Fake 1080i - Page 3  

Again.... CRT's can get as close as they "are able" to get to 1080i. I know there are no DV/CRT's that are "true" 1080i. Actually... as for the other technologies, check the specs for resolution and how they are advertised. 1366x768, 1024x768, etc are 720p, not 1080i (or even almost 1080i). And yet again... any set that has 1920x1080 resolution is marketed as 1080p.

I find that quite hard to believe. I humbly disagree.

yes... the SFP is a fine set. Other CRT's are not a "magnitude" worse.

My 38" 16:9 1080i looks even better.

I believe the aperture grills are made up of a mesh of horizontal and vertical wires somewhat like a window screen. The number of holes in the "screen" are what we are discussing here. The term "slits" probably isn't the best word to use.

Yes, they get close to scanning the full 1080i, but due to their size, it is almost certain that some of the lines get blurred together. However, just because they scan near the full 1080 doesn't mean it all gets to the screen. As we have been discussing...how much of it gets to the screen depends upon the dot pitch and the total number of holes in the grill.

Fixed pixel sets are what their native resolution is. 1366x768 is not a 720p set. If anything it is a "768p" set. It is closer to 1280x720 than to 1920x1080, but regardless, these sets will upscale a 720p or downscale a 1080i (or p) signal to their native resolution of 1366x768.

That's what I said... as close as possible with CRT. done!



yeah no kidding? That can be equated to the the capaibilties of CRT depending on screen size and the aperture grill.

And always "marketed" as "720p HDTV".

Of course it is! :rolleyes: Therefore ... a 720p HDTV.

Again... no kidding.

As an aside... the resolution on my set is 1280x1080. That's close enough for 'fake' 1080i for me! :D

They look like "slits" to my eyes, but I guess they must be the edges of the dots (also known as phosphor pitches). When I look at a Trintron monitor close up, it looks like a screen. It looks to me like the SFP have a finer dot pitch than the non-SFP sets.

Net resolution is all that matters. Pointing out that a set scans close to 1080i without also pointing out that no where near all it will get to the screen causes confusion. I just wanted to clarify.


Yeah, erroneously buy Best Buy and Circuit City. I have never seen a 1366x768 set marketed as a "720p set" by the manufactures.

Of course it is! :rolleyes: Therefore ... a 720p HDTV.

What set is 1280x1080?

Well, this would explain why the horizontal lines are fainter than the vertical ones. I guess the horizontal lines must be the edges and spaces between the individual R,G, & B phosphor groups. On the SFP set, it certainly looks like these clusters or groups of RGB phosphors are smaller and more numerous.

I completely agree. All CRT's have a limitation and cannot resolve/display a "full" 1080i resolution. But... they can attain closer to 1080i resolutions than 720p fixed pixel displays.


Erroneously? I have to disagree! They are do more justice/service to the consumer. Why would a manufacturer claim an "inferior/lower" resolution capability? If it were untrue, do you not think the manufacturers would have the retailers removed that infomation? C'mon...

http://www.rca.com/product/viewdetai...I45045,00.html

Sony's press release for the SFP:

["Created especially for displaying high resolution pictures like high-definition broadcast, the new Super Fine Pitch CRT features the proprietary Super Fine Pitch Aperture Grill with 65 percent increased number of vertical "slits," which improve image resolution, for crisp, brilliant, highest picture quality reproduction from corner to corner.


Together with a new electron gun and high intensity luminescent phosphor, the Super Fine Pitch CRT delivers exceptional picture performance. The improvement is immediately noticeable, with no visible vertical lines on the screen and higher resolution to all corners."]

This is the first time I have seen the 65% referred to as an increase in vertical slits. There is no mention of an increase in resolution from top to bottom. If this is true, then the resolution of the non-sfp sets would be about 850 from left to right. The question is what is the resolution from top to bottom? Is it the same as the SFP? Dot pitch is not listed for either set anywhere that I know of. "...higher resolution to all corners" is at least a statement consistent with a finer dot pitch from top the bottom.

This is what I have been saying all along.

It's irrelevant.

As is the majority of this whole thread.

Once again this subject has turned into a pi$$ing contest. I wonder if anyone has found encouragement or enlightenment as a result of this thread? Of all the times I've seen it debated it has never been productive. Folks simply dig-in and hold to their position.

As important as some want to make resolution, it is not the most important aspect of picture quality. A set with higher resolution than others is far from the "best set" unless it performs better than the others in contrast, brightness, color decoding, etc, etc, etc. In fact, sets with super high resolution can suffer in other categories like brightness, making the picture appear to be worse.

I wonder how far this thread will go before it finally meets its end.....

I believe the reason there is no mention of vertical resolution is because there is no slits going left to right as I said before. They only go up and down. The vertical resolution is going to depend on other things, probably the tube or dot pitch or whatever ( I really don't know enough about the technical details to nail it down. ). For this reason I have come back to the conclusion that the xbr970 is indeed 853 X 1080 resulting in rectangular pixels. That is what I believed when this thread started and after being a little confused and misled by what I believe to be false information I've ended up back where I started. Sure, 853 X 1080 ain't as good as I'd like it be but it certainly sounds better to me than 1050 X 650. But it does annoy me that Sony discontinued the SFPT before I got into the market. I really would have liked to have gotten one of those instead.:( But I am really looking forward to SED. That looks to me like it is going to blow the doors off of everything. I heard somewhere that tests were giving contrast ratios of 100,000:1!!! I don't know what the contrast ratios of CRTs are, it's never listed probably because they are so good that it is deemed irrelevent. But 100,000:1 really sounds impressive. These babys are gonna' rock; 1080p, flat panel, the colors and blacks of a CRT. It looks like the only drawback might be SD presentation since the pixels will be fixed. But they'll probably do that pretty damned well too. I've decided I'm going to wait for these things to come out before getting a big HDTV ( It has always been my plan that a CRT would be temporarily my primary HDTV and that eventually I'd get a big flat panel for my living room and move the CRT into my bedroom. ) for my living room. I just hope the prices don't turn out to be outrageous.

Well, if the non-SFP sets are truly about 850x1080, then the SFP sets must be around 1400x1080. That seems way too good to be true to me. The picture just does not contain that much detail to my eyes..not even close.

To you perhaps, but it is the crux of this whole thread as well as this whole discussion.

I think this discussion would have been helped by leaving out the 1440 number. Generally accepted horizontal resolution for the SFPs was 1400 - I really believe this is just a measured resolution on a well calibrated set using test patterns. It doesn't necessarily relate to the grill as the phosphors can be excited to variable amounts so resolving capability is greater than the grill structure.

The 1440 number represents the "4" portion of a 4x3 letterbox in a 1920x1080i signal - and its commonly used to display such material full screen.

I have a SONY SFP and an RCA MM36100. Back in the early days the manufacturers did report horizontal resolution - the RCA's was rated at 930 - but the SFP is definitely better and I am not going to count the lines.

Well, part of it depends on the source material. My HD cable runs the gamut from very good sometimes to very bad other times. I'm watching a Comic Relief special ( They really should call it "Bush Bashing Relief" because that is all it has been so far. ) in HD and it looks very good. Some other times when I watch this same channel whatever is on doesn't look nearly as good as this. It just isn't consistent here for whatever reason. But a CRT is interlaced as well. That makes a difference depending on what you're watching. I'm going to be getting the HD-DVD add-on in the next month or two for my Xbox 360 ( Unless standalone players come down before that and I really doubt that will happen. ) and I'm really looking forward to seeing how good that looks. Also, the last time I was at Circuit City I was talking to the sales guy about the xbr960 and he said that when they had it it was the best looking set in the store. So I guess that opinions vary.

I have an HD-DVD player....so I'm seeing extremely high quality HD on my XBR960. Still doesn't look anywhere near 1400x1080 to me, and my set is professionally calibrated. And trust me, I'd like to believe that it is.

I had a 1366x768 LCD for a brief period, and the level of detail from my 960 seemed comparable to it. This is why I felt 1400x800 made sense, and why I generally accepted it.

Well, considering the screen size I'm not sure if you are really going to be able to see the difference in resolution even if it is there. I've read quite a few things from reviewers who say it is damned near impossible to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p sets unless the screen is really large. I think that would be even more true with 720p vs 1400 X 1080 interlaced.

I didn't know you owned the xbr960. Lucky f*cker.:)

Come to think of it those numbers are very similar. It's 1366 X 768 progressive vs 1400 X 1080 interlaced. The vertical resolution is damned near a tie and while the horizontal res. on the xbr960 is a couple hundred lines higher that really ain't that huge of a difference and the progressive picture of the LCD helps even the score a bit. Then you've got the small size of the screens making it difficult to differentiate the two. So when I look at those numbers it seems to me that sharpness would be virtually the same. But the xbr960 has the added benefits of better color, blacks, and less artifacting. Damn, I really wish I had been able to get one of those xbr960s. I have noticed that my picture is a tad less sharp than a 768p LCD. Sure, I've got a couple hundred extra lines of horizontal res. but I've got app. 500 less of vertical res. so I'm losing more than I'm gaining when comparing to 768p. If yours is equally as sharp or perhaps even a slight bit more that would be awesome in my opinion. Combine the sharpness of a 768p LCD and the color and blacks of a CRT in a 30ish sized HDTV and you've really got a fine set.

Yes, it is a very fine set, but SED should still blow it away in every regard. We'll have to see if SED lives up to the hype. I think it will, but I also think it will be expensive at first. Might be a viable purchase in 2-3 years though.

I'm planning on holding on to my 960 until I purchase an SED set.

I agree. I demoed one of these an an upscale store and was very impressed. It was right next to a DLP set and there was no contest - the SXRD was much better (and no goofy rainbowing!). This is the non-CRT technology to beat today, IMO.

stupid question....what's an SED set comprised of?

Google?
http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/sed_tvs.htm
http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/1052/98/
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/000905.html
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/IS...19/ces_TV.html

You're confused about your terminology. Horizontal is from left to right. Wide screen HD is 1920 pixels wide (max). Vertical resolution is from top to bottom, and this is what the "480i, 540p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p" values designate.

A "perfect" quality HDTV for BR Disc or HD-DVD would have a minimum of 1920x1080 static pixel resolution, although double this would be better for scaling of 720p content (do the math).

CRT technology is a totally different story and I may post a longer comment on that later, but basically CRTs allow for resolution increases beyond their normal refresh bandwidth via interlacing. The reason you interlace is that the TV can't actually draw all the lines it has within the time frame for a full vertical refresh so it draws half of them, then the other half, alternating even and odd vertical lines for each refresh.

A CRT screen refreshing 60 times per second in interlaced mode at a given resolution will look essentially the same in picture quality as another CRT refreshing 30 times per second at the same vertical resolution because of how the phosphor coated pixels decay non-instantly. However, the 60fps interlaced screen will actually have smoother motion if the data its rendering really is 60fps interlaced since the "second" part (field) of each frame is not actually the other half of the frame, but another new frame that continues the motion.

This is why deinterlacing is so important on LCD/Plasma screens; they don't have the same visual science as CRTs and the interlacing causes wierd jaggies whereas on CRTs they look fine.

Any questions?

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.

which is why SED will reign supreme!


now that I know what it is.

SED is the future, yes.

Almost every television set on the market has been interlaced for over 20 years at 480i resolution. Almost nobody has ever complained about the vibration problem you claim to be able to see. The only time interlacing is a problem is at low refresh rates (arguably, 60Hz is too low for some people, but its pretty rare in normal lighting conditions for people to notice the refresh -- fluorescent lighting compounds the issue), and with high horizontal motion scenes (like a quick pan of a cityscape). Horizontal panning will cause the individual interleaved pieces of the image to become so far apart as to be very obvious.

In probably well over 98% of circumstances, over 98% of the population cannot tell a CRT television is interlaced or not for a given scene because of the traditional offset pixel layout and phosphor decay speed. Its a well-studied field, believe it or not.

Unfortunately, some modern TVs use computer monitor style pixel layouts instead and many new TVs have more binary (on or off) pixels with no slow decay like phosphor does and so interlacing has become a bad word, despite being perfectly acceptable with the right technology most of the time.

PS, 1080i on my Toshiba 30" looks dramatically better than 480p any day of the week. HD shows on satellite in 1080i versus the same shows on DVD is night and day. Upscaling my DVDs from 480p/i to 1080i makes a dramatic resolution difference as well (sometimes good, sometimes bad, but always visible).

Most CRT's (the tubes) can shoot the electron beam at any of the 1920 x 1080 possible pixel poisitions on the screen for 1080i.

But...

Usually the electron beam is fatter than 1/1080'th the screen height or 1/1920'th the screen width.

If the beam were not so fat, at many of the pixel positions it would not land in any of the holes or slits in the shadow mask and nothing will show up on the screen.

Usually the electronics cannot change the beam from weak to intense or vice versa within 1/1920'th of the screen width, namely in the time it takes to sweep that distance. A 37 MHz video amplifier frequency response is needed to achieve 1920 pixels across for resolution.

The reason why interlacing was invented in the first place was that (still true for 1080i) the techology did not permit drawing all of the scan lines with reasonable horizontal detail more than about 30 times a second and at that rate with progressive scan the top of the screen would be fading before the bottom of the screen was finished. With interlacing, the fading would take place in thin slices hardly visible at normal viewing distances instead of in big patches.

Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm

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!