It was a 1080p DLP with a 1080i signal from Discovery HD with that same feed going into the 480p plasma. Shows you the quality of a direct panel monitor compared to a projected or magnified image. You have to compare apples to apples, like when I compared the 768 Sony LCD flat panel set to the 1080p version. The 480i signal look weak on the 1080p compared to the 768 one and the 720p signals looked better as well on the 768 one. According to the above article at an average distance (10 feet) with up to a 50 inch display, you're not seeing the full quality of 1080p, because of the size of the pixels, it looks worse than the 768 set at the average distance because of the size of the pixels. Again, you have to compare apples with apples.
I have 2 setups: upstairs media room with a 60 inch 1080p SXRD and a basement theater with a 1080p Sony Pearl and a 110 inch screen. In both cases given my room dimensions and seating distance my 1080p displays BLOW AWAY any similarly sized 720p native rear projector, flat panel or front projector. I'm sure that with additional ISF calibration any advantage of 1080p will be magnified. The ISF will tell you that the most important factors that influence picture quality are (in order): 1. Contrast Ratio 2. Color saturation 3. Color accuracy 4. Resolution
Don't agree, the SXRD is a rare projection monitor, the Pioneer 768x1366 Plasma Elite is in a different league. There is a reason why the monitor is around 9,000. Anyone who compares a rare projection set to looking at the Panel itself don't know too much about monitors. Not looking to argue with you and I understand a lot of people want to praise their set as the best. But it's a fact that rear projection magnified images are not in the same league as flat panel direct monitors. As you see in the above article they have written at the average distance the 720p set wins out, unless you sit 3 feet away from the monitor. Sorry I didn't write the articles. I had RP sets, never again. There is contrast ratio and dcr. Anything over 1300 to 1 contrast ratio is irrelavant... there are a lot factors on that around the net. Resolution at this distance is best at 720 or 768 and the temporal resolution is best at 720p/60. Color satutation is best on a Plasma!
I still prefer a properly calibrated 50 to 60 inch SXRD to any plasma or LCD flat panel. But for me the best home theater experience would be a high contrast front projector with a 90-100 inch screen. BTW the flesh tones on your picture above don't look quite right. It could be your digital camera or maybe your flat panel needs calibration.
The bigger picture gets the worse it is., stretching pixels etc.... sorry... To each it's own though... people like different things.
I take it you haven't seen a Sony Ruby or Pearl projector in action. You're right though - to each his own. The bottom line is what looks best in your room and your setup. For me that's the 60 inch SXRD and the Pearl.
HD_nut, you seem like a great person but I must say I find most of your comments to be... well wrong. How can you say that a tv is better because it shows the panel? What you say flys against everything custom installers (the real experts) say. I know everyone has opinions but I'm about facts. And the fact is what you see depends on 3 things: Your room; Your source; Your connections The most inportant and most over looked is your room. The main factors are... Viewing distance (how far away you will be sitting?) Viewing angle (where is your furniture?) Lighting condition (is it a basement or living room?) A plasma looks horrible (glare and color suppression) in a bright room with alot of light which is why LCD would be a better choice for that situation. On the other side LCD would look worse than a Plasma in a darker room because LCDs arn't that good at producing a deep dark black. Rear-projections are my favorite of the newer display techonolgies. But they suffer from poor viewing angles. [bold]My point is, come up with real facts. [/bold] I want to complain about alot of things you said but I will just pic one... Niether of the first gen players output a prestine 1080p@24 signal. They use the same chip. Those chips convert 1080p24 to 1080i@30 then preform video processing. Then they either send it to the tv set as 720p or 1080i. The Samsung Blu ray player and Toshiba's HD-XA2 add an extra step where a de-interlacer makes the 1080i@30 signal 1080p@60. Well I might as well address this too... 1080p@24 doesn't look worse than 720p@60 (in the case of movies) since the frames represent movies on [bold]Film[/bold] which are shot at 24 fps. The 720@60 signal is actually very jittery and retains little if any cenimatic value in this case. Good tvs like the pioneer plasmas up there refresh rate to 72Hz and use a 3:3 pull down process instead of a 3:2 process so that the issue of jitter is rendered mute. I can tell you why if you want me too. I mean no offense, Ced
When people start comparing 90 inch projected images to a flat panel plasma, I'm not even going to waste my time. Many people are impressed by big numbers,,, size of screeen resolution numbers. On some LCD RP the picture is the size of a stamp and prjected then magnified....call any high end store and ask them what gives you a better picure that or looking at the panel itself. Please!! Larger resolution numbers don't conver't 480i and p as well as 720p monitors do, and the larger the picture gets the worse it gets. What isnstallers tell you and what is fact is different. If people are happy it's all that matters. I agree with LCD and Plasma thing you said, although the LCD seemed to fix the black problem with a real good set, but again comparing these flat screens to any 100 inch or projected image .... not even going to watse my time. As far as the 1080p/24... agian you just want to talk about movies, I'm really comparing the 1080p/24 signal to the 720p/60 one, not a movie. The 720p/60 signal delivers more fresh pixels per second. 1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second 720p/60 55296000 pixels per second. 720p on 1366x768 62945280 pixels per second More frames more info... snap 24 picture of something in a second, and let me snap 60... what set of pictures is going to show more information?
BS...Look HD_nut i find most of your info misleading please do a little more research..Me & Diabolos might not agree on alot of stuff but everything he said in his last post was pretty much a fact.I not going to breakdown all that stuff your said because im not wasteing my time on misleading info.
I think you have the mistaken assumption that all 1080p sets display at only 24 fps. Actually very few sets (example Sony Ruby PJ) can accept 1080p/24. Even then the 24 fps is usually doubled or even tripled to eliminate flicker. Practically all 1080p sets do 3:2 pulldown to convert any signal to 60 fps and display any incoming signal at 1080p/60. Also the current BluRay (and next gen HD-DVD) players output at 1080p/60. So if we apply your math: 1080p/60 = 124416000 pixels per second.
Anyone who compares a rare projected image that is blown up from the size of a stamp to the flat panel series is just pumping sunshine up their own set. Get photo the size of a stamp and blow it up to 60 inches. With the flat panel you're not blowing anything up or projecting it. As far as the signals itself, it is not me who wrote the articles about the average distance and the resolution of the eye. I can show articles upon end how 720p set display 480i signals better than 1080p sets. I'm sure your set looks great, and there is no way you can show picture quality from a digital camera and compare sets that way. When I took my photo it was to show how well you can freeze a progressive image compared to an interlaced 1080i signal on a 1080i set. As always, the bigger the picture... the more you stretch pixels, the worse it gets. don't care if it LCD RP, front projection etc. That is just common knowledge. Read some articles about stretching pixels. I'm sure the RP sets look great, I had them... but If you want to talk apples with apples 1080p to 1080p... get a real monitor that shows you a big image before it is pojected and magnified and put in the same room with 90 inch projected image, and then see. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-rIfkLbAqcfG/cgi-bin/prodview.asp?i=13365PX600 It is not me who posted these statments "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." http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January/13-...arallaxview.htm 720p better than 1080p the clear winner!! But humans can perceive 60 frames per second which makes 720p the clear winner over 1080p Proff 60 frames is better than 24 "humans can perceive up to 60+ fps". http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
Yes the pull down helps just like you said it does, no doubt. Also that is not a real 1080p/60 AGAIN....My comparison was with a real 720p/60 signal. Not so much the monitors. If I had a 720p signal like Lost or Monday Night Football with a 1080p TV with a box that put out in 1080p, I would keep the box in 720p and let the set upconvert to 1080p without changing the frame rate to 24 and using the pull down. The disks are 1080p/24.... again not a real 60 FPS... If I throw a juggler 2 balls, he still has 2 balls no matter how fast his hands are moving.
1080p/60 = 124416000 pixels per second. Wrong.... The pixels are not in a different position for all those frames, just 2x or 3x. A real 720p signal... the pixels are different position for each frame... AGAIN.... my point is the broadcast signals of a real 720/60
The disks..... are 1080p/24.... the disk is like a broadcast signal... it not a real 60 frame signal from the source. The players and monitors can pump 24 FPS as fast as they want it is just 2x 3x of the 24. The ATSC broadcast format for 1080p goes as high as 30 FPS. A real 720p signal is 60 real frames and the set pumps 60 real frames. Each picture with a 720p/60 signal contains fresh pixels for every frame. If you get a 1080p/24 source, you're more than doubling the frames rates. The sets 60 FPS mode does not provide a fresh set of pixels in a different position for each frame as a real 720p signal does. Yes pull downs help for flickering and all like said above. They are not real 60 frame images.
So the best image would be from the PS3 putting out a 1080p game at 60 FPS displayed on a 1080p/60 set. That would be REAL 124416000 pixels per second.
I did no research on games, I have no interest in games. Although I heard of the 60 frame rate on the disk. At least you see my point. Check this out http://www.110220volts.com/FAG/FAQonHDTV1.htm
"Summary: It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters." http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm With 720p/60 signal it is 720p/60 55296000 pixels per second being DELIVERED by the signal, and not augmented pixels of exsisting frames. I rest my case!
All your arguments are good on paper but my question on the first page of this thread still stands: Why does 720p (either from HD cable, upconverting DVD player or HD-DVD player - movies, video, sports, animation) look worse on my HDTV than 1080i??? No matter what I do even with calibration with DVE it's still the same - 720p sources don't look as good as 1080i.
