Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: Jan B <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:02:13 +0100
On 29 Dec 2007 19:26:06 GMT, Bill McClain
<20071214.20.wmcclain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-12-29, Eddie G <egoldberg@xxxxxxx> wrote:
After reading http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
I'm still not sure what to consider. From the chart on viewing
distances (the 2nd chart) it shows for a 50" set (which is what I'm
considering) is about 6 1/2 feet. How much of a difference does 12-18
inches make if I am 7.5-8 feet from the tv? When I get a big screen it
will be mounted to the wall so will be about 8-9 feet from the
sofa...Should I not even consider 1080p in that case? Does this mean I
can also save $$ and not buy an HD/blu ray DVD player and just get one
that up-converts?
The sizes in the second chart seem very large to me, but if you want a home
theater "cinema" experience, I suppose those are the viewing angles you would
need. I still think of it more as "watching TV" rather than "home theater".
I suggest you assemble paper targets the size of these screen and prop them up
where your display will be and see how you like the sizes. When you have your
desired screen size you can think about other factors.
-Bill
Well, the screen size is also a compromise based on the picture
quality. The pixel size in a direct view panel puts an upper bound on
screen size vs distance.
Most charts give you the distance where a normal eye can resolve the
pixels. So does the linked chart and calls it "Full benefit".
To have a sampled and quantised system look like reality, the samples
must be small enough that we don't resolve them.
The correct way. IMO, to dimension screen size, resolution and viewing
distance is to increase the distance somewhat so that the pixels blend
tohether and can not be resolved. If you resolve the pixels you risk
screen door effect and stair casing on sharp contours.
My rule of thumb says that the viewing distance shall be approximately
pixel size multiplied by 4000. (This gives about 0.85 arc minute
between pixels.)
In principle, the same rule can be applied to the resolution in the
material, but the pixels in a direct view panel are sharp so seeing
those are more disturbing. The pixels from a porjection system can
also be softer and allow a larger pixel size, just make sure the
screen door effect is not disturbing.
Applying my rule to a 50" 1080 panel gives a sweet spot distance at
7.5 feet.
The same sweet spot (and minimum distance for a 50" 768 panel is 10.8
feet.
The conclusion from this is that a 50" screen at a distans of 8-9 feet
should benefit from a 1080 panel rather than a 768 panel.
Then we also should consider that all material is far from perfect.
Especially to have a descent picture from SD you might want to
increase the distance or select a smaller screen.
For descent SD it is more important to have a model with a good scaler
than the highest panel resolution. If the judder in film material
disturbs you, an important feature might be to have motion estimated
frame rate upsampling.
/Jan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: Bill McClain
- Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- References:
- More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: kpb
- Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: Bill McClain
- Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: Eddie G
- Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- From: Bill McClain
- More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- Prev by Date: Re: HDTV differences from tonight's NFL game (Giants vs. Patriots)?
- Next by Date: Re: HDTV differences from tonight's NFL game (Giants vs. Patriots)?
- Previous by thread: Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- Next by thread: Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
