No more CRT from this year (UK)

[london-boy]

DSG stopped selling video recorders in 2004 and expects to drop bulky televisions sometime this year, although it may continue to stock 14-inch portables "for students and kids", said John Clare, chief executive of Britain's biggest electrical goods retailer

DSG supplies goods to the Dixons/Currys group by the way...

At last CRT is dying. That means that from 2006, almost all TVs sold will be flatscreens, and most of those will be HD-Ready!! Might mean all the new HD movie formats could come out sooner than expected, seen how acceptance increased much faster than expected.

I could have waited a little bit, cause this will mean prices will come down even more in the coming months, but i just couldn't wait!!! :lol: Loving my LCD HDTV :grin:

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

DSG supplies goods to the Dixons/Currys group by the way...

DSG actually owns Dixons/Currys, so it's just that one group. Of course they have an interest in saying the CRT TV is dead, because they won't be selling them anymore. The CRT will still be around for a while, especially in the computing field where some of us won't compromise.


At last CRT is dying. That means that from 2006, almost all TVs sold will be flatscreens, and most of those will be HD-Ready!! Might mean all the new HD movie formats could come out sooner than expected, seen how acceptance increased much faster than expected.
Yeah, great "HD-Ready" TVs that can't do HDTV resolutions, but merely downscale HDTV signals to their native screen-size. Take a look around your local Dixons or Currys and see how many "HD-Ready" set can actually do 1920 x 1080 for a proper 1080p. People are just being conned into buying bottom end 1080i, and in a couple of years will wonder what they spent their money on when they see a true HDTV display. Of course the likes of DSG won't care, because they'll just tell you to buy one of their newer products.


I could have waited a little bit, cause this will mean prices will come down even more in the coming months, but i just couldn't wait!!! :lol: Loving my LCD HDTV :grin:
I wouldn't mind so much if the tech was as good as CRT and was a similar price - instead it's more expensive with significant downsides: poor viewing angles, poor blacks, burn-in, dead/hot pixels, ghosting, etc. i'll stick to a good CRT until they actually manage to produce a better non-CRT display instead of fluking into a product line that was orginally thought to be for only for status-seekers.

[london-boy]

About 1080p, on a 32" like i have i'd hardly see the difference, at the distance i'll be watching. In the end a nice Bluray movie will look absolutely gorgeous on my set even if it has 1368x768 resolution.

And about CRT vs LCD, i don't think this argument will ever die. All i can say is that my new HDTV has much much much better image quality than any CRT i've seen, on any source, and on HD sources it will be no comparison really. And the style/space saving really adds to the value. Even the wives love them and that's saying something... :lol:

In the UK the whole 1080p issue won't be a problem for a long time. When it becomes "needed", i'll just buy a new set :twisted:

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

About 1080p, on a 32" like i have i'd hardly see the difference, at the distance i'll be watching. In the end a nice Bluray movie will look absolutely gorgeous on my set even if it has 1368x768 resolution.

And about CRT vs LCD, i don't think this argument will ever die. All i can say is that my new HDTV has much much much better image quality than any CRT i've seen, on any source, and on HD sources it will be no comparison really. And the style/space saving really adds to the value. Even the wives love them and that's saying something... :lol:

In the UK the whole 1080p issue won't be a problem for a long time. When it becomes "needed", i'll just buy a new set :twisted:
You hope it won't be needed, and you hope you won't tell the difference. When Blue-Ray and HDDVD sort themselves out, and the cable and sattelite companies are doing HD (which will happen next year), you'll tell the difference as soon as you see a 1080p. HD is well established in the US & Japan, and it's going to come over here very quickly indeed now.

Maybe you'll be able to convice yourself otherwise, the same way you're convincing yourself you've made a worthwhile "HD-Ready" purchase now that Dixons wants to stop selling CRTs? :wink: I think you're just a fashion victim who likes the look of a thin flatscreen in your penthouse apartment.

When I bought a new CRT TV a while back, I had a good look around. Even now, a lot of plasmas and LCDs costing two or three times the price don't look as good as the quality CRT I bought. Bring on OLED I say!

[london-boy]

Meh.. I'm the happiest man alive with my new LCD HDTV. All the rest is of no importance to me at the moment, cause in the UK, things will stay at the 720p stage for a loooooooooooong time. :grin:

When 1080p becomes the norm (and here even 720p is not the norm!!), then i'll upgrade. But really, worrying now about 1080p when we don't even have HD broadcasts yet at 720p is really silly.

I could have waited till we get 1080p panels, but what the hell, if i keep waiting and waiting, what's the point? Then when 1080p will be the norm you'll come back to me telling me that i'm wasting my money on a "normal 1080p TV" when i could wait for the new models that do donuts too?

You have to draw the line somewhere or you'll be waiting all your life!

Obviously i could wait for new models, but i needed a TV now and knowing myself, and knowing how things will work out in the UK in the next years, a 720p model will suffice my needs (Sky HD, next gen gaming alll at 720p) more than well enough.

The fact that the set has a native 1368x768 res instead of a 1280x720 res is largely irrelevant to me cause either way, HD material looks absolutely amazing. :grin:

If i were SO worried about IQ, i'd have bought a Philips or Panasonic set anyway. But i have to draw the line somewhere.

EDIT: And YES i totally LOVE the look of the flatscreen in my apartment! Doesn't mean i'm a fashion victim, i don't follow fashions, i dicktate them! :lol:

[Blazkowicz]

still happy with 21" CRT and six national channels on good old analog air broadcast :)
576i SECAM with digital stereo sound is good enough for me (never seen PAL broadcast but I guess it's similar), movies are almost DVD quality (no greatly noticeable difference to me).

I don't want more channels (when there's only crap on the TV, do something else. I get to see great movies and TV stuff often enough on six good channels), I don't even see the move from 576i to 720p as groundbreaking (arguably a 25% increase in vertical resolution :) though there's p versus i, but afterall interlacing is what makes CRT TVs look good)
I don't even like 16/9 screens as I find very painful to watch 4/3 content of these, and your 2.35 movies will still be letterboxed anyway.

[Captain Chickenpants]

still happy with 21" CRT and six national channels on good old analog air broadcast :)
576i SECAM with digital stereo sound is good enough for me (never seen PAL broadcast but I guess it's similar), movies are almost DVD quality (no greatly noticeable difference to me).

I don't want more channels (when there's only crap on the TV, do something else. I get to see great movies and TV stuff often enough on six good channels), I don't even see the move from 576i to 720p as groundbreaking (arguably a 25% increase in vertical resolution :) though there's p versus i, but afterall interlacing is what makes CRT TVs look good)
I don't even like 16/9 screens as I find very painful to watch 4/3 content of these, and your 2.35 movies will still be letterboxed anyway.

Ah those wacky French and their SECAM :-)

It is hard to really explain the difference between a SD stream and a High Def stream in terms of quality. It is only when you see them that it becomes apparent.

I can understand your dislike of 4:3 content on a 16:9 display. If it does the 'Smart' scaling stuff it can look awful, and many people can't cope with big black borders at the side of the screen. One technique some people use is to cover the edges with blinds or flaps of carboard.

Tru that a 2.35:1 movie will still be letterboxed, but not by much. To get a comparable image size on a 4:3 tele you would need a very large set indeed!

Can't argue with the lack of quality programming though. About the only things I watch on TV are the Simpsons and Friends (and I have probably seen every episode of both a million times), the current trend for 'reality' tv sickens me.

CC

[london-boy]

still happy with 21" CRT and six national channels on good old analog air broadcast :)
576i SECAM with digital stereo sound is good enough for me (never seen PAL broadcast but I guess it's similar), movies are almost DVD quality (no greatly noticeable difference to me).

I don't want more channels (when there's only crap on the TV, do something else. I get to see great movies and TV stuff often enough on six good channels), I don't even see the move from 576i to 720p as groundbreaking (arguably a 25% increase in vertical resolution :) though there's p versus i, but afterall interlacing is what makes CRT TVs look good)
I don't even like 16/9 screens as I find very painful to watch 4/3 content of these, and your 2.35 movies will still be letterboxed anyway.


Damn french!!! It's people like YOU holding technology back for people like us!!! "SECAM is good enough, who cares about HD, i like my 20 year old Citroen TV!"... Classic, it's always the french!!!













:wink:
I really was joking...

[pascal]

...I don't want more channels (when there's only crap on the TV, do something else. I get to see great movies and TV stuff often enough on six good channels), I don't even see the move from 576i to 720p as groundbreaking (arguably a 25% increase in vertical resolution :) though there's p versus i, but afterall interlacing is what makes CRT TVs look good)...But IIRC the horizontal increase is more than 140% then the total increase is 3:1 :)

[kyleb]

You hope it won't be needed, and you hope you won't tell the difference. When Blue-Ray and HDDVD sort themselves out, and the cable and sattelite companies are doing HD (which will happen next year), you'll tell the difference as soon as you see a 1080p. HD is well established in the US & Japan, and it's going to come over here very quickly indeed now.

Maybe you'll be able to convice yourself otherwise, the same way you're convincing yourself you've made a worthwhile "HD-Ready" purchase now that Dixons wants to stop selling CRTs? :wink: I think you're just a fashion victim who likes the look of a thin flatscreen in your penthouse apartment.
You sound more like the fason snob who turns their nose to anything that doesn't Gucci or whatever writen on it even with no plans to buy anything of the sort in the first place. LB is just being logical; if he did replace his 32" with one that did 1920x1080 display he'd have to sit no more than about 4 feet from it for his eyes to fully resolve that resolutioin anyway, and that is assuming he has around 20/20 vision. For any given screen size and viewing distance, uping the resolution has diminsihing returns; yes there are situations where native 1080p will make a notable difference and even situations where such a high native resolution is necessary; but LB doesn't have to "hope" he isn't in such a situation, there criteras are fairly straight foward and for many situations native 1080p is blatently overkill.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You sound more like the fason snob who turns their nose to anything that doesn't Gucci or whatever writen on it even with no plans to buy anything of the sort in the first place. LB is just being logical; if he did replace his 32" with one that did 1920x1080 display he'd have to sit no more than about 4 feet from it for his eyes to fully resolve that resolutioin anyway, and that is assuming he has around 20/20 vision. For any given screen size and viewing distance, uping the resolution has diminsihing returns; yes there are situations where native 1080p will make a notable difference and even situations where such a high native resolution is necessary; but LB doesn't have to "hope" he isn't in such a situation, there criteras are fairly straight foward and for many situations native 1080p is blatently overkill.
There's a reason why the spec goes up to 1080p, and when that's what is coming on Blu-Ray and HDDVD, I wouldn't be happy only getting half of that, and that's what happens when you buy almost all the "HD-ready" TVs that are currently being pushed hard over here by the likes of DSG.

There are all other kinds of drawbacks with plasma and LCD, and that's why even the manufacturers are calling them an intermediate technology that will soon be phased out in favour of better flat-screen solutions. You only have to walk around a showroom and look to see the massive difference in picture quality of flat-screens. Even the best ones have trouble giving as good a picture as a decent CRT costing less than half the price unless you spend a heck of a lot of money.

[kyleb]

There's a reason why the spec goes up to 1080p, and when that's what is coming on Blu-Ray and HDDVD, I wouldn't be happy only getting half of that, and that's what happens when you buy almost all the "HD-ready" TVs that are currently being pushed hard over here by the likes of DSG.
So even if you were using a TV of a given size and at a given distance to where it would be phyiscaly impossible to notice the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p, you wouldn't be happy with a native 720p just becuase you know there are higher resolution displays avalable? I don't see any logic in that at all.
There are all other kinds of drawbacks with plasma and LCD, and that's why even the manufacturers are calling them an intermediate technology that will soon be phased out in favour of better flat-screen solutions. You only have to walk around a showroom and look to see the massive difference in picture quality of flat-screens. Even the best ones have trouble giving as good a picture as a decent CRT costing less than half the price unless you spend a heck of a lot of money.
Yeah, if you don't want anything over 34" widescreen, don't mind the size and power draw, care more about contrast and color than perfect geometry, and don't mind regularly recalculating the display's convergence and such, then a CRT is your best choice. On the other hand, there are also plenty of reasons one might be better off with something other than a CRT even when those other choices cost more.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

So even if you were using a TV of a given size and at a given distance to where it would be phyiscaly impossible to notice the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p, you wouldn't be happy with a native 720p just becuase you know there are higher resolution displays avalable? I don't see any logic in that at all.

I wouldn't be happy that during the lifespan of a "HD-Ready" TV, I wouldn't have the choice of using the higher resolution that HDTV is specced at - you're buying half HD. I personally don't intend to buy a new quality TV costing thousands of pounds every year. You're suggesting I can't tell the difference, whereas I'm suggesting I can. I do actually have better than 20-20 vision, and years of monitor use have sensitised me to display quality.

I certainly don't understand the logic of spending a lot of money buying something that claims to meet a common spec, when it doesn't, knowing full well that those same companies are already bringing out some products that do meet the spec, and will bring more over the next 12 months.


Yeah, if you don't want anything over 34" widescreen, don't mind the size and power draw, care more about contrast and color than perfect geometry, and don't mind regularly recalculating the display's convergence and such, then a CRT is your best choice. On the other hand, there are also plenty of reasons one might be better off with something other than a CRT even when those other choices cost more.
Sounds great to swap all that for poor blacks, poor viewing angles, burn-in, hot/dead pixels with no recourse of the guarentee, etc all at quadruple the price for technology that's already going to obseleted by the time HDTV broadcasts and next-gen DVD arrives. I actually want something better than current technology, not just something with a different (and IMO overall slightly worse) set of problems at a much higher price.

[kyleb]

You're suggesting I can't tell the difference, whereas I'm suggesting I can.
I'm not suggesting that, I'm telling you that it is a straight up fact that after on a given sized display, after a given distance, adding resolution isn't going to do you a bit of good. Beyond that, the image quality improvement gained from increasing the native resolution of a display isn't a linear progression either, but ratther of situation of diminishing returns where in many cases a native 1080p display will do little to nothing over one of more common HD resolutions. You can hold out for the next new thing forever if you like as there is always progress on the horizon, but the specs for HD displays were laid out over a year ago (http://www.eicta.org/files/PressRelease1-114214A.pdf') and anything that meets those specs will not be obsolite anytime soon and is most centanly not "half HD."

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I'm not suggesting that, I'm telling you that it is a straight up fact that after on a given sized display, after a given distance, adding resolution isn't going to do you a bit of good. Beyond that, the image quality improvement gained from increasing the native resolution of a display isn't a linear progression either, but ratther of situation of diminishing returns where in many cases a native 1080p display will do little to nothing over one of more common HD resolutions. You can hold out for the next new thing forever if you like as there is always progress on the horizon, but the specs for HD displays were laid out over a year ago (http://www.eicta.org/files/PressRelease1-114214A.pdf%27) and anything that meets those specs will not be obsolite anytime soon and is most centanly not "half HD."

If something is shot in 1080p and you're watching it in 720p, you're not getting the full quality - you're getting a downscaled version.

[kyleb]

And again, unless the display is big enough and you are sitting close enough, even on a native 1080p you are getting a "version" that is effective downsampled by your eyes, and even on a 720p display it still falls into the criteria of HD. But aside from that, what is shot in 1080p anyway?

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

And again, unless the display is big enough and you are sitting close enough, even on a native 1080p you are getting a "version" that is effective downsampled by your eyes, and even on a 720p display it still falls into the criteria of HD. But aside from that, what is shot in 1080p anyway?
Why bother getting any kind of quality display then if it's only going to be ruined by your eyes, how far your sofa is, whether you've left the curtains open, etc? Maybe people who wear glasses shouldn't bother with any kind of quality display at all?

Lots of new stuff is getting shot in higher resolutions. It causing massive cost rises in makeup, sets and costumes, because now the viewers can see all the shortcuts the movie and TV production companies used to be able to get away with.

[kyleb]

Why bother getting any kind of quality display then if it's only going to be ruined by your eyes, how far your sofa is, whether you've left the curtains open, etc? Maybe people who wear glasses shouldn't bother with any kind of quality display at all?
Nah, there is plenty of middle ground.
Lots of new stuff is getting shot in higher resolutions. It causing massive cost rises in makeup, sets and costumes, because now the viewers can see all the shortcuts the movie and TV production companies used to be able to get away with.
Should I take that to mean that you don't know of anything shot in 1080p either?

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Should I take that to mean that you don't know of anything shot in 1080p either?

Nope, you should look it up yourself if you want details. You can start with the last two Star Wars films and most of the trailers at the apple HD site. Most digital movie transfers are being done in 1080p, and that's what will be on HDDVD and BluRay (they will be able to offer the bandwith better than cable/satellite/digital).

[Diplo]

TV is rubbish, anyway.

[kyleb]

Nope, you should look it up yourself if you want details. You can start with the last two Star Wars films and most of the trailers at the apple HD site. Most digital movie transfers are being done in 1080p, and that's what will be on HDDVD and BluRay (they will be able to offer the bandwith better than cable/satellite/digital).
I did search around a bit and came up with nothing, though after some further diging I see that the more recent Star Wars are two of a few films that were shot digitally in 1080p. And yeah, transfers are done 1080p but from analog flim with a much higher effective resolution making even the 1080p transfer essentially downsampled. Reguardless, even when displayed on a native 720p that still comes well more than twice the resolution of even PAL SDTV and most certianly fits into the definition of HD.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

What's going to be better? Downsampling from film to 1080p for display at 1080p, or downsampling from film to 1080p and then downsampling again (but in realtime) to 720p or whatever native scale a TV is using for display (and there's a lot of different resolutions out there)?

I know if I'm going to spend thousands on a quality HD TV, I'm going to want it to handle all HDTV formats, not just downscale to whatever the manufacturers can make the most money selling this quarter. i'm not going to say "well it's better than PAL, so that will do, even it it's a lot less than what I could be getting out of my next-gen DVD collection".

[kyleb]

What's going to be better? Downsampling from film to 1080p for display at 1080p, or downsampling from film to 1080p and then downsampling again (but in realtime) to 720p or whatever native scale a TV is using for display (and there's a lot of different resolutions out there)?
Like I said, neither will be any better than the other in some cases, and in many situations the difference isn't much. Its the same as if you compare a 1200dpi print to a 600dpi one; right in front of your face the difference is obvious, but the further you keep stepping back the quicker that difference fades.
I know if I'm going to spend thousands on a quality HD TV, I'm going to want it to handle all HDTV formats, not just downscale to whatever the manufacturers can make the most money selling this quarter. i'm not going to say "well it's better than PAL, so that will do, even it it's a lot less than what I could be getting out of my next-gen DVD collection".
Then for heaven's sake don't just settle for a native 1080p display, "quad-HD" displays have already been demo'ed and quality upscalers are bound follow right behind put those piddlely little native 1080p displays to shame. Oh and don't go for first gen Blu-Ray junk either as they are bound to move to more layers and hence higher bitrates down the line. Seriously, there are countless excuses to wait for the next great thing and you will always be able to find those if that is what you are looking for, but there are a lot of quality HDTVs out there as well.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Like I said, neither will be any better than the other in some cases, and in many situations the difference isn't much. Its the same as if you compare a 1200dpi print to a 600dpi one; right in front of your face the difference is obvious, but the further you keep stepping back the quicker that difference fades.
"Some cases", "isn't much", "difference fades" - you're just guessing here arn't you?


Then for heaven's sake don't just settle for a native 1080p display, "quad-HD" displays have already been demo'ed and quality upscalers are bound follow right behind put those piddlely little native 1080p displays to shame. Oh and don't go for first gen Blu-Ray junk either as they are bound to move to more layers and hence higher bitrates down the line. Seriously, there are countless excuses to wait for the next great thing and you will always be able to find those if that is what you are looking for, but there are a lot of quality HDTVs out there as well.
Now you're just being silly. I'm talking about getting what been specced, getting all the resolution that's been filmed without upscaling or downscaling. You seem to think this is unecessary, even though it's what the industry is basing their filming, digital transfer, and next gen DVD formats on, and what they are beginning to ship out to customers in their newer TVs.

[kyleb]

"Some cases", "isn't much", "difference fades" - you're just guessing here arn't you?
No I'm talking about a wide range of display sizes and viewing distance as I've stated clearly in many of my previous post, is that just too much for you to grasp?
Now you're just being silly. I'm talking about getting what been specced, getting all the resolution that's been filmed without upscaling or downscaling. You seem to think this is unecessary, even though it's what the industry is basing their filming, digital transfer, and next gen DVD formats on, and what they are beginning to ship out to customers in their newer TVs.
Acutally I'm being sarcastic to illustate your own sillyness, but again, the vast majorty of stuff is filmed with analog film and efectively downsampled to digital even when transfering to 1080p. And technically, nothing is "filmed" at 1080p, a few things have been "shot" or "captured" or whatever at 1080p, but with no film involved it isn't "filmed." Yeah, lots ot transfers will be done at 1080p; however, unless you have a big enough display and/or are close enough to it, haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

No I'm talking about a wide range of display sizes and viewing distance as I've stated clearly in many of my previous post, is that just too much for you to grasp?

Acutally I'm being sarcastic to illustate your own sillyness, but again, the vast majorty of stuff is filmed with analog film and efectively downsampled to digital even when transfering to 1080p. And technically, nothing is "filmed" at 1080p, a few things have been "shot" or "captured" or whatever at 1080p, but with no film involved it isn't "filmed." Yeah, lots ot transfers will be done at 1080p; however, unless you have a big enough display and/or are close enough to it, haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.
If 1080p is so unnecessary, why is it the industry's chosen top quality standard, and why is it being used for all film transfers and the likes of Star Wars? Are you saying you know more than all the people in the industry making movies, digitally transferring content, making 1080p displays and defining next-gen DVD standards? Why hasn't the whole industry made their life easier by sticking to 720p?

You're the one telling us how much better than CRT the new HD flatscreens are, but you're saying that no one needs the top quality resolution if they sit too far from the screen, or if their eyes arn't perfect, or how it's all unnessary and you won't be able to tell the difference? :roll:

Let me guess - you've recently bought yourself a very expensive flat-screen that can only do 720p?

[bobthebub]

haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.

720p is under a megapixel per frame, 1080p is over 2 megapixels per frame.

I think that will make a difference to image quality, If I am close to a monitor I will see that difference, If I install a 10ft screen from a projector I will notice that difference

Resizing images makes a quality difference, I am sure you will have tried using using a tft that is native 1024x768 showing a 1280x1024 image or vice versa.

NTSC was commerciallised in 1954, PAL & NTSC around 1967 thats 40-50 years for those standards because it's hellish difficult to replace video production end to end with a new set of standards.

I personally think 1080p is a worthwhile target for the industry that will last a while, 1080p capabale 24" TFT's are not that exepnsive today and within a year or 2 30", 40", 50" panels and projectors will follow perhaps accellerated by new technologies like SED.

I can wait another couple of years for these things to become affordable if the alternative is to accept a halfway standard that would have to be superceded very soon or lead to a 2 tier industry.

What really is your point 720p is as good or better than 1080p?

[nutball]

OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!

[bobthebub]

OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!

ka-ching!

Well done, add to that recent research showing that within the EU anyway average TV screen sizes for new purchases have moved from 28" with CRT's to 42" with Flat panels.

[nutball]

add to that recent research showing that within the EU anyway average TV screen sizes for new purchases have moved from 28" with CRT's to 42" with Flat panels.
Well that may be a slightly biased statistic ... it's next to impossible to get a plasma that isn't 37" or 42" (at least, that's what a typical search on a UK home electronics site shows). It's maybe in the same mould as Henry Ford claiming that "there's only demand for Model T's in black". :wink:

[bobthebub]

I think biased may be the wrong word, if you can only get 37" or 42" Plasma then they will be the ones selling therefore average sizes will increase.

HD screens will be predominantly Plasma/LCD at the moment so if we are going to discuss the optically resolvable detail with HD displays then the calculaltion should be applied to those sizes, and bigger screens being bought won't increase the size of the average TV viewing room so the viewing distance stays similar (Ok, might increase a bit if people stick them on the wall) .

[kyleb]

If 1080p is so unnecessary...
I never said it was unnecessary by any means, I explained how as display size decreases and/or viewing distance increases the higher resolution becomes irrelevant. On the other end, in a big movie theater with a 120' screen and sitting in a close seat, 1080p is downright low resolution compared to what can be accomplished by a well calibrated 35mm projector. But again, as you move back in the rows of seats that differece fades quicker and quicker. So there is nothing "unnecessary" about any resolution, but rather it depends on the specifics of the situation and in many cases the displays with native resolutions of 720p, 1366x768, or whatever are more than if not right as good as it gets as far as perceivable resolution goes.
Let me guess - you've recently bought yourself a very expensive flat-screen that can only do 720p?
Nah, I bought my TV back in 2004 for a fairly moderate price and it is well under 720p native. But at 42" sitting 8' back like all the seating in my livingroom is, the difference between my 852x480 display and one of higher resolution is fairly minor.
720p is under a megapixel per frame, 1080p is over 2 megapixels per frame.
and 720x480 is just over 1/3 of a megapixel, hence the reason a even at the botom of the range of resolution an HD TV looks a hell of a lot better than an SDTV in many cases.
OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!
I'm pretty sure they are off from personal experance. This calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html) hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.
And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.

[bobthebub]

url=http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html]This calculator[/url] hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.
And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.

Good link, it proves to me that you have this argument the wrong way round, you should concentrate on getting a bigger TV so you can see the benefits of full HD.

That calculator says I need a 140' telly, anyone know any cheap 1080p projectors?

edit: none of which has much to do with whether 1080p or 720p is a better standard, the compelling points in favour of 1080p have been made above, your point is probably correct 1080/720 might not be discernable on a 32" telly at 8' but scaling issues and the fact that there are a wide range of target applications beside sitting on a sette 8' foot away with a 32" telly mean that 1080p is a desirable goal

Edit2: and that site defines HD as 1920x1080 which is interesting by itself but also suggests that 32" & 8' sits around the limit for 720p, i.e you may be able to see additional detail from 1080p, not only that but at that distance according to your link you should have a 60" telly to have a suitable viewing angle

[nutball]

I'm pretty sure they are off from personal experance. This calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html) hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.
Right well that calculator assumes that the resolving power of the eye is ~1 arcminute, so you'd expect all the numbers to be different from mine by about a factor 3.

And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.
It is all linear with viewing distance.

L ~ R x theta (for small theta)

where L is the linear size subtended by angle theta (in radians) at viewing distance R.

[kyleb]

Yeah, the eqation shows the ablity to fully resolve a given resolution relates linearly to distance; i'm not auging that. I'm saying that if you take say two 60" displays, one native 1080p and one naitve 720p, at 4" the difference is blatently obvious, moving back from 4" to 6" that difference less obvious by a specific amount, and moving from 6" to 8" that difference is reduced at an even greater factor. I don't know the math behind how that works, but it quite obvious in pratice if you walk into a showroom where you can test it for yourself. Or like I said, take a 600dpi printand a 1200dpi print and tape them to a wall and keep steping back, that will ilustrate the same effect.

Good link, it proves to me that you have this argument the wrong way round, you should concentrate on getting a bigger TV so you can see the benefits of full HD.
Nah, it just proves that I don't obesess over a single factor like the getting the full THX recomended "theater experience", but rather weight that in with the many other aspects of what makes the most suitable display for the given situation when makeing such a choice.

[london-boy]

Wow... seems like i sparked a big fire... or something...

Well, i don't think i need to justify my purchases to anyone, as i said, i needed to get a TV now, and went for the best option for the price.

If i had to wait for "the new thing" to come out, in this case bloody 1080p or SED or whatever, i'd be TV-less for a long time, and for what? For something i wouldn't use for even longer. Even the 720p panel i got won't be used "properly" for a long time, but i had to get one.

I think i've made the right decision, i got a cheap but fabulous 720p panel, and when things settle, i will get a 1080p one, if i feel the need. Knowing me, i'll convince myself that i will NEED a 1080p panel anyway. That's why i opted for a cheaper option now. I had to get something afterall.

No one is denying that 1080p is better than 720p, at double the pixel count it better bloody be better! Still, getting worried about that now is just silly for ME. Maybe not for you, but it's my money and my flat and my decision.

I think your "arguments" would be more valid if i bought a Sony Bravia, which cost around double the one i got, for technology which, as you said, is still not "finalised". As it stands, i got the cheaper one, still fantastic image quality.

As for LCD's "shortcomings", yes the blacks could be blacker, no one is denying that, but the set gives blacks that are better than most CRT i've set my eyes on, and the image quality in terms of colour reproduction and sharpness is light years ahead. Sure, SED will give better everything, but i needed a TV now, and a 42" plasma would have been too big and too expensive.
I could have bought a nice CRT TV, but well... NO. Sorry but NO. Call me a fashion victim, don't know, but i'm not buying a CRT TV even if my life depended on it. Speaking of fashion victim, could i not say the same about you? With all due respect, you definately seem more of a "trend" victim than i do, if you're prepared to wait years and years for The Best of The Best, according to what comes up next on internet technology websites. I limit myself to The Best For Me.

Next thing you know, people will be telling me not to buy HDDVD/Bluray because "they're interim formats" and i better wait for HDV or whatever they're called...

[Nappe1]

last time I checked, EICTA had only approved 720p(50 and 60) and 1080i(50 and 60) as standard HDTV modes in europe.

that does not mean that 1080p would not be supported later on, but at least first HDTV sets don't need to support it.