or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › DON'T BUY 1080p TVs!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DON'T BUY 1080p TVs! - Page 12  

post #331 of 389
Quote:
Observed the new Samsung 56" in piano black Sunday and it was the best DLP in the store and was running a custom HD Feed by Samsung promoting it's 1080P clearly blew away the 720P Hitachi Director's Series next to it and it's older brother 6768 on the other side. As good as it looked I still place it just shy of the SXRD 60" without calibration anyways.
What a sad commentary here, I just have to shake my head. The poster who presents himself as someone knowledeable would have the audacity to come into the Audio Video SCIENCE forum and give us his very unscientific observation of DLP's on a retail showroom floor. Anyone with any kind of objective aproach to comparing displays would never cite showroom comparisons, we know that showroom set ups are worst conditions to accurately and fairly judge displays.

Quote:
I cannot imagine how this debate goes on and just shows how boring things are right now while we wait. OK - Just go to CC and view the friggin SXRD 60 being fed the Hawaii feed and tell us you cannot see a huge difference. Of course 1080P works better on a larger panel but how can people be in denial after the reports from CES 2005/2006 and what's on the horizon for 1080P and the tens of thousands of owners of Native 1080P panels - are we simply brain washed? Horse Poohey!
The CES is pretty much a marketing extravaganza.


[deleted quote]

Quote:
Let the thread rage on while we wait for more true 1080P on larger panels that will deliver WoW factor that a 720P won't as the proof is in the details and that IS where 1080P delivers!
WOW factor, Chriswiggles, do you see the kind of silliness I have to deal with. I give you credit for putting forth a scientific argument, flawed however, but nevertheless scientific.
post #332 of 389
Moderator

challenge the technical info in a post=OK
bash another member= against AVS rules

several posts edited/deleted
post #333 of 389
Quote:
1080P is good....your basically converting 1080I/30 to 1080P/60 doubling the resolution and "refresh rates" for a stunning picture. Once again, whether native 1080P material hits the market anytime soon or not, 1080P (for the most part) is better....especially on larger screens. 480I or 480P? 1080I or 1080P? :rolleyes:
Deinterlacing 1080/60i (30i) to 1080/60p isn't really doubling the resolution. The effective resolution (resolvable detail) remains about the same. 1080/60p doubles the frame rate if your viewing 1080/60i on an interlaced CRT. There, your eyes/brain merge two 1/60-sec TV fields into 1/30-sec TV frames. With CRTs you're usually viewing 60 fields per second (half-frames); with 1080p you're viewing 60 frames per second (unless the 1080 is displayed at a different frame rate).

Most of the wow-effect 1080 HD is either live or video-taped 1080/60i (one ATSC broadcast standard), and while deinterlacing it to 1080/60p boosts the frame rate, with much hardware these days, such as deinterlacers using only 540p bobbing, resolution is being lost from either bobbing or from resolution 'pumping" (blurring from poor motion-adaptive deinterlacing). -- John
post #334 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
Deinterlacing 1080/60i (30i) to 1080/60p isn't really doubling the resolution. The effective resolution (resolvable detail) remains about the same. 1080/60p doubles the frame rate if your viewing 1080/60i on an interlaced CRT. There, your eyes/brain merge two 1/60-sec TV fields into 1/30-sec TV frames. With CRTs you're usually viewing 60 fields per second (half-frames); with 1080p you're viewing 60 frames per second (unless the 1080 is displayed at a different frame rate).

Most of the wow-effect 1080 HD is either live or video-taped 1080/60i (one ATSC broadcast standard), and while deinterlacing it to 1080/60p boosts the frame rate, with much hardware these days, such as deinterlacers using only 540p bobbing, resolution is being lost from either bobbing or from resolution 'pumping" (blurring from poor motion-adaptive deinterlacing). -- John
Your right John Mason Essentially your drawing the field "once" twice as fast with progressive as you would be drawing the field "twice' at have the speed on interlaced...or something like that...Line doubling for "p" scan. Sorry, I explained it wrong. Thanks for the correction.

anyway, I'm out on this post. It's going nowhere. My opinion, it's like comparing 480I with 480P displayed on different monitors. You take a 72" display and 1080P will look better than 1080I....Sorry, but I'll end there.
post #335 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
Deinterlacing 1080/60i (30i) to 1080/60p isn't really doubling the resolution. The effective resolution (resolvable detail) remains about the same. 1080/60p doubles the frame rate if your viewing 1080/60i on an interlaced CRT. There, your eyes/brain merge two 1/60-sec TV fields into 1/30-sec TV frames. With CRTs you're usually viewing 60 fields per second (half-frames); with 1080p you're viewing 60 frames per second (unless the 1080 is displayed at a different frame rate).

Most of the wow-effect 1080 HD is either live or video-taped 1080/60i (one ATSC broadcast standard), and while deinterlacing it to 1080/60p boosts the frame rate, with much hardware these days, such as deinterlacers using only 540p bobbing, resolution is being lost from either bobbing or from resolution 'pumping" (blurring from poor motion-adaptive deinterlacing). -- John
am having a hard time understanding this,,which gives more res. 720/60p or 1080/60i and then what about the process of bobbing the 1080i to 540p in this case would the 720p be better
post #336 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
WOW factor, Chriswiggles, do you see the kind of silliness I have to deal with. I give you credit for putting forth a scientific argument, flawed however, but nevertheless scientific.
Please address my question or the merits of my statements.

Ignoring reality doesn't make you correct. I think intelligent readers can see pretty clearly that you continue to ignore viewing ratio as the relevant variable which may help one decide whether or not 1080p displays may be right for certain situations.

I will repeat my question a second time, because thus far it seems you are asserting irrational things with regards to imaging:

What is the best way to watch Standard Definition content? Do you watch SD content (say from a DVD) on a display that matches the native resolution of the content (480)? Do you feel this is the best possible way to view standard definition content? Most importantly: are you asserting that upscaling and viewing on a display with greater resolution provides no improvements in the image with regards to either the display of the actual source content, or the actual structure of the display?

Stop avoiding the substance of the discussion.
post #337 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
What is the best way to watch Standard Definition content? Do you watch SD content (say from a DVD) on a display that matches the native resolution of the content (480)? Do you feel this is the best possible way to view standard definition content? Most importantly: are you asserting that upscaling and viewing on a display with greater resolution provides no improvements in the image with regards to either the display of the actual source content, or the actual structure of the display?

.
I agree...that's the point I was trying to make. In simple terms, would you prefer to watch a DVD 480I on 57" 480I (interlaced) only monitor or watch a 480I DVD upconverted to 480P on a 57" monitor?
i had a first generation HDTV with no line doubler and watching 480I in 480I on a 52" monitor was aweful compared to pressing the "progressive scan" button on the DVD player then watching in 480P....Like night and day. NO COMPARISON.

Ok, I lied about my last post....I could not resist.
post #338 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bk1987
am having a hard time understanding this,,which gives more res. 720/60p or 1080/60i and then what about the process of bobbing the 1080i to 540p in this case would the 720p be better
You're almost there. 1080i, IF CORRECTLY DEINTERLACED will have more resolution at a lower frame rate.

Doing simple bob deinterlace the 720P will have superior vertical resolution. 1080i still wins in horizontal res.

Theoretically incoming 1080i/60 will deinterlace to 1080P/30 (video) or 1080P/24 (film). Film is easy (reverse telecine, 3:2 pulldown, whatever you want to call it) and requires no guessing, video is more difficult because it's natively interlaced, and turning that into a progressive image requires motion adaptive deinterlacing which basically has to guess what happens to the lines not displayed in each field.


The whole desire for 1080P inputs on a 1080P display, btw, is to take the deinterlacer in the display out of the picture. 1080 deinterlacing is a relatively immature technology, and the thought is that it will get better in the coming years. 1080P inputs mean you can use the latest new deinterlacer and bypass the TVs internal deinterlacer, whereas if the inputs only support 1080i in, you're stuck with what's in there when the TV was built.
post #339 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
I agree...that's the point I was trying to make. In simple terms, would you prefer to watch a DVD 480I on 57" 480I (interlaced) only monitor or watch a 480I DVD upconverted to 480P on a 57" monitor?
i had a first generation HDTV with no line doubler and watching 480I in 480I on a 52" monitor was aweful compared to pressing the "progressive scan" button on the DVD player then watching in 480P....Like night and day. NO COMPARISON.
Reason DVDs look better 480P is because they're natively a progressive source.

I think what ChrisWiggles is saying is that a 480P source looks better on a 720P display than a 480P display, and for the same reason a 720P source would look better on a 1080P display than a 720P display.

It's because the visible pixel structure is reduced.
post #340 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
Once again, available content or source material is very relevant to the discussion. If we had 720p sets only without any HD material via Cable, Satellite or OTA all hell would have broken out.
Please provide the scientific, quantifiable documentation that proves that "all hell would have broken out" if we only had DVDs or standard def television to watch on 720p sets. Since you're so quick to dismiss arguments that haven't had double-blind testing, please either (a) dismiss your own argument as meritless, or (b) provide substantiating documentation.
post #341 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by David F
Please provide the scientific, quantifiable documentation that proves that "all hell would have broken out" if we only had DVDs or standard def television to watch on 720p sets. Since you're so quick to dismiss arguments that haven't had double-blind testing, please either (a) dismiss your own argument as meritless, or (b) provide substantiating documentation.
There's no substantiating documentation, because this DID happen, and hell did NOT break out. High-end CRTs have been around with 720p and 1080p capability, in-use, since at least the early 90s. Asking for substantiation is a waste of timw with Auditor because he doesn't believe in facts. Facts have a well-established liberal bias. ;)
post #342 of 389
It's worth pointing out that DVDs are 480i, not 480p. That's why the quality of the deinterlacer in a progressive-scan DVD player can make a huge difference in PQ. The original film-based source material is progressive, of course, but the DVDs themselves are encoded at 480I.

And this makes the argument for 1080p all the more powerful, an argument which Auditor continues to ignore.

The fact is this: The reason that an EDTV (480p) display is valuable for DVDs is very closely related to the reason that a 1080p display is valuable for 1080i content.

And if the video processing is done correctly, 1080p will be the ultimate resolution for all content. HQV-type processing, once it becomes mainstream, will make this evident to everyone.
post #343 of 389
Who needs content? Some things are just good to have.
post #344 of 389
Hd dvd and 1080p tvs should be illegal.
post #345 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast351
You're almost there. 1080i, IF CORRECTLY DEINTERLACED will have more resolution at a lower frame rate.

Doing simple bob deinterlace the 720P will have superior vertical resolution. 1080i still wins in horizontal res.

Theoretically incoming 1080i/60 will deinterlace to 1080P/30 (video) or 1080P/24 (film). Film is easy (reverse telecine, 3:2 pulldown, whatever you want to call it) and requires no guessing, video is more difficult because it's natively interlaced, and turning that into a progressive image requires motion adaptive deinterlacing which basically has to guess what happens to the lines not displayed in each field.


The whole desire for 1080P inputs on a 1080P display, btw, is to take the deinterlacer in the display out of the picture. 1080 deinterlacing is a relatively immature technology, and the thought is that it will get better in the coming years. 1080P inputs mean you can use the latest new deinterlacer and bypass the TVs internal deinterlacer, whereas if the inputs only support 1080i in, you're stuck with what's in there when the TV was built.
thanks i think i got it
post #346 of 389
Any content can be upconverted and the hardware to deinterlace, scale, etc... will always be improving.

Simple comparison of some basic facts (won't be changing):
1080p 1,920x1,080 progressive
1080i 1,920x1,080 interlaced
720p 1,280x720 progressive

It looks like the 1080p has the most "potential" out of all of the formats above.

If you had qualified your title with " based on content" or " based on cost"... it would have been a much simpler topic, but far less drama :D

Personally,
Technically speaking, I say buy it. I always prefer to have a more capable piece of equipment.

On the economical front, I would say wait, since you're paying a premium for a better technology. The percentage improvement vs. percentage increase cost is a losing situation for the consumer, but it is paying for the next tech for people to drool over.

The comments about the quality of upconverting hardware and quantity of content fall into the realm of value IMO. It has a lower "point in time value" relative to any time in the future as the the aforementioned hardware and content will only get better unless our society takes a turn for the worse.... ;)

Please narrow the context of this topic down before dangling the steak in front of a mob next time..... :(
post #347 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast351
Reason DVDs look better 480P is because they're natively a progressive source.

I think what ChrisWiggles is saying is that a 480P source looks better on a 720P display than a 480P display, and for the same reason a 720P source would look better on a 1080P display than a 720P display.

It's because the visible pixel structure is reduced.
Please excuse my ignorance, but if Dvd's are 480P then why is there a need for a deinterlacer in the DVD player? Why make a deinterlacing chip? Wouldn't it be better to simply let the 480P by-pass directly to the monitor? Why spend all that money on a DCDi chip to upconvert a "NATIVE" 480P signal? Now I'm seriously confused!!! :confused:
post #348 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
Please excuse my ignorance, but if Dvd's are 480P then why is there a need for a deinterlacer in the DVD player? Why make a deinterlacing chip? Wouldn't it be better to simply let the 480P by-pass directly to the monitor? Why spend all that money on a DCDi chip to upconvert a "NATIVE" 480P signal? Now I'm seriously confused!!! :confused:
Please read Gremmy's reply 5 posts up from yours right here

- Hadji

"Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities."
- Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, Paris, France, 1764
post #349 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy
It's worth pointing out that DVDs are 480i, not 480p. That's why the quality of the deinterlacer in a progressive-scan DVD player can make a huge difference in PQ. The original film-based source material is progressive, of course, but the DVDs themselves are encoded at 480I.

And this makes the argument for 1080p all the more powerful, an argument which Auditor continues to ignore.

The fact is this: The reason that an EDTV (480p) display is valuable for DVDs is very closely related to the reason that a 1080p display is valuable for 1080i content.

And if the video processing is done correctly, 1080p will be the ultimate resolution for all content. HQV-type processing, once it becomes mainstream, will make this evident to everyone.
Yes, but I think it's fair to characterize film-based DVD content as 480p. The content itself is 480p24, the encode is not. People get this confused all the time, and clearly they are now with the 1080i only outputs from HD-DVD players right now, while the content can be 1080p even if it's transmitted in a different form. ITt's the same thing with DVD, the content itself is 480p, but the way it's written is as 480i.

As for 1080p being the be-all end all, I disagree. 1080p is clearly insufficient for D-cinema applications, and I fully expect that in the distant future higher-resolution will likely reach the home as well. Currently it may seem like the "ultimate" but that's only for the time being, and within the limited confines of the home environment.
post #350 of 389
Thanks chris and hadji for explaining that...Now I'm really confused....;)
post #351 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
Thanks chris and hadji for explaining that...Now I'm really confused....;)
I'm just saying that if you have a film-based DVD, it's written as 480i, but with proper deinterlacing it can be reconstructed as the original 480p24. In that sense the content itself in an abstract sense can be thought of as 480p24, but is chopped up into an interlaced 480i form at 60hz. But, you can recover the 480p24 in its entirety with proper deinterlacing, and then display that how you want, for instance at 48 or 72hz.

See here:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html
post #352 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Yes, but I think it's fair to characterize film-based DVD content as 480p. The content itself is 480p24, the encode is not.
I think we're both on the same page.

As I mentioned above, the original film-based content is indeed progressive (obviously). And these days, the digital transfers taken from the original film based source are progressive. But this progressive content is encoded onto DVDs as 480I.

The content is easily reassembled into 480p frames due to the fact that the odd and even fields come from the same moment in time.

However, this is *not* the same thing as having the content encoded onto the disk as 480p. Rough edits and missing cadence flags can interfere with the deinterlacing, which is why a good deinterlacer is key. Obviously, many of the same caveats exist in the deinterlacing of 1080i.


Quote:
As for 1080p being the be-all end all, I disagree.
I don't think you're really disagreeing with me at all. My line of reasoning did not extend to 4K x 2K panels or any other resolution beyond what is widely available in consumer panels today. In other words, my point was that out of 480I, 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, that 1080p has the most potential. I do not disagree that some other resolution might hold more promise, but those resolutions were not intended to be included in my statement.
post #353 of 389
Quote:
I think we're both on the same page.
Indeed, it's just when one says "DVD" ambiguously, I generally am biased to consider the nature of the content itself, more than how it's written to the disc. Just a semantics thing I suppose.

Quote:
However, this is *not* the same thing as having the content encoded onto the disk as 480p.
Right. This is why it's confusing to a lot of people :)

Q:Are film DVD's 480p?
A1: Yes.
A2: No they're 480i

But both are right!
post #354 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
I will repeat my question a second time, because thus far it seems you are asserting irrational things with regards to imaging:

What is the best way to watch Standard Definition content? Do you watch SD content (say from a DVD) on a display that matches the native resolution of the content (480)? Do you feel this is the best possible way to view standard definition content? Most importantly: are you asserting that upscaling and viewing on a display with greater resolution provides no improvements in the image with regards to either the display of the actual source content, or the actual structure of the display?
Chris,
Thank you for presenting a logical discussion for what most of already know from viewing viewing SD(480i) material on 9inch CRTs (1080p). While 1080p content is always welcome, its a foolish argument that one should avoid a 1080p display because of the lack of 1080p source material for all the reasons you have given.

In the end, if one wants to make the statement that the additional dollars for a 1080p over a 720p display aren't worth it because they don't see any difference, that is an individual's personal decision or taste, not based on any scientific fact or because the human eye cannot resolve the difference in resolution.

I look forward to seeing his answer to your questions above however I supsect you will see more circular reasoning and denial of facts if he even chooses to answer.
post #355 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Indeed, it's just when one says "DVD" ambiguously, I generally am biased to consider the nature of the content itself, more than how it's written to the disc. Just a semantics thing I suppose.



Right. This is why it's confusing to a lot of people :)

Q:Are film DVD's 480p?
A1: Yes.
A2: No they're 480i

But both are right!
Agreed! :)

To me, one of the strongest arguments for 1080p panels involves the parallel between 480I DVDs and 1080I broadcasts. With both types of sources, a quality deinterlacer can reassemble the original progressive frames.

I also agree with everything you have said regarding the fact that the merit of 1080p panel resolution does not depend upon 1080p content.
post #356 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
I will repeat my question a second time, because thus far it seems you are asserting irrational things with regards to imaging:

What is the best way to watch Standard Definition content? Do you watch SD content (say from a DVD) on a display that matches the native resolution of the content (480)? Do you feel this is the best possible way to view standard definition content? Most importantly: are you asserting that upscaling and viewing on a display with greater resolution provides no improvements in the image with regards to either the display of the actual source content, or the actual structure of the display?
Chris,
Thank you for presenting a logical discussion for what many of us already know from viewing viewing SD(480i) material on 9inch CRTs (1080p). While 1080p content is always welcome, its a foolish argument that one should avoid a 1080p display because of the lack of 1080p source material for all the reasons you have given.

In the end, if one wants to make the statement that the additional dollars for a 1080p display over a 720p display aren't worth it because they don't see or value the difference, that is an individual's personal decision or taste, not a decision based on any any scientific fact or because the human eye cannot resolve the difference in resolution. That same person is also the type who might purchase an EDTV over an HDTV. Picture quality is just one factor that people consider when purchasing a display however the arguments given to avoid a 1080p display thus far have been weak.

I look forward to seeing his answer to your questions above however I supsect you will see more circular reasoning and denial of facts if he even chooses to answer.
post #357 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
I'm just saying that if you have a film-based DVD, it's written as 480i, but with proper deinterlacing it can be reconstructed as the original 480p24. In that sense the content itself in an abstract sense can be thought of as 480p24, but is chopped up into an interlaced 480i form at 60hz. But, you can recover the 480p24 in its entirety with proper deinterlacing, and then display that how you want, for instance at 48 or 72hz.

See here:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html
Thanks Chriswiggles....I have read that article before and it's a good refresher. One interesting thing, Since ALL(almost all) HDTVs upconvert any 480I/P signal... why buy a progressive scan DVD player? I have the Panny RP-62(Forujida/DcDi) with the latest firmware and ALL Dvd's look better when the Dvd player sends a Interlaced signal to the monitor rather than progressive signal.(It's a Hitachi 51"). My point is, no matter the deinterlacer in the DVD player, it's just gonna be upconverted/converted by the TV anyway...so if the deinterlacer in the TV is inferior it makes no difference because your forced to use the inferior deinterlacer...Correct? Unless the DVD player outputs to your TV's native format and bypasses the signal.

Sorry this got a little off topic, but just wondering why. Thanks for all your responses.
post #358 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
Thanks Chriswiggles....I have read that article before and it's a good refresher. One interesting thing, Since ALL(almost all) HDTVs upconvert any 480I/P signal... why buy a progressive scan DVD player? I have the Panny RP-62(Forujida/DcDi) with the latest firmware and ALL Dvd's look better when the Dvd player sends a Interlaced signal to the monitor rather than progressive signal.(It's a Hitachi 51"). My point is, no matter the deinterlacer in the DVD player, it's just gonna be upconverted/converted by the TV anyway...so if the deinterlacer in the TV is inferior it makes no difference because your forced to use the inferior deinterlacer...Correct? Unless the DVD player outputs to your TV's native format and bypasses the signal.

Sorry this got a little off topic, but just wondering why. Thanks for all your responses.
Depends on how the signal is getting to the TV. If you're feeding the signal to the TV in component form (most common) the TV needs to digitize that source to do the deinterlacing. That means there's a D-A-D cycle between the source material (DVD) and the deinterlace chip.

By having the DVD player do the deinterlace before spitting out the component signal, it has access to the original digital material.

The point is moot if the signal to the TV is DVI (digital).

Of course the quality of the TVs deinterlacer may be so much better than the one in the DVD player that the D-A-D cycle in the middle is less damaging than the bad deinterlacer in the DVD player.

Guess there's no way to know for sure except to try it and see which way looks best to you :)
post #359 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
Thanks Chriswiggles....I have read that article before and it's a good refresher. One interesting thing, Since ALL(almost all) HDTVs upconvert any 480I/P signal... why buy a progressive scan DVD player?
In one of my previous posts, I mentioned that the quality of the deinterlacer is crucial. In other words, not all deinterlacers are created equally. Many televisions have cheap deinterlacers that cannot handle rough edits, missing flags, or on-the-fly switching between video and film. The Faroudja chip does an excellent job of handling these situations. Many TVs (and quite a few inexpensive progressive scan DVD players) do not.

Quote:
My point is, no matter the deinterlacer in the DVD player, it's just gonna be upconverted/converted by the TV anyway...so if the deinterlacer in the TV is inferior it makes no difference because your forced to use the inferior deinterlacer...Correct?
No, this is not correct.

Keep in mind, the trickiest part of the video processing on a 480i to HD conversion is the initial 480i-->480p step of deinterlacing. This is the step where rough edits, missing flags, or on-the-fly switching between film and video can cause frames to be reassembled improperly. This is the part of the processing that you are moving from your TV to your DVD player if you have your DVD player output 480p. You want your best deinterlacing chip to handle this first step.

I think it is important to distinguish between deinterlacing and other forms of video processing (such as scaling).
post #360 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Please address my question or the merits of my statements.

Ignoring reality doesn't make you correct. I think intelligent readers can see pretty clearly that you continue to ignore viewing ratio as the relevant variable which may help one decide whether or not 1080p displays may be right for certain situations.

I will repeat my question a second time, because thus far it seems you are asserting irrational things with regards to imaging:

What is the best way to watch Standard Definition content? Do you watch SD content (say from a DVD) on a display that matches the native resolution of the content (480)? Do you feel this is the best possible way to view standard definition content? Most importantly: are you asserting that upscaling and viewing on a display with greater resolution provides no improvements in the image with regards to either the display of the actual source content, or the actual structure of the display?

Stop avoiding the substance of the discussion.
In all due respects, I think it’s rather presumptuous of you to declare that your argument has any merit. We have yet to decide upon that.

As for the question that you are attempting to badger me with, at this point I’m going to answer it in legal speak, “it’s been asked and answeredâ€
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rear Projection Units
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › DON'T BUY 1080p TVs!