360 1080i or 720p

Beepcake · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:31

For the record, I personally use 1080 on my TV because it seems to do a better job of scaling it to it's native res (that's post 360 output scaling boys and girls

) than 720p.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:33

Beepcake said:
For the record, I personally use 1080 on my TV because it seems to do a better job of scaling it to its native res (that's post 360 output scaling boys and girls ) than 720p.

That's the trouble with HDTVs, a lot of them don't natively support the proper HD standards like 720p or 1080i, they scale them to 1280x768 or whatever. It makes me wonder why 768p isn't the standard instead of 720p really.

Beepcake · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:36

dirtydog said:
That's the trouble with HDTVs, a lot of them don't natively support the proper HD standards like 720p or 1080i, they scale them to 1280x768 or whatever. It makes me wonder why 768p isn't the standard instead of 720p really.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my earlier comment about it being TV specific. It's not a massive difference between 720 and 1080 on my telly, but it is noticeable.

We have the 24" Dell TFTs in work, and the 360 looks pretty poor at 720 and 1080 on that. I assume the internal scaler on the monitor is an area of cost cutting, as 99% of the time it's not as important as it is on a living room TV.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:41

Beepcake said:
We have the 24" Dell TFTs in work, and the 360 looks pretty poor at 720 and 1080 on that. I assume the internal scaler on the monitor is an area of cost cutting, as 99% of the time it's not as important as it is on a living room TV.

It could be that, or it could be because the 24" Dells have a very high native resolution compared to TVs, even much larger TVs, so the picture is being upscaled a lot more.

Beepcake · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:45

dirtydog said:
It could be that, or it could be because the 24" Dells have a very high native resolution compared to TVs, even much larger TVs, so the picture is being upscaled a lot more.

Possibly.. games look 'wierd' on it, which is what makes me thing it's the upscaler being a bit naff.

Not that i'd play games in work.. purely a technical test

t@xman · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:46

dirtydog said:
I don't think it's the interlacing which is the problem is it? I mean ordinary TVs are interlaced but fast moving images like sports broadcasts look fine. 1080i is limited to 30fps due to the high bandwidth required to produce 1920x1080 at 60fps isn't it?

Try watching a football match on a standard TV - you will see a feathering effect around the brighter (more noticeable) colours.
The problem with interlacing a TV picture is that it displays alternate lines of a field in each refresh of the screen. ie if the lines were number 1 to 1080, in refresh 1 you would only see lines 1, 3, 5, 7 etc, and in refresh 2 you would see lines 2, 4, 6, 8 etc.
The problem is that they aren't displaying seperate lines of the same field ie if you added both refreshes together you wouldn't get the same picture. Refresh 2 is displaying a field 1/60 second later than refresh 1......however, if the picture subject is slow moving then you wouldn't notice this feathering, but if the subject is fast moving then it is very apparent.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 15:11

Fast moving TV broadcasts look fine on my TV.. sharp and smooth.

VIRII · 30 Mar 2006 at 15:17

dirtydog said:
Fast moving TV broadcasts look fine on my TV.. sharp and smooth.

Samsung are releasing a 32" HD CRT in the next few months, rumoured to retail circa £350.
Mighty fine bit of kit for that money with all the advantages of CRT technology and price. The only downside being the larger weight and volume.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 15:19

VIRII said:
Samsung are releasing a 32" HD CRT in the next few months, rumoured to retail circa £350.
Mighty fine bit of kit for that money with all the advantages of CRT technology and price. The only downside being the larger weight and volume.

So CRT HDTVs have no native resolution, and look perfect at any resolution, is that right? Plus no dead pixels/ghosting issues to think about. I'd definitely be interested in one of those if that's the case.

VIRII · 30 Mar 2006 at 16:01

dirtydog said:
So CRT HDTVs have no native resolution, and look perfect at any resolution, is that right? Plus no dead pixels/ghosting issues to think about. I'd definitely be interested in one of those if that's the case.

I don't know if I can link directly to the review site however a google for

32" HD Samsung CRT should give you the details.

We're not exactly following why Samsung, exalted ruler of Plasmas and LCDs, is busting out HD CRTs, but hey, go where the market is, right? Granted, their new 32-inch CTV-32Z30 is indeed thinner than your average CRT, and comes with HDMI, SCART, and S-Video, but when you have to lay down £350 (about $600 US) to get one, you're really not too far off in price from a real 32-inch LCD.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 16:04

Sounds good, and it's a lot cheaper than a 32" LCD despite what the reviewer says there.

GuruJockStrap · 30 Mar 2006 at 16:21

Hopefully it won't be as bad as Samsungs last High Def CRT efforts.

They were riddled with all sorts of geometry problems.

dirtydog · 30 Mar 2006 at 16:27

Hmm :/