So what's wrong with Matterhorn?

[KraGorn]

It seems to me reading threads over on AVS, not so many address this issue directly on here, that the general view seems to be Matterhorn-based machines are not worth considering now HD2s are available: the reason seems to be "why buy 1024x576 when you can get "1280x720" for the same price or cheaper?

But WHY? Is it because in the US everyone watches HDTV?

Seems to me that watching SD material on a 1280x720 display by definition .. no pun .. requires the source material scaling considerably and scaling by definition softens the image due to the way interpolation works.

Surely SD images will be sharper on a display which is native size, for PAL, or only marginally larger, NTSC? Yes, I realise that pixellation will be more evident further way from the screen than an HD2, but over 1.5x it seems not to be an issue.

For us in the UK HD material is non-existent from broadcasts and will be for some considerable time .. ignoring the 1080i satellite feed .. then we're left waiting for HD-DVD, 2005?, or maybe WM9 but there are many questions over that right now.

Bottom line: isn't a Matterhorn machine more apporpriate than a larger panel for this year at least? Matterhorn rather than XGA is needed due to the light-spill problem on an XGA in 16:9 mode.

 

[Peter Parker]

There is a slightly smoother appearance to the image of 720 machines when compared to Matterhorn chips, and of course you can sit closer without seeing screendoor, but from further back, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference.

Hi Def looks better than DVD on a Matterhorn machine too, and of course looks better still on an HD2. For the same money, you may as well go for HD2(or +), but as PAL is only 1024 x 576 for a widescreen image anyway, if you're sitting at over 2 x screen width, I doubt any improvemnet will be seen unless you watch any Hi Def material.

Gary.

 

[KraGorn]

Originally posted by Gary Lightfoot
There is a slightly smoother appearance to the image of 720 machines when compared to Matterhorn chipsGary.

But isn't that smoothness bought at the price of softness? Presumably you're referring to the fact that with 20% more pixels then for example curved edges are smoothed by the interpolation, which of course also softens.

I suppose pgramatically if the high-res looks better then theory is irrelevent, but as someone who prefers sharp to soft I am finding playing DVDs on my Z2 less than ideal in large part because to me they're too soft .. even after calibrating Sharpness as per Avia, which is why I think scaling is the issue. The effect is similar using HTPC or progressive component so it's not the Z2's scaler per se.