HD Ready vs Full HD

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › HD Ready vs Full HD

paul151

309 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#25279 17-Aug-2008 15:17

Lcd TV's that are HD Ready (1366x768p)... is there any point in buying a full HD set (1920x1080p)??

It's just that I'm unsure how much is really broadcast via Sky or Freview etc that would be in 1080??

So aside from a blueray player that outputs in full HD is there really much point in investing in a Full HD (1080p) set??

A number of sets I'm looking at are HD ready versions and seem (on price) to be a better option.

I'm also curious to know what folks think about the response times 8ms vs 5 vs 2.... and if there really is an appreciable difference between say 8 and 5 or 5 and 2?

Thanks team.. Paul.

amphibem

138 posts

Master Geek

#157530 17-Aug-2008 15:52

In terms of what is broadcast, TV3 is 1080i with most of the prime time shows being in HD so that will be making use of all those pixels. My understanding is Sky will broadcast whatever the source material is, so sometimes it will be 1080i and other 720p.

Now whether you can actually tell the difference is anything, and opinions differ. It depends on your vision, the size of the set and the quality of the viewing materila. As Cyril has pointed out in a few other threads, all broadcast TV is compressed to some extent so just because it is 1080i realistically the quality probably isn't much better than 720p. Some will say the that 720p is better anyway, being progressive and not prone to the ghosting you can get with an interlaced source.

Then there is the screen size, the generall opinion here is at least 42", and more likely 50" is the minimum to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. End result? I wouldn't sweat it too much unless it is a fairly large screen and you plan on getting BluRay.

AncestralGeek

91 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#157533 17-Aug-2008 16:44

"Lcd TV's that are HD Ready (1366x768p)... is there any point in buying a full HD set (1920x1080p)??"

Would have put the copied text into a table but have not figured out how to do that.

Slighty off topic but a curiosity that your post raised.

Full HD, HD Ready and Widescreen.

Full HD: 1,920 * 1,080 or 16 pixels of width to every 9 pixels of hieght (16:9).

HD Ready: 1,366 * 768 or 16 pixels of width to every 9 pixels of hieght (16:9).

The fun begins with those HD Ready units with 1,024 * 768 which equates to 4 pixels of width to every 3 pixels of hieght (4:3).
One wonders just how hard the internal electronics have to work to cope with the 16:9 format that a number of channels are being broardcast in and what effect that has on what you view.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#157563 17-Aug-2008 19:35

AncestralGeek:
"Lcd TV's that are HD Ready (1366x768p)... is there any point in buying a full HD set (1920x1080p)??"

Would have put the copied text into a table but have not figured out how to do that.

Slighty off topic but a curiosity that your post raised.

Full HD, HD Ready and Widescreen.

Full HD: 1,920 * 1,080 or 16 pixels of width to every 9 pixels of hieght (16:9).

HD Ready: 1,366 * 768 or 16 pixels of width to every 9 pixels of hieght (16:9).

The fun begins with those HD Ready units with 1,024 * 768 which equates to 4 pixels of width to every 3 pixels of hieght (4:3).
One wonders just how hard the internal electronics have to work to cope with the 16:9 format that a number of channels are being broardcast in and what effect that has on what you view.

That's what the clever engineers in Japan get paid for. So you don't have to wonder how hard it is processing, deinterlacing, sharpening, etc.
Only a side by side comparison of FullHD vs HD Ready playing the same material from the same source will help you decide whether they are worth roughly twice the price.

Incidently AncestralGeek, there's possibly an easier way but you can quote anybody in a thread by pushing the quote button, and then edit out within the text between the word quote contained in square brackets at the beginning and the fwd-slash quote contained in the square brackets at the end.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

paul151

309 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#157574 17-Aug-2008 20:08

amphibem: In terms of what is broadcast, TV3 is 1080i with most of the prime time shows being in HD so that will be making use of all those pixels. My understanding is Sky will broadcast whatever the source material is, so sometimes it will be 1080i and other 720p.

It's exactly that variation in what's being broadcast that underscores my thinking that perhaps the need for 1080i is not that great..

Now whether you can actually tell the difference is anything, and opinions differ. It depends on your vision, the size of the set and the quality of the viewing materila. As Cyril has pointed out in a few other threads, all broadcast TV is compressed to some extent so just because it is 1080i realistically the quality probably isn't much better than 720p. Some will say the that 720p is better anyway, being progressive and not prone to the ghosting you can get with an interlaced source.

Good comments and agree with you on the points you make - any thoughts on 8ms vs 5ms vs 2ms response times?

Then there is the screen size, the generall opinion here is at least 42", and more likely 50" is the minimum to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. End result? I wouldn't sweat it too much unless it is a fairly large screen and you plan on getting BluRay.

I'm looking at 42' and have been focussed on LCD, found a number of units with 8ms response time and the contrast specs, well.. all over the place, dynamic vs ?? it certainly is hard to compare apples with apples..

Thanks for your feedback :-)

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#157579 17-Aug-2008 20:30

Future proofing is good. I got a 1080p television earlier in the year, now own a PS3 and don't regret shelling out the extra.

Take a look at Philips - I got mine for around $2k less than Sony/Samsungs with the same specs. Philips had a bad name for quality before this year, but from what I read thats been addressed (my TV has been perfect).

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

paul151

309 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#157588 17-Aug-2008 21:21

NZtechfreak: Future proofing is good. I got a 1080p television earlier in the year, now own a PS3 and don't regret shelling out the extra.

Take a look at Philips - I got mine for around $2k less than Sony/Samsungs with the same specs. Philips had a bad name for quality before this year, but from what I read thats been addressed (my TV has been perfect).

What model number is your Philips set?