Why does the kd34xbr960 need 1400 line of resolution. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 306 Old 11-12-2004, 10:38 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As I understand it the Sony kd34xbr960 will only process 1080i. What purpose does 1400 vertical lines of resolution serve?
gdg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 01:02 AM
Member
 
juandixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
720 p = 720 progressive

progressive = double ur resolution

720 X 2 = 1440 lines
juandixon is offline  
post #3 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 01:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 5,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The Sony has 1400 horizontal resolution (not vertical). 1080i format is 1920 horizontal.
Joxer is offline  
post #4 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:48 AM
 
PikminZeez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Super Fine Pitch CRT is still not enough to display the full resolution of HDTV. You need 1920 lines of horizontal resoultion. 1400 is unbelievably not enough. Some LCD panels have 1920 though.
PikminZeez is offline  
post #5 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Sony doesnt have 1400 lines of actual resolution available in either direction.

Stop the madness.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #6 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As any audiophile will tell you, resolution isn't everything.
That said, the XBR's 1400 lines is still significantly better than most CRT's. That, in combination with the deepest black you can get, strikes me as a good trade-off to give what's probably the best overall high def performance available.
gdg is offline  
post #7 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
As any audiophile will tell you, resolution isn't everything.
That said, the XBR's 1400 lines is still significantly better than most CRT's. That, in combination with the deepest black you can get, strikes me as a good trade-off to give what's probably the best overall high def performance available.
SEE below

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
The Sony doesnt have 1400 lines of actual resolution available in either direction.

Stop the madness.

ss
And I should say THIS Sony doesnt, but I am guessing you know that.
subysouth is offline  
post #8 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 07:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 5,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The 1400 horizontal resolution the Sony XBR provides is still a lot more than the typical HD CRT which only has around 850 horizontal!
Joxer is offline  
post #9 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Joxer
The 1400 horizontal resolution the Sony XBR provides is still a lot more than the typical HD CRT which only has around 850 horizontal!
If it did 1400 and the other 34"s were only 850 that might be an impressive difference but neither of those numbers are correct.

Like I said in the other thread the Sony is doing about 1105x623 and the other good 34" sets are about 917x517.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #10 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 10:52 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmmm.....
Regardless of whether there are unrealistic specs being bantered around, by your own admission the resolution of the Sony is approximately 20% better in both directions. That results in an overall increase in pixels of 45.2% over a standard "good" 34 inch widescreen CRT. That's strikes me as fairly "impressive"!
gdg is offline  
post #11 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
Hmmm.....
Regardless of whether there are unrealistic specs being bantered around, by your own admission the resolution of the Sony is approximately 20% better in both directions. That results in an overall increase in pixels of 45.2% over a standard "good" 34 inch widescreen CRT. That's strikes me as fairly "impressive"!
Think about the problem with that though gdg. If two sets are being fed the same line rates but one has higher resolution what is the net result of this?

If you lay 1080i on 623 vertical res vs 517 vertical res you do have less line redraw on the higher res set, but both of those are basically closely ranked and pathetic attempts at full 1080i. Maybe a slight nod to the higher res set.

If I feed them both 480p, they both light up exactly 480 lines of their available vertical resolution. Net result, more unused(dead) lines in the higher resolution set. Slight nod to the lower res set.

If you could feed the Sony 623p and the other sets 517p, the Sony would get the real nod on better actual used resolution. It would however have lower light output equally calibrated due to the smaller pixels.

Its not as simple as this set has higher res than that set and is therefore better. If you cant use it its pointless and reduces light output and seating distance.

"Free your mind."

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #12 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
Subysouth, your numbers make no sense.

It just occurred to me that, unless I'm missing something, there is a fundamental problem the numbers you quote (917x517). 480i requires by nature 960 scan lines. While I know that, practically, sets don't actually display all 480 lines there still seems to be a major discrepancy. Are scan lines different than lines of resolution? That doesn't make any sense.
480i does not require 960 vertical lines of res, it requires 480.

Analog sets that are being asked to do 480i do have 480 pixels of actual usable vertical resolution. They actually do 2 240 line fields(actually 262.5 lines.)

Thats the problem with these 1080i sets, they dont have 1080 of actual vertical resolution and certainly not 1920 of horizontal.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #13 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
I'm perceiving a fundamental conceptual problem here. Are scan lines not the same as lines of resolution? (because 480i technically requires 960 scan lines)

Ps I'm guessing you're going to tell me they're not the same but in that case how is it possible to have ~480 "lit up" lines and the same number of dark lines if each line was not a separate line of resolution.
480i is exactly 480 horizontal lines(counted vertically) and no specified horizontal resolution but a 4:3 profile scanned in an interlaced fashion.

The electron beam acts like a thin paintbrush moving back and forth horizontally across the screen painting the image. The ideal image in no overlap but no gaps between the lines - a completely painted canvas. You dont want to see the lines if possible, thats why progessive scanning is better.

When you heard the set manufacturers claiming horizontal lines of reolution in the old days they were making claims(often wildly inaccurate) about how many horizontal pixels their sets could do. The vertical resolution was non-negotiable, it was always 480 in an interlaced fashion. So the only way they could differentiate their sets would be to claim their higher priced sets did 900 horizontal lines/pixels of res vs say 600 on another set. It often was wildly exaggerated but who really cared right? Again the vertical was fixed at 480 regardless.

Enter SD digital which began specifying a horizontal res at 640. SD NTSC digital is supposed to be 640x480i.

Next enter ATSC also specifying both horizontal and vertical resolution. 1080i = 1920x1080i. 720p = 1280x720p.

Problem is CRT tech cant make that leap in resolution for technical reasons on medium to large CRT screens. But CRT was the prevalent tech and set manufacturers needed to start making "HD" sets, and thus began the truth stretching on the CRTs.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #14 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Couple of ninja post deletes eh?

Caught and responded to anyway.

ss:)
subysouth is offline  
post #15 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:51 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm beginning to understand and, being an audiophile, am familiar with the game of specmanship that gets played. Having said that, trying to impose (paint/light up) 1080 lines over 517 (or 623 for that matter) is obviously a waste of time. It would seem that many of the extra lines in the Sony will simply repeat information. So why can one see such a large improvement when viewing an HD source on a CRT? According to what you are telling me, virtually all the extra info is lost. Is it mainly the horizontal that actually benefits?
gdg is offline  
post #16 of 306 Old 11-13-2004, 11:53 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ps Does one have to go to Plasma or LCD to get the real benefit of HD?
gdg is offline  
post #17 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 12:06 AM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Pps.
Bottom line, what is your opinion on the Sony and why the general consensus that the crt still gives the best picture (assuming size and weight are not an issue). Is Princeton the way to go?
gdg is offline  
post #18 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
I'm beginning to understand and, being an audiophile, am familiar with the game of specmanship that gets played. Having said that, trying to impose (paint/light up) 1080 lines over 517 (or 623 for that matter) is obviously a waste of time. It would seem that many of the extra lines in the Sony will simply repeat information. So why can one see such a large improvement when viewing an HD source on a CRT? According to what you are telling me, virtually all the extra info is lost. Is it mainly the horizontal that actually benefits?
Its the huge increase in the inherent info in the signal itself that is the biggest increase in picture quality. Even though ALL of it is not being displayed, the amount that is still absolutely trumps what most people are used to.

Consider that much analog 480i only carried about 350 distinct pixels in both the horizontal and maybe slightly les than that in the vertical. [Don't get caught up on the vertical line count being 480, just because its 480 doesnt mean the actual signal carried 480 distinct vertical pixels, they can repaet the same info in adjacent lines.] Lets call the actual resolution of an avergae NTSC analog cable channel 350x300 for arguments sake.

Now juxtapose that against 1080i or 720p. The original mandates for ATSC were defining both horizontal and vertical resolutions. It didnt take long for broadcasters to work on some leniency in the horizontal range(just like they had been enjoying in the NTSC signal.) So depending on who you ask, while the vertucal resolution of 1080i and 720p are non-negotiable the horizontal rates are. And in the defense of the broadcasters, the data content(and bandwidth required to dispense it) is hugely different from NTSC to ATSC. It would be like telling auto manufacturers that in 6 years all their cars need to be able to get 50mpg. Its a big transition and big transitions cut into profits. Signal providers are already flush with subscribers, how does it help their bottom line giving a better signal at more expense to them when they already have the subscribers? It doesnt, so theyve been throwing roadblocks in the path the whole. But for satellite, ATSC might have been scuttled entirely by the cable providers.

Are you seeing how the game works?

Thats the long answer, even the horizontally deprived 1080i signal thats being sent over the lines today(mostly 1440x1080i) has about 13-16 times more actual content than your avergae old NTSC channel did. Even though this Sony cant actually reproduce it all, it still is lightyears better than what you had, thus the WOW factor. And the reason a lot of the chain bringing HD to the consumers is like "why bother"? They know they could have wowed consumers on an average TV set(say 42" and under) with a heck of a lot less inherent resolution than 720p or 1080i. That kinda content is unnecessary on the average sized TV set unless you are sitting really close. It is however necessary on legitimate home theater displays(say 60"+).

Sony would still WOW the heck out of people if they drove their sets at their actual resolution(say 620p on the 34XBR960) but it wouldnt fall into "HD" but the picture would be even better than it is now because it would eliminate line redraw and be progressive. The reason you dont see scan lines on 1080i on the Sony is cause it doesnt have the lines to ignore in each field.

To ask widely varying screen sizes to do the same or similar resolutions at relatively the same distances is the inherent illogic of the HD standards.

Starting to make sense? Its a lot more complicated game than the simple surface would imply.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #19 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 01:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
Pps.
Bottom line, what is your opinion on the Sony and why the general consensus that the crt still gives the best picture (assuming size and weight are not an issue). Is Princeton the way to go?
The reason is the signal range a CRT produces and the speed it transitions is very human eye friendly. The human is very sensitive to subtle color changes and precisely can divide motion. The CRT is just the best device going that can do all these things well. Plasmas are getting better and operate a lot like a CRT in some ways. Problem with CRTs is their size limits(

SED is showing real promise of bringing CRT picture quality to a larger display.

Time will tell.

If I were to buy a 34" CRT right now, I would be looking for a now defunct Sampo or one of the other more reliable 34" units based on a high volume CRT unit. But know that youre gonna have to invest the effort in a HTPC to make it work right.

I personally am loooking at an ED 42" plasma beacuse of my viewing distance (10'.) Thats a little beyond its sweet spot, but I have exceptional vision.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #20 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 02:47 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The problem is that, each answer, generates more questions. That said I'll understand when you run out of patience.

Here's a couple more:

When you say high volume CRT do you mean, mass produced? Couldn't one somehow bypass the Sony's processing and drive it by a computer?

Also, is there any way to calculate how much of an actual increase in resolution the Sony practically produces over the classic NTSC display?
In other words, though shortchanged, just how close does the 960 actually get to the potential offered by HD?
Or...... are there simply too many variables in the original content to say?

Finally, can you suggest the best place where I might research the aspects of HTPC that I would need in order to push a CRT to it's limits if driven by a computer?
Why isn't this capability built into some high end devices? Is it because the sources vary too widely and each situation has to be custom tailored?
gdg is offline  
post #21 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
The problem is that, each answer, generates more questions. That said I'll understand when you run out of patience.

Here's a couple more:

When you say high volume CRT do you mean, mass produced? Couldn't one somehow bypass the Sony's processing and drive it by a computer?

Also, is there any way to calculate how much of an actual increase in resolution the Sony practically produces over the classic NTSC display?
In other words, though shortchanged, just how close does the 960 actually get to the potential offered by HD?
Or...... are there simply too many variables in the original content to say?

Finally, can you suggest the best place where I might research the aspects of HTPC I would need in order to push a CRT to it's limits if driven by a computer?
Why isn't this capability built into some high end devices? Is it because the sources vary too widely and each situation has to be custom tailored?
I always try my best to be patient with people who are ready to truly understand something. And there is no easy answer thats why each answer creates more questions. There is no perfect boxed solution out there right now in the CRT HD arena, but I just today learned there may be one close - see below.

When I say high volume I mean you want a tube and as many electronics possible with a proven track record. Even the handful of sets that offer computer input are built by larger corporations and sold to these lower volume sellers for modification to their specs. Princeton doesnt make their tubes, they order them to their specs or order already engineered sets and build-in further control over their inherent resolution. The only fully custom CRT tv tube I am aware of ever being built was the PG AF3.0HD, driven by the input of Joe Kane. But there are a lot of great tubes out there that if correctly driven would be great displays.

It would be possible I think to convert the Sony to digital input but not easily and would require a huge skills set. Also I am not sure thats the best choice(getting past the difficulty of it) because the smaller pitch of the Sony screen is only a benefit if you sit closer(sub 6') and it does have a downside in that it reduces light output. [Thats why I think the Sony's have the light fogging in the tube is because they are overdriving the smaller phosphors to equal the light output of the larger pixel sets.] Other 34" sets with larger pixels and lower inherent res might be better if you are sitting at more typical distances. The Sampo 34" as a choice come to mind.

Interms of what this Sony is doing with the only HD signal it supports,1080i, I think I covered it pretty well above. It is scanning 1080i lines over about 623 of actual available vertical resoution and whatever the horizontal content of the 1080i signal is(the braodcasters are already "cheating" on that part lets call it 1400) to about 1100 of available horizontal resolution.

So youre getting ~623 pixels of muddied vertical resolution and about 1100 of horizontal resolution(also muddied because of the line redraw.) It still looks great compared to NTSC becasue as I explained above NTSC is horribly pixel deficient(say 350x300.)

Now since my last posting I did find a bit of good news in the 34" CRT arena. The Toshiba 34HF84 and 34HXF84 allow for all inputs(including 720p and 1080i) to be scaled to 540p which is very close to the sets actual inherent resolution. I was unaware that any of the big name brands(Panasonic, JVC, Sanyo, Sony, or Toshiba) were supporting 540p on a 34" set. Simply put, it may be the best looking easiest to use HD set out there because of its approach and allowance for 540p. I am still reading about the set but my belief in progressive scanning near actual resoution puts that 34" at the top of the heap of sets that lack scalable computer input. Look hard at this set if you like 34" CRTs.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #22 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
Finally, can you suggest the best place where I might research the aspects of HTPC that I would need in order to push a CRT to it's limits if driven by a computer?
Why isn't this capability built into some high end devices? Is it because the sources vary too widely and each situation has to be custom tailored?
Missed the last two. Look here for starters on general HTPC info:

http://www.keohi.com/keohihdtv/exper...uperguide.html

Why not on high volume sets even the expensive ones? Because A) few people actually understand it or why it would be a benefit B) cost and C) potential service calls by confused customers and trying to track the problem to the set or the input. Tell them its an HD, make the picture look pretty good and most people are happy. The only way to convince them would be show them even better, then they could drive manufacturers to include such features.

I personally would be thrilled if Sony just said look, the sets native resolution is 1100x625 and were driving everything at that rate progressively. The catch is, it wouldnt be HD. And it saying HD sells.

All that adds up to the set manufacturers have no reason to do it.


Faroudja does make a device that works very similary in the scaling aspects to a HTPC, the Native Rate scaler, but they are AFAIK still limited to a group of established output resolution rates(800x600, 1280x720, 1366x768 etc.)

True pixel mapping can only be done on HTPC with variable pixel output rates. The weird actual rates of direct view CRTs can only be fully explored by a HTPC.

Getting close, see the Toshiba info above, is good enough for 99% of people. I think I am in that 99% because the Toshiba is very appealing in its direct simplicity. I am now considering the 42" ED plasmas and those 540p Toshiba sets. I am a little far at 10' for the Toshiba set, but that beautiful CRT picture is enticing.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #23 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 06:03 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a Toshiba 34hf83 sitting here in my bedroom that I was about to sell in favor of the Sony. It also has user selectable 540p. I noticed this when I bought it but thought it was just Toshiba playing with the numbers.
I decided to "upgrade" because I was finding that the black wasn't as deep as I had experienced with the earlier flagship Toshiba CW34XC2 (Canadian model). In the mean time (since I made the decision to sell) I've gotten a high def PVR and discovered that it's only on low quality SD that the Toshiba is less than satisfactory. Maybe I should keep it and sell the Sony. I got a great deal and shouldn't have any trouble.

When I decided to sell the Tosh I was also a little concerned about the fact that the 34hf83 only used a "wide band" video amplifier rather than the "ultra wide band" amp used on the hfx version. Some people claim this is not an issue. In audio, even though speakers only go up to about 20khz it is desirable to have an amp that goes much higher in order to minimize harmonic distortions (if I understand correctly). I'm not sure the same holds true for video.
That said, the picture on the Sony does strike me as more "vibrant" and "3 dimensional" than the Tosh . (That's after I used the Avia test DVD to back off the red push typical on Sony's.) On the other hand I should note that another real plus with the Tosh is the fact that the geometry is almost dead bang on right out of the box.
I know from experience that sometimes simpler and/or cheaper can be better. ie The original Panasonic RP56 DVD player ( and later the 82) which contained the Farouja deinterlacer chip was not even advertised and yet provided a level of technology that, not only equaled, but surpassed high end players costing 5 to 10 times as much.

Ps Are you sure that Sony isn't driving the TV at 625p? I probably have to think about this some more but I've noticed that on zoomed 4:3 I can see very thin scan lines while on an HD feed the picture is absolutely continuous.
gdg is offline  
post #24 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 07:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm confused, what Sony do you have?

Without a doubt I would keep the Toshiba.

On the Sony at 625p I am positive its not at that rate, they dont even claim its trying it let alone doing it. [625p would be a significantly higher scanning frequency than 1080i btw.] Scan lines are actually dead space between active lines or the dead space allows you to differentiate the active lines from each other. The gap is the problem no matter which way you look at it. When you zoom in 4:3 you should see the scan lines, you should also see scan lines on 1080i, but you dont. Thats becuase too many lines are trying to be laid in too little space. On 1080i on curent CRTs, not only do they leave no gap they almost fully overlap. Thats another reason the image looks better or fuller, but overlapping it muddies(1st field line info laid over 2nd field line info etc etc) the image.

A progressive image drawn on exaclty the line count the set has gives a full picture without overlap and no gaps between the lines(scan lines.)

Put your Toshiba on 540p for all sources - now. :) That is all.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #25 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 07:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Dearth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey is this Gary Merson review in "The Perfect Vision" mag just wrong?

"Right out of the gate, the 34XBR910 wins the resolution race for its size category. This TV boasts a whopping 65% increase in horizontal resolution compared to all previous and current Sony widescreen “standard†direct views, with 1401 horizontally-measured aperture grille slots (see sidebar) in its new “Super Fine Pitch†CRT versus the 847 in Sony’s standard-pitch widescreen tubes. It has higher resolution than competing-brand direct views such as the Sampo 34", which has around 1000 shadow-mask holes. It also exceeds the resolution capability of the highest-resolving plasmas, which have 852 horizontal pixels for 32" and 1024 for 42" screens, and of LCD panels, which currently max out at 1280 horizontal pixels for screens from 30" to 37"."

Now I know that some newer LCDs have even more resolution this article was from late 2003.

http://www.theperfectvision.com/news...v34xbr910.html
Dearth is offline  
post #26 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Dearth
Hey is this Gary Merson review in "The Perfect Vision" mag just wrong?

"Right out of the gate, the 34XBR910 wins the resolution race for its size category. This TV boasts a whopping 65% increase in horizontal resolution compared to all previous and current Sony widescreen “standard†direct views, with 1401 horizontally-measured aperture grille slots (see sidebar) in its new “Super Fine Pitch†CRT versus the 847 in Sony’s standard-pitch widescreen tubes. It has higher resolution than competing-brand direct views such as the Sampo 34", which has around 1000 shadow-mask holes. It also exceeds the resolution capability of the highest-resolving plasmas, which have 852 horizontal pixels for 32" and 1024 for 42" screens, and of LCD panels, which currently max out at 1280 horizontal pixels for screens from 30" to 37"."

Now I know that some newer LCDs have even more resolution this article was from late 2003.

http://www.theperfectvision.com/news...v34xbr910.html
Note Gary uses the word theoretical. Slot openings are one of the things that defines horizontal resolution on a Sony set, the others are beam spot size and phosphor triad count. In order for the Sony to have 1400 unique horizontal pixels it would have to have a pitch of .54mm screenwide, which is possible, but would be extraordinary. The info I recall was .68mm. But the easy way to resolve it is to count the seperate phosphor triads visible on the surface of the screen - you dont have to count them all just a measure and multiply it out. If you had the set you could do it in minutes with a slide rule.

I find it curious that Sony lists no specific resolution on any of their data nor lists any pitch size.

ss
subysouth is offline  
post #27 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 08:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jonnyozero3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 000000N 0000000E
Posts: 1,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
In audio, even though speakers only go up to about 20khz it is desirable to have an amp that goes much higher in order to minimize harmonic distortions (if I understand correctly). I'm not sure the same holds true for video.
I don't know what is recommended in an amp in this regard, but I am pretty sure that if you increase the bandwidth of the amplifier you will actually be accepting MORE harmonics of the original signal in the reciever that is being amplified. This is actually a good thing in theory, as I understand it, since the more harmonics that are "allowed in" the more accurate or true the resulting output signal becomes to the originial input. Note: I am NOT saying that it would be good for a speaker or amp to produce harmonics unless they were there in the original signal in the first place :)

Also, I think the human ear is probably the limiting factor around 20khz rather than the speaker.

Subysouth - you have some great facts and science to back up your opinions info (nice that this is a civil conversation by the way), but if gdg says:

Quote:
That said, the picture on the Sony does strike me as more "vibrant" and "3 dimensional" than the Tosh
Than I would say, no matter what the resolution debate turns out to be, if he (gdg) had both sets calibrated correctly and running under the same circumstances than either:
A) The sony is indeed the better set, either by resolution or some other factor.
or
B) gdg's eyes are lying to him...:P

No matter which is true, I'd say, don't tell him to get rid of the set that looks the best to him.

Finally, Dearth: the link on the Sony/Sampo comparison is very interesting, seems to disagree quite a bit....

This is fun :cool:

- Jon
"010 Meh"
jonnyozero3 is offline  
post #28 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 08:40 PM - Thread Starter
gdg
Senior Member
 
gdg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In answer to your question I currently have the Sony kd34xbr960 and the Tosh 34hf83. One will have to go.
There are still 2 things that puzzle me about this discussion.
1) Why would Sony retool and develop an entirely new level of technology if there are no real practical benefits and possibly some drawbacks (overdriving phosphors can't be good in terms of longevity)
2) Why has the 960 received almost universal acclaim as state of the art amoung reviewers. Surely they're not all sucked in by the numbers. Any good reviewer knows that the real proof is in the pudding.
gdg is offline  
post #29 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 08:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jonnyozero3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 000000N 0000000E
Posts: 1,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Note Gary uses the word theoretical
Good catch Subysouth.

So, are you saying that the Sony XBR does indeed have a higher resolution than the Toshiba HFX--but, due to the Sony's mismatch between displayed output resolution and the 1080i input, and the Tosh's closer match at 540p, even at a lower resolution, that the Tosh displays a theoretically (I like that word ;)) better picture?

I have to say, that in my small amount of tv shopping experience I have found the Sony XS and XBR lines to be the best to my eyes. I think I did see some Tosh's but they had terrible geometry problems...these were floor models, of course...I pretty much dismissed them then.

- Jon
"010 Meh"
jonnyozero3 is offline  
post #30 of 306 Old 11-14-2004, 08:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subysouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by gdg
In answer to your question I currently have the Sony kd34xbr960 and the Tosh 34hf83. One will have to go.
There are still 2 things that puzzle me about this discussion.
1) Why would Sony retool and develop an entirely new level of technology if there are no real practical benefits and possibly some drawbacks (overdriving phosphors can't be good in terms of longevity)
2) Why has the 960 received almost universal acclaim as state of the art amoung reviewers. Surely they're not all sucked in by the numbers. Any good reviewer knows that the real proof is in the pudding.
It would depend on a lot of things.

Did the reviewer test only using HD 1080i signals at native rate on both sets? The higher inherent resolution of the Sont and lower line overlap would make it look better on 1080i, but IMO neither of them should be driven at 1080i. 540p on the other hand is closer to the Toshibas native rate. Also the Sony with its finer pitch might look subjectively higher res at the same distance. Meaning the two devices shouldnt be viewed at the same distance for a level comparison because one has a smaller pixel. I wouldnt mind seeing acomparo with the 1080i HD input on the Toshiba driving 540p from 8' and the Sony on 1080i at 6'.

gdg is uniquely set up to pull this off...

At my distance - 10', the Sonys resolution advantage is wasted.

So many variables.....

I dont even know where gdg is viewing from for instance. If hes close sub 6' I have no doubt the Sony would probably look better. My computer monitor would make the XBR960 look bad at 3'. Distance is key to the right decision on display device. If I havent said it enough let me say it again.

ss
subysouth is offline  
Closed Thread Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

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