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

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.

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

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

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

[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

[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="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.

1080i is higher resolution than 720 but it's a waste of money (imo) to get anything over 720 unless you're going over 46" in screen size. You probably won't see a difference in resolution with screens smaller than that, than again everyone's eyes are a little different.

fenriz275

Want to share what difference there is and its its worth dumping another 450 euro for the difference?

Devon32