Is it is worth getting a 1080p LCD if I don't plan to watch Hi-def movies?

ben_j_davis · 27 Jun 2007 at 14:54

I'm a LCD newb, but recently I have been contemplating purchasing a Samsung LE40R87 - 40" Widescreen HD Ready LCD TV.

# Super clear panel technology
# 40 inch widescreen format
# Screen resolution 1366 x 768
# Built in Freeview Tuner using MHEG format
# 8000:1 Dynamic picture contrast
# 450 cd/m2 brightness
# 8 millisecond response time
# 178 x 178 degrees distortion free picture viewing angle
# Samsung's unique DNIe technology Digital Natural Image Engine
# Movie Plus technology which enhances the video signal
# 2 x 10 watts power output
# SRS TruSurround sound effect

I've found it for around £700

However, another LCD has also been tempting me - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=AV-039-SA&groupid=703&catid=511&subcat=

About £300 more for 1080p.

This is a lot of money seeing that I don't have a next-gen console or a Blu-ray/HD-DVD player or plan to get one in near future.

What I want to know is, is the extra £300 really worth it considering my situation?

Thanks,
Ben

AWPC · 27 Jun 2007 at 15:07

I have this HDTV and it is amazing. Picture is stunning. Cannot vouch for standard tv viewing though as only use it for gaming & dvd/bluray.

IMO you do not need a 1080P set unless you plan on getting Bluray/HD-DVD.

PC @ 1366x768, X360 & PS3 all look amazing on this 720P set as does DVD's via an upscaling Samsung HDMI DVD player. Remember if you want to game @ 1920x1080 it will take a lot of money for a decent CPU + GPU + PSU to power it all.

1080P would future proof you but by the time 1080P catches on 1080P will be obsolete anyway so save that £300 now.

The difference between 720P vs 1080P to me is only noticeable if you have downloaded 1080P content and you watch from a very close distance. You would still need a microscope or have to be a hypercritical viewer to really see a huge difference between 720P vs 1080P as yes 1080P is better but not to my eyes by more than a few %. Got a free Casino Royale Bluray with my PS3 and that looks out of this world @ 720P on this HDTV.

I think the only people who will tell you otherwsie are those that have to justify to themselves why they spent the extra on a 1080P set now.

ben_j_davis · 27 Jun 2007 at 15:14

Thanks, just needed someone else to tell me to go for the sensible option.

pinkacidbootson · 27 Jun 2007 at 16:41

You won't be missing anything by going for the 720p, it will still look great. I only went for 1080p so I could use it for PC and for Blu-ray.

FrankJH · 27 Jun 2007 at 22:19

AWPC said:
1080P would future proof you but by the time 1080P catches on 1080P will be obsolete anyway so save that £300 now.

At least TRY to think about what you post - I know its difficult sometimes, but to contradict yourself in one sentence is good going

(If something catches on by default it cant be obsolete - it may be superseded by better screens ...at the same or higher cost, but it cant be obsolete. In the same way sdtv's have been superseded by hdtv's but they are by no means obsolete because they are still being sold on a wide scale)

To the OP - I hear what you are saying, but just think how long you would hope to keep this tv for? I would suggest a good lifespan is 2-3 years, if you still think that you wont be interested in next gen console, pc gaming or hidef movies in that time then your original choice of saving the £300 is correct, but at a guess because you browse these forums, you must be interested in one or more of those choices so I would think the extra £££ might be well spent now

Only a suggestion, Im sure you will be happy with whichever screen you choose.

Energize · 27 Jun 2007 at 23:07

You wouldn't notice 1080p on a 40" screen anyway unless you were closer than 7ft.

squiffy · 27 Jun 2007 at 23:28

I have the "86" of the same set, it's good but it has some minor quirks.

Possibly 24hz not supported/requires firmware update
Clouding (from zero to terrible)
Could be just mine, but when you switch off the TV it disables that monitor in desktop view.

Price difference between 730p and 1080p set 40" is £250.

I'm happy with the set, I think once you use high quality scaling the difference between a 730p and 1080p (for SD) is negligble, it still looks great. The scalers in the Samsungs are supposed to be quite low quality, so for either panel you need to send 1366x768 (for the cheaper one) or 1920x1080 for the M86/M87. Luckily both sources I use are 1080p.

Watched a few 1080p movies and they look fantastic, however you must have a larger screen/sit closer.

The problem with 1366x768 panels is your DVD player might scale to 720p (which mine does) but the panel will have to upscale that again to native. At least with 1080p screens you can get a DVD player which'll scale to native. Some plasmas have 720p resoultion, so my DVD player scaling will be native.

Alex53 · 28 Jun 2007 at 10:34

I have this thing with large screens. Your eyesight suffers if you sit closer than 4x the size of the screen. ie. 21" screen you should sit 84" away. Now if you follow that guideline you should sit further away proportionally for larger screens, which means perspective makes the relative size the same all along and what you really have to do is get a screen that fits your room and sitting area.

So, as a consecuence, any extra resolution which needs you to be closer to be appreciated, is wasted, and refresh rate and latency, vivid colours, etc are more important.

But as with the megepixels on cameras...the companies need a number to sell you. 'Bigger is better' and if they had their way we would all want 20mp cameras, 50" screens and drive Hummers.

[/rant]

To the OP. The 720p is more than fine

squiffy · 28 Jun 2007 at 10:38

The x4 rule results in sitting too far from the screen. You'll need a telescope.

Alex53 · 28 Jun 2007 at 10:41

You need glasses

squiffy · 28 Jun 2007 at 10:54

Alex53 said:
You need glasses

And you make yourself look like this

104" distance from a 26" is too far, once you watch 2:35 it'll be tiny. I have a 40" from 6' and it's great, you don't have to move your eyes side to side, and incredibly immersive watching a film.

KHAN · 28 Jun 2007 at 11:23

I'm using the 1080p Samsung 40", cost me £1700 but it's as good for bf2142 as any of my other monitors (with a 8800gtx) It's on my wall and i'm using it for the internet right now, get some surround speakers and your away

JudgeC · 28 Jun 2007 at 15:35

Alex53 said:
I have this thing with large screens. Your eyesight suffers if you sit closer than 4x the size of the screen. ie. 21" screen you should sit 84" away. Now if you follow that guideline you should sit further away proportionally for larger screens, which means perspective makes the relative size the same all along and what you really have to do is get a screen that fits your room and sitting area.

So, as a consecuence, any extra resolution which needs you to be closer to be appreciated, is wasted, and refresh rate and latency, vivid colours, etc are more important.
[/rant]

Im curious, in what way does your eyesight suffer if you sit closer to the TV than 4x the screen size. I have a 52" 1080p screen and my viewing position is 10 feet away from the screen. I can't say I feel like I am suffering too much and it appears to be a perfect distance away to watching the TV. Close enough to be ultra sharp on HD stuff and just far away enough to take the edge of the flaws in poorer SD stuff.

For that matter, I have a 24" TFT monitor on my PC at work and I can assure you I don't sit 8 feet away from it. My eyesight really would suffer then. :eek:

squiffy · 28 Jun 2007 at 16:02

I think he's getting confused with CRT radiation. Which no longer applies.
If you have to strain to watch TV (and at 4x with subs you probably will) then buy a bigger screen/sit closer.

pinkacidbootson · 28 Jun 2007 at 23:48

Imagine sitting 5 feet away from a 15" screen...

I sit 4-7 feet away from my 40" TV and it's great for both 1080p and 720p stuff.

Alex53 · 29 Jun 2007 at 09:07

Yeah, I was taking that 'rule of thumb' from when all screens were CRT. It still applies in my home you see.

Saving up for a 32" Samsung or LG HD ready LCD though, so I should be leaving the stone age some time in autumn

Corasik · 29 Jun 2007 at 11:00

Alex53 said:
Yeah, I was taking that 'rule of thumb' from when all screens were CRT. It still applies in my home you see.

Saving up for a 32" Samsung or LG HD ready LCD though, so I should be leaving the stone age some time in autumn

That 4x rule of thumb was probably set before CRT's had 100hz digital enhancement. At higher refresh rates 100hz sets virtually illiminated the eye straining flicker, thus making the viewing distances greatly reduced.

Low radiation CRT's were developed for the computer industry, and most good branded CRT TV's shouldnt pose a serious health risk either.

6FT from my old Sony 28inch was no problem at all, heck could watch that TV with a headache, and by the time the programme was over, so was the headache. (I used to get headache from older 50hz sets).