What is 720p? 1024 x 768 or 1366 x 768? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
doogiehowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What is 720p? 1024 x 768 or 1366 x 768?

LCD's and Plasmas with 1024 and 1366 both say they are 720p? Which one is the true 720p?

I know 1366 is a better resolution, but if a 720p broadcast is 1024X768 then does the extra resolution make for a better picture?

Does 1366 offer a significant advantage when watching 1080?

Or would I be better off looking at brightness, contrast and other stats and not worring about 1024 vs 1366?
doogiehowser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
fugiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
720p material is 1280x720 resolution. So a 1366x768 is the only one capable of displaying the full 720p resolution.

Sony XBR960n - nice to rods, mean to cones.
fugiot is offline  
post #3 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:28 PM
Newbie
 
szupan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
720p is 1280x720. A set with 1366x768 will have to slightly upscale in both directions when you feed it a 720P signal. A set with 1024x768 will upscale the horizontal lines, and downscale the vertical lines, so you'll loose some detail.
szupan is offline  
post #4 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
doogiehowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugiot View Post

720p material is 1280x720 resolution. So a 1366x768 is the only one capable of displaying the full 720p resolution.

I know this is going to be a stupid question. Why don't they make 720p TV's that display in 1280x720? Why undershoot and then overshoot it? What happens with the extra pixels in 1366? Is the picture stretched out?

My second question: Is it a significant difference in picture quality between 1024 and 1366?
doogiehowser is offline  
post #5 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by szupan View Post

720p is 1280x720. A set with 1366x768 will have to slightly upscale in both directions when you feed it a 720P signal. A set with 1024x768 will upscale the horizontal lines, and downscale the vertical lines, so you'll loose some detail.

What a confusing way to say that.
Vertical lines?
It sounds like you have it backwards. It upscales the vertical pixels and downscales the horizontal pixels.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #6 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiehowser View Post

I know this is going to be a stupid question. Why don't they make 720p TV's that display in 1280x720? Why undershoot and then overshoot it? What happens with the extra pixels in 1366? Is the picture stretched out?

My second question: Is it a significant difference in picture quality between 1024 and 1366?

Pioneer did for quite a while.
I think plasma makers realized they could maximize resolution within the practical limits of signals in the real world. There are many resolution limiters out there.
I think I do notice the small difference but I doubt most would. People are more sensitive to the vertical resolution, I believe.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #7 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 04:13 PM
Member
 
viper43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Pioneer did for quite a while.
I think plasma makers realized they could maximize resolution within the practical limits of signals in the real world. There are many resolution limiters out there.
I think I do notice the small difference but I doubt most would. People are more sensitive to the vertical resolution, I believe.

I am with Doogie

Elemental, you seem to very knowledgable in all this so please be patient with some of us.

But like Doogie, I see the 768 capability out there but yet stations put out 720 if i remember right, and have not understood why the hdtv manufacturers use 768 instead of 720. Does that mean the mfg'ers use the extra 48 in some magic way or did they go to 768 because there are mediums that output 768 and they have to go to the extra effort to translate 720 to their panel's 768?

Maybe a different question might be, what are the common outputs by the various sources such as television stations (sd and hd), statelite, dvd players, blue ray, etc.

I presume the hdtv manufacturers must look at all the possible and common inputs from the common sources and then design accordingly, and then write software/firmware that translate those input resolutions to the type of panel they design and sell.

It seems a simple table would be of real help so those of us who are not at your level could learn.

thanks
viper43 is offline  
post #8 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 04:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
karlw2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Santa Clara, California
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think there is just too much to take in easily. Heck, my first plasma is a 16:9 HDTV, yet had a resolution of 1024x1024. That means it has rectangular pixels.

Now add in the broadcast of 1080i which really has a resolution of 540 horizontal lines except it is interlaced so the TV will have to 'somehow' put the signal back together and then scale to the 720p which is really 768p . Ahhh...forget everything I said. It makes no sense.

I do remember years ago when everyone (including me) was trying to hook up their computers to these HD monitors and it wasn't that easy. Once they started coming out with these 1366x768 monitors, it was much easier...except for that stupid 1366 which video cards don't easily do so now many monitors do support 1360x768. Uh oh...there I go again .
karlw2000 is offline  
post #9 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PRMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Yorba Linda, CA, USA
Posts: 1,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
480x480 - DirecTV and Dish Network SD
720x480 - DVD (including widescreen, it tells it to show wider pixels)
1280x720 - 720p stations like ESPN and ABC and FOX
1280x1080 - HDLite from DirecTV and Dish Network
1920x1080 - Full HD from most broadcast stations and cable providers and some Dish channels (I think they still have it). Also, all HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs are at this resolution.

Everything is scaled on most TVs, because it is much harder to build a circuit that bypasses the scaler chip.

I think some 1366x768 TVs actually show 720p in a black box as a special case, but you don't see it because it is a projector and you only see the 1280x720 pixels on the screen (the black box is in the overscan area).
PRMan is offline  
post #10 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
martyj19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There's a few things going on here.

The two HDTV resolutions are 1280x720 and 1920x1080.

First, manufacturers use the term "720p display" in their marketing literature loosely and incorrectly. These days, they tend to use it for anything that isn't a "1080p display". So let's put that one to rest first.

The native resolution of a 1366x768 panel is not 720p. If anything, it is 768p, since all input is scaled to the 768 lines. But, of course, 768p is not a resolution that is used in the source material. Only 720p and 1080i/p are used. We should count 480i/p also, for SD material and DVDs.

In the case of plasma, it is fiendishly difficult to make plasma panels with small pixels. This is why 1080p plasmas are so long in coming and why 42 inch plasma panels are 1024x768.

How can 1024x768 be HD, you ask. Many dozens of people have asked that over and over here in the forum. The answer is, the Consumer Electronics Association has decided that any display with at least 720 lines can be called an HDTV and have the logo. There is some basis in fact for this because the human eye is more sensitive to vertical resolution than to horizontal resolution. This has been taken advantage of for years in NTSC because the horizontal resolution of NTSC is really poor. It is also taken advantage of in so-called HD-lite where the video is resampled to 1440x1080 on things like satellite, or maybe even shot with a 1440x1080 camera instead of the 1920x1080 camera you thought the network was using, and you probably didn't even notice.

We have had intense wars about whether that CEA definition is legitimate. Believe what you will, and if you don't think 1024x768 is HD, buy something else. Vote with your wallet. Simple as that.

In the case of LCD, it is difficult to make large pixels. This is one reason why 1366x768 has been used. Also, please do not forget that a lot of HD is in 1080i, so 1920x1080 has to be downscaled to 1366x768. Conversely, 1280x720 has to be upscaled to 1366x768.

To those who say, but wouldn't it be a good idea if the panel were 1280x720 so at least one of the resolutions wouldn't have to be scaled, I say nope! For one thing, you'd be downscaling 1920x1080 all the way down to 1280x720, so you'd lose a lot of resolution on the very format that is supposed to be giving you lots of detail, which is also what most channels broadcast in. For another thing, the extra resolution is really helpful on things like diagonal lines, where you can smooth out the line. If you were in 1280x720 on a 32 or 37 inch display, you'd probably be complaining that the display looks all blocky and pixelated because the pixels are just too big and the diagonal lines have too much stairstepping.

Turns out you can get 1280x720, but you have to go all the way down to 22 and 23 inches, where it works nicely.

Oh, and one other thing that comes up over and over again. The resolution of 1080i is not "540p", it is 1920x1080, dang it. If you were to shoot a still life, you would have 1920x1080 worth of pixels. It's simply that you have to wait 1/30 second rather than 1/60 second to get all the pixels. If it's a live shot. If it's film, it was shot at a mere 24 frames per second, so (inverse telecine, 3:2 pulldown, which is actually reverse 3:2 pulldown) done correctly gives you back your movie.
martyj19 is offline  
post #11 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
What about scaling to easy multiples (1.5 x up or down from 720, for example) rather than non-multiples? (I'm no math major, so I apologize if this is not expressed correctly)

480 x 1.5 = 720

1080/720 = 1.5

768/720 = 1.066666666666666

1080/768 = 1.40625

Would not the scaler work less hard with a 1.5 conversion? Just asking. And also, while there are few, if any, flat panels at 1280x720, are there not a number of RPTVs at that resolution? Is there a reason why it is easier (if it is easier) to do so with RPTVs?
Ovation is offline  
post #12 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 08:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Valence01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Yes, in one sense it's easier to build the very simplest of scalers if the ratio is 1.5 (1080/720), but these days, we want better results than can be had of such simple scalers. Once a designer bites the bullet and implements a more sophisticated scaling algorithm, it's not nearly so compelling to keep to a nice ratio like 1.5. This path was followed precisely with the original DVD standard where 720 x 480 pixels are scaled down to 720 x 360 pixels when the DVD player letterboxes a 16:9 aspect ratio program to a 4:3 aspect ratio display. In that case, it was a nice 4 vs 3 and the very early players simply discarded every 4th line to make a really gross downscaler. Nowadays, no manufacturer does it that way. To do it that way for 1080/720, you just throw away every 3rd line. The result from that method is not so great, with the introduction of aliasing artifacts, deinterlacing, etc. This can be prevented by implementing a more sophisticated scaler that uses all of the soruce lines to produce the final downscaled output. As I said, once you use all of the lines to produce the final output, it's not such an advantage to keep a simple ratio of two small integers.

Now, as to why 768? Well, 768 happens to be a fairly nice-ish binary number that looks like this:

1100000000

vs 720 which looks like this:

1011010000

720 in binaryland where chip designers work, is not nearly so nice as a round number like 768. Chip designers grumble a lot less when presented with 768, than do when presented with a not so round number like 720. Once the designer chooses an "anything" to "anything" scaler architecture, it greatly simplifies things, if the output "anything" is actually constrained to a nice round binary number like 768. It's a lot more trouble, if the output resolution needs to be 720.

There are lots of other round number issues with HDTV. Example: MPEG actually likes things in multiples of 16, which 1920 x 1080 most certainly is not! 1080 / 16 = 67.5 yech! That's why the broadcast mpeg stream for a 1080i program is actually encoded as 1920 x 1088. There are lots of computer video cards with round number issues. Many of them cannot handle vertical or horizontal resolutions that aren't a nice multiple of 8, of which 1366 most certainly is (1366 / 8 = 170.75).

Once it's been chosen to have 768 lines, then the 16:9 display aspect ratio dictates 1366 pixels per line and even then it doesn't come out precisely 1366, but more like 1366.33333. So, 1366 x 768 isn't precisely a 16 x 9 aspect ratio, assuming that pixels are isometric (square). It hasn't always been of much concern to have isometric pixels. Only with the more recent popularity of connecting pcs to HDTV displays, has it really mattered so much, since few pc designs allow for undistorted display of shapes on a display device with anisometric pixels. So, if you want to connect up a pc for non-movie playing use, then you will struggle if your display does not have isometric pixels.

J.J.
Valence01 is offline  
post #13 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 09:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 19
To answer your original question, they went to x768 because then it becomes more compatible with computer resolutoins such as 1024x768, a very common computer resolution.

This makes the displays more useful as computer monitors while still being able to display the full 720p signal.

Some LCD projectors like the Sony VW-10ht were also 1366x768 back in their day.

-Allen

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is online now  
post #14 of 40 Old 11-28-2006, 11:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
doogiehowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I only have one more question left. Will a 1366x768 do a better job with 1080 than 1024x768? Is it a HUGE difference?

If you have 2 sets next to one another, and everything else was equal except the 1366 VS 1024, and they both had the same 1080 signal, would the 1366 look much better than the 1024? Or would they both look about the same?
doogiehowser is offline  
post #15 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 08:05 AM
Newbie
 
Macdaddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valence01 View Post

It hasn't always been of much concern to have isometric pixels. Only with the more recent popularity of connecting pcs to HDTV displays, has it really mattered so much, since few pc designs allow for undistorted display of shapes on a display device with anisometric pixels. So, if you want to connect up a pc for non-movie playing use, then you will struggle if your display does not have isometric pixels.
J.J.

Excellent stuff J.J.
I am looking for a display that I can use, split screen(PC monitor/TV), 26 or 32", and have narrowed the field to the Samsung or Sony. Can I determine if they have isometric pixels or not? I have scoured the product detail pages, and no mention.
Any other comments from you or anyone else here are appreciated on my search.....

MD
Macdaddie is offline  
post #16 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
martyj19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiehowser View Post

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I only have one more question left. Will a 1366x768 do a better job with 1080 than 1024x768? Is it a HUGE difference?

If you have 2 sets next to one another, and everything else was equal except the 1366 VS 1024, and they both had the same 1080 signal, would the 1366 look much better than the 1024? Or would they both look about the same?

The problem with your question is, everything else isn't going to be equal. In all probability, you are actually asking between a 1366x768 LCD and a 1024x768 plasma. In this case, the LCD/plasma differences (brightness, contrast, glare resistance) swamp the resolution difference.

Answer this question for yourself by going to a store and looking at the two side by side.
martyj19 is offline  
post #17 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 08:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
martyj19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macdaddie View Post

Excellent stuff J.J.
I am looking for a display that I can use, split screen(PC monitor/TV), 26 or 32", and have narrowed the field to the Samsung or Sony. Can I determine if they have isometric pixels or not? I have scoured the product detail pages, and no mention.
Any other comments from you or anyone else here are appreciated on my search.....

MD

You can always determine for yourself if the pixels are isometric (or square). If the native resolution ratio is 16:9, they are. If the native resolution ratio is not 16:9, they are rectangular. 1024x768 is probably the most common case where they are rectangular. This doesn't apply to LCD computer monitors where you often see screens that are actually 16:10, 5:4 and other ratios.
martyj19 is offline  
post #18 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
rantanamo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Garland, Tx
Posts: 473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
easiest way to know its not. Watch 720p source material. Set 768p set to 1:1. Notice black bars all the way around. Must be zoomed to fill that screen. On the other hand, set computer to 1360x768, set to 1:1. Notice the full screen.

And please stop the 1080i lies. Theoretically, 1080i is almost, ALMOST showing you full 1920x1080. The human eye can detect the flicker that results from the alternating fields. You are not seeing the full resolution. You think you are during slower scenes, where the "wobbling" is almost undetectable, but just wait until the QB rifles one downfield. You are seeing, 540p several times per second. That's the same wobble that we've seen all of our lives. Now that's its 1080i, it seems to not count for some reason, but when its 480i vs 480p its the same thing. Insanity. There's a reason one has the i and one has the p and is more expensive than the other.
rantanamo is offline  
post #19 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valence01 View Post

Yes, in one sense it's easier to build the very simplest of scalers if the ratio is 1.5 (1080/720), but these days, we want better results than can be had of such simple scalers. Once a designer bites the bullet and implements a more sophisticated scaling algorithm, it's not nearly so compelling to keep to a nice ratio like 1.5. This path was followed precisely with the original DVD standard where 720 x 480 pixels are scaled down to 720 x 360 pixels when the DVD player letterboxes a 16:9 aspect ratio program to a 4:3 aspect ratio display. In that case, it was a nice 4 vs 3 and the very early players simply discarded every 4th line to make a really gross downscaler. Nowadays, no manufacturer does it that way. To do it that way for 1080/720, you just throw away every 3rd line. The result from that method is not so great, with the introduction of aliasing artifacts, deinterlacing, etc. This can be prevented by implementing a more sophisticated scaler that uses all of the soruce lines to produce the final downscaled output. As I said, once you use all of the lines to produce the final output, it's not such an advantage to keep a simple ratio of two small integers.

Now, as to why 768? Well, 768 happens to be a fairly nice-ish binary number that looks like this:

1100000000

vs 720 which looks like this:

1011010000

720 in binaryland where chip designers work, is not nearly so nice as a round number like 768. Chip designers grumble a lot less when presented with 768, than do when presented with a not so round number like 720. Once the designer chooses an "anything" to "anything" scaler architecture, it greatly simplifies things, if the output "anything" is actually constrained to a nice round binary number like 768. It's a lot more trouble, if the output resolution needs to be 720.

There are lots of other round number issues with HDTV. Example: MPEG actually likes things in multiples of 16, which 1920 x 1080 most certainly is not! 1080 / 16 = 67.5 yech! That's why the broadcast mpeg stream for a 1080i program is actually encoded as 1920 x 1088. There are lots of computer video cards with round number issues. Many of them cannot handle vertical or horizontal resolutions that aren't a nice multiple of 8, of which 1366 most certainly is (1366 / 8 = 170.75).

Once it's been chosen to have 768 lines, then the 16:9 display aspect ratio dictates 1366 pixels per line and even then it doesn't come out precisely 1366, but more like 1366.33333. So, 1366 x 768 isn't precisely a 16 x 9 aspect ratio, assuming that pixels are isometric (square). It hasn't always been of much concern to have isometric pixels. Only with the more recent popularity of connecting pcs to HDTV displays, has it really mattered so much, since few pc designs allow for undistorted display of shapes on a display device with anisometric pixels. So, if you want to connect up a pc for non-movie playing use, then you will struggle if your display does not have isometric pixels.

J.J.

Thank you for the detailed answer than even a non-math guy like me can understand.
Ovation is offline  
post #20 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 02:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
fugiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post

easiest way to know its not. Watch 720p source material. Set 768p set to 1:1. Notice black bars all the way around. Must be zoomed to fill that screen. On the other hand, set computer to 1360x768, set to 1:1. Notice the full screen.

And please stop the 1080i lies. Theoretically, 1080i is almost, ALMOST showing you full 1920x1080. The human eye can detect the flicker that results from the alternating fields. You are not seeing the full resolution. You think you are during slower scenes, where the "wobbling" is almost undetectable, but just wait until the QB rifles one downfield. You are seeing, 540p several times per second. That's the same wobble that we've seen all of our lives. Now that's its 1080i, it seems to not count for some reason, but when its 480i vs 480p its the same thing. Insanity. There's a reason one has the i and one has the p and is more expensive than the other.

So according to this, when I'm watching my old 480i trinitron, I'm actually watching 240p several times per second??

Sony XBR960n - nice to rods, mean to cones.
fugiot is offline  
post #21 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 02:42 PM
Member
 
sportwarrior14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So does all this mean that in the plasma market its advisable to get a 50" over a 42"? I've been wrestling with that a little over the past few weeks because of the resolution difference... I didn't think it would matter that much, I'm just not so sure. The biggest problem is I don't have room for a 50" at this point, but may in as few as 6 months... Is the resolution difference a concern, or will I be plenty happy with a 42"?
sportwarrior14 is offline  
post #22 of 40 Old 11-29-2006, 02:50 PM
Member
 
MatWiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiehowser View Post

Or would I be better off looking at brightness, contrast and other stats and not worring about 1024 vs 1366?

According to what ISF technician will tell you, and what ISF is saying, your last sentence is correct.

They say, in order of importance: contrast ratio, color accuracy, resolution. Rosolution came last.

Of course, all things being equal, get the highst resolution your money can buy, but they say that the other 2 are more important.
MatWiz is offline  
post #23 of 40 Old 12-01-2006, 11:03 AM
Member
 
turbo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post

And please stop the 1080i lies. Theoretically, 1080i is almost, ALMOST showing you full 1920x1080. The human eye can detect the flicker that results from the alternating fields. You are not seeing the full resolution. You think you are during slower scenes, where the "wobbling" is almost undetectable, but just wait until the QB rifles one downfield. You are seeing, 540p several times per second. That's the same wobble that we've seen all of our lives. Now that's its 1080i, it seems to not count for some reason, but when its 480i vs 480p its the same thing. Insanity. There's a reason one has the i and one has the p and is more expensive than the other.

Except all flat panel displays are progressive. Doh!
turbo3 is offline  
post #24 of 40 Old 12-02-2006, 09:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
Valence01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macdaddie View Post

Excellent stuff J.J.
I am looking for a display that I can use, split screen(PC monitor/TV), 26 or 32", and have narrowed the field to the Samsung or Sony. Can I determine if they have isometric pixels or not? I have scoured the product detail pages, and no mention.
Any other comments from you or anyone else here are appreciated on my search.....

MD

For a standard HDTV display, the screen aspect ratio is 16:9. Dividing that out, we get 1.77777777. So, for a set with 1024 by 768, dividing that out, we get 1.33333333, which is not equal to 1.77777777. So, that set has anisometric pixels. That is, rectangular, rather than square pixels. For a set with 1280 by 720, the ratio comes out exactly to 1.7777777, therfore isometric. For the more common 1366 by 768 sets, the ratio is ever so slightly different than 1.7777777, but I don't think that anybody is really going to notice, since the difference is 1.7786458 vs 1.7777777. That's plenty close enough. Of course, 1920 by 1080 is 1.7777777 isometric.

J.J.
Valence01 is offline  
post #25 of 40 Old 12-03-2006, 09:31 PM
Member
 
ks_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A question about 1024x768 along the lines of this thread. I posted this question in another thread but didn't get an answer. Thanks for your help.

I just bought a Dell 42" plasma for my office. I am using a digital box where you set the output resolution. The tv has a native resolution of 1024x768. I'm assuming this means I should set the box to 720p rather than 1080i, but I wanted to make sure. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.
ks_man is offline  
post #26 of 40 Old 12-04-2006, 04:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
martyj19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I posted the answer in the other thread. Please don't post the same question to multiple threads. Sometimes it takes a little while before someone who knows the answer comes along.
martyj19 is offline  
post #27 of 40 Old 12-11-2006, 10:46 AM
Member
 
RobsTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Port Richey, FL.
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post

And please stop the 1080i lies. Theoretically, 1080i is almost, ALMOST showing you full 1920x1080. The human eye can detect the flicker that results from the alternating fields. You are not seeing the full resolution. You think you are during slower scenes, where the "wobbling" is almost undetectable, but just wait until the QB rifles one downfield. You are seeing, 540p several times per second. That's the same wobble that we've seen all of our lives. Now that's its 1080i, it seems to not count for some reason, but when its 480i vs 480p its the same thing. Insanity. There's a reason one has the i and one has the p and is more expensive than the other.

Thanks for stating what most electronic service techs already knew, but have long given up the fight to explain. There is still hope after all..... 1080i = 540p

It can be confusing, and really only matters most from a technical standpoint. New users to HDTV will have many more important issues to worry about other than whether 720p or 1080i is best choice (such as brand reliability or connection variety). Both 720p and 1080i will be fine, but note that the "i" will not be around much longer, and is not even allowed in the standard for many countries. Only 720p and 1080p.
RobsTV is offline  
post #28 of 40 Old 04-22-2007, 07:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
ctakim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyj19 View Post

There's a few things going on here.

The two HDTV resolutions are 1280x720 and 1920x1080.

First, manufacturers use the term "720p display" in their marketing literature loosely and incorrectly. These days, they tend to use it for anything that isn't a "1080p display". So let's put that one to rest first.

The native resolution of a 1366x768 panel is not 720p. If anything, it is 768p, since all input is scaled to the 768 lines. But, of course, 768p is not a resolution that is used in the source material. Only 720p and 1080i/p are used. We should count 480i/p also, for SD material and DVDs.

In the case of plasma, it is fiendishly difficult to make plasma panels with small pixels. This is why 1080p plasmas are so long in coming and why 42 inch plasma panels are 1024x768.

How can 1024x768 be HD, you ask. Many dozens of people have asked that over and over here in the forum. The answer is, the Consumer Electronics Association has decided that any display with at least 720 lines can be called an HDTV and have the logo. There is some basis in fact for this because the human eye is more sensitive to vertical resolution than to horizontal resolution. This has been taken advantage of for years in NTSC because the horizontal resolution of NTSC is really poor. It is also taken advantage of in so-called HD-lite where the video is resampled to 1440x1080 on things like satellite, or maybe even shot with a 1440x1080 camera instead of the 1920x1080 camera you thought the network was using, and you probably didn't even notice.

We have had intense wars about whether that CEA definition is legitimate. Believe what you will, and if you don't think 1024x768 is HD, buy something else. Vote with your wallet. Simple as that.

In the case of LCD, it is difficult to make large pixels. This is one reason why 1366x768 has been used. Also, please do not forget that a lot of HD is in 1080i, so 1920x1080 has to be downscaled to 1366x768. Conversely, 1280x720 has to be upscaled to 1366x768.

To those who say, but wouldn't it be a good idea if the panel were 1280x720 so at least one of the resolutions wouldn't have to be scaled, I say nope! For one thing, you'd be downscaling 1920x1080 all the way down to 1280x720, so you'd lose a lot of resolution on the very format that is supposed to be giving you lots of detail, which is also what most channels broadcast in. For another thing, the extra resolution is really helpful on things like diagonal lines, where you can smooth out the line. If you were in 1280x720 on a 32 or 37 inch display, you'd probably be complaining that the display looks all blocky and pixelated because the pixels are just too big and the diagonal lines have too much stairstepping.

Turns out you can get 1280x720, but you have to go all the way down to 22 and 23 inches, where it works nicely.

Oh, and one other thing that comes up over and over again. The resolution of 1080i is not "540p", it is 1920x1080, dang it. If you were to shoot a still life, you would have 1920x1080 worth of pixels. It's simply that you have to wait 1/30 second rather than 1/60 second to get all the pixels. If it's a live shot. If it's film, it was shot at a mere 24 frames per second, so (inverse telecine, 3:2 pulldown, which is actually reverse 3:2 pulldown) done correctly gives you back your movie.

I know I'm posting in an old thread, but this is the best explanation of this very confusing topic that I've found. Thanks!
ctakim is offline  
post #29 of 40 Old 04-22-2007, 09:34 PM
 
ZippyBongHits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: White Mountains NH
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatWiz View Post

According to what ISF technician will tell you, and what ISF is saying, your last sentence is correct.

They say, in order of importance: contrast ratio, color accuracy, resolution. Rosolution came last.

Of course, all things being equal, get the highst resolution your money can buy, but they say that the other 2 are more important.

Dont forget color salturation, that also comes before resolution.

Resolution is overrated except for extreme cases where you sit real close to a larger than average monitor. Then you get into the THX guidlines which have some nice graphs telling you how close you need to sit to a certain sized screen for "X" resolution to even become a factor where your eyes can percieve a difference.
ZippyBongHits is offline  
post #30 of 40 Old 04-23-2007, 04:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Blackraven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
1080i is more like a 644p from what I've heard.

Although I did wish that:

Interlace = Progressive divided by 2

Making 1080i = 540p

Things would have been more simple that way but I guess that's what electronics really is about (complex mumbo-jumbo)

Blackraven is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

User Tag List

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