Why 1080p is a must to buy and the rest is not HDTV

pajama · 03-12-2006, 03:48 PM

First off let me thank everyone on this forum, it has been very beneficial in my knowledge of HDTV. Now as far as the title of this thread goes, here is my humble opinion. I do enjoy the bantering back and forth on the definition of what HD consists of. Being an engineer I always look for the "correct" definition and engineering answer. Yes I am sure there is a standard somewhere everyone can agree on but it is a little like pi (what is the best value to use: 3.14159.... or 22/7?). Now let me state some facts:

1. The price of flat panel displays have fallen rapidly (good news)
2. Manufactures are spending 100's of millions of dollars on new flat panel lines (more good news)
3. The VAST majority of programing available is SD (bad news). Like myself, who has seen EVERYTHING that DiscoveryHD has to offer at least once?
4. A lot of consumers still do not understand HDTV (again bad news)
5. The majority of the viewing public does not own a HDTV (again more bad news)
6. Bandwidth issues are the reason most signals are encoded by MPEG-2 and starting to migrate to MPEG-4 (not really good news)
7. Nobody is broadcasting in 1080p now and probably not in the near future (see 6. above)
8. If your flat panel has enough pixels to display 1080p, when viewing anything less, especially SD (see 3. above) the video processor can not make something out of nothing. (not good or bad just the truth)
9. Nobody (granted it is a limited number of HD addicts like myself) has viewed a flat panel display (manufactured with more than 480 lines) that complains about the picture quality. Typically everyone loves the picture quality of HD broadcasts (whether it's EDTV, HDTV, HD lite, etc.)

Okay here is my take on why you should only buy 1080p flat panels. With the increased competition in flat panel displays the top manufacturers are seeing the bottom line erode compared to the future investments they are making. The only way to maintain the needed profit margins is to offer the newest version of HDTV and that is 1080p. Buying the biggest and the best will guarentee the top companies will be around for a while.
Oh by the way if you want to view programming in 1080p just get the networks to start broadcasting it in the near future.
In my opinion we are putting "the cart before the horse".
If we really want to make inroads in HDTV here are my suggestions:

1. Forget about trying to define what "true HD is" let's discuss the merits of the various "video processors" used in the displays. This alone determines how well the display will look and how well SD will look on the display. (Top tier manufactureres use the best processors hence the cost adder)
2. When new users ask "what is the best to buy?" Just tell them buy whatever looks good to them, whether it's plasma, LCD, CRT, etc. Argueing over the merits of each type of display is like "politics and religion", there are no winners
3. Keep it simple for everyone. The more consumers we get the more programming that will be produced (and that is a good thing).
4. Learn to live with limited bandwidth (it will not magically increase over night or in the near future)

I personally am waitng until next year to buy my next HDTV which will feature 2160p the "true HD"

Sorry for the ramblings (it is true, HD is as addicting as crack)

Tomos · 03-12-2006, 04:13 PM

With all the energy expelled in writing your thoughts you could have been enjoying real life in 5000p right now and it's free and no wires or subscriptions needed.

BrianO · 03-12-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pajama

Yes I am sure there is a standard somewhere everyone can agree on but it is a little like pi (what is the best value to use: 3.14159.... or 22/7?).

355/113 gives a closer approximation to pi than either of those choices.

Allin4greeN · 03-12-2006, 04:50 PM

How about my favorite number..."phi", also known as "the golden ratio," among other names...

IMHO, that is a damn fine post, pajama!

I'm curious about your take on the migration towards H.264 (MPEG4) compression...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pajama

...6. Bandwidth issues are the reason most signals are encoded by MPEG-2 and starting to migrate to MPEG-4 (not really good news)...

Bossman · 03-12-2006, 05:16 PM

I've been doing research for 2 yrs. on big screen tv's and the different forums offer tons of good info. The down side is some members are too much in love with numbers. Larger numbers do not equate to a better picture. IMO most people still watch alot of SDTV. Most people can only get 6 to 12 HD
channels. Top of the line technology is changing very fast, reminds me of home computers during their infansy. If you purchased top equipment during this time you remember how quick you became outdated and how much you overpaid. So IMO, if your looking to get into the big screen arena, still watch alot of SD,some HD and dvds and dont want to spend a fortune ,the tv for you is Panny 42 EDTV. This will hold you over until tech slows down and broadcast and display standards are better defined.

pajama · 03-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allin4greeN

How about my favorite number..."phi", also known as "the golden ratio," among other names...

IMHO, that is a damn fine post, pajama!

I'm curious about your take on the migration towards H.264 (MPEG4) compression...?

I'm glad you liked the dissertation. As far as MPEG-4 I don't think it is as fine a picture as a MPEG-2 signal. A lot thought has a lot to do with the decoder that is used, it is not a simple algorythum. However most people can not tell the difference in the picture, it is like taking an image and converting it to a compressed JPEG. It is still superior to SD and that , in my opinion, it the main goal.

pajama · 03-12-2006, 06:42 PM

Bossman I am very impressed with you findings. You are right on the mark. I paid $1100 for my Apple II. I think the only group that is more obsessed with numbers are the gamers when it comes down to which "graphics cards" are better (ATI or Nvidia).

Allin4greeN · 03-12-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

I've been doing research for 2 yrs. on big screen tv's and the different forums offer tons of good info. The down side is some members are too much in love with numbers. Larger numbers do not equate to a better picture. IMO most people still watch alot of SDTV. Most people can only get 6 to 12 HD
channels.

I agree with much of what you're saying. However, between satellite and OTA sources, I currently receive close to 30 channels that broadcast HD either exclusively, or as a part of their regular programming schedules. After I upgrade my equipment, in April/May, that number will increase to nearly 40. In general, I think that the points you made above apply more to mainstream consumers, not necessarily the earliest adopters of this technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Top of the line technology is changing very fast, reminds me of home computers during their infansy. If you purchased top equipment during this time you remember how quick you became outdated and how much you overpaid.

I think that this is an important point... IMO, as broadcast providers like Verizon (FiOS), and other PC based hardware, software and services develop and gain market share, PC's will become more integrated into home theater and entertainment systems. We need only look at the growing proliferation of consumer oriented HTPC's to confirm this trend has begun. Additionally, fiberoptics as a transmission medium provides for the possibility of more and more efficient use of bandwidth. I suggest that this will engender new opportunities in bringing media content to consumers. Perhaps even 1080p (.ts files anyone?). You know, Moore's Law and all that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

So IMO, if your looking to get into the big screen arena, still watch alot of SD,some HD and dvds and dont want to spend a fortune,the tv for you is Panny 42 EDTV. This will hold you over until tech slows down and broadcast and display standards are better defined.

That probably makes sense, despite the shameless plug for Panny (

), for the majority of consumers these days. But it doesn't make sense for me.

I want more than a 42" screen. I want to integrate an HTPC into my set up. I want to purchase an HD DVD player (decision regarding format to be based upon the format battles). And, I don't much like watching SD sources at all, anymore... HD has spoiled me. To accomplish my goals for a home theater and attain the best possible PQ, I'll want/need more resolution than a 1024x768 (EDIT: oops, I mean 852x480

) panel can provide. I'm not convinced that a 1080p set is the way to go... but it's certainly closer to what I'm looking for.

To conlude my rather lengthy response... I'll just say that despite my rants, "future proofing" seems to be an impossible state of affairs. One might consider the range of technologies that both exist and are "in the pipeline", evaluate where these technologies may converge (i.e. monitor, PC, etc.), determine what will be necessary for that convergence to occur successfully, and even have enough money to pay for it all... and Hollywood, Congress, or some other regulatory authority will come along and reshuffle the deck, regulate/de-regulate, or otherwise muss the whole damn thing up.

Bossman · 03-12-2006, 06:56 PM

My first computer cost 3000. and the printer ran 400. The price I paid for having to have the best numbers. My last computer was 700 and the printer, scanner,copy,fax cost 79. Lesson learned, First get your feet wet then when tech and prices level out take the plunge.

Allin4greeN · 03-12-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

First get your feet wet then when tech and prices level out take the plunge.

I agree... I bought the 32" Westy as my experiment in HD. Sucked me in!

s2mikey · 03-12-2006, 08:24 PM

That all sounds good and stuff, but HD is HD. Dont gimme this 1080p stuff as being "real" High-def.

For those of us that have already bought high-def sets, we are certainly enjoying REAL HD right now. Anyone that disagrees can take a viewing test in which you try and tell what looks better: 1080 or 720. You can't so dont bother trying....

Go ahead and wait forever....you're missing the "picture".

Elemental · 03-13-2006, 10:40 PM

Go for the Panasonic 50" plasma models! They are easily the best deal out there. Good luck finding one though...

ChaosMan1014 · 03-14-2006, 01:39 PM

720P looks tons better than 1080I but I still can't wait for 1080P to come out so I can see if my eyes can tell the difference.

Setg · 03-14-2006, 09:06 PM

I hear most ppl say if you get a 45" or more go with 1080p and if under 45" you wasted a ton of money.

scottie · 03-17-2006, 10:05 PM

I never understood people who say lets wait, something new will be out soon. Something new will always be out soon. With the way things are going in this country, there won't be a country left for you to watch tv in if you keep waiting. You could die tommorrow, so live today like it's your last. There are plenty of good televisions out. Pick one!

03-12-2006, 03:48 PM	#1
pajama Love HD we just need more Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Stillwater Posts: 6	Why 1080p is a must to buy and the rest is not HDTV First off let me thank everyone on this forum, it has been very beneficial in my knowledge of HDTV. Now as far as the title of this thread goes, here is my humble opinion. I do enjoy the bantering back and forth on the definition of what HD consists of. Being an engineer I always look for the "correct" definition and engineering answer. Yes I am sure there is a standard somewhere everyone can agree on but it is a little like pi (what is the best value to use: 3.14159.... or 22/7?). Now let me state some facts: 1. The price of flat panel displays have fallen rapidly (good news) 2. Manufactures are spending 100's of millions of dollars on new flat panel lines (more good news) 3. The VAST majority of programing available is SD (bad news). Like myself, who has seen EVERYTHING that DiscoveryHD has to offer at least once? 4. A lot of consumers still do not understand HDTV (again bad news) 5. The majority of the viewing public does not own a HDTV (again more bad news) 6. Bandwidth issues are the reason most signals are encoded by MPEG-2 and starting to migrate to MPEG-4 (not really good news) 7. Nobody is broadcasting in 1080p now and probably not in the near future (see 6. above) 8. If your flat panel has enough pixels to display 1080p, when viewing anything less, especially SD (see 3. above) the video processor can not make something out of nothing. (not good or bad just the truth) 9. Nobody (granted it is a limited number of HD addicts like myself) has viewed a flat panel display (manufactured with more than 480 lines) that complains about the picture quality. Typically everyone loves the picture quality of HD broadcasts (whether it's EDTV, HDTV, HD lite, etc.) Okay here is my take on why you should only buy 1080p flat panels. With the increased competition in flat panel displays the top manufacturers are seeing the bottom line erode compared to the future investments they are making. The only way to maintain the needed profit margins is to offer the newest version of HDTV and that is 1080p. Buying the biggest and the best will guarentee the top companies will be around for a while. Oh by the way if you want to view programming in 1080p just get the networks to start broadcasting it in the near future. In my opinion we are putting "the cart before the horse". If we really want to make inroads in HDTV here are my suggestions: 1. Forget about trying to define what "true HD is" let's discuss the merits of the various "video processors" used in the displays. This alone determines how well the display will look and how well SD will look on the display. (Top tier manufactureres use the best processors hence the cost adder) 2. When new users ask "what is the best to buy?" Just tell them buy whatever looks good to them, whether it's plasma, LCD, CRT, etc. Argueing over the merits of each type of display is like "politics and religion", there are no winners 3. Keep it simple for everyone. The more consumers we get the more programming that will be produced (and that is a good thing). 4. Learn to live with limited bandwidth (it will not magically increase over night or in the near future) I personally am waitng until next year to buy my next HDTV which will feature 2160p the "true HD" Sorry for the ramblings (it is true, HD is as addicting as crack)

03-14-2006, 01:39 PM	#13
ChaosMan1014 Scrumdidlyumptious Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 927	720P looks tons better than 1080I but I still can't wait for 1080P to come out so I can see if my eyes can tell the difference. __________________ PSN ID: LordVierge If only we could develop a real Katamari... It would be the ultimate globe conquering tool!

03-12-2006, 04:13 PM	#2
Tomos A couch and an HDTV to go please. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 10	With all the energy expelled in writing your thoughts you could have been enjoying real life in 5000p right now and it's free and no wires or subscriptions needed.

03-12-2006, 05:16 PM	#5
Bossman What is HD? Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3	I've been doing research for 2 yrs. on big screen tv's and the different forums offer tons of good info. The down side is some members are too much in love with numbers. Larger numbers do not equate to a better picture. IMO most people still watch alot of SDTV. Most people can only get 6 to 12 HD channels. Top of the line technology is changing very fast, reminds me of home computers during their infansy. If you purchased top equipment during this time you remember how quick you became outdated and how much you overpaid. So IMO, if your looking to get into the big screen arena, still watch alot of SD,some HD and dvds and dont want to spend a fortune ,the tv for you is Panny 42 EDTV. This will hold you over until tech slows down and broadcast and display standards are better defined.

03-12-2006, 06:42 PM	#7
pajama Love HD we just need more Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Stillwater Posts: 6	Bossman I am very impressed with you findings. You are right on the mark. I paid $1100 for my Apple II. I think the only group that is more obsessed with numbers are the gamers when it comes down to which "graphics cards" are better (ATI or Nvidia).

03-12-2006, 06:56 PM	#9
Bossman What is HD? Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3	My first computer cost 3000. and the printer ran 400. The price I paid for having to have the best numbers. My last computer was 700 and the printer, scanner,copy,fax cost 79. Lesson learned, First get your feet wet then when tech and prices level out take the plunge.

03-12-2006, 08:24 PM	#11
s2mikey Flat Panel Luvr Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Upstate, NY Posts: 972	That all sounds good and stuff, but HD is HD. Dont gimme this 1080p stuff as being "real" High-def. For those of us that have already bought high-def sets, we are certainly enjoying REAL HD right now. Anyone that disagrees can take a viewing test in which you try and tell what looks better: 1080 or 720. You can't so dont bother trying.... Go ahead and wait forever....you're missing the "picture".

03-13-2006, 10:40 PM	#12
Elemental High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 65	Go for the Panasonic 50" plasma models! They are easily the best deal out there. Good luck finding one though...

03-14-2006, 09:06 PM	#14
Setg I know what HD is!!! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Schenectady, NY Age: 32 Posts: 28	I hear most ppl say if you get a 45" or more go with 1080p and if under 45" you wasted a ton of money.

03-17-2006, 10:05 PM	#15
scottie How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15	I never understood people who say lets wait, something new will be out soon. Something new will always be out soon. With the way things are going in this country, there won't be a country left for you to watch tv in if you keep waiting. You could die tommorrow, so live today like it's your last. There are plenty of good televisions out. Pick one!