fyi: LG 50" plasma for $499 at Dell

720p at 50 inches is going to look like crap. If you buy 1080p you can hook it up to a computer and use it as a huge freakin' monitor.

I wish someone would have told me that months ago, I wouldn't have wasted my time using my 720p plasma as a giant freaking monitor :cow:

Did you even look at the graph? It's not just made up shit, it's derived from real information about the perceptive ability of the human eye and brain.

Did you? Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, with a 50 inch TV the benefits of 1080p don't even start to become visible unless you're sitting closer than 9ft with full benefit at about 6ft.

If you mean sitting 50 inches from the TV then possibly, if you mean on a 50 inch TV then no.

Did you? Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, with a 50 inch TV the benefits of 1080p don't even start to become visible unless you're sitting closer than 9ft with full benefit at about 6ft.

Unless 50 inches is the new 9 feet, then you're not paying attention.

Kn.

Did you? Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, with a 50 inch TV the benefits of 1080p don't even start to become visible unless you're sitting closer than 9ft with full benefit at about 6ft.

Try this, hook up a laptop to a 1080p TV and run Google Earth in full screen mode with high-detail textures and anti-aliasing, now try the same on a 50" 720p TV… The 720p one will look like crap.

This counts for movies as well. I have a 14GB copy of Blade Runner in 1080p, the detail is immediately noticeable, in 720p the small background detail and texture is not there.

Unless 50 inches is the new 9 feet, then you're not paying attention.

I guess it's not as simple a graph as I thought. When I go to 50 inch TV on the bottom and straight up from there, it's not until below the 9 foot viewing distance mark on the left that "Benefit of 1080p starts to become noticeable." So I misunderstood that to mean from a distance of 9 feet or more there is no benefit to 1080p.

Please explain to me how I should be reading that graph.

I guess it's not as simple a graph as I thought. When I go to 50 inch TV on the bottom and straight up from there, it's not until below the 9 foot viewing distance mark on the left that "Benefit of 1080p starts to become noticeable." So I misunderstood that to mean from a distance of 9 feet or more there is no benefit to 1080p.

Please explain to me how I should be reading that graph.

On a 50" screen, around 7' is where you get the full benefit of the screen's resolution, any further away, and you are in a marginal zone. 7' is really close for a screen that big.
The graph doesn't take into account usage or user though, it's more of just an estimation based on a wide range of factors. Some people can see a lot more detail, others can't, so YMMV.
What will make a bigger difference is watching a 720p source on a 1080p screen. If most of your viewing is 720p, then you are probably better off getting a 720 screen. If you are watching movies that are encoded into 1080p, and that's your primary usage, then 1080p will be a better offer. A better video processor/setup will also nullify the argument. A cheap 1080p panel will look worse than a quality 720p nearly all the time.

Try this, hook up a laptop to a 1080p TV and run Google Earth in full screen mode with high-detail textures and anti-aliasing, now try the same on a 50" 720p TV… The 720p one will look like crap.

This counts for movies as well. I have a 14GB copy of Blade Runner in 1080p, the detail is immediately noticeable, in 720p the small background detail and texture is not there.

No argument from me that with a 1080p signal it will obviously be better than a 720p setup even though that graph says it's largely dependent on viewing distance. Having said that, I don't think 720p is a crap quality image.

On a 50" screen, around 7' is where you get the full benefit of the screen's resolution

You mean for a 50 inch 1080p set right? That's the way I read it.

Please explain to me how I should be reading that graph.

I think the best way to visualize what it is trying to convey is to imagine you are far away (i.e. high on the vertical axis of the graph) from the display in question and moving towards it.

So, for a 50" display, you first notice the improvement of 720p at around 12' away from the display, 1080p at 9', and 4k at 5'.

That's all great from a theoretical point of view, but how many people really want to sit only 5 feet away from a 50" panel?

1080 is still 1080, whether it's i or p. So if you've got 1080 lines on the source, it is best reproduced with a display that has 1080 native lines.

No argument there, that's basic signal processing theory. My point was that the vast majority of the content that people are watching on 1080p capable panels is only 720p. A lot of network TV content starts life as 1080i (that's what you'll get OTA) but by the time it comes out of a cable box's HDMI cable, it's been down sampled to 720p which then has to be upscaled to 1080.

Depends on the source. Some are 720p, while others are 1080i.

I can tell the difference; Letterman (CBS) and CNN are sharper on small detail (i.e. zoom in on suit and tie) than channels that are 720p, like some of the sports channels. The closer you get to the display, the more you will notice the difference, which is pointed out in KenN's graph.

Plus, 1080i is 1920x1080, and 720p is 1280x720, so it's not just vertical resolution.

Example of broadcast resolution of some shaw channels.