Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Mark, it's always been my impression that you are better off with no scaling than upconverting and leaving your fate to the quality of the scaler. With a pixel to pixel match between source and display, there are no concerns about scaler quality and quality in can match quality out precisely...at least from a resolutions standpoint. Of course I may be missing your point too.
Ken, all else being equal, you'd be better with no scaling. All else is not equal if your display has more pixels.
We went through this debate about 5 years ago at AVS. The people who believe you can't get benefit from upconverting are wrong. They were proved wrong then and they are wrong now.
The people who believe you will need a really big screen to benefit from 4k x 2k are correct, of course. We went through debate 5+ years ago, too. Heck, I'm still not sure most people need 1080p on a 50" -- depending on viewing distance of course.
The reality is that if you make a really big LCD or plasma with giant pixels, it's going to suck. This is pretty easy to see if you ever get a chance to be near the Panasonic 103" plasma or one of the few Sharp 100+" LCDs that ever got made. Whether there's a market for 85" or 92" TVs is another matter, but if someone decides to produce them, they are very very likely to make them with 4k x 2k resolution even though there won't be any source material for them
. It's also pretty likely that 4k x 2k will creep down and become a selling feature in the 70+" class over the next couple of years.And it will look better than the comparable 2k x 1k displays when displays 2k x 1k sources
. People who don't get this need to go do their own research. I'm really not going to spend the time running a lesson here. But if you have 4 pixels instead of 1, you can create intermediate shades to smooth out lines, color gradients, etc. And even doing algorithmically, you can make the source look better than it is. If you don't believe this, upscale a DVD. It's proof of the very same concept.