Fake 1080i - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 05:51 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 1080i CRTs actually displaying a true 1920x1080i picture? I read on another HT forum that 1080i CRT HDTVs take the 1080i signal and downconvert it to 960x540 because the size of a HDTV CRT makes the technology to display 1920x1080i prohibitive.

Also, while I'm at it why do some people call 1080i 540p? As in 1920x540p. Is that valid? With 1080i aren't I seeing 1080 lines of resolution, just in alternating frames?
vazel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:07 PM
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
I haven't heard 960 X 540 before. I'm pretty sure that the actual amount of lines of resolution on my Sony XBR970 is 853 X 1080. And yeah, that is a long way from 1920 X 1080. But considering the screen size and the superior colors and blacks of CRTs it still looks fantastic. I don't think there are any CRTs that truly have 1920 X 1080 lines of resolution. I believe most have in the area of 800-900 horizontal lines and 1080 vertical ones. Older Sonys with the Super Fine Pitch Tube had a little over 1400 horizontal lines but that still isn't quite 1920. And I'm not sure why this is the case. MY CRT PC monitor has a max resolution of 1280 X 1024 and it is progressive and only cost me $99! Why a CRT monitor for PCs costing only $99 can have 1,280 horizontal lines of resolution running progressively and a CRT HDTV costing over a grand can only have 800-900 horizontal lines of resolution running interlaced is beyond me. And it can't just be about screen size because my monitor is only 17" and my HDTV is 34". Based on that it seems to me that 1080p CRT HDTVs with legitimate line resolution of 1920 X 1080 shouldn't be a problem. If they can do it with monitors than why not with HDTVs? I'm sure there must be an answer but I don't know what it is. It's never made sense to me why my $99 monitor can do more than the HDTV I payed $800 for.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #3 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
notreally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toto land
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That is someone's misconception of what 1080i is. They display 1920x1080 at 60 fields per second. Because only half the fields are on the screen at a time, someone came up with some modern math that it was only 960x540 (why they divided both by 2 is a tremendous stretch). The picture is composed of 1920x1080 pieces of information.

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.
Henry David Thoreau
notreally is offline  
post #4 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:13 PM
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 notreally
That is someone's misconception of what 1080i is. They display 1920x1080 at 60 fields per second. Because only half the fields are on the screen at a time, someone came up with some modern math that it was only 960x540 (why they divided both by 2 is a tremendous stretch). The picture is composed of 1920x1080 pieces of information.
I'm not sure if that is accurate. I've been told by quite a few on this forum that my xbr970 has a horizontal resolution of only 853.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #5 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
notreally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toto land
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Your vertical resolution is 1080. Multiply 1.777778 times your vertical resolution on a 16x9 set for your horizontal resolution. Sorry I didn't include vazel's question. We posted our answers at the same time.:D

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.
Henry David Thoreau
notreally is offline  
post #6 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:29 PM
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
Yeah, I see what you're saying but I'm still not convinced you're right. There was a big discussion about this in the xbr960 thread and the consensus was that CRT HDTVs have 800-900 horizontal scan lines and 1,080 vertical ones ( Resulting in rectangular pixels. ) whereas past Sony HDTVs with the SFPT had a little over 1,400 horizontal lines.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #7 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 06:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
notreally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toto land
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, you've got a great TV (as long as you don't have to move it).:D

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.
Henry David Thoreau
notreally is offline  
post #8 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 07:14 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
Hmm, this is a little disappointing to hear. Losing quite a lot horizontal resolution. Should I even bother with getting HD-DVD? Is the vertical 1080 lines enough to appreciate the sharpness of HD?
vazel is offline  
post #9 of 166 Old 11-16-2006, 07:45 PM
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
Hmm, this is a little disappointing to hear. Losing quite a lot horizontal resolution. Should I even bother with getting HD-DVD? Is the vertical 1080 lines enough to appreciate the sharpness of HD?
It still looks stunning.:)
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #10 of 166 Old 11-17-2006, 06:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
biker19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 3,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Don't shop resolution and numbers - look subjectively at the PQ.
biker19 is offline  
post #11 of 166 Old 11-17-2006, 09:19 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
Yeah, I see what you're saying but I'm still not convinced you're right. There was a big discussion about this in the xbr960 thread and the consensus was that CRT HDTVs have 800-900 horizontal scan lines and 1,080 vertical ones ( Resulting in rectangular pixels. ) whereas past Sony HDTVs with the SFPT had a little over 1,400 horizontal lines.
This can get very confusing.

There's horizontal resolution and vertical resolution.

Horizontal resolution consists of the vertical lines starting at the left and ending at the right side of the display (like this: llllllll). The two HD formats in use are 1920x1080i and 1280x720p. In each case, the first number represents the horizontal resolution. Here the horizontal resolution is 1920 (again, these are the vertical lines).

Vertical resolution consists of the horizontal lines starting at the top and ending at the bottom of the display. So according to the HD spec, the second number is the vertical resolution. On these sets, the vertical resolution is 1080 lines.

On most HDTVs there's a difference between the HD format being used and the actual number of lines being drawn. For instance, all fixed-pixel displays (e.g. LCD, DLP) employ the 1280x720p, but the actual number of lines ranges from 1024x720 to 1366x768. Here we see that sets drawing 1024x720 don't actually meet the HD spec of 1280x720, yet they are still HDTVs and have gorgeous PQ. Most all Plasma sets under 50" run at 1024x720p. Our crt HD sets accept all HD formats but actually resolve fewer lines, and yet are still valid HDTVs. I have the KV-34HS420, which has the same resolution as the KD-34XBR970 - these sets resolve around 850x1080 (and the 1080 is debatable depending on who's arguing the point). The entire 1920x1080 lines is accepted and actually drawn into the raster which is capable of resolving fewer lines than the spec. There's alot of magic going on there, but it's clear that the PQ is stunning and whatever information is being "lost" is not affecting the overall fidelity of the picture.

If one studies the relatively importance of image quality attributes, contrast, brightness and color decoding, are more important than resolution. This is why you can set a CRT HDTV next to other display technologies which are resolving more actual lines and the crt still looks the best.

Let's just hope that as crt technology fades away the others will improve. We're seeing this especially in the LCD arena. LCD is getting better all the time. Plasma was already close. Sony's SXRD sets (LCOS) are exceptional, as is DILA, another LCOS technology. Many are looking ahead towards SED and OLED.

As for me, my 34" Sony crt HD set is in my master bedroom and I just love it. Soon I'll be looking for a set for my family room. If I had the money today I'd buy Sony's 60" SXRD set.

Cheers!
justsc is offline  
post #12 of 166 Old 11-18-2006, 11:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 83
I doubt the HS420 resolves 850x1080. The grille's holes are too big, and the Super Fine Pitch sets supposedly only do about 800x1400 (advertised as 65% more than their regular HD sets). I bet the HS420 is more like 650x1050, which would technically make them fall a little short of the 720 horizontal lines definition of High Def.
RWetmore is offline  
post #13 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 01:04 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'm still so disappointed over this. This explains why outputting from my PC to HDTV in 1080i small text isn't legible. Oh well, I don't watch much HD content anyway. This TV is wonderful for DVDs. When I decide to go HD-DVD I'll look into CRT RPTVs.
vazel is offline  
post #14 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 01:10 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'm still so disappointed over this. This explains why outputting from my PC to HDTV in 1080i small text isn't legible. Oh well, I don't watch much HD content anyway. This TV is wonderful for DVDs. When I decide to go HD-DVD I'll look into other display technologies.
vazel is offline  
post #15 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 01:23 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
At least this explains why outputting from my PC to HDTV in 1080i small text isn't legible.
vazel is offline  
post #16 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 07:33 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
So I'm better off feeding my '1080i' set 720p since that resolution is closer to what my set can actually do in horizontal resolution. I noticed when I'm outputting 720p from my PC I can read the text in my web browser but when my PC is outputting 1080i the text is not legible.
vazel is offline  
post #17 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 10:14 AM
Member
 
dmcmahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, unlike fixed-pixel displays CRTs can have variable scan/sync rates. In theory a multi-sync CRT could render in a variety of modes, even progressive. I believe however that the Sony CRTs always render in interlaced. 1080i should in fact be 1080i. Sony's aperture grille means there is no shadow-mask structure along the vertical axis. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that Sony's electronics will up-convert analog SD from 480i to 960i by line-doubling it. That could be where the 960i number is coming from - it's not a horizontal resolution. In terms of horizontal, remember that even plasmas at the 42 inch size only show 1024, which isn't full HD. Sony CRTs in the HS series and the the 970 all have 853 slits running from top to bottom. You could say that therefore it has a maximum of 853 horizontal resolution, although some posters have said that this isn't quite so, because since the horizontal scan is analog, you can in theory resolve a bit more detail because the cells don't have to be 1-to-1 with the signal (in effect you might get some half-cells depending on the electron gun spot size). I'm not sure I buy that completely, but no question the HD pictures on these sets are second to none. Lucky owners of the discontinued super-fine-pitch CRTs get 1400 slits of horizontal structure.
dmcmahon is offline  
post #18 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 10:27 AM
Member
 
dmcmahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As to the other question about 540p, this is based on the following. With a 1080i signal, you are getting a 1920x1080 half-frame (called a field) 60 times per second. Now, in theory a set could just wait 1/60 of a second after every odd field, and weave it together with the even field that follows it, then show you 1920x1080 full-frame at 30 per second. Which, as you say, is still 1080 lines of detail vertically. The problem is, you can't just mindlessly weave the odd and even fields together like this, because they are different moments in time. If you do that in a fast-motion scene, or in a scene cut-over, you can get "combing" effects. In the worst possible case if a scene cut occurred between odd and even fields, you would see two completely different half-images woven together. 1/30 of a second doesn't sound like much but I guarantee you humans can see that. Some sets dealt with this problem by doing a mindless line-doubling of the 1080i fields, so that in effect you would see each 540-line half-image doubled to the full size of the screen, and you'd see 60 of them per second. So in effect 1080i @ 60 Hz had become 540p @ 60 Hz, instead of 1080p @ 30 Hz. Does that make sense? Better sets don't do mindless line-doubling, but they have to work hard to figure out how to combine fields, or not combine them to avoid combing.

Film content fields are combined using 3:2 pull-down techniques, so the above applies mainly to video-sourced content. With film content, in the movie theater, you are seeing 24 frames a second, which would flicker, so they frame-double it to 48 frames a second by repeating each frame 2x. Some technologies might triple it to 72. When films are transferred to interlace formats, each frame is split into odd and even halfs. Without going into too much detail, you can see that in this special case, the TV's de-interlacing logic could safely weave the odd and even fields together, because they were originally parts of a single moment in time and therefore there will not be any risk of combing.
dmcmahon is offline  
post #19 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 11:25 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
http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/1040/dizzyje6.gif

Okay, let me see if I got my horizontals and verticals right according to what justc said about the horizontal resolution(the 1280/1920 part of HD) being the vertical lines and the vertical resolution(the 720/1080 part of HD) being the horizontal lines. So the actual horizontal resolution on the Sony HS420 is about 650 vertical lines and the vertical resolution is 853 horizontal lines. So 650x853?
vazel is offline  
post #20 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 12:08 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
http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/1040/dizzyje6.gif

Let me see if I got the horizontal and vertical right. According to what justc said the horizontal resolution(the 1280/1920 part) is the vertical lines and the vertical resolution(the 720/1080 part) is the horizontal lines. So the HS series and XBR970 are outputting 853 vertical lines(horizontal resolution) and 1080i horizontal lines(vertical resolution)?
vazel is offline  
post #21 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 01:28 PM
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 RWetmore
I doubt the HS420 resolves 850x1080. The grille's holes are too big, and the Super Fine Pitch sets supposedly only do about 800x1400 (advertised as 65% more than their regular HD sets). I bet the HS420 is more like 650x1050, which would technically make them fall a little short of the 720 horizontal lines definition of High Def.
I don't buy this argument. Proof?
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #22 of 166 Old 11-19-2006, 06:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
I don't buy this argument. Proof?
850x1080 = 918,000; 65% more than 918,000 = 1,514,700; SFP has 65% more than the HS420, but the SFP is only 800x1400, which comes to 1,120,000.

650x1050 = 682,500; 65% more than 682,500 = 1,126,125 or pretty close to SFP's 1,120,000.

Proof or not, this is where I'm coming from.
RWetmore is offline  
post #23 of 166 Old 11-20-2006, 12:55 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
Hmm, okay so depending on who you believe it's either 853 vertical lines(horizontal resolution) and 1080i horizontal lines(vertical resolution) or 650 vertical lines(horizontal resolution) and 1050i horizontal lines(vertical resolution). Got it.
vazel is offline  
post #24 of 166 Old 11-20-2006, 07:01 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
But everyone else I've seen discuss this say that the SFPT Sony models are 1400 ( Or something like that. ) X 1080. That is different than what you are claiming. Your resolution numbers make no sense to me. Why would the SFPT sets have more vertical scan lines than the 1080i standard and less horizontal ones? The 1400 X 1080 numbers I've heard before make much more sense to me than yours do. No improvement needed to be made with the vertical resolution. But improvement did need to be made with the horizontal resolution, hence the reason to design a SFPT to begin with.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #25 of 166 Old 11-20-2006, 09:14 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
850x1080 = 918,000; 65% more than 918,000 = 1,514,700; SFP has 65% more than the HS420, but the SFP is only 800x1400, which comes to 1,120,000.

650x1050 = 682,500; 65% more than 682,500 = 1,126,125 or pretty close to SFP's 1,120,000.

Proof or not, this is where I'm coming from.
It never fails.

This debate has never ended in agreement. Confusion reigns and folks just dig in harder.

The numbers being batted about are all heresay as Sony has never officially declared the "resolveable resolution" of their crt sets. Most folks agree that the SFP tube resolves around 1440 lines (horizontal resolution). The same folks tend to agree that the HS and 970 series sets resolve around 850 lines (horizontal resolution). But you won't find this in print with Sony letterhead anywhere. Less "certain" is the vertical resolution. Even less certain is the percentage of resolution the SFP tube has over the non-SFP tube. Suffice it to say the SFP tube resolves more detail than does the HS/970 sets.

Is it really all that important? Resolution is just one of many factors that make up picture fidelity. Most folks that review and rate these sets put contrast and color purity/decoding above resolution in importance.

These are all wonderful HDTVs, and I'm proud to be an owner, regardless of my set's resolution.

Cheers!
justsc is offline  
post #26 of 166 Old 11-20-2006, 09:22 AM
Member
 
dmcmahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Back when Sony was selling it, you could read the specs on the super-fine-pitch picture tube and yes it said that the tube had 1400 vertical slits, versus 850-odd for the normal tube. As to "Why did they pick a resolution lower than 1920?", I think for the same reason makers of 42" plasmas picked 1024 (lower than 1366). This is as good as they could do with the manufacturing process for tube technology; none of their competitors came close to this. 1400 is still above what's needed for 720p. 852 is (I think) DVD wide-screen resolution.
dmcmahon is offline  
post #27 of 166 Old 11-20-2006, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
But everyone else I've seen discuss this say that the SFPT Sony models are 1400 ( Or something like that. ) X 1080.
I doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
That is different than what you are claiming. Your resolution numbers make no sense to me. Why would the SFPT sets have more vertical scan lines than the 1080i standard and less horizontal ones?
The 1080 signal standard is for horizontal lines, not vertical. Vertical is 1920.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
The 1400 X 1080 numbers I've heard before make much more sense to me than yours do. No improvement needed to be made with the vertical resolution. But improvement did need to be made with the horizontal resolution, hence the reason to design a SFPT to begin with.
This doesn't add up to me. Take a look at the two grills. There is no way the HS420/970 has an equal number of horizontal lines as the SFP. The wholes and dot pitch is much bigger than the SFP; thus there can't be as many slits. It is quite clear that the super fine pitch sets have significantly higher horizontal and vertical resolution.
RWetmore is offline  
post #28 of 166 Old 11-21-2006, 06:03 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
I wish somebody else who knows the precise facts better than I do would come in here and argue this with you because I have no doubt that you are wrong. What you're saying makes no sense. The 1080i standard is 1920 X 1080. You're saying that the SFPT displays at 800 X 1400. That makes no sense! Why would they increase the 1080 part to 1400? Doing that would be pointless because that goes above and beyond the signal coming into it. What does make sense is getting the 1920 part as close to 1920 as possible. Other tubes do that at 800-900, the SFPT at 1400. That's still not quite 1920 but certainly a big improvement.
Wickerman1972 is offline  
post #29 of 166 Old 11-21-2006, 09:55 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
I wish somebody else who knows the precise facts better than I do would come in here and argue this with you because I have no doubt that you are wrong. What you're saying makes no sense. The 1080i standard is 1920 X 1080. You're saying that the SFPT displays at 800 X 1400. That makes no sense! Why would they increase the 1080 part to 1400? Doing that would be pointless because that goes above and beyond the signal coming into it. What does make sense is getting the 1920 part as close to 1920 as possible. Other tubes do that at 800-900, the SFPT at 1400. That's still not quite 1920 but certainly a big improvement.
Folks are getting the numbers all screwed-up.

I can't pretend to get into someone else's mind, but I don't believe RWetmore is trying to say that Sony's SFP tube has more vertical resolution (the horizontal lines) than the 1080 format, although his text can be read that way. I believe all he's trying to say is that the SFP tube has more resolution than the non-SFP tube, on an order of about 63%. That number has been batted around often. I don't agree with it, but what does that matter.

The ATSC format is 1920 by 1080i. The SFP tube reportedly resolves around 1440 by something less than 1080 (the vertical resolution has never been settled on, but it's gotta be something less than 1080). The non-SFP tube reportedly resolves around 850 by something less than the SFP tube.

Bottom Line? There are NO crt sets that can resolve 1920x1080i, NONE. It's doable, but no one has done it in a consumer model. Some sets can resolve more than others. Sony's SFP tube seems to resolve the most resolution, and certainly the highest horizontal resolution (the bigger number). The rest seem to resolve around 800-900 horizontal resolution. Then of course there's brightness, contrast, color decoding, all more critical than resolution, according to those who rate these tvs and do the polls.

This always turns into a pi$$ing contest. "My set is better than yours because I have the vaunted SFP tube." "Mine's better because with fewer, and larger slits it gets better brightness so I can at least see it." It goes on and on, and on, and on...
justsc is offline  
post #30 of 166 Old 11-21-2006, 10:05 AM
Member
 
dmcmahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972
I wish somebody else who knows the precise facts better than I do would come in here and argue this with you because I have no doubt that you are wrong. What you're saying makes no sense. The 1080i standard is 1920 X 1080. You're saying that the SFPT displays at 800 X 1400. That makes no sense! Why would they increase the 1080 part to 1400? Doing that would be pointless because that goes above and beyond the signal coming into it. What does make sense is getting the 1920 part as close to 1920 as possible. Other tubes do that at 800-900, the SFPT at 1400. That's still not quite 1920 but certainly a big improvement.
You are reversing horizontal and vertical numbers, and you are misunderstanding CRT technology, particularly Sony's.

Let's start with CRT basics, from the era of black and white TV. The tube is coated with layers of material including phosphors that, when excited by an electron beam, emit light. Analog TV signals send an analog waveform along a horizontal scan line. Thus, it would be correct to talk about how many scan lines of resolution there is, because it's a fixed number. But there is no actual limit to the gray-level precision (other than signal-to-noise ratio). The limit on horizontal resolution is also a bit hard to quantify, because once again it's analog. Here the best you can do is reason from the bandwidth allocated, from which you can calculate that 440 Hz of bandwidth is available per scan line. 440 Hz means 440 up/down cycles, or a pattern of black/white stripes numbering 440 across, which is sort-of 880 pixels. As a practical matter, you can't really see all of that since the wave forms don't really have sharp edges.

Nothing in the forgoing said anything about physical dots, because there aren't any in a black-and-white set! So, with analog TV, the only actual "digital" resolution is the number of horizontal scan lines. Although this is 525 for NTSC, due to lines wasted for overscan, it is treated as 480 interlaced lines per frame.

Physical dots appear when you move to colour. This is because you need to have different phosphors and/or colour filters to get light of different colours to be emitted when struck by the electron gun. You also need to make sure the gun hits the right spot on the screen for the colour it's rendering. Most CRTs use a shadow mask to accomplish this - it's a metal grid with lots of tiny holes in it. Sony is unique in using an aperture grille, which could be thought of as an outer metal frame with a series of vertical slits cut into it. Because the slits are vertical, Sony CRTs don't have a physical limit on vertical resolution imposed by the tube itself. (The limit would be imposed by the spot size of the electron gun, but this is irrelevant because as noted earlier the vertical dimension is already inherently "digital" because even an analog picture is broken up into a fixed number of scan lines.)

Colour CRTs still fundamentally work like black-and-white, in that an analog signal is put out across each horizontal scan line. The signal does not have sharp edges so for example it does not go from full-on to full-off as it crosses each slit. In other words, the horizontal "pixels" do not exactly match up with the slits, but instead can straddle slits and/or share slits. This is the same thing as the 440 Hz issue described earlier, only now you have the slits to contend with.

Digital CRTs still ultimately convert each scan line to an analog signal for rendering. It is at this point that the pixel in the digital image lose some of their individual identity to the analog waveform. Of course, as mentioned above, the number of scan lines is still a discreet ("digital") number, so that continues to be relevant, as it was even in analog.

Unlike most fixed-pixel displays, CRTs can scan the electron gun in many different manners, all on the same physical tube, by changing the scan frequency. In the days of CRT computer monitors there were "multi-sync" monitors that would run at a range of frequencies. One thing that I have never seen, but that is theoretically possible, is that a CRT could switch between progressive and interlaced rendering. As a practical matter, the design of the CRT and the selection of phosphors will make it run natively one way or the other. TV CRTs are interlaced.

While an HD CRT could in theory show SD material at 480i by literally scanning 480 lines vertically, this would look hopelessly grainy. My understanding is that Sony will line-double the 480i up to 960i to avoid this. Note that this does not say anything about the horizontal resolution, because, once again, that's an analog signal (possibly one generated from digital content, but still analog when finally displayed). The tube has some fixed number of slits, but that doesn't mean you actually have that many discreet resolvable areas to see. The underlying signal may have less resolution than the number of slits (e.g. for SD), or it may have more resolution than the number of slits (e.g. for HD).

Some confusion seems to exist about horizontal resolution. Current Sony CRTs, including my HS series, are the "normal" tube, which has 852 or 853 vertical slits. The super-fine-pitch tube, no longer in production, that was found in the XBR960, the XS series, and some other sets, had 1400 vertical slits. I can't say this enough times, so I'll say it again: the slits run vertically, not horizontally - each slit is could be thought of as what you'd get by taking a knife and cutting from the top of the metal sheet down to the bottom. It's important to remember that the signal going out horizontally is already analog by the time the electron gun is hitting the slits, so the fact that the number of slits is not exactly the same as any of the SD or HD resolutions is not critical.

With slits, vertical resolution could in theory be whatever you want, based on the electronics - 480i, 720p, 1080i. As a practical matter, HD CRTs want to run in the range of 1080i, give or take - they aren't designed to "multi-sync" like the computer CRTs. If given a 1080i HD signal, I believe you really do get 1080i scan lines. 720p is converted to 1080i by the scaler. 480i is either converted by the scaler or line-doubled to 960i - note that this cannot add resolution where none exists, it's still only 480 discreet lines of information content.

So, let's review: given a 1920x1080i signal, my CRT will display all 1080i vertical scan lines, but the horizontal 1920 pixels will be converted to an analog waveform and somewhat degraded by the 853 slits they must pass through. Someone with an XBR960 would see somewhat less degradation from their 1400 slits. Given a 640x480i SD or analog signal, my set will line-double it up to 960i, but of course it still only has 480 actually different scan lines of information, right? The 640 pixels will be converted to an analog horizontal waveform and not greatly degraded by the 853 or 1400 slits they pass through.

It's subjective, but I think HD looks wonderfully detailed on my HS CRT. Some "loss" of resolution horizontally doesn't seem to matter; remember that the number of slits doesn't dictate what you can resolve because the spot size of the electron gun also matters. I can see a dramatic difference between finely-detailed HD pictures and digital SD. Another subjective judgement, I think SD digital and analog NTSC look better on my CRT than on the 1400-slit super-fine-pitch tube; I think that's because the SFP tube makes the flaws of SD too readily apparent. Note that owners of 42" plasmas don't seem bothered by having only 1024 horizontal pixels, and in their case, with a fixed-pixel display, there is no ability to render partial pixels and/or share pixels, other than what the scaler can do.
dmcmahon is offline  
Closed Thread Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

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