Why do people say resolution does not matter?

Sorry if I have this wrong, but doesn't the number (720, 1080 mean lines on the screen?) So why do they say after 42 inch you can tell a difference? Woudn't a 42 inch with 1080 lines look better then a 42 inch with only 720 lines? Or do I have it all wrong?

Depends on how far you sit away

Depends on how far you sit away

ChubbyGuy40

this. I could direct you to a chart I found that has all the info you'd need, but sadly, lost that...

From what I saw, a 55'' TV is what you need to see a striking difference in Blu-ray, 1080p etc. From 720p.

1) because one the distance matters. 2) HD is overhyped. we had HD resolutions back in 96'. its been recently that it is being widely marketed.

3) id get a higher resolution anyway. if 720p looks like 1080p from far away then 1080p will look even better hahah (and the bitrate will also be higher and im rly picky when it comes to bitrate. I always need to have 8mb or higher usually around 10mb lol)

I sit 6 inches away from my 19 inch '79 Zenith CRT and it looks better than anything on the market today.

so 42 inch if im sitting say 5-8 feet away no difference? I was just wondering cuz i went from Sharp aquos 32 inch where i was 3 feet away to a 42 inch panasonic vierra and up close it looked odd, so i moved to about 6 feet away and it looks amaizingxfactor19990

That's why people don't like to watch movies shot in Digital. Something magical about watching those microscopic grain particles dancing on the screen. It's called the magic of the silverscreen. So, yes 1080p matters. pimperjones

That's the gist of the argument that is often times missing. The extra detail 1080p provides allows your eye to actually focus in on different parts of the image, giving it that extra depth and "pop."

I could direct you to a chart I found that has all the info you'd need, but sadly, lost that...HavocV3

Something like this is actually subjective, but I happen to have one in my "informational images" folder.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Depends on how far you sit away

HavocV3

this. I could direct you to a chart I found that has all the info you'd need, but sadly, lost that...

From what I saw, a 55'' TV is what you need to see a striking difference in Blu-ray, 1080p etc. From 720p.

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"]so 42 inch if im sitting say 5-8 feet away no difference? I was just wondering cuz i went from Sharp aquos 32 inch where i was 3 feet away to a 42 inch panasonic vierra and up close it looked odd, so i moved to about 6 feet away and it looks amaizingpimperjones

[QUOTE="pimperjones"][QUOTE="xfactor19990"]so 42 inch if im sitting say 5-8 feet away no difference? I was just wondering cuz i went from Sharp aquos 32 inch where i was 3 feet away to a 42 inch panasonic vierra and up close it looked odd, so i moved to about 6 feet away and it looks amaizingshawty1984

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="pimperjones"] It's all subjective. If you have really poor vision 480p and 1080p won't even make a difference. As far as 42" goes, YES 100% 42" is the sweet spot for 1080p. It only gets better as you go up. I think 32" 1080p TVs are a overkill. But 42" 1080p. You'd be blind not to see the difference. At 1080p is when you begin to actually see the fine grains of the film. At 720p it looks sharp, but at 1080p it looks grainy sharp. Very hard to explain. At 1080p is when you start to actually see the very grain like particles that actually compose the image. It's like getting really close up to an oil painting and you start seeing the texture of the canvas. pimperjones

No, you're wrong again. You're caculating pure resolution while ignoring pixel size. You're telling me you can actually see 2,073,600 pixels of a 1080p signal on a DSi or PSP with your naked eye? I assure you, you can't. Nor can you see 2,073,600 pixels when sitting 10 feet away from a 23" TV. Sure the pixel is there, but the human eye has it's limits. The pixel size changes as the TVs get bigger. A single pixel of a 1080p TV on a 42" vs 23" are vastly different in size. Thus a 23" 1080p set looks different from a 42" 1080p set. For the simple reason that each individual pixel is bigger as the TVs get bigger. You're sadly mistaking fixed resolution with PIXEL SIZE. The bigger the pixel, the more likely it is to register to the human eye, that's just common sense. pimperjones

Just cause the resolution is fixed doesn't mean you can see it. (did you get that bit?) I bring up PSP because it counters your claim that fixed resolution looks the same on all formats. Sorry if my PSP examples kills your argument, but it was the only way to prove my point. Fixed resolution example. A Ferrari parked 100 miles away, has the same fixed resolution as a Ferrari parked 3 feet away. You're telling me that both Ferraris look the same. I'm sorry but you're wrong. Yes viewing distance plays a huge factor, but pixel size, changes the nature of the image. Sure the details in the orginal signal will never change, but the size of the pixels effects you're perception of the image. 1080p at 22" has smaller pixels 1080p at 60" has bigger pixels They aren't the same. Example 480p TVs at 50" and above look horrible, reason being the pixel ratio is too big and you begin to see the flaw in the signal. pimperjones

And buddy stop with your 1080p is 1920x1080, even my grandmother knows that. I assure you my knowledge of the display mediums far exceeds my grandmothers. So, stop fronting. It's really annoying. What you're saying is that the 2,073,600 pixels looks the same regardless of size. I'm telling you it doesn't. 2,073,600 pixels at 100" and above looks horrible, because the pixels are too big and you start to see the flaws in the signal. pimperjones

And buddy stop with your 1080p is 1920x1080, even my grandmother knows that. I assure you my knowledge of the display mediums far exceeds my grandmothers. So, stop fronting. It's really annoying. What you're saying is that the 2,073,600 pixels looks the same regardless of size. I'm telling you it doesn't. 2,073,600 pixels at 100" and above looks horrible, because the pixels are too big and you start to see the flaws in the signal. pimperjones

No, any size TV/Monitor will be the same difference between 1080p and 720p if both viewed from the correct distance.shawty1984

There is no sweet spot for 1080p. 1080p is 1080p which is 1920 x 1080. Resolution does not change due to screen size, it will be the same amount of pixels on the screen. 1080p does not get better with bigger screen size. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60".

To judge image resolution without taking into account size and viewing distance is ignorance

IF BOTH ARE VIEWED FROM THE CORRECT DISTANCE (did you get that bit?)

That's was my point from the start, that detail is subjective to distance in accordance to pixel size. 22" needs be used as a PC monitor not a TV. And TVs sweet spot is around 42" as most people sit roughly 5feet or more. And that the details become more apparent as the size increases, and the details become less apparent as the size decreases. The reason they don't have 1080p on handheld is cause 2millions pixels is not visible to naked eye at such small sizes, which by the way defeats your whole argument. I'm glad you decided to add viewing distance as key factor to image detail after I pointed that out to you. Here's your original argument, NOTE no mention of viewing distance what so ever.

There is no sweet spot for 1080p. 1080p is 1080p which is 1920 x 1080. Resolution does not change due to screen size, it will be the same amount of pixels on the screen. 1080p does not get better with bigger screen size. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60".pimperjones

I'm glad that you found out viewing distance is a key factor after I mentioned it to you.

To judge image resolution without taking into account size and viewing distance is ignorance

I'm also glad that you started using my argument as if it were your own after you found out that you were wrong.

IF BOTH ARE VIEWED FROM THE CORRECT DISTANCE (did you get that bit?)

Yeah I got it, maybe because I was the one that brought it to your attention.

Thanks for pointing out the exact same point that I was making before you decided to get on your high horse to lecture me about TV resolution. Maybe you should have read my post before declaring yourself the Tzar of display technology. I said from the the gekko that it's all dependent on size, and distance. Why you started the argument outside of satisfying your own ego is beyond me.

Thanks for pointing out the exact same point that I was making before you decided to get on your high horse to lecture me about TV resolution. Maybe you should have read my post before declaring yourself the Tzar of display technology. I said from the the gekko that it's all dependent on size, and distance. Why you started the argument outside of your ego is beside me.

pimperjones

The following statements are based on logic and common sense. Which you apparently lack, but what you lack you make up for in ego. Congrats.

1) Most people don't live in Donald Trumps house.
So 42" is the perfect for most households who sit between 5-7 feet away. - Hence SWEETSPOT.

2) It only gets better as you go up.
The bigger the pixel the more likely you are to see each minute detail, such as film's grain particles.
Hence it gets better as if goes up. That's why bigger TVs cost more. By your logic a 60" is no better than a 22". Your logic is flawed.

3) I think 32" 1080p TV is an overkill. Reason you need to sit closer than3 feet to actually see the details. So unless you're using it as an PC monitor it is a overkill.

Sorry but I'm destined to bust up your Ego today.

The ego on you is astounding. If I have no clue of image resolution I gotta get a new job, as I work in the media sector. Unlike you I get my facts from the source and not google. I've worked on 2K displays running DaVinci Suites thank you very much.

For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.pimperjones

..

Unfortunately for you, between you and him he was the first one to bring up distance from the TV in the discussion between you two. :P In the post of yours he quoted, you were talking about 1080p in relation to television size without mentioning the distance from the TV at all. If you like I can quote the original post and you can highlight where you mentioned distance, because you didn't. He mentioned that what you said is incomplete, distance matters too. If you agreed with his simple single sentence, you probably shouldn't have launched into a debate about it. Something like 'yeah, I left that part out' would suffice.Makari

There is no sweet spot for 1080p. 1080p is 1080p which is 1920 x 1080. Resolution does not change due to screen size, it will be the same amount of pixels on the screen. 1080p does not get better with bigger screen size. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60".

That's a false assumption, 1080p makes no difference on a PSP or a DSi. So size does matter, because resolution perception is directly related to viewing distance and image size. A 23", 15", 13" 1080p display would have to be used as a PC monitor for any real benefit. While a 42" 1080p can be viewed from a distance and still be effective. To judge image resolution without taking into account size and viewing distance is ignorance. That's why PSP and DSi don't come in 1080p. As I said before as a TV set, 42" is the beginning of 1080p glory.

No, your wrong. 1080p is 1080p. This does not change due to screen size. 1080p will look the same at 22" as it does at 60" if both are viewed from the correct distance. The bigger screen you get does not mean 1080p gets better. 1080p can never get better, resolution is fixed. Like I said, 1080p is 1080p, its the same amount of pixels on the screen, it WILL look the same.

snippimperjones

The following statements are based on logic and common sense. Which you apparently lack, but what you lack you make up for in ego. Congrats.

1) Most people don't live in Donald Trumps house.
So 42" is the perfect for most households who sit between 5-7 feet away. - Hence SWEETSPOT.

2) It only gets better as you go up.
The bigger the pixel the more likely you are to see each minute detail, such as film's grain particles.
Hence it gets better as if goes up. That's why bigger TVs cost more. By your logic a 60" is no better than a 22". Your logic is flawed.

3) I think 32" 1080p TV is an overkill. Reason you need to sit closer than3 feet to actually see the details. So unless you're using it as an PC monitor it is a overkill.

Sorry but I'm destined to bust up your Ego today.

The ego on you is astounding. If I have no clue of image resolution I gotta get a new job, as I work in the media sector. Unlike you I get my facts from the source and not google. I've worked on 2K displays running DaVinci Suites thank you very much.

pimperjones

For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.pimperjones

It's obvious that he thought I was some two bit fool, but realized he was dealing with the PIMP. No pun intended. Nobody messes with the pimp on his own turf. LOL

pimperjones

There are other factors besides viewing distance and pixel resolution in regards to a "sweet spot." The light the sets emit causes eye strain. The sweet spot also refers to the closest you can view the set comfortably, without causing gradual strain on the eye, while still picking up all the resolution has to offer. Regardless of detail, this is one of the major reasons people prefer watching films projected unto a surface(go to a theater), because, whether they know it or not, looking at an hdtv set too long can cause stress.

Well they say that, but the matter of fact is that it still causes strain. The dim light behind the set is used to reduce that, and if set up properly, can actually increase the the visible contrast of the set.

So what's the argument?

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="pimperjones"]For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.pimperjones

I rate your trolling at 5/10. Mediocre, you could improve. Get more then 1 person angry.

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="pimperjones"]For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.pimperjones