1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

High Resolution Vs Standard Resolution Information

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by tbrar, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    http://www.ses-astra.com/press-info/news/press-releases/03/20030605.shtml

    A number of members are currently looking at whether they should buy a high definition, or standard definition display.

    Attached is a link that may prove of interest, it states amongst other things, that the first dedicated High Definition TV channel being launched & broadcasting in Europe on 1st January 2004....
     
  2. GadgetObsessed

    GadgetObsessed
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,673
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +528
    I think that for me HDTV will only be of interest when it carries the current main channels in the UK i.e. BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky One, Sky Sports, etc.
    Broadcasting hi def to the home still looks a long way away. The chance to watch the Eurovision song contest in HD doesn't excite me much.

    Also I dont know of any plasma out there at present that can handle more than about half the definition of 1080i (1920 x 1080 I believe) The nearest would be the ALiS screens with 1024x1024 - and these screens have the disadvantage of not being progressive scan.
     
  3. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    GaryDhooper,

    I quite agree that it will be sometime before the likes of BBC broadcast HD to the home, I found the release interesting as it shows the inevitability of High Definition sources, whether that be from broadcasts, or via Home Theater.

    With respect to your second point, where avaialble HD content is currently broadcast at levels between 720 progressive and 1080 interlaced. There are a number of current displays that can cope with both.

    Tony
     
  4. Gordon @ Convergent AV

    Gordon @ Convergent AV
    Distinguished Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    13,980
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Living in Surrey, covering UK!
    Ratings:
    +2,781
    Tony,

    While there are many plasma's that can display full res of 720P I don't think you're going to find many that can do full res of 1080i in a hurry which is, I guess, Garry's point.

    The Alis panels are not the closest to the required resolutions though.

    Gordon
     
  5. GadgetObsessed

    GadgetObsessed
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,673
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +528
    Tony

    A number of displays can handle 720p/i and 1080i inputs I was just making the point that all of them will massively scale down the resolution for 1080i. This is because the horizontal detail of a 1080 broadcast (1920) is so much higher than any existing plasma can display. Some plasmas e.g. ALiS and Pioneer may come close in terms of number of lines displayed though.

    Some people on these forums say that they wont buy a Panny because it loses 16% of the resolution of a PAL broadcast. The most common other plasmas mentioned here would lose 62% (Pioneer 433) and 49% (ALis e.g. Hitachi 42PD3000) of a 1080i broadcast. The Panny of course would lose the most at about 80%

    I just think that whatever plasma I buy now I would have to replace it when 1080i does come along if I want to get anything like the Hi Def experience.

    Cheers, Gary
     
  6. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Gary,

    I do see your point. You will lose some picture, but not as much as stated.

    A 1080i broadcast is obviosuly interlaced.

    As far as I am aware, a 1024 x 1024 Alis screen, will show it by cutting each frame of 540 down to 512, then displaying as intended over 1024 x 1024 in an interlaced manner (512 odd, then 512 even), so what you will be getting is 95% of intended picture. Here it would appear ALIS panels fit very well.

    As mentioned HD is also broadcast at 720 progressive, so plasma's with greater resolution than 720, operating progressivly, will also fit the bill without loosing any picture.

    My point is that HD is on the way and for people who find it important, as I did, its worth noting the options available.

    Cheers


    Tony
     
  7. GadgetObsessed

    GadgetObsessed
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,673
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +528
    Sorry to keep going on about this. :)

    Screens such as ALiS can display 95% of the vertical resolution (1024 lines out of 1080) but they can only display about half of the horizontal resolution (1024 out of 1920). Thats why I'm arguing that they lose half the total picture information.

    A 1920 x 1080 broadcast is effectively 2,073,600 pixels - a Hitachi 42PD3000 has 1,048,576 physical pixels and a Pioneer 786,432 - so both have less than half the total resolution.

    Maybe I'm getting something confused here with this pixel counting analogy. Perhaps someone can tell me why we only refer to display standars by their vertical resolution (e.g.1080i, 576p, etc) and don't mention their horizontal resolution? Is it just shorthand? Is the vertical resolution somehow more important because of interlacing?
     
  8. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    Okay guys... I've looked at a 42" PW5, 50" PHD5, and a 50" 503HDE at one dealer then the 42" PW5 right next to a 43" 433HDE running the same DVD via a composite feed...

    The Panasonic 42" had by far the best picture contrast/colour wise and looked very good compared to my 36" Toshiba CRT, but the flicker would drive me mad, so I'd have to look at the new model...

    BUT after looking at the Pionner and Panasonic side by side in John Lewis the level of fine detail on the Pioneer is far better than the Panasonic... I'm assuming that this is down to the resolution..?

    Still not convinced...
     
  9. Gordon @ Convergent AV

    Gordon @ Convergent AV
    Distinguished Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    13,980
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Living in Surrey, covering UK!
    Ratings:
    +2,781
    Simon,

    So many other considerations that may be taken in to account here that it's not a very valid comparison. Composite video is not a quality option.

    Gordon
     
  10. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi Gary,

    Just done some more reading :lesson:

    The image you see on your television screen is comprised of a series of horizontal lines. TV 'resolution' refers to how many horizontal lines are displayed on your TV screen. (Although it is the horizontal lines that are counted, this is usually referred to as "vertical resolution" because the lines are counted from top to bottom - or vertically)

    The ATSC (advanced television standards comittee) Standard for High Definition Television requires a resolution of 1080 interlaced lines, or 720 progressive scan lines, although provisions exist for more eg 1080p.

    Hence, displays that have a resolution (vertically counted horizontal lines !!!! - which make up the picture!) with native resolutions 1080 interlaced or 720 progressive, will show HD as intended.

    Hope this helps......
     
  11. GadgetObsessed

    GadgetObsessed
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,673
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +528
    I had wondered about this before with people saying that an ALiS screen was the "best fit" for a 1080i signal.

    Still makes me wonder what happens to the horizontal resolution (must be down scaled somehow) and why the standards define the number of lines required but not the number of columns?

    As an aside - are we most likely to get 1080i or 720p when "General" HD broadcasts are available? (Or can nobody be cetain yet?)
     
  12. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    If by "standard definition" you mean 852x480 and "high definition" 1366/1280/1024x768 -- which tends to be the term used on the merkin board. Hopefully you don't mean ALiS as high definition. ;)

    A "standard definition" will not display PAL sources (Sky/cable digital, Region 2 DVDs) at best, because they will throw away 20% of the picture resolution where as a "high definition" or ALiS plasma will not.

    Although ATSC has defined a standard, it is an American one; and just because one channel is going to transmit in Europe at that resolution by 50Hz/25fps (rather than 60Hz/30fps) rate it does not make a new European standard. Probably will be, but it's not a certainty.

    StooMonster
     
  13. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    Sure... I agree that the quality wasn't as good as it could be, but it was the same DVD looped through to both panels using the same type of input side by side, therefore still a valid comparison...

    All trying to determine is whether the increased detail on the Pioneer is down to the resolution or something else...

    Are you saying that it could be down to the quality of the composite inputs on the two screens..?
     
  14. Branxx

    Branxx
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2000
    Messages:
    801
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +1
    "... match will be displayed on 12 meter cinema screens using HD projectors."

    Anyone has any idea what projectors are they using?
     
  15. Gordon @ Convergent AV

    Gordon @ Convergent AV
    Distinguished Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    13,980
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Living in Surrey, covering UK!
    Ratings:
    +2,781
    Yes that is exactly what I am saying. THe quality of the composite video processing could and probably is significantly different in each device.

    Also how do you know each was set up accurately so they were performing to their best within their linear operating range. I'd suggest that if the dealer were feeding them composite video then it's HIGHLY unlikely this is the case.

    Gordon
     
  16. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    Point taken Gordon... Thanks for the input...
     
  17. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    GaryDHooper,

    Sorry for not getting back sooner, I had a busy time on the forum yesterday !!

    Your point re Horizontal resolution needed further investigating, which I have now done. I hope the following should explain somewhat, but am still trying to get clear in my head !;

    As mentioned yesterday television resolution is measured by the number of horizontal lines, vertically counted (called vertical resolution) that make up a picture. This is always the second figure is a resolution statistic, and the figure quoted. Simarlarily, the measurement of horizontal resolution in an image is the maximum number vertical bars that can be visually resolved within the horizontal dimension equal to the picture height.

    With these two defined, it is easy to see how problem & confusion set in when trying to compare various resolutions of television signals, due to the multitude of different aspect ratios etc. Consequently some type of 'normalisation' figure must be used to compare like for like.

    How this is acheived is, no matter what the picture size or aspect ratio is, you carve out a square on the screen (where width equals height) and count how vertical bars, horizontal resolution, you can cram into that area (limited ny the vertical size of the picture) area and still see them . This is called 'normalisation' and allows the comparison of various signals independant of aspect ratios etc. This is specified in TV lines per picture height (TVL/ph) and the set standard for measuring TV resolutions.

    So for when you were looking at the figure for a 1080 HD content resolution, 1920 x 1080, this figure takes into account the aspect ratio - it is not a Normalised Figure. For example the way it is derived is as follows;

    16:9 Aspect ratio = 16/9 = 1.78 (x) 1080 = 1920

    However, this is not the standardised figure - upon which to measure resolutions.

    In this case, of a 1080 broadcast, the Normalised figure, the TVL/ph) 1080 - that is why the second figure is quoted/deemed more important - as it is the limiting factor, the vertical size. This doesnt take into account other factors, simply gives the number of lines; horizontal & vertical - , that are able to be resolved within a fixed portion of the picture that is as wide as it is high.

    Please give some feedback - as it is news to me also !!!


    Tony :confused: :rolleyes: :smoke:
     
  18. GadgetObsessed

    GadgetObsessed
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,673
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +528
    Thanks for all that Tony,

    I suppose that I should have thought about how the 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios fitted in to this. I had wondered if this was why Panasonic had chosen to make a display with the same vertical resolution as NTSC (480) but a higher horizontal resolution (853 vs 720)

    Does that mean that both widescreen and 4:3 PAL broadcasts have the same number of lines (576) but differing horizontal resolutions?

    Gary
     
  19. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Gary,

    That is correct, using 'normalisation', the TVL/ph will be 576 lines of resolution for any PAL source, regardless of aspect ratio.

    As it is widescreen, say 1.78:1, the horizontal resolution will be 1.77 x 576 = 1024 Lines.

    TBH - half of the fun is figureing out this sort of S*ite !!!!!! :D


    Tony
     

Share This Page

Loading...