Comments on: The Clicker on 1080p http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/ HDTV Home Theater and Television Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:20:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on The Clicker on 1080p by: Anonymo http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-250 Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:35:19 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-250 The guy appears to have no concept of 3d gaming. His comments apply to a 1080p 2d game or a menu with non-horizontal/vertical lines - game developers might want to add a new texture set to accomodate the 1080 resolution, but 3d gamers have craved absurdly high resolutions since texture compression was first applied in hardware with the Unreal/Q3 engines. PC gaming has has this kind of resolution for a long time. The guy appears to have no concept of 3d gaming.

His comments apply to a 1080p 2d game or a menu with non-horizontal/vertical lines - game developers might want to add a new texture set to accomodate the 1080 resolution, but 3d gamers have craved absurdly high resolutions since texture compression was first applied in hardware with the Unreal/Q3 engines.

PC gaming has has this kind of resolution for a long time.

]]> Comment on The Clicker on 1080p by: Henning http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-249 Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:30:30 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-249 Were you baiting me? :) Were you baiting me? :)

]]> Comment on The Clicker on 1080p by: John http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-248 Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:21:03 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-248 I disagree. I've seen a 65" RPTV running 720p, and then the same RPTV design only upgraded (prototype) to have native 1920x1080 resolution (though undoubtedly being driven by a 1080i signal), and there was a noticeable improvement. Now I would assume that the interlace vs progressive question would depend more on content than on diagonal. That is, fast moving video will always benefit from progressive instead of interlaced, while still images will not. So if you can see a difference between a native 1280x720 set and a native 1920x1080 set at a given diagonal, then the 1080 resolution should be preferred at that diagonal and above. And, at any resolution, progressive should be preferred over interlaced (because we all want to be able to watch fast moving video for TV and movies). I would put the diagonal cut-off in the mid 50" range in terms of noticeable visual benefit from 1080 vs 720. But even then, I think consumers will want 1080 for smaller diagonals (maybe down to 40") even though it might not show any visual benefit (only psychological). For example, JVC is introducing a 40" TFT-LCD at 1080p this fall (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000783050121/). A good analogy in terms of "how much resolution is enough" is digital still cameras. The image seen from a 6Mpixel camera is usually rendered at far lower resolution (either limited by the monitor or DPI on the printer). So why not buy a cheaper camera with less pixels? People want more resolution! Bit of a ramble here, but an important issue to me. Thanks again. I disagree. I’ve seen a 65″ RPTV running 720p, and then the same RPTV design only upgraded (prototype) to have native 1920×1080 resolution (though undoubtedly being driven by a 1080i signal), and there was a noticeable improvement. Now I would assume that the interlace vs progressive question would depend more on content than on diagonal. That is, fast moving video will always benefit from progressive instead of interlaced, while still images will not. So if you can see a difference between a native 1280×720 set and a native 1920×1080 set at a given diagonal, then the 1080 resolution should be preferred at that diagonal and above. And, at any resolution, progressive should be preferred over interlaced (because we all want to be able to watch fast moving video for TV and movies). I would put the diagonal cut-off in the mid 50″ range in terms of noticeable visual benefit from 1080 vs 720. But even then, I think consumers will want 1080 for smaller diagonals (maybe down to 40″) even though it might not show any visual benefit (only psychological). For example, JVC is introducing a 40″ TFT-LCD at 1080p this fall (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000783050121/). A good analogy in terms of “how much resolution is enough” is digital still cameras. The image seen from a 6Mpixel camera is usually rendered at far lower resolution (either limited by the monitor or DPI on the printer). So why not buy a cheaper camera with less pixels? People want more resolution! Bit of a ramble here, but an important issue to me. Thanks again.

]]> Comment on The Clicker on 1080p by: Henning http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-247 Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:54:58 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-247 My guess is that you'd probably have to get into front-projection sizes to really notice the difference. (Like 80" or so.) My guess is that you’d probably have to get into front-projection sizes to really notice the difference. (Like 80″ or so.)

]]> Comment on The Clicker on 1080p by: John http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-246 Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:28:34 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/09/02/the-clicker-on-1080p/#comment-246 You make the statement, "Personally, if I had a choice between a 1080p set versus a 1080[i] or 720p set, I’d take the 1080p set anyday (everything else being equal). Especially if it’s a really big screen." My question is, how big do you think the screen needs to be, below which you (or consumers in general) will not require 1080p? Thanks. You make the statement, “Personally, if I had a choice between a 1080p set versus a 1080[i] or 720p set, I’d take the 1080p set anyday (everything else being equal). Especially if it’s a really big screen.” My question is, how big do you think the screen needs to be, below which you (or consumers in general) will not require 1080p? Thanks.

]]>