| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Upscaling to Hi Def
On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly
upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Ed wrote:
On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed It upscales by stretching the picture. It cannot make it HD if it isn't already HD. It will look a mess i would think. Nige -- Subaru WRX Range Rover 4.6 HSE (The Tank!) 110 Hi Cap (Ben) '"Opinions are like arseholes, everyones got one" |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed it changes the resolution to that of hi def - but as you've guessed, it wont look any better. after all - every single lcd or plasma out there that has a resolution which isnt exactly that of PAL, upscales already to the resolution of the screen - just like that amp does. you could take a vcd quality mpeg file and convert it to 1900x1080 resolution - but it would still look just as bad. -- Gareth. A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond. http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/ |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Ed wrote:
On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD It does pretty much exactly what your PC does when you resize the window (or select full screen) while watching a DVD. It scales the picture using something like bicubic interpolation. It can improve the appearance of the picture, but of course it doesn't add any information to the picture (by definition, anything added is noise) so you haven't got a more detailed picture, but it can still look a bit better. As other posters have said, if you're using a TV with non-PAL native resolution (i.e. all of them) then the TV is already doing this anyway. The real advantage of this type of player is that you get a digital output, avoiding the unnecessary D to A to D conversion that you need with analogue. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
the dog from that film you saw wrote: "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed it changes the resolution to that of hi def - but as you've guessed, it wont look any better. after all - every single lcd or plasma out there that has a resolution which isnt exactly that of PAL, upscales already to the resolution of the screen - just like that amp does. Do LCD and plasma TVs have an option to NOT stretch the picture, thus leaving small black lines but also not ruining the picture? TIA, Dom |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Do LCD and plasma TVs have an option to NOT stretch the picture, thus
leaving small black lines but also not ruining the picture? No, it would look abysmal! Any fixed resolution device utilises all the scanlines, duplicating lines if required... Justin. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"DVDfever Dom" wrote in message it changes the resolution to that of hi def - but as you've guessed, it wont look any better. after all - every single lcd or plasma out there that has a resolution which isnt exactly that of PAL, upscales already to the resolution of the screen - just like that amp does. Do LCD and plasma TVs have an option to NOT stretch the picture, thus leaving small black lines but also not ruining the picture? TIA, Dom doubt it - what you'd actually get, if it left the picture totally alone would be a 720x576 picture surrounded by a gigantic black border on all sides. ruining it is a bit harsh though - plenty of lcd and plasmas can present high quality pictures- it's a matter of what you are used to, after a few weeks of a sharp lcd i found the picture on my loewe aconda to look strange. -- Gareth. A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond. http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/ |
Upscaling to Hi Def
If it ain't filmed in HD, it ain't showing in HD.
Ed wrote: On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Nigel Barker wrote:
Pretty much all movies are filmed in a far higher resolution than HDTV & have been for decades. 35mm film is far higher resolution than even 1920 x 1080i. OK, but if it's been decimated to SD resolution, nothing is going to reconstruct the original resolution, it's just inventing bits which fit the gaps ... |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Nigel Barker wrote in
: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:23:36 GMT, "Choofie" wrote: If it ain't filmed in HD, it ain't showing in HD Pretty much all movies are filmed in a far higher resolution than HDTV & have been for decades. 35mm film is far higher resolution than even 1920 x 1080i. Thanks to the BBC using video for nearly all their shows over the years, there's little chance of seeing many old shows in HD. The Americans, who preferred to use film, can now watch 70s shows such as Charlie's Angels and Cheers in HD. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Anthony Haines" wrote in message ... Thanks to the BBC using video for nearly all their shows over the years, there's little chance of seeing many old shows in HD. The Americans, who preferred to use film, can now watch 70s shows such as Charlie's Angels and Cheers in HD. hopefully..... some of them were shot on film, but then tranferred to video for editing - example, dallas - which suddenly started to look crap when they did this. -- Gareth. A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond. http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/ |
Upscaling to Hi Def
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:33:47 -0000, "Nige"
wrote: Ed wrote: On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD cheers ed It upscales by stretching the picture. It cannot make it HD if it isn't already HD. It will look a mess i would think. Nige There have been upscaling DVD players around for a while. I have a Samsung HD950. They do a pretty decent job of upscaling although TBH a HTPC can do a better job. Definitely a better picture on my HD projector than with a standard DVD player. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Upscaling to Hi Def
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:23:36 GMT, "Choofie" wrote:
If it ain't filmed in HD, it ain't showing in HD Pretty much all movies are filmed in a far higher resolution than HDTV & have been for decades. 35mm film is far higher resolution than even 1920 x 1080i. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:23:36 GMT, "Choofie" wrote: If it ain't filmed in HD, it ain't showing in HD Pretty much all movies are filmed in a far higher resolution than HDTV & have been for decades. You mean celluloid ? 35mm film is far higher resolution than even 1920 x 1080i. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD Though you cannot extract any more information from the SD source material than there is, the question is what is the best way to scale the resolution of the SD material to the resolution of the panel? All panels are going to scale the incomming signal to fit the panel, but it is possible that a scaler built into a DVD, an amp like the Denon or a dedicated scaler can do the job better. That is better in terms of making the best job of guessing what the extra scan lines should be (that is, not just duplicating the lines, for interpolating the lines to "guess" what should have been there), smoothing out the jaggies and generally doing the job with minimum of artefacts. I have a Oppo Digital DVD player that has one of the best built in scalers. As it can easily switch between a 576p and a 720p signal it is easy to see whether providing the panel with a higher resolution input improves PQ. In the case of my Philips HD Ready LCD, feeding it the 720p signal is a clear improvement. I have a Panasonic Plasma arriving next week, so am looking forward to see what difference there is there. If the Panasonic does a better job of scaling the 576p image than the Philips, then it might not show any improvement when fed a 720p signal. However, the Oppo does have a very good scaler, so it will be interesting to see. So far, I have been amazed at just how much more information the Oppo is extracting from SD DVD than I have seen before. This could just be a factor of it being a better DVD in the first place than ones I have owned before, but as stated above, there is a clear improvement in using the Oppo's scaler as well. So it is probably a combination of the two. Here is a good explanation of what the Oppo's scaler does, and why it does a good job of it http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h_moreinfo.html Loz |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Thanks to the BBC using video for nearly all their shows over the
years, there's little chance of seeing many old shows in HD. The Americans, who preferred to use film, can now watch 70s shows such as Charlie's Angels and Cheers in HD. Well, not really true, that's a bit unfair when you consider the scale of budgets vs Audience ratings. Plus the Americans are a bit mental and spend money shooting everthing on film whether they need to or not. Even sitcoms are done on 35mm, never mind 16 or super 16! I don't think the BBC could justify spending the licence fee doing everthing on film. I suppose the word "repeats" has a bad name, because when you mention it over here it stirs memories of Dads Army, Vicar of Dibley and Only Fools and horses again and again and again and again....... There are thousands of progs out there which should be repeated and never even make it to UK Gold. Where's the good stuff, wasted sitting in a dusty archive because to bring it out would upset the repeat percentages, especially against the audience ratings they would be expected to get. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Matt Overton wrote:
Thanks to the BBC using video for nearly all their shows over the years, there's little chance of seeing many old shows in HD. The Americans, who preferred to use film, can now watch 70s shows such as Charlie's Angels and Cheers in HD. Well, not really true, that's a bit unfair when you consider the scale of budgets vs Audience ratings. Plus the Americans are a bit mental and spend money shooting everthing on film whether they need to or not. Even sitcoms are done on 35mm, never mind 16 or super 16! I don't think the BBC could justify spending the licence fee doing everthing on film. I suppose the word "repeats" has a bad name, because when you mention it over here it stirs memories of Dads Army, Vicar of Dibley and Only Fools and horses again and again and again and again....... There are thousands of progs out there which should be repeated and never even make it to UK Gold. Where's the good stuff, wasted sitting in a dusty archive because to bring it out would upset the repeat percentages, especially against the audience ratings they would be expected to get. Most likely there's contractual difficulties, frequently a contract allowed for a first showing and x repeats. Others may have been lost for ever, thrown out to make room for later programmes or the tapes recycled. -- Peter |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Peter Hayes wrote: Matt Overton wrote: Thanks to the BBC using video for nearly all their shows over the years, there's little chance of seeing many old shows in HD. The Americans, who preferred to use film, can now watch 70s shows such as Charlie's Angels and Cheers in HD. Well, not really true, that's a bit unfair when you consider the scale of budgets vs Audience ratings. Plus the Americans are a bit mental and spend money shooting everthing on film whether they need to or not. Even sitcoms are done on 35mm, never mind 16 or super 16! I don't think the BBC could justify spending the licence fee doing everthing on film. I suppose the word "repeats" has a bad name, because when you mention it over here it stirs memories of Dads Army, Vicar of Dibley and Only Fools and horses again and again and again and again....... There are thousands of progs out there which should be repeated and never even make it to UK Gold. Where's the good stuff, wasted sitting in a dusty archive because to bring it out would upset the repeat percentages, especially against the audience ratings they would be expected to get. Most likely there's contractual difficulties, frequently a contract allowed for a first showing and x repeats. Of course, if the TV bosses were bothered about a show they could make the necessary calls to negotiate further repeats even though that would mean drawing up a new contract. And, of course, they just can't be bothered. Others may have been lost for ever, thrown out to make room for later programmes or the tapes recycled. I remember seeing an article on the news once about a bloke who only recorded on video tapes once. When everything had been explained to him he said, "You can record over them again?" :) Dom |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Ed" wrote:
On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD There's only one or two HD-ready *CRT* TVs, and I've not seen any on the High Street, so almost all HD-ready TVs being sold at the moment are flat-panels. The ones that I've seen don't seem to have 720 or 1080 lines, but some other number like 768 or 1024 lines. When showing a standard definition source, a flat-panel will format-convert the source to its native definition. But when you take advantage of the upscaling option of one of these DVD players, the source is format-converted to 720 or 1080 lines, and then format-converted again by the flat-panel to its native definition - two format conversions, each blurring the image slightly. It doesn't make sense. The upscaling DVD players have HDMI digital outputs - so that's a real advantage, if you can use it - but it'd be better to leave the player set to standard-definition output. -- Dave Farrance |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... There's only one or two HD-ready *CRT* TVs, and I've not seen any on the High Street, so almost all HD-ready TVs being sold at the moment are flat-panels. The ones that I've seen don't seem to have 720 or 1080 lines, but some other number like 768 or 1024 lines. When showing a standard definition source, a flat-panel will format-convert the source to its native definition. But when you take advantage of the upscaling option of one of these DVD players, the source is format-converted to 720 or 1080 lines, and then format-converted again by the flat-panel to its native definition - two format conversions, each blurring the image slightly. It doesn't make sense. The upscaling DVD players have HDMI digital outputs - so that's a real advantage, if you can use it - but it'd be better to leave the player set to standard-definition output. I would have agreed that this arguement makes sense. However, having recently bought an upscaling DVD I am surprised how much better the PQ is when fed a 720p upscaled picture from the DVD compared to a "normal" 576p one. This is down to the quality of the scaler built into the DVD compared to the one in the TV. On my HD LCD it doesn't scale the 720p image to fit the 768 pixels, but leaves a 24 pixel black border on each side. Whereas if I feed it a 576p source the TV has to upscale it to 720 pixels. It is clear my DVD does a better job of scaling than the TV. This wont always be the case of course, depending on what DVD and what TV you have. Loz |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote: On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD There's only one or two HD-ready *CRT* TVs, and I've not seen any on the High Street, so almost all HD-ready TVs being sold at the moment are flat-panels. The ones that I've seen don't seem to have 720 or 1080 lines, but some other number like 768 or 1024 lines. When showing a standard definition source, a flat-panel will format-convert the source to its native definition. But when you take advantage of the upscaling option of one of these DVD players, the source is format-converted to 720 or 1080 lines, and then format-converted again by the flat-panel to its native definition - two format conversions, each blurring the image slightly. It doesn't make sense. The upscaling DVD players have HDMI digital outputs - so that's a real advantage, if you can use it - but it'd be better to leave the player set to standard-definition output. -- Dave Farrance Just my two pence worth. I'm far too poor to afford a fancy new panel, but a friend of mine got a 37" or 39" HDTV plasma last year, and when I went around so he could show off, it looked frankly, bloody terrible... DVDs looking blocky and dirty. He went and bought a DVD player with an inbuilt upscaler and it made the world of difference. DVDs look great again now. As has been mentioned above, I guess it depends on the panel, and how good the onboard upscaler is. I guess if you buy a panel and realise SD looks poor, it would be better to buy a standalone upscaler so you could run Digital TV/DVD/Games consoles through it too.... or just had a thought.... do some of these DVD players have scart passthrough, which could also benefit from the upscaler? I guess not, as they just, as the name implies, pass through, but would be great if they did! V1N. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
loz wrote:
It is clear my DVD does a better job of scaling than the TV. And I don't use either the TV or the DVD to do the scaling. I use an external scaler, a Lumagen, and it makes pretty much everything look fantastic on my HiDef Ready DLP RPTV. Some things, depending on the original quality, look near enough as makes no difference as good as the true HiDef demos you see running in Dixons and Currys, coming off custom PCs. Then again, the cheapest Lumagen will set you back near a £1000, and more if you get it professionally calibrated to your displays. And the latest ones are set for about four grand when they're released in the near future. Which is probably more than your TV and DVD combined, so not for everyone, probably. Regards Mark |
Upscaling to Hi Def
Matt Overton wrote:
Well, not really true, that's a bit unfair when you consider the scale of budgets vs Audience ratings. Plus the Americans are a bit mental and spend money shooting everthing on film whether they need to or not. Even sitcoms are done on 35mm, never mind 16 or super 16! I don't think the BBC could justify spending the licence fee doing everthing on film. Is the cost difference between 16mm and 35mm so great? Compared to the cost of the entire production? Mind you, when watching in SD there's little to complain about in the picture quality of most current BBC drama (in terms of film noise and grain). Some older stuff is really shocking. Outdoor film inserts on studio (VT) comedy are often scratchy, grainy, damaged, and flickery. I know telecine has improved, but some things look like they were dropped on the floor, danced on, and _then_ telecinied! For entire dramas on film, it's quite apparent (usually on ITV, but often BBC Four) when they've re-transferred film stock recently compared to using an old composite transfer from a couple of decades ago. I wonder how often the original film doesn't exist? Or is it just cost that prevents a new transfer? I suppose the word "repeats" has a bad name, because when you mention it over here it stirs memories of Dads Army, Vicar of Dibley and Only Fools and horses again and again and again and again....... 'nowt wrong with that! I'm amazed how well some episodes of Porridge and (in a tamer way) Dad's Army stand up - there's lots of similar aged comedy that doesn't work anymore, which justifies (to me) why some things are repeated endlessly, while others never are. There are thousands of progs out there which should be repeated and never even make it to UK Gold. Where's the good stuff, wasted sitting in a dusty archive because to bring it out would upset the repeat percentages, especially against the audience ratings they would be expected to get. See above. or provide an example? Cheers, David. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"loz" wrote:
"Dave Farrance" wrote: But when you take advantage of the upscaling option of one of these DVD players, the source is format-converted to 720 or 1080 lines, and then format-converted again by the flat-panel to its native definition - two format conversions, each blurring the image slightly. I would have agreed that this arguement makes sense. However, having recently bought an upscaling DVD I am surprised how much better the PQ is when fed a 720p upscaled picture from the DVD compared to a "normal" 576p one. This is down to the quality of the scaler built into the DVD compared to the one in the TV. I guess so. Two replies say that the upscaler gives a better result so practice trumps theory - but I am surprised. You still have to use the TV's upscaling as well. On my HD LCD it doesn't scale the 720p image to fit the 768 pixels, but leaves a 24 pixel black border on each side. Hang on. 768 is the number of lines. Do you mean that it leaves a gap at the top and bottom? If not, then the TV is upscaling. -- Dave Farrance |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... "loz" wrote: "Dave Farrance" wrote: But when you take advantage of the upscaling option of one of these DVD players, the source is format-converted to 720 or 1080 lines, and then format-converted again by the flat-panel to its native definition - two format conversions, each blurring the image slightly. I would have agreed that this arguement makes sense. However, having recently bought an upscaling DVD I am surprised how much better the PQ is when fed a 720p upscaled picture from the DVD compared to a "normal" 576p one. This is down to the quality of the scaler built into the DVD compared to the one in the TV. I guess so. Two replies say that the upscaler gives a better result so practice trumps theory - but I am surprised. You still have to use the TV's upscaling as well. On my HD LCD it doesn't scale the 720p image to fit the 768 pixels, but leaves a 24 pixel black border on each side. Hang on. 768 is the number of lines. Do you mean that it leaves a gap at the top and bottom? If not, then the TV is upscaling. Yes. It leaves a gap. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
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. 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? -- Dave Farrance |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... 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. 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. Loz |
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 |
Upscaling to Hi Def
"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com... On Sky news they just showed a Denon amplifer thing that supposedly upscales DVDs and other sources to Hi Def quality. What does it really do? Or rather, what does it do to the pictures coming from a standard dvd player to supposedly make them HD I have a Samsung HD850 DVD player connected to my Panasonic HD plasma via HDMI - I have noticed no difference in the picture quality when changing the DVD player to upscale to 720p - on the other hand I've seen demos of true HD pictures on my plasma screen and they are stunning (massive improvement over SD). - Simon. |
Upscaling to Hi Def
In uk.tech.digital-tv 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. There's another factor. You *can* scale a TV picture (e.g. from 720 to 768 lines) because it's - hopefully - a proper antialiased continuous tone image that meets the Nyquist criterion: no frequency components exceeding half the sampling frequency. However you *cannot* (satisfactorily) scale a PC display because it's likely to contain graphics with sharp, unfiltered, edges (ever used an LCD monitor with the wrong display settings ?). So if you want to build just one size of panel it makes sense to build it to the PC resolution rather than to the TV resolution. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ To reply by email change 'news' to my forename. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com