2160p HDTV - Will it be used in the next generation?

[Romanc]

Originally Posted by LAN deRf HA

I've seen a 1080p tv set and a 2560x1600 monitor running the same game off the same pc, both without using AA. At 5 feet I could def. see a difference, especially in the jaggy dept. Though maybe those last 3 feet make a big dif? Either way I trust experience first, especially when its my experience.

Distance is the key. Get close enough and you will always see the difference. i didn't check the link, but it makes sense. If you see a difference, take a step back. Repeat, until you no longer can make out the difference. This requires two identical sized screens with identical screen technologies but different native resolutions (also on the source material). With a 50" 1080p screen, I guess you will see a difference even at 8 feet if it switches to a lower resolution, as upscaling/downscaling will introduce its own differences, especially when upscaling.

Originally Posted by webshark

this is the kind of thing that really kind of pisses me off. i just did some research....

on a 50" screen, from 8 feet away, the BEST resolution human eyes can make out is 720p. what im saying here, is that for the given distance and size, 720p is the ABSOLUTE LIMIT the human eye can distinguish. upgrading to a 1080p only allows for you to see the same quality (not better, cause that is IMPOSSIBLE) from half the distance or from twice the size screen.

ok, giving the above paragraph, there is ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE for a 2160p tv....seriously, are you going to watch a 50" from 2 feet away? and who the hell has space for a 200" tv?????

alot of this "HD" crap is really starting to get under my skin cause hardly anything is standardized and consumers are getting ripped off right and left.

Woah sharky! lol. I still don't understand why we would need a monitor/tv that could handle that type of resolution. Right now at 720p i have to literally sit right next to the tv be able to discern pixels.

Here is an interesting read over at CNET about the neccessity of 1080p. Note that it is a bit under a year old, but it still applies to this debate.

Here are some excerpts:

While this isn't the most scientific test, both Katzmaier and I agreed that, after scanning through Mission: Impossible III for an hour, it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above.

Ultimately, we agree with the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, when it says that the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second-most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Though resolution may be the most talked-about spec these days, it comes in fourth on the ISF list, and after you sit watching five TVs lined up side by side, you understand why. The fact is a relatively pristine high-def source such as Mission: Impossible III looks sharp on just about any HDTV, and your eye, when looking for differences, is drawn first to things like depth of detail in shadowy material (black levels) and the color of the actors' skin tone and how natural it looks.

So when buying a TV, the last thing you probably want to do is agonize over its native resolution. If you don't mind spending the extra dough for 1080p, go for it. But if it's stretching your budget, then take a pass, knowing it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

Found a wonderful blog post that goes into visual acuity in relation to HD resolution. Since it's fairly short I'll post the whole article and then bold the parts that pertain to the discussion. The just of the article is that as long as your tv is 50" or less and you aren't going to sit closer than 10 feet (which is pretty average for most people) then the Eye will not be able to discern the change of resolution between 720p and 1080p. So why does Sony say we need 1080p when its so damn expensive and there is no benefit whatsoever for the vast majority of HDTV owners out there and potential owners?

Source

Viewing Distance vs. Resolution

Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love 720p.


Resolution starts (and ends) with the eye. If you're one of the lucky few with 20/20 vision (corrected or not), your eye can discern one-sixtieth of a degree of arc at 20 feet. Translated to inches, this means that, at 20 feet, your eye can discern objects roughly 0.067 inches wide, as long as there's enough of a contrast difference between the object and the background. This refers only to black-and-white info; your eye doesn't resolve color nearly as well as black-and-white. Also, eyes and contrast are a whole other GearWorks that I'll get to eventually. Lastly, we're going to stick with width for simplicity, although this discussion obviously applies to both width and height. Most people sit about 10 feet from their TVs. At this distance (and everything else being equal), your eye can resolve objects that are 0.033 inches wide.

Talk TV, Smart Guy

The average 42-inch-diagonal, 1,280-by-720 plasma or LCD display has pixels that are roughly 0.029 inches wide. (Of course, each model has different inter-pixel spacing, but, for now, we'll assume they don't.) If the same size display had a resolution of 1,920 by 1,080, the pixels would be 0.019 inches wide. As you can see, in a 42-inch display at a distance of 10 feet, your eye can't discern the resolution available even with 720p. Even more resolution is "wasted" at 1,920 by 1,080.
Now, assuming that you're not going to move your couch but you want a bigger TV, how does this work with a 50-inch set? The pixels in a 1,280-by-720 display are 0.034 inches wide, which is almost exactly what your eye can discern at 10 feet. A 1,920-by-1,080 display has 0.023-inch-wide pixels, smaller than your eye can resolve. A 1,920-by-1,080 display would have to measure more than 70 inches diagonally before you start testing your eyes' limits on the display's resolution (at least at 10 feet). Scan lines are the pixels of the CRT world and, in this case, function similarly. The pixels in some displays are not square, in which case you'll also need to check pixel height.

Hold Up, Math Whiz

That isn't the whole story. High resolution, in and of itself, isn't why the the move was made to HD. Ideally, a screen should fill 30 degrees of your field of view for so-called "optimum viewer enjoyment." This is why kids sit so close to the TV, and movies in the theater were more fun than your old TV. By making the screens wider and letting you sit closer (thanks to the higher resolution), the average TV's field of view went from 11 degrees (in most cases) with NTSC to 33 degrees with an ideal HDTV. Rarely is everything ideal, though. The "3x picture height" rule that's tossed about as the ideal seating distance for HDTV (compared with 7x for NTSC) doesn't take into account that displays and high-definition material aren't perfect (and, until recently, none were really 1,920 by 1,080). Just because you can match or exceed your eye/pixel resolution doesn't mean that the material you're watching has anything close to that level of detail. Video noise, artifacts, and poor-quality low-resolution sources (NTSC cable/satellite feeds) are all too noticeable at close distances.
To split the difference between NTSC and HDTV, I recommend a 5x seating distance as a starting point (even at a loss of field of view). At 5x, your eye can almost exactly resolve 720p, regardless of screen size. Since the original writing, we put this math to the test, with intersting results. You can read that article here.

So, Can I Buy a Cheap TV?

Just because your eye can't resolve the additional resolution doesn't mean that you shouldn't get a higher-resolution set; it just means that you don't necessarily have to. From where most people sit, you don't need 1080p in a 37-42 inch TV. It's arguable that you do in a 50-inch set. The key, then, is moving your seating. If you're sitting more than 5x the picture height away from your TV, then you probably don't need 1080p. If you can move closer, you should get the highest resolution display you can, sit close enough that you can't see the pixels, and enjoy your huge screen.

The Math

(Screen Diagonal x 0.87) / Horizontal Resolution = Pixel Width
(Screen Diagonal x 0.49) / Vertical Resolution = Pixel Height
At a distance of 10 feet, the eye can resolve 1/120 of a degree of arc, which translates to a width of 0.033 inches.

[Power666]

I wouldn't really start mentioning things like pixel size or dpi, you'll run right into markets were smaller, more dense pixels are wanted. The desktop publishing market has been wanting large displays with a 150 dpi or great density for years. The latest craze is small, yet high resolution displays for laptops. With resolution independent operating systems around the corner, resolutions beyond 1080p for laptops isn't outrageous in this context.

[Fyrus]

Which is better 1080i or p

[Power666]

1080p due to its progress scan nature.

Originally Posted by Fyrus

Which is better 1080i or p

720p, for now and in the next 3-5 years. That is of course you are getting a 70"+ display or plan on sitting closer than 3 feet to a 50"+

[webshark]

that article seems pretty well in sync with mine, except i used an 8' example. and power, i see where you are coming from there, i understand that computer screens have room to improve, cause after all, we are sitting <2' away from the screen. and my laptop i got last year goes up to 1536-2048

[Into-The-Fog]

thanks for this article, i was originally going to save up for a 1080p set, but i think instead ill get a 32" 100hz 720p/1080i set and plug my pc into

[webshark]

yeah, the most important thing is contrast ratio, so look at that while you shop