Another TV question this time 1080p

[gingerjedi]

I meant that all 720P panels can handle 1080i source, some can handle a 1080P source though they obviously scale it down.

Size is an issue and people make the mistake of thinking that 1080P must be better when it doesn’t always suit peoples needs, an upscaled SD picture will generally look worse on a 1080P panel as it has to stretch it more, also unless you go above 40 inches the human eye can’t distinguish between 720P and 1080P at about 8 feet viewing distance.

If you are going to buy a 60” screen and sit only 6 feet away the picture will look like one of the advertising boards on Piccadilly Circus if you have 720 or 1080 lines.

[voodooflux]

I meant that all 720P panels can handle 1080i source, some can handle a 1080P source though they obviously scale it down.

That's what I thought you meant

Size is an issue and people make the mistake of thinking that 1080P must be better when it doesn’t always suit peoples needs, an upscaled SD picture will generally look worse on a 1080P panel as it has to stretch it more, also unless you go above 40 inches the human eye can’t distinguish between 720P and 1080P at about 8 feet viewing distance.

I concur.

[VectraMan]

an upscaled SD picture will generally look worse on a 1080P panel as it has to stretch it more,

I don't think that's true. It's not the amount of stretching that counts; especially when you consider that the 1080p has smaller pixels for the same size screen. If anything stretching to a higher resolution will make it better.

unless you go above 40 inches the human eye can’t distinguish between 720P and 1080P at about 8 feet viewing distance.

Lots of statements like that, but it's entirely subjective. MP3 is supposed to be CD quality, and most people if asked in the street might say it is. But that doesn't mean it really is.

[voodooflux]

I don't think that's true. It's not the amount of stretching that counts; especially when you consider that the 1080p has smaller pixels for the same size screen. If anything stretching to a higher resolution will make it better.

I'm not convinced - upscaling can be notorious for loss of quality, and enthusiasts will often employ an external video processor (or "scaler") like a Lumagen or Crystalio II to improve this amongst other things.

Lots of statements like that, but it's entirely subjective. MP3 is supposed to be CD quality, and most people if asked in the street might say it is. But that doesn't mean it really is.

I would agree to the extent that different people have different tolerances. There are some good rules of thumb though, but there's no substitute for getting a demo.

[gingerjedi]

I don't think that's true. It's not the amount of stretching that counts; especially when you consider that the 1080p has smaller pixels for the same size screen. If anything stretching to a higher resolution will make it better.



Lots of statements like that, but it's entirely subjective. MP3 is supposed to be CD quality, and most people if asked in the street might say it is. But that doesn't mean it really is.

A 1080P panel of the same size may have smaller pixels but there are more of them displaying effectively the same thing when an image is stretched, a good scalar engine is probably more important than raw screen resolution when up/downscaling, a high end 1080P will probably do a better job upscaling than a low end panel of the same resolution, with a 720P panel the difference is less obvious.

One of the best TV's around that came 1st in many reviews when I was looking a couple of years back was a Pioneer plasma 720P panel, there were 1080P TV's about but it was the Pioneer 'engine' that made it so good.

I have never thought mp3 comes anywhere near CD quality, it just sounds flat to me. It's a bit ironic that kids of 17 years old with near perfect hearing think its fine yet 50 year old audiophiles spend thousands on kit when their ears are probably 50% shot at their age.

Like I said before I am no expert but I did spend about 8 months reading magazines and trawling avforums.com asking questions before I bought mine.

[voodooflux]

Like I said before I am no expert but I did spend about 8 months reading magazines and trawling avforums.com asking questions before I bought mine.

*Only* 8 months? I must have spent a couple of years on there before buying mine (Pioneer PDP-507XD)

Great site though, and some very helpful people on there.

[Platypus]

I don't think that's true. It's not the amount of stretching that counts; especially when you consider that the 1080p has smaller pixels for the same size screen. If anything stretching to a higher resolution will make it better.

From the reading I've done, the stretching is worse than the compression. Lots of comments that you can expect "normal" SD TV to look much worse on a 1080p panel

EDIT: worse than a 720p panel or CRT

[Jaws]

I think it depends entirely on the make of TV. My 1080P panasonic is far better with SD pictures than many of my friends' HD-Ready TVs of the same size.

[VectraMan]

I'm not convinced - upscaling can be notorious for loss of quality, and enthusiasts will often employ an external video processor (or "scaler") like a Lumagen or Crystalio II to improve this amongst other things.

I don't disagree, but it doesn't follow that upscaling to a higher resolution is worse. If you could go for double resolution, it'd be essentially perfect as you wouldn't have to do anything other than duplicate each pixel, so it really depends on how well the two fit. And as you're going from 720x576 to either 1280x720 or 1920x1080, you're pretty much screwed either way. I think a higher resolution gives the upscaler more to play with.

Also, SD is always interlaced, and that's a whole different order of problem than just upscaling the pixel resolution. I used to work with a bunch of mathemeticians that came up with algorithms for doing this stuff, and they were all much much cleverer than me.

[voodooflux]

I don't disagree, but it doesn't follow that upscaling to a higher resolution is worse. If you could go for double resolution, it'd be essentially perfect as you wouldn't have to do anything other than duplicate each pixel, so it really depends on how well the two fit. And as you're going from 720x576 to either 1280x720 or 1920x1080, you're pretty much screwed either way. I think a higher resolution gives the upscaler more to play with.

The example of doubling the resolution is a simplistic one, but you are correct in that the scaling is a simple line doubling exercise in that specific case - however the end result may be "pixelated" as each original pixel would be effectively doubled in size i.e. no new information is being added to resulting image.

In reality, at the resolutions you mention, scaling is much more complex and requires additional information to be inferred and added to the final image, resulting in artifacts such as posterization.

Also, SD is always interlaced, and that's a whole different order of problem than just upscaling the pixel resolution. I used to work with a bunch of mathemeticians that came up with algorithms for doing this stuff, and they were all much much cleverer than me.

Aye, that be such black magic as motion adaptive deinterlacing - tricky stuff, and another reason why enthusiasts often go for an external processor.