I love this discussion because it is hard to argue that 1080p is bad. Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing. However, the previous comments and Uncle Walt are dead on - none of this means anything if your scaling/deinterlacing processing stinks. That's what really dooms 1080p to strictly marketing hype in my mind. The simple fact is that the common person can't visualize the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 at recommended HD viewing differences. Moreover, the push to get to 1920x1080/60fps is ridiculously silly. The bandwidth this would require most certainly will create situations where bitrate restrictions would cause wicked macroblocking and make the picture look like an 8-bit NES. What use are all those extra pixels if you can't deliver them from the source to the screen?!?! Personally, I'm happy w/ my 720p set and would recommend 720p to anyone looking for a good value in home theater.
"Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing."
Yes, but we're not discussing MORE pixels...we're discussing how they're displayed for the most part. The simple fact is that Mossberg is telling like it is: most consumers won't notice any appreciable difference from a native 1080i signal and a 1080i source that is properly de-interlaced and anti-aliased in 1080p.
Further, the number of 1080p sources of content available are virtually nil on the handful of sets that actually CAN display it. Most HDTV content is 720p or 1080i, and that isn't likely to change that quickly, when most of the current HTDV owners can't support above that. The paltry amount of releases on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray certainly aren't going to push the boundaries, any more than SA-CD and DVD-A did for audio recordings.
Mossberg can way oversimplify matters (or just get them plain wrong, IMHO)...but on this point, I'm in full agreement. Most people don't care.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joe @ Nov 13th 2006 4:53PM
I love this discussion because it is hard to argue that 1080p is bad. Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing. However, the previous comments and Uncle Walt are dead on - none of this means anything if your scaling/deinterlacing processing stinks. That's what really dooms 1080p to strictly marketing hype in my mind. The simple fact is that the common person can't visualize the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 at recommended HD viewing differences. Moreover, the push to get to 1920x1080/60fps is ridiculously silly. The bandwidth this would require most certainly will create situations where bitrate restrictions would cause wicked macroblocking and make the picture look like an 8-bit NES. What use are all those extra pixels if you can't deliver them from the source to the screen?!?! Personally, I'm happy w/ my 720p set and would recommend 720p to anyone looking for a good value in home theater.
WizarDru @ Nov 14th 2006 8:21AM
"Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing."
Yes, but we're not discussing MORE pixels...we're discussing how they're displayed for the most part. The simple fact is that Mossberg is telling like it is: most consumers won't notice any appreciable difference from a native 1080i signal and a 1080i source that is properly de-interlaced and anti-aliased in 1080p.
Further, the number of 1080p sources of content available are virtually nil on the handful of sets that actually CAN display it. Most HDTV content is 720p or 1080i, and that isn't likely to change that quickly, when most of the current HTDV owners can't support above that. The paltry amount of releases on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray certainly aren't going to push the boundaries, any more than SA-CD and DVD-A did for audio recordings.
Mossberg can way oversimplify matters (or just get them plain wrong, IMHO)...but on this point, I'm in full agreement. Most people don't care.