Re: 1080p...and why did I?
- From: "Bill's News" <billsnews@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:47:07 -0700
"Robin" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4d9ab31jbqhmb4nh2cv4bffr8g8m505e8r@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:00:05 -0400, Some Other Guy
<bgates@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ward Abbott wrote:
I am setting here wondering why I bought a 1080p. It is
the Sharp
52" and the picture is breathtaking....stunning. But
now I find
that NOTHING is broadcast.....nothing available in 1080p.
Why did I
buy that?
This might make you feel better:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html
If I read correctly this article claims that when scaling up
low
resolution sources, the higher the target resolution the
better the
result.
In other words when scaling up 480p source, it will be better
if
scaled up to 1080p rather than to 720p.
And in support of this it gives some line drawings.
I find this claim rather incredible.
I don't pretend to know the math or the algorithm behind the
upscaling.
One point of the article is that there is more than one
algorithm - not mentioned is the relative cost of licensing any
of them other than by implication, stating that one is better
than others.
Math is neither the authors' nor the editor's forte or none of
them would have suggested that 1 part of a 10x10 array is
1/10th.
And the somewhat snipe-ish style of the authors reduces the
"authority" of their article to that of a newsgroup exchange of
"facts." ;-0)
But from common sense, if you scale up 480p source
to 1080p, then you have to conjure up a lot more "missing"
data
to fill than you would with 720p target.
No matter how sophisticated the scaling algorithm is, doesn't
this
introduce more artifacts for 1080p target?
"Common sense" and math are not always obviously related.
Interpolation of fractional differences may be better or worse
as the distance between points to be interpolated increases and
the resolution of the interpolated point coincides with a
display point. The more display points available, the better
the interpolation can be represented.
The article states that MOST people wouldn't know good video
from bad. I can only assume that the aim of the authors, by
avoiding algorithm specifics and using overly simple line
drawings, was to somewhat rectify that. Whether it failed
totally, or merely miserably, could be judged by now sampling
the audience of know-nothings who read it.
Even in conclusion the authors waffle; muddling fact, opinion,
and concession in two brief but befuddling paragraphs. There
must be politics in their future!
.
- References:
- 1080p...and why did I?
- From: Ward Abbott
- 1080p...and why did I?
- Prev by Date: Re: 1080p...and why did I?
- Next by Date: Re: 1080p...and why did I?
- Previous by thread: Re: 1080p...and why did I?
- Next by thread: List all digital QAM channels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
