Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"loz" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote

The 720p digital stream resolution is defined as 1280x720.
But HD-Ready displays with a similar resolution are actually either
15:9 1280x768 displays or 16:9 1366x768 displays.
So in order to display 720p, the 15:9 displays put black bars at the
top and bottom, and the 16:9 displays put a black frame all the way
around wasting 12% of the display.
So I do wonder why the heck they didn't make the displays 1280x720?

Because they use the same panels with PCs where 768 is a common resolution.
Saves making 2 resolutions of panels.

Maybe that's it. But it doesn't seem a very satisfactory explanation.
Widescreen PC displays appeared after TV widescreen IIRC. I would have
thought that they'd give priority to the TV resolution because that's
where the majority of the sales would be.

768 lines was common in the form of 4:3 1024x768 PC displays, but
they'd have had to add extra modes to the graphics hardware to handle
the greater width of the widescreen displays anyway, so why not switch
to 720 lines? The Windows and other desktop environments adjust
themselves to whatever the display driver requires so there's no
problem there.

--
Dave Farrance

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...


Because they use the same panels with PCs where 768 is a common
resolution.
Saves making 2 resolutions of panels.

Maybe that's it. But it doesn't seem a very satisfactory explanation.
Widescreen PC displays appeared after TV widescreen IIRC. I would have
thought that they'd give priority to the TV resolution because that's
where the majority of the sales would be.



when they started making lcd screens, the market was pcs - almost no tvs.
now the factories exist - built at a cost of billions, they are in no rush
to build more.



--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote

Maybe that's it. But it doesn't seem a very satisfactory explanation.
Widescreen PC displays appeared after TV widescreen IIRC. I would have
thought that they'd give priority to the TV resolution because that's
where the majority of the sales would be.

when they started making lcd screens, the market was pcs - almost no tvs.
now the factories exist - built at a cost of billions, they are in no rush
to build more.

That was true of 4:3 LCDs, but not of 16:9 LCDs, I think. Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only. I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?

--
Dave Farrance

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...


That was true of 4:3 LCDs, but not of 16:9 LCDs, I think. Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only. I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?



apparently it's the best shape to cut from the glass to minimize wastage.



--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote:


"Dave Farrance" wrote

Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only. I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?

apparently it's the best shape to cut from the glass to minimize wastage.

Hmmm. I wonder how that works. 768 is 3 x 2^8 - so it's a round figure
in binary, which makes the layout just a bit easier, I guess.

--
Dave Farrance

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
when they started making lcd screens, the market was pcs - almost no tvs.
now the factories exist - built at a cost of billions, they are in no rush
to build more.
That was true of 4:3 LCDs, but not of 16:9 LCDs, I think. Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only. I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?

No, plasma displays were primarily used first for PC displays before
becoming popular for TVs.
Many (most?) of them are still sold as panels without any TV circuitry.

loz

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:41:06 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

I see. So that's how it's done.

The 720p digital stream resolution is defined as 1280x720.

But HD-Ready displays with a similar resolution are actually either
15:9 1280x768 displays or 16:9 1366x768 displays.

Not all. Sony have some 1280x720 line displays.

So in order to display 720p, the 15:9 displays put black bars at the
top and bottom, and the 16:9 displays put a black frame all the way
around wasting 12% of the display.

No, they almost all internally upscale to their native resolution.

So I do wonder why the heck they didn't make the displays 1280x720?

See above.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:08:23 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

"loz" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote

The 720p digital stream resolution is defined as 1280x720.
But HD-Ready displays with a similar resolution are actually either
15:9 1280x768 displays or 16:9 1366x768 displays.
So in order to display 720p, the 15:9 displays put black bars at the
top and bottom, and the 16:9 displays put a black frame all the way
around wasting 12% of the display.
So I do wonder why the heck they didn't make the displays 1280x720?

Because they use the same panels with PCs where 768 is a common resolution.
Saves making 2 resolutions of panels.

Maybe that's it. But it doesn't seem a very satisfactory explanation.
Widescreen PC displays appeared after TV widescreen IIRC. I would have
thought that they'd give priority to the TV resolution because that's
where the majority of the sales would be.

Not actually true. The balance is shifting as of last Christmas, but
previously, corporate sales greatly outstripped domestic. I work in IT
for Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and we have more than 70 *thousand*
flat screens, from 17" LCD to 50" plasma.

768 lines was common in the form of 4:3 1024x768 PC displays, but
they'd have had to add extra modes to the graphics hardware to handle
the greater width of the widescreen displays anyway, so why not switch
to 720 lines?

Because 768 is more?

The Windows and other desktop environments adjust
themselves to whatever the display driver requires so there's no
problem there.

And modern flat screen TVs do the same, adjusting the incoming picture
to whatever the display requires.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:04:05 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote

Maybe that's it. But it doesn't seem a very satisfactory explanation.
Widescreen PC displays appeared after TV widescreen IIRC. I would have
thought that they'd give priority to the TV resolution because that's
where the majority of the sales would be.

when they started making lcd screens, the market was pcs - almost no tvs.
now the factories exist - built at a cost of billions, they are in no rush
to build more.

That was true of 4:3 LCDs, but not of 16:9 LCDs, I think. Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only.

Absolutely untrue, the *vast* majority of plasma screens from five
years ago were bought by corporates.

I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?

No, there isn't - simple economics. The only time there's going to be
a change is when a whole new screen generation is developed. Sony do
make some 1280x720 screens, but they may not next time round, as
typical high street punters think that a 768 screen must be better
than a 720 screen!

Modern upscaling electronics are of sufficient quality to make the
whole thing fairly moot, especially since 1080p is the 'next big
thing'. I have a Samsung LCD TV and a Samsung upscaling DVD player,
and via the HDMI connection, DVD pictures are *definitely* better with
the player set to 720p.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Upscaling to Hi Def
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:08:47 -0000, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
.. .

That was true of 4:3 LCDs, but not of 16:9 LCDs, I think. Also, plasma
displays are 768 lines rather than 720 lines, and those are for TV
only. I wonder if there's another explanation for providing 768 lines?

apparently it's the best shape to cut from the glass to minimize wastage.

LOL! Nice one........ :-)

So, you reckon that a 1280x720 screen will be a different shape from a
1366x768 one? And have you considered that the 1028x1028 screens don't
have square pixels?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering