gavincato Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 hey guys having a bit of a dilemma I can buy a 50" panasonic 600A which has a 1366x768 screen for $3400. OR I can wait the 1-2 months for the new model, which will be 1920x1080 and I guess it'll be about 5k. Is it a substantial picture quality going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080? cheers Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I can wait the 1-2 months for the new model, which will be 1920x1080 and I guess it'll be about 5k. I suspect it will be quite a bit more than that, maybe 7K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavincato Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 if thats true that would decide me very quickly! if thats the case maybe the sony 46" lcd would get a look in, it has 1920x1080. I suspect it will be quite a bit more than that, maybe 7K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Hot-Chilli Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I had the same dilemma - not wanting to buy a TV that wasn't full HD & expecting in 6 months time this resolution will be standard. I decided to buy now because a) At 3-4 m away I'm not going to see any improvement, I've got nothing that can play 1080p only Blu-Ray is on the horizon c) 1080P is going to cost $$$$ d) I've waited long enough e) 1080i looks pretty damn good already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hired goon Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 G'day, Is it a substantial picture quality going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080? What's yer viewing distance? After a certain distance 1080 lines of resolution will be indistinguishable from 768 lines of resolution anyway. --Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panaplasma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Glad to see that people are starting to understand that there HD 1366x768 is not a real HD. A few years ago people were debating between SD and HD. Now that there is true HD out now what are they going to call 1366x768 SD ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drsmith Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 having a bit of a dilemma It all comes down to how far you will sit from the screen. See here for a viewing distance vs screen resolution table and for discussion on the above table, see here. At a viewing distance of 3.3m or more there is absolutely no advantage in a 1920x1080 display over a 1366x768 display. The detail that can be displayed on a 50" 1920x1080 display can only be fully appreciated at a viewing distance of 2.2m or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavincato Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 hey guys thanks for the replies I'm about 3 metres from the screen. currently have a toshiba 852x480 42" I just bought some bluray movies and am starting to realise what I'll be missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50mxe20 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I suspect it will be quite a bit more than that, maybe 7K? Based on the Pioneer being $11K, I'd guess it will be more like $10K. At least initially. And I agree with the others, at 3-4 metres you won't see the difference anyway. (Unless you go to a larger screen size). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokiin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The detail that can be displayed on a 50" 1920x1080 display can only be fully appreciated at a viewing distance of 2.2m or less. I don't agree with this, a poor quality picture can be seen a lot further away than 2.2m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavincato Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 I saw the price of the screen in canadian dollars at about 5k - or was I looking at a different screen? Based on the Pioneer beeing $11K, I'd guess it will be more like $10K.At least initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirium Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Based on the Pioneer beeing $11K, I'd guess it will be more like $10K.At least initially. US RRP is $3500 for the new 1080P 50". Will the Aus markup really be well over double that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anton-P. Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Glad to see that people are starting to understand that there HD 1366x768 is not a real HD. Oh come on ... please don't spread this propaganda By international standard definitions 1280x720 is HD. 1366x768 being higher is therefore legitimate HD. Why do salespeople and you think you have the authority to rewrite definitions into real HD and unreal HD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanaSung Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 No-one in their right mind wants to be sitting at less than 2.2 m in front of a 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooksta59 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Glad to see that people are starting to understand that there HD 1366x768 is not a real HD. A few years ago people were debating between SD and HD. Now that there is true HD out now what are they going to call 1366x768 SD ?? Not quite right http://www.dtv.gov/DTV_booklet.pdf (US standards) see page 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiller Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Oh come on ... please don't spread this propaganda By international standard definitions 1280x720 is HD. 1366x768 being higher is therefore legitimate HD. Why do salespeople and you think you have the authority to rewrite definitions into real HD and unreal HD? IMO 1366x768 is not HD, it's HD that's been mutilated . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drsmith Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I don't agree with this, a poor quality picture can be seen a lot further away than 2.2m There is no tangable advantage in viewing poor quality video on a 1920x1080 display over a lower resolution display (1366x768) at distances a lot further away than 2.2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter D Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 What's more important to me than the resolution is that it is 1080p rather than 1080i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anton-P. Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 What's more important to me than the resolution is that it is 1080p rather than 1080i. Input or output? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokiin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 There is no tangable advantage in viewing poor quality video on a 1920x1080 display over a lower resolution display (1366x768) at distances a lot further away than 2.2m. I wasn't referring to poor quality source material, just that lower quality or scaled images (due to the limitations of the display device) can be seen much further away than what you mentioned, I understand where you are coming from though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autocrat Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I don't agree with this, a poor quality picture can be seen a lot further away than 2.2m Undoubtedly. The question, though is at what distance good picture quality ceases to be good. [ETA: should have refreshed then answered] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokiin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The question, though is at what distance good picture quality ceases to be good. This is perhaps a more logical approach, if you are so far away from the screen that you can't see the detail then it may not matter to you, my TV is 6 metres from the lounge and the difference can still be seen at that distance, I'm not sure how bad your eyesight would need to be to not be able to tell the difference beyond 2.2 metres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drsmith Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I wasn't referring to poor quality source material, just that lower quality or scaled images (due to the limitations of the display device) can be seen much further away than what you mentioned, I understand where you are coming from though The context of my comments was what the human eye can resolve for a given screen size and viewing distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anton-P. Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 my TV is 6 metres from the lounge and the difference can still be seen at that distance You're talking about difference caused by the source. In discussion was difference afforded by increasing screen resolution. At 3m 50" viewing exactly same feed, a 1080 screen might look 10% better than a 768 screen. I would pay up to 30% more $$ for the privilege but not 50-80% more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50mxe20 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I saw the price of the screen in canadian dollars at about 5k - or was I looking at a different screen?Was that in Canada? Cause I saw lots of TV's in Canada last month for a lot less than they are here. That has nothing to do with Oz pricing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts