EngadgetHD: With reports circulating in specialist AV press that there’s no (discernable) difference between 1080i and 1080p, it’s quite understandable to still be skeptical when television manufacturers are screaming otherwise and touting 1080p as the new “must have” feature.
In the latest battle between the two outputs, eagle-eyed testers at CNET compared the 1080p output from the Blu-ray version of the hot-selling M:I III film on five different displays. With monitors sporting resolutions ranging from 1,024 x 768 to 1,366 x 768 to 1,920 x 1,080, the conclusions were unsurprisingly similar to various other studies.
Essentially, reviewers stated that in a vast majority of the scenes, the “level of detail was virtually identical” across the higher resolution sets, and that even the (relatively) low resolution Philips 42PF9631D plasma showed imagery “difficult to discern” from more elite monitors. Overall, testers felt that native 1080p rendered “slightly more detail in near background images in scenes with long depths of field,” but was otherwise not really “necessary,” and recommended that prospective buyers save their cash for the time being rather than buying in (literally) to the 1080p hype right now.
top
ryan | Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 9:35
Here’s a comment from one of our readers. What do you think?
Remember, we report the news… up to you to comment on it.
==================================================
From……: Barrington
There is a saying in computers, GIGO, ‘Garbage In Garbage Out’.
If you input nonsense into a piece you will get nonsense out, which is
common sense.
Why havenot any of the experiments carried out used the Sony 1080p HD
TVs.
CNET admitted themselves that their test wasn’t scientific.
Therefore apart from beingin biased what was the purpose in carrying out
a test if it is not going to be carried out correctly?
Since HDMI 1.3 products (PSP3, late 2006) and the other products (learly
2007) isn’t available therefore the test is actually completely useless!
What we have here is a bunch of sheeps following some idiot or the blind
following the blind!
The products were not the best products which could have been used.
It is impossible to compare 1080p against 1080i until they have at least
HDMI 1.3 (Philips has created a chip, which cost I think U$ 0.97 and the
incompatible HDCP problem has been solved.
Some of the questions, which I want answered are:-
1) Since the colour is capped until HDMI 1.3 is included in products it
is common sense that the picture differences are going to be at least
significantly reduced!
2) You don’t ask a group of untrained people to test a TV, which is
ridiculous.
3)For example if they where any good why were they not ask to set-up the
TV’s to maimize their picture quality also?
4) What were the; specifications, remits, and limitations, which the
report was based upon?
5) Where the TVs in bright day light?
6) What source of materials were used?
7) were the best cables 1080p used, I probably don’t think so?
8) Were the best AVR used I don’t think so?
9) Was the best TV aerial (antenna) source used and RF cable, I don’t
think so?
10) So why did CNET and it probably applies to other reviews didn’t use
the best hardare and software (I require the; name of the manufacturers,
model number of everything used?
11) Which also raises the question who was responsible for auditing
(checking that the review was carried out objectively), because CNET
admitted that it wasn’t scientific?
12) This also raises the issue why didn’t Ryan state that CNET admitted
that the review was not scientific, was it intentionally or
deliberately?
There are so many questions, which I could ask?
But it should be obvious, why should any professional carry out an
incompetent review probably knowingly, if it probably wasn’t deliberate?
NB!!! Like I said a bunch of sheep following some idiot over the edge of
a cliff or the blind leading the blind!!!!!!
http://hdmi.org/about/faq.asp
http://www.hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20060801.asp
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/articles-author.php?id=16
The principal purpose for wanting 1080p instead of 1080i is because I
don’t think that the problem with fast moving objects, for example a
fast enough moving car between frames has been solved and I don’t want
to have to flick backwards and forwards between 1080i and 1080p or
between 720p and 1080i!!!
=================================
Jules Verne | Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 8:32
The guy might have a point. But why is he getting so aggressive? Cool down, Barrington – or whatever your name is.
ryan | Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 10:43
Thanks Jules, for your comment. Here’s Barrington’s feedback (Barrington, can you let us know if we can publish your email address?)
Clear, clever and concise answers always win the conversation, don’t you think.
=================
The reason for being aggresive is that consumers are just being ripped
off with faulty,misleading, outdated and completely false information by
people like CNET who should know better!
The latest claim by CNET is that the average person won’t notice the
difference, which is completely false and it would be interesting will
they replace obsolete TVs with HDMI 1.3 versions.
For example when both the new HDMI 1.3 versions are incldued within HD
products in early 2007, apart from PSP3 (early 2006) which contains HDMI
1.3, virtually all previous HD product versions will be obsolete,
because the performance including picture quality will be substantially
much better with the HDMI 1.3 version!
People have also been misled about the viewing angles of the Sony 1080p
TVs!
It has been claimed that Plasma is far superior than LCDs but even
people who should be professionally competent are refusing to base
information on; scientific trials and standards.
This means that consumers are buying pieces of; expensive, faulty junk,
which are already probably obsolete.
To my knowledge at least two people have stated that they will purchase
HD TVs based on the knowledge, which they have been given
- out of date, misleading and false information!
The new Laser TV probably by Mitsubishi, which should be marketed in
2007, hopefully, should further increase the performance of HD TVs,
including the picture quality etcetera, which most people are unaware
of.
http://www.mitsubishielectric-usa.com/news/2006/Mitsubishi%20demonstrate
s%20laser%20HDTV.htm
http://www.gadgetspy.co.uk/2006/04/03/laser-powered-flat-screen-tv
Don | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 19:42
Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. Frankly the answer to your answer to the assertion that untrained people shouldn’t be the ones testing televisions sort of begs the next question. .’okay, so who’s going to be buying and watching them? The guys who sit around with their volt meters and diagnostic equipment. . or joe blow common guy who doesn’t give a flying burrito about the ‘technical’ superiority of one product over another. I am a professional photographer who cares a whole lot about the discernable differences in images output for viewing. . and frankly there IS no discernable difference in the quality of the 1080i and 1080p. I think if anyone says they see it. .they’re probably unwitting victims of the placebo effect as applied to electronics.
Jeff | Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 9:51
The post below explains in some detail in what situations you will be able to discern a difference between 720p and 1080p. It primarily depends upon screen size and seating distance from the screen. For projectors however, there is only one choice.
http://www.presentationtek.com/2008/03/28/1080p-vs-720p-or-full-hd-vs-hd-resolution/
TruXter | Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 17:37
that captcha code was not created for the color blind.
clarity
write speed
refresh rate
feild of depth
As far as tv’s go those things are what the human eye can see.
anyone who claims different is an idiot and knows nothing of the human eye.
The manor in which the tv writes the images on to the screen is meaningless especially if we are talking about writing 30 or greater frames per second.
Cnet did a fine post. They told you what they did and what the results where. They make it clear it was not scientific…. why the hell gripe about them not making it scientific????
I mean I would like jelly beans but they didn’t talk about jelly beans..
Cnet did a fine job.