Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4
Maybe I am missing something about what seems intuitively obvious. We have a display with a native resolution of 4096 x 2160. We can basically input in my world of sources 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p 24 and 1080p 60. If the projector had a native panel of 1920 x 1080, the souces below 1080p would be deinterlaced if necessary and scaled if necessary and most would clearly look better to our eyes than if displayed by a panel that was their native.
If you took a 480p image and displayed it with larger pixels on a 480p projector and then showed that on a 12 foot screen, what would bother you is the size of said pixels which would become very visible. Upscaling then to a 1080p projector reduces pixel sizes and with it, gives an image that looks less "digital."
If you have a 1080p projector today and are not seeing the pixel edges, then making the pixels yet again smaller gives you no benefit. Further, the smaller pixels reduce an artifact of display pixels which is to provide a sharpness boost. So all else being equal, an interpolated 4K image will look somewhat softer than on the 1080p. Sony knows this so I suspect by default it is sharpening the image as it is upscaling it. That is what I showed from the review snapshot. There will be artifacts as clearly seen in those images in the way of increased halos.
The one exception might be that 720p might appear a tad sharper on a 720p native display but the extra pixel density and more let's call it paint on the screen might make it look better especially at close seating distances.
That's right. That is the pixel edge effect I explained above.
So now we take all those sources and display them at 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160. Greater pixel density, more paint. Better scaling, better deinterlacing perhaps, better sharpening, whatever. Greater detail? It depends on how you define it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Honest! The math doesn't provide for any dependency. All frequencies > 1080p were thrown away at the time the video was scaled to 1080p to store on BD disc. No amount of wishing that those pixels coming back makes them come back
. Scalars as used in this projector has no intelligence with respect to image content to synthesize new pixels as their own manual admits.
Real or approximated? Real? Of course not silly. They are silicon. Yea but they look so delicious I just want to reach out and touch them.
Well, you wouldn't be the first guy who likes a manipulation of something instead of having it be transparent
. Here are the two side-by-side images again:
I am sure if I conducted a poll, everyone would say the image on the right is higher resolution and better. Problem is, if I apply the same thing to a different image, then you would complain. Didn't I hear people say film grain was exaggerated? Well that is one of the problem areas.
The source records a number of data points. Points between those points are not recorded. The detail recorded is thus limited. But is like connecting the dots in a child's drawing book. The more dots recorded the more accurate the drawing but if the dots are close together, connecting the dots with a straight line would be fairly accurate. But our machine has wonderful scaling. It examines more than two dots and concludes that the line needs to be slightly curved based on other near points.
There is no "examination" going on. That would require image knowledge and the Sony scalar does not have such knowledge. If I gave you two dots, how would you know that there should be a direct line between them or a curved one?
I appreciate your layman description but the science here is precise and tells you that you can increase your interpolator taps but that is not going to give you more detail. It simply changes the frequency response of the "filter" that it is, and with it, can cause the image to not lose some of the resolution it already has.
Remember, the *ideal* interpolator's (scalar's) job is to do no harm to the source. Everything is a step down, not up! In reality, interpolators can be dialed to produce extra sharpness and artifacts or softer images and less artifacts. The mathematics of the filter (again that is what a scalar is), tells you this.
Add the curve, calculate the contrasts, it looks like greater detain to ones eye. Nothing really different here than before. Just more pixels and better processing. What am I missing?
One key thing: it is NOT the image that was viewed and approved by the talent when the video was produced! If your goal is to color the video, then by all means go for it. Turn up the reds, it will make roses redder. Turn up the green, it will make the grass, well, greener
. I thought our goal in this forum is to discuss how not to do things this way.
The scaler is presenting an approximation of the detail that would be presented in a 4HD or 4K source.
It is not even taking a baby step to do that. The resolution of what you are seeing is 1/4 of 4K. But sure. Why not humor me. Show me a test pattern that pattern on BD discs that on this projector resolves 3K pixels. You have something like this?
Again, you are talking about something that Sony itself says it is not possible. Why would they say this if what you are saying is true?
Just like a lower res panel presenting an even lower res source. The more actual dots to start with, the better will be the approximation.
Only if you captured it that way. Otherwise, it is wishful thinking and anti-science talk.
Throw more computer power at it, throw in some fuzzy logic or whatewver.
There is no fuzzy logic. There is no Hal 2000 in there either.
There are techniques for creating super resolution from multiple frames of something. But they tend to misfire and create horrendous warping artifacts. And at any rate, can be very expensive to create.
It fools you eyes into thinking you are there.
And I don't want to be fooled
. I want exactly what is on disc. I don't want my projector to boost contrast, create halos, exaggerate compression artifacts and film noise. But sure, it is good to have the tool for people who crave such things and that is why we have the adjustment dials on displays.
So what am I missing here?
You mean other than science?
Guys, nothing wrong with loving this projector. Say that you love the picture and we are done. But please, please, let's not pretend there is some magic explanation or increased resolution here. These are basics of signal processing I am talking about.
Let me finish by saying that the demos I saw at CES showed this projector to be a fine specimen. And it may be the best there is in that price range. So please you all, don't be defensive
. Just trying to make sure your back is protected as you sing the praises of this projector, lest we want to sound like the hallways of Bestbuy