"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.
"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.
"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
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).
"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?
"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
"Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims "
"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...