or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Fake 1080i - Page 2

That's basically what I was saying, albeit with considerably less detail, heh heh. What I've been argueing is that the other guy is saying it backwards. As far as which number represents horizontal and which represents vertical has been confusing to me because of things I've read on this forum. I started off believing that the 1920 must refer to vertical because of the dimensions of the screen. But then I kept reading people referring to the 1920 part as horizontal resolution so I thought I must be wrong about that. Maybe I was actually correct in the beginning. What I'm argueing against is the contention that the lines on the SFPT is 850 X 1400. That doesn't make sense to me. Common sense is telling me that the 1400 part must be the first number, which would be 1400 X 1080 ( Or whatever that last number actually is. ).

### AVS Top Picks

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 That's basically what I was saying, albeit with considerably less detail, heh heh. What I've been argueing is that the other guy is saying it backwards. As far as which number represents horizontal and which represents vertical has been confusing to me because of things I've read on this forum. I started off believing that the 1920 must refer to vertical because of the dimensions of the screen. But then I kept reading people referring to the 1920 part as horizontal resolution so I thought I must be wrong about that. Maybe I was actually correct in the beginning. What I'm argueing against is the contention that the lines on the SFPT is 850 X 1400. That doesn't make sense to me. Common sense is telling me that the 1400 part must be the first number, which would be 1400 X 1080 ( Or whatever that last number actually is. ).
You seem to still be a little confused, or maybe I'm misreading you. The 1400 part is the vertical resolution, or the total number of lines from left to right. The 800 part is the horizontal resolution, or the total number of lines from top to bottom.

It doesn't matter which one is stated first...with virtually all 16:9 TVs (including Sony's DV CRTs), the horizontal resolution is the smaller number.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justsc 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.
Again, perhaps I'm also misreading you here, but I don't see why there is still seems to be so much confusion or disagreement about this.

In a nutshell, the SFP sets have about 1400 vertical slits from left to right, and about 800 slits from top to bottom. If the SFP have 65% more slits than the non-SFP sets (as advertised), then the non-SFP sets have about 1050 vertical slits and about 650 horizontal slits. It is no more complicated than this.
Whatever. I have a headache from all of this. What you seem to be trying to tell me is that my 1080i HDTV is really more like half of a 1080i HDTV with resolution slightly better than a standard DVD. I just find that hard to believe. One things for sure, I really do wish that people had told me about these bogus 1080i resolutions before I bought a CRT. Sure, I think the picture looks very good but if these numbers are true than it SHOULD look twice as good. So I guess that instead of a HDTV I have something in between a EDTV and a HDTV. For the life of me I'd like to know why cheap CRT PC monitors can have high resolutions ( And are even progressive. ) whereas with CRT HDTVS the resolutions are much lower than advertised. But nobody ever answers that. It seems like nobody knows why a \$100 dollar CRT monitor can have a kzillion lines of resolution and a \$1000 CRT HDTV cannot.
Tell me this then: With a SDTV are the scan lines actually 720 X 480 or is there less than that? It was bad enough thinking my HDTV was 853 X 1080 but now you're saying it is 1050 X 650 and that is even worse. That's not even as good as 720p resolution and is without the benefit of progressive scan as well. Yeah, I know the colors are great on a CRT but if the resolution is as low as you are claiming than I have to be missing lots of the detail that is in a 1080i signal. Hell, according to the numbers my set is displaying only a little over half of the detail.
1050x650 doesn't seem too bad to me. I've set all my stuff to output 720p since that's the res my HDTV is closer to actually displaying.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 For the life of me I'd like to know why cheap CRT PC monitors can have high resolutions ( And are even progressive. ) whereas with CRT HDTVS the resolutions are much lower than advertised. But nobody ever answers that. It seems like nobody knows why a \$100 dollar CRT monitor can have a kzillion lines of resolution and a \$1000 CRT HDTV cannot.
I'd imagine it's due to the size. Maybe at that size either it's not possible or it would be too expensive.

Thanks to everyone that participated in this thread and helped me gain a better understanding of my HDTV. Left me a little http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/1040/dizzyje6.gif at first but I think I understand now.
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.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 Whatever. I have a headache from all of this. What you seem to be trying to tell me is that my 1080i HDTV is really more like half of a 1080i HDTV with resolution slightly better than a standard DVD.
Pretty much, yes. Even further, the non-SFP sets only resolve or reveal about 33% of the information in a 1080x1920 HD signal. The SFP sets resolve about 55% of a 1080x1920 signal.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 I just find that hard to believe. One things for sure, I really do wish that people had told me about these bogus 1080i resolutions before I bought a CRT. Sure, I think the picture looks very good but if these numbers are true than it SHOULD look twice as good. So I guess that instead of a HDTV I have something in between a EDTV and a HDTV. For the life of me I'd like to know why cheap CRT PC monitors can have high resolutions ( And are even progressive. ) whereas with CRT HDTVS the resolutions are much lower than advertised. But nobody ever answers that. It seems like nobody knows why a \$100 dollar CRT monitor can have a kzillion lines of resolution and a \$1000 CRT HDTV cannot.
Good question. I have wondered this myself.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 Tell me this then: With a SDTV are the scan lines actually 720 X 480 or is there less than that?
It probably varies a little by TV, but scan lines are not the same thing as aperature grill slits. Your Sony HDTV scans the full 1920x1080 lines...it is just that all those lines don't make it to the screen. They are limited by the set's dot pitch and number of aperature grill slits as we have been discussing.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 It was bad enough thinking my HDTV was 853 X 1080 but now you're saying it is 1050 X 650 and that is even worse. That's not even as good as 720p resolution and is without the benefit of progressive scan as well. Yeah, I know the colors are great on a CRT but if the resolution is as low as you are claiming than I have to be missing lots of the detail that is in a 1080i signal. Hell, according to the numbers my set is displaying only a little over half of the detail.
Yes, you are missing lots of detail...so are the people with the SFP sets...so are people with plasma and LCD TVs. There are very few TVs out there that resolve all the lines or have all the pixels in a 1080x1920 signal.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RWetmore Yes, you are missing lots of detail...so are the people with the SFP sets...so are people with plasma and LCD TVs. There are very few TVs out there that resolve all the lines or have all the pixels in a 1080x1920 signal.
Now that I don't get about the LCDs and Plasmas. Those are fixed pixel and are suppose to have the exact amount of pixels that they claim to.
They do if you read the spec's on each set (native resolution). The only TV's that provide the "full" 1920x1080 resolution are the new 1080p displays (AFAIK).

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6484_7-6390300-1.html
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RWetmore You seem to still be a little confused, or maybe I'm misreading you. The 1400 part is the vertical resolution, or the total number of lines from left to right. The 800 part is the horizontal resolution, or the total number of lines from top to bottom. It doesn't matter which one is stated first...with virtually all 16:9 TVs (including Sony's DV CRTs), the horizontal resolution is the smaller number.
This is wrong.

I agree with most of what you are writing, but this is backwards and it's been confusing the daylights out of Wickerman.

The horizontal resolution is the "larger number," always stated first, and is consistent with the AR of 16:9.

From the HD format of 1920x1080, the 1920 is the "horizontal resolution." This is made up of the "vertical lines" from left to right (e.g. llllllll). (The 1440 of the SFP tube is its "horizontal resolution.") The 1080 is the "vertical resolution" made up of horizontal lines. Get this confused and everything else begins to make less sense.

Here's a definition of Horizontal resolution from cnet:
horizontal resolution
Number of vertical lines (or pixels) that can be resolved from one side of an image to the other. While the vertical resolution of all analog video sources is the same (480 lines), the horizontal resolution varies according to the source. 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).

Cheers!
Well, that's depressing. I kept hoping someone would come in here and prove you wrong, say that the resolution is actually higher than that, lol. But instead a guy who's advice I've come to trust comes in and mostly agrees with you. So 1050 X 650, eh? Whew, that's certainly way lower than 1920 X 1080. Really, it's so much lower that I don't see how the FCC or whatever lets them call it a 1080i HDTV. I think this TV looks good, but if all the lines were there than obviously it would look twice as good. This also means I'm missing a ton of detail on my Xbox 360 games. To be honest if I had known this ahead of time I probably wouldn't have purchased a CRT. Damn, I sure hope SED gets here fast. I want a FULL 1080 resoltion. Looks like I may be looking to upgrade sooner than I had planned, although still not immediately. This will do me for a little while. But when I do upgrade I'm going to do a hell of a lot more research than I did before.
But we aren't missing much detail with 720p. X360 games render internally in 720p.
It's somewhat close to that but what makes 720p good is the p part. This is interlaced, not the same thing at all. At first I was dead set against getting an interaced picture. But the price and superior colors of 1080i CRTs eventually won me over. And I figured that even though it was interlaced the higher resolution would make it look just as good. But it turns out it isn't a higher resolution at all, the colors and blacks are the only advantage.
But the only thing a progressive picture holds over interlaced is that there are no combing artifacts. It's not like interlaced makes the picture softer and we lose detail that way.
This is one ugly thread of confusion and misinformation.

Here it is...
Your CRT TV will get as close to a full 1080i resolution as possible. Higher than many LCD's, plasmas, DLP's and LCoS's. You made a good choice, so stop worrying!

If you want the "FULL" resolution. You have to get a TRUE 1080p display that doesnt use 'wobulation'.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justsc This is wrong. I agree with most of what you are writing, but this is backwards and it's been confusing the daylights out of Wickerman. The horizontal resolution is the "larger number," always stated first, and is consistent with the AR of 16:9. From the HD format of 1920x1080, the 1920 is the "horizontal resolution." This is made up of the "vertical lines" from left to right (e.g. llllllll). (The 1440 of the SFP tube is its "horizontal resolution.") The 1080 is the "vertical resolution" made up of horizontal lines. Get this confused and everything else begins to make less sense. Here's a definition of Horizontal resolution from cnet: horizontal resolution Number of vertical lines (or pixels) that can be resolved from one side of an image to the other. While the vertical resolution of all analog video sources is the same (480 lines), the horizontal resolution varies according to the source. 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). Cheers!
I never looked up the definition....sorry for the confusion. When I said "horizontal resolution," I should have said "vertical resolution" (lines from top to bottom).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 Well, that's depressing. I kept hoping someone would come in here and prove you wrong, say that the resolution is actually higher than that, lol. But instead a guy who's advice I've come to trust comes in and mostly agrees with you. So 1050 X 650, eh? Whew, that's certainly way lower than 1920 X 1080. Really, it's so much lower that I don't see how the FCC or whatever lets them call it a 1080i HDTV. I think this TV looks good, but if all the lines were there than obviously it would look twice as good. This also means I'm missing a ton of detail on my Xbox 360 games. To be honest if I had known this ahead of time I probably wouldn't have purchased a CRT. Damn, I sure hope SED gets here fast. I want a FULL 1080 resoltion. Looks like I may be looking to upgrade sooner than I had planned, although still not immediately. This will do me for a little while. But when I do upgrade I'm going to do a hell of a lot more research than I did before.
DV CRTs are confusing. Fixed pixel displays are relatively straight forward.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ratman This is one ugly thread of confusion and misinformation. Here it is... Your CRT TV will get as close to a full 1080i resolution as possible. Higher than many LCD's, plasmas, DLP's and LCoS's. You made a good choice, so stop worrying! If you want the "FULL" resolution. You have to get a TRUE 1080p display that doesnt use 'wobulation'.
Could you please elaborate on that? If you've got better news I'd love to hear it because RWetmore has been bringing me down, heh heh.
Elaborate on what? A CRT (HDTV) has a higher resolution than many "fixed pixel" displays as mentioned above. To get "close"... you need a CRT/RPTV with 9" guns.

Existing CRT displays cannot reproduce the "full" 1920x1080 resolution. It is what it is... there is no 'better' news.

All one needs to do is carefully check the spec's (on a website or in the manual) and verify the "native resolution".
That isn't exactly what I meant. I was wondering what you meant by "misinformation".

I went back and read dmcmahon's lengthy reply again. He seems to be saying that the 970 can do the 1080 vertical resolution but that the horizontal resolution is 853. This is what I initially thought. But RWetmore is saying what gets displayed is 1050 X 650. I'm not sure who is right.
Without searching... I'll tell you that a Sony CRT is not a 1050x650 display. It's RWetmore's word or everyone else's... your choice. ;)
I'm back to http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/1040/dizzyje6.gif

So it's either 853x1080 or 1050x650 depending on who you believe. I'll go with the majority on this one...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vazel So it's either 853x1080 or 1050x650 depending on who you believe. I'll go with the majority on this one...
Count the slits if you really want to know. This would not be all that hard to do with the non-SFP sets. One thing is absolutely clear...the slits on the SFP sets are far narrower in both the horizontal and vertical direction compared to the non-SFP sets, which would rule out 853x1080. It is possible the increase of 65% with the SFP isn't perfectly proportional, but when examined closely the holes generally look to be the same shape. If it was 853x1080, the holes would be hugely rectangular with more slits going from top to bottom than from left to right, which could be seen. The bottom line is that logic and plain old close examination of the grill is just not consistent with 853x1080 in any way.
Since when are there slits going in both directions? Isn't there just slits going vertically from top to bottom?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ratman Here it is... Your CRT TV will get as close to a full 1080i resolution as possible. Higher than many LCD's, plasmas, DLP's and LCoS's.
Actually, this generally isn't true. There is no commercially made DV CRT (the SFP included) that get anywhere near the full 1080. Most LCD sets are around 1366x768, and many now are full 1920x1080. Plasma's 50" and above are usually 1366x768. Most 42" plasmas are 1024x768. Virtually all other HD displays have higher resolution than the non-SFP Sony DV CRTs.

Quote:
 You made a good choice, so stop worrying!
This is true. THe XBR970 is a very fine set, and an incredible bargain. Higher resolution does not necessarily translate into better picture quality. There is color, black level, response time, viewing angle, etc., and none of those other high resolution displays come close to a CRT in all these catagories.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 Since when are there slits going in both directions? Isn't there just slits going vertically from top to bottom?
No, there are slits both from top to bottom and from left to right. Just take a close look at the grill and you'll see this.
Again I don't believe you. It seems to me that if you have slits running vertically across the screen from top to bottom than the vertical resolution ( The pixels running left to right. ) could be anything, couldn't it? Isn't that the whole point of using slits rather than holes? And yes, I have looked closely at the screen before and I can easily see the slits going from top to bottom but I can't make out much of anything going left to right.
The SPF is the best you can get--everything else is a magnitude worse.

The ultimate CRT set that should have been made and never was would have been a 38-inch 16:9 720p set.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
This thread is locked