A HD Question....

[james.miller]

That's exactly what I said except you're mistaken about 720>768 not offering an improvement and I didn't say anything about it matching the quality of a signal at a higher resolution.

i never said it didnt offer any improvement. i said scaling twice doesnt offer an improvement. i bet a decent scaler scaling down to 768p would be better than scaling down to 720p and back up again. lets not twist what im saying again, please?

Unless a display has really disasterously awful scaling (some rather ancients displays do) then upscaling is always advantageous and will provide a better image than if the panel had 720 lines.

recent displays still have average scalers too, but i digress. why, if a 768p panel will provide a better image than a 720p panel as you yourself just said, why wouldnt a 1080p panel provide a better display still, as you denied in another thread? the difference between 720 vertical lines and 768 is so small yet you fully believe the quality is noticeable better. then again you dismissed the 768 vs 1080p argument? isnt that a little hypocritical?

 

[divine`]

Excuse me if i'm getting massively confused here, but why would a 1080i signal get scaled UP to 768p?

I know it's interlaced but the final image is still 1080 lines...

 

[AbsenceJam]

i never said it didnt offer any improvement. i said scaling twice doesnt offer an improvement. i bet a decent scaler scaling down to 768p would be better than scaling down to 720p and back up again. lets not twist what im saying again, please?

recent displays still have average scalers too, but i digress. why, if a 768p panel will provide a better image than a 720p panel, as you yourself just said, why wouldnt a 1080p panel provide a better display still?

I've not twisted your words, I was referring to 720>768 in the context of 1080>720>768 which you claim to be pointless. That is wrong, you lose nothing by going from 720>768 you only gain.

"why wouldnt a 1080p panel provide a better display still?"
I never said it wouldn't, as I've clearly said more resolution is better. You are trying to get into that debate from the other topic and this is quite seperate from that.

 

[AbsenceJam]

Excuse me if i'm getting massively confused here, but why would a 1080i signal get scaled UP to 768p?

I know it's interlaced but the final image is still 1080 lines...

A 768 line display can't display 1080 lines. What tends to happen on older displays is that they downscale to 720 and then upscale to 768.

 

[james.miller]

Excuse me if i'm getting massively confused here, but why would a 1080i signal get scaled UP to 768p?

I know it's interlaced but the final image is still 1080 lines...

it wouldnt..ordinarily. it all depend on how well the display copes with an interlaced signal, if its pretty bad as a lot of displays still are, then you'd find 720p might be better. then however, you run in to that double scaling issues. its why 768p is just an oddball resolution since no stand alone players to the best of my knowledge output 768p. there is also the issues of some older displays that scale down to 720p first automatically, regarless of the input resolution.

I've not twisted your words, I was referring to 720>768 in the context of 1080>720>768 which you claim to be pointless. That is wrong, you lose nothing by going from 720>768 you only gain.

"why wouldnt a 1080p panel provide a better display still?"
I never said it wouldn't, as I've clearly said more resolution is better. You are trying to get into that debate from the other topic and this is quite seperate from that.

you tried to prove your argument with a collection of stills that had been scaled down to 720p and back up to 1080p. and i quote:

A fun example I like is to take some BD captures and resample to 1280x720 then back to 1920x1080. This isn't perfect as you do regain some detail through an "educated guess." But surely the original the original should still look nearly 2.25x better? See for yourself - http://rapidshare.com/files/106486498/hd.zip.html .

this argument is actually one and the same isnt it? both regarding scaling down and back up. you're telling me right now 720p > 768p is a clear, worthwhile improvement. yet in another thread, you told me 720p >1080p isnt in an attempt to demonstrate that 1080p offers no real advantage over 720p. 48 extra line of actual resolution isnt going to make a massive difference on any display. an extra 360 is more likely to, if anything what if those collection of stills were scaled down to 720p and then up to 768p. you'd see an even smaller difference.

 

[AbsenceJam]

James there exist seperate topics on forums for seperate discussions, this is a seperate discussion. But if you insist upon knowing if I think there's a "clear, worthwhile improvement" then no, I do not. However, you don't need to chose between a 720 and 768 line display since they don't sell them (well, not many). As it is there are 768 line displays and there are no disadvantages to this at all, only advantages, however slight they may be.

 

[james.miller]

your examples of scaled screen captures covers both discussions. i see no reason why it cant be included here.

As it is there are 768 line displays and there are no disadvantages to this at all, only advantages, however slight they may be.

that's not a million miles away from what i was saying about 1080p displays. however, you said somethign along the lines of '..at first I got a 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma but I returned that for a 1365x768 Pioneer Kuro which looked miles better.The difference in resolution was compeltely negligible at normal viewing distances.' ** which by 'completely negligible' i took as meaning 'non-existant'. the difference between 720p and 768p must surely be less than 'completely negligible' then?


** infact thats a direct quote

 

[divine`]

A 768 line display can't display 1080 lines. What tends to happen on older displays is that they downscale to 720 and then upscale to 768.

Yeah, nor can 768 display 1080p but i'm confused why you said 1080p would be downscaled but 1080i would be upscaled?

 

[AbsenceJam]

James, that has nothing to do with this at all, were there were lots of 720p displays around for much less than 768p ones it would relevant. Once again, there are 768 lines displays and there [generally] aren't 720 lines ones. There is no disadvantage in this, only advantages.

Yeah, nor can 768 display 1080p but i'm confused why you said 1080p would be downscaled but 1080i would be upscaled?

Sorry, I was talking about two different things. Older displays can't accept a 1080p signal so you get this messing about from a 1080i or 720p signal. Newer ones can so they tend to just do one step of 1080p>native resolution although some displays still mess about a bit.

 

[divine`]

there are 768 lines displays and there [generally] aren't 720 lines ones. There is no disadvantage in this, only advantages.

Well, apart from the fact it forces scaling.

A non scaled 720p image would look better than a scaled one will.

 

[photoshop]

Wo WO WO!!!

Can we get back on topic please ?
To Remind you that was:

"I have a 37" Samsung (720p/1080i HD) which has a native resolution of 1366 x 768. Does this mean because it will scale down the blu-ray content, the picture will suffer?"

and

Is the quality loss "noticeable" ?

I will be sitting 2.5m - 2.7m (approx 9ft) way from the screen....

 

[james.miller]

i already answered those questions though:/

you cant possible quantify it, theres too many variables. its dependant on the player's scaler and the tv's scaler, the tv's ability to handle interlaced signals...it really is down to try it and see, unless somebody with the same tv and setup can give you their findings

yes the ps3 is a good scaler. ive no idea about the tv though. do you have both right now? if you do you really should be trying it

you cant do anything untill you actually get the ps3, so just sit back and relax tonight lol

there are only two things you can know for certain. yes the picture will be compromised next to a 1080p display. no, at 37" doubt you'll see it unless your sitting very close. And thirdly, see point number two lol. your milage may vary

 

[photoshop]

ahhh the joys of HD
why couldnt it just be simple...?

Have to say SD does not look that bad on the samy. Not as bad as i was led to believe.