Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

Probably not all that cost-effective to pack 2 megapixels into that screen size from a manufacturing standpoint, and 720p is probably good enough for 32" (and smaller) 16x9 screen sizes in terms of viewing quality (where 1080p resolution doesn't produce significantly better picture quality over 720p).

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

I've read that you won't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, until you get to a screen size of 60" or larger.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

Perceived resolution depends entirely upon viewing distance. Even 24" 1080P computer displays are widely used, but users sit very close to computer monitors. Most purchasers of 32" LCD TVs use them as televisions at seating distances that don't warrant higher resolutions they couldn't detect at such distances.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

I haven't noticed any huge picture difference between my 1080i and 480p, and would suspect 720p even less difference to 1080i or p.

the large differences I noticed was HDMI from component and s-video...and also the regular TV channels to HDTV channels. that was really cool.

this thread kind of makes sense to what I heard too, in that the 1080 offers the best impact on the larger screens.

i'm a noob to HDTV and just posting what I see.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

That's just a difference in technology. It doesn't cost anything to increase the resolution of a CRT set. With LCD the same can't be said. It was only 3-4 years ago that 1080p LCD's and plasmas even came out on the market.

Even your average 10 year old CRT computer monitors are capable of greater resolutions than most of the LCD screens sold today.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

I guarantee a 26" CRT isn't capable of resolving the full resolution of 1080i. You'd be surprised at how much of the 1080i is thrown away by the limits of a direct-view CRT. It's probably closer to 800i.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

That's correct if you're talking about consumer televisions, like Mike's. Graphics grade CRT computer monitors are another story. They have featured very high resolutions for many years prior to HDTV, and even back then could outperform most consumer HDTVs today in overall picture quality and resolution. Their primary limitations were size and light output.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

The thing is - you'll never sit close enough to a 26" or 32" TV to see the higher resolution. It has nothing to do with the size of the screen ,but rather the usual distance people sit to watch TV.

You sit two feet or closer to your PC screen, but nobody would sit that close to a TV.

So, they don't bother with the expense of making the smaller sets Full HD. The 720p sets look just fine on HD TV, though.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

This TV can display a 1080i signal, but that doesn't mean it actually has 1920x1080 display resolution. I did some searching out of curiosity and I couldn't find its resolution specified anywhere. Neither Samsung's users manual nor the info sheet you linked to actually stated what its screen resolution is.

I've got an HDTV a few years older, a Sony WEGA, that will display a 1080i source, but I've since learned that the TV is nowhere near having an actual 1080 resolution.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

One of the major limiting factors for resolution in direct view CRT TVs is the shadow mask or aperture grill (Sony). The later Sony CRT direct view tubes used a super fine aperture grill that maxed out at about 1400 x 1080. To my knowledge, those were the highest resolution consumer TVs of this type ever made.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

1080i is 1920 (h) x 1080 (v) (interlaced); 720p is 1280(h) x 720(v) (progressive). If I read correctly, your TV can display . I think that means your TV can physically produce about 40% of the maximum 1080 horizontal resolution, or about 62% of the 720p resolution.

This is not uncommon. For years there have been rear-projection LCD sets sold that could "display" a 1080i signal, but with LCD resolutions of about 1366x768, a shade above 720p. And I think my 2002 WEGA only goes to 800x600 physically, though it will "display" a 1080i signal as your set does.

By any measure, a 720p LCD should be a substantial improvement to you.

Re: Why are 32" displays mostly 720p?

All digital TVs sold in the U.S. can accept a 1080i signal. They are required to by law. But that doesn't mean they can display a 1080i image.

This is one of those meaningless specs that manufacturers like to list to make their sets sound more capable. All it really means is that you don't need an external convertor box to rescale that 1080i signal to something the TV's screen can actually display.

Even EDTVs with a maximum resolution of 480p will accept a broadcast or other signal of 1080i - which it will then immediately convert into 480p.

Regards,

Joe

It's always amusing seeing these old threads pop up. I upgraded from a 36" HD WEGA (circa 2002) to a 50" 1080 Plasma. I am nothing but happy to have that monstrous CRT out of my house and replaced by a far superior flat panel. My WEGA would "display" 1080i, in that it would process the signal and display what it could on its actually 800x600 screen. It beat the stuffing out of other, SD CRTs in its day. But it is a joke compared to current flat panels.* 36" 4:3 CRT is really only about 26" 16:9; even a 32" widescreen would have been a real jump for me. And after size and real resolution improvements, getting undistorted geometry is awesome! (suck it, CRT distortion!)

So will a base model 720p 32" LCD best a 6 year old 26" CRT? If your CRT is widescreen, has no geometry problems, is modestly calibrated for color (even if by eye), and has a real resolution close to 720p, it might not be a big upgrade. I don't honestly know. But in my experience, from my dad's 32" LCD, I think I would consider it an upgrade, were it my choice.

And at $250, it's a cheap experiment and you can return it if you don't like it.


*To be a precise engineer, I'll concede that the CRT may have better absolute black and perhaps color uniformity.

I like when I read an old thread unknowingly and come across a sharp comment that I like, only to find I made it. (I never read the names of who's talking unless they've pissed me off or said something I agree with) 

Mike,

Just make sure you can return it before you take the plunge.

Personally, I doubt I'd like a cheap LCD even for casual viewing.  I can barely stand using a cheap (Dell) LCD for my work PC as it is.   The gamma (or contrast curve) and colors are just too wonky on the cheap stuff (and generally cannot be adjusted much, if at all), even if they cheat and manage to present deep blacks (w/out actual dark grays in between).  The cheap (Dell) LCD I use for work can't deal w/ dark grays nor off-whites (or any colors w/in those ranges either) -- and my old Dell laptop's LCD isn't noticeably better either.

_Man_

mike, dont buy crap (westinghouse = crap)
At least consider a samsung, panasonic, sony, LG, etc. even if it will cost more.

(man has it right).

Newegg.com currently has a 32" Toshiba Regza for $329 on their 'early black friday' deal. I haven't seen that exact Westinghouse Target's selling or that exact Toshiba, but judging from the Westinghouse units I've seen and the Toshibas I've seen and the one I own, its likely one of the best extra $79 you could spend on your home theater. And you don't have to wait for thanksgiving or elbow your way through the masses, and then discover they're sold out because you weren't willing to get up at 4am. Heck, not having to shop on Black Friday might be worth the $79 all by itself.

Quote: Don't you just hate it when someone who actually knows what they're talking about tells you to not do what you're about to do?!?

If your wife is like my wife, she's actually rooting for you to buy an attractive new TV to replace the behemoth CRT taking up the entire living room. Take advantage of the situation ;)
Happy shopping!

the toshiba would be an okay choice too.

I remember the first WH that I had to work on....one of only 2 displays (out of 3000 plus) that I have even seen that did not have basic white point adjustments. On the box they even advertised "able to reproduce 70% of the HD color space". that is like saying "able to drive at 45 mph on a 65 mph interstate".

*THAT* is a great analogy!  I don't care much for cars and such, and even I can fully appreciate that analogy.  

Mike,

I'm reasonably practical about my shopping decisions too (to go along w/ pretty good WAF), but yeah, go for something w/ satisfying quality, if you're gonna do it at all, especially since there's nothing wrong w/ your current CRT.

FWIW, I guess if you actually needed extra help w/ WAF, you could always mention that a quality, new LCD will consume a lot less power than the CRT and end up saving you some $ on the electric bill in the long run -- maybe even enough to justify spending an extra couple hundred bucks on the LCD now when you amortize the energy savings.   That was certainly one factor that helped me (and the wife) to decide on upgrading from our then-6-7-yo Panny 53" CRT RPTV to our current Sammy 61" LED DLP RPTV -- the new RPTV consumes less, but the built-in OTA HD tuner also consumes *waaay* less than the old standalone, electrical-vampire-of-a-tuner STB we were using (and also works better w/ multipath signal problems).  

BTW, I tell yah.  Even our old Panny 53" RPTV didn't resolve BDs as well as the Sammy 61" DLP.  Watching WALL-E on the new set was a bit of a revelation in terms of resolution -- WALL-E looked excellent on the old set, but still a bit pastey-looking compared to the new set.  Our old Panny was probably performing more like 1300-1400x900i or something like that.  Not sure how close our current Sammy DLP gets to 1920x1080p, but it's definitely quite noticeably closer.  Using the PS3 for very occasional web browsing was a huge diff between the two.

 

Personally, if I were you, I'd consider holding off on the upgrade until you can go for something substantially larger.   Prices just keep falling, so there's no big rush to buy something half-heartedly, IMHO.  Get what you *really* want (or need) when the time actually comes.  Heck, considering your circumstance, maybe you should even look into going w/ a cheap FP setup instead and keep using the old CRT for casual viewing.  I actually gave the FP route some real consideration before falling back to the 61" DLP RPTV myself.

Happy shopping!
 

_Man_

Mike,

I don't know those sets, but 1080p would be overkill for a 32" unless you really plan to sit real close -- like just 5-6ft away (or closer) from eyes to screen.  If you plan to sit much more than ~6ft away, you won't benefit noticeably from 1080p on a 32" (unless you have eagle eyes or something ).

Here's an article to help you out w/ that -- and it includes a couple charts to give you a general idea where the limits/benefits are based on 20/20 vision:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

You can also use the following viewing distance calculator to more precisely determining optimal viewing distance, screen size, etc. (based on industry standard recommendations):

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Honestly, if you really want full benefit of 1080p (and good quality BDs), you'll likely want to go for something more in the 50"-plus range -- and even at 50" (from 9ft-plus away), plenty of folks find 1080p to be nearly indistinguishable from 720p.

For that (32") size, save your $$$ and go for a quality 720p set instead.  If/when you some day can move upto something much larger, you can always move that 32" into the bedroom or somewhere else in the house (or pass it along to your kids or something).

_Man_