HD or HD ready?

aliEnRIK

I'm well aware of that
Ill be watching Sonys new tvs with a keen eye methinks

moonrakerz

Idiophreak wrote: »

Yes, I appreciate that by taking this stubborn stance, I may not be getting the most from the new-fangled screen, but like I give a hoot!

Thank you - that was my point exactly.

If you don't want to extract the full benefit from this technology that is entirely up to to you - but please don't try and tell others that there is no point in buying HD based on your own peculiar personal requirements.

Inactive

moonrakerz wrote: »

Thank you - that was my point exactly.

If you don't want to extract the full benefit from this technology that is entirely up to to you - but please don't try and tell others that there is no point in buying HD based on your own peculiar personal requirements.

I don't think that Idiophreak has " peculiar personal requirements ", I would suggest that someone that moves their chair closer to the TV to watch it, is the peculiar one.:rolleyes:

spud17

Inactive wrote: »

I don't think that Idiophreak has " peculiar personal requirements ", I would suggest that someone that moves their chair closer to the TV to watch it, is the peculiar one.:rolleyes:

Ageed, the technology has to fit around me, not the reverse.

Until it blows up, I'll keep my 14yo Sony 25inch crt. (£100, 10 years ago)

malc_b

The problem with 720 or 768 is it suits nothing. SD is 576 but some of those are lost off the edges so 540 is what you want or 1080. So a 1080 screen takes SD and displays each line twice. In contrast a 720/768 has to interpolate SD giving a lower resolution picture than a 540 line screen, or a 1080. When we have HD on all channels it will be 1080 so a 1:1 map onto a 1080 screen. For 720/768 it will have to be interpolated again and a 540 line 2->1 would probably beat it for true picture resolution (768 is doing 3->2 so merging 3 lines).

Inactive

malc_b wrote: »

When we have HD on all channels it will be 1080 so a 1:1 map onto a 1080 screen. .

When do think that is likely to happen? if at all.

aliEnRIK

malc_b wrote: »

The problem with 720 or 768 is it suits nothing. SD is 576 but some of those are lost off the edges so 540 is what you want or 1080. So a 1080 screen takes SD and displays each line twice. In contrast a 720/768 has to interpolate SD giving a lower resolution picture than a 540 line screen, or a 1080. When we have HD on all channels it will be 1080 so a 1:1 map onto a 1080 screen. For 720/768 it will have to be interpolated again and a 540 line 2->1 would probably beat it for true picture resolution (768 is doing 3->2 so merging 3 lines).

I understand where your coming from but thats just wrong in parts
ALL screens 'interpolate' SD and its down to how good the interpolation software is and the algorithms used, not what pixels its being interpolated to (Even a true doubling of the picture (If there was such a screen) would be interpolated generally speaking).

Not to mention ~ true SD content is interlaced so needs to be 'deinterlaced' too (Something that SKY is unbelievably cr*p at for example)

For example, Pioneers interpolation software is considered the very best you can get and outdoes just about every 1080 screen except their own. Their deinterlacers are top notch too (So upscaling an SD source using any of Pioneers screens will generally look better than all but the VERY best tvs that cost thousands)

I agree with the 1:1 mapping mind (As in no scaling whatsoever), so long as the materials not upscaled in the first place (Which I believe some 'claimed' HD material is!). But again, if its 1080i then some screens will be cr*p at deinterlacing it and lose some detail in the process

moonrakerz

Inactive wrote: »

I don't think that Idiophreak has " peculiar personal requirements ", I would suggest that someone that moves their chair closer to the TV to watch it, is the peculiar one.:rolleyes:

It really is difficult enough to make a point on here without having to struggle with those whose don't understand the English language ! :rolleyes:

Peculiar: "characteristic of only one person, group, or thing"

malc_b

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I understand where your coming from but thats just wrong in parts
ALL screens 'interpolate' SD and its down to how good the interpolation software is and the algorithms used, not what pixels its being interpolated to (Even a true doubling of the picture (If there was such a screen) would be interpolated generally speaking).

I don't think so although I may not have explained myself well. 1:1 mapping signal to pixels is the ideal we both agree on that. If you think about what interpolation software is doing it is combining pixels so 1080 black/white/black/white/etc. becomes 50% grey at 540. And 540 b/w/etc. becomes b/b/w/w/etc. on 1080. so not decrease in resolution When the mapping isn't a whole number the colour of one pixel is influenced by the others so 540 to 480 ~90% of one pixel + 10% of the next. Hence getting near 1:1 or 2:1 is the next best thing to achieving that. That means 720 or 768 is the worst situation as the interpolation is near 1.5. That will tend to give soft pictures. This is simplistic I'll agree and the rest of the processing will improve the picture (i.e. sharpening) but at the end of the day it is a bad move to interpolate by 1.5 and it would be better to be either 576/540 or 1080.

aliEnRIK

Im sorry malc but we'll have to agree to disagree
Especially if you believe black, white, black, white = grey in the interpolated part (Which it doesnt)
have you SEEN a Pioneer 786 screen upscaling?
Your terms of interpolation are VERY simplistic compared to a lot of upscaling software