DLP Improvement?

[Duffinator]

720p will definitely look worse when scaled to a 1080p display. Just look at any flat panel computer monitor and set the display resolution to any value below native. 1080i can in theory look the same if you can somehow force weave the picture. If bob deinterlacing comes into play then you would get picture degradation on 1080i images as well--this is a controversial point as well as some people believe that the change from interlaced to progressive scan results in a better picture--I am still of the belief that if an image was shot interlaced then the best way to view it is interlaced; ditto with progressive images. For the foreseeable future a 1080p display--even one that accepts 1080p natively and displays it correctly will probably be nothing more than an expensive conversation piece.

Your comment regarding computer monitors is irrevelent to fixed pixel displays/TV's. First you have the option of setting the resolution on an LCD computer monitor via your video card. On a TV everything gets scaled to the native resolution. So no matter what the source is it will be scaled (either internally or externally) to the native resolution. So for a 720P display 480i, 480P, and 1080i gets up/down scaled to 720P. The same for a 1080P native resolution set. You make is sound like a 1080P set is going to have a worse looking picture than a 720P set. What's really important is the quality of the source material and the quality of the scaler in the TV and or source device. Any way you shake it a 1920x1080 set displays over twice the information of a 1280x720 set (or has the capability to do so) and should look better not worse. My local Good Guys has a Sharp 45" 1080P set displayed right next to a Pioneer 50" Elite 720P. Both have a 1080i Mitsubishi HD loop device connected and the Sharp clearly has a more detailed picture. Because the Sharp only accepts a 1080i input both images are being scaled, either up or down.

Getting back to upscaling a 720P to 1080P image, then what's the point of having a DVD player that upscales from 480 to 720P or 1080i? They do this by having quality scalers and it has been well documented that this works very well on fixed pixed displays. 1080P is on it's way and the sooner it becomes the standard, and it will, the better.

 

[zipper]

All I can say is......................thank you very much fellas. HDTV is going to be my next step in HT. I considered buying a Samsung 56" DLP on close-out but was worried what I would be forfeiting in the way of future expandability. I've been reading this forum for about 4 hours today & feel like I've been in school for a week. I knew some of the basics but actually knew nothing about HDMI or the fact that a 1080P set may not even accept a 1080P input. I may wait another year before I dive into this. I am currently watching a standard JVC 32" TV with Directv & I can live with it but am getting itchy.

BMX..............you have sold me on the idea of front projection as well, so now I have something else to consider. I like the idea of a large screen to match large sound..............more of a true HT experience.

 

[docferdie]

Your comment regarding computer monitors is irrevelent to fixed pixel displays/TV's. First you have the option of setting the resolution on an LCD computer monitor via your video card. On a TV everything gets scaled to the native resolution. So no matter what the source is it will be scaled (either internally or externally) to the native resolution.

I missed the literature that says that a flat panel computer monitor is engineered differently than a flat panel TV. Most new flat panel HDTVs have native PC support via DVI and hence are indeed flat panel computer monitors. I refer you to the many excellent articles on Tom's Hardware and PC World. A fixed pixel display regardless of whether it is sold as an HDTV or computer monitor will perform best when being fed a native resolution image. The whole point of this is that the units internal scaler is being defeated--at least when the input port is DVI or HDMI.

. You make is sound like a 1080P set is going to have a worse looking picture than a 720P set.

Absolutely if the image being displayed is 1280x720p. Let's take this even further lets say that you have an image or video with a native resoultion of 16x9 pixels do you honestly think that scaling it to 1920x1080p will increase the picture elements ?

What's really important is the quality of the source material and the quality of the scaler in the TV and or source device. Any way you shake it a 1920x1080 set displays over twice the information of a 1280x720 set (or has the capability to do so) and should look better not worse. My local Good Guys has a Sharp 45" 1080P set displayed right next to a Pioneer 50" Elite 720P. Both have a 1080i Mitsubishi HD loop device connected and the Sharp clearly has a more detailed picture. Because the Sharp only accepts a 1080i input both images are being scaled, either up or down.

How exactly does this support your contention that a 1280x720p image will look better scaled to 1920x1080p than when viewed natively at 720p?

Getting back to upscaling a 720P to 1080P image, then what's the point of having a DVD player that upscales from 480 to 720P or 1080i? They do this by having quality scalers and it has been well documented that this works very well on fixed pixed displays. 1080P is on it's way and the sooner it becomes the standard, and it will, the better.

The short answer is nothing. An image with a resolution of 720x480p will look best when viewed on a fixed pixel display with a native resolution of 720x480p. Upscaling DVD players simply offer an alternative scaler for fixed pixel displays that have very poor scalers built in.


Again if you don't believe me then all you need to do is hook up a PC to the DVI port of that sharp (1920x1080p),display a windows desktop at 1280x720p, do the same thing to the 1280x720p display and compare. Surf the net or post on the boards you will see the fonts will be less sharp on the "higher resolution" display. If you absolutely refuse to use a computer then at least watch HD programs from ABC or Fox on these sets when fed via the DVI port and compare.

 

[Duffinator]

I missed the literature that says that a flat panel computer monitor is engineered differently than a flat panel TV. Most new flat panel HDTVs have native PC support via DVI and hence are indeed flat panel computer monitors. I refer you to the many excellent articles on Tom's Hardware and PC World. A fixed pixel display regardless of whether it is sold as an HDTV or computer monitor will perform best when being fed a native resolution image. The whole point of this is that the units internal scaler is being defeated--at least when the input port is DVI or HDMI.

I didn't say it was. Re-read what I said, it's the video card, and the ability to set the resolution on a PC where your comparison doesn't hold.

Absolutely if the image being displayed is 1280x720p. Let's take this even further lets say that you have an image or video with a native resoultion of 16x9 pixels do you honestly think that scaling it to 1920x1080p will increase the picture elements ?

While comparing pixel to pixel that is true. But scaling re-renders the picture. Again, see my comments using upscaling DVD players. I'm no engineer but the pictures look better not worse. I agree a 720P should look it's best on a 720P display but again it can look as good or better upscaled to 1080P.

How exactly does this support your contention that a 1280x720p image will look better scaled to 1920x1080p than when viewed natively at 720p?

Probably not the best example. But I have seen the Sharp set with a 720P input and it looked fantastic.

The short answer is nothing. An image with a resolution of 720x480p will look best when viewed on a fixed pixel display with a native resolution of 720x480p. Upscaling DVD players simply offer an alternative scaler for fixed pixel displays that have very poor scalers built in.

And the pictures look better not worse.

Again if you don't believe me then all you need to do is hook up a PC to the DVI port of that sharp (1920x1080p),display a windows desktop at 1280x720p, do the same thing to the 1280x720p display and compare. Surf the net or post on the boards you will see the fonts will be less sharp on the "higher resolution" display. If you absolutely refuse to use a computer then at least watch HD programs from ABC or Fox on these sets when fed via the DVI port and compare.

Fonts always look worse on a fixed pixel display verses a CRT. I'm not buying a 1080P set to view my Windows desktop or text. I'm doing it to watch movies in HD/BD DVD in 1080P.

 

[docferdie]

Fonts always look worse on a fixed pixel display verses a CRT. I'm not buying a 1080P set to view my Windows desktop or text. I'm doing it to watch movies in HD/BD DVD in 1080P.

Where exactly did you get the notion that I am even remotely talking about a CRT monitor? I am typing this reply on a PC hooked up to a Samsung HLN507W via the DVI port with the resolution set at 1280x720. Reread my previous posts, nowhere did I mention CRT computer monitors. Fonts will look worse on a fixed pixel display when the resolution is set to anything other than native--but will be stunning when the resolution being used is the display's native resolution.

 

[MDS]

I didn't say it was. Re-read what I said, it's the video card, and the ability to set the resolution on a PC where your comparison doesn't hold.

Sorry but that is confusing the issue even more. If your input source is 720x480 but you set the video cards resolution to 1920x1080, you are doing exactly the same thing as using a scaler or an upconverting dvd player.

If you have a 5x7 picture and scale it up to 8x11 in Photoshop, the picture is "rerendered" but does it look better? Not necessarily. It may look acceptable if the algorithm does a good job and applies anti-aliasing or a host of other techniques to make the new image look acceptable, but in no way can you make the statement that upscaling to a higher resolution will always improve the image.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There are a couple of different things here:

1. Upconverting is a matter of the processor doing the upconverting. A 1080p native display should look phenomenal with 1080p and really (REALLY!) darn good with 1080i. But, converting 720p, and 480p/i to 1080p is going to require a little more muscle out of that processor. If the processor is good, which it may be, then you will have a converted lower quality image that looks just as good as if it was on a native 720p, 480p, or 480i set.

2. Keep in mind that video processors don't have 80 different resolutins to deal with and process, but really only have 3 different line resolutions: 480, 720, and 1080. This means that video processing can be much better for those resolutions and a better set will allow some fine adjustment to make the processing look even better.

3. Finally, the LCD monitor attached to a PC has some limited internal processing, but not much, and typically the conversion really, REALLY sucks. A good outboard processor from a company specializing in PC video pixel for pixel mapping and adjusting, like an Extron USP-405 will allow good results when you port a 1024x768 image to your 1280x1024 monitor. Never as good as native, but PCs operate specifically in a pixel for pixel perfect world, while video almost always is dithered with shades of colors between adjacent colors. Video is a much different animal the computer.

When BD is available then I will be on board as long as 1080p/24 is supported on the player that I get. It should be though, it is one of the specified formats that is acceptable by the Blu-Ray Disc Association. I will likely get the player first and then dive into a decent 1080p DLP or LCD display soon after.

 

[docferdie]

I will likely get the player first and then dive into a decent 1080p DLP or LCD display soon after.

I definitely agree with you there. Once there is an abundance of entertainment material at 1920x1080p material then a true 1080p display would be a "must have" piece of equipment.
It took several years though for DVD to get good market penetration--HD-DVD will likely follow a similar path--especially with the format wars. I figure a 720p set should still look nice and shiny for about 3 to 5 years with currently available programming--I just finished watching a 720p show on ABC where the commercials were still in the rescaled 480i format. I don't expect major broadcast networks to go full 1080p any time soon.

 

[Duffinator]

I definitely agree with you there. Once there is an abundance of entertainment material at 1920x1080p material then a true 1080p display would be a "must have" piece of equipment.
It took several years though for DVD to get good market penetration--HD-DVD will likely follow a similar path--especially with the format wars. I figure a 720p set should still look nice and shiny for about 3 to 5 years with currently available programming--I just finished watching a 720p show on ABC where the commercials were still in the rescaled 480i format. I don't expect major broadcast networks to go full 1080p any time soon.

Well we agree here. Good discussion either way.

I'll probably be a bit earlier adopter of the new format...maybe. My four year old Toshiba 56H80 doesn't have DVI or HDMI so if the HD/BD DVD players don't output a 1080i signal through a component input I'm scr*wed. The format wars will be annoying with us consumers paying in the end. I expect the availability of HD DVD's to be faster than the original DVD format. The movie studios are motivated as they see this as an opportunity to distribute movies with much better encryption that will curb illegal copying and distribution over the internet. I predict the guy that wrote DVD Decrypter has it figured out within months of the first HD DVD's hitting the market.