Re: 1080p and Plasma


"Jan B" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43ae8541.5325237@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:48:43 -0500, "Leonard Caillouet" <no@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul A. Jacobi" <p.jacobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:iNidnRYu5aMLKjHeRVn-vA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:11qp4qqdo0528aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> The same way it displays a 720p image. By scaling it to fit.
>>>
>>> Which means about half the bits of the picture are thrown away and are
>>> not
>>> displayed! In the future, all displays will eventually be 1920x1080 and
>>> those sucker that had to have a flat screen TV for Christmas, will find
>>> out
>>> that they just bought a 2nd class approximation to an HDTV.
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul A. Jacobi
>>> p dot jacobi at comcast dot net
>>
>>Bits are not thrown away in resampling. Certainly infomation is lost,
>>but
>>to say that half the bits are thrown away is simply wrong. A well
>>executed
>>1080i to 720 process could easily end up displaying a better picture than
>>a
>>lousy 1080i display. The problem is in the processing. We don't know a
>>lot
>>about what goes on in most sets. Don't make assumptions, look at the
>>results.
>
> I would add to that:
> Don't automatically assume that the 1080i signal has better
> "resolution" than 720p. It depends on the source and real 720p/60 or
> 50 Hz material has better temporal resolution than interlaced material
> in 1080i.
>
> With moving pictures the information rate (bits per second) is about
> the same for 720p as 1080i with the advantage that scaling is easier
> to perform correct from a progressive signal and close to impossible
> to perform correct from a true interlaced material.
> /Jan

As I have said many times, don't assume anything. 1080i, however, can
deliver higher horizontal resolution if it is there in the source. Temporal
resolution is not the whole story. This is the trade-off that most people
forget when criticizing the decision to use interlaced scanning. Remember,
this was all decided in the 1990s and the ability to get 6mHz in one channel
was stretching the technology to its limit.

I agree that interlaced signals are a PITA, and would be happy if they had
been discarded when the ATSC standards were decided, the fact is that they
are here for the time being. If the manufacturers put a little more
emphasis on good de-interlacing and resampling hardware, we could have much
better looking HD. As it is, the best stuff still is pretty impressive.

Leonard


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1080p and Plasma
    ... By scaling it to fit. ... >> Which means about half the bits of the picture are thrown away and are not ... >Bits are not thrown away in resampling. ... >1080i to 720 process could easily end up displaying a better picture than a ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: optimizing graphics
    ... > better than the same picture which has had its resolution reduced the ... there are some dreadful examples of Web pages displaying ... dimensions of the image file ... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: 1080p and Plasma
    ... > Which means about half the bits of the picture are thrown away and are not ... > p dot jacobi at comcast dot net ... Bits are not thrown away in resampling. ... 1080i to 720 process could easily end up displaying a better picture than a ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: 16:9 aspect ratio and StarTrek movie in Blu Ray
    ... are thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true ... and now Blue Ray....I've got to say that at this point with 1080p Blue Ray I ... advances in resolution and picture quality before I kick the bucket, ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: .ico file on picture box
    ... Does a picture box capable of displaying different image size on varying ... device resolution? ... I have created an icon file with two images (16x16 ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework)