1080i vs 720p

Bibucks5,

You have to determine what the native resolution of the panel in your set is. There's a difference between what input resolutions a set will accept and what it actually scales and displays them at. Post the model # of your set and we can look it up. Being that your set is 8 yours old, I would suspect that it's native resolution is 720P.

Prpixel,

I'm just passing along the tests of the highly trustworthy reviewers at CNET. Here is the article:

http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080p-hdtv/

Thanks,
Dusty

Bibucks5,

Your set most assuredly is not displaying anything at 1080i. As Prpixel said, it is displaying at whatever the native resolution of its panels. In the case of an 8 year old Sony, the panels are probably something like 1386 x 768 or so.

Getting back to 720p vs. 1080i, when I said the consensus is that these 2 resolutions look very similar, that was a generalization for most people with most "normal" sized displays.

Besides the display and processing, there are many other factors to take into account. But the end result is that with most equipment right now, these 2 resolutions end up looking quite similar to most people.

However as Prpixel was saying, as the quality and size of the processing and display goes up, 1080i starts to look better than 720p. In fact, theoretically if de-interlacing is *perfect*, 1080i should approach, but not quite equal 1080p.

dave

Dusty,

Sorry if it sounded like I was attaching you.

I have some problems with that Cnet article. The first is that the optimum viewing distance for a 50" is 6' 3" not 8'. As you move past the optimum viewing distance, you will loose detail. Another thing that they fail to mention is what TV's they were comparing. Are they from the same manufacturer? They compare prices of two Panasonic Plasmas, but they don't tell you what sets were actually used in the test. In another part of the article, they say that they can see more detail, and less jaggie edges, but then they say that it doesn't justify the added cost. And, that the only real benefit to extra resolution is that you can sit closer to the set. Finally, they say that resolution is resolution and it's the determining factor when it comes to detail. Well, I guess that the quality of the scaler has nothing to do with it. I'd say that this article, while better than Consumer Reports, still has some shortcomings. I'll give them props for using Blu-ray as a source and comparing the sets side by side. I just wish they would have mention what sets/manufacturers were compared and been more scientific in their methodology.

I know from my own experiences that a 720P set can have a sharper picture than a 1080P set. Case in point, I owned a Panasonic PT-AX100u 720P projector about 4 years back. I got the upgrade bug for 1080P so I "upgraded" to a Mitsu HC4900 which on paper looked better than the Panny. In reality, the 720P Panny was a better picture all the way around; more detail, better contrast and a more natural picture. I dumped the HC4900 as soon as the HC5500 became available.

I have a friend that has a high-end/custom install business. So, I get to play around with many different TV's from many different manufacturers. In addition, I get to compare side by side different size/resolution sets in manufacturer's product lines. Sometimes, the difference is noticeable, but not a big deal. And sometimes the difference jumps out and bites you in the ass.

Dusty.

One other note about CNET reviews. I've noticed that lately their reviews are becoming more mainstream; focusing more on features/value and less on performance. I guess you can tell that I'm not a big fan. YMMV

BTW, my home page is news.cnet.com. LOL.