Wobulation i hear is pretty close to true 1080p, but not exactly 1080p

So are wobulation tv's infearior in terms of picture quality?

Is it even possible to tell a difference

I'm gonna order a tv this week, but there's on last thing before I can do so.

If wobulation ends up being crappy and I can tell a difference, then back to square one on TV searching. It's been literally 3 months of research. I want the best for my money and the most reliable.

I spent $3500 on a WD-52525 just on a drop of a dime, and 2 years later it's dead and it'll be a $1000 fix.

Sucks I know so I'm being a lot more cautious.

There are some who claim that a wobulated image is in some way inferior to a non-wobulated one, but from everything I've read, including from the professional reviewers i.e. CNET, Xtremetech, Home Theater Mag etc it's not really possible to see much if any difference in normal viewing. I've even seen comments that a wobulated image can be better, because there are no sharp boundaries between adjacent (wobulated) pixels, but can't verify that.

I've always wondered about this. I don't know one way or the other, but isn't wobulation equivalent to "vertical interlacing" ? if that is the case, why isn't it considered "inferior" in terms of image quality like horizontal interlacing as in 480i or 1080i is worse than 480p or 1080p?

If they still made a square, 90 degree pixel DLP chip for use in RPTVs, wouldn't you jump at it, rather than a wobulated one? I would. There's gotta be a reason for that.

Pixels aren't meant to be rotated or blended with eachother.

Suggest learning how to access the monoscope resolution-wedge test pattern supposedly included on some/all Blu-ray discs, then try reading the maximum effective resolution at a store using a Blu-ray. Some in the Blu-ray forums (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=717346) have read ~1920X1080 and might provide tips. You could also buy/borrow a AccuPel or another test pattern generator for a 1920X1080 source. If you can't resolve full test pattern rez, then the RPTV's wobulation chip might similarly lessen program details--although the effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) (resolvable detail) of sampled program material can't match the full 1920X1080 possible with non-sampled test patterns. If it can't, it's a question of how much resolution loss is acceptable. I noticed, scanning the Samsung LED-based RPTV thread here for "resolution," that there are a number of unanswered queries about what might be poor resolution from what should be a full-1080p (1920X1080) display. -- John

...isn't wobulation equivalent to "vertical interlacing" ? if that is the case, why isn't it considered "inferior" in terms of image quality like horizontal interlacing as in 480i or 1080i is worse than 480p or 1080p?

I feel a little nervous about getting so far out of my knowledge comfort zone, but as I understand it "interlacing" involves filling in for missing data compared to the native resolution of the display.

In contrast, wobulation is a way of displaying the full amount of signal data using half as many mirrors. It simply means that individual mirrors generate two, rather than one, screen pixel images. But each of these two images contains real, separate data. So I see no reason why wobulation should generate an inferior image just because of this.

This conversation cries out for one of the real technical experts on this forum. help?

I feel a little nervous about getting so far out of my knowledge comfort zone, but as I understand it "interlacing" involves filling in for missing data compared to the native resolution of the display.

In contrast, wobulation is a way of displaying the full amount of signal data using half as many mirrors. It simply means that individual mirrors generate two, rather than one, screen pixel images. But each of these two images contains real, separate data. So I see no reason why wobulation should generate an inferior image just because of this.

This conversation cries out for one of the real technical experts on this forum. help?


I went to wikipedia and read a little about wobulation and apparently it is a form of interlacing.

So if that's the case it has to be inferior to standard 1080p. I wonder if it has the same problems as a 1080i, 480i picture?

I'm starting to think the HDTV's today suck.

and why hasn't anyone told me I spelled inferior wrong?

I went to wikipedia and read a little about wobulation and apparently it is a form of interlacing... So if that's the case it has to be inferior to standard 1080p.

Uh, no, that's not how I read it. The author uses interlacing as an analogy to help the reader understand, but if you look what both interlacing and wobulation do, they operate in different segments of the image generation process. At least that's how it appears to me, but this energises me to research some more, so thanks for that.