[Hawkson]

I have read in a couple places that you can get better results by giving a projector a higher resolution then its native resolution. Specifically, I read that 1024x768 was better on an X1 projector(native 800x600) then 800x600 was.


Is this common and should i build my computer to be able to handle high resolutions even though my probably projector(infocus 4805) is native 800x480?

 

[FriarTuck]

If you send your pj any other signal than its native resolution then it will have to scale the video to its native resolution. If the PJ scales well, this can be a good thing, if it scales badly (as many do) then it will be a bad thing.


The PC does a pretty good job of scaling and convetional wisdom seems to suggest that sending the PJ a signal at the PJ's native resolution is the best way to go (that is if the PJ can accept a 1:1 pixel map).


Not sure where you heard that the higher the resolution the better the picture.. Team, dig in if I am wrong.


Friar.

 

[Lifter]

It's a bad idea period, because you're scaling twice. DVD's are 720x480. You'd effectively be scaling it to 1024x768 with your HTPC, and then you're PJ would be scaling it again to 800x600. Bad idea.


Some people here use FDDshow software to scale DVDs to x2 (1440x960) and then let the video card downscale it to whatever the display's native res is. To be honest, I don't know what advantage that could possibly have.

 

[Hawkson]

I am not sure what 1024x784 scaling would be using FFDshow. I remember a couple weeks ago someone mentioned this when using there X1 and their HTPC that it produced better results.


The reason I ask is I am in the process of building an HTPC and I could go the high end route and get top end VGA's and Proc and get FFDShow to do some massive scaling, or just get older (and cheaper) high end stuff to have FFDShow do some basic processing on DVD's since the native res of my projector will be 800x480

 

[Eiffel]

In theory, this should not be a good idea... but there are a few cases where sending a high resolution to a projector and having it downscale does work well.


For instance, the best widescreen picture one can get from a Sony VPL-VW10HT is by feeding it a 1080i signal. This projector has a native resolution of 768*1368 IIRC and can't be fed it's native resolution (later models such as the 11HT can).


Surprisingly, feeding 1080i works better than 1366(or 68?) x 666p which should be closer.


Nevertheless, for 4:3 material, feeding the projector an XGA signal (1024*768) does work best

 

[Spoonfed]

I feed my X1 1024 x 576 (16:9) which is above the 800 x 450 native 16:9 resolution.


This is no worse than native res, and in some instances better (ie diagnal stepping is eliminated, not that is really an issue anyways)


The X1 does have very good scaling, (and de-interlacing, not that it matters for HTPC).


Get a grunty PC. The more grunt you have for FFDShow the better.


The logic behind upscaling using FFDShow is that during/after the upscale shappening can be applied. Why is this better? If you sharpen the standard res DVD image artifacts such as "ringing" etc are enhanced as you are working with a lower resolution. Buy having a higher res/more pixels the results are better. Think Photoshop.

 

[madpoet]

As others have said, it is a matter of choice. Try it and see what you prefer.