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.

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.

In article ,
says...
"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.


Surely as 16:9 is mathematically in the middle of 4:3 and 2.35:1 (well,
2.33:1) then that's why they went for it.

Then all you've got to deal with is the spastics who can't handle black bars
at the sides of a 4:3 image, or those top and bottom of a 2.35:1 image.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1088 DVDs, 320 games, 214 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* ssx on tour, rodrigo y gabriela, 24: the game, donald fagen, black (xbox)

Join the DVDfever.co.uk forum - http://dvdfever.co.uk/phpbb2
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml

wrote:

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.

Ah. I hadn't stopped to think that broadcast and DVD MPEG streams would
probably be low-pass filtered at the Nyquist Frequency. So you're
right: scaling from 720 to 768 lines would make no significant
difference to the image quality - provided that the conversion
algorithm was good.

So the few flat-panels that display 720p as a reduced size image in a
black frame are just skimping on the processing requirement.

--
Dave Farrance

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So the few flat-panels that display 720p as a reduced size image in a
black frame are just skimping on the processing requirement.

No - they are maintaining the proper aspect ration of 16:9 material
1280*720 rather than 1280*768

(it isn't a frame all the way round, they just have small black bars top and
bottom)

Loz

"loz" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote
So the few flat-panels that display 720p as a reduced size image in a
black frame are just skimping on the processing requirement.

No - they are maintaining the proper aspect ration of 16:9 material
1280*720 rather than 1280*768

(it isn't a frame all the way round, they just have small black bars top and
bottom)

OK, I was thinking of the 1366x768 16:9 variety. Checking back, I see
that it was you that initially said that a border was left at each
side. By that, you meant *only* the top and bottom "sides" in a
1280x768 display?

--
Dave Farrance

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
"loz" wrote:

No - they are maintaining the proper aspect ration of 16:9 material
1280*720 rather than 1280*768

OK, I was thinking of the 1366x768 16:9 variety.

Good point.
I was only refering to my own TV that is 1280x768
Clearly a 1366x768 is already 16:9

Checking back, I see
that it was you that initially said that a border was left at each
side. By that, you meant *only* the top and bottom "sides" in a
1280x768 display?

Yes, the top and bottom sides :-)

Loz

Hi,

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.

I was about to say the same thing - at Matrox we supplied at very large
number of DVI cards (when the technology was very new) to drive these
things, and the banks were without doubt the biggest 'early adopters' of
the digital display technologies. In London it was to some extent a
matter of rent - putting four or six big CRTs on a dealers desk meant
having less traders in a dealing room. The extra cost of using DVI
panels was easily offset by the extra space for people. The savings in
air-con costs wasn't insignificant either!

regards,

Glenn.

Glenn Booth wrote:
Hi,

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.

I was about to say the same thing - at Matrox we supplied at very large
number of DVI cards (when the technology was very new) to drive these
things, and the banks were without doubt the biggest 'early adopters' of
the digital display technologies. In London it was to some extent a
matter of rent - putting four or six big CRTs on a dealers desk meant
having less traders in a dealing room. The extra cost of using DVI
panels was easily offset by the extra space for people. The savings in
air-con costs wasn't insignificant either!

How does changing the type of monitors on someone's desk make for
cheaper air-con?

Dom

In article .com,
DVDfever Dom wrote:

How does changing the type of monitors on someone's desk make for
cheaper air-con?

because CRT monitors produce an awful lot of heat.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer