View Full Version : 1080p is it worth upgrading?
tornadog
04-28-08, 06:04 PM
I have the Samsung 46" 720P DLP HDTV HLT4675S. I use it for 360/ps3/wii/blu ray. With all the new movies and games coming out in 1080p, is it worth upgrading to a 1080p set or should I not bother. A guy at my work said 1080p does not make a difference till you get to 50" and above. Is that true.
npras42
04-28-08, 06:10 PM
I find that the biggest difference comes when I use it to display a PC output. In this situation it doesn't matter whether its 23" or 50", 1080p is required.
Otherwise, for all the things you said you use it for the difference is reasonably minimal. Having said that the new models of HDTVs are probably vastly superior to your set and 99% of new models are 1080p anyway.
It makes a difference, but the further away from the set that you sit, the less difference it makes.
I personally consider it question of: is it worth it $$ to upgrade. The answer for me right now with a 42" 720p DLP, is no. I have a friend with a 56" 1080p DLP, and it is difficult to see the difference.
XDanger
04-28-08, 08:09 PM
I find that the biggest difference comes when I use it to display a PC output. In this situation it doesn't matter whether its 23" or 50", 1080p is required.
if I tried to run Crysis @ 1080i it would run like crap but if you have the graphics horsepower to run games like that then 1080p makes sense.
Im sticking with my 37" 720p till decent TV's get much cheaper and I have use for one.
The way I see it, If you can see the pixels at the distance you sit from the TV then you should upgrade.
NaitoSan
04-28-08, 09:23 PM
I don't think it worths the price or in need to have 1080p. Majority of games aren't 1080p native but rather 720p. I was planning to buy 1080p TV but got 720p TV instead. Until next-generation consoles is released, or broadcast switches to digital and/or you plan to buy hundred of Blu-ray for 1080p.
I bet 1080p TV price will drop a lot in beginning of 2009 or after broadcast makes a switch from analog to digital.
I find that the biggest difference comes when I use it to display a PC output. In this situation it doesn't matter whether its 23" or 50", 1080p is required.
Otherwise, for all the things you said you use it for the difference is reasonably minimal. Having said that the new models of HDTVs are probably vastly superior to your set and 99% of new models are 1080p anyway.
QFT. I'm going plasma myself this time around. :captnkill:
I just recently bought a 42" ProScan 1080p TV for $900, I don't think the store had any TV's in it that weren't 1080p.
XDanger
05-03-08, 02:06 PM
I bet 1080p TV price will drop a lot in beginning of 2009 or after broadcast makes a switch from analog to digital.
HD broadcast is what resolution?
im waiting for 2020 when we have a proper fibre-optic network, by then there will be decent holographic tv's though
QFT. I'm going plasma myself this time around. :captnkill:
Plasmas are dead now
HD broadcast is what resolution?
Cable and Satellite do 720p for everything other than the high end documentaries.
Plasmas are dead now
Care to elaborate? Last time I checked plasmas were beating the crap out of LCDs in almost every aspect of picture quality there is. Samsung, LG, Panasonic and Pioneer have all increased their plasma production and the new models are tons better than their lcd counterparts.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/enator1079/1669-kuro-lineup-2-big.jpg
Guess which of those are LCD? :rolleyes:
Plasmas have color element lifespan issues, lcd's do not. To explain a little further, in the screen shots you posted you can easily tell which are the lcd's because of the backlight. When a lcd backlight dies you can replace it and the tv works again. While in plasma tv's there is no backlight because the color and the light is produced at the pixel. However the plasma gas trapped in each pixel escapes slowly, and wears out. When this happens, and it will happen, you pick up your tv and throw it in the trash. In addition plasma tv's are brightest when you first buy them, and wear down with age. The wear down is pretty linear with age.
Plasmas have color element lifespan issues, lcd's do not. To explain a little further, in the screen shots you posted you can easily tell which are the lcd's because of the backlight. When a lcd backlight dies you can replace it and the tv works again. While in plasma tv's there is no backlight because the color and the light is produced at the pixel. However the plasma gas trapped in each pixel escapes slowly, and wears out. When this happens, and it will happen, you pick up your tv and throw it in the trash. In addition plasma tv's are brightest when you first buy them, and wear down with age. The wear down is pretty linear with age.
The new plasmas have a lifespan of approximately 100 000 hours, which equals eleven and a half years of 24 hours/day viewing. I think I might have switched TVs by then.
The new plasmas have a lifespan of approximately 100 000 hours, which equals eleven and a half years of 24 hours/day viewing. I think I might have switched TVs by then.
link?
betterdan
05-04-08, 10:11 PM
Pioneer ending production of plasma panels
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9886376-1.html?tag=nl.e497
Pioneer ending production of plasma panels
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9886376-1.html?tag=nl.e497
(omg)
They're not producing the glass themselves anymore, but are instead buying it from Panasonic. Panasonic and Pioneer are now working together and both are going to use the same glass next year.
link?
Panasonic
Panasonic’s 2008 line of plasmas represent a very significant picture improvement over its 2007 models. 2008 performance enhancements include: significantly improved blacks, higher contrast ratios, 100,000 hour lifetime (time to half brightness the industry method of measurement), improved color gamut, better anti-reflective filters, lower power requirements and a game mode for faster response.
http://hdguru.com/the-madness-continues-part-ii-2008-mitsubishi-panasonic/230/
The reason I went LCD over Plasma is screen burn. I'm pretty sure your desktop would burn in to the screen within a year or so with a plasma. They're also very sensitive to movement and should never be tipped up.
In regards to the OP, I would say yes, you would notice a difference. One if the things I like about running 1080 is you can run out of native res without it looking crappy. I play Crysis @ 1440x900 and it doesn't look too bad at all. All other games I run at full res and it looks totally awsome :D
The reason I went LCD over Plasma is screen burn. I'm pretty sure your desktop would burn in to the screen within a year or so with a plasma. They're also very sensitive to movement and should never be tipped up.
Another myth - a plasma TV does NOT HAVE SCREEN BURN! It's called image retention and is always fixable(and most often happen during the break in period). I've yet to see a single plasma suffering from this mythical screen burn!
"The potential for burn-in is greatest during the first 100 or so hours of use, during which time you should keep contrast low (less than 50 percent) and avoid showing static images or letterbox bars on the screen for hours at a time. After this initial phase, plasma should be as durable as any television technology. Many models also have burn-in-reduction features, such as screensavers and pixel orbiting, or settings to treat burn-in once it occurs, such as causing the screen to go all white." - CNET
Plasmas aren't sensitive to movement either, but due to the technology shouldn't be tipped on it's side during transportation, because the glass could easily break.
The only reason why one should choose an LCD over a Plasma is power usage - a plasma does use more power, even to the extent that it starts to show on your electric bill.
Edit: Added a link to explain why one should choose a Plasma over lcd: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1026083
My mate got a plasma a few weeks ago and the manual said once the screen was positioned where is was going to be used he had to leave it for 3-4 hours before he could turn it on.
I dunno. You're right about the response time and contrast, but my screen has 15000:1 contrast and pretty good refresh rate, neither of which have bothered me at any point. I guess I just prefer good ol' LCD.
Isn't image retention just a fancy name for screen burn? I know it can usually be removed, but still, what a pain in the ass.
My mate got a plasma a few weeks ago and the manual said once the screen was positioned where is was going to be used he had to leave it for 3-4 hours before he could turn it on.
Maybe it's one of those "no cellphone on the gas station" kind of thing? You know, where a company is forced to do something because of an urban myth(like cellphones on airplanes).
I dunno. You're right about the response time and contrast, but my screen has 15000:1 contrast and pretty good refresh rate, neither of which have bothered me at any point. I guess I just prefer good ol' LCD.
Well each to his/her own I guess, I have an lcd myself, but bought it before I knew just how good plasmas really were(and because it was a steal! :D). And just so you know those contrast ratios listed by manufacturers don't really mean squat. This goes for both techs, but for lcds it's even worse than for plasmas, because they use the dynamic contrast ratio for lcds.
Isn't image retention just a fancy name for screen burn? I know it can usually be removed, but still, what a pain in the ass.
I like to compare image retention and screen burn to how our eyes reacts to light. If you look into a bright light for too long, you get something similar to image retention; you see trails of the light even after when looking in another direction. This goes away after a few seconds/minutes depending on how long you've looked at it and how bright the light is.
Screen burn happens when you look directly into the sun for too long and the bright light burns into your retina. For this to happen you have to be a complete idiot.
The first has been almost completely eliminated by using different kind of technologies(like pixel shaking and white pictures etc.). So both are practically a none-issue nowadays(unless you're a complete tool) and shouldn't be a deciding factor when choosing a new TV.
Screen burn is actually real, but mostly just for screens that are on 24/7, for long periods of time with the same screen on and contrast set very high(60+), like the screens at airports.
crainger
05-05-08, 08:08 PM
Everyone should note, image retention affects LCDs as well. As with Plasma's it's fixable. Usually you just turn off the LCD for a day or overnight. I've seen it on my old 172x monitor. Slight white shadows from windows that I had open. Leaving it off for a day fixed it right up.
abtomat74
05-06-08, 01:05 AM
The new plasmas have a lifespan of approximately 100 000 hours, which equals eleven and a half years of 24 hours/day viewing. I think I might have switched TVs by then.
My TV turned 18(years) a couple months ago...I would certainly want my $2000+ TV of the size we're talking about to last that too. Why would we want or need something bigger than 4 or 5 feet!?! I do not believe movie formats will change to something other than widescreen ever, what will happen is 3D, and hopefully a few years before our current monsters die so the prices of 3D TV can go down like it always does with new tech.
Those 100,000 hours testing is a max I bet, and certainly doesn't count real-life scenarios like smoking...and children!!(on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off...SMACK, stop that!)
npras42
05-06-08, 07:07 AM
My TV turned 18(years) a couple months ago...I would certainly want my $2000+ TV of the size we're talking about to last that too. Why would we want or need something bigger than 4 or 5 feet!?! I do not believe movie formats will change to something other than widescreen ever, what will happen is 3D, and hopefully a few years before our current monsters die so the prices of 3D TV can go down like it always does with new tech.
Those 100,000 hours testing is a max I bet, and certainly doesn't count real-life scenarios like smoking...and children!!(on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off...SMACK, stop that!)
I don't think its reasonable to expect any electronics to last as long as that anymore. We've just had a microwave oven breakdown in my mum and dad's house that was older than I am (23 years). Could you honestly imagine getting a microwave to last that long with reasonable use if you bought one today?
My TV turned 18(years) a couple months ago...I would certainly want my $2000+ TV of the size we're talking about to last that too. Why would we want or need something bigger than 4 or 5 feet!?! I do not believe movie formats will change to something other than widescreen ever, what will happen is 3D, and hopefully a few years before our current monsters die so the prices of 3D TV can go down like it always does with new tech.
Those 100,000 hours testing is a max I bet, and certainly doesn't count real-life scenarios like smoking...and children!!(on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off...SMACK, stop that!)
Remember that the 100 000 hours mentioned here is half brightness and does not equal life-expectancy. It's very rare to find electronics that have lasted over 5+years, much less 18.
I know a lot of friends and family who have gone through more than 5 TVs during the last 18 years, because they all eventually break down. You just got a nice set, and it's nice that it has lasted you this long, but it's an exception and not the rule.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.