Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 1468 Old 04-20-2007, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioNeil View Post

I have a Ph.D. in optics and semiconductors. I was sharing my own knowledge about image processing.

...

I am neither desperate, nor a fanboy. I just want the best image. Forums are about debate.

Thanks so much for taking the time to stop by and add your knowledge and expertise to this thread. It won't stop the debate but its one more set of data points for those stopping by to read through.
mkoesel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 1468 Old 04-20-2007, 02:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks TNG!
To audioNeil,

Lets conclude for second that all your statements are factual, you have to keep in mind that all you presented on paper is irrelevant because many different independent side by side tests shown no differences at what is considered normal viewing distances. Do you not find it more than a coincidence that they all came to basically the same conclusion? Those quotes are not mine.
The amount of pixels etc, everything in the end has to come down to the test of the eyes.

There is also a number out there.. I forgot where I found the test, that shows a limit to the perception of the contrast ratio.

You again call 720p from 1080 down conversion. It is cross conversion. Many 720 proponents call the conversion of a 720 progressive signal to a 1080 interlaced format & converting 60 frames to 30 down conversion also, but although I am a 720p advocate, I will not do that.
Common sense should distinguish fair unbiased tests to bias reporting.

I also find it quite common among 1080p proponents, to ignore the 720p signal.

I even have quotes from 1080p proponents that admit up-scaling is a flawed system.

Get the Discovery HD channel in 1080i, put it side by side on the best Sony 1080i CRT TV, and the same signal on the 768p Sony XBR LCD, and then come back & tell me about your artifacts scenarios, if you're honest.............

You keep mentioning artifacts..... but they have shown to be irrelevant in side by side tests, you have realize that there are experts that have said this as well...

"1080p has Problems with artifacts
"A high-resolution image with image artifacts such as motion smearing, incorrect white balance or color points, and grayscale rendering problems may not look as realistic as a lower-resolution image without these problems."
http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm
720p best for sports
1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html


If you have a PHD, perhaps you studied how sound waves are there & could been seen if we had more than 6 senses.
What can be shown on paper sometimes becomes irrelevant when it comes to the perception of the human senses.
I am a researcher, I have quoted enough independent tests that came to the same conclusions.
WHAT IS PERCEIVED BY THE EYE OF THE HUMAN SENSES IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY, even if sounds waves or the smell of a color are there.
In closing, I heard the reaching for Venus or Mars phasing many times throughout my life, I just never thought I would see it.
All I meant, so don't take it to offensive.
Keep in mind that there will be people in the future that will say that 1080p looks better on the 2160p set than on the 1080p one, and you may find yourself quoting the same points of view I have.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #363 of 1468 Old 04-20-2007, 09:44 PM
Member
 
shendley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Okay, I realize I'm dragging this thread a bit off topic, but the claim about seeing that Venus is not a true circle when it is in crescent really got my attention. I've seen it the last two nights and the bottom line for me is that it's just too bright to make it out as a circle or not a circle for my eyes. I searched "Venus" on Sky and Telescope's website and found this about it:

Question: Is it possible, with better than normal eyesight, to see the crescent of Venus?

Answer:
That question has been controversial, but in fact some people can. The rough rule of thumb is that someone with excellent vision can just resolve two image elements 60 arcseconds (60") apart. At times, this is enough resolution to make out the crescent.

To reduce glare, examine Venus in bright twilight rather than in darkness. You can improve your chances by looking through a clean, round hole 2 or 3 millimeters in diameter held just in front of your eye. This reduces spikes and blurring due to optical aberrations away from the center of your pupil.
shendley is offline  
post #364 of 1468 Old 04-21-2007, 05:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hummmmm, on that...
I really feel all points have been made here. Just going to bring up the same points of view over & over,
Who remembers the miller light commercial?
TASTES GREAT.....
LESS FILLING
TASTES GREAT.....
LESS FILLING

Both sides have displayed the times that there side can shine as well as displaying the flaws both sides have. At the end of the day, they're both great, some may want 1080p for the points that side and made and some 720p for the points made there as well.
It' a preference, like a BMW or a Mercades.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #365 of 1468 Old 04-21-2007, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
audioNeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Thanks TNG!
To audioNeil,

Lets conclude for second that all your statements are factual, you have to keep in mind that all you presented on paper is irrelevant because many different independent side by side tests shown no differences at what is considered normal viewing distances. Do you not find it more than a coincidence that they all came to basically the same conclusion? Those quotes are not mine.
The amount of pixels etc, everything in the end has to come down to the test of the eyes.

There is also a number out there.. I forgot where I found the test, that shows a limit to the perception of the contrast ratio.

You again call 720p from 1080 down conversion. It is cross conversion. Many 720 proponents call the conversion of a 720 progressive signal to a 1080 interlaced format & converting 60 frames to 30 down conversion also, but although I am a 720p advocate, I will not do that.
Common sense should distinguish fair unbiased tests to bias reporting.

I also find it quite common among 1080p proponents, to ignore the 720p signal.

I even have quotes from 1080p proponents that admit up-scaling is a flawed system.

Get the Discovery HD channel in 1080i, put it side by side on the best Sony 1080i CRT TV, and the same signal on the 768p Sony XBR LCD, and then come back & tell me about your artifacts scenarios, if you're honest.............

You keep mentioning artifacts..... but they have shown to be irrelevant in side by side tests, you have realize that there are experts that have said this as well...

"1080p has Problems with artifacts
"A high-resolution image with image artifacts such as motion smearing, incorrect white balance or color points, and grayscale rendering problems may not look as realistic as a lower-resolution image without these problems."
http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm
720p best for sports
1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html


If you have a PHD, perhaps you studied how sound waves are there & could been seen if we had more than 6 senses.
What can be shown on paper sometimes becomes irrelevant when it comes to the perception of the human senses.
I am a researcher, I have quoted enough independent tests that came to the same conclusions.
WHAT IS PERCEIVED BY THE EYE OF THE HUMAN SENSES IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY, even if sounds waves or the smell of a color are there.
In closing, I heard the reaching for Venus or Mars phasing many times throughout my life, I just never thought I would see it.
All I meant, so don't take it to offensive.
Keep in mind that there will be people in the future that will say that 1080p looks better on the 2160p set than on the 1080p one, and you may find yourself quoting the same points of view I have.

Don't take this personally (because it applies to many of us here, myself included), but your comments about being a researcher reminds me of a moment in Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" book.

Salvor Hardin questions an Imperial scientist Dorwin, and Dorwin's answer indicates that he thinks the best way to solve the problem is to read all the books on a subject and then decide which of the authorities is right. Hardin suggests doing independent research, but Dorwin thinks that this is absurd, and too much of a bother.

I admit I haven't gone out and tested 1080p vs. 768p monitors myself at 10' distances. I really have to do so sometime. The charts you showed, have the difference starting to be noticeable on a 50" set. Well, it sounds like 1080p is the choice for me then -- especially since I plan to get a 60" set. "just noticeable" to me means it can be seen, just that it isn't going to matter to a lot of people. To videophiles, it just might matter.

I admit, I tend to be a theorist. If experiment doesn't match theory, then the experiment is wrong Okay, that's not true. What it does mean is that there is some conditions that weren't considered in the theory (or the experiment is wrong, lol). Seriously, though, you have to very careful about interpreting what an experiment "proves". It should always be compared to theory. When it matches, great. When it doesn't, a good scientist tries to figure out why.

A 720p60 hockey game is likely to look better than a 1080p24 one. I give you no argument. I wasn't talking about the superiority of a particular transmission format, but rather the panel resolution only -- with the assumption that both 768 and 1080 panels can achieve a full 60 Hz refresh, and display progressively (I'm not even getting into multiples of 24 Hz and jitter, because no TVs do that right yet anyway). I didn't use the term "cross-conversion" instead of down-conversion or up-conversion because I was talking only of the scaling, not frame rate conversions or interlacing/deinterlacing. I just do scaling (flashback to Blade Runner where the scientist in a cold room, about to get killed pleads "I just do eyes").

The statement that a high-quality 720 source will look better than a 1080i one that has deinterlacing, color balance, contrast, and other issues is totally beside the point. VHS may look better than a high-res image full of artifacts too, but that doesn't make me want to go back to VHS. Why would I watch an artifact-filled source? Why would I buy a TV that has bad color balance? Why does that have anything to do with resolution (other than potential 1080i->1080p deinterlacing issues, but I want to watch 1080p movie sources anyway).

Anyway, a 720p60 source still has to be upconverted to 768 on new panels anyway. 720-line TVs are dinosaurs now. Why would 768 do a better job than 1080? Because the 1080 has to fill in more pixels? If you understood scaling theory, you would understand that the larger number is an advantage to contrast and accurate rendition, not a hinderance. I can't vouch for every TVs scaling algorithm, nor the other settings (like sharpening) on every TV. That's why interpreting some 3rd party's off-the-cuff comments brings nothing of value to the argument. If I were to see two TVs upscaling a high-quality 720p source, and the 768 looked better than the 1080 I would say "that doesn't match theory". I would therefore try to figure out why. There has to be a reason. There is some parameter that is different that I didn't account for. Perhaps one has a better scaling chip than the other. Perhaps one has the contrast or sharpening cranked up (a killer of picture quality). Perhaps the source had artifacts that the 768 scale-up is masking (as it will have more of a slight contrast loss at high frequencies). By understanding the theory, it prevents you from making incorrect conclusions based on the experiment.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of 768 TVs look great. But, if we all agree to stop debating, why have the thread at all? It's all fun and games ... until someone gets their TV's quality attacked
audioNeil is offline  
post #366 of 1468 Old 04-22-2007, 06:37 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
audioNeil Stated,
"I didn't use the term "cross-conversion" instead of down-conversion or up-conversion because I was talking only of the scaling"
Well hey ... if you stated it was audioNeil's version of down conversion I would have never brought it up.
Like I said there are 720p proponents that call a conversion from 60 frames to 30 down conversion also, that is wrong too.

audioNeil Stated,
"The charts you showed, have the difference starting to be noticeable on a 50" set."

Yea,... at 5 & a half feet, this whole thread was about what is perceived at a normal distance, or at 10 feet.

For those who wish to pull their chair up to that distance, won't get an argument out of me.
I have admitted there are times with the right signal and the right conditions 1080p sets have the advantage.

audioNeil Stated,
"Anyway, a 720p60 source still has to be up converted to 768 on new panels anyway. 720-line TVs are dinosaurs now. Why would 768 do a better job than 1080?

Because MOST 768 sets are native 720p sets, I can see many if not all 1080p advocates refuse to see or want to understand that, please, call some techs and let them explain it to you. A native 720p set will display a better native 720p signal than a set that has a native resolution of 1080.
Ever wonder why you see this (720p) next to some 768p sets
"Panasonic 42" Plasma HDTV (TH-42PX60U)
720p (1024 x 768) resolution"
That is from Circuit City (PAN TH42PX60U)

Or did you ever wonder why you see a difference between the display resolution and the native one, like at Sonystyle.com listing of the kdl v40xbr1

Video

Native Resolution: 720p

Contrast Ratio: 1300:1

Display Resolution: 1366 x 768

Do some research on that.. I have... no one seems to get that yet.

This is what I'm talking about when I say matching the native resolution of the set.
1080p sets were designed for the 1080i signal, as 768p sets were designed for the 720p signal, (native 720p).


audioNeil Stated,
"Because the 1080 has to fill in more pixels? "

"advantage to contrast and accurate rendition"

Yea, I have seen the difference, what you're saying in only side of the argument, the other side is that dilutes the signal more. Put a fire hose with a connection adapter to the side of your house, and tell me how strong the flow is. Try to hose the leaves and dirt off your sidewalk with it.
Now put a regular garden hose on there and see what works better.

The advantages you theorize on paper are outweighed by the cons, and the end results of the eyes.
I have seen 480i signals look best on 480p plasma sets, there is a reason for it, and although I never said 720p looks bad on 1080p, I said that there are numerous reports that 1080p sets did not display the same quality as they did when they had a 1080i signal going onto it, there is a reason for it.
720p or 768p sets did not see much quality difference if any, with 720p or 1080i signals.

Ever hear that adding too much clay to an already perfect sculpture can diminish the quality of the sculpture?

audioNeil Stated,
"If I were to see two TVs upscaling a high-quality 720p source, and the 768 looked better than the 1080 I would say "that doesn't match theory.
I would therefore try to figure out why. There has to be a reason. There is some parameter that is different that I didn't account for. Perhaps one has a better scaling chip than the other. Perhaps one has the contrast or sharpening cranked up (a killer of picture quality). Perhaps the source had artifacts that the 768 scale-up is masking (as it will have more of a slight contrast loss at high frequencies). By understanding the theory, it prevents you from making incorrect conclusions based on the experiment."

What ever the reason is...it is what it is, you're making guesses, and it could be something as simple as this, as you said
" Perhaps the source had artifacts that the 768 scale-up is masking"

If a result or test didn't come out to what I wished, I'm not one to start providing alternative theories as to why the results came out to what they were.

As far as those results, if that's what it is, it is,...... if you figure out the reasons or not, too many different side by side tests shown no differences with the end results of the eyes being the final judge.

What I meant by a researcher, meaning, I go by actual demonstrable tests that have been published, rather than theorizing illustrations such as with the planet Venus if they don't match my views.
I tend to be a realist, the deciding results.
You can theorize on paper how a color may have a smell to it. Does it matter?

There are theories that claim that the Earth is really flat, their theories do not match what is officially factual in modern science.
I'll go with what is seen from space & by the eyes and the official existing view..
Think I'm kidding click this,...
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
Thay say
"Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims "

audioNeil Stated
"I admit I haven't gone out and tested 1080p vs. 768p monitors myself at 10' distances. I really have to do so sometime."

Now we all see that we're talking with someone who is not going by the end result of the eye, and what have I been talking about for this whole thread?
Yet you come here and dispute conclusive results with people that do that for living, results you have not seen for yourself and try to rehash what appeared to be a settled dispute with both sides eventually having respect for the other, with theories you make against what is seen and perceived by the eyes, when you admit you have not compared the results of the eye yourself.
The eyes is the deciding factor, and all you have stated on theory or on paper have shown to be irrelevant in side by side tests, from different independent tests.

As far as tests, I'll find the link, I don't have it at hand, but there was test with a 1080p set and a 720x1024 set, with a room of people, half chose the 720px1024 and the other half the 1080p one.
What does that prove, what I said, it's a preference like BMW and Mercedes.

Now, are there any nuclear physicists to put a spin on things? One will be next...

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #367 of 1468 Old 04-22-2007, 08:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Because MOST 768 sets are native 720p sets, I can see many if not all 1080p advocates refuse to see or want to understand that, please, call some techs and let them explain it to you. A native 720p set will display a better native 720p signal than a set that has a native resolution of 1080.

Many you've responded to are "the techs." Some people on this forum create training materials used by "techs" from the likes of Sony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Ever wonder why you see this (720p) next to some 768p sets
"Panasonic 42" Plasma HDTV (TH-42PX60U)
720p (1024 x 768) resolution"
That is from Circuit City (PAN TH42PX60U)

That is purely marketing. A 768p display is not anymore "native 720p" than a 1080p model. By some definitions, that 42PX60U wouldn't even qualify as a HDTV, because it can't display full 720p resolution. The CEA -- with pressure from CE firms like Panasonic -- decided back in 2001 that any display with at least 720 vertical lines could be called a 720p HDTV for marketing purposes in the U.S. Hence, any display with more than 720 vertical lines -- but less than 1080 -- will be marketed as a 720p set, regardless of what it must do to put that signal on the screen.

You may find it interesting that some other countries no longer permit those 1024x768 panels to be called HDTVs.
bfdtv is offline  
post #368 of 1468 Old 04-22-2007, 08:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I do agree that the CEA made 720 V the minimum to qualify for HD, but....that is not the story I'm getting, that the 768 sets were designed for the 720p signal.
I looked into that a year ago...
I called techs...

I may not have all my i's dotted on what I remember ... but I think I heard something about 768 necessary to display something to do with overscan, it was designed for that 720p signal.

Even if you don't believe or don't want to believe, I'll put it on your terms, which is closer to the 720p signal?
If you're a size 32 waist what will look better on you 34 or 45?

I'll take their word over yours, sorry...

Also, lets not get into marketing gimmicks, this is what my point is all about. Your point is more in regard to the 720px1024 (not full 720p H resolution) rather than 768x1366.

But lets talk about 768x1024 for a moment....
Here is a test I never quoted before.

I'll even quote a test that favored 1080p to prove my point...
So this is not from bias 720p advocates.

1080px1920 VS 768pX1024.

Even a Phillips 768px1024 set gives the 1080px1920 set a very close battle resulting in "practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference" With a 1080i source.


Another unbiased test of the 1,920x1,080 resolution signal on a 1080p set next to 768x1024 with a blue ray signal.
This is from
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-...1.html&tag=txt


This a test that showed a slight favor to the 1080p, because one, it is with the 1080 signal, the 1080p set should display a better 1080 signal because it was designed for that set.
But most of all, this 768 set was not even a full 1280 horizontal resolution, it was 1024, not even the full 1280H of the 720p signal, which was rated the max resolution of the eyes for a 50 inch at 10 feet.

This is with Blue Ray at 1080i

"OK, this where the fun starts--let the comparisons rip. We skip from chapter to chapter, looking for shots in which we might be able to discern differences. In scenes with close-ups of Tom Cruise--and there are a lot of them--or Philip Seymour Hoffman (the villain), it's very hard to notice a difference in detail, even when you compare the relatively low-resolution Philips 42-inch plasma (1,024x768) to the 47-inch 1080p Westinghouse (1,920x1,080), which are sitting side by side. But in chapter 5, we hit on a decent piece of test material. Tom Cruise walks into a stylish home, and there, just behind him, is a wall made of what look like small, wooden bricks. Lo and behold, if you concentrate just on that wall and scan back and forth from TV to TV, replaying the scene dozens of times, you'll notice a slight difference between the Philips and the Westinghouse; the brick pattern as displayed on the Westinghouse has a cleaner look.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-...1.html&tag=txt

But wait look again....

It stated this
"The difference is harder to discern when you compare the Westinghouse to the 50-inch Pioneer."

This is because the Pioneer has better processing filters, as I said, use the best equipment, and also the Philips was not even a true 720p, it does not even display 1280 H, never mind 1366 H resolution, it was 1024 H.

I have a request for a test with the 720p signal on the 1080p set vs the 768 one, notice that test is not out there? A signal carried by ABC, ESPN 1 & 2, and FOX. I have done it myself, but it is not a professional test.
Even with the lower quality Phillips 768x1024 set they stated that they had to
" concentrate just on that wall and scan back and forth from TV to TV, replaying the scene dozens of times, you'll notice a slight difference between the Philips and the Westinghouse; the brick pattern as displayed on the Westinghouse has a cleaner look."

A 1080p set should display a better 1080 signal because the set was designed for that signal.
But even that appears to become irrelevant when it was compared to the higher end Pioneer 768p set that displayed at least 1280 H.

What proves my point? You can't help but take for granted that they were within 6 feet when they replayed chapter 5 of the movie dozens of times...only to see a slight difference against the lower quality Phillps 768x1024 set.

Keep in mind they never stated at what distance they were at.
Do you really think these guys who were looking for such little differences sat 8-12 feet from the set?


"Conclusions
While this isn't the most scientific test, both Katzmaier and I agreed that, after scanning through Mission: Impossible III for an hour, it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above. At larger screen sizes, the differences might become somewhat more apparent, especially if you sit close to the screen."

So for a Phillips 1024 H set (not full 720p) to come out with this result
"practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution"
What is that telling you?

Yet another test basically coming to the same conclusions. Are they all wrong...

Like I said, now lets do a test with 720p signals on sets that display the full 1280 H resolution and put it side by side to a 1080p one.

To all the neutral people reading this, ask yourself, why is it that a 1080x1920 signal shown on 1080px1920 set showed a difference in only one scene that had to be viewed "DOZENS" of times next to a Phillips 768x1024 set, to see a slight difference in one scene, not even full 720x1280?
312 more vertical lines and 896 horizontal in signal and display resolution....
I know I said this before, but I'm going to rest my case on that one.

Because my point is valid, without even knowing what distance they were at, your eye can pull in only so much. Goes to prove that there is a market for 1440 & 2160 sets. They'll eat it right up.
If it be contrast this that or whatever, they are proving to be irrelevant.

Overall..."practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference"

Confirmed from other tests...

"they concluded it would be "practically impossible" to tell the difference between the image on a 1080p vs a 1080i or 720p. "
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/1080p/108...-it-213983.php


"it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above."
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-...1.html&tag=txt

I stand by my statement that 768 or 720p sets look better 40 to 60 inches at 10-12 feet because the pixels are bigger.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #369 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 06:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

So for all those interested in 720p sets, remember 768x1366 displays 720p in it's true 16.9 format.

I am curious about something. Suppose I had display with a resolution of 1280x720 like one of the HP DLP displays, or maybe the old 1280x720 60" Zenith plasma. Would these be able to "display 720p in it's true 16.9 format"?

More to the point - which display will look best with a 720p/60 signal? Will it be your very own 1366x768 Sony XBR? Or is it the true 1280x720 display, which match the source resolution exactly?
mkoesel is offline  
post #370 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 08:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not a mainstream topic covered in Internet articles, this is why I called the techs.
It appears they both match the resolution, but one is subject to overscan loss.

I'm not an expert, but here is what I'm getting out of it, very complicated issue. If you have 720px1280 resolution, you're subject to lose some of the 720p signal picture due to what they call overscan. From what I understand, the 768px1366 is showing the native 720p 16.9 image like ABC's Lost without losing what is lost to oversccan.
So I rather have the 768x1366 set. It's displaying the720p signal plus the overscan of it.
This is why the 768x1366 Hatachi monitor link I have above says zero overscan.
Now you know why 768 x1336p sets are called native 720p?

They also provide a higher cross conversion of the 1080i signal to 768x1366p rather than 720x1280.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #371 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Not a mainstream topic covered in Internet articles, this is why I called the techs.
It appears they both match the resolution, but one is subject to overscan loss.

But overscan can be present on any display, of any resolution. And some displays have adjustments that allow you to eliminate overscan if you desire.

Furthermore, overscan results in an image with less resolution than the signal can carry - not in one with more resolution. So for a 1280x720p signal, perhaps only 1232x693 portion may be displayed once overscan is added. This means that both the 1280x720 display and the 1366x768 display will show a stretched image. Furthermore, the 1366x768 display actually requires more stretching.

Do you see what I mean? I'm not trying to pull any slight of hand trickery or attempting to sidestep the issue. I am just trying to make sure we all have a good understanding what overscan is.
mkoesel is offline  
post #372 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 10:15 AM
Senior Member
 
audioNeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Not a mainstream topic covered in Internet articles, this is why I called the techs.
It appears they both match the resolution, but one is subject to overscan loss.

I'm not an expert, but here is what I'm getting out of it, very complicated issue. If you have 720px1280 resolution, you're subject to lose some of the 720p signal picture due to what they call overscan. From what I understand, the 768px1366 is showing the native 720p 16.9 image like ABC's Lost without losing what is lost to oversccan.
So I rather have the 768x1366 set. It's displaying the720p signal plus the overscan of it.
This is why the 768x1366 Hatachi monitor link I have above says zero overscan.
Now you know why 768 x1336p sets are called native 720p?

They also provide a higher cross conversion of the 1080i signal to 768x1366p rather than 720x1280.

Arghhhh I give up.

My idea of research isn't to search the web for out-of-context evidence for an misunderstood problem. Arguments either make sense in theory, or they don't. Your overscan example here doesn't. An overscanned signal is left with fewer of its original pixels, not more. Neither did your previous explanation of a 768-line TV being "native 720p" and therefore best for 720p signals. It isn't native anything, except 768-line.

I will state again. 1:1 pixel mapping is best. But, if scaling is required, more pixels provide an image more accurate to the source, all else being equal, provided a properly designed scaling algorithm is used. The idea that a panel close to the signal resolution (as opposed to one much higher) is best, is not correct, on an artifact-free signal. It would only be correct if the signal is bad, and you can't stand to see the original signal in all its glory (very true of some digital TV signals) -- or else a correct scaling algorithm was not used (possible too with some scalers -- and make sure you don't add extra sharpening!!!).

The only thing that would add to that statement would be evidence of the last 2 exceptions actually being prevalent in the real world, and skewing the theoretical results in favor of 768 panels in many cases -- or someone thinking of a 3rd exception that I didn't think of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

I stand by my statement that 768 or 720p sets look better 40 to 60 inches at 10-12 feet because the pixels are bigger

How can posting quotes about reviewers finding is difficult to tell the differences between 2 TVs (the high-resolution being better, just not obviously so) lead you to your conclusion? You have stated a hyphothesis, and you have stated a reason. There must therefore be a scientific explanation for the reason -- something that you can describe in theory. The theory can then be examined by experts in video and imaging, and at least smoke-tested for sanity.

I'm not a video expert, but I am a still-image expert. If you had stated that larger pixels are better because "with current panel technology, they provide a larger illumination fraction, and a brighter image. This brightness adds to perceived contrast, and is more of a factor in image quality than resolution, at standard viewing distances". You then would have had a theory that people could sink their teeth into. We could debate the factual content of whether any of this is true, and we could debate the qualitative statements about brightness and contrast being more important than resolution.

But so far, your explanations of too many pixel edges, keeping away from "filler pixels", and keeping close (but not the same as) native resolution, make no scientific sense to me.
audioNeil is offline  
post #373 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 10:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let me call the the techs, the best I can do is show the links to give you an idea.
Something to do with true 16.9.

It's a complicated issue.
But this is what they're saying about the 768p 1366 resolution, like above

"The 1366 x 768 native resolution means that no additional scaling or conversion is needed for widescreen images, resulting in crystal-clear 16:9 images with no digital artifacts."
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/sha...p-lc37hv6u.html

16:9 Standard with Zero Overscan....

I'll get back...
I'm trying to figure it out too... all I'm saying is what I'm getting out of it

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #374 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 11:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

768x13666 is full 720p 16.9

An LCD TV with a resolution of 1280x768 is actually a 15:9 display, whereas 1366x768 is 16:9

1366x768 is showing you the full 720p signal in it's 16.9 format

Now you know that they didn't pick a # at random, that number 1366x768 was chosen for a reason...

1280x720 is the broadcast/transmission standard and it is 16:9. A display with 1366x768 will display a 16:9 image as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

[This is why you see statements like this...

"The 1366 x 768 native resolution means that no additional scaling or conversion is needed for widescreen images, resulting in crystal-clear 16:9 images with no digital artifacts."
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/shar...-lc37hv6u.html

Incorrect there IS scaling involved with 1366x768. NOTHING that I am aware of (except from a computer) is sent, transmitted, broadcast or stored on a CD/Disk as 1366x768. HD signals are broadcast/stored as 1080i or 720p not 768.

Once a 1280x720 signal arrives at 1366x768p display set, the picture IS upscaled to 1366x768 prior to display, otherwise you would have black bars completely surrounding the picture.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

[16:9 Standard with Zero Overscan (see it has something to do with the overscan)
Hitachi's 2006 plasma televisions process all of the picture data for the best detail reproduction, without vertical scaling.
http://www.hitachi.us/tv/browse/plas.../55hds69.shtml

a new 16:9 HD Monitor LCD TV featuring 720P (1366x768) True HD panel resolution and dual HDMI digital inputs.
http://www.tacp.com/news/newsarticle.asp?newsid=8

Read between the lines - all this says is that this set is displaying the traditionally overscanned area, which is hidden on a 720p display. The input is still scaled up from 1280x720 to 1366x768. Unless you are in a 1:1 pixel mapping mode, nearly all displays upscale an image to accomodate overscan, in this case they are upscaling by 6.7%. Most modern panels upscale by 5% or less. If you enter 1:1 pixel mapping mode, you will have black borders around a 720p input.


[quote=Sole_Survivor][1280 H is a 15:9 display
See
"1280x768 WXGA resolution, 15:9 aspect ratio"

http://www.flatscreens.biz/cat_lcd_tvs.php This is an incomplete statement. The resolution has to include BOTH the horizontal and vertical before you can make the claim that it is not 16:9. 1280x720 (the HS Standard) is 16:9. 1220x768 would be 15:9 but depending upon the pixel shape, could be displayed as 16:9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

[Have a good day ...
Of course this will be wrong to 1080p advocates... everyone is... all the links...the tests...the techs I spoke to... ...

To the neutral people that read this, they will come back to say both sets upscale 720p. Trust me...
The links I provided said the same thing the Sony techs told me. That 768x1366 sets are designed for the 720p signal.

This is exactly what everyone has been telling you!!!! A 768p set is designed for 720p and will handle 1080i.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

This is why you see native 720p and 768x1366 with the same TV. It's to display the 16.9 signal in it's true format, it's to do with overscan as Hitachi mentioned as well.

Unless you are addressing computers, there is no such thing as a 1366x768 native input. The input signal will be 1280x720p which is scaled up to 1366x768p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

This has absolutely nothing to do with the CEA making 720 vertical the qualification of being HD.
There has been debate if 720px1024 was HD, because it fell short of the 1280 horizontal pixels of the 720p broadcast signal.

So clearly that is not the case here, because it is 1366, well over the 1280 horizontal pixel count.
It wasn't the case of 768p being called HD, it was why are 768 x1336p sets called native 720p? I called techs and asked, and I'm getting the same answers of the links I just provided. Now you know..
So for all those interested in 720p sets, remember 768x1366 displays 720p in it's true 16.9 format.

A 1208x720p set displays 720p in its full, true 16:9 format when in 1:1 mode. 1366x768 display do not display a 720p input in it's "true 16:9 format" unless they support 1:1 pixel mapping. These sets are native 720p sets, because that is the highest resolution they can display. They accept 720p inputs and upscale that input to 768p, they accept 1080i and down-res that to 768p. A 1366x768 display contains 86x48 lines of interpolated pixels.

Every input to a 768p display (480, 720, 1080) WILL be scaled. Period.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #375 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 11:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks,
I understand that there is no 768x1366 signal. Also the statement you stated is incorrect... is not mine about 15.9.

I did read what you said about hooking the monitor up to the PC, VGA, will give a 768p.

I agree that the 768 set was designed for the 720p signal.

Kind of off topic about max resolution & 720 vs 1080, this is more 768 vs 720p, but that's OK.

I have stated that I may not have my i's dotted on this one so I'm open to all comments.

But you can't help to get the idea that the 768x1366 resolution is real 16.9 compared to the 720px1280 set when you see things like this,


"The 1366 x 768 native resolution means that no additional scaling or conversion is needed for widescreen images, resulting in crystal-clear 16:9 images with no digital artifacts."
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/sha...p-lc37hv6u.html


you stated this
Nmlobo Stated
"Read between the lines - all this says is that this set is displaying the traditionally overscanned area, which is hidden on a 720p display. "

OK, so my apple isn't falling to far from the tree. You're saying that this 768x1366 set is displaying more of the picture that is normally hidden, but what you're saying it that it has nothing to do with the extra pixel space of 768x1366, that is allowing that traditionally overscanned area to be displayed?

Nmlobo Stated
"1366x768 display do not display a 720p input in it's "true 16:9 format" unless they support 1:1 pixel mapping."


OK, so when you see a set say 768x1366, true 16.9, these sets support 1:1 pixel mapping or it false advertisement?

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #376 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 12:38 PM
Senior Member
 
audioNeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

But you can't help to get the idea that the 768x1366 resolution is real 16.9 compared to the 720px1280 set when you see things like this,


"The 1366 x 768 native resolution means that no additional scaling or conversion is needed for widescreen images, resulting in crystal-clear 16:9 images with no digital artifacts."

Just divide 1280:720 is in the ratio of 16:9. So it 1366:768 . They are both 16:9 . The text you quoted was bad writing, either by someone who didn't understand what they were saying, or were just paroting marketting fluff.

Likely this statement started like its life from an engineer as "we have square pixels, and a 16:9 aspect ratio, capable of displaying 720p signals without resolution loss owing to scale-down on either axis (we scale-up instead)".

It ends up its life in some marketing brochure as what you state. Of course, if the panel did have a 1:1 pixel-mapping mode for 720p signals, which displayed black bars around everything, then they the quote could be true. I doubt it, however, as that sort of information would likely also be touted.
audioNeil is offline  
post #377 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 12:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK,
Well, this will get us nowhere.

I just got off the phone again and I was told that the 768x1366 setting is for the VGA input.
The VGA system is separate system inside the set that is independent from the TV signal pixel system, a different an independent pixel array system.

The monitor consists of 2 independent systems in itself.

768p is the max resolution that monitor can display, but it only when it switches to it's VGA mode.

The VGA pixel system is different, the monitor has two different pixel array systems consisting of different size, structure etc.

A blue ray can display blue ray or regular DVD. It a different system on the same player. Trying to illustrate.

Bottom line what I was told, with an incoming 720p signal the set is not scaling it to 768. You are seeing it in native 720p. You are not in the VGA 768 pixel array system when watching OTA, Sat etc. At least this was in reference to the kdl 40 xbr1.

Once again I'm told the same story. A year later from another person.

I know you will all come back and disagree, but this is not the story I'm getting.
I'm taking their side. Has more clout than message forum posts. Please don't disagree with me. I'm just relaying my research from people that do this for a living.

Think of it though, you can change your pixel display on your PC monitor in the control panel. The pixels are a different size and number on the same screen.

Guys, I enjoyed talking to you, I think all my points have been made, pretty well.
I have to realize after this point, it's going to get nowhere.

is... everyone wrong guys.... take care.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #378 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 02:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
ashutoshsm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bottom line, Sole: you're gullible

But your enthusiasm and passion are impressive, and commendation-worthy!

*ashu*
ashutoshsm is offline  
post #379 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 02:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yes, some you guys have to start a HD resistance group, fight all that is reported.

Because gullible people like believe them.

Remember what native means

"constituting the original substance or source "

The VGA is non native of the TV.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #380 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 04:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I also find it quite coincidental that Sony lists only the higher end sets at native 720p and the lower end sets as no difference in native resolution.

The higher end sets that state 720p resolution

KDL-32S3000 720p
KDL-V32XBR2 720p

KDL-40S3000 720p

Lower end sets do not say native 720p

KDL-32S2400

KDL-32S2010

KDL-40S2400

I also found this statement next to the higher end Sony

Native Resolution: 720p Contrast Ratio: NA Display Resolution: 1366 x 768 Overscan:
http://www.federalstereo.com/sokd32lcdtv.html

Even on another site outside of Sony that sells monitors listed the higher end Sony KDL-40S3000
with a Native 720p spec

Display Resolution --- 1366 x 768

Viewing Angle --- Right/Left: 178°, Up/Down: 178°

Panel Response Time --- 8ms (gray to gray)

Advanced Video Processor --- CineMotion® /Film Mode/Cinema Drive, Contrast enhancer circuit, Green and blue enhancer, Motion and edge adaptive I/P converter, MPEG noise reduction

Native Resolution --- 720p


and the lower end KDL40S2400 with no 720p native spec


Contrast Ratio: 5000:1 (Dynamic Contrast Ratio)

Contrast Ratio: 1300:1 (On-Screen Contrast Ratio)

Display Resolution: 1366 x 768

Viewing Angle: Right/Left: 178°, Up/Down: 178°

Panel Response Time: 8ms (gray to gray)

Advanced Video Processor: CineMotion® /Film Mode/Cinema Drive, Contrast enhancer circuit, Green and blue enhancer, Motion and edge adaptive I/P converter, MPEG noise reduction

abt electronics com (mend that together links aren't working)

and punch in those sets
or go to sonystyle.com and punch up the specs for those and see.



Is it possible that the more expensive sets can work on two levels, why do they list native 720 and not the cheaper sets?


Funny ha?

Ponder that for a while.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #381 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 06:08 PM
Newbie
 
hamburgerhelper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Can someone explain to me how a signal (720p) that we call agree contains a certain number of vertical and horizontal lines (ie 1280x720) can be displayed on a screen that we all agree has a larger number of lines (ie 1366x768) without either 1) showing black bars or 2) scaling? I mean is the position being suggested that the pixels are actually changing size in a flat panel tv?
hamburgerhelper is offline  
post #382 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 06:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamburgerhelper View Post

Can someone explain to me how a signal (720p) that we call agree contains a certain number of vertical and horizontal lines (ie 1280x720) can be displayed on a screen that we all agree has a larger number of lines (ie 1366x768) without either 1) showing black bars or 2) scaling?

It can't.

Anyone who suggests otherwise does not know what they are talking about.
bfdtv is offline  
post #383 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 06:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm asking, with all you know about the entire knowledge of the universe, it is possible that is why the only the high end sets are listed at 720 native?
Is that really a coincidence?

High end

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/_3Cw...me=specs&var2=


http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...me=specs&var2=


lower end



http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...me=specs&var2=


http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...me=specs&var2=


Think about it..

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #384 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 07:16 PM
Newbie
 
hamburgerhelper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You may want to look at the user manual for the "high-end" model that you reference - search for "720p" and this quote (or something similar) will show up a few times: "Component video (YPbPr) or HDMI connection is necessary to view 480i, 480p, and 1080i formats. Note that this TV displays all format types of picture in its native resolution of 1,366 dots x 768 lines."

Seems to me that you are extrapolating quite a bit from spec sheets and marketing. The simple fact is that the TV has a fixed number of pixels that is greater than the number of pixels in 720p. Hence the scaling to display in the "native resolution" of 1366x768.
hamburgerhelper is offline  
post #385 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 07:34 PM
Senior Member
 
audioNeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

OK,
Well, this will get us nowhere.

I just got off the phone again and I was told that the 768x1366 setting is for the VGA input.
The VGA system is separate system inside the set that is independent from the TV signal pixel system, a different an independent pixel array system.

The monitor consists of 2 independent systems in itself.

768p is the max resolution that monitor can display, but it only when it switches to it's VGA mode.

The VGA pixel system is different, the monitor has two different pixel array systems consisting of different size, structure etc.

A blue ray can display blue ray or regular DVD. It a different system on the same player. Trying to illustrate.

Bottom line what I was told, with an incoming 720p signal the set is not scaling it to 768. You are seeing it in native 720p. You are not in the VGA 768 pixel array system when watching OTA, Sat etc. At least this was in reference to the kdl 40 xbr1.

Once again I'm told the same story. A year later from another person.

I know you will all come back and disagree, but this is not the story I'm getting.
I'm taking their side. Has more clout than message forum posts. Please don't disagree with me. I'm just relaying my research from people that do this for a living.

Think of it though, you can change your pixel display on your PC monitor in the control panel. The pixels are a different size and number on the same screen.

Guys, I enjoyed talking to you, I think all my points have been made, pretty well.
I have to realize after this point, it's going to get nowhere.

is... everyone wrong guys.... take care.

I would have loved to be on the phone hearing what the Sony guys said.

We all know that the native display pixel-elements don't grow or shrink in size. The term "native 720p" means nothing unless you define it. It is a marketing term. If these panels have the option for 1:1 pixel mapping with a 720p signal, more power to them -- perhaps that's what it means (or it might not). However, I think most people would be upset at seeing the black bars around everything. The standard setting will be to scale the picture up to match the 768 panel (or even more if there is overscan set), even if they do have a 1:1 option for 720p signals.

It also just as likely that "native 720p" simply means it can accept a 720p signal (lots of older TVs couldn't in the past), and that it displays it at full resolution (meaning no scale-down, but could have scale-up). In other words, it's just a marketing term to mean "we give you full resolution display of 720p signals".

The Sony person was correct in that the TV will only "accept" a 768-line signal on the VGA input (and yes, it will be able to do 1:1 pixel mapping). It will accept a 720p on the HDMI, which it will usually scale, but might (and only might) have an option to do 1:1 (they don't have online manuals for the newer 1366x768 models, so we can't look this up).

Is there anything up for debate here, except Sony's marketing definition of "native 720p" on what they elsewhere call a 1366x768 native-resolution set? I think you misinterpreted their explanation.
audioNeil is offline  
post #386 of 1468 Old 04-23-2007, 08:08 PM
Member
 
joebar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dumb question, but why do they all manufacture TVs with 768 lines when one of the standards for HD broadcast is exactly 720 lines??
joebar is offline  
post #387 of 1468 Old 04-24-2007, 03:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No Niel you're wrong on this statement

"It also just as likely that "native 720p" simply means it can accept a 720p signal (lots of older TVs couldn't in the past"

My first generation XBR 720p native res, also says 720p native...
these modern sets that are lower end sets do not say native 720p. OF course they all accept 720p 1080i etc in the user manuals... but that is not the point here .... why... going with todays current modern sets... only the higher end sets have the 720p native spec? I gave only 4 examples, but they're all like that with the lower end sets. Want me to go through them all?
Those links are all modern sets that came out after my 1st gen XBR that also has the 720p spec.

I keep it in mind that yes they could be wrong, but you guys won't.

Is it possible people are paying extra money to get a true 720p native compared to cheaper sets that are more glorified PC monitors?
Can the cheaper sets have cheap scailers that interpolate all signals to 768x1366?

Can the high end sets work on two different levels as one said to me?

I'm going to call again and ask why.

A phrase I once heard

Do you know everything ..... most people would say no
If I ask again, do you know half of everything?
Most will still say no? But I'll say, lets say you know half of everything.

Could you be wrong on this, on the half that you don't know?

Remember what I was saying about how you can change the pixel count and number of your PC monitor?
Non native resolution signals could be interpolated and resampled to another pixel size array format on the same monitor.

"The native resolution will produce the sharpest picture capable from the display. However, since the user can adjust the resolution, the monitor must be capable of displaying other resolutions. Non-native resolutions have to be supported by approximate resampling in the LCD controller, using interpolation algorithms. This often causes the screen to look somewhat jagged or blurry (especially with resolutions that are not even multiples of the native one.) For example, a display with a native resolution of 1280×1024 will look best set at 1280×1024 resolution, will display 800×600 adequately by drawing each pixel with more physical triads, but will be unable to display in 1600×1200 sharply due to the lack of physical triads."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel


An interpolation resampling of a non native signal could result in different shape,.. pixel count and format and have different physical triads as you see in the example above, especially if your talking about pixels coming from a PC.

Also yes, I did find other sets that say different native resolution (rare).. even in plasmas
Go by official sites and official specs and not stores.
Stores just throw a bunch of s%#t sometime and don't have the correct specs.

I'll get back later have to run right now....
Thanks....

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #388 of 1468 Old 04-24-2007, 05:18 AM
Newbie
 
hamburgerhelper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The wiki you reference supports what we are all trying to tell you - if the display has a higher resolution than the signal there will be scaling or as the wiki states "more physical triads".

The pixels themselves are fixed in a particular shape and size - nothing can change that.

Did you look at the manual that I referenced above for the Sony model that you have cited as "720p" native? It is on the support website - all the manuals for the 1366x768 models say the same thing.
hamburgerhelper is offline  
post #389 of 1468 Old 04-24-2007, 05:22 AM
Newbie
 
hamburgerhelper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Joe - I believe it is to match traditional computer resolutions to allow for easier use of LCDs as both TVs and computer monitor resolutions.
hamburgerhelper is offline  
post #390 of 1468 Old 04-24-2007, 06:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No I didn't see that, I see all the models say 1366x768, but I did not see native 720p specs in the manuals on the lower end sets.

I'll take a look if you're right you're right.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
720p Vs 1080p , 1080p Vs 720p
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off