[mythtv-users] OT: HDTV TV's

[Steven Adeff]

On 5/11/06, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> Basically, I'm saying there's more information available in the input
> signal than can be represented by an output device using a 1:1 pixel
> mapping.

Um, what?! There is no way possible to have more information than the
1:1 pixel mapping. It's not there, sure, you could *guess* at what's
there, but that doesn't mean the information is actually there, its
just rounding math.


> To get an idea of what I mean, play back a 720x480 anamorphic
> widescreen, commercial DVD on a 4:3 CRT that's set to use 640x480 (i.e.
> with Xrandr/Ctrl-Alt-"Numpad +"/Ctrl-Alt-"Numpad -") and have the player
> cut off the left and right (i.e. to get a 1:1 pixel mapping--a 4:3 DVD
> (whether a 4:3 show or letterboxed widescreen) uses non-square pixels,
> but your display doesn't, so you'd get scaling).  Then, change the CRT
> to 1280x960 and do the same.  The image is significantly better looking
> at 1280x960 even though the pixels are "resolved" (by your definition)
> at 640x480.

Thats because if your displaying an anamorphic DVD on an non
anamorphic compensated display unit your scaling. But if you take your
monitor and squeeze the image and tell your computer not to
de-anamorphize the image like *should* be done, then there is no
scaling issue. Don't confuse digital scaling with true 1:1.


On 5/11/06, Daniel Kristjansson <danielk at cuymedia.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 11:58 -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> > On 05/10/2006 03:01 PM, Mike Frisch wrote:
> > Exactly.  And, technically, a 1920x1080 (1080p) display cannot fully
> > resolve a 1920x1080 input signal (whether 1080i or 1080p).
> Not true. A 1920x1080 display can fully resolve a 1080i/p image.
>
> But if it is not a CRT, a 1920x1080 display can not fully resolve
> a 720p image unless you severely letterbox that image. In order
> to fully resolve both 720p and 1080i in an edge to edge display
> you need 3840x2160 pixels.
>
> A 1920x1080 CRT will work with both resolutions because they in fact
> do have a high resolution shadow mask (i.e > 3840x2160), and the
> advertised resolution is actually limited by the scanning rate, which
> is considerably less than the physical number of pixels.

repeated for emphasis...


On 5/10/06, Marco Nelissen <marcone at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Well, 960x720 is apparently a standard (if 4:3 aspect) HDTV
> resolution, and a 1024x768 panel is able to display that

960x720 is not a valid HDTV resolution.


On 5/11/06, Mike Frisch <mfrisch at isurfer.ca> wrote:
> This is also why people do not consider DLP displays that use
> "wobulation" as a method of increasing pixel count as they're not
> invididually addressable pixels.

and they would be wrong. Wobulation works by "drawing" halves of the
screen at twice the freq of playback, you can definitely "address" a
specific pixel. The only problem with wobulation is that saying it
makes you sound like your talking to a 2yo.

There are some very good wobulated tv's, the HP md6580n for one, which
is on Sound & Visions list of best 1080p TV's and rival's the Sony
SXRD's in picture quality (and beats it in features).

-- 
Steve
Before you ask, read the FAQ!
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions
then search the Wiki, and this list,
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/
Mailinglist etiquette -
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List_etiquette