Fake 1080i - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 08:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Jayne
Originally Posted by justsc
Here's a definition of Horizontal resolution from cnet:
horizontal resolution
... Some examples for typical sources: VHS VCRs (240 lines), analog TV broadcasts (330 lines), non-HDTV digital satellite TV (up to 380 lines), and DVD players (540 lines). DTV signals have horizontal resolution that ranges from 640 lines for SDTV to 1,280 lines (for 720p HDTV) or 1,920 lines (for 1080i HDTV).



...Don't look now but this is inconsistent.

Lines of resolution figures require a distance reference and, when there is more than one, the aspect ratio. The non-bold examples use a distance equal to the height of the picture and a 4:3 aspect ratio. The bold examples use a distance equal to the width of the picture. The standards for 720p and 1080i ATSC HDTV has a 16:9 aspect ratio only. Using the Electronic Industries Assn. or textbook standard of the picture height as the reference distance the horizontal resolution is 720 and 1080 (same as the vertical) respectively!
I was really hoping you would chime in here. ;)

I'm having trouble grasping what you're saying here. I was trying to help folks understand that horizontal resolution consists of the vertical lines from left to right, while vertical resolution consists of horizontal lines from top to bottom, and that total resolution is represented as H res x V res, like 1920x1080. There's been no end to the confusion on that here.

Are you just explaining how the AR plays into how resolution is represented?
justsc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 10:29 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore
I know...we have corrected this.



I disagree. Interlaced scanning results in a perpetual vibration of the entire screen, which dramatically reduces clarity. The Sony sets do 480p natively, and 1080i isn't dramatically better precisely because it is interlaced and the 480 is progressive. All other things being equal, native 1080p on a CRT would blow these 1080i set away both in clarity and lack of motion artifacts.
After reading this forum for a while, I thought that I was the only person who could actually see this. I almost think we are just used to interlacing since that's been the standard our whole lives as far as viewing video. Its always been very obvious to me. Especially when viewed from the side or certain light conditions. I've tried to buy into 1080i since that's what I always viewed HD with before, but its nowhere near what is usually stated here. The full resolution is not constantly shown and our eyes know it vs a progressive picture.
rantanamo is offline  
post #93 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Allan Jayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Nashua, NH USA
Posts: 1,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsc
Are you just explaining how the AR plays into how resolution is represented?
I need to clarify what I said.

The concept of resolution, that is, horizontal resolution relates to dots or vertical lines side by side, does not need to mention aspect ratio. When you introduce specific numbers, then it gets more complicated.

Using the picture width as the reference distance, you do not need to take aspect ratio or screen size into account and this is the simplest method to understand.

Except that almost all test patterns use picture height as the reference distance and aspect ratio does have to be taken into account.

Reference distances such as inches or centimeters need to take the screen size into account.

Remember when lines and logos burned the TV screen? I was at a concert where a musical selection made extremely heavy use of about four of the keys of the piano.
Allan Jayne is offline  
post #94 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo
After reading this forum for a while, I thought that I was the only person who could actually see this. I almost think we are just used to interlacing since that's been the standard our whole lives as far as viewing video. Its always been very obvious to me. Especially when viewed from the side or certain light conditions. I've tried to buy into 1080i since that's what I always viewed HD with before, but its nowhere near what is usually stated here. The full resolution is not constantly shown and our eyes know it vs a progressive picture.
Thanks for chiming in. I have always noticed it as well, even before HD even existed. I guarantee everyone here that I could spot native 1080p next to 1080i every time from normal viewing distances - not even close. Perhaps some of us are more sensative to it, and other don't really notice it. If someone wants to challenge me on this, just tell me where to show up for the double blind test. I guarantee 100% accuracy, and I'm willing to put down hard cash against anyone who thinks I won't be able to tell.
RWetmore is offline  
post #95 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 02:08 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
I couldn't really see interlacing until I got my HD Toshiba. Whenever I go back and look at our "old" Trinitron, the text on our DishNetwork guide is so flickery it nearly gives me a headache. BUT, I also have SD dish on my Toshiba which runs at upconverted 1080i. Even though the Tosh is interlaced as well, it's MUCH harder to see compared to the native 480i Sony.

Sony XBR960n - nice to rods, mean to cones.
fugiot is offline  
post #96 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 02:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are you people sure you aren't seeing the 60Hz flicker? You can see this flicker on PC CRT progressive monitors set to 60Hz too. If interlace did vibrate I'm sure it would've been mentioned by many other A/V geeks after all these years...
vazel is offline  
post #97 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vazel
Are you people sure you aren't seeing the 60Hz flicker? You can see this flicker on PC CRT progressive monitors set to 60Hz too. If interlace did vibrate I'm sure it would've been mentioned by many other A/V geeks after all these years...
I really think this is what's being noticed.

Since all these crt sets (interlaced) have run at 60Hz it may be difficult to seperate the two. Like most folks, I tend to enjoy progressive scan over interlaced scanning, but I really believe what being described as vibration is the 60Hz flicker. I've always referred to it as interline flicker, which may be inaccurate.
justsc is offline  
post #98 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by vazel
Are you people sure you aren't seeing the 60Hz flicker? You can see this flicker on PC CRT progressive monitors set to 60Hz too. If interlace did vibrate I'm sure it would've been mentioned by many other A/V geeks after all these years...
No, no - I know exactly what flicker is. The Sony sets display 480p natively, and there is still the exact same amount of flicker whether in 480p or 1080i.
RWetmore is offline  
post #99 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 06:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 57
For me, the difference between progressive and interlaced is not hard to see. It renders itself most distinguishable when there is text on the screen. Because the whole picture is in a perpetual state of "vibration" when interlaced, smaller, edgier objects like text are harder to see. In many cases, you can boldly see the vibration of bright edges of lines or text. Side by side, all other things being equal, progressive is clearer, more natural, and much easier on the eyes.
RWetmore is offline  
post #100 of 166 Old 11-29-2006, 09:07 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wouldn't the text be hard to see because there's only 853x1080 resolution on these sets? You're losing quite a lot of resolution on screen. When outputting 1080i from my PC to my HDTV the text in my web browser isn't legible but when outputting in 720p which has a closer horizontal resolution to what my TV can actually resolve on screen the text although still not as sharp as my PC monitor is readable.
vazel is offline  
post #101 of 166 Old 11-30-2006, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Allan Jayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Nashua, NH USA
Posts: 1,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vazel
Wouldn't the text be hard to see because there's only 853x1080 resolution on these sets? You're losing quite a lot of resolution on screen. When outputting 1080i from my PC to my HDTV the text in my web browser isn't legible but when outputting in 720p which has a closer horizontal resolution to what my TV can actually resolve on screen the text although still not as sharp as my PC monitor is readable.
The poorer readability of the text when delivered as 1080i may also be due to the method of scaling used by the PC to obtain 1080i. There may be considerable blending of adjacent scan line content. To reduce flicker of single scan line high picture details at 1080i, some PC's may in effect be giving you 540p instead of 1080i.

Actually a long time ago, some 480i PC video was output as 240p. In addition the scan lines at the extreme top and bottom were not used because the PC relied on an ordinary TV with overscan as the monitor.

Try (for a few minutes) doing an optical zoom by adjusting the HSIZE and VSIZE controls and see if the 1080i version becomes clearer with the scan lines spaced out a bit more.

Remember when lines and logos burned the TV screen? I was at a concert where a musical selection made extremely heavy use of about four of the keys of the piano.
Allan Jayne is offline  
post #102 of 166 Old 11-30-2006, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore
For me, the difference between progressive and interlaced is not hard to see. It renders itself most distinguishable when there is text on the screen. Because the whole picture is in a perpetual state of "vibration" when interlaced, smaller, edgier objects like text are harder to see. In many cases, you can boldly see the vibration of bright edges of lines or text. Side by side, all other things being equal, progressive is clearer, more natural, and much easier on the eyes.
You must have exceptional visual acuity (not teasing). I believe you. You mentioned earlier that maybe this is just easier for some to see than for others. I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I do see it, but not as clearly as you seem to. Like you, I also prefer progressive scan over interlaced. However, when I got my 34" Sony crt set I was actually surprised to see how much easier 1080i was (on my eyes) than I had expected.

I recently had the opportunity to calibrate my buddy's new 45" Aquos 1080p set and I just love it.
justsc is offline  
post #103 of 166 Old 11-30-2006, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vazel
Wouldn't the text be hard to see because there's only 853x1080 resolution on these sets? You're losing quite a lot of resolution on screen. When outputting 1080i from my PC to my HDTV the text in my web browser isn't legible but when outputting in 720p which has a closer horizontal resolution to what my TV can actually resolve on screen the text although still not as sharp as my PC monitor is readable.
I don't think it's the resolution. When I hooked-up my 17" Apple laptop to my 34" Sony at 1080i the text was literally unreadable. But when I dropped the resolution and ran in PS mode (480p) things cleared up. It was far from perfect but much morre legible than 1080i.
justsc is offline  
post #104 of 166 Old 12-04-2006, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
lastxbr960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glendale, Wi
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
Glad you understand because things still seem up in the air to me. Seems everyone I talk to has something different to say about this matter. If you poke around in the official xbr960 thread you'll see some different numbers being thrown around than what I've seen in this discussion. The number I got from there was 853 X 1080 and rectangular pixels.

I don't see how the size could be the reason. It seems to me that the smaller the screen the more difficult it would be to get a lot of scan lines on. My TV is 34", my CRT monitor only 17". But my monitor's resolution is 1280 X 1024 and is progressive. According to this guy's numbers that is quite a bit better than my TV and I payed only $99 for the monitor. But for all I know the way resolution is presented on a CRT monitor may be totally different than on a CRT TV. However, reguardless of the method it seems to me that a $1000 CRT HDTV should be able to match a $100 CRT monitor.
Well said One reason crt monitors have high resolution(and 1 bet your $100 monitor can do 1920x1080P with a good recent video card) is.
#1 Computer monitors more or less were dominated by CRT's until the last few years and only had 1 input (VGA) and usually no speakers no tuner, SD or HD, no s video, no composite, no component, no HDMI, no digital out, no ant or cable in,, no remote, no timer, no cable card, less government regulation, much smaller is easier to manufacture.
That said I still see no reason why a multi sync 34" or larger full 1080P or at least 1080i CRT was never introduced by Sony Toshiba Panasonic Samsung, etc. other than it was getting extremely cheap to manufacture LCD's plasmas and RP lcos sxrd dlp sets and the margins on those were crazy and in most cases the shipping cost and space requirements were better.
They saw it cheaper to build new flat panel factories where wages were lower and close crt factories and layoff crt workers where wages were higher.
Toshiba however along with Canon are trying to bring CRT like SED to the masses soon and that should be good.
I always thought Sony would make one final full HD Trinitron out of pride and respect for what that line did for their prestige, I was wrong they just let it die silently and such a set would have taken the shine off it's LCD's and SXRD's since even the xbr960's PQ is arguably still it's best in the consumer range. :)
Oh well.
lastxbr960 is offline  
post #105 of 166 Old 12-11-2006, 08:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsc
You must have exceptional visual acuity (not teasing).
Well yes, I do have good vision, and don't wear glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justsc
I believe you. You mentioned earlier that maybe this is just easier for some to see than for others. I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I do see it, but not as clearly as you seem to. Like you, I also prefer progressive scan over interlaced.
It is my belief that most people can and do see it - they just think that it is flicker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justsc
However, when I got my 34" Sony crt set I was actually surprised to see how much easier 1080i was (on my eyes) than I had expected.

I recently had the opportunity to calibrate my buddy's new 45" Aquos 1080p set and I just love it.
The specs are getting impressive with those. There new large models have a less than 4ms response time and very high contrast ratios. Now that's getting there.
RWetmore is offline  
post #106 of 166 Old 12-11-2006, 10:33 AM
Member
 
pulse333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone who doesn't believe that their CRT is displaying less than 1080 lines should record the HDNet test pattern on their DVR. I have a Panasonic 26wx15. Counting the phosphor dots by hand, there are ~ 1000 x 600. Thats under a third of the pixels in a 1080i signal. Using a resolution test pattern, the TV can resolve about 600 horizontal lines. At higher than that you cannot see the spaces inbetween the test lines. I also have an Xbox 360 hooked up via component. When I switch from 480p to 1080i there is only a slight increase in sharpness and resolution, the most noticable difference between the two settings is the picture quality, but text looks about the same. Small text in some games is unreadable on this TV.
pulse333 is offline  
post #107 of 166 Old 12-11-2006, 01:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulse333
I have a Panasonic 26wx15.
On your set that my be true... on other (larger) CRT's, it would be quite different.
Not all direct view CRT's are created equal.
Ratman is online now  
post #108 of 166 Old 12-11-2006, 07:30 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore
It is my belief that most people can and do see it - they just think that it is flicker.
I've tried to see this. I've put up all sorts of text and images to the TV to see if I can see it vibrate but nothing. I do see flicker on some thin lines but these lines are flickering in their own space, they aren't moving in a vibrating manner. Now I'm not stubborn but I'll only accept this as fact when many other A/V geeks start reporting it.
vazel is offline  
post #109 of 166 Old 12-11-2006, 11:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So if interlaced vibrates when it's displayed on screen natively and we lose a lot of detail in the vertical 1080i lines as a result then along with the horizontal 853 resolution these tubes are basically EDTV+. Although I'm not entirely convinced interlaced vibrates, this thread is the first time I've ever heard of this.

Some day soon I'm going to spend a lot of time doing side by side comparisons with HDTV rips I have stored on my HDDs on my HDTV and two PC monitors to see if the detail loss wether it's caused by interlace vibration or the low 853 horizontal resolution or both is significant. If it does turn out my HDTV isn't displaying anywhere near the potential of HD I'm ditching it for an LCD. Reading this just now doesn't fill me with confidence.
vazel is offline  
post #110 of 166 Old 12-12-2006, 05:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Wickerman1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Minerva, Ohio
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vazel
So if interlaced vibrates when it's displayed on screen natively and we lose a lot of detail in the vertical 1080i lines as a result then along with the horizontal 853 resolution these tubes are basically EDTV+. Although I'm not entirely convinced interlaced vibrates, this thread is the first time I've ever heard of this.

Some day soon I'm going to spend a lot of time doing side by side comparisons with HDTV rips I have stored on my HDDs on my HDTV and two PC monitors to see if the detail loss wether it's caused by interlace vibration or the low 853 horizontal resolution is significant. If it does turn out my HDTV isn't displaying anywhere near the potential of HD I'm ditching it for an LCD. Reading this just now doesn't fill me with confidence.
Yeah, I didn't know about 1080i CRTs having far less than 1080i resolution until after I'd already invested in CRT. This certainly bugs me but I try to not think about it too much. The picture looks good to me but I do find myself wondering how much better it would look if the full 1080i signal was being displayed. But I do plan on upgrading to a 1080p flat panel eventually, most likely SED. You can bet your ass that next time I'll make certain that the resolution advertised is the one displayed before I hand over my cash. I'm still not totally sure what I'll do with my xbr970 after I do upgrade ( And that'll be quite some time yet. ). I might keep it for my bedroom or I might sell it to my mother for far less than I payed for it. She's already asked me if I'd be interested in doing that if I upgrade. Some of you might think I'm a bastard for not just giving it to her, heh heh, but I'm poor.:( I'd have to get at least a little out of it. But it even embarasses me that the actual resolution is far below 1080i. I've known it for over a month but just admitted to a friend the other day that my picture is actually missing more than 1,000 lines of resolution going left to right. Before that I was keeping it hush, hush to people I know. Hell, he's still the only person I've admitted it to. Knowing what I know now I would have spent extra for a 1080p LCD if I had it to do over again. Of course, with LCD I'd be losing black levels though. I wish SED would hurry up and get here!
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #111 of 166 Old 12-12-2006, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would put my 34HS420 up against my buddy's 45" 1080p Sharp Aquos any day of the week. I calibrated both sets and I can tell you that the PQ on my HS420 (same as 970) is better than his 1080p set (he'd tell you the same thing). Same thing with a 720p Plasma set. You still cannot beat a crt for overall PQ.

Folks need to get this straight - there's much more to PQ than resolution.
justsc is offline  
post #112 of 166 Old 12-12-2006, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know my HDTV has great color and contrast but I can get great color and contrast on an SDTV too. I got an HDTV for the detail I would gain with the higher resolution.
vazel is offline  
post #113 of 166 Old 12-13-2006, 06:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Wickerman1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Minerva, Ohio
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsc
I would put my 34HS420 up against my buddy's 45" 1080p Sharp Aquos any day of the week. I calibrated both sets and I can tell you that the PQ on my HS420 (same as 970) is better than his 1080p set (he'd tell you the same thing). Same thing with a 720p Plasma set. You still cannot beat a crt for overall PQ.

Folks need to get this straight - there's much more to PQ than resolution.
When you say yours looks better exactly what do you mean? I'm sure the blacks are better on your TV and the color might be better but surely his picture must be sharper and more detailed.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #114 of 166 Old 12-13-2006, 06:58 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Does anyone know how many vertical slits in the aperture grill my P275 21'' Trinitron monitor has?
vazel is offline  
post #115 of 166 Old 12-13-2006, 08:40 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
vazel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I compared HD scenes from the Gladiator 1080i HDTV rip I have on my HDD on the HDTV played through my PC at 1080i and on my P275 21'' Trinitron monitor set at 1600x1200. The video is sharper on my PC monitor but I still liked what I saw on my 30HS420. What matters is that quality for HD video on my 30HS420 is noticeably above that of a DVD(I compared the Gladiator HDTV rip to my Gladiator DVD to make sure ;)).
vazel is offline  
post #116 of 166 Old 12-13-2006, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
When you say yours looks better exactly what do you mean? I'm sure the blacks are better on your TV and the color might be better but surely his picture must be sharper and more detailed.
It's because I don't equate picture quality with resolution alone. Yes, the Sharp Aquos 45" 1080p LCD set did show somewhat better sharpness but it couldn't compare with my set's black level, color decoders, contrast, etc. Resolution is not all there is to PQ, nor is it even the most important element to PQ. It is one feature amongst many, and it takes the totality of all of them to deliver overall PQ or fidelity. I'll say it again, no display technology can match the PQ of crt. Others are getting close, but they're not quite there yet. This is why broadcasters and producers will use crts as their reference displays when shooting and editing video.

Now, will my next set be a crt? No. I want something much bigger and I am looking closely at Sony's SXRD sets, especially the 55" and 60" models.
justsc is offline  
post #117 of 166 Old 12-14-2006, 07:37 AM
Member
 
hdtv_crazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Guys,

I think this thread answered my question that I posted on the Official Sony KD-34XBR970 page. I was adjusting my new 32" LCD while I had next to my XBR970. I had both TVs on a HD channel from the same cable service and I couldn't figure out why the 1080i picture on the LCD had much finer detail since it was closer to 720P vs my 970s native 1080i. After reading this post I think I have it figured out. So my 970 is actually 1080(h)x853(w) with the vertical resolution being scan variable at 480, 720, 1080. The width is 853 but 1920 and 1280 resolutions get downscaled proportionally to fit the 853 vertical slits on the screen.. Since 480P is 480x853, that's why I dont' see a "huge" increase in 1080i HD-DVD detail vs my 480P SD-DVD picture. Now my LCD is 768(h)x1366(w) so even a 1080i image downscaled would have more horizontal detail than the CRT. And if I had a LCD that was 1080x1920, it would even have better detail since there are more pixels. Did I get that right? :D
hdtv_crazy is offline  
post #118 of 166 Old 12-14-2006, 08:53 AM
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
I dunno, on my Toshiba, there's a huge difference between DVD(853x480) and Blu-ray(853x1080). That extra 600 lines of resolution makes things a lot more detailed to me!

Sony XBR960n - nice to rods, mean to cones.
fugiot is offline  
post #119 of 166 Old 12-14-2006, 09:47 AM
Member
 
hdtv_crazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugiot
I dunno, on my Toshiba, there's a huge difference between DVD(853x480) and Blu-ray(853x1080). That extra 600 lines of resolution makes things a lot more detailed to me!
I thought there was a lot more detail viewing HD over SD matieral on the CRT and I probably wouldn't have known any better if I didn't see the LCD. But since I've seen the same shows, movies, and games side by side to compare, the LCD just has better detail. Could just be my CRT or my settings, dunno :p
hdtv_crazy is offline  
post #120 of 166 Old 12-14-2006, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
justsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There's no question that more pixels means more detail.

But, you have to consider what effect, say, contrast ratio has on our perception of detail? How much effect does black level have on our perception of the details in the rich colors HD brings us? These elements that make up fidelity or picture quality are so interdependent, that a source with less information can appear to have more detail and one with loads of information. I've seen dvds on my Sony set that appear to have way more detail than some of the HD material I've seen. Yet the HD show brings so much more video information to the game than dvd.

Then you have to take into account the format in which a video or film was shot, and how much it was massaged to be shown in HD or SD on an HD channel. And which set would this look better on, an 853x1080i Sony 970 or a 1280x720p LCD set?

Bottom Line (for me) - I love how my Sony set displays HD and SD. I also love how my buddy's Sharp 45" 1080p LCD set, and my Dad's Panasonic 720p LCD set handle themselves. They all look great, and they're all significantly different. Detail (resolution) is clearly an important element of DTV, but it's only one element. As time goes by I get less and less impressed with the ever higher pixel counts, and more impressed with how sets handle blacks, whites and greyscale.
justsc 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