720 vs 1080 LCD HDTVs?

[Danj]

There was an article in the Daily Mail (a UK tabloid newspaper) recently, claiming that people who'd purchased 720p HDTVs were being "cheated" out of a million pixels' worth of resolution or so. Now, clearly I understand that this is misleading, but I think my dad must have read the article and got it into his head that we need an HDTV with a resolution of 1920x1080. He's already signed up for Sky HD, because of the special free installation preorder offer, but we don't have an HDTV yet. The problem is, the cheapest 1920x1080 LCD TV I can find is a Toshiba 42WLT66 at £1789.99, and he says that's too expensive. So:

a) Is there a 1920x1080 LCD TV cheaper than the one I mentioned above?

or

b) Can someone point me to an authoritative article which explains in plain English why 1280x720 is not "bad" which I can show to my dad?

Also, why are there so many 1366x768 sets around? Surely it's better to have one that's a HDTV native resolution (i.e. 1280x720 or 1920x1080), otherwise won't it be scaling all the time?

Note: I am in the UK, there are no CRT HDTVs here so please don't recommend them. Also whatever you recommend needs to be available in a "HD Ready" model in the UK.

[JeffDM]

I don't know how to check UK availability, but there is a Sceptre 37" and Westinghouse Digital 37", both sell in the US a lot less than the equivalent amount for that Toshiba. I will try to remember to look up model numbers, but if those brands aren't in the UK then those aren't an option unless someone sells them under a different brand.

720p isn't bad though, 1080p only helps if you are less than two screenwidths from the screen and have decent eye sight.

[Danj]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
if those brands aren't in the UK then those aren't an option unless someone sells them under a different brand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately that seems to be the case, I can't find any UK places selling Sceptre or Westinghouse TVs /images/graemlins/sad.gif

[chotto]

[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:Also, why are there so many 1366x768 sets around? Surely it's better to have one that's a HDTV native resolution (i.e. 1280x720 or 1920x1080), otherwise won't it be scaling all the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering this also when I was researching TV's. I never found a definitive answer, but the one interesting thing I did find was that the pixels are more or less square on 1366x768 whereas they are rectangular on 1280x720. Maybe this makes it easier to program scaling algorithms, but I really don't know.

[Pyocola]

[ QUOTE ]
chotto said:
[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:Also, why are there so many 1366x768 sets around? Surely it's better to have one that's a HDTV native resolution (i.e. 1280x720 or 1920x1080), otherwise won't it be scaling all the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering this also when I was researching TV's. I never found a definitive answer, but the one interesting thing I did find was that the pixels are more or less square on 1366x768 whereas they are rectangular on 1280x720.

[/ QUOTE ]
That can't be right, as non-square pixels would make the 1280x720 screen have something other than the native HD 16:9 ratio.

[MilkyWay]

IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really say I agree with this. First off, while the broadcast world isn't prepare to move to 1080p, most if it is doing 1080i. With a 1920x1080 res tv the set will only have to deinterlace and not perform scaling which is a good thing. Secondly, most films these days are very high resolution when filmed and as soon as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray take off we WILL have 1080p movies on disc and plenty of them.

As far as upscaling goes, if you have to scale a lower resolution up you've already been hit with the side effects of that regardless of how much you have to scale. In practice most people have found that with a remotely competent scaler most material does not suffer from the trip up to 1920x1080 resolution with the exception of analog 480i. That one is a GI-GO kind of problem anyway. Owners of 1080p sets have found that dvds look fantastic on them when setup properly, and that video is making the trip all the way from 720x480. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

1080p will be the standard in the future. No point in shying away from it right now.

Sceptre, eyeFi, Westinghouse, Polaroid, and other cheapo brands are all bringing 42" and 47" to market with the Chi Mei 1080p panel, so finding an affordable one shouldn't be hard. I'd recommend the Westinghouse LVM-42w2 but I can't right now because users are reporting widespread problems with the set locking up.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Pyocola said:
[ QUOTE ]
chotto said:
[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:Also, why are there so many 1366x768 sets around? Surely it's better to have one that's a HDTV native resolution (i.e. 1280x720 or 1920x1080), otherwise won't it be scaling all the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering this also when I was researching TV's. I never found a definitive answer, but the one interesting thing I did find was that the pixels are more or less square on 1366x768 whereas they are rectangular on 1280x720.

[/ QUOTE ]
That can't be right, as non-square pixels would make the 1280x720 screen have something other than the native HD 16:9 ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might have meant to say 1024x768. Plasmas use rectangular pixels to produce their 16:9 aspect with this resolution.

[Skywise]

A) No, sorry. 1080p sets are just starting to come out so so far the market is pretty much non-existant. I'm surprised you can even get them in the UK right now as I don't believe we have them here in Norway yet.

B) Err.. they're cheaper? The other reason to go for 720p (768p) sets is that the technology is mature and stable. With 1080p sets you're still buying first generation products. Someone else more updated on LCD technology will have to chime in here, but I'd assume that the performance of the 1080p panels (contrast ratio, angle, brightness, response time etc) aren't as good as the lower resolution ones. With a higher resolution you also run the risk of a lower production yield, so it's more likely that they'll have a dead pixel or two.

[chotto]

Oops, when I did it earlier I used 768 twice instead of 720. So what I read probably was talking about 1024.

The way I checked was like this: Assume you have a TV with a perfect 16x9 inch screen. Divide the with by 16 and the length by 9.
1366/16 = 85.375 pixels per inch
768/9 = 85.333 ppi

1280/16 = 80 ppi
720/9 = 80 ppi

So now it makes even less sense to me since the 1280x720 pixels are exactly square. I assume it probably has to do with the close relationship to computer monitors, but I really don't know.

And just for reference here is 1024x768
1024/16 = 64 ppi
768/9 = 85.333 ppi

Edited for multiple mistakes.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
chotto said:
Oops, when I did it earlier I used 768 twice instead of 720. So what I read probably was talking about 1024.

The way I checked was like this: Assume you have a TV with a perfect 16x9 inch screen. Divide the with by 16 and the length by 9.
1366/16 = 85.375 pixels per inch
768/9 = 85.333 ppi

1280/16 = 80 ppi
720/9 = 80 ppi

So now it makes even less sense to me since the 1280x720 pixels are exactly square. I assume it probably has to do with the close relationship to computer monitors, but I really don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

A difference of 0.042 ppi, if it is there, is not easily measurable by a typical user, much less visible to anyone. The difference is only calculable at best, 0.05%. From this, I would bet that the pixels are square. The number should have been 1365 pixels wide, but probably added one pixel just to give it an even number. All it really is is a wide XGA (WXGA), 1024x768 but a third wider.

I know someone is probably going to say there are going to be scaling issues for 720p, but I doubt it is much more than a 1280x720 display because even 720p video is usually scaled for a 1280x720 display to crop out the overscan area.

[Pyocola]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
I know someone is probably going to say there are going to be scaling issues for 720p, but I doubt it is much more than a 1280x720 display because even 720p video is usually scaled for a 1280x720 display to crop out the overscan area.

[/ QUOTE ]
What overscan? In the video stream? I thought overscan was going to be a thing of the past with HD.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Pyocola said:
What overscan? In the video stream? I thought overscan was going to be a thing of the past with HD.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish, I wished the same with interlace but it isn't so.

As far as I know, it still exists, where the TV is expected to crop off a few percent of the image on all edges. I can't find exact corroboration as in written in a standard on a quick search, but it appears there are a lot of articles about the topic.

[MilkyWay]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really say I agree with this. First off, while the broadcast world isn't prepare to move to 1080p, most if it is doing 1080i. With a 1920x1080 res tv the set will only have to deinterlace and not perform scaling which is a good thing. Secondly, most films these days are very high resolution when filmed and as soon as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray take off we WILL have 1080p movies on disc and plenty of them.

As far as upscaling goes, if you have to scale a lower resolution up you've already been hit with the side effects of that regardless of how much you have to scale. In practice most people have found that with a remotely competent scaler most material does not suffer from the trip up to 1920x1080 resolution with the exception of analog 480i. That one is a GI-GO kind of problem anyway. Owners of 1080p sets have found that dvds look fantastic on them when setup properly, and that video is making the trip all the way from 720x480. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

1080p will be the standard in the future. No point in shying away from it right now.

Sceptre, eyeFi, Westinghouse, Polaroid, and other cheapo brands are all bringing 42" and 47" to market with the Chi Mei 1080p panel, so finding an affordable one shouldn't be hard. I'd recommend the Westinghouse LVM-42w2 but I can't right now because users are reporting widespread problems with the set locking up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thanks for this enlightening post. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

However, couldn't it just be wiser to buy a cheap, mature 720p panel right now, to then buy some 1080p set much later when the technology gets better and prices go down?

[Danj]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, see, the problem is, while I understand that this is the best policy at the moment, I need an article or review or something from an authoritative source in order to convince my dad, who is the one who will actually be buying the thing.

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, see, the problem is, while I understand that this is the best policy at the moment, I need an article or review or something from an authoritative source in order to convince my dad, who is the one who will actually be buying the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Olivier is wrong. Not only is there 1080p material, but HD-DVD and Blu-ray will both support native output of it with no 3:2 pulldown removal necessary (some players don't support 1080p at launch, but eventually they all will). The "loss" associated with upscaling is from having to basically resample the image at a higher resolution. Bad scaling algorithms can introduce artifacting and similar issues at this point. Unlike downscaling however you can't really say that detail is lost, and so upscaling will always be better than downscaling. It's actually easier to scale a 720p image to 1080p since that's a factor of 1.5, than it is to scale one to 1366x768.

There is no question that 1080p is better than 720p in almost every way. What is an interesting question however is if your dad is the kind of person who would notice that difference. You need a pretty big display to see it. So my suggestion to you is to take him out and find a shop demonstrating 1080p set displaying 1080i/p footage, and then compare to the lower resolution sets in the same shop. They should have some HD stuff given them by the manufacturers to show off the TVs.

Not all of the HD demo footage is up to standard mind you - I was shown a Pioneer 1080p plasma with HD footage that looked decidedly soft and undetailed recently at a consumer electronics show. At the same show I saw a Hitachi demo that looked positively amazing and 3d-like. I've also seen compression artifacts and other problems at shops, so YMMV.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really say I agree with this. First off, while the broadcast world isn't prepare to move to 1080p, most if it is doing 1080i. With a 1920x1080 res tv the set will only have to deinterlace and not perform scaling which is a good thing. Secondly, most films these days are very high resolution when filmed and as soon as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray take off we WILL have 1080p movies on disc and plenty of them.

As far as upscaling goes, if you have to scale a lower resolution up you've already been hit with the side effects of that regardless of how much you have to scale. In practice most people have found that with a remotely competent scaler most material does not suffer from the trip up to 1920x1080 resolution with the exception of analog 480i. That one is a GI-GO kind of problem anyway. Owners of 1080p sets have found that dvds look fantastic on them when setup properly, and that video is making the trip all the way from 720x480. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

1080p will be the standard in the future. No point in shying away from it right now.

Sceptre, eyeFi, Westinghouse, Polaroid, and other cheapo brands are all bringing 42" and 47" to market with the Chi Mei 1080p panel, so finding an affordable one shouldn't be hard. I'd recommend the Westinghouse LVM-42w2 but I can't right now because users are reporting widespread problems with the set locking up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thanks for this enlightening post. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

However, couldn't it just be wiser to buy a cheap, mature 720p panel right now, to then buy some 1080p set much later when the technology gets better and prices go down?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about having more pixels per inch makes the technology so different? It's still LCD. A 1080p panel is every bit as mature technologically as any other LCD on the market. In fact the newest generation of panels are going to be the 1080p sets. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
What about having more pixels per inch makes the technology so different? It's still LCD. A 1080p panel is every bit as mature technologically as any other LCD on the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. While the basic technology is the same, the production lines aren't. Higher resolutions also typically have a lower yield, and may not be as suitable for use with certain panel technologies that have good performance characteristics in other respects, such as contrast ratio, latency and so on.

[MilkyWay]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, see, the problem is, while I understand that this is the best policy at the moment, I need an article or review or something from an authoritative source in order to convince my dad, who is the one who will actually be buying the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Olivier is wrong. Not only is there 1080p material, but HD-DVD and Blu-ray will both support native output of it with no 3:2 pulldown removal necessary (some players don't support 1080p at launch, but eventually they all will). The "loss" associated with upscaling is from having to basically resample the image at a higher resolution. Bad scaling algorithms can introduce artifacting and similar issues at this point. Unlike downscaling however you can't really say that detail is lost, and so upscaling will always be better than downscaling. It's actually easier to scale a 720p image to 1080p since that's a factor of 1.5, than it is to scale one to 1366x768.

There is no question that 1080p is better than 720p in almost every way. What is an interesting question however is if your dad is the kind of person who would notice that difference. You need a pretty big display to see it. So my suggestion to you is to take him out and find a shop demonstrating 1080p set displaying 1080i/p footage, and then compare to the lower resolution sets in the same shop. They should have some HD stuff given them by the manufacturers to show off the TVs.

Not all of the HD demo footage is up to standard mind you - I was shown a Pioneer 1080p plasma with HD footage that looked decidedly soft and undetailed recently at a consumer electronics show. At the same show I saw a Hitachi demo that looked positively amazing and 3d-like. I've also seen compression artifacts and other problems at shops, so YMMV.

[/ QUOTE ]

But come to think of it, aren't nearly all 1080p sets unable to accept true 1080p feeds, and only able to upscale to that resolution?

Or did this situation change with some new 2006 1080p TV models?

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
But come to think of it, aren't nearly all 1080p sets unable to accept true 1080p feeds, and only able to upscale to that resolution?

Or did this situation change with some new 2006 1080p TV models?

[/ QUOTE ]

They should be able to handle 1080p at 50/60 Hz just fine. The problem is that there are some devices that output 1080@24P, and those won't work. Even the westinghouse mentioned earlier has no problems:

http://www.westinghousedigital.com/pc-26-7-37-1080p-monitor.aspx

There's just no reason to make a 1080p native display and not have inputs that support it.

[raistlinmajere]

720P IS bad. Even on like a 27". HD-DVD/Blu-ray are 1080i/p, and you can't get 1:1 pixel mapping onto a 720p display. Screw 720p at ANY size.

[Danj]

Hmm. Well, it seems like we'll be waiting for prices of 1080-native sets to come down before buying an HDTV then. I hope the SkyHD installer doesn't complain about the fact that we haven't got an HDTV yet...

[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:
There was an article in the Daily Mail (a UK tabloid newspaper) recently, claiming that people who'd purchased 720p HDTVs were being "cheated" out of a million pixels' worth of resolution or so. Now, clearly I understand that this is misleading, but I think my dad must have read the article and got it into his head that we need an HDTV with a resolution of 1920x1080.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it misleading? 1280 x 720 = 921600 total pixels. 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels. Just going by that, yes you would be "cheated" out of nearly 1.2 million pixels which is probably what they were doing.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
What about having more pixels per inch makes the technology so different? It's still LCD. A 1080p panel is every bit as mature technologically as any other LCD on the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. While the basic technology is the same, the production lines aren't. Higher resolutions also typically have a lower yield, and may not be as suitable for use with certain panel technologies that have good performance characteristics in other respects, such as contrast ratio, latency and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are good points. So far I think the higher res panels have compared favorable to the their 1366x768 counterparts from a generation back though. I guess my main take is that LCD has gotten good enough in general now that we don't have to give people the whole "wait until the technology matures more" speech because that rate of maturation will not be as dramatic in the future. I used to hate LCD, and I am now personally ready to buy one, so that says a lot I think. I already took a risk on my computer monitor and I have zero complaints about that one. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

I'm just sitting on the sidelines until Westinghouse swallows hard and recalls their 42w2's for the power supply issue that's locking them up. Then I'll probably own one.

Oh and since we're talking about 1080p LCDs here quite a bit, what does everybody think of these beauties (http://www.cepro.com/products/press/5973.html) ? The 2nd paragraph will widen the eyes of those who know what it's talking about. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
Oh and since we're talking about 1080p LCDs here quite a bit, what does everybody think of these beauties (http://www.cepro.com/products/press/5973.html) ? The 2nd paragraph will widen the eyes of those who know what it's talking about. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole article seems to have nifty stuff. I hope the line comes out as claimed.

[Njr Scrawl]

[ QUOTE ]
Danj said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
IMO, 1080p really isn't worth it currently.

There is no 1080p video material available, and there really won't be for quite some time. So every time you're going to watch lower-definition material, you'll have to suffer through a big amount of quality loss.

Just buy a 720p set for a song now.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, see, the problem is, while I understand that this is the best policy at the moment, I need an article or review or something from an authoritative source in order to convince my dad, who is the one who will actually be buying the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you tried the web sites of hi fi etc magazines?

[Gersen]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
Olivier is wrong. Not only is there 1080p material, but HD-DVD and Blu-ray will both support native output of it with no 3:2 pulldown removal necessary (some players don't support 1080p at launch, but eventually they all will).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a little something I don't get here, If the disk is in 1080i 30fps, how will it be possible to output it in 1080p 24fps without 3:2 pulldown removal ? or do you mean that for 1080i - 60 that can be converted to 1080p - 30fps ?

Gersen

[Skywise]

It's in 1080@24P. Unlike with DVDs there's no part of the production process that has to be done in 60i, so there's no issues with converting it back and forth like they have to do now, which has very variable results. The main difference lies in the actual production process, while the playback side is pretty much the same that we have now.

[Gersen]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
It's in 1080@24P. Unlike with DVDs there's no part of the production process that has to be done in 60i, so there's no issues with converting it back and forth like they have to do now, which has very variable results. The main difference lies in the actual production process, while the playback side is pretty much the same that we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the master is not in 24fps ? For example if it's in 30fps (Haibane Renmei style) or worse, hybrid with part in pulldownified 24fps and other in true 30fps ? How will the player it ?

Gersen

[Skywise]

It'll play it however the disc tells it to. In a way it's still the same issues as before with materials like that since there is no easy solution to that. At the same time they did fix some glaring holes in the DVD spec, such as not allowing a 24P stream (or how to handle 30P).

[Zazen]

[ QUOTE ]
Raistlin said:
720P IS bad. Even on like a 27". HD-DVD/Blu-ray are 1080i/p, and you can't get 1:1 pixel mapping onto a 720p display. Screw 720p at ANY size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree. Anyone buying a TV that doesn't have 1920 by 1080 pixels isn't really getting an HDTV. There is quite a lot of broadcast 1080i material, and it looks absolutely incredible on a 1080 native display. And don't get me started on the utter stupidity of so-called HDTVs with 768 vertical pixels. /images/graemlins/sdsmiley.gif

[MilkyWay]

Well personally, I'm more of a gamer than a movie watcher. So, having a 720p LCD set enables me to profit from the Xbox 360' native resolution, and the PS3's too (when it's released in November).

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
Well personally, I'm more of a gamer than a movie watcher. So, having a 720p LCD set enables me to profit from the Xbox 360' native resolution, and the PS3's too (when it's released in November).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the xbox360, but the PS3 supports 1080P ^^.

[MilkyWay]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
Well personally, I'm more of a gamer than a movie watcher. So, having a 720p LCD set enables me to profit from the Xbox 360' native resolution, and the PS3's too (when it's released in November).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the xbox360, but the PS3 supports 1080P ^^.

[/ QUOTE ]

Xbox 360 doesn't.

PS3 supports 1080p... but no games will ever run at 1080p since it would require way too much horsepower and the technology isn't there yet-- it will be 720p upscaled to 1080p...

[quenelf]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
PS3 supports 1080p... but no games will ever run at 1080p since it would require way too much horsepower and the technology isn't there yet-- it will be 720p upscaled to 1080p...

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the same articles so I'm sure that's true for all games that rely on high power with huge numbers of polygons and visual effects.

However if there are games that use very simple graphics (you know, the kind where they could frankly have done it on an original Playstation - like a new DDR game or something) then it's possible that the games could natively render at 1080p, as far as I know. Also if a game (perhaps 'visual novel' or somesuch) is built largely of prerendered video then it might as well use 1080p.

Agree that the main reason for 1080p support is the blu-ray player, though.

(BTW, I suspect there actually are ways to make x360 go higher than 720p? Because they've been talking vaguely about HD-DVD playback and that'd be pretty bloody useless if it could only output it at 720p...)

--quen

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
PS3 supports 1080p... but no games will ever run at 1080p since it would require way too much horsepower and the technology isn't there yet-- it will be 720p upscaled to 1080p...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you base this on what? The console isn't even out yet so it's not like we have any real world examples. Sony's said it'll support 1080P output, so I don't see why developers wouldn't support it. You can run games in 1080P on a PC, and the PS3 is arguably more powerful. There may be a tradeoff to running in 1080p vs 720p, such as a lower framerate, or turning off certain visual features such as anti-aliasing (which you don't exactly need in 1080P compared to 720P anyway), but that's up to the game developers.

At any rate 720P given decent scaling logic won't look any worse upscaled on a 1080P display than it will upscaled on a 768P one, especially considering it's easier to scale to the former resolution compared to the latter.

[MilkyWay]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
PS3 supports 1080p... but no games will ever run at 1080p since it would require way too much horsepower and the technology isn't there yet-- it will be 720p upscaled to 1080p...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you base this on what? The console isn't even out yet so it's not like we have any real world examples. Sony's said it'll support 1080P output, so I don't see why developers wouldn't support it. You can run games in 1080P on a PC, and the PS3 is arguably more powerful. There may be a tradeoff to running in 1080p vs 720p, such as a lower framerate, or turning off certain visual features such as anti-aliasing (which you don't exactly need in 1080P compared to 720P anyway), but that's up to the game developers.

At any rate 720P given decent scaling logic won't look any worse upscaled on a 1080P display than it will upscaled on a 768P one, especially considering it's easier to scale to the former resolution compared to the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically what all developpers that commented on this said. 720p, just like the Xbox 360. And considering the insignificant number of people that will own 1080p sets (and 1080p sets that can accept 1080p signals instead of just upscaling or whatnot)... it wouldn't be worth it.

[Skywise]

[ QUOTE ]


This is basically what all developpers that commented on this said.


[/ QUOTE ]

Source please? At any rate citing 1080P set penetration as a reason is pretty much only valid for launch titles. Displays capable of 1080P have just started coming out, and it'll take a year or two before they're the rule rather than the exception. By that time developers should also have learned to better take advantage of the PS3's hardware to the point that making 1080P games makes more sense.

[ QUOTE ]

and 1080p sets that can accept 1080p signals instead of just upscaling or whatnot


[/ QUOTE ]
And as I've already said in this thread - 1080P sets can accept 1080P connections. Quit with the FUD please.

[Danj]

My dad just got the phone call from Sky yesterday, it seems we'll be getting Sky HD on May 24th. We almost certainly won't have an HDTV by that date though, since the cheapest 1080-native LCD is still around £1,800, but apparently the HD set top box has SCART on it as well for hooking up to SDTVs, so we'll be using that until we get an HDTV (which will probably be next year).

[Sensuifu]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
[ QUOTE ]
Olivier said:
PS3 supports 1080p... but no games will ever run at 1080p since it would require way too much horsepower and the technology isn't there yet-- it will be 720p upscaled to 1080p...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you base this on what? The console isn't even out yet so it's not like we have any real world examples. Sony's said it'll support 1080P output, so I don't see why developers wouldn't support it. You can run games in 1080P on a PC, and the PS3 is arguably more powerful.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how credible these sources (http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/183) are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are fact.

As for the PS3 being more powerful.. /images/graemlins/sdsmiley.gif Current generation GPUs for the PC have surpassed what the Xbox360 and PS3 are capable of graphics-wise. Oblivion is a prime example of console GPUs being good, but no where as powerful as what you can get from a PC. If the PS3 can render native 1080p games, they'll either be something really static like what was mentioned earlier, or simple enough that the games would look just as good if displaying 720p. If the developers' claims of the PS3 being not much more powerful than the Xbox360 are true, it's likely that native 1080p games will be scarce if at all available.

[Ty]

Mmmmm, I think I've seen the article Olivier is referring to. 1up.com or Gamespot perhaps. They interviewed developers who pretty much all stated they were developing their launch titles in 720p because they couldn't deal with the demands of 1080p. Several stated the system wouldn't offer tolerable framerates at 1080p anyway with their current understanding of how to write code for the system.

[Sensuifu]

It's probably this (http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p2.asp) one you're referring to.

[Skywise]

That's just the Kikizo article that the PS3Focus one you posted earlier refers to. I'll take this anonymous insider source with a grain of salt for now /images/graemlins/happy.gif.

[MilkyWay]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
That's just the Kikizo article that the PS3Focus one you posted earlier refers to. I'll take this anonymous insider source with a grain of salt for now /images/graemlins/happy.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow the game industry hours a day and wouldn't be surprised if these were facts either. The PS3 will be slightly more powerful than the XBox 360, but in the end both systems will even out, with PS3 having a little more long-term untapped potential. And the XBox 360 will have some advantages, like superior anti-aliasing and an overall better GPU than NVidia's RSX, which will be used in the PS3. Next-gen a game's graphical quality will depend more on production values and a developper's ability to make a great-looking game than on which console it will be created onto (save for Nintendo's upcoming Revolution which won't support HDTV and will be significantly crippled since Nintendo chose to focus on gameplay).

But nothing enough to allow developpers to make 1080p games, that's basically a given. They have far enough troubles to make games that look next-gen as it is on 720p.

[quenelf]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
That's just the Kikizo article that the PS3Focus one you posted earlier refers to. I'll take this anonymous insider source with a grain of salt for now /images/graemlins/happy.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's from anonymous sources, but seriously, it's far more than plausible.

Nobody expects PS3 to be hugely more powerful than x360 - a bit, sure, but enough to render twice as many pixels? It's not just the graphics chip either - in order to genuinely make rendering that many pixels worthwhile, you'd need corresponding increases in polygon count and texture size. I'm sure PS3 and xbox could both render at 1080p with ease if they used flat textures and not many polygons and whatever, but what's the point in that?

As developers get used to the system, graphics will improve but I would bet they'll put that extra power into making better-looking 720p games, not same-looking 1080p ones.

I also wouldn't bet on PS3 performance being particularly better than a top-end PC.

(Like I said though, games that totally don't use the PS3's performance can presumably use the full resolution if they want. All those mahjong titles for instance...)

--quen

[Skywise]

Just as a little update to the whole 1080p gaming thing - I watched the E3 live footage for Sony yesterday and they pretty much re-confirmed 1080p for games. Not all will use it of course, but it's definitely a selling point.

[LOUiE]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
Just as a little update to the whole 1080p gaming thing - I watched the E3 live footage for Sony yesterday and they pretty much re-confirmed 1080p for games. Not all will use it of course, but it's definitely a selling point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Their flagship title for 1080p looks to be Gran TurismoHD It's pretty sweet looking too.

[Kaikou]

I'm going to be getting a 720p 32 inch LCD HDTV and am wondering if I should cancel to hold out for a deal on a 1080p set?

The LCD I'm getting is a Philips 32inch, which has a built in ATSC tuner for $710 shipped. Am I going to be left feeling inadequate if I get a Bluray player? Meaning will it be such an astronomical difference, that even at such a good deal for a 32inch, I shouldn't even consider it?

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Smashingblue said:
I'm going to be getting a 720p 32 inch LCD HDTV and am wondering if I should cancel to hold out for a deal on a 1080p set?

The LCD I'm getting is a Philips 32inch, which has a built in ATSC tuner for $710 shipped. Am I going to be left feeling inadequate if I get a Bluray player? Meaning will it be such an astronomical difference, that even at such a good deal for a 32inch, I shouldn't even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the size you've settled on then 1080p is nothing to worry about. Buy the model you've picked out now. 1080p in terms of resolution benefits alone isn't really relevant until you're talking about 42" or above (and many argue it isn't relevant until you're well above 50"). More importantly, there aren't any 1080p sets smaller than 37" and there are none on the horizon. While it's possible top ush the resolution down into the smaller sets, probably as small as 23", it isn't practical right now and the market is focused on putting the resolution into bigger sets where it does the most good.

[Kaikou]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Smashingblue said:
I'm going to be getting a 720p 32 inch LCD HDTV and am wondering if I should cancel to hold out for a deal on a 1080p set?

The LCD I'm getting is a Philips 32inch, which has a built in ATSC tuner for $710 shipped. Am I going to be left feeling inadequate if I get a Bluray player? Meaning will it be such an astronomical difference, that even at such a good deal for a 32inch, I shouldn't even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the size you've settled on then 1080p is nothing to worry about. Buy the model you've picked out now. 1080p in terms of resolution benefits alone isn't really relevant until you're talking about 42" or above (and many argue it isn't relevant until you're well above 50"). More importantly, there aren't any 1080p sets smaller than 37" and there are none on the horizon. While it's possible top ush the resolution down into the smaller sets, probably as small as 23", it isn't practical right now and the market is focused on putting the resolution into bigger sets where it does the most good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply. Actually ended up cancelling the order, but mostly as I decided against dealing with Philips Outlet, based on poor ratings from customers.

[raistlinmajere]

Yes, hold out for 1080p, even if that means going for 37". You might think that 37" is too big, but unless it just won't fit in your area and it'd be way too much work to fix that, then it's probably not. At 1080p, you can be watching a 50" TV from about 5' and be comfortable.

Also, Philips TVs are junk. And you've heard correctly about their outlet. My mom and her roommate bought a 37" Philips LCD TV. They never consulted me. This thing looks pretty bad. It doesn't look like it even makes any effort to deinterlace. And it doesn't let you adjust crap in the menu. The black level is also terrible, even after I adjusted it out of torch mode - even compared to other LCDs.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Smashingblue said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Smashingblue said:
I'm going to be getting a 720p 32 inch LCD HDTV and am wondering if I should cancel to hold out for a deal on a 1080p set?

The LCD I'm getting is a Philips 32inch, which has a built in ATSC tuner for $710 shipped. Am I going to be left feeling inadequate if I get a Bluray player? Meaning will it be such an astronomical difference, that even at such a good deal for a 32inch, I shouldn't even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the size you've settled on then 1080p is nothing to worry about. Buy the model you've picked out now. 1080p in terms of resolution benefits alone isn't really relevant until you're talking about 42" or above (and many argue it isn't relevant until you're well above 50"). More importantly, there aren't any 1080p sets smaller than 37" and there are none on the horizon. While it's possible top ush the resolution down into the smaller sets, probably as small as 23", it isn't practical right now and the market is focused on putting the resolution into bigger sets where it does the most good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply. Actually ended up cancelling the order, but mostly as I decided against dealing with Philips Outlet, based on poor ratings from customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out Syntax Olevia's LT32HVM for a good budget 32" set. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[LOUiE]

Should I be looking at LCDs more than DLP? I ask because I just found a Samsung 50" DLP 1080P on ebay for $1800 shipped. It states it is new. It has me very tempted.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
LOUiE said:
Should I be looking at LCDs more than DLP? I ask because I just found a Samsung 50" DLP 1080P on ebay for $1800 shipped. It states it is new. It has me very tempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy and sell a lot on eBay, and that raises flags with me. If it is local and you can pick it up, then that's one thing, but will they pack it properly, and can they arrange shipping for the monster box?

[raistlinmajere]

What's the model number?

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
LOUiE said:
Should I be looking at LCDs more than DLP? I ask because I just found a Samsung 50" DLP 1080P on ebay for $1800 shipped. It states it is new. It has me very tempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you want that size. Just make sure you aren't bothered by the rainbow effect DLP can exhibit. If you're not familiar with that, Google can provide more information than you will want to know. Also, I agree with JeffDM's suspicions. At the very least get more information from the seller and make certain the shipping is insured if you're going to go that route. You might get burned on it.