HD question, 720P at 1024 x 768?
T.D.
discussion I've read, it takes al least 1280 X 768 to display HD at 720P.
All of the current 42" plasmas I've seen (pioneer, sony, panny) have a
native resolution of 1024 X 768 but claim to have "full hdtv resolution."
How does this work? Are they merely claiming to be HD? What about 1080i?
Just want to know what I'm really buying.
Thanks,
Tom
Mack McKinnon
broadcast all signals. My Sony LCD RPTV displays everything at 788p -- 788
lines of 1368 (or something near that) pixels. It can use 480i SD, 480p ED
or the HD signals 720p or 1080i, but the final, actual, presentation on the
screen is 788p. The difference in the look of the final picture comes from
the difference in the signal it is made from, not from any change in the way
the picture I see is produced. (Or so I currently believe, based on what I
have read.)
mack
austin
"T.D." <t...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Njhhd.18465$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Matthew L. Martin
> I've been looking to replace my old 36" CRT with a 42" plasma. In all the
> discussion I've read, it takes al least 1280 X 768 to display HD at 720P.
> All of the current 42" plasmas I've seen (pioneer, sony, panny) have a
> native resolution of 1024 X 768 but claim to have "full hdtv resolution."
> How does this work?
It doesn't. They scale the input resolution down to the set's native
resolution. A 1024x768 fixed pixel display can't display "full hdtv
resolution".
> Are they merely claiming to be HD?
Yes. It is marketing. They are selling a display that isn't capable of
displaying the lowest resolution HDTV signal as an HDTV.
> What about 1080i?
Same thing. All fixed pixel displays (LCD, Plasma, LCoS, DLP etc) have a
native resolution. All of them scale the input to match that native
resolution. CRT based HDTVs typically scale their inputs to 1080i.
> Just want to know what I'm really buying.
If it doesn't have at least 1280x720 pixels, it isn't HDTV.
Matthew
--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
SaltiDawg
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> ...
> If it doesn't have at least 1280x720 pixels, it isn't HDTV.
Matthew,
So you believe that the ATSC standard applies to the resolution of the
display panel rather than the transmitted signal?
Matthew L. Martin
Where did I say that? A display that is incapable of displaying the
minimum resolution of HDTV ought not to claim to have "full hdtv
resolution". Where is ATSC mentioned?
Matthew
Charlie Ih
1024x1024 resolution. So they can (sort of) display native 1080i by
skipping some horizontal lines.
In article <10obvqa...@corp.supernews.com>,
SaltiDawg
T.D. wrote:
Tom,
The 1024 X 768 is an acceptable resolution for your 42" set to be called
an HDTV, as opposed to an EDTV.
You may want to read: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
for a good explanation. Many confuse the BROADCAST standard (ATSC) with
screen resolution requirements. There are very very few sets that can
display all 1920 X 1080 pixels in a 1080i transmission - but no station
transmits all 1920 pixels anyway.
Lucas Tam
news:Njhhd.18465$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
> All of the current 42" plasmas I've seen (pioneer, sony, panny) have a
> native resolution of 1024 X 768 but claim to have "full hdtv
> resolution." How does this work? Are they merely claiming to be HD?
> What about 1080i? Just want to know what I'm really buying.
These displays downsample an incoming HD-signal into a native resolution of
~1024x576 to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Downsampling can be done by a variety of algorithms, and how well the
downsampling is down will affect the image quality.
In anycase, the screen should look much better than a standard TV...
because even with 576 vertical pixels it still more resolution than what a
standard TV can display.
--
Lucas Tam (REMOV...@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Matthew L. Martin
> Many 42" plasma panel displays (some of the Sony, Philips, etc) have
> 1024x1024 resolution. So they can (sort of) display native 1080i by
> skipping some horizontal lines.
>
Except, of course, for the 1920 part of 1080i.
Matthew
JDeats
"T.D." <t...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<Njhhd.18465$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
Tom,
You are correct, there are two HD formats currently in use by
broadcasters. These are 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced) and 720p
(1280x720 progressive). There is one additional HD format assigned by
ATSC that's currently not in use (and probably will never be
broadcasted), this is 1080p. These are the formats that make up High
Definition; they are the standards everyone conforms to.
So the only thing to really concern yourself with about these two
formats is to know that one is about as a good as the other. Both
formats are HD, you've probably done your own research there so I
won't get into all that. To address your question, when it comes to
Plasma and LCD technology, the hardware forces an optimal resolution
which isn't always 1:1 with the HD standards. To be true HD, the
device must meet or exceed the standards. A resolution of 1280x768
exceeds 1280x720 so the display you're looking at is true HD.
Since HD content is broadcast out in 1080i and 720p formats (note:
most cable companies have elected 1080i exclusively and even convert
720p content to 1080i for networks such as ESPN and FOX that broadcast
in 720p), however it's transparent to the consumer, because all the HD
boxes can output 720p or 1080i (and most will even downconvert HD
content to 480p)
So the native format of the television has become less important
lately. The Pionner may have a native resolution of 1280x768, but it
has scaling technology to accept 720p or 1080i signal and scale it to
it's native resolution, so there is no worry.
The only negative in all of this is that many Plasma displays and "HD"
projectors (especially those < $3000) are not HD sets, their native
resolution doesn't meet HD standards and they require "EDTV" 480p
native. Many consumers who have bought this product believe they have
HDTV, when they do not.
-Jeremy
Matthew L. Martin
>
>
> T.D. wrote:
>
>> I've been looking to replace my old 36" CRT with a 42" plasma. In all
>> the
>> discussion I've read, it takes al least 1280 X 768 to display HD at 720P.
>> All of the current 42" plasmas I've seen (pioneer, sony, panny) have a
>> native resolution of 1024 X 768 but claim to have "full hdtv resolution."
>> How does this work? Are they merely claiming to be HD? What about
>> 1080i?
>> Just want to know what I'm really buying.
>
>
> Tom,
>
> The 1024 X 768 is an acceptable resolution for your 42" set to be called
> an HDTV, as opposed to an EDTV.
>
> You may want to read: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
Where it specifically says that 1024x768 displays can't show every pixel
of 720p HDTV or 1080i HDTV. Why do you think that they are HDTV?
> for a good explanation. Many confuse the BROADCAST standard (ATSC) with
> screen resolution requirements. There are very very few sets that can
> display all 1920 X 1080 pixels in a 1080i transmission - but no station
> transmits all 1920 pixels anyway.
What does that have to do with the fact that 1024x768 panels can't
display even the lowest HDTV resolution of 1280x720? Calling these
devices HDTVs is maketing hype.
Matthew
curmudgeon
ATSC sets the standards and a TV either meets the standard or it doesn't.
Rationalize all you want but plasmas do NOT display HD according to ANY
standard, and it is NOT acceptable for them to be called HDTV capable. They
are NOT.
What stations broadcast or what other sets display is totally beside the
point of this definition.
"SaltiDawg" <saltida...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:4186...@news101.his.com...
SaltiDawg
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> What does that have to do with the fact that 1024x768 panels can't
> display even the lowest HDTV resolution of 1280x720? Calling these
> devices HDTVs is maketing hype.
Matthew,
You really don't understand the difference between an ATSC BROADCAST
SIGNAL and display resolution. For a set to be labeled HDTV there is NO
required number of horizontal pixels. CES defines what may be called an
HDTV, the FCC establishes the BROADCAST signal requirements. The twain
does not have to meet.
SaltiDawg
curmudgeon wrote:
> ...
> Rationalize all you want but plasmas do NOT display HD according to ANY
> standard, and it is NOT acceptable for them to be called HDTV capable. They
> are NOT. ...
Nonsense. CEA defines what may be called an HDTV. So how would YOU
decide if CRT display is an HDTV? LOL
Jeff Rife
> Many 42" plasma panel displays (some of the Sony, Philips, etc) have
> 1024x1024 resolution. So they can (sort of) display native 1080i by
> skipping some horizontal lines.
Not even close.
Even with source filtering to 1440x1080 before broadcast, you lose 33% of the
pixels when you have a 1024x1024 display.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/manure.gif
Ask...@usdoj.gov |
sp...@ftc.gov |
Jeff Rife
> The 1024 X 768 is an acceptable resolution for your 42" set to be called
> an HDTV, as opposed to an EDTV.
>
> display all 1920 X 1080 pixels in a 1080i transmission - but no station
> transmits all 1920 pixels anyway.
But, every station transmits 1280x720 (for the networks that use that
resolution). By handling only 1024x768, you lose 20% of the pixels. Sure,
that's not as bad as losing 55% of the pixels that a 853x480 panel will,
but it's still not full HD.
Then, too, the really dumb-ass choice of 1024x768 for a 16x9 display means
that *everything* must be scaled to keep the aspect ratio correct. This
will also result in some artifacts, although not actual loss of resolution.
--
Jeff Rife | "...the flames began at a prophylactic recycling
SPAM bait: | plant, near the edge of the forest..."
Ask...@usdoj.gov |
sp...@ftc.gov | -- "WarGames"
dg
news:4186...@news101.his.com...
> So you believe that the ATSC standard applies to the resolution of the
> display panel rather than the transmitted signal?
>
My HDTV broke so I lately I have been watching TV on a very old 19" crap TV.
I watch HBO-HD and Discovery HD, but I am surely not actually SEEING HD.
Just because somebody broadcasts HD ATSC signal doesn't mean everybody
watching that signal is seeing true HD quality. A monitor is a monitor, if
it can't display actual 1280x720, it shouldn't be called a HDTV.
--Dan
Matthew L. Martin
>
>
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>
>> What does that have to do with the fact that 1024x768 panels can't
>> display even the lowest HDTV resolution of 1280x720? Calling these
>> devices HDTVs is maketing hype.
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> You really don't understand the difference between an ATSC BROADCAST
> SIGNAL and display resolution.
As a matter of fact, I do undertand the difference.
> For a set to be labeled HDTV there is NO
> required number of horizontal pixels.
AFAIK, there is no legal definition of a HDTV display.
> CES defines what may be called an
> HDTV, the FCC establishes the BROADCAST signal requirements. The twain
> does not have to meet.
>
As I said, marketing hype.
Matthew
tw
I'm still trying to figure out how they put 1024X768 on a 16:9 screen. If
they scale down to 578 in widescreen, isn't that the actual resolution if it
fills the whole screen? What is the resolution in 4:3? It doesn't go up to
1024X768 does it? What about the side bars?
Tom
"T.D." <t...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Njhhd.18465$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Mack McKinnon
"tw" <t...@w.com> wrote in message
news:sxyhd.15049$Rf1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Thanks to everyone for their replies. It's all very informative.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how they put 1024X768 on a 16:9 screen. If
> they scale down to 578 in widescreen, isn't that the actual resolution if
it
> fills the whole screen? What is the resolution in 4:3? It doesn't go up
to
> 1024X768 does it? What about the side bars?
The actual resolution on your screen, everything up there including the side
bars, is the "native resolution" of your particular TV set. My Sony
KDF-60XS955 has a resolution of 768 lines of 1368 dots with all signals
displayed at 788p. (There's some overscan.) So, when I get a 720p signal
from FOX, I see all the pixels they broadcast. But when I get a 1080i
signal from CBS or HBO, I only see most of them. The rest are sent to Pixel
Heaven. But both signals look stupendous. To see every pixel of a 720p
HDTV broadcast, the native resolution of your screen must be 1280 X 720 or
higher.
With 1024 X 768, you can see every pixel of a wide-screen DVD but you won't
get every pixel of 720p HDTV. It'll still look a damn sight better than
standard definition, though.
mack
austin
ste...@bellsouth.net
Most sets cant display the full resolution of HDTV
The set for under ten grand that displays the full resolution doesnt exist
My rptv has about 850 lines according to the test pattern that hdnet
displays from time to time, and this is considered pretty good for a CRT
model, but I'm not that familar with plasmas.
I can tell you one thing, you wont be able to eyball the difference
ste...@bellsouth.net
And after that wade through the byzantine world of video resolution, scan
lines, etc
Heres a few simple things, and some dont seem to make sense, but just
remember, people dont make natural law, they work with it
First things first, your not going to get true 1080 (either interlaced or
progressive ) with a set under ten grand
The good news is you dont need it
Second, theres a difference between SCAN LINES and SCREEN RESOLUTION
For instance, on 480i you'll always get 480 scan lines, but on most sets the
resolution will be around
330 to 400 lines
Now you might notice that screen resolutions on "fixed" (single) scan
devices (lcd. plasma) are the same as computer monitors, this is basically
because they ARE computer monitors, with "progressive" scan rates like
computer monitors
So lets work our way down, okay?
A set with a native res of 1080 progressive has to upconvert EVERYTHING TO
1080 P BECAUSE theres no commercial source of 1080p material. On the good
side if they ever start showing such stuff it will look positivly
spectacular(720 p, which ABC uses is said to look good on 1080p displays)
10 80i is next. This is kind of a con, because of inherent problems with
interlaced video this is only the second best hi-def source, just above 480
p that comes out of progressive dvd players.
This is because its interlaced, with two frames of 540 laced together. This
produces artifacts, and while you will get 1080 lines on your set, thats
just as long as the picture is sitting still! As soon as theres movement the
picture will collapse into HALF of its resolution, this is called no such
thing as a free lunch. this will give you a screen res of 540 lines on a
moving picture. About 60 more than the 480p of a progressive signal, like a
dvd player
For instance, on hdnet recently they had a resolution test pattern, which my
set measured out to 850 lines, very good for a sub 2000 tv, but as soon as
theres movement the res is going to drop to 540, the maximum of 1080i when
movement is involved. Black level, color depth, etc is hugh, tho, and will
allow this pic to beat a dvd, though
But if you ever thought that your DVD was about as good as your 1080i pic
youre probably right, especially if the set involved lets you use the high
def "color palate" when viewing DVDS
This is why Joe Kane, kind of a Guru of high def formats that you can read
in widescreen review, favors 720 p
720p has no artifacts, and the 720 lines of res are a true 720 lines, they
wont disapear when theres movement
ABC listened to the joe kanes of the world and broadcast in this format
Back to your plasma, it is whats considered a "true" hdtv even though its
scan rate is somewhat short, because its display probably wont resolve the
full resolution anyway, not unless you pay 20 grand for it
Get a 720P and enjoy the new series "lost" on ABC tv, this thing looked
spectacular even after my set converted its 720p to 1080i
It shouLd look positivly filmlike with a 720p set
(film, BTW is still the resolution champ, with rez of 2000 lines and UP)
Fred Bloggs
<ste...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:EYRhd.16667$T_....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
B. Earp
news:rEDhd.15796$cS6....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Your not talking about that big a difference
> Most sets cant display the full resolution of HDTV
> The set for under ten grand that displays the full resolution doesnt exist
> My rptv has about 850 lines according to the test pattern that hdnet
> displays from time to time, and this is considered pretty good for a CRT
> model, but I'm not that familar with plasmas.
> I can tell you one thing, you wont be able to eyball the difference
the crucial thing you're missing in this pretty much blanket statement is
screen size - the smaller the screen, the less lines you can see so no point
in squeezing in lines that won't make a visible difference and then paying
through the nose. The same doesn't apply with bigger images.
Baassston
<clip>
Both 720p and 1080i HDTV look superior to NTSC. Which is better? On
still images or material with little motion, 1080i should provide more
detail. But on fast-motion scenes, such as sports, 720p's rendering of
full frames every sixtieth of a second, instead of half-frame fields,
should yield a cleaner picture. CBS and NBC have chosen 1080i; ABC and
Fox have opted for 720p.
ste...@bellsouth.net
> evidently he does, which is ass backwards.
My comp monitor is an lcd running at 1280/1024, so does the dvds I watch on
it have hi-def rez?
Its very difficult to get full resolution on a monitor under ten grand, by
saying that a monitor doesnt reach some such res is self defeating and
wrong.
High def isnt just resolution, its color range, black level, lack of noise,
etc, and the difference in 480p and 1080i is less than most would like to
admit.
My rear projection gets 850 lines, so it doesnt qualify for hi-def?
The manufacturers had a choice, make a bunch of receivers NOW that, while
deficient slightly would still,be better than nothing, or actually NOTHING
I think they made a wise choice. Walking through circuit city, or sears
(where the plasmas have taken over)I am amazed at the moderatly priced
choices people have, and few if any of these sets are hi-def, if any are
Which is fine, it took video 50 years to outgrow NTSC, Why should hi-def be
full standard out of the gate? A picture of 850 lines rez is better than
most have, and looks fine, almost indistinguishable from an actual 1080i.
To say a picture isnt hi-def because it fails to meet some arbritary
benchmark is technically correct but actually misleading, kinda like saying
that a speaker is "HI-FI" because it wont reach 20,000 hz, a signal few can
hear