Just how important is true 1920x1080 resolution in a display

[LT1FUN]

I just found this article and thought it was worth posting.

The latest trend among people looking to buy an HDTV is that if it's not 1080p, it's not HD. Anything less and you'd be missing out on alot.

The truth of the matter is, that 1080p is infact, highly over-rated and regardless of what Sony's marketing department would like you to believe, 720p and 1080i are "HD" aswell.

Truth be known, resolution alone, isn't the only thing that makes for a good picture. It's a little more complex than that.

I decided to post this article for the people who might be "holding out" for a price drop on expensive 1080p sets, because they think they'll get image quality that's 1000x better than current 1080i/720p.

Maybe after reading this article, you'll come to the conclusion that the HDTV's we have now, offer image quality every bit as good to the naked eye as a 1080p set. In some case's, even better.

There's never been a better time to jump on the HDTV bandwagon.

There's nothing wrong with 1080p sets and there's absolutely nothing with waiting a few years till their price's come down a bit if that's your choice,

However,

the prices on current 720p/1080i displays are coming down almost on a monthly basis and believe me, you won't be dissapointed with the current HDTV's 720p/1080i performance.

In all likelyhood, you most likely wont even be able to tell the difference between them and the much more expensive 1080p sets so why hold back?

The article is a very good read.

Anyone about to, or are planning on, purchasing an HDTV, might want to read this before hand.

2005 January

January 2005
Parallax View: If You Can't See It, It's Not There

Just how important is true 1920x1080 resolution in a display?

If you follow the electronic display market as I do, you know that one of the hot topics now is "1080p." More specifically, it means having a front projector, rear-projection monitor, or flat-panel display with true 1920x1080 pixel progressive-scan imaging. 1920x1080 is significant for a number of reasons.

It's a legacy HDTV format that evolved from the original 1,152-line analog standard used in Japan and is also a common display standard for TVs and personal computers. Finally, 1920x1080 interlaced TV is the most popular picture format for HDTV distribution via satellite, cable, or over-the-air.

It would seem that everyone wants to have electronic displays capable of showing every one of those 2,073,600 pixels, and that anything with lower resolution would be a compromise. But would it? Right now, the most common display formats for computer screens and TVs are all grouped around 720 to 768 vertical lines/pixels. LCD TVs all have 1280x768 (Wide XGA) resolution. Plasma monitors from 42 inches to 65 inches have 1024x768 non-square or 1280/1365/1366x768 pixel matrices. Rear-projection HDTVs come with microdisplays that use 1280x768 or 1280x720 imaging devices. Widescreen front projectors for home theater and commercial use are equipped with 1280x720 and 1366x768 chips and panels.

There are plenty of products out there that can support native 720p (921,600 total pixels) HD programs, and of course all of these products will show 1080i as well with some pixel decimation (about 29 percent) to fit the smaller screen. So why aren't these products sufficient?

To best answer the question of how much resolution is required to show HDTV, bear in mind that our current analog TV system assumed way back in the early 1940s that TV screen sizes would never exceed 20 inches diagonally (that works out to about 12 inches vertically with a 4:3 aspect ratio). The optimal seating distance was then calculated to be 7.1 times the screen height when showing 525-line interlaced video, or around 8 feet with a 20-inch TV.

It was determined that at that distance, the human eye would not be able to make out the interlaced picture scan lines and the images would appear to be smooth with high resolution. Consider that at a viewing distance of 12 inches, the visual acuity of the normal human eye is 0.0035 inches. At 120 inches (10X), that number would drop by a factor of ten (0.035).

In a 50-inch plasma display with an array of 1366x768 pixels, the pitch of individual pixels is typically less than 1 mm (about 0.9 mm), which equals 0.039 inches. Do the math, and you'll see that standing 10 feet from a 50-inch plasma means you can barely perceive the HD pixel structure, and that's only if you have 20-20 vision.

To jam 1920x1080 pixels into that same 50-inch screen size means we'd have to shrink the pitch of each pixel to 0.025 inches. And I'll bet the average person couldn't tell the difference.

Remember that the optimal viewing distance from an HD (1920x1080) display is 3.1X the screen height. In other words, you can sit farther back, but you shouldn't sit any closer to avoid seeing picture scan lines. At a distance of 10 feet, the differences between a 1080p and 720p image in a 50-inch projected image will be hard to spot, particularly if created with fine-pitch microdisplays such as LCoS and DLP.

There are other factors to consider. A high-resolution image with image artifacts such as motion smearing, incorrect white balance or color points, and grayscale rendering problems may not look as realistic as a lower-resolution image without these problems. There have even been instances when higher-resolution displays look softer with HD content than lower-resolution models. In a recent test I conducted of CableCARD TVs, I had one wide VGA (852x480) plasma TV showing crisper-looking 720p and 1080i content than a native 1920x1080 LCD TV sitting nearby. I've also seen sharper HD pictures on those wide VGA plasmas than on higher-resolution 1024x1024 ALiS plasmas, probably because of the tricky scaling required to re-size the HD images to the non-square AliS pixel format.

The argument for higher and higher resolution only makes sense when all other image parameters are set correctly. And we've also got problems in the transport stream and original content to overcome. Live 1080i programming at lower bit rates can come up short to live 720p material with higher bit rates, as macro blocks and mosquito noise all affect picture detail. In an ideal world, our 1080p content would be served up at a high bit rate (20 Mb/s or more) using MPEG-2 to a color-corrected, calibrated display with equal spectral response from the illuminating source and a nice, clean grayscale with no crushing of blacks or whites. The refresh rate would be either 24 Hz tripled to 72 Hz, or 60 Hz native - nothing lower. The signal interface from source to screen would be 100 percent digital to eliminate analog artifacts such as clipped bandwidth and ringing from standing waves. Many high-end home theater displays I've tested don't have enough analog signal bandwidth to show even 720p HD signals.

Does this type of display product exist? Well, there are some contenders for the throne, but you'd have to lay out from $120,000 to $250,000 to get one as they're all three-chip front DLP and LCoS cinema-grade projectors with xenon arc lamps and high bit rate HD-SDI interfaces. As for the consumer market, several "true"1920x1080 flat-panel LCD monitors and integrated TVs are available, but based on my recent tests of one new model, not all of the image parameters are lined up in a row yet. In this particular display, the grayscale rendering, while quite good, still isn't wide enough, there are motion artifacts, and the HD signal bandwidth is again clipped.

The point of all this is to show that a pile of pixels alone doesn't prove anything in a display. And beyond a certain viewing distance, the apparent differences between various displays with similar screen sizes and vastly different pixel counts are minimized, or disappear altogether if your eyesight is a bit weak.

Still not convinced? Having a "true" 1920x1080 TV or front projector might do wonders for your ego, but if you plan to watch mostly 480i video and XGA or SXGA-resolution computer games, you'll be less than thrilled with the resulting images.

So, unless you work for the Defense Mapping Agency, create computer graphics at Pixar, or have a 20-foot-wide screen in your home theater, projectors, TVs, and monitors with native Wide XGA (768p) or 720p resolution are still a good value and also mature as a display category. Down-rezzed 1080i programming looks good at this resolution with a clean interlaced-to-progressive scan conversion. Similarly, it's pretty simple these days to convert 480-line interlaced video to progressive scan and then scale it up to 1280x720, particularly with anamorphic (widescreen) programming. Pete Putman, CTS, ISF, KT2B

http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm

[dmac]

Good point. Many people are set on the entire "1080p" idea even though most of those people haven't seen a 1080p TV, yet alone compared it side by side to any equivalent 720p set (I have to admit that 1080i is definitely inferior to 720p and 1080p). The biggest factor of how important these resolutions are to a person depends on how good their eyes are, how far they will be sitting from the television, and how big the display is. When standing a few feet from a TV, a 720p signal will have more pixlation than a true 1080p signal. But who the heck watches TV that close?!! 1080p will also have its advantages when the image is displayed of a very large area, such as with projectors, simply because the dots per inch is increased when display size is increased. But for the average joe watching a normal HDTV set, its hard to get much better than 720p (and its easier for the ps3 to process info at 720p).

[Hotice]

so the just of this is that 1080p can not be differed from 1080i or 720p by the naked eye, meaning it is an upgrade but the screen refreshes it self so fast that the eye cannot tell the differnence at this rate. Does this mean that the naked eye cannot tell the difference over 1080i or that there just has to be way more progressive scans(like 2000p or 5000p) for there to be a notible difference?

[DDT]

lies, if you buy a tv with runs a lower resolution than 1080p, your eyes will be scarred for life. This is why sony said, that only 1080p is true HD.
The reason why you don't get scared on a normal tv, is that the flying spaghetti monster protects us, but sony made a deal with him, not to protects us from tv with resolutions between 480 and 1080, unless you have a sony product.

[WhatRuOn]

Did you ever think that all these anti-1080p hype is created by people backing HD-DVD?

[LT1FUN]

Did you ever think that all these anti-1080p hype is created by people backing HD-DVD?

Did you even read that article?

Neither Blu-Ray or HD-DVD were ever even mentioned. So how you can come up with the idea that the author of this article is somehow anti-blu-ray and pro HD-DVD is totally beyond me.

The idea doesn't even make sense because
HD-DVD's ARE being produced in 1080p format just like Blu-Ray, so wherever you got your information from, I'd suggest you find a new source 'cause those guy's have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

The first line-up of HD-DVD player's though, Toshiba's HD-XA1 and HD-A1 will only output a (user swithable) 1080i/720p signal.

The following generation of HD-DVD's will also offer 1080p outputs.

You really should do a little more research on the topic before you making such a statement.

Now before you run off saying how 1080i/720p isn't nearly as good as 1080p. Do you have a television capable of displaying 1080p? Do you have a video-source capable of outputting a 1080p signal? Have you ever even seen, an actual 1080p set, with a true 1080p signal? I'm willing to bet you haven't. Neither has 99% of all the other 1080p fans out there.

So take my word for it because I HAVE seen the difference (or lack there of) between the 3 format's.

I happen to own a Sony 60" Grand Wega. It's got a native resolution of 768p.

I have the Dell 2405 monitor running off a high-end HTPC, and nearly a dozen WMV-HD IMAX films. These are all recorded in HD 1080p.

One of my friends purchased the HP md5880n set. It's one of the few televisions out there that can actually accept a 1080p signal.

He's the second person I know who's actually invested in one of these newer 1080p sets. Another friend of mine the Mitsubishi WD-62627 which as far as I know, was the first consumer television that could accept a 1080p signal.

We were all curious to see how much of a difference these 2 formats were from one and other. After spending entire day's going back and for to each other's house, running the same HD 1080p clips and watching the WMV-HD disc's on each set, we could not detect any difference what so ever.

What we all agreed on, is that any decent HDTV (regardless of whether it's 1080i/768p/1080p) when fed a quality HD signal, looks absolutely amazing. HD really is a cut above the analog display's we've been watching all our lives.


Still, we knew this method of testing (running around to each other's house's and watching the same video's) wouldn't be very accurate.

The only true way of seeing what difference's there were, was to run these test's in real time on the same screen. That way we could swith back and forth and have a much better chance of seeing the difference.

That's where my HTPC and 2405 came in to play.

Using MacGillivray Freemans "Coral Reef adventure" WMV-HD we switched back and forth between the disc's 1080p version, and the optional 720p version.

As hard as we tried, we really did have a hard time seeing the difference.
We'd take turns having one person swith the format and having the other two tray and guess whether it was 1080p or 720 and in was basically 50/50. In other word's, our results were equivalent to someone who was just guessing.

Finally, the last test we did was to take a snap shot of various frames in the films, one in 1080p and the other in 720p, then compared them side by side.

It was then and ONLY then, that we were able to see a difference.

YES, 1080p DOES offer an image with more detail than a 720p signal. But for crying out loud, look at how much we had to go through to be able to see the difference!!

The fact of the matter is, the 1080p signal ALWAYS had a more refined image, but the increase in picture quality was so minute, it was virtuously impossible for any of us to see going from one television to the next.

We had to actually take still's from each movie and combine the two on screen at the same time, to really be able to tell the two apart.

Now, like I said, the 1080p DID offer an improvement, no one's questioning that. But the reality is, unless you're one of those really anal video-philes who's actually LOOKING to see a difference, ( you know, those guy's who forward and rewind and pause a movie 1000x to look for imperfections) odds are, 99% of you won't be able to tell the difference. That's a fact.

As far as Toshiba's first generation of HD-DVD player's only out-putting 1080i/720p, the reasoning behind that of coarse, is

A. The picture quality will be virtually indistinguishable from 1080p, so what's the big deal?

B. 99% of the people on this earth do NOT even have a HD set.

C. Of the 1% of people who actually do own an HDTV, 99% of them have either a 1080i or 720p set. Pretty much no one own a 1080p set among HDTV owners. So again, what's wrong with releasing a 1080I/720p player?

D. Toshiba decided to make it's first run of player's 1080i because it allowed them to be able to release the hardware nearly 2 month's EARLIER than Blu-Ray, and for literally, half the cost of the cheapest B.R. player. (Toshiba HD-A1 = $499 this March.)

It's also been said many times, that the only big advantage a 1080p signal would have, is if you were running a HT projector and a 100" screen. Then, any differences would obviously, be magnified and in that case, a 1080p signal would be you're best bet.

Just something to think about...

The choice is ultimately your's, by I for one, am not going to be suckered into Sony's Marketing Scheme.

1080p the only "TRUE HD". What a crock !!



Ps.

Like I said HD-DVD movies will also be 1080P !! No different than Blu-Ray films !!

The difference is, the first two HD-DVD models to be released this March, only allow for a 1080i/720p signal. The disc's will still be 1080p so further down the line, if you really want "bragging rights", you can upgrade to a 1080p HD-DVD player and 1080p television.

[WhatRuOn]

Anything over 480 is HD, I'm not denying that. But the fact of the matter is, 3-4-5 years down the mostly all HDTVs will have 1080p support as well as 720p support. Why limit yourself when the content will catch up.

Right now, it's a waste of money to buy either player IMO.

[Grym]

Why not buy 1080p when prices go down? Here in Sweden HDTV's aren't that common. I will wait until 1080p is standard before I buy one.
1080p content with a 720p TV, no way.

[LT1FUN]

Anything over 480 is HD, I'm not denying that. But the fact of the matter is, 3-4-5 years down the mostly all HDTVs will have 1080p support as well as 720p support. Why limit yourself when the content will catch up.

Right now, it's a waste of money to buy either player IMO.

Well, with that way of thinking, why bother spending money on a new car when in 3-4-5 years we'll be getting better performing, better handeling, more fuel-efficient automobiles?

Why buy a computer noiw when in 3-4-5 years they'll have faster cpu's and more ram and bigger hard drives?

etc. etc. etc.....

The truth is, there's no such thing as "future proof".

They'll always come out with something "superior" that's supposdly better than the rest.

Especially when it comes to electronics.

Every year, they'll come out with something new. Every year, the newer model will have better spec's than the older model they're replacing.


The article, and my previous post, wasn't to say "Don't buy 1080p !"

It was to just let people know that 1080p IS highly over-rated. Judging by it's "spec-sheet", one would think it's in an entirely different league than everything else, and that is clearly, not the truth.

Like I said, if someone wants to wait for 1080p set's to come down, there's nothing wrong with that. But if they're waiting 'cause they're under the impression, 1080p will offer picture quaility improvments, far beyond what 1080i/720 is capable of, they're going to be dissapointed.

We'll be seeing 1080i/720p sets being made for a looooong time to come. Years and years and years. The cost of 1080p will come down over time, no doubt, but 1080i/720p set's will always be more cost effective and offer you virtualy the same performance under normal viewing conditions.


If the majority of people can't even see the difference between the 2 formats, why wait?

That's the only point of the article, and my post.

If someone's "waiting" for the perfect television comes out, they'll be waiting for a looong time It aint going to happen anytime soon.



I'll end by quoting my favourite comment in the article. It's my favourite 'cause it's so true

So, unless you work for the Defense Mapping Agency, create computer graphics at Pixar, or have a 20-foot-wide screen in your home theater, projectors, TVs, and monitors with native Wide XGA (768p) or 720p resolution are still a good value and also mature as a display category

[findaway]

I don't really care too much about 1080p myself honestly since, if i were to buy a new TV, it would most likely (or better said, have to) be in the 23"-26" range, so i think im set with 720p/1080i, spending more probably wont really warrant the purpose in this specific case.

Anything well over that is a different story. Even if there's no content to justify the purchase for now or in the near future either, i would rather set for no less than the latest HD resolution out there, thats the way i see it.

[MajorGrubert]

LCD TVs all have 1280x768 (Wide XGA) resolution.

Not true anymore. For instance, the BenQ DV3750 is a 37" LCD with 1920x1080 resolution (note however that it doesn't accept 1080p, but that's another story).

Plasma monitors from 42 inches to 65 inches have 1024x768 non-square or 1280/1365/1366x768 pixel matrices.

Not true anymore. Pioneer now has 50" and 65" plasmas with 1920x1080 resolution.

Rear-projection HDTVs come with microdisplays that use 1280x768 or 1280x720 imaging devices.

Not true anymore. Sony has now a 55" true-1080p RPTV.

Widescreen front projectors for home theater and commercial use are equipped with 1280x720 and 1366x768 chips and panels.

Not true anymore. Sony has the VW100 1080p LCoS, and Optoma the HD81 1080p DLP.

To best answer the question of how much resolution is required to show HDTV, bear in mind that our current analog TV system assumed way back in the early 1940s that TV screen sizes would never exceed 20 inches diagonally (that works out to about 12 inches vertically with a 4:3 aspect ratio). The optimal seating distance was then calculated to be 7.1 times the screen height when showing 525-line interlaced video, or around 8 feet with a 20-inch TV.

It was determined that at that distance, the human eye would not be able to make out the interlaced picture scan lines and the images would appear to be smooth with high resolution. Consider that at a viewing distance of 12 inches, the visual acuity of the normal human eye is 0.0035 inches. At 120 inches (10X), that number would drop by a factor of ten (0.035).

In a 50-inch plasma display with an array of 1366x768 pixels, the pitch of individual pixels is typically less than 1 mm (about 0.9 mm), which equals 0.039 inches. Do the math, and you'll see that standing 10 feet from a 50-inch plasma means you can barely perceive the HD pixel structure, and that's only if you have 20-20 vision.

To jam 1920x1080 pixels into that same 50-inch screen size means we'd have to shrink the pitch of each pixel to 0.025 inches. And I'll bet the average person couldn't tell the difference.

Remember that the optimal viewing distance from an HD (1920x1080) display is 3.1X the screen height. In other words, you can sit farther back, but you shouldn't sit any closer to avoid seeing picture scan lines. At a distance of 10 feet, the differences between a 1080p and 720p image in a 50-inch projected image will be hard to spot, particularly if created with fine-pitch microdisplays such as LCoS and DLP.

Ummm… a 50" diagonal 16:9 picture will have a height of 24.5 inches, right? So 3.1 x 24.5 = 76 inches = 6.3 ft. Not ten.

Me, I do watch at a distance of about 10 feet… but my screen diagonal is 80 inches.

There are other factors to consider. A high-resolution image with image artifacts such as motion smearing, incorrect white balance or color points, and grayscale rendering problems may not look as realistic as a lower-resolution image without these problems. There have even been instances when higher-resolution displays look softer with HD content than lower-resolution models. In a recent test I conducted of CableCARD TVs, I had one wide VGA (852x480) plasma TV showing crisper-looking 720p and 1080i content than a native 1920x1080 LCD TV sitting nearby. I've also seen sharper HD pictures on those wide VGA plasmas than on higher-resolution 1024x1024 ALiS plasmas, probably because of the tricky scaling required to re-size the HD images to the non-square AliS pixel format.

The argument for higher and higher resolution only makes sense when all other image parameters are set correctly. And we've also got problems in the transport stream and original content to overcome. Live 1080i programming at lower bit rates can come up short to live 720p material with higher bit rates, as macro blocks and mosquito noise all affect picture detail. In an ideal world, our 1080p content would be served up at a high bit rate (20 Mb/s or more) using MPEG-2 to a color-corrected, calibrated display with equal spectral response from the illuminating source and a nice, clean grayscale with no crushing of blacks or whites. The refresh rate would be either 24 Hz tripled to 72 Hz, or 60 Hz native - nothing lower. The signal interface from source to screen would be 100 percent digital to eliminate analog artifacts such as clipped bandwidth and ringing from standing waves. Many high-end home theater displays I've tested don't have enough analog signal bandwidth to show even 720p HD signals.

True, when the content has substandard quality, such things are not unheard of. For example, crappy analogue TV will look better on a decades-old CRT than on an LCD TV.

A good-quality source is needed to take full advantage of high-resolution displays. For example, Sony has said their Blu-ray movies will be 1080p with an average bitrate of 20Mbps, with peak of 30 Mbps.

Does this type of display product exist? Well, there are some contenders for the throne, but you'd have to lay out from $120,000 to $250,000 to get one as they're all three-chip front DLP and LCoS cinema-grade projectors with xenon arc lamps and high bit rate HD-SDI interfaces. As for the consumer market, several "true"1920x1080 flat-panel LCD monitors and integrated TVs are available, but based on my recent tests of one new model, not all of the image parameters are lined up in a row yet. In this particular display, the grayscale rendering, while quite good, still isn't wide enough, there are motion artifacts, and the HD signal bandwidth is again clipped.

So, because it isn't perfect yet, the best course is to locks ourselves out of the option. Wow.

The point of all this is to show that a pile of pixels alone doesn't prove anything in a display. And beyond a certain viewing distance, the apparent differences between various displays with similar screen sizes and vastly different pixel counts are minimized, or disappear altogether if your eyesight is a bit weak.

Sure, the guy with a 37-inch LCD watching a movie in the living room at normal distance is kidding himself when he thinks he'll see the difference. But that guy might've bought the 1080p display already anyway so when he moves up close to play some hot new game or surf the web, he can indeed benefit from the pixels.

So, instead of saying '1080p doesn't matter', we should try to find where is the line beyond which 1080p doesn't matter.

Still not convinced? Having a "true" 1920x1080 TV or front projector might do wonders for your ego, but if you plan to watch mostly 480i video and XGA or SXGA-resolution computer games, you'll be less than thrilled with the resulting images.

Uh huh. I plan to watch something far better than 480i video, thank you very much.

So, unless you work for the Defense Mapping Agency, create computer graphics at Pixar, or have a 20-foot-wide screen in your home theater, projectors, TVs, and monitors with native Wide XGA (768p) or 720p resolution are still a good value and also mature as a display category. Down-rezzed 1080i programming looks good at this resolution with a clean interlaced-to-progressive scan conversion. Similarly, it's pretty simple these days to convert 480-line interlaced video to progressive scan and then scale it up to 1280x720, particularly with anamorphic (widescreen) programming.

Yes, but interlaced-to-progressive scan conversion isn't always clean. Some 720p displays take 1080i, 'bob' it to 540p and then upscale to 720p. Less-than-perfect.

If you decide to buy 720p or even SD, both 1080i and 1080p sources will have to be downscaled to your display's native resolution. It's difficult to say how much you lose by doing that, but you definately lose some resolution. With a 1080 display you neither need to scale 1080i nor 1080p. For 1080i you need to deinterlace, for 1080p you don't need any processing. So a 1080 display has the non disputable advantage of being able to show all pixels in the signal without having to compromise/downscale.

[Anonymous]

I do agree, the 1080p is over-rated, is saw the image quality for the 1080p, and form the 1080i, there are very minor differences, such as colour distortion and minor fogginess, but it also depends whos the Manufacture!

[Sederior]

Another problem with buying any 1080p tv is that there aren't too many outlets, barring computers, that can actually transmit an image in full 1080p. HDMI outputs can just barely transmit the full signal.

I think this really has more to do with the signals that companies have to put out like your cable or Satellite companies. Currently Cable companies may have their own network of HD signals, but its extremely limited, and has only been utilized during big sporting events (olympics) and most primetime TV shows like "House" or "Lost." As overrated as it may be already, at home on my 32in LCD, in 1080i/720p, just being able to watch that kind of clarity on my TV has already made me feel sick every time I watch it on my old Tube TVs. There are a few other options for HD programming now, but it doesn't seem like anybody really wants to make any sort of push, so unless you are totally hell-bent on getting your HD signal in movies (Where most of them weren't even filmed in HD to begin with) you're going to spend a lot on getting one of the new HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players (500-700 gone right there) an HDMI cable (50-70 for 3-6 feet in length) and also a new movie (at least 50 bucks again).

Satellite is already making huge advances to their broadcast signal converting all video to MPEG-2 so they'll be able to transmit in 1080p. The overruling thing about resolution battles is that, like said before, you're gonna need a gigantic screen to be able to see the differences. PS3 seems to be able support the concept of Colliseum gaming where you'll be able to play in a huge arena during some tournament. Otherwise at home, with your little 720/1080i screen it'll be enough to hold you over.

BTW if you ever get the chance, go cable card over the digital cable box.

[Anonymous]

Well, The FCC already strangled our pockets to get a HDTV by 2009, so what does it matter? If your cable or satalite company doesnt put out a good signal, you can always change to another company! But most cable companies will have to invest, to take out and replace the old Coaxil Cable, with a new HDTV compatible cable!

[WhatRuOn]

Ummm, I don't think the FCC has required the public to have a HDTV to view broadcasts by 2009. I believe they required all broadcasts be digital.

[Anonymous]

http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=10257&start=0


At least try to get some info! Read that, its a FAQ, you should read it! You will learn a heck lot! That says you will need a HDTV! 2009 all will be in High-def signal!

[WhatRuOn]

No, maybe you should get your info right...
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/lookL...keycode=205354
http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html

I don't know why I bother with you...

Consumers will always be able to connect an inexpensive receiver, a set top box, to their existing analog TV to decode DTV broadcast signals.

Analog TVs will continue to work with cable, satellite, VCRs, DVD players, camcorders, video games consoles and other devices for many years.

[fooster]

1080i is good enough for me, I mean come on who is actually going to notice the 1/30 second intervals on tv.

What puzzles me is that how does 1080i work on a tv with only 1366 x 768 or 1280 x 720 resolution when 1080 generally refers to 1920 x 1080 resolution?

[Anonymous]

Contact Obscene truth, and he will tell you the link! Direct from FCC!

[Sederior]

What other companies? Up til now it's basically been 1 cable company here in the NW vs. about 3 other dish networks.

But you do know that once the switch happens you can just buy a government subsidised hd receiver box for your old analog tv right?

[WhatRuOn]

Contact Obscene truth, and he will tell you the link! Direct from FCC!

http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html

[Nighthawk]

1080p against 1080i or 720p on a 32" and under screen? Very little difference. It's only with the bigger panels that you can see the difference. I know, I used to work in a TV store (Noel Leeming if you're interested). So I know what I'm talking about.

@Stephancelmare360: All broadcasts in HD by 2009? They probably shouldn't bother until every basic analog TV has been replaced with HDTVs. Otherwise, it's pretty much wasted. Still, the prices are falling, and the release of the next-gen HD consoles will no doubt increase publicity for high-def TVs, more specifically 1080p TVs. Because Sony said so.

[luxurys]

December 08 NPD figures show PS3 sales above 725k
By: Justin Pinter

Official NPD sales numbers have been released for December 2008, listing the PlayStation Portable with over 1.02 million units sold, followed by the PlayStation 3 selling over 725k consoles.

Here are the official numbers:

- Nintendo DS 3.04 million
- Wii 2.15 million
- Xbox 360 1.44 million
- PlayStation Portable 1.02 million
- PlayStation 3 726K
- PlayStation 2 410K

Not bad considering the economy and that fact that Sony didn't lower its price while it's competitor had earlier that year. Hopefully though we will see a price drop soon as parts are becoming cheaper and blu-ray is lowering in price.

[The_Only]

Editing now.