Full HD: Hip or Hype?
August 19th, 2007 | by Mark Fleischmann
Post Your Comment...Comments
Colin on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 PM:
Actually.... In the HD format there is also 24 fps not just 30p/60i fps. I'm not sure that it's a proper broadcast frame rate but you see it on set looking at the preview monitors which are vibrating at 48hz. As for the better resolution making things look sharper, I find that it's the larger colour range that increases the detail. Once you see footage in 4:4:4 colour in the studio, regular TV doesn't look the same and from what I've seen from HD players they are really pushing the colour through to make it detailed and vibrant.
Chris Bauer on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 PM:
"Eyesight is ultimately what mocks the Full HD hype. Even if you have 20/20 vision, your eyes can't distinguish the pixel size of 1080p vs. 720p on screens of 42 inches or less."
The difference between 720p and 1080p sources is easily distinguishable on a good 1080p set or a 1920x1200 monitor. In fact my wife and both kids can see the difference immediately. On a 720p or lower display yes, you are correct.
Sami on Sep 24th, 2007 at 5:49 AM:
After buying a Canon HV20 HDV video camera (1440x1080, has also a progressive mode) and looking at the footage from both a 1920x1200 computer screen and 720i TV (yeah, interlaced, since I haven't met a TV yet which is willing to show 1080i 50 Hz nicely), the difference is... big enough for me to stay away from these HD ready generation TVs. With Full HD you can also show still photos much more nicely and use it as a computer screen. Personally well worth the money.
Pieter on Jun 30th, 2008 at 8:03 AM:
I am a complete idiot where it comes to HD, full HD,or whatever you want to call it. Can somebody please tell me if my tv which I just bought is sufficient - ie. is it OK. It is a LG 42" LCD and the specs are as follows;
Video
Native Display Resolution 1366 x 768p
Dynamic Contrast Ratio 8,000:1
Response Time (Grey to Grey) 5ms
Brightness (cd/m²) 500
XD Engine® â•
Super IPS â•
True Wide View â•
Viewing Angle 178º x 178º
Digital Comb Filter 3D
Color Temperature Control 4 Modes
Aspect Ratio Adjustment 6 Modes
Enhanced Noise Reduction (Video Noise Filter) â•
Enhanced Line Doubler â•
3:2 Pull-Down Correction 3:2 (480i)
Picture Selection Mode 5 Modes
Black Stretcher (Black Level Enhancer) â•
DTV Signal Strength Indicator â•
ACM (Active Color Management) â•
Pure Black Level â•
Color Processor 10 Bit
1080p SOurce input HDMIâ„¢ 30p/24p
Component 30p/24p
Audio
Mono/Stereo/Dual (MTS/SAP) â•
Audio Output Power (Watts - THD 10%) 10W + 10W
Timo on Apr 10th, 2009 at 1:46 AM:
If you happen to use the HDTV as computer screen also (many new computers have HDCP) then 1080p capable TV is way better than 720p or 758p.
The resolution can be matched so that there will be NO scaling at all. Scaling always reduces picture quality in LCD displays. Scaling down? Pixels do not match and you lose thin lines. Scaling up? Pixels do not match and that thin line might end up between pixels, resulting in two pixels to be lit which makes picture fuzzy.
32-inch 1080p TV can be used as monitor, even watched from short distance as computer displays, and it all is because of smaller pixel size. Text comes out clear AND you will get good screen real estate. I would not want to have 32-inch computer monitor where characters are ½-inch tall. That would be ridiculously large if viewed from 16 inches away from the screen.
With 1080p, pixels are still small enough at that view distance with 32-inch TV.
It all depends on what you will use the TV for. For me 32 inches is maximum size which still works as computer monitor - without having to turn your head left and right to read your word documents.
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.

Ritalin on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 AM:
I just wanted to make a small correction to your article. I often see articles and reviews claiming that you can not tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a TV smaller then 40in. I think that this needs to be worded better.
The argument could be made that a 720p set is nothing more then a widescreen version of a 1024x768 computer monitor and a 1080p set is widescreen 1280x1024 monitor. The differences of these resolutions is plain to see with the naked eye, but the reason for this is that on a PC monitor you are constantly looking at still images of one type or another. On the other hand HDTVs are of course made for TV and moving images do make the differences much harder to tell.
The problem I have with reviews saying that the naked eye can not tell the difference comes in two parts. First is the fact that HTPCs are gaining ground, it maybe happening slowly but as more the joystick generation becomes homeowners and consumers this trend will increase. This will basically make the HDTV a new subcategory of computer monitor, if it is not already. So we are back to the still images issue.
The second problem with this no difference to the naked eye idea is that HDTVs are GREAT for video gaming. Gaming is a moving media much the same as movies, however aliasing comes into play with games. Jagged edges on polygons and transparent textures such as chain link fences are much more prevalent with a 720p set then a 1080p set. I have yet to see this test performed with a game running on the 720vs1080 sets.
To sum this up the ability to tell the difference between the two resolutions with the naked eye has much to do with your image signals source.