<p>Native resolution is always better than non-native.  If it only has a resolution of 720p, then it would have to be down-converting to that resolution which means it has to blend pixels which can produce artifacts from the pixel blending.  (Notably, softer edges is the most likely.)</p>

<p>Update: I'm sorry, re-reading, I noticed that it isn't native for either resolution.  I didn't read closely enough as I was a bit tired when responding just before bed.  Given that the resolution exceeds 720p, it would probably be better to use the higher resolution, though the interlacing would be the bigger problem.  I'd suggest trying both and picking whichever looks better to you.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-14T12:59:09.853Z
Although given the option I would usually go for the p as the interlaced ones really annoy me. My peripheral vision is very sensitive to flicker. . .
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-15T12:05:50.287Z
Indeed interlacing and frame rate is going to be the biggest issue here; going down from 1080 to 720 lines should work flawlessly and give no difference to native resolution quality-wise – after all sampling is _lossless_, right...? (It really is, in this sense!)
leftaroundabout
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-15T13:10:46.233Z
@leftaroundabout - This would actually be resampling which isn't lossless and involves interpolation of data. It still isn't compression as the point is making a new set of images based on the old one rather than storing the old one using less space.  Please don't try and drag it in to other completely unrelated questions.  The downconversion or upconversion both result in a quality loss as it is not an equal ratio and pixels have to be blended which has a net loss of real resolution compared to the original.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-14T08:22:45.400Z
2013-07-14T21:14:11.190Z
2013-07-14T21:14:11.190Z
AJ Henderson
<p>I have a LCD monitor which only has resolution of <code>1366 x 768</code>, and it can support <code>1080i</code></p>

<p>So, </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Should I output 1080i video to this monitor, or should I just use 720p? Which one is better?</p></li>
<li><p>I have tested using <code>1080i/50</code> give me the best result, while <code>1080i/60</code> produce flicking image, any idea?</p></li>
</ol>

<video-quality><hdmi><full-hd><video-standards><hdcp>
Using 1080i on a 720P monitor will produce better image/video quality?
Ryan
# Using 1080i on a 720P monitor will produce better image/video quality?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-07-14)

I have a LCD monitor which only has resolution of `1366 x 768`, and it can support `1080i`

So,

1. Should I output 1080i video to this monitor, or should I just use 720p? Which one is better?
2. I have tested using `1080i/50` give me the best result, while `1080i/60` produce flicking image, any idea?

**Tags:** video-quality, hdmi, full-hd, video-standards, hdcp


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-07-14. Score: 2

Native resolution is always better than non-native. If it only has a resolution of 720p, then it would have to be down-converting to that resolution which means it has to blend pixels which can produce artifacts from the pixel blending. (Notably, softer edges is the most likely.)

Update: I'm sorry, re-reading, I noticed that it isn't native for either resolution. I didn't read closely enough as I was a bit tired when responding just before bed. Given that the resolution exceeds 720p, it would probably be better to use the higher resolution, though the interlacing would be the bigger problem. I'd suggest trying both and picking whichever looks better to you.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Although given the option I would usually go for the p as the interlaced ones really annoy me. My peripheral vision is very sensitive to flicker. . .  
> **username_3**: Indeed interlacing and frame rate is going to be the biggest issue here; going down from 1080 to 720 lines should work flawlessly and give no difference to native resolution quality-wise – after all sampling is _lossless_, right...? (It really is, in this sense!)  
> **username_1**: @username_3 - This would actually be resampling which isn't lossless and involves interpolation of data. It still isn't compression as the point is making a new set of images based on the old one rather than storing the old one using less space.  Please don't try and drag it in to other completely unrelated questions.  The downconversion or upconversion both result in a quality loss as it is not an equal ratio and pixels have to be blended which has a net loss of real resolution compared to the original.  

---

