720p VS 1080p

[Lion-Face]

120hz is NOT just a gimmick...in the sense that it makes things smoother...mostly yes...but they do offer something that youre completely glossing over and that is native 24p support...Movies are filmed at 24fps...and therefore should be displayed at such...a TV running at 120hz or 240hz does not have to perform a 3:2 pulldown of the 24fps material and can display it natively...this is a BIG DEAL and not just a marketing gimmick...older 60hz sets CANNOT do this because obviously 24 does not divide into 60 evenly...

120hz is a gimmick, I have a KLV46V300 (KDL46V3000 for the digital tuner version) which does native 24p support and doesn't have any motion gimmicks.

The best TV was, and probably still is the Pioneer Kuros. Panasonic Plasma haven't even come up to where Pioneer were back 3-4 years ago. The 2nd best TV would have to have been the 2009 Sony X series with it's local dimming RGB LED Backlit LCD. It has been the only TV to come close to what the Pioneers could do for a picture. The more recent Local dimming LED Tv's don't hold a candle to what that X series could do.

As for the topic at hand....

I have said in other threads that 1080p in my opinion was the best. 720p I find you get a lot more jagged edges on the dials/hud etc which I think looks ugly. At 720p I think the game looks artificially sharp as it seems like what a TV does when you bump up the sharpness setting, and I don't believe it looks right.

99% of games, when they output a 720p signal look great at 720p and don't look any different when forced to run at 1080p. GT5 is different in the fact that it's outputting 1280x1080 resolution signal. Sure you are upscaling to fill in the blanks to 1920x1080p (which is what the PS3 does internally with its scaler) But it also has to downscale to 720p from 1280x1080, which IMO is where the difference comes in, even with the extra AA. I think even 1080i on a 720p LCD or Plasma tv looks better than 720p.

 

[ugabugaz]

120hz is a gimmick, I have a KLV46V300 (KDL46V3000 for the digital tuner version) which does native 24p support and doesn't have any motion gimmicks.

The best TV was, and probably still is the Pioneer Kuros. Panasonic Plasma haven't even come up to where Pioneer were back 3-4 years ago. The 2nd best TV would have to have been the 2009 Sony X series with it's local dimming RGB LED Backlit LCD. It has been the only TV to come close to what the Pioneers could do for a picture. The more recent Local dimming LED Tv's don't hold a candle to what that X series could do.

As for the topic at hand....

I have said in other threads that 1080p in my opinion was the best. 720p I find you get a lot more jagged edges on the dials/hud etc which I think looks ugly. At 720p I think the game looks artificially sharp as it seems like what a TV does when you bump up the sharpness setting, and I don't believe it looks right.

99% of games, when they output a 720p signal look great at 720p and don't look any different when forced to run at 1080p. GT5 is different in the fact that it's outputting 1280x1080 resolution signal. Sure you are upscaling to fill in the blanks to 1920x1080p (which is what the PS3 does internally with its scaler) But it also has to downscale to 720p from 1280x1080, which IMO is where the difference comes in, even with the extra AA. I think even 1080i on a 720p LCD or Plasma tv looks better than 720p.

Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. True thing you speak about the Panasonics, but still, today they're the best thing available.

I think I should mention my set at this time, it's only fitting.
Viera TH-50PZ800U
Calibrated to CNET's Settings for normal viewing, THX Mode for Blu-Ray.

 

[Metfanant]

I was talking exactly about Contrast Ratios, more specifically NATIVE Contrast ratios, not dynamic ones. No LCD, not matter how gimmicky, can match a Plasma in this regard. Please, show me one, I'd love to see it. LED backlit LCDs while very good are nowhere near Plasmas.

Does 96 Hz ring a bell? Most Plasmas have this option thereby avoid the 3:2 pulldown. (Edit: Forgot to mention, older Plasmas also used 48 Hz)

About colors, Yes that's well know. It's why LCDs tend to look more digital and cooler, while Plasmas warmer and more life-like. Really this one is a matter of personal preference.

Holy Hell dude...did i ever say the Plasmas do not properly handle 24p material?...why are you so insecure? lol all i did was point out a feature of 120hz LCD sets that is NOT a gimmick...which you said 120hz is PURELY a gimmick...its not..

- I never said the LCD's have a higher native contrast
- I never said that Plasmas can't handle 24p material
- I never even said LCD is better than Plasma

all i said was that you're making over generalized blanket statements about LCD's and that is wrong...you're also wrong about 120hz being purely a gimmick...it is NOT...

no matter how much you want people to THINK you know about TV's you're still wrong about that

 

[Pianoman]

It´s easy: HD ready TV (720p is the best option in every game, incl. GT5). Full HD TV (1080p) is the best option. 1080i is always! worse then 720p - especially in GT5! I know what I´m talking about, tested 5 different LCD´s, LED and Plasma´s all the day. My choice: one of the latest (Panasonic Viera, full hd - plasma). Never go back to LCD or LED´s anymore. The most important factor is the software within the TV type. Sony TV´s have one of the worst software (so no chance to do much with image), hence Panasonic and also Samsung have the best software available (mid-range pricing TV´s), so you have plenty of options regarding image tweaking. Generally speaking: the super, hyper TV screen is nothing without good TV software included!! That´s the most decisive factor regarding gaming and difference between the overall image quality in games.

 

[alucard0712]

It´s easy: HD ready TV (720p is the best option in every game, incl. GT5). Full HD TV (1080p) is the best option. 1080i is always! worse then 720p - especially in GT5! I know, tested 5 different LCD´s, LED and Plasma´s. My choice: one of the latest (Panasonic Viera, full hd - plasma). Never go back to LCD or LED´s anymore.

Same here. Plus Plasmas have less input lag. (not mentioning picture quality)
I've brought Panasonic Vierra 42" and it's not so expensive as I think.

 

[ugabugaz]

Holy Hell dude...did i ever say the Plasmas do not properly handle 24p material?...why are you so insecure? lol all i did was point out a feature of 120hz LCD sets that is NOT a gimmick...which you said 120hz is PURELY a gimmick...its not..

- I never said the LCD's have a higher native contrast
- I never said that Plasmas can't handle 24p material
- I never even said LCD is better than Plasma

all i said was that you're making over generalized blanket statements about LCD's and that is wrong...you're also wrong about 120hz being purely a gimmick...it is NOT...

no matter how much you want people to THINK you know about TV's you're still wrong about that

I state facts, You do not. I'm only having a nice conversation here. 120Hz is a gimmick as evidenced by Lion-Face. Next.

 

[alucard0712]

not completely true...there are plenty of REAL 120hz TV's out there...what you have to be careful of is frame interpolation techniques (Samsung calls it AMP)...where instead of displaying

1--1--2--2--3--3--4--4--5--5

it tries to create its own frames instead of using repeated frames...THIS introduces lots of input lag...and when watching TV you may see what is called the "soap opera effect" where everything SEEMS just a slight bit faster than it should be...even though its not...

it also creates a real funky almost 3d effect some times when watching TV that some people love and some hate...

That's exactly what I mean
All those techniques are very bad for games. Less of them (more your TV displays picture like what it is) - better. I won't even recommend LED's - they are laggy. Entry level FullHD models are just perfect for gamers!

 

[Metfanant]

120hz is a gimmick, I have a KLV46V300 (KDL46V3000 for the digital tuner version) which does native 24p support and doesn't have any motion gimmicks.

you might want to "check yo specs" again...because the V3000 has Sony's 24p True Cinema system...that ACCEPTS a native 24p signal and still uses a 3:2 pulldown because it is NOT a 120hz set...and therefore cannot natively display a 24p signal...the XBR sets from that year DID display a native 24p output...

The best TV was, and probably still is the Pioneer Kuros. Panasonic Plasma haven't even come up to where Pioneer were back 3-4 years ago. The 2nd best TV would have to have been the 2009 Sony X series with it's local dimming RGB LED Backlit LCD. It has been the only TV to come close to what the Pioneers could do for a picture. The more recent Local dimming LED Tv's don't hold a candle to what that X series could do.

i think you read too much CNET lol...

Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. True thing you speak about the Panasonics, but still, today they're the best thing available.

the Samsung Plasmas are damn close...if not just as good...

I think I should mention my set at this time, it's only fitting.
Viera TH-50PZ800U
Calibrated to CNET's Settings for normal viewing, THX Mode for Blu-Ray.

ya...CNET's settings...ok budsky...should a videophile like yourself have an ISF calibration?

I state facts, You do not. I'm only having a nice conversation here. 120Hz is a gimmick

the statement that 120hz is a gimmick is not even a fact!...you say you state facts, but 2 sentences later you're stating an opinion! WOW!!

answer this question...

does a 120hz refresh rate allow an LCD set to display 24p material natively??...

if the answer to that question is YES (which it is) then its simply NOT a gimmick...because it provides a VERY useful feature that 60hz sets cannot replicate...

1080i is always! worse then 720p

woah woah woah...slow your roll there...that is absolutely NOT a fact...1080i is the exact same resolution as 1080p...its just interlaced...as long as your TV de-interlaces the signal properly you will be fine...

1080i holds MUCH more detail than 720p...the progressive signal of 720p generally makes it better for fast moving pictures because TV's are all progressive so no conversion is necessary...but the detail level of a 1080i image can be IMMENSELY more detailed than a 720p image

 

[phil-t]

There is no one best option for 1080p/720p, it's highly dependent on your TV and your own personal preference, since both differ in their theoretical strengths and weaknesses, as well as all the plethora of different TV's and their processing abilities.

Just try both, see what you prefer, and stick to it..

On the subject of TV's, you have to be very careful, you can't make blanket statements about technologies, there are far too many variations in design..

Things like 120Hz for example is just a number, it indicates by itself nothing more then the speed at which the frame processing is performed, it tells you nothing about either the actual processing abilities and quality, or in fact what refresh rate the actual image is displayed at.. Not all 120Hz TV's use 5:5 pulldown for 24Hz material, not all have frame interpolation or other temporal processing, and the quality of any processing varies wildly..

And as for which is best, Plasma or LCD, well that isn't even that straight forward, there is a belief that Panasonic plasma's are the best displays out there, but it depends on which criteria by which they are judged.. I'd been a plasma man for many years, right through the peak of Pioneer's efforts, but despite the obvious technical superiority in some areas they can afford over LCD, the fact is that in a lot of areas of processing etc, some LCD manufacturers beat Panasonic as an example, making the choice quite difficult..
I have now switched to LCD because
1. I also got a half decent 1080p Projector, and the jump to a 110" screen far far far outweighs any silly tit for tat between LCD/Plasma at normal screen sizes.
2. This leaves the main TV for normal viewing and gaming, two areas in which processing and features far outweigh the few small advantages of plasma technology, and some manufacturers do this better then others, the better ones don't make good Plasma's, so LCD it was for me..

 

[ugabugaz]

ya...CNET's settings...ok budsky...should a videophile like yourself have an ISF calibration?

I don't care that much for perfection. The CNET and THX settings are just fine.

 

[Pianoman]

Same here. Plus Plasmas have less input lag. (not mentioning picture quality)
I've brought Panasonic Vierra 42" and it's not so expensive as I think.

Absolutely: it looks amazing and it´s not so expensive. Good choice for testing is per example the TDU 2 or Need For Speed: Hot Pusuit (texture mapping, antialias, aniso). On most LCD´s and LED´s TV, the image in full hd resolution looks blurried and extremely horrible. Where on Plasmas - the image quality looks like another game (superb graphics, mapped terrain ahead, functional aniso and antialias). That´s the reason why plasma is always much much better choice regarding gaming.

 

[Metfanant]

There is no one best option for 1080p/720p, it's highly dependent on your TV and your own personal preference, since both differ in their theoretical strengths and weaknesses, as well as all the plethora of different TV's and their processing abilities.

Just try both, see what you prefer, and stick to it..

On the subject of TV's, you have to be very careful, you can't make blanket statements about technologies, there are far too many variations in design..

Things like 120Hz for example is just a number, it indicates by itself nothing more then the speed at which the frame processing is performed, it tells you nothing about either the actual processing abilities and quality, or in fact what refresh rate the actual image is displayed at.. Not all 120Hz TV's use 5:5 pulldown for 24Hz material, not all have frame interpolation or other temporal processing, and the quality of any processing varies wildly..

And as for which is best, Plasma or LCD, well that isn't even that straight forward, there is a belief that Panasonic plasma's are the best displays out there, but it depends on which criteria by which they are judged.. I'd been a plasma man for many years, right through the peak of Pioneer's efforts, but despite the obvious technical superiority in some areas they can afford over LCD, the fact is that in a lot of areas of processing etc, some LCD manufacturers beat Panasonic as an example, making the choice quite difficult..
I have now switched to LCD because
1. I also got a half decent 1080p Projector, and the jump to a 110" screen far far far outweighs any silly tit for tat between LCD/Plasma at normal screen sizes.
2. This leaves the main TV for normal viewing and gaming, two areas in which processing and features far outweigh the few small advantages of plasma technology, and some manufacturers do this better then others, the better ones don't make good Plasma's, so LCD it was for me..

and somebody else finally gets it...

Absolutely: it looks amazing and it´s not so expensive. Good choice for testing is per example the TDU 2 or Need For Speed: Hot Pusuit (texture mapping, antialias, aniso). On most LCD´s and LED´s TV, the image in full hd resolution looks blurried and extremely horrible. Where on Plasmas - the image quality looks like another game (superb graphics, mapped terrain ahead, functional aniso and antialias). That´s the reason why plasma is always much much better choice regarding gaming.

you simply CANNOT make such blanket statements like that!...my god i can't believe some people

 

[phil-t]

Absolutely: it looks amazing and it´s not so expensive. Good choice for testing is per example the TDU 2 or Need For Speed: Hot Pusuit (texture mapping, antialias, aniso). On most LCD´s and LED´s TV, the image in full hd resolution looks blurried and extremely horrible. Where on Plasmas - the image quality looks like another game (superb graphics, mapped terrain ahead, functional aniso and antialias). That´s the reason why plasma is always much much better choice regarding gaming.

You've seen some really bad examples of LCD's if that's the case.. I could say the same about rubbish Plasma's too..

Just taking your example of blurred HD res images

Technically on a native 1080p LCD, a static HD image will be pixel perfect, so obviously you are talking about motion..

When it comes to motion,
1. a few years ago, you had to really worry about response times of the actual LCD pixels, even in high end LCD's, these would be slow enough to give a blurring effect as the pixels couldn't switch between colours fast enough. But lately, LCD's have massively improved, My last 2 LCD TV's I've measured using PC tools to have immeasurable response times at the 60Hz input limit of the TV, and with 120Hz refresh rates for 3D becoming prevalent, it's clear that just making a moderately careful choice these days you can avoid that issue
2. Image processing, especially temporal processing can try to smooth motion by interpolation between frames, every manufacturer has different processing algorithms, some are horrific, some are exceedingly clean.. these days, on decent examples of either technology, I believe it's the processing quality that has the largest baring on motion IQ.

It pains me to actually admit (let alone the fact I now own 2 LCD tvs) that some LCD's, although still lagging in native contrast, in features/processing etc can make them a better fit for some people's criteria..

If I was just buying a TV for lights out, in the dark, movie watching, I'd still be leaning towards the Panasonic Plasma's for their native contrast, but for regular viewing, upscaling of SD TV, and playing games etc, I'm afraid the choice isn't clear cut, with some LCD manufacturers easily besting Panasonic on most fronts..

 

[Pianoman]

I´m talking about GAMING, not living room prestige. And in order not to loose much time to average gamers and average TV specialists, I recommended plasma (especially Panasonic Viera) screen because of overall better picture quality ...in motion..., better TV software support, good pricing. To be able to find a good, balanced and comparable LCD for gaming (IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE!!!), I will probably need another 2-3 days, but probably 2-3 weeks. But I will not to do so, because it doesn´t exist.

 

[phil-t]

I´m talking about GAMING, not living room prestige. And in order not to loose much time to average gamers and average TV specialists, I recommended plasma (especially Panasonic Viera) screen because of overall better picture quality ...in motion..., better TV software support, good pricing. To be able to find a good, balanced and comparable LCD for gaming (IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE!!!), I will probably need another 2-3 days, but probably 2-3 weeks. But I will not to do so, because it doesn´t exist.

I'm also talking about gaming..

I was recently looking at TV's with my brother, he has a Pioneer Kuro 50" plasma currently, but wanted a second TV for his gaming room..

The default choice of course was the Panasonic 42G30B plasma.. (£800ish), however, after demoing various TV's and doing some research, he eventually bought a Sony 40EX723 LCD..

The reasons
1. The Sony in the right mode has even less input lag then the Panny
2. The Sony also has cleaner motion processing (less artefacts) then the Panny, both notably have very high motion resolution (full 1080 lines, you can't ask for more).
3. The Sony's colour response from a console is excellent (full 4:4:4 support for consoles/PC)
4. Despite the Panny's being very resilient to screen burn, there is of course almost zero risk with an LCD.


It's also a 3D set, although in a twist of fate, and he already knew this, the 3D performance is pretty average with ghosting and other issues..

For movies and 3D, the Sony is actually just OK, and possibly quite poor for 3D, (passable for gaming, GT5 looks fine), but for 2D gaming it made a better choice for him

 

[BradKinder]

You'd might as well have a native resolution for your tv closer to the source graphics. It'll work better.

 

[frostie]

720p 1280x720 horrible resolution when downgrading from months of 1080p, menus are ghastly

1080i 1920x1080 (2x 1920x540) tearing occurs in game due to the interlace

1080p 1920x1080 the best option, menus are the sharpest, make sure you set your TV to full pixel(1:1)

Not a great deal of difference in game between all 3 other than the 1080i tearing, and distance drawing is not as clear on 720p.

All run at 59.94p hz/frames by default.

 

[Moot]

Ok, in terms of GT5 what is an acceptable response time on the TV?
How does 60fps compare to ms of response? My LCD has 6ms response time, is that showing 60fps fast enough, or has it nothing to do with it. Explain.

 

[Gupster74]

I have a Panasonic 1080p plasma thats about 3yrs old now and i tried switching resolution to 720p and the menu's were dire and there was definitely a slight degradation in pop-up in-game.

It will differ with almost everyones tv and personal preference so i say, try both, judge for yourself which is better, enjoy !!!

 

[phil-t]

Ok, in terms of GT5 what is an acceptable response time on the TV?
How does 60fps compare to ms of response? My LCD has 6ms response time, is that showing 60fps fast enough, or has it nothing to do with it. Explain.

60Hz is 60 frames per second = 16.66mS per frame, but ideally you want a factor less then this, so a true worse case response time of 8ms or less IMO would be imperceptible to the human eye.

However, there are different measures for response times, grey to grey is the most common, but it isn't the worse case, which is "on-off" this can be 2-4 times the grey to grey value depending on the exact technology used.

The reality is, to most people, they would (and have been) accepting quite poor response times for many years..

Personally, I'd say a 5-8ms LCD panel will technically have some smearing due to response times (because it's worse case is more then grey to grey response times they will quote), but it would still be perfectly acceptable to 99% of the population, and appear crisp and sharp..

I have a Viewsonic VX2835WM which has a claimed 3ms G-G and a 5ms Typical response (uses cheaper TN+ panel that has better response, poorer viewing angles), and even the most hardened critic that's seen it considers the response time as good as you'd ever expect..

But my work monitor, a HP ZR24W, has a 5ms response time claimed, but is S-IPS (better viewing angles, worse response times) and that has noticeably, but still perfectly acceptable smearing, you have to really look for it..

In general terms, I'd say any Monitor claiming 10-12ms is on the verge of me not recommending it, and get to 15-20ms and I'd say you really will struggle..

(One caveat is that I have some older LCD monitors such as the Dell 2001FP that claimed 16ms, but actually perform the same as my 5ms HP ZR24W, I suspect Dell's response times was a worse case value..)

Don't forget that in TV's, response times these days are generally getting much better (The new Sony's claim 4ms), but response time pales into insignificance over the sets processing abilities, they are set up to 'smooth' motion out, and in reality can obliterate a lot of detail and smear terribly if they don't have specific modes to allow a more pure route when used with a games console etc..

There is an easy test that I use that demonstrates the more real world average effect imposed by response time/processing, and that is using a PC, and just a simple webpage that has normal sized text on, for example this forum, and grab the web browsers title bar, moving the browser at a slow-medium speed side to side.. If the text retains a degree of sharpness, and you would say it's easily still readable, then you don't have much to worry about.. If however, the text is getting towards unreadable and rather blurry, you will definitely have a problem..

 

[Moot]

Ok from that I can think a 6ms TV will be fine for 60hz/60fps GT5 and not losing any graphical advantage to a TV with 3ms.
................
Another question. The new Hobbit film will be in 48fps, can the blu-ray display that 48fps if that is how it is encoded onto the disc? And if so a 50/60hz TV will still display it fine.
Incidentally Peter Jackson says the 24fps film type looks better taken from a 48fps master than a direct 24fps shot film. In his opinion.

 

[phil-t]

Ok from that I can think a 6ms TV will be fine for 60hz/60fps GT5 and not losing any graphical advantage to a TV with 3ms.

If it's a PC monitor, I'd be inclined to say that 6ms is more then acceptable in general terms, but you have to remember how some manufactuers lie about their response times..

If it's a TV, then I'd worry far more about the processing capabilities of the TV, that will differ massively from pretty good to appauling..

................
Another question. The new Hobbit film will be in 48fps, can the blu-ray display that 48fps if that is how it is encoded onto the disc? And if so a 50/60hz TV will still display it fine.
Incidentally Peter Jackson says the 24fps film type looks better taken from a 48fps master than a direct 24fps shot film. In his opinion.

Off the top of my head, even if 'some' BR players would spit out a native 1080p/48 video signal, I'm sure 99% of TV's just wouldn't deal with it..

The way they should deal with these things (including 24p) is to use motion interpolation and processing algorithms to upconvert the film to 1080p60 and then encode that on to the Blu-ray disk.. then every TV in the land would deal with it (assuming the BR player can downsample to 1080i/720p for older HD TV's)..

 

[alucard0712]

Ok from that I can think a 6ms TV will be fine for 60hz/60fps GT5 and not losing any graphical advantage to a TV with 3ms.
................
Another question. The new Hobbit film will be in 48fps, can the blu-ray display that 48fps if that is how it is encoded onto the disc? And if so a 50/60hz TV will still display it fine.
Incidentally Peter Jackson says the 24fps film type looks better taken from a 48fps master than a direct 24fps shot film. In his opinion.

I think 48fps means 3D (2x24fps). There is no such thing as 48fps I can think of.

 

[phil_75]

Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. True thing you speak about the Panasonics, but still, today they're the best thing available.

I think I should mention my set at this time, it's only fitting.
Viera TH-50PZ800U
Calibrated to CNET's Settings for normal viewing, THX Mode for Blu-Ray.

Try here www.hdtvtest.co.uk much more accurate!

 

[Counter_Z23]

GT5 doesn't even run on true 1080p, it's been upscaled from 1280x1080.

 

[phil_75]

You'd might as well have a native resolution for your tv closer to the source graphics. It'll work better.

The most simple and accurate statement in here!👍

 

[Moot]

I think 48fps means 3D (2x24fps). There is no such thing as 48fps I can think of.

There is, it's called the Hobbit, a new film coming December 2012. It's "big thing" is the new 48fps format, available at "some" cinemas. It's meant to be really smooth. And apparently some people don't like it. Just like liking 3d I suppose, it gives a different feel to watching the film. It's also filmed in a 270degree camera angle. And it will be 3D too.
The director says digital projectors just need a firmware update in order to go to 48fps. I wonder If a similar thing could apply to PS3/Blu-ray players with a firmware update to output the higher frame rate.
Just read another film maker is doing a new film at 60fps, so that conversion to Blu-ray is straight forward and at the proper speed, although it seems it would be 720p 60, rather than 1080p 60, possibly the format just can't cope with that data, they are only 50gb discs after all and slow spin rate. 1080p is restricted to 24fps for blu-ray discs.
..
Sooooo, i think we could be watching 48fps Hobbit on Blu-ray, but only in 720p. But I guess if it was in 3D blu-ray it would only be 720p24 times 2.

Definitely need blu-ray version 2 for PS4!
100gb disc minimum, high speed drives, full multi format support, better colour bit.
They can save super HD for PS5.

 

[ShawnPhillips]

Definitely need blu-ray version 2 for PS4!
100gb disc minimum, high speed drives, full multi format support, better colour bit.
They can save super HD for PS5.

Sony said a while back that they are working on a new laser that could allow up to 1TB on a single 5" dual layer disc. Can you imagine an entire season of a tv show in 1080p 3D with 7.1 surround sound, or the entire Uncharted trilogy with Hours of extras and the PSVita version on a single disc! Awesome

 

[sumbrownkid]

720p has the edge in some crisp details I never really notice, and the game automatically chooses to output to 1080p, so I never bothered to really see if it's any better. My guess is not so much.

 

[Moot]

Sony said a while back that they are working on a new laser that could allow up to 1TB on a single 5" dual layer disc. Can you imagine an entire season of a tv show in 1080p 3D with 7.1 surround sound, or the entire Uncharted trilogy with Hours of extras and the PSVita version on a single disc! Awesome

Yes I can imagine, so it has to happen, and surely it will be the marketing tool Sony needs for PS4. Backwards compatible of course.
This is the kind of tech that needs a worldwide big launch, to make it happen, backed by the movie industry, and their is little risk if it still acts as a "normal" blu-ray player. If current blu-ray and PS3 can't be updated with firmware, then it is essential for 1080p 3D films and higher frame rates.
It could be down to the Hobbit and it's visual success that defines peoples appetite for the next step.
So a PS4 ready to market in end of 2013 could be good timing.