I appreciate the information in this article. I currently have a 36" CRT that I really like. I use it for xbox 360 at about 5" and regular TV viewing at about 8-10. I'm really concerned given all that I've read about the quality of fast motion lacking in LCD and Plasma flat pannels as most of the content I favor is sports and action movie related. Should I be concerned? If so, what is my best choice to minimize the effect (LCD/Plasma/DLP)?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Brian: It sounds like you need a screen with a high refresh rate. Plasma is as fast as a CRT, so worries there. DLP is also very fast; the color wheels are all now at least 5x (meaning 300 times per second = 3.3 milliseconds). LCD is the only technology with signifiant problems with screen refreshes. Older models were in the 30 millisecond range. Anything below 15 milliseconds is going to result in minimal viewing problem; some new LCDs are as fast as 5 milliseconds (which will result in no visible artifacts from slow refresh).
Andreas Emanuelsson Says:
December 19th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
A note on the first reply-post. I got curious on distances the poster mentioned he could spot a pixel at twice the distance that the chart suggested. I use a Dell 2407 that has 1920*1200 (16:10) ie 1080p and decided to check how far away I could spot a pixel. According to chart 1 the point where one get full pay off for 1080p with a 24" screen is approx. 3 feet and the point where one starts to benefit at all compared to 720p is approx. 5 feet. I constructed a very rudimentary test screen, the left half of the screen white with 9 single black pixels spread over approx 4 sq/inch and the right half black with similar white pixels. Starting to back away I found the black pixels starting to fade out at 6 feet, pretty close to the prediction but the white pixels on black where clearly visable. Moving further away up to the back wall and going into the kitchen they where still perfectly visable at some 25 feet, where I could get no further away in line of sight of the screen.

The note here is that the required resolution for transparency likely varies depending whether its a mostly light image with some dark or vice versa.
Victor Centofanti Says:
December 19th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I sold my big screen and now I'm using a 5" Black and White. I don't know what the resolution is, but you have to sit pretty close to see anything. (Network TV) all looks the same (garbage), which is why I never watch it anyway. But, the next time there is a hurricane, and the power is out, and I have nothing to do, I can watch TV (since the 5" B&W is battery operated). I can watch my roof blow off on TV!!
Carlton Bale Says:
December 19th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Andreas: thanks for the additional follow-up. I think it reinforces the previous comments regarding anti-aliased images verses a non-anti-aliased images. Obviously, there are many factors to this.

I created a new post where anyone can test the Visual Acuity Viewing Distance of their LCD monitor (and their eyeballs). Check it out: http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/12/visual-acuity-viewing-distance-test-it-for-yourself/

The point at which you stop seeing a black and white checkerboard and start seeing a gray box is the visual acuity viewing distance for your monitor/eyeball combination.
MikaelM Says:
December 29th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Andreas (and Carlton): The test with light pixels on a black background has absolutely nothing to do with resolution. In a completely dark room a human eye can detect a flash as faint as five photons. These could (at least theoretically) be originating from a source as small as a single atom that is repeatedly tweaked into sending out visible light.

Probably the best example of this phenomena is the stars. If you watch Sirius A, the visually brightest star in the sky and divide its diameter with the distance, you will get a figure that is equivalent to watching a single pixel of a sharp computer screen (0.24mm) from almost 10 km distance. The question here is all about light output, nothing about pixel size or resolution.

(What you will not see is that Sirius has a small companion star, or that Alpha Centauri (another close and bright star) actually consists of two stars of similar size, just as you of course will not be able to see your computer screen at all from 10 km, unless you put an extremely bright light source into it and watch it in the dark
Carlton Bale Says:
December 29th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Mikael: Thanks so much for sharing this information; it is extremely useful to this discussion on screen resolution. Being able to see a single white pixel on a black background did not seem like a valid resolution test to me, but I didn't have any technical knowledge to explain why it was not.

The intent of this article was really to show when a group of individual pixels become undiscernable and start to look like a smooth pattern, not being able to identify a singly highly contrasted pixel. Thanks for explaining the difference.
Andrew Says:
December 30th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I know that you get a fair amount of degradation if you lower the resolution on a lcd monitor below the native resolution. Wouldn't you get the same effect on a 1080p tv since most all HD content is less than 1080p?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 30th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Andrew, there is really not very much degradation from displaying a lower resolution (720p) video on a higher resolution screen (1080p) screen as long as it is video content. Pictures and video scale very well. However, text, smaller fonts, single-pixel lines, etc., do not scale well. So, as you mentioned, you would want to avoid scaling a PC desktop (for example).

Another factor is that most higher-end HDTVs include a video processor designed to scale lower resolutions up to native panel resolution, which results in generally equivalent (or perhaps slightly enhanced) video quality.
Pete Stapleton Says:
December 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
It gets hard to interpret the charts at close distances. I'm considering a 32" LCD for viewing from 6'. Should I wait for 1080p to get a superior picture or will the current crop of 32" LCDs at 720p be sufficient for most purposes? I'm guessing that the new models will be out in Febuary with 1080p available at 32". I've noticed that some of the best 32" LCD have just been reduced in open retail price and a new crop of 40" 1080p sets are now being released at higher prices than the old models.

My screen and view distances are fixed but I don't want to waste money on overkill I won't notice. I doubt that my eyes will get better with age although my high end audio system has spoiled my listening of poorer systems.
Carlton Bale Says:
December 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Pete: For a 32' panel, 720p is fine for distances 6.2 feet away or farther. Between 6.2 and 4.2, the advantage 1080p becomes apparent. At 4.2 feet, 1080p would be fully apparent. So you are probably OK with a 720p panel. Keep in mind that this is a generalized distance and that it varies somewhat from person to person. But unless you plan to connect the TV to a desktop computers, you can probably save some cash and skip the extra pixels.
Leo Burke Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 1:02 am
Thank you, Carlton, for fabulous work. However, the 12 Dec response from Mark was a bombshell. You replied that you make use of DirecTV, but that's only a medium carrying the original source material. I was planning on purchasing a 1080P 60" inch LCD later this year to be viewed at a distance from 7 to 10 feet. But it will be most often used for general TV viewing and most of that is PBS. It now occurs to me that I might be shooting myself in the foot with such a screen. This is hardly a small point - could you go into that a little more?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 10:58 am
Leo, at 7-10 feet for a 60-inch screen, you could definitely benefit from a 1080p screen resolution. But, as was briefly mentioned earlier, 1080p has a relatively minor benefit if the source material is standard definition NTSC video.

First of all, if you don't have the capability for HD content, you should get it as soon as you purchase your new TV. I use a TiVo that records non-network HD (and SD) from the DirecTV satellite and broadcast HD from an antenna in my attic. You can probably get HD from your local cable company as well. It doesn't matter how you get it, just get it. If fact, HD down-converted to play on a SD display looks much better than cable, satellite, or over-the-air.

PBS is broadcasting several of their shows in HD; they were about the first to start HD broadcasting. In the not-too-distant future, SD broadcasting will be shut-off and all of the networks will be HD-only. I've found that about 90% of the shows I regularly watch are HD, so the content is available.

Now, to get to you question, if you get a 1080p display and have only 480p content, is it a complete waste? No, it's not a complete waste of resolution. If you sit close-enough to a display, you can see imperfections regardless of the source material. For example, I can see the gap between pixels on my projector when the screen is white (123" screen viewed at 10'). The pixels are smaller on a 1080p display than on a 720 display, so this defect would be less noticeable (all else held constant). However, this is a minor point and generally not at all a factor for the vast majority.

It comes down to this: On a 60-inch display, SD content is going to look very soft (i.e. blurry) regardless of the panel resolution. The extra pixels of a HD display don't have any information telling them how to improve the picture, so they basically revert to an SD-equivalent display. To see the benefit of a HD panel, each pixel needs to act independently, rather than basically acting just like the pixel next to it (as with SD). There is no video processor/scaler in the world that can take a soft, low-def signal and make it look anywhere close to true HD. So get HD if you can; if you can't, you can save a lot of money on your 60' panel and skip 1080p.
Rick Madey Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Carlton, Thanks for your analysis of screen size and viewing distances vs resolution. We are now planning to purchase a 720p HD TV and HD Cable soon to view from 6' to 12'. In reading you conclusion resolution is not as important as contrast and color quality. The contrast rating is available but how does one compare color saturation and accuracy since each viewing area is different? And do you have simular analysis on contrast ratios, is their a relationship between contract ratios and distance?
Carlton Bale Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Rick, contrast ratio is is not a function of viewing distance but rather of the amount of ambient light in the room (as well as the capabilities of the display). Also, the published contrast rations are completely bogus; you need to find an independent test with ANSI contrast ratio results. Check out this post for more details:
http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2007/01/the-truth-about-inflated-hdtv-contrast-ratios/
carl Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
According to this chart, if your viewing distance is 10 feet (~3.2m), then you should have something around a 70" screen for optimal viewing. I was thinking of getting a 37" screen, but I'm asking myself if I should even get a TV at all and not a beamer (although way to expensive). What's your opinon?
Kaban Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Resolution is higher on the list if you hook up your display to a computer on occasion. There are plenty of uses for your TV beyond watching movies. If you want to display other information, in particular in the text form, 1080p LCD screen is the ony way to go right now.
John Vig Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Carlton, thanks for the great info.

You say that contrast ratio is the no. 1 aspect of picture quality, but, isn't there a limit beyond which a higher ratio makes no difference? For example, can one notice the contrast ratio difference between a 6000:1 ratio LCD (such as the Samsung LN-S5296D), and and an "Up to 10,000:1" (whatever the "up to" means) ratio of a Panasonic plasma TV?
bangskij Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Hi, a note about contrast; typically crt has 1:100.000 in contrast, hence their black can be really black, whilst I have yet to see a plasma or LCD capable of displaying black.

No matter, what I'm really interested in is colourspace. I wonder if anyone else thinks that TV/DVD/HD colourspace is a joke that could really use some upgrading. Most of the encoding schemes are based on a 4:1:1 colourspace where there is colour information for only every fourth pixel, this is the primary reason for the big squares of same colour that you can see in even high quality transfers. I produce graphics and have learned the hard way that there are certain colours I never use and whole ranges of colour I totally avoid(red) if I can. I was hoping for salvation in HD(when rez goes up, so does colour-rez) and bought a 1080i camera for capture thinking that the superior rez would improve colours. However it captures in mpeg2 which is far worse than DV as far as colour is concerned and I have gained no extra pixels in colour-rez even though the rez is four times that of my DV camera. In fact sometimes the low bitrate is so obvious that it produces 8×8 pixel squares of exactly the same colour if what I'm filming is "wrong" enough for the codec, and that reduces usable rez to half that of DV…

anyways, great blog.

b
Jon Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Source material is certainly a factor to consider. I enjoy film and see a fair amount of indie, historical, and international movies. I was watching one in a movie theater recently that helped me understand that I am not going to obsess over 1080p so much until prices come down further. A fair number of movies and television shows have been shot not on 35mm but Super 16, even recent ones (Leaving Las Vegas, The O.C., a lot of BBC content), and even when 35mm is used it can often be high ISO film where you never actually approach the resolution limits of the format. What I'm getting at is that there are an awful lot of movies out there that are grainy as heck when you take a good look at them, and I'm not really sure if going above 720p will improve detail with that kind of content regardless of the viewing distance. This isn't a bad thing, because I think it's going to save me some money. Between 720 HDTV and the nature of most films throughout history, 720 should be fine, for me anyway, for now, or at least until I get richer. (Of course, if you're primarily into watching technologically sophisticated Hollywood presentations, tack-sharp well-lit 35mm or 70mm films, then the shortcomings of 720p may become apparent at a home theater distance.)

Thanks for this site. I'm going to look around a little more.
Kman Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Need help with deciding if I should get a 1080p or stay with my 720p. I purchased a samsung 46" DLP wiht 720p. I now hear that I should have purchased a 50" samsung 1080p instead. Ok- so here it is. I sit 10 feet from the TV. should I stay with my 46" DLP at 720p or upgrade to the 50" DLP at 1080p. Will I see the difference?
Gordon Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
^ hey Kman,
I am in the same predicament.
I purchased a week ago Samsung LCD 40in 720p/1080i. Contrast 4000:1
and am wondering if I should fork out an extra 500 bucks for 1080 P Contrast 6000:1 I sit about 7 to 9 ft from tv.
Will the rerendering in 1080p really make that big a difference or is it overkill since everything is brodcast in 720/1080i. better contrast I figure is better but how much better My Blacks are pretty good already. and could the image actually suffer in the rerendering it in 1080p.
the rest of the tv is basically the same 8 ms refeesh same connections ect, Someone help us make up our minds Please
Gordon Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
oh to add to the above mine is 1 million pixels 32 billion colors.
the other one is 2 million pixels but same 32 billion colors more pixels ok better image but will I really notice the difference or not.
Gordon Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Id think so in a 50 inch but 40in I'm more of thinking keeping what I have already
Gregg Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hi, I'm considering buying a 46in lcd. I'll be sitting approximately 12 1/2 feet away. Do you think I would benefit from a 1080 or 720. I'm looking at samsung and sharp. Thanks!!
Kman Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Well, I went down to Tweeter last night and the guy that worked with me was pretty good. He put the 46" samsung 720p DLP next to the 50" samsung 1080p DLP and you could see the difference. The 1080p compared to the 720p was very visiable. The 1080p was a lot smoother and less pix showed up. So there is a big difference between the 1080 at 50" and the 720 at 46" sitting 10 feet away, You can see the difference and the 50" 1080 is the way to go.
Carlton Bale Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
At the same viewing distance, a larger screen will always reveal more detail than a smaller screen.
Kman Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Gregg, Take a look at the web site hdguru. They have a seat chart that will tell you if viewing form that distance (12.5 feet) is worth going with either the 720 or 1080. What I found out was that 1080p viewing from 10 -12 feet looks so much better than 720p, but that was viewing a 46" & 50" DLP, I'm sure that LCD would be the same..
Carlton Bale Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Kman: The number given at HDGuru appear to give the exact results as those in my Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet, on which the chats on this page are based. So, there is no difference between the recommended seating distances.
Gordon Says:
January 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
well Now I wonder, I watched Hockey in HD and there was quite a bit of pixelation & Blurr, I would like to know if the 1080P would help in this case are is it just the LCD thing that
we have to get used to. I watched some other programs which were great but if it helps in clearing up the picture It might warrent going up to the 1080p model. Someone help please1
Oz Says:
January 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Gordon,
I'm not an expert but if I remember correctly LCD displays aren't as good for fast-moving images.

If I don't remember correctly, then I'm sure someone will correct me.

I recently picked up a 46" 720p Samsung DLP and I love it. Since I sit about 13' away from the tv, I didn't think it would be worth the extra expense to go 1080.
Carlton Bale Says:
January 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Gordon, Oz is correct. LCD can be prone to artifacts for fast motion. You need to figure out if this is source material or your LCD panel causing the pixelation. In either case, 1080p resolution won't eliminate it. Check the specs of your panel and see what the refresh rate is for the pixels. If it is ~10ms or higher, your panel might be causing the problem. If not, you'd have to find an alternative pristine HD source to test (i.e. HD-DVD). If that looks great, it is the broadcast material with the issues. If it has the same problem, it's your display.
Kman Says:
January 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Gordon, I also have the 46" samsung DLP, and wasnt to happy with the picture,so I went to tweeter and put the samsung 1080 next to the one I bought, and I found out that the 1080 had a better picture because the pixs were smaller and the picture looked clearer. I know one thing, If I never went back and compared the two, I probaboy would have felt that the 720 was good enough, but for an extra $600, it was worth it, because this TV will last a long time compared to the Plasma or LCD. Also I paid $1175 for my 46" 720 and the 50" 1080 is going for $1775
CHAS Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I think I understand the technical premises of the study. I have no problems with it as a statement of the ultimate limits of visible resolution. Although, I would think it assumes 20-20 vision over the viewing distances.

A practical observation .. I recently visited a local TV retailer to see a 1080P set. The salesman told me I was watching satellite TV. Macroblocks extended over several rows and columns of pixels and that's what tended to dilute the picture resolution.

They had no HD disk source for me to view so I don't how the new HD players would look and I'm not really interested in the resoultion of synthesized game video.

— CHAS
Carlton Bale Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
CHAS: Yes it does assume 20/20 vision; it's based on the ability of the human eye to resolve detail to the level of 1/60th of a degree of an arc. My home theater calculator spreadsheet gives some more detail on this in the footnotes.
yuval Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Hi Carlton,

You write: "the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution."

can you give any reference to this statement?
Carlton Bale Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Yuval: Sorry, I forgot to reference that in this article (I did reference it in another one). That order of importance is according to the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF).
Ned Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Excellent chart, but I have two questions:
Hard to understand at what point in the wedge (the Benefit of XXXp starts . . .) the benefit becomes significant. I understand that beauty, or in this case, detail, is in the eye of the beholder, but there ought to be a line on the wedge that approimates the significant benefit from the insignificant.
The one reason I'm leaning towards LCD versus plasma is there will be a fair amount of light in the room where the TV will go. Does that have any impact on the benefits listed on the chart?
Carlton Bale Says:
January 11th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Ned: the benefit of a higher resolution starts as soon as you enter "the wedge" between each resolution line. The more into "the wedge" you are, the more benefit there is. So, at 50% of the way between 720p and 1080p, you would see about 50% of the benefit of 1080p over 720p. It's continuously variable and steadily increases as you move between one resolution line and another; there is no special point in between.

Ambient light has no significant impact on resolution, but it does on contrast ratio. The this post regarding contrast ratio: The Truth About Inflated HDTV Contrast Ratios
Nate Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Wow people are already talking about 5,761p, calm down people. What are you ever going to use this with, as of right now you cant view any tv over 720p or 1080i, and 1080p movies are rare. By the time they come out with a all these crazy 5millionp's, 720p and 1080i will be the standard for tv, 1080p will be the standard for movies
TampaDude Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I have a Mitsubishi 46" 1080p LCD. You can see the difference between a 720p set and a 1080p set…the picture on a 1080p set is just "smoother"…that's the best way I can describe it. On my set, 1080i programming gets properly deinterlaced to 1080p…it's breathtaking, even from 10+ feet away.
bski Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Hello, Quick question. Im considering purchase of Pioneer PDP5070HD. I know that t.v is 720p I sit approx 14.5' away from T.V Should i bite the bullet and go for the Pioneer PROFHD1 full 1080p set, or will the PDP5070HD be good for my distance. I can save myself about $4,000 or wait over a year for a price drop in 1080p plasmas
Rick Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
To add to the mix:

I was just at the local TV shop and we did a 3 way comparison. The new Samsung 52" 1080P LCD, Sony 52" 1080P LCD and the Pioneer ProFHD1. They played the same content SD content on all 3 and the Pioneer blows them away. The picture was so much smoother than the other 2. I had my heart set on the new Sony LCD but Pioneer just had them beat hands down.

So my dilema, I really want the 1080P but 50" is a bit too small for our living room. I wanted to check out the Panasonic 65" 1080P but the salesman say to stay away from that since it does not match up to the Pioneer 61" 720P. Now we sit 13' away so I am torn between getting the Pioneer ProFHD1 at 1080P or get the Pioneer 61" 720P. Does anyone know when Pioneer will come out with a 60"+ 1080P plasma?

Thanks,
Rick
Carlton Bale Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
Bski: Sitting that far away, I'd definitely recommend the 720p Plasma. Buy it now, use for a year or two, sell it for a price close to what you purchased it for, then buy a bigger next-gen 1080p plasma for the current price of the Pioneer PRO-FHD1. Unless you have a lot of spare change, I'd not recommend the Pioneer 1080p plasma because it is not a great value for the $, especially with new models on the horizon.

Rick: You can read about the upcoming Pioneer plasmas here and the new Panasonic plasmas here. I think June 2007 is the time frame. Having said that, if having a Plasma calibrated by an ISF-certified technician will make a huge difference; the picture quality of either display would be better than the as-calibrated display in the store. If you want to purchase now, consider the Panasoinc TH-65PF9UK (65" 1080p - owners thread link.)
Chris Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 4:31 am
I just need a little advice on which TV I should settle on. I have reduced my choices to the Mitsubishi WD-57731 57" 1080p DLP TV and the Samsung HL-S5687W 56" 1080p DLP TV. The Samsung boasts about its 10,000:1 contrast ratio, which made it an early front runner, but the plush1080p the Mitsubishi has drawn my attention. Does their plush1080p really work or is it just a ploy to get you to buy the TV? If anyone could give me any advice on the better of the two, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Chris
Carlton Bale Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Chris: There are a ton of opinions out there. The best thing to do is to look at them with your own eyes and weigh the features. I'd recommend taking an hour and reading about both of these displays over at AVSforum.com in the rear projection display area. For rear projection DLP, the feature I'd be looking for is LED lighting as opposed to the standard bulb (because of wider color spectrum, faster turn-on, and longer life.)
Craig John Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Great post Carlton, and great discussion. It appears my 92" screen and 12' seating distance will benefit from a 1080p projector. Still, I hesitate to spend the money due to a lack of 1080p content, especially CATV content. I have a couple of questions about HD CATV viewing on a 1080p projector. Some TV stations broadcast in 720p and some in 1080i. I presume a 1080p projector will de-interlace a 1080i signal, (i.e., convert it to 1080p) but will that 1080i signal benefit significantly from the de-interlacing? Will it look almost as good as a 1080p source? Also, will it look significantly better on a 1080p projector than on a 720p projector?

How much better will a 720p source look on a 1080p projector,(if at all)? Will the 1080i channels look significantly better than the 720p channels on a 1080p projector/display, and will this be an incentive for the 720p channels to move to 1080i? Finally, will there be any move to 1080p broadcasting any time soon?

Thanks and congratulations on a great website.

Craig
Carlton Bale Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Craig: All digital displays show images as progressive, so it is very important to have a great deinterlacer in your projector. For film sources (originally recorded at 24 fps), a deinterlacer with 3:2 pull-down can perfectly reproduce the original content. For 1080i video, deinterlacers can do a great job as well. So, in short, yes you will benefit from the increased resolution. As far a watching 720p content on a 1080p display, the benefits are less but there are some. Since 1080i is more common that 720p, it seems like a logical upgrade for you at some point. Enjoy!
L.Denninger Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I was just wondering, if your eye could go up to 1/60th of a degree…

Suppose the TV would be 'too' sharp, so the light of 4 pixels would fall into this 1/60th degree.
Wouldn't this be interpreted by your eye as the average of the lightoutput of the 4 pixels, basicly functioning as a sort of filter / antialiasing ?

So - if you're not too ridiculously far away - even if the resolution of the tv was higher than your eye could see, it still would be an improvement, right ?
Carlton Bale Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 8:29 am
L.Denninger: I think your point is clearly valid for images that are created/rendered as anti-aliased (computer text, video games, etc.) However, for video sources, there is no anti-aliasing and I don't think sub-pixel (pixels that are not clearly visible) contribution would be nearly as beneficial. Really, it depends on the content of the sub-pixels. If there is one that is white and the other three are black, the white pixel would clearly stand out (as pointed out in a comment above.) But most video content is gradients, and that subtle sub-pixel differentiation would probably be lost completely.
Canuc Says:
February 11th, 2007 at 2:25 am
An excellent blog.

I want it all. Watch TV, play DVDs, do all of my computing, plug in my x-box. What I don't want is to put my sofa on rails to move closer to and further from the source - I am about 13' away right now. The room can have a fair bit of ambient light.

So what I can distill from the excellent article, plus the posts, is that:

1. for TV, if your source is largely SD, you are wasting your time although if you're able to "upgrade" the signal, you will see some benefits. Ideally, get HD (720p) programming, which will look good on a 720 or 1080 monitor.

2. for DVDs, the story is similar to SD TV - best to get BR/HD DVD, although again some benefit from the "upgrading" done by the TV or DVD player (some upgrade to 1080i or better). Note to self - get a BR/HD DVD combo "jukebox" style DVD player - if it exists I will buy it. So without lots of BR/HD content, I'm as well off with 720 as with 1080 TVs.

3. for comupting, I want the highest resolution possible, which points to 1080p. My real worry is not seeing the detail in a document or spreadsheet - who want to squint looking at blogs. My read is that 1080 gets you the detail, but you had better sit close to be able to get that detail. Or else you are squinting…

4. for xbox 360 - it's all good.

At the end of the day, I think it breaks down with the viewing distance: 6-9" to view a 50" screen is impractical in my house set-up. Probably need to go to a projector and a screen… and a new wife.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Carlton Bale Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Canuc: I think you've summarized very well. The only addendum I have is for point #3. I'd recommend running at the native resolution of the panel and either increasing the OS font size (makes just text bigger) or increasing the DPI setting (makes both the text and icons/graphics bigger.) The advantage of doing this is that everything is a readable size and the renderings get the full benefit of the resolution. And if you go to play a video, it can be a native screen resolution.
Steve Nash Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I think a beneficial twist on these charts would be to show what the closest you could be before the limitations of the resolution would be apparent. Then, if you have static seating positions, and the resolution of what you watch varies, you could determine the optimum seating distance be for all resolutions even though it not be the optimum for any one resolution.

Great charts Carlton - Thanks!
Tee Guedri Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
Help, please! I want a TV that is viewable from 12'-15'. It will be hooked to cable TV. It needs to be no deeper than about 12" (to sit on table) or, ideally, thin enough to be mounted on the wall (above the table). It will be used for general TV and DVD viewing. Price is important … what type and size can I get to meet these specs at the lowest price point? In advance, many thanks.
jason Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
how about progressive scan dvd players? Ive been told the can make regular dvds look better by displaying in 480p as opposed to 480i (given that u have a tv caple of accepting the signal). Ive also been told that it isnt worth it to get a high definiton dvd player because you cant really see the difference compared to a progressive dvd players. Any info or help would be appreciated.
Carlton Bale Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 am
Jason: A progressive scan DVD player will only eliminate de-interlacing artifacts. If your have a HDTV with a built-in de-interlacer, there is zero advantage to getting a progressive scan (de-interlacing) DVD player. If you have a standard def TV, there is no advantage to HD-DVD. But, if you have a HDTV, there is HUGE advantage. You can easily and immediately spot the advantages of HD-DVD. The only reasons not to buy a HD-DVD player are cost and movie availability.
Carl Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I am buying a 46inch LCD TV. I will be viewing from approximately 9 - 10 feet away most of the time. I have HD Dish Receive and PS3. What should I get, 720P or 1080P.

Thanks.

Carl
Jason Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
what is your opinion on this tv,

http://reviews.cnet.com/Hitachi_UltraVision_VS69_Series_50VS69_50_rear_projection_TV/4505-6484_7-31966106.html?tag=prod.txt.1
Jason Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
another question if you have time, in the description is says,

"The proprietary Hitachi VirtualHD 1080p video processor de-interlaces 1080i programs to provide as much detail as possible for a clear, sharp image. HitachiÕs dynamic histogram processing delivers improved contrast, color and sharpness while reducing noise to a minimum. Each video frame is processed as a digital still image in real time with an astounding 68-billion color capability to produce the best final on-screen image."

Am interpreting it correctly that the tv does not accept 1080p but 1080i and only simulates 1080p by de-interlacing the 1080i signal.

Also fyi we will be watching the tv from within 10 feet.

Thanks again for giving your time to answer my questions.
Jason Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
i see you answered a similar question earlier

"This was not really intended to be a comparison between scan rates (1080i vs. 1080p) but rather a comparison of resolutions. Since virtually no display capable of 1920×1080 is analog, the image they produce is always progressive 1080p even if the source is not. The question is whether or not the deinterlacer in the video processor is capable of converting 1080i to the display-native 1080p without negative side-effects. The one exception is film-based material presented at 1080i — it can be perfectly converted to 1080p if the video processor is capable of 2:3 pulldown (because film-based material is a 24 frames per second). So, if the video processor is capable, the display can project a near-perfect 1080p signal from a 1080i source for film-based material. Obviously, the latest generation gaming consoles, computers, and HD-DVD players can produce 1080p perfectly as well."
Robert Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Hi carlton, great info there m8 and just a quick question. Is 7-8 feet perfectly ok for viewing 720p on a 42" plasma. I see your charts say so but i keep reading that people should sit 15 feet from one. Is this true? I only ask because i don't have any problems viewing my 360 from this distance set to the native res of the televison set.
adam berg Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Hey Carlton,

Thanks for all the hard work. Very interested in the upcoming pioneer plasmas. You left a link farther up in one of your posts, but the link for the upcoming pioneer models doesn't seem to work. Can you try again??

Thanks…

Adam
Carlton Bale Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Sorry, I messed-up the HTML code - it's fixed now:
You can read about the upcoming Pioneer plasmas here and the new Panasonic plasmas here.
Dave Says:
March 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Carlton,

I agree with your response in post #78. Well said. However, some HDTVs have poor de-interlacers and some DVD players have excellent de-interlacers. In that particular case, it would be an advantage to have a progressive scan DVD player. Would you agree with that supposition?
JonE Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
(Last attempt at this.)
Hi Carlton,

Great site! I'm researching HD options now in anticipation of a purchase late this year (see what the boxing day '07 sales are like) so I have lots of time to wait out the new models and do my homework.

What I have now is an RCA 56" SD rearproj set. It's a good set that I use for satellite, DVD and gaming (xbox360). I don't anticipate using a PC with my home setup… even though that Linux MCE looks kinda interesting, I don't think I'd play with it that much (rather go for a component DVD/HDD recorder, I think). Seating is currently about 8' and the set faces a huge bay window - which makes viewing during the day all but impossible. No problems with eyeballs in the family.

I'm about to embark on some renovations to the living room that will allow me to rotate the set 90deg and place it at the end of the room (where there is currently a fireplace). The end is a rather darkened alcove that should give the set all the shade it would need (and more can be had by darkening the windows during the day, if desired). The problem is that the viewing distance will double to about 16' (from wall to couch potatoe). The width of that area is about 114".

I was thinking of the plasma displays, but anything larger that 65" is rather pricey at this time. I was looking at LCD and plasma displays at BB last weekend and came away unimpressed by the quality of the LCD panels - the picture looks "dirty" with the blockiness and pixelization going on. Comparitively, the plasma was producing a beautiful picture.

I don't really need to care about the thickness of the set where it'll be setup - in fact, a RPTV might actually be desirable since it'll bring the picture a little closer to the seating. While at BB I also looked at the Sony 71" RPTV - a pretty nice pic from an LCD display unit. This weekend, I had a chance to look over an Epson 1080 projector on a 96" grey screen at the local audio shop. Very impressed with the output from this LCD projector (puzzled why LCD projectors - both front and rear - produce nicer looking pictures than LCD panels). The unit gets a fair bit of use though as the daily tube, so bulb replacement might become an issue.

Anyway, those are my thoughts so far. I was reading your site and came across this article and have a few points to question. From the chart, it seems clear that unless I go for a 96" or larger screen, there's no point in me buying a 1080 display. It also suggests that my current 56" set, viewed from 16', will look the same (really?) as a 720p or 1080p display. Further, it suggests that only 720p in a 60" or larger (of the currently available and affordably priced flat panel sets) will be of any benefit for that seating distance. But I'm confused since 1080 lines vs 720 lines gives you 360 extra lines of light being created by the set and sent to your eyes. Even if you couldn't see the specific details of those extra 320 lines, they're still there filling in the gaps between the original 720 lines and that light (which is extra information) is still reaching your eyes. So, I'm puzzled as to why there would be no noticeable difference in the perceived picture when 1080 is offering 1.5 times the resolution of 720.

In a nutshell… just looking for some clarification/correction/confirmation of the above (I think it's what everyone struggles with at first in this game) and some direction as to what to consider in terms of screen size, resolution, display type, given my viewing requirements. I don't mind picking up a better set *now* (even if 1080p is not widely available now, it will be eventually) to avoid having to buy another set in a couple of years (unless there's a compelling reason to buy now and upgrade in a couple of years).
Carlton Bale Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
JonE: Think of it this way - if you look at the house across the street and see that they are watching TV, can you tell what show they are watching? Maybe. But can you tell if it is 480p, 720p, or 1080p? No, definitely not. You're too far away. The extra line of a high definition picture may be there, but they blur together so that you can't distinguish them - unless you get out your binoculars and that would be creepy.

I'd recommend picking a display based on your room. It sounds like you have lots of light, which makes front projection and plasma less attractive. You really need total darkness to get the benefits of these technologies. In my opinion, rear projection gives the best bang for the buck in most rooms but a LCD flat panel is much smaller and less imposing. With the screen sizes and seating distance you're considering, 1080p would be of marginal benefit. But be sure to look at other features (inputs, brightness, etc.) and you may find that the sets that interest you are only the new versions that are only available as 1080p.
jason mckelvey Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
what about pixel pitch? If you have 2 monitors - one 21" and one 47" - but both have the same number of pixels, how does that effect the calculation? What about 2 1920×1080 monitors that are the same size, but one has a closer pixel pitch with bigger pixels?
Carlton Bale Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Jason: According to wikipedia dot/pixel pitch is a measure of the size of a triad plus the distance between the triads. I think what you mean is pixel gap, aka fill factor, aka "the screen door effect." It's possible to run the math to figure out how big the gap must be for it to become apparent at a certain distance. Contrast has a huge impact, as noted above in the "extremely tiny star visible in sky" comment above. For displays, a totally white image is going to make the black "screen door" between pixels much more apparent. That's the only time I can see them on my 123" Sony LCD projector at 10'.
Bob Cook Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Chris Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
While this is an informative article, most people do not realize that 1080p content is not available (besides PS3/Blu-Ray discs) at this time. So if you buy a 1080p tv, there is not much out there that will take advantage of it… so is it worth it? Maybe, but you might not get to utilize the progressive scanning for a couple years.

Reply: Bob Cook
NEW TECNOLOGY TV'S GIVE US FULL-HD 1080P PICTURE FROM PREMIUM MOVIE CHANNELS (like HBO).

HBO, and other premium movie channels now produce a Full-HD 1080p [1080 progressive lines 1,2,3,4,5,6...1080] media source. But for transmission to our homes Media is interlaced (sliced electronically) to t

CarltonBale.com

technology.obsessed

Categories

Subscribe

Archives

Related Posts

Recent Posts

Favorite Web Sites

Links

Sites of Interest

Blu-ray Movies

1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

254 Responses to “1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)”