March 10, 2009 12:43 PM PDT

720p vs. 1080p HDTVs: 2009 update

A few years ago I wrote a column about HDTV resolution and whether you should just buy a "standard" 720p/1080i set or pay the extra bucks for a higher-resolution 1080p set. The column was very popular, but people wanted me to update it as the market for HDTVs changed. So I did. The new column was called 720p vs. 1080p: The final word. Alas, it was probably a poor title, because folks asked me to update that one as well.

Eventually, of course, manufacturers will completely phase out 720p TVs. But it may take a few years. While the number of new 720p models is dwindling, several manufacturers, including Sony, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic, are putting out entry-level lines in 2009 that feature 720p TVs and we're getting a lot of readers asking whether they should save some dough and buy them. With that in mind, here's the word on 720p vs. 1080p, updated for this year.

1. What's so great about 1080p?

1080p resolution--which equates to 1,920x1080 pixels--is the current Holy Grail of HDTV resolution. That's because most 1080p HDTVs are capable of displaying every pixel of the highest-resolution HD broadcasts. They offer more than twice the resolution of step-down models, which are typically 1,366x768, 1,280x720, or 1,024x768. These days, HDTVs with any of those three of lower resolutions are typically called "720p." Nobody wants to remember all those numbers, and "768p" doesn't really roll off the tongue.

2. How much extra does a 1080p TV cost?

When I wrote my original article a few years ago, you had to pay a premium of about $1,000 to get a 1080p model at the same screen size as a "720p" set. While the gap has certainly narrowed, there's still a notable difference. In the case of a 32-inch LCD, for instance, you're looking at around a $200-$250 price bump. For example, the Samsung LN32B360 goes for $549.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the LN32B530, goes for $799.99. Sony has a similar price delta when it comes to its 32-inch LCDs.

As you move up the LCD-size chain, your 720p options basically disappear. Samsung and Sony, the two biggest names in LCD, don't even produce 720p LCDs larger than 32 inches anymore. You can still find older big-screen 720p models, like the 40-inch Samsung LN40A450, but they're becoming a rare breed.

This Panasonic 50-inch 720 plasma costs much less than the 1080p step-up model.

(Credit: Panasonic)

When it comes to plasma, Panasonic's entry-level 42-inch TC-P42X1 720p carries a price of around $899.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the TC-P42S1, come in at $1,199.99 (street prices will vary, of course). Move up to Panasonic's 50-inch models and you're looking at more like a $700 delta, with the 720p TC-P50X1 coming in around $1,000 and the TC-P50S1 selling for $1,700--though Panasonic's S1 series does feature more-efficient, higher-contrast NEO-PDP panels. (Note: We do expect prices to drop slightly on all these models as the year progresses).

3. Why is 1080p theoretically better than 1080i?

1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution, but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.

4. What content is available in 1080p?

Today's high-def broadcasts are done in either 1080i or 720p, and there's little or no chance they'll jump to 1080p any time soon, because of bandwidth issues. Dish Networks, Direct TV, and other cable and satellite providers are starting to offer 1080p content on demand, but it's worth noting that the bitrate is not as high as Blu-ray's, so there's some video-compression magic at work.

As for gaming, Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 games are usually 720p native, though some titles are being offered in 1080p resolution (also, the 720p titles can be upscaled to 1080i or 1080p in the user settings of those consoles).

Really, the main way to get true 1080p output--aside from hooking your PC to your HDTV--is to get a Blu-ray player (yes, HD DVD players are another potential route, but Toshiba killed HD DVD last year). All Blu-ray players support 1080p output, and--more importantly--the vast majority of discs are natively encoded at 1080p.

5. What kinds of TV technologies offer 1080p resolution?

Aside from CRT (tube) TVs, which have been basically discontinued, everything comes in 1080p versions. That means you can find 1080p-capable versions utilizing all fixed-pixel technologies, including what's left of microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection/front-projection) and flat-panels (plasma and LCD). Of course, as specified above, more affordable entry-level models are still limited to 720p resolution. But whatever the resolution, all fixed-pixel (non-CRT) TVs are essentially progressive-scan technologies, so when the incoming source is interlaced (1080i, or even good old-fashioned 480i standard-definition), they convert it to progressive-scan for display.

At this point, I could just expand on that last point and specify that all fixed-pixel display TVs--all microdisplay rear-projection and all flat-panels--always display everything at their native resolution, which is all they can display. On a 720p TV, that means that all incoming video is displayed at 720p (or 768p, as the case may be); on a 1080p TV, all incoming video is displayed at 1080p. The process of converting resolution is called scaling--sometimes called upconverting or downconverting. A related factor is de-interlacing (see point number 8, below). How well a TV does or does not handle both of these processes is a big factor in how desirable it is--and something that casual shoppers often overlook, since, compared to the screen size or resolution, it's not as easy to show as a spec sheet bullet point.

I should probably put that whole previous paragraph in bold, though, because the message never seems to get through. So, at the risk of overkill, let's restate it with specific resolutions:

6. What happens when you feed a 1080i signal to a 720p TV?

The 1080i signal is scaled, or downconverted, to 720p. Nearly all recent HDTVs are able to do this.

7. What happens when you feed a 1080p signal to 720p TV?

Assuming the TV can accept a 1080p signal, it will be scaled to 720p. But that caveat is important: many older 720p HDTVs--and yes, even some older 1080p models--cannot even accept 1080p signals at all, in which case you'll get a blank screen. Thankfully, most newer HDTVs can accept 1080p signals.

8. What happens when you feed a 1080i signal to a 1080p TV?

It's converted to 1080p with no resolution conversion. Instead, the 1080i signal is "de-interlaced" for display in 1080p. Some HDTVs do a better job of this de-interlacing process than others, but usually the artifacts caused by improper de-interlacing are difficult for most viewers to spot.

9. Side by side, how do 720p and 1080p TVs match up in head-to-head tests?

We spend a lot of time looking at a variety of source material on a variety of TVs in our video lab here at CNET's offices in New York. When I wrote my original article over three years ago, many 1080p TVs weren't as sharp as they claimed to be on paper. By that, I mean a lot of older 1080p sets couldn't necessarily display all 2 million-plus pixels in the real world--technically, speaking, they couldn't "resolve" every line of a 1080i or 1080p test pattern.

That's changed in the last few years. Virtually all 1080p sets are now capable of fully resolving 1080i and 1080p material, though not every 1080p TV is created equal. As our resident video guru, Senior Editor David Katzmaier explains in his HDTV resolutions feature, Blu-ray serves up another video format, 1080p/24, and not every TV properly displays 1080p/24. The 24 refers to the true frame rate of film-based content, and displaying it in its native format is supposed to give you a picture exactly as the director intended you to see it (for a full explanation, click here).

Whether you're dealing with 1080p/24 or standard 1080p/60, doesn't alter our overall views about 1080p TVs. We still believe that when you're dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality. In our tests, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray player. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV.

I said so much in a 2006 column I wrote called "The case against 1080p," but some readers knocked us for not looking at high-end TVs in our tests. But the fact is, resolution is resolution, and whether you're looking at a Sony or a Westinghouse, 1080p resolution--which relates to picture sharpness--is the same and is a separate issue from black levels and color accuracy.

Katzmaier stands by his previous analysis: The extra sharpness afforded by the 1080p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching 1080i or 1080p sources on a larger screens, say 55 inches and bigger, or with projectors that display a wall-size picture. Katzmaier also says that the main real-world advantage of 1080p is not the extra sharpness you'll be seeing, but instead, the smaller, more densely packed pixels. In other words, you can sit closer to a 1080p television and not notice any pixel structure, such as stair-stepping along diagonal lines, or the screen-door effect (where you can actually see the space between the pixels). This advantage applies regardless of the quality of the source.

10. OK, so what's the bottom line: Should I save some dough and opt for a 720p TV?

If you're just making the leap to HDTV and find the higher end sets out of your price range, you shouldn't feel bad about going with an entry-level 720p model (just getting HD programming is going to make a huge difference). Also, in a lot of cases, folks are looking at 720p TVs as second sets for bedrooms or playrooms, and in a tough economy, a few hundred bucks makes a big difference. Personally, if I were choosing between the 720p 50-inch Panasonic TC-P50X1 and the 1080p Panasonic TC-P50S1 for a bedroom, I'd strongly consider going with the cheaper model if it meant saving $600-$700. That savings is enough to buy another 32-inch LCD for another room.

If you're thinking of going big, really big (a 55-inch or larger screen), or you like to sit really close (closer than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement), the extra resolution may make it worth the difference--as long as you have a pristine, 1080i or 1080p HD source to feed into the set. (To be clear, there are few 720p sets available in large sizes anymore, though a few older models may be kicking around at good discounts).

Finally, it's a good idea to go with 1080p instead of 720p if you plan to use your TV a lot as a big computer monitor. That said, if you set your computer to output at 1,920x1,080, you may find that the icons and text on the screen are too small to view from far away (as a result, you may end up zooming the desktop or even changing to a lower resolution). But a 1080p set does give you some added flexibility (and sharpness) when it comes to computer connectivity.

If none of those factors jump out at you as true priorities--and you're working on a tight budget and want to save some dough--a 720p set is going to do you just fine. HD will still look great on your set, I swear.

11. Wait! What about 120Hz LCDs and how they compare to 720p/1080p plasmas?

This column's just about 720p vs.1080p. If you're interested in 120Hz, try reading "Six things you need to know about 120Hz LCD TVs."

Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
Recent posts from Fully Equipped
Top 25 tough iPhone cases
Almost every iPhone app to cost a buck someday?
Top 40 must-have Blu-ray discs
Rumor: Free Kindles to Amazon Prime customers?
What would you pay for an e-book?
15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15
Which e-readers will the iPad crush?
Is the iPad good for Amazon?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 4 pages (126 Comments)
by Balloonknot March 11, 2009 4:54 AM PDT
You can find some very reasonably priced 720p's in the 50" and below range. Don't pay the premium for the 1080p version of these models. You won't know the difference.

Example: Panasonic Viera 50" 720p for about $900 vs Sony XBR8 40" LDC 1080p for $2000. Sony must be joking with that price.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by viper396 March 11, 2009 10:38 AM PDT
If you can't see the difference between 720p and 1080P then either your TV or your eye's aren't as good as you thought. I don't know where you are shopping but a decent 50" 1080p plasma can be had for between $1100~$1500.

Given the rapid rate of technology, 1080p broadcasting will be here soon enough. Since a large screen TV is a purchase I plan on living with for several years I see no problem with spending a little more for something that's forward thinking rather then for something that's just good enough for today.
by happyslappy13 March 11, 2009 4:10 PM PDT
why would you want anything over 32" to be 720???
the picture is noticeably worse for 720p tvs with a screen size over 32"
if all u want is a small lcd then just go with the 720
by pcfish March 11, 2009 5:57 PM PDT
I think CNET should focus more on educating people how to get the best picture for their HDTV instead of getting the best HDTV. Too many people are not watching HD at all from their set, and that make me kind of sad.

To Balloonknot, I am guessing you are not watching a good quality 1080p source when you say they don't make a difference.
by blusky08 March 12, 2009 8:13 AM PDT
If the CNet staff don't see any difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances, it truly makes me even more skeptical of their HDTV reviews and ratings.
by AtHomeDad March 12, 2009 11:00 AM PDT
I have the Panasonic 50" 720 and I think it's beautiful. My dad bought a Mitsubishi LCD 1080p for about 3 times what I paid, and I honestly think my TV looks better. I could be more the technology difference, but that is a factor in buying as well.
by J G M March 12, 2009 2:55 PM PDT
"Given the rapid rate of technology, 1080p broadcasting will be here soon enough."

The article gives the specific reasons why this is not really true. There's simply not enough bandwidth in the OTA HD channels to do it. I do believe some of the HD PPV and HD download services are offering some content in 1080p, but even then it may be a meaningless thing unless these are also *uncompressed* (right now for digital cable and Sat HD transmissions, compression artifacts far outweigh any concerns over resolution).
by vmaxnc November 30, 2009 3:48 PM PST
Balloonknot-Like many people you're not looking at anything besides one single spec. The two TVs you refer to are the entry level and top of the line TV in their respective brands, and are not fair comparisons. There are many other considerations betwwen them, not the least of which is that they are two completely different technologies.
by ferretboy88 March 11, 2009 5:23 AM PDT
Cable is not going to show 1080p for many years so I just bought a 1080i/720p TV.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 March 11, 2009 8:38 PM PDT
The article barely mentions 480p content (DVD) and legacy 480i content (shown on cable and satellite on many channels, including HD channels).

For most people with large DVD collections, 720p will always look better than 1080p. 720p, as long as the set is quality, will look better on SD/legacy content as well. And considering the very, very minor improvement of 1080p over 720p with 1080i, there is very little reason other than hype to get 1080p.

As for scaling=downconverting, this is not right. Scaling is not strictly downconverting. It can be UP converting. Scaling is simply the act of transposing content of resolution onto a display of a different resolution.

And 1080i is not downconverted to fit on 720p. It is scaled down in the horizontal direction and scaled UP in the vertical direction.

More facts: most 1080i HD content is transmitted at 1440x540i at some point in the process, using the "non-square" pixel data. Some even originates as 960x540! Other than blu-ray disks, almost all content is NOT 1920 wide in real resolution, as somewhere in the pipe it has been 1440. That means that the real resolution of 1080i is 777k pixels every 60th of a second, and if it's film originated, that information is simply repeated and processed from 24p.

This means that most content seen on 1080p screens is scaled UP in both directions 2.6:1! It's scaled from 1440 to 1920, and then doubled to 1080 from 540 to show a progressive picture. That's a lot of false information. And if the program originated in 720p, the scaling is 2:1. If it was 480p, it's 5:1. With 480i content, it's 12:1.

On a 720 screen (most of which are 1366x768), some of the 1440 content is thrown out to get 1366 pixels wide, but not a lot of it (5%). And 540 is scaled to 768, which means less content is "false". On a 720p screen, while some information is tossed, the pixels shown are only 42% interpolated content. 720p content is only scaled 13.8%. 480p is only 2.5:1, and 480i 6:1.

This means that a 720p TVs have to do a LOT less processing, which means that on difficult material, there is LESS chance of artifacting. This is why 1080p TVs look so bad with 480i content.

Long and short: save your money and buy a 720p TV today. Focus more on the quality of the picture and manufacturer (contrast, color, black levels, reliability) and the kinds and number of inputs. On average, you'll be happier with the picture on a 720p, especially if you have all the other features you wanted.
1 person likes this comment
by ikramerica--2008 March 11, 2009 8:45 PM PDT
Just to be clear, 1440 to 1366 isn't just a matter of throwing out every 20th pixel. It does involve blending, because you are fitting 1440 non-square pixels into 1366 square ones. But TVs are actually made of red, green, and blue subpixels lined up in rows, so using the art of antialiasing and sub-pixel manipulation, most 720p TVs use 4098 subpixels across to draw the content provided. It creates ever so slight softness, but no more softness than you get when the 1440 content is scaled up to 1920. Either way, sub-pixel blending is used on all content other than true 1080p content on a 1080p TV.
by synthetikz March 11, 2009 5:25 AM PDT
i like how the cover story graphic for this article says 720p vs. 1020p. is 1020p a new secret resolution that nobody supports or cares about? way to get the scoop cnet!
Reply to this comment
by synthetikz March 12, 2009 3:39 AM PDT
24 hours later, they finally fixed it.
by blusky08 March 11, 2009 7:48 AM PDT
NEVER purchase a 720p set. I can EASILY distinguish 720p sets from 1080p sets from a normal viewing distance. Even in bix box stores with dozens of TVs lining the walls, it's quite easy to determine the 720p sets within seconds--no need to look at the labels. The pixels give it away.
Reply to this comment
by blusky08 March 11, 2009 7:51 AM PDT
---And that's regardless of source quality, although the less the source quality the more horrid a 720p set looks.
by elcycad March 11, 2009 9:02 AM PDT
You are probably talking about LCD!
by BCF1968 March 11, 2009 10:45 AM PDT
Depends on what you consider "normal" viewing distance. For example a 42" inch TV they would say do not sit further back than 8 feet with 6 feet being in the middle of the "normal" range. Sorry I'd never sit that close to my TV. I'd be sitting about 12 feet or more and sorry at 12 feet you can't tell a difference between a 42 inch 720p and 1080p TV. And if you're not watching blu-rays there is hardly any 1080p content to watch.
1 person likes this comment
by blusky08 March 11, 2009 4:25 PM PDT
Sorry, but even at 12' there is a difference.
by ikramerica--2008 March 11, 2009 8:14 PM PDT
Only a psychological one. Your eyes CAN NOT resolve the difference. CAN NOT. As long as both sets do the proper scaling and don't introduce artifacts, you can't see a difference from 12' on 40" TVs.
by blusky08 March 12, 2009 8:15 AM PDT
Maybe yours can't. I can spot every 720p set in a store with a cursory glance. The pixels are larger, and it clearly shows.
by Nighteye19 March 12, 2009 7:22 PM PDT
/////

And he's one of those guys who can tell the difference between 90hz and 120hz on his computer monitor.... and he has x-ray vision.
by trgdr777 March 15, 2009 3:38 PM PDT
Never? Don't you think that's taking it a bit too far? I plan on getting a 32" and at that size it's worth saving the money ($550 vs. $799 or more) to get a 720p TV. But even if you can still tell the difference at that size, what about bedroom TVs that are even smaller?
by seamonkey420 March 26, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
yea.. i bet you can. (since it says 720p on the front of the tv on the stickers, hahah!)

and you probably have 20/10 vision too i would assume right??
by Shaun822 March 11, 2009 7:56 AM PDT
I bought a 720p 42" plasma two years ago on a Black Friday deal. Both of my Aunt-Uncle pairs can't tell the difference between the 720p that I bought and the 1080p they bought for about $1000 more at the time. Not to say you shouldn't if you have the money and are a technophile but given the offering of true 1080p content and screen size paying a premium for the extra resolution at screen size you can't see the difference on doesn't make sense.
Reply to this comment
by mfk252 March 11, 2009 11:24 AM PDT
If you have good to better than average eyesight do some research.

I'm glad I went to a B&M store as I was set on buying 720p until I looked around. I have 20/15 vision (I can read small print from far away) and I could clearly see the pixel size difference between 1080 and 720 on a 42" at 8-9 feet (distance to my bedroom TV). Fortunately I found a 42" 1080p Panny on clearance for less than the new Panny 720p set!
Reply to this comment
by cabrillo24 March 11, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
Live within your means. 1080p is a higher quality resolution, only if you have those high end products that utilize 1080p technology (i.e. bluray). Cable and satellite broadcast in 720p or 1080i for their high definition channels. As for gaming systems (PS3, Xbox 360), 720p seems to be the medium that developers are utilizing in creating their software.

If you can afford a 1080p with cash on hand and still live comfortably, more power to you, but 720p/1080i is a good alternative and honestly you can't really tell the difference, unless there are other features between the TV sets.

Good article.
Reply to this comment
by grilledcharlie March 11, 2009 11:57 AM PDT
I own the 1080p 50 inch Panasonic 800u Plasma and a 42 inch 1080p Sony Bravia LCD. The Panasonic blows the Sony picture out of the water. From my extensive research and viewing experience, the brand and quality of the set makes more of a difference than the resolution. A 720p Panasonic will look a lot better than a 1080p Vizio of the same size. Just do your research. You will pay the same price or less and experience a better picture with a quality 720p set than you will for a lesser quality 1080p set. Also, when you are trying to pick out a set from the wall of TV's at Best Buy, don't confuse picture brightness with picture quality. Generally, Plasmas look better than LCD's, but the LCD's are always brighter in their default out of the box. Slight picture adjustment with a Plasma will usually yield a better picture than an LCD. Don't believe the misconceptions about Plasma either. They used to have a short shelf live, but that is no longer an issue. They used to have burn-in problems, but that has been resolved as well. I know that it must seem like I own stock in Plasma or something, but it is just from research and experience.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 12:14 PM PDT
This is such incredible nonsense! This outrageous lie that 720P looks just as good as 1080i on screens smaller than 50" is A TOTAL CROCK!!! Do not believe this misleading tech tool. I have a 42" 1080p Vizio and it is TOTALLY obvious when watching a blurry 720p broadcast compared to a 1080i. It is true if you're only looking at tight shots of people it's much harder to tell. But try watching ABC's lousy 720p NASCAR footage...all the little details like faces in the crowd, the little background details, all badly smeared and blurred. The cars themselves lack definition and clarity. Compare that to a PGA broadcast in 1080i: you can clearly make out faces in the crowd, blades of grass on the putting closeups, the difference is night and day! I am so sick of these self-proclaimed geniuses on these tech blogs spinning this total bushwah that you can't tell the difference. I can spot it in ONE SECOND the moment I get on any channel. I don't even need to hit the INFO button to see the 720p...it's obvious the second you look at the blurry background details. 1080i puts you right into the scene, almost like virtual reality. 720p looks like...TELEVISION.
Reply to this comment
by sroe2 March 11, 2009 8:22 PM PDT
I think you are confusing the resolution of the tv, which is what the article is about, with the resolution of the broadcast, which is a whole other topic. Cable and satalite compress programs all the time, so it should be possible to get a stunning 720p broadcast, and a horrible 1080I picture. Come back and hour later the situation will be reversed.
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 12:16 PM PDT
This is such incredible nonsense! This outrageous lie that 720P looks just as good as 1080i on screens smaller than 50" is A TOTAL CROCK!!! Do not believe this misleading tech tool. I have a 42" 1080p Vizio and it is TOTALLY obvious when watching a blurry 720p broadcast compared to a 1080i. It is true if you're only looking at tight shots of people it's much harder to tell. But try watching ABC's lousy 720p NASCAR footage...all the little details like faces in the crowd, the little background details, all badly smeared and blurred. The cars themselves lack definition and clarity. Compare that to a PGA broadcast in 1080i: you can clearly make out faces in the crowd, blades of grass on the putting closeups, the difference is night and day! I am so sick of these self-proclaimed geniuses on these tech blogs spinning this total bushwah that you can't tell the difference. I can spot it in ONE SECOND the moment I get on any channel. I don't even need to hit the INFO button to see the 720p...it's obvious the second you look at the blurry background details. 1080i puts you right into the scene, almost like virtual reality. 720p looks like...TELEVISION.
Reply to this comment
by gbc204 March 11, 2009 12:45 PM PDT
Maybe you shouldn't have bought a vizio. My 720p Pioneer looks better than almost every 1080p LCD I've seen.
1 person likes this comment
by gbc204 March 11, 2009 12:50 PM PDT
And you're saying that a golf broadcast, where everything is almost constantly still, is clear? And a broadcast of cars moving at 250 mph, blurs? really?
by tcr071 March 11, 2009 5:10 PM PDT
I guess you haven't looked at many 1080p TV's then.
by AtHomeDad March 12, 2009 11:10 AM PDT
He's talking about the TVs themselves, not the boadcasts. Also, the refresh rate on that 42" Vizio is probably 60hz and any fast moving picture will look blurry to you. Why do all of you people love to get on here and flame the editors? I think maybe they might be more qualified to talk about this stuff since they spend every day staring at TVs and running tests. I've seen plenty of 1080p TVs and, if you're sitting at least 1.5 times the width of the screen away from it, it's hard to tell a difference.
by kano1 March 11, 2009 12:50 PM PDT
no one can tell the difference between 768p and 1080p
Reply to this comment
by blusky08 March 11, 2009 4:48 PM PDT
It's the pixel size difference. Regardless of the source quality, 720p screens are easily distinguishible from 1080p screens from quite a distance.
by MrMurder March 11, 2009 1:04 PM PDT
I think all TVs made for 2009 should have only a 1920x1080p resolution, but they should be compatible with lower resolutions and interlaced scans.
Reply to this comment
by DrVex007 March 25, 2009 10:18 PM PDT
If they make all TVs 1080p, how will they upsell you in the store?
Have you ever considered why cars just do not come with all features? Why do you have to pay for all of those options?
That capitalism and if you want the best, you pay for the best!
Really it is the way it should be.
by Brent212 March 11, 2009 1:19 PM PDT
My Sony CRT that does not support 1080p looks better at 1080i than 720p. This seems to contradict a lot of people's experiences with their 720p tv's not handling 1080i/p well. Is this because it's a CRT?
Reply to this comment
by sjohnson29 March 27, 2009 10:48 AM PDT
Like he says in the article in the paragraph that he said should be in bold, displays other than CRTs are fixed-resolution. They only have one resolution and have to scale whatever the input source resolution is to that resolution before displaying it. CRTs are not fixed-resolution. They can display whatever resolution the source is up to whatever their maximum resolution spec is (think old computer CRT monitors). So naturally 1080i will look better than 720p on your CRT because you're actually seeing and comparing both resolutions on the same set (as long as the interlacing doesn't bother you--that's really a personal preference as some people don't notice interlacing but it really bugs me--depending on what's showing).
by Microgates March 11, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
720p is fine. People who argue that 1080p is worlds better are just trying to make themselves feel better about there (More expensive) purchase!
Reply to this comment
by blusky08 March 12, 2009 8:18 AM PDT
People who argue that 720p is fine are just trying to make themselves feel better about their (more crappy) purchase!
by pdskep March 16, 2009 5:09 AM PDT
blusky,

Perhaps it is you who is trying to make yourself feel better. Do the research. A human eye can not distinguish the difference in horizontal resolution at nominal viewing distances. At 3' away in Best Buy, sure but not at what is normally considered a good viewing distance for a given screen size. Why would CNET want to make themselves feel better? They are experts, you are just some idiot poster on their site.
2 people like this comment
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 1:43 PM PDT
You'd literally have to be half-blind to not see the major loss of detail in a 720p image on a 42" set! The difference is glaring. Now once you go down to a 32", you may be perfectly happy with 720p. But on a 42" and larger, you're giving up a ton at 720p, and the price differential these days is trivial, the above article exaggerated the difference quite a bit. You can get a 42" 1080P Vizio at Costco now for around $700. Don't even think about 720p, waste of money. Not to mention resale value will be garbage.
Reply to this comment
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 1:48 PM PDT
I have watched hockey games in both 720p and 1080i--HUGE difference! There's literally no detail in the 720p game, and even the players are softer and less defined. And this bushwah about how you must have 720p for action sports to reduce motion blur? Total crap, there is none at 1080i, at least on my Vizio. Now if you've got one of these Target or Wal-Mart off-brands who knows, but 720p is a lame and blurry standard that hopefully will be driven away by popular demand both in broadcast and on store shelves--the sooner the better!
by grilledcharlie March 11, 2009 3:16 PM PDT
@ Maruuk
Just so you know, Vizio IS one of those Target or Wal-Mart off-brands. I mean, they don't even have Vizios at Best Buy, and they have all the "off-brands" in stock: Insignia, Dynex, Sylvania, and even Apex. Guess who has just about every model of Vizio? Target and Wal-Mart.
by AtHomeDad March 12, 2009 11:12 AM PDT
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
by neverforgetJeff March 15, 2009 7:08 PM PDT
Ok maruuk, enough. You have commented in defense of Vizio far too many times on this page. You even replied to your own comment. It is arguable if you can tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 1080i on a 40-42" screen. It is not arguable that the color and black level of a Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic set are very noticeably better than any Vizio. I would take a 720p Samsung, Sony, or Panasonic TV over any "specced up" Vizio. And before you comment on my intelligence, I am a TV salesperson who has unboxed and tested dozens of TVs. How many have you?


grilledcharlie, Insignia and Dynex are bestbuy stamped no-name tvs, which are most likely the same Tvs magnavox and element puts out. Vizio is sold at Sears as well, but they are definitely a budget brand.
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 1:45 PM PDT
You'd literally have to be half-blind to not see the major loss of detail in a 720p image on a 42" set! The difference is glaring. Now once you go down to a 32", you may be perfectly happy with 720p. But on a 42" and larger, you're giving up a ton at 720p, and the price differential these days is trivial, the above article exaggerated the difference quite a bit. You can get a 42" 1080P Vizio at Costco now for around $700. Don't even think about 720p, waste of money. Not to mention resale value will be garbage.
Reply to this comment
by kdrobb2k March 11, 2009 1:46 PM PDT
I have 720p 32 and 42 inch LCDs that scale to 1080i on digital cable and the picture is fantastic. The 1080i over the air broadcasts are even better than cable since the singnal is not compressed. Unless cable and OTA broadcasts implement 1080p, 720p sets are fine and present a very good value since of these sets scale to 1080i. Unless you are getting Blu-Ray save a few bucks in these economic hard times and go for the 720p.
Reply to this comment
by EtherGnat March 11, 2009 3:51 PM PDT
Yet another article where you almost completely neglect to mention viewing distance. 1080p would be even more relevant on a 32" set at 5' than it would on a 60" set at 10'. Viewing distance is just as critical as screen size, so why do you continue to ignore half the story? Bad journalism.
Reply to this comment
by dcarnoy March 11, 2009 4:51 PM PDT
Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV.
by AtHomeDad March 12, 2009 11:13 AM PDT
"or you like to sit really close (closer than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement), the extra resolution may make it worth the difference"

Bad posting.
by crazybabydoc March 11, 2009 7:32 PM PDT
Some of you are too critical. This article provides valuable info on how to pick a TV. MOST people will not see the difference between 1080p and 720p from TYPICAL viewing distances.

In 2007, the very BEST picture I saw at Best Buy was a Kuro 5010 (1080p) but the lower tier Pioneer plasmas and the Panny plasmas at 720p looked very good. So yes you can spend twice as much to get the highest quality picture on a 50" set viewed at 5-7ft. But how many morons sit that close to a big screen? At that distance, it's only good if you need a suntan (plasma).

In 2008, the very BEST picture I saw was still the Kuro but the Elite series. But if I had never seen them I would be quite satisfied with a regular Kuro. Further, the top Panny@720p and even Pioneer's 720p plasmas are without a doubt the best value when it comes to PQ to price.

But the 720p vs 1080p argument is lame. I have an A650 b/c it looks better than the other LCDs I tried but they were ALL 1080p. And if you are unlucky enough to have crappy sources then the REAL question is how good is the processor for scaling/deinterlacing.
Reply to this comment
by Maruuk March 11, 2009 10:21 PM PDT
Wrong, only sight-impaired people couldn't spot the huge difference in background detail between 720p and 1080i. If you're one of thiose folks who just stares at the closeups of the stars in movies, then granted, you won't notice much difference. But if you like sports, and like the feeling of being there, like seeing crisp detail in the trees and flowers at The Masters, or the crowd at a baseball game, all those little touches that put you there, then you're crazy to throw away half the resolution you're paying so much hard-earned money to get in the first place. I watch from 9' and the difference is pronounced: 720p is off-putting and like old-style television. 1080i from a good source is stunning.

Now granted if you're looking at crap sources like an old Masterpiece Classics shot originally in 16mm and telecined up to HD (they do that a lot), or a cheat like the Blue Planet series also shot in 16 and forced kicking and screaming into "HD", sure, it's crap, even 720p is overkill.

But for instance on a PPV movie from Directv they really crank up the bandwidth and you get bookoo pixels (yes it's still MP4 compressed and never true 1920X1080i) the 1080i really comes into its own.

And oh yeah, anybody ever heard of Blu-Ray and the new True 1080P content out of Directv and others? Don't even think about watching them in 720p Blur-O-Vision. What would be the point?

Don't cheat yourself on 42" and above: Always go for 1080P! And when it's time to trade in on an OLED, instead of dumping that 720p piece of antique junk into a landfill, you can sell your 1080P for good money. That's called Win/Win.
Reply to this comment
by pdskep March 21, 2009 9:47 AM PDT
Maruuk, do you think this might have anything to do with how your tv converts a 1080i signal to a 720p one? Physically your eyes can't resolve the difference from 9' on anything less than 60" HDTV. The electronics of the tv have much more to do with how you see the pic than the resolution. There are plenty of articles on the web to explain this. The professionals on CNET certainly couldn't and I would trust their experiments over whatever you tried to do.

If it makes you feel better that you over-paid for your tv then that's your issue. You're still wrong.
Showing 1 of 4 pages (126 Comments)
advertisement

About Fully Equipped

Executive Editor David Carnoy has been covering electronics for CNET since 2000, arriving at the company just as "that whole Internet bust thing" happened. Early on, he launched CNET's cell phone coverage, earning him the nickname "Wireless Dave," then moved on to bigger and broader things. Hunkered down in New York City, he oversees CNET's Home and Hardware reviews, which includes all things related to home theater, PC, and digital imaging. Fully Equipped covers the gamut of gadgets and gizmos and, to keep things lively, Carnoy likes to alternate between writing useful, advice-oriented pieces or thought-provoking columns with inflammatory headlines designed to elicit commentary from readers. Fully Equipped is the longest continuously running column on CNET.com.

For older columns, read the Fully Equipped archive (2002-2008).

Add this feed to your online news reader

Fully Equipped topics