Will my Sony 34XBR910 display 1080p material?

[archiguy]

Are the new HD optical formats able to deliver deinterlaced 1080 (1080p) video to a display device and is my TV capable of displaying it that way?

[avhed]

Yes, only the bottom models do not do 1080p.
Your TV cannot display 1080p.

[archiguy]

Originally Posted by avhed

Yes, only the bottom models do not do 1080p.
Your TV cannot display 1080p.

I thought high-end CRT televisions like the XBR's could handle the high refresh rates required by progressive-scanned HD material.....? I know the "native" resolution is 1080i, but thought it could display both 720p and 1080p material if a source could provide it. That's one of the reasons I haven't upgraded my HDTV; I was waiting on the HD optical formats (and 1080p source devices) to realize it's "full potential".

I wonder if it's theoretically possible for a direct-view HDTV to display 1080p material? If LCD's and plasma's can do it, why not CRT's?

[raouliii]

The Sony HD CRTs have a fixed horizontal scan rate of 33.75KHz, equivalent to 1080i or 540p. But they sure look great doing it. They still beat the PQ pants off of much of the cheap LCD sets available.

[UWisconsin97]

Originally Posted by archiguy

I was waiting on the HD optical formats (and 1080p source devices) to realize it's "full potential".

If you're waiting for more 1080p sources, you may never upgrade..

What ARE you waiting for to become available in 1080p?

[EchoTony]

I have this same TV and it does 1080i, 720p, 540p & 540i. It doesn't do 1080p... it will just blank out.

It doesn't need 1080p to look good on this TV. Anything that is outputting 1080p, can likely down convert to something the XBR910 can display, and do it very well.

avhed: why would you call the xbr910 a bottom model? I believe it was the top of the line consumer CRT TV at the time. There wasn't much 1080i stuff around then, let alone 1080p.

[avhed]

Originally Posted by EchoTony

I have this same TV and it does 1080i, 720p, 540p & 540i. It doesn't do 1080p... it will just blank out.

It doesn't need 1080p to look good on this TV. Anything that is outputting 1080p, can likely down convert to something the XBR910 can display, and do it very well.

avhed: why would you call the xbr910 a bottom model? I believe it was the top of the line consumer CRT TV at the time. There wasn't much 1080i stuff around then, let alone 1080p.

Your set does not do 720p. It accepts that input and converts to 1080i.
My first sentence answers the first question- about optical formats, not about the tv.

[like.no.other.]

Originally Posted by archiguy

Are the new HD optical formats able to deliver de-interlaced 1080 (1080p) video to a display device and is my TV capable of displaying it that way?

This is the way the TV converts:

480i = 480p, 960i, 480p 3:2 Pulldown. Depending on DRC modes.
480p = 480p.
720p = Line doubles it and interlace it to 1080i.
1080i = 1080i.
1080p = Interlace it to make it 1080i.

Although it doesn't display 1080p, feeding it 1080p will look better on the screen
than feeding it 1080i.

The refresh rate of this TV 30Hz or 29.97 frames each second.

Now to convert this to actual image, it will look better than Vizio or Westinghouse
1080p LCD.

[avhed]

Quote: "720p = Line doubles it and interlace it to 1080i."

Doesn't line doubling means double 720p> 1440


Quote: "Although it doesn't display 1080p, feeding it 1080p will look better on the screen than feeding it 1080i."

Never heard of this, a deinterlaced will look better than native? I have a 34XS9555 and will try it when I get a 1080p player.

[au revoir]

Quote:

"Although it doesn't display 1080p, feeding it 1080p will look better on the screen
than feeding it 1080i."

I can partially confirm this, at least with regard to my XBR970, which will accept a 1080p signal from my up-converting Sony DVP-NS77h DVD player over HDMI.

It definitely looks different from 1080i, so I'm not sure what exactly the TV is doing with the signal. Does it look better? Hard to say. It is sometimes grainer, but I think it is slightly sharper. Nothing really dramatic though.

Of course the XBR910 may be different, and may even go blank when a 1080p signal is fed to it.

So why is my 1080i XBR970 accepting a 1080p signal at all? One possibility is that my DVD player is not feeding a "true" 1080p signal.

The previous version (DVP-NS75H) did not have a 1080p output, but was otherwise identical, as far as I know. So my DVD player might be putting out some sort of "simulated" 1080p signal. However, this is only speculation on my part.

[like.no.other.]

Originally Posted by avhed

Quote: "720p = Line doubles it and interlace it to 1080i."

Doesn't line doubling means double 720p> 1440


Quote: "Although it doesn't display 1080p, feeding it 1080p will look better on the screen than feeding it 1080i."

Never heard of this, a deinterlaced will look better than native? I have a 34XS9555 and will try it when I get a 1080p player.

It doubles the lines so the whole 720p will be upconvert to 1080 scan lines and
deinterlace it.

Originally Posted by au revoir

Quote:

"Although it doesn't display 1080p, feeding it 1080p will look better on the screen
than feeding it 1080i."

I can partially confirm this, at least with regard to my XBR970, which will accept a 1080p signal from my up-converting Sony DVP-NS77h DVD player over HDMI.

It definitely looks different from 1080i, so I'm not sure what exactly the TV is doing with the signal. Does it look better? Hard to say. It is sometimes grainer, but I think it is slightly sharper. Nothing really dramatic though.

Of course the XBR910 may be different, and may even go blank when a 1080p signal is fed to it.

So why is my 1080i XBR970 accepting a 1080p signal at all? One possibility is that my DVD player is not feeding a "true" 1080p signal.

The previous version (DVP-NS75H) did not have a 1080p output, but was otherwise identical, as far as I know. So my DVD player might be putting out some sort of "simulated" 1080p signal. However, this is only speculation on my part.

I am not sure of this either. My XBR970 accepts 1080p but the Display said 1080i.
I am using PS3 via HDMI watching Blu-Ray. If you ask how will I know the PS3 is
outputting 1080i instead of 1080p? I played with patterns on DVD comparing PS3
modes 1080i, 720p, and 1080p. They are all different.

[archiguy]

Is there some reason (this one's for the more technically savvy) why a CRT based HDTV can't display a 1080p image? I thought my XRB910 was the biggest, baddest CRT on the planet - best tube, best resolution, best everything baby. Now I feel diminished and despondent.

[raouliii]

Originally Posted by archiguy

Is there some reason (this one's for the more technically savvy) why a CRT based HDTV can't display a 1080p image? I thought my XRB910 was the biggest, baddest CRT on the planet - best tube, best resolution, best everything baby. Now I feel diminished and despondent.

There is no technical reason that a CRT television can't display 1080p. However, AFAIK, no consumer grade CRT television is or has been available that was designed to scan progressively at an HD resolution.

You must consider that 1080p only existed on paper when the Sony CRTs were designed. Other than a few upgrades and downgrades, bells and whistles, the current XBR970 is not very different from the XBR800 that hit the market five or six years ago. Sony has not redesigned their CRTs in many years.

That being said, the XBR800 and its decendants can still hold their own against most of the LCD junk out there as far as PQ goes. A lot is said about resolution but when comparing the analog CRT world and the digital world, it truely is apples and oranges.

[like.no.other.]

Originally Posted by archiguy

Is there some reason (this one's for the more technically savvy) why a CRT based HDTV can't display a 1080p image? I thought my XRB910 was the biggest, baddest CRT on the planet - best tube, best resolution, best everything baby. Now I feel diminished and despondent.

The engineering of the CRT is very difficult especially a big HDTV or worse, widescreen.
The bigger the CRT the harder it is to put in the grille or mask because of tension and
it doesn't really help the yoke when making a straight picture so you get geometry
problems. People always keep saying that why are CRT monitor can push as much as
1920x1080 or more. The thing is that they are small and easier to engineer and the
yoke is in a good place to send the beam of light without geometry problem. Interlacing
is a good way to cut corners in order to keep a higher resolution without stressing
the grille or mask. That's what I've been taught from a engineer/technician.

[scarekrow]

yeah it might be difficult but the main point here is "less expenses for them = more profits for them"

why make a 500 crt and sell it for 1500 bucks when you could make a 200 dollar lcd and sell it for 2000 (just a ball park, these are no where near real costs so please don't nitpick, i'm just saying companies are greedy)

[like.no.other.]

Originally Posted by scarekrow

yeah it might be difficult but the main point here is "less expenses for them = more profits for them"

why make a 500 crt and sell it for 1500 bucks when you could make a 200 dollar lcd and sell it for 2000 (just a ball park, these are no where near real costs so please don't nitpick, i'm just saying companies are greedy)

Actually Sony sell these CRT for less than manufacturing cost. They do sell LCD or
3LCD for much more than the manufacturing cost so all in all they get profit.

[au revoir]

How can they sell a product at a loss and then provide a 2 year warranty? No company is that crazy.

I'm sure they are making some profit on the initial sale (otherwise they would just dump the TV's into the ocean) but I think what determines if they lose any money must logically be whether the TV needs any warranty work done.

Because I'm sure warranty work would definitely cost more than any small profit they made on the sale.

[Parnelli66]

Originally Posted by archiguy

Is there some reason (this one's for the more technically savvy) why a CRT based HDTV can't display a 1080p image? I thought my XRB910 was the biggest, baddest CRT on the planet - best tube, best resolution, best everything baby. Now I feel diminished and despondent.

The biggest baddest CRT on the planet is a 9 inch projector. Your Tube could handle it but it doesn't have the electronics to do it

[Parnelli66]

Originally Posted by raouliii

There is no technical reason that a CRT television can't display 1080p. However, AFAIK, no consumer grade CRT television is or has been available that was designed to scan progressively at an HD resolution.

You must consider that 1080p only existed on paper when the Sony CRTs were designed. Other than a few upgrades and downgrades, bells and whistles, the current XBR970 is not very different from the XBR800 that hit the market five or six years ago. Sony has not redesigned their CRTs in many years.

That being said, the XBR800 and its decendants can still hold their own against most of the LCD junk out there as far as PQ goes. A lot is said about resolution but when comparing the analog CRT world and the digital world, it truely is apples and oranges.

Not True, the 910 and 960 XBR had the super fine pitch aperture grill and more resolution than the later 970 model, so they went backwards

[archiguy]

Originally Posted by Parnelli66

The biggest baddest CRT on the planet is a 9 inch projector. Your Tube could handle it but it doesn't have the electronics to do it

That's what I'm wondering about, I guess. What is the limiting factor in the electronics? In other words, could they replace a circuit board or something and get 1080p capability out of these sets?

And I have heard that the super fine picture tube in the 910 and 960 models can indeed resolve just as many lines of resolution as the 9-inch gun projectors. Is that not the case?