Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

Lars

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Hi all,

I sit here, thinking of the new Pioneer 433MXE. Now the resolution, in pixels, is 1024*768. In my simple mathematic mind that is 4:3. If it would be 16:9, I would like to see something like 1024*576 pixels (btw this is very nice from a PAL perspective).

So the resolution is 4:3 in the matjematic world, and 16:9 in the physical world - right...

So how can a scaler make use of the 1024*768 in the best way ??? every pixel is not equal in hight vs width...

I'm just very confused right now - anyone have any good way to explain this to me ?????

Den

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
This is a common question from folks coming from the computer world. With a computer displaying non-video images, you are concerned with the specific value of every pixel all the time. Even when doing video gaming, every pixel is accounted for all the time.

Motion video isn't like that. In any given video signal you have a certain number of horizontal scanning lines per still picture, and each scanning line has a certain amount of detail or sample value transitions from right to left. The horizontal detail may vary a lot, from scene to scene, certainly from program to program or scan rate to scan rate.

A video scaler mated to a matrixed or fixed pixel display has the job of fitting (scaling, resampling) the incoming scan format and horizontal detail into the available pixel array. It must *invent* a value for every target pixel. Very different from static computer images whose pixels are immutable.

If there is more horizontal or vertical detail in the source than in the pixel matrix, we lose resolution in those dimensions. If the source is lower in resolution than the matrix, we hopefully preserve that detail without introducing too many artifacts.

ATSC HDTV formats specify square pixels in the sense that the sampling arrays (1920x1080 and 1280x720), if they were to be fully resolved by a real world display device, would imply square pixels in the display if the 16:9 aspect were to be correctly maintained.

Lars

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Thanks, it helped alot.

Next question:

NTSC DVD movie is 720*480 (in pixels or what ever one calls it) and PAL DVD is 720*576.

So a scaler will do 720 to 1024, and 480/576 to 768, for the Pioneer 433 ???

This is odd...

I think I will stay with the 503MXE....

Den

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Correct - this is what the Pioneer 433 scaler will do. As stated above, since DVD is lower in resolution to either display, both should do a good job with DVD. For HD, the 503MXE may be preferred due to greater horizontal pixel count. But there are many, many other picture parameters to consider besides resolution!

Esben

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
Then what about when using it with a PC?

The image would be stretched when running 1024x768 (4:3 aspect) on a 1024x768, 16:9 aspect screen?

Den

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Correct - therefore, a 1024x768, 16:9 aspect screen is not well-suited to serious PC work. You could define a custom resolution in Powerstrip but it won't look good - you need really need those square pixels (1366 horizontally) to make the PC look right.

1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.