By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 720p Versus 1080p HDTVs. The Facts

dahuman on 28 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Pock3R said:
Barozi said:
Andysw said:
Barozi said:
nordlead said:

1) Basically, 720p is probably the best choice for any screen 50 inches and under.
2) Tv is broadcast in 720p.
3) Consoles are 720p.
4) Blu-Ray is 1080p, but the difference is minor.

1) not true. The reality is that the screen size and sitting distance determine the resolution needed for the average consumer. Any knowledgable consumer should figure out the sitting distance and the size of screen they are going to purchase, and then determine if they can notice a difference between 720 & 1080. Most won't, but some might be able to. You can also use a chart like this one to help you determine what will be cost effective.

2) not true. TV is broadcast in 720p and 1080i, with most channels using 1080i in my area (fox is the only 720p). LCD screens have a native resolution, so being forced to scale from 1080i down to 720p can be bad (if you have a cheap TV). If you want to use that argument, then a good consumer would do research first to determine what the resolution will be for their input source.

3) not true. The PS3 can output 1080p. Not very many games support 1080p, but a few do.

4) this really comes down to point 1 and doesn't make any sense in posting it.

the 360 can do 1080p too......

 

Yes and no. The xbox 360 has a fancy upscaling function that upscales games to 1080p. It can not output native 1080p.

http://kotaku.com/201816/shane-kim-talks-360-1080p-game-output

Virtua Tennis 3 runs in native 1080p.

It's not possible to get native 1080p from a DVD....we wouldn't need bluray if we could

 

ok well i didnt read the article really....so what they are saying is the game was made on a hd disc for that old hd drive add on?? that article is tl;dr

 

That link doesn't mention Virtua Tennis 3 either. Regardless, Kim says the 360 can run games/movies in 1080p. I wasn't aware that the 360 could do "true" 1080p. Guess you learn something new everyday.

360 has always been able to render at 1080p, the problem is of course, horse power, you can prolly tell it to render at like 1600p too if the display supports it, but it'd catch on fire.



Around the Network
xlost4 on 28 December 2009

First, I agree with article in the original poster post. Second, I don't plan to by 50" TV anytime soon. I'm a college student living in a small room kinda and my 20" HDTV that does 720p to 1080i satisfy me at the moment.

Like its been said there isn't a difference between 720p and 1080p from 42" or lower and if you can see a difference then your eyes aren't human and your just bragging because you have put money into a 1080p TV while others saved money and are satisfied with there 720p and you want those owners to feel bad. Having 42" or higher is only necessary if your house if huge and you will be sitting a huge amount of feet away from the TV to begin with.

My 20" LCD HDTV is perfect for me and more than likely the others that own 720p sets see the visuals awesome.

I personally never really cared for HDTV because it was all hype rather than something that was just being bought and I only bought a HDTV just because I was looking for a spacious TV, which was a LCD.

Sent via BlackBerry



Reasonable on 28 December 2009
dahuman said:
Reasonable said:
As others have said - and to be fair the article makes clear itself - the major factor is distance.

If you are going to be sitting fairly close to the screen when playing/watching then even on smaller TVs you will see a noticeable improvement with 1080p - particularly with sports and action movies and fast moving games.

Secondly, going forward more and more content (even games potentially) will be in 1080p, so buying below that now may reduce the potential lifetime of your TV.

Of course, money is money, and a 720p or 1080i TV should serve fine for the foreseeable future, and will be ideal with a PS3 or 360.

But if you can afford it, going 1080p is simply a better choice and the cost differential between 720p and 1080p TVs is dropping all the time.

For videogames right now 720p is probably the key resolution for consoles, with 1080p the resolution if you really intend to watch BR movies and 1080p programmes.

Of course, on PC, as others have said, 1080p has long been old news!

to be reasonable, why the hell would people buy a 40 inch TV and purposely put it super far away anyways? totally defeats the purpose of having a big screen TV, might as well get a huge white wall and a high quality projector if your living room is that big.

I know.  It's just the weird fact that so many comparisons talk about 'unless sitting closer than 8 feet you won't notice much difference' and I think, heck, I've never really sat further away than 8 feet and tried to play a game or watch a movie.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

dahuman on 28 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
dahuman said:
CGI-Quality said:
Pock3R said:
Barozi said:
Andysw said:
Barozi said:
nordlead said:

1) Basically, 720p is probably the best choice for any screen 50 inches and under.
2) Tv is broadcast in 720p.
3) Consoles are 720p.
4) Blu-Ray is 1080p, but the difference is minor.

1) not true. The reality is that the screen size and sitting distance determine the resolution needed for the average consumer. Any knowledgable consumer should figure out the sitting distance and the size of screen they are going to purchase, and then determine if they can notice a difference between 720 & 1080. Most won't, but some might be able to. You can also use a chart like this one to help you determine what will be cost effective.

2) not true. TV is broadcast in 720p and 1080i, with most channels using 1080i in my area (fox is the only 720p). LCD screens have a native resolution, so being forced to scale from 1080i down to 720p can be bad (if you have a cheap TV). If you want to use that argument, then a good consumer would do research first to determine what the resolution will be for their input source.

3) not true. The PS3 can output 1080p. Not very many games support 1080p, but a few do.

4) this really comes down to point 1 and doesn't make any sense in posting it.

the 360 can do 1080p too......

 

Yes and no. The xbox 360 has a fancy upscaling function that upscales games to 1080p. It can not output native 1080p.

http://kotaku.com/201816/shane-kim-talks-360-1080p-game-output

Virtua Tennis 3 runs in native 1080p.

It's not possible to get native 1080p from a DVD....we wouldn't need bluray if we could

 

ok well i didnt read the article really....so what they are saying is the game was made on a hd disc for that old hd drive add on?? that article is tl;dr

 

That link doesn't mention Virtua Tennis 3 either. Regardless, Kim says the 360 can run games/movies in 1080p. I wasn't aware that the 360 could do "true" 1080p. Guess you learn something new everyday.

360 has always been able to render at 1080p, the problem is of course, horse power, you can prolly tell it to render at like 1600p too if the display supports it, but it'd catch on fire.

Well, they updated it for such capabilities. I didn't think it coul run a game in native 1080p.

been that way for awhile, it just doesn't have the power or memory to render things at that res while having all the effects on for the most part so it might as well not have that function though. there is only so much you can do with 512MB of unified memory.



Words Of Wisdom on 28 December 2009
Raistline said:

They also will not see a difference between 60hz, 120hz or 240hz unless it is blatently advertised to have a better refresh rate.

Actually I'd bet most people could tell the difference between 60Hz and 120/240Hz fairly easily given a 24 FPS source.



Around the Network
nordlead on 28 December 2009
Reasonable said:
dahuman said:
Reasonable said:
As others have said - and to be fair the article makes clear itself - the major factor is distance.

If you are going to be sitting fairly close to the screen when playing/watching then even on smaller TVs you will see a noticeable improvement with 1080p - particularly with sports and action movies and fast moving games.

Secondly, going forward more and more content (even games potentially) will be in 1080p, so buying below that now may reduce the potential lifetime of your TV.

Of course, money is money, and a 720p or 1080i TV should serve fine for the foreseeable future, and will be ideal with a PS3 or 360.

But if you can afford it, going 1080p is simply a better choice and the cost differential between 720p and 1080p TVs is dropping all the time.

For videogames right now 720p is probably the key resolution for consoles, with 1080p the resolution if you really intend to watch BR movies and 1080p programmes.

Of course, on PC, as others have said, 1080p has long been old news!

to be reasonable, why the hell would people buy a 40 inch TV and purposely put it super far away anyways? totally defeats the purpose of having a big screen TV, might as well get a huge white wall and a high quality projector if your living room is that big.

I know.  It's just the weird fact that so many comparisons talk about 'unless sitting closer than 8 feet you won't notice much difference' and I think, heck, I've never really sat further away than 8 feet and tried to play a game or watch a movie.

In the US pretty much everyone I know has a room that is ~12x12 or bigger, and with TV on 1 wall and couch/chairs on the other, they can easily get further than 8 ft. My main room is 12.5'x19' and I sit ~9ft away from my TV, and I plan on having a second row of seats at ~15'.

Projectors have 1 major drawback over TVs, in that the bulb life isn't very long and they cost a small fortune. Why spend $500 every couple years because the bulb burned out? Projectors only make sense for specialized movie rooms that don't get used every day.




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

dahuman on 28 December 2009
nordlead said:
Reasonable said:
dahuman said:
Reasonable said:
As others have said - and to be fair the article makes clear itself - the major factor is distance.

If you are going to be sitting fairly close to the screen when playing/watching then even on smaller TVs you will see a noticeable improvement with 1080p - particularly with sports and action movies and fast moving games.

Secondly, going forward more and more content (even games potentially) will be in 1080p, so buying below that now may reduce the potential lifetime of your TV.

Of course, money is money, and a 720p or 1080i TV should serve fine for the foreseeable future, and will be ideal with a PS3 or 360.

But if you can afford it, going 1080p is simply a better choice and the cost differential between 720p and 1080p TVs is dropping all the time.

For videogames right now 720p is probably the key resolution for consoles, with 1080p the resolution if you really intend to watch BR movies and 1080p programmes.

Of course, on PC, as others have said, 1080p has long been old news!

to be reasonable, why the hell would people buy a 40 inch TV and purposely put it super far away anyways? totally defeats the purpose of having a big screen TV, might as well get a huge white wall and a high quality projector if your living room is that big.

I know.  It's just the weird fact that so many comparisons talk about 'unless sitting closer than 8 feet you won't notice much difference' and I think, heck, I've never really sat further away than 8 feet and tried to play a game or watch a movie.

In the US pretty much everyone I know has a room that is ~12x12 or bigger, and with TV on 1 wall and couch/chairs on the other, they can easily get further than 8 ft. My main room is 12.5'x19' and I sit ~9ft away from my TV, and I plan on having a second row of seats at ~15'.

Projectors have 1 major drawback over TVs, in that the bulb life isn't very long and they cost a small fortune. Why spend $500 every couple years because the bulb burned out? Projectors only make sense for specialized movie rooms that don't get used every day.

I don't consider 12.5x19 to be a big room dood...... you'd do fine with a big enough flat panel.



lvader on 28 December 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
Raistline said:

They also will not see a difference between 60hz, 120hz or 240hz unless it is blatently advertised to have a better refresh rate.

Actually I'd bet most people could tell the difference between 60Hz and 120/240Hz fairly easily given a 24 FPS source.

 

Yes, due to the removal of 3:2 judder not because of a higher refresh rate.



Words Of Wisdom on 28 December 2009
lvader said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Raistline said:

They also will not see a difference between 60hz, 120hz or 240hz unless it is blatently advertised to have a better refresh rate.

Actually I'd bet most people could tell the difference between 60Hz and 120/240Hz fairly easily given a 24 FPS source.

Yes, due to the removal of 3:2 judder not because of a higher refresh rate.

The higher refresh rate is why it goes away thus it is because of the higher refresh rate.



Barozi on 28 December 2009
Pock3R said:
Barozi said:
Andysw said:
Barozi said:
nordlead said:

1) Basically, 720p is probably the best choice for any screen 50 inches and under.
2) Tv is broadcast in 720p.
3) Consoles are 720p.
4) Blu-Ray is 1080p, but the difference is minor.

1) not true. The reality is that the screen size and sitting distance determine the resolution needed for the average consumer. Any knowledgable consumer should figure out the sitting distance and the size of screen they are going to purchase, and then determine if they can notice a difference between 720 & 1080. Most won't, but some might be able to. You can also use a chart like this one to help you determine what will be cost effective.

2) not true. TV is broadcast in 720p and 1080i, with most channels using 1080i in my area (fox is the only 720p). LCD screens have a native resolution, so being forced to scale from 1080i down to 720p can be bad (if you have a cheap TV). If you want to use that argument, then a good consumer would do research first to determine what the resolution will be for their input source.

3) not true. The PS3 can output 1080p. Not very many games support 1080p, but a few do.

4) this really comes down to point 1 and doesn't make any sense in posting it.

the 360 can do 1080p too......

 

Yes and no. The xbox 360 has a fancy upscaling function that upscales games to 1080p. It can not output native 1080p.

http://kotaku.com/201816/shane-kim-talks-360-1080p-game-output

Virtua Tennis 3 runs in native 1080p.

It's not possible to get native 1080p from a DVD....we wouldn't need bluray if we could

 

ok well i didnt read the article really....so what they are saying is the game was made on a hd disc for that old hd drive add on?? that article is tl;dr

As nordlead already said, you're completely wrong.

I could fit a 1080p video on a floppy disk. The video would only be 1 or 2 seconds long, but it would be still be there.

That's the reason why there's Blu-Ray. You can fit more data on it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm pretty sure Turn 10 could've made Forza 3 @1080p and 30FPS.