Have we reached 720p > 1080p tipping point yet?

NickHope wrote on 8/13/2013, 6:24 AM

A couple of years ago, when there was lots of discussion about creating the best file for upload to YouTube, Vimeo etc. [b]from 1080i footage such as HDV[/i], the general consensus was that uploading a deinterlaced/downscaled 720p file was a probably a better idea than a 1080p file, with some reasons being:

- smaller upload size
- faster download at playback (bandwidth, buffering)
- smoother playback on most viewer's systems (graphics card power)
- more control over the quality of the 720p stream (downscale done locally)

I'm interested in views on whether we've reached a tipping point regarding global bandwidth, playback equipment etc. whereby it makes more sense to render and upload a 1080p version rather than 720p version.

I guess if you have a 1080p source it's probably a no-brainer by now, but in my particular case I'm currently working with a big project that is mostly HDV 1440x1080i source. Downscaled 720p has served me very well on YouTube, but I'm keen to give my viewers the best experience on a range of platforms going forward.

Views?

Back to post

Comments

farss wrote on 9/2/2013, 3:34 PM

[I]"The traditional Windows PC is fast becoming a niche device"[/I]

Even so the latest mobile phones and tablets sport 1080 screens.

Last week I attended Integrate, a trade show devoted to the professional entertainment business. The 4K push is happening and being driven by the home theatre, digital signage and installation market.
The biggest display system on the show floor uses RGB LEDs with a 3mm pitch. It can be configured for a horizontal resolution of 8K with 10bit depth. The system on display was only 4K and being feed from a BD player and it looked just horrid. This new wave a display systems anticipates viewers being only a couple of metres from them, so every pixel counts.

Bob.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 9/2/2013, 6:46 PM

> Even so the latest mobile phones and tablets sport 1080 screens.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The "resolution" of the screens wasn't my point. The "size" of the screen is what I'm getting at. Traditionally, the rule of thumb was you could watch 720p on up to a 32" HD TV and not see the difference between 720 and 1080. It was only for TV's that were over 32" that it pays to get 1080. So unless you are using a 32" tablet... you don't really need 1080p video; 720p will look just fine.

Go look at all of the 20" HD TV's on the Best Buy web site. They are all 720p. A 10" tablet does not need 1080p video to look good even though some (not all) have 1080 displays. That's all I'm saying.

~jr

Chienworks wrote on 9/2/2013, 7:34 PM

That's why i've thought Apple's "retina" display to be more hype than useful. Sure, it's a good display, but it's really overkill.

I still have a 4" 320x240 Archos video player that i use now and then. Even though my phone is 1280x720, it's only a 2.7" display. While text is sharp and crisp on the phone and blocky on the Archos, video is nicer to watch on the bigger screen even at 1/3 the resolution.

musicvid10 wrote on 9/2/2013, 9:21 PM

Actually, the viewing tests I read said people can start to notice a difference above 40"-42". Since it is unlikely my tiny living room will ever see a screen larger than that, 720p is still the most economical format in this household.

Acknowledging that the time and size factors are both more than double to produce 1080p at each step, with the quality factor at par for the majority of your audience, just what is the point again?

@JohnnyRoy,
+1

arenel wrote on 9/2/2013, 10:49 PM

Based on exacting research conducted at Best Buy and Costco with these 78 year old calibrated eyeballs, I find that the width of the screen on 1080p is about the closest practical viewing distance and with 720p it is about 1.5 screen widths. Closer than that and the pixels become obvious. Your distance may vary. Most cable systems are only putting out 720p anyway as was mentioned earlier.

Ralph