Why does everyone always want to fill the whole screen?

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by NicolasB, Mar 9, 2006.

  1. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Something I've never entirely understood about AV enthusiasts is the way they can't bear to leave part of the screen unused. In particular, if they have a high resolution display, they insist on upscaling images to fill the whole screen.

    Question is: why?

    You can't possibly get any more detail into the image by doing this, no matter how good the scaler is. Sure, it's bigger, but it's also blurrier.

    Why, I find myself wondering, doesn't anyone seem to want to watch lower-definition images letterboxed, at native resolution, with genuine, right-from-the-source, 1:1 pixel mapping?

    If you've got, say, a 1920x1080 display, I'd have thought the best option would be to watch 720p actually as 1280x720. Standard definition does require to be scaled a little, otherwise the aspect ratio will be wrong, but even so you could scale 4:3 PAL to 768x576, and anamorphic PAL to 1024x576 and at least get 1:1 mapping vertically.

    This curious compulsion to fill the whole display always reminds me of people who refuse to watch 2.35:1 film transfers because they don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen while it's playing. :)
     
  2. NonPayingMember

    NonPayingMember
    Previously Liam @ Prog AV

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,525
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +830
    Surely an AV enthusiast would have a decent scaler and hence doesn't worry about such things :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

    Seriously though, if you've put a projection system in for perfect balance of throw distance, image size, and viewing distance, having half the material shown at only half the width would be ridiculous!! 50% of the time the image would be too small/big for the "sweetspot" viewing position.

    Out of interest - do you watch material at only it's native resolution???
     
  3. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    Hmm I wonder why???:confused: :D

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  4. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Well, that was my point: a scaler cannot add detail to the picture. The best it can possibly do is make it large and blurry rather than large and pixellated - but is large and blurry actually preferable to small and sharp? I've never understood that.

    Well, as a rule I don't have much option, as I don't have a large hi-def display :) but certainly if I'm watching video clips on my PC I always watch them at native res, I never scale them up to full-screen. Similarly, if I need to run Windows at less than full-screen resolution for some reason I always letterbox it rather than have my graphics card upscale it. (This isn't altogether analogous, I know).

    My experiences with demos of hi-def displays and projectors (including a fairly high-end CRT projector one time) hasn't changed my mind: I simply don't like watching SD on a very large screen, no matter how good the scaling is.

    The way I see it, it isn't actually meaningful to talk about there being an ideal image size in a setup: to me, the size of the pixels matters more than the size of the picture. If you take an SD picture and upscale it, then now matter how good the scaling is, the lack of sharpness always annoys the hell out of me. Thus, the ideal image size is different for different signal resolutions on the same display hardware. The benefit of hi-def (to me) is the fact that it allows you to make the picture bigger and get the same level of detail; by contrast, most other people seem to set it as giving you more detail for the same size of picture.

    I'm not suggesting you mess up the aspect ratio :rolleyes: the question is, if you have a 1920x1080 display, why would you scale anamorphic PAL up to 1920x1080 rather than letterboxed 1024x576? Or why would you upscale 1280x720 rather than viewing it native?
     
  5. cwick

    cwick
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Reading
    Ratings:
    +95
    Umm ... so you can actually see it when sitting on the sofa ? At which distance scaling artifacts aren't very noticable anyway, and are preferable to squinting at a little postage stamp size square in the middle of your nice big telly. That's why I'd do it anyway.
     
  6. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986

    Those 2 photos above are with the Crystalio Scaling the image to fill the screen and then with it passing through the 720x576 pal source with no scaling at all, so unless you scale when feeding it a widescreen image the signal it is messing with the aspect ratio and the vieiwing area is reduced by 48%. I can see what you are saying but it exactly the reason we all buy scalers. :suicide:
     
  7. JimmytheSaint

    JimmytheSaint
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,793
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +101
    Well, my girlfriend seems to think so!:D
     
  8. NonPayingMember

    NonPayingMember
    Previously Liam @ Prog AV

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,525
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +830
    I think you maybe need to see a (decent) scaler and a HD screen in action . Giz is highlighting that his Crystalio hardly blurs the image out of distinction, my Lumagen Pro on a 50" plasma looks razor sharp to my eye also... and I'm quite a critical viewer. I'm happy to show you if you fancy a trip out to see what can be done with SD, I'm sure if your nearer another forum member they would be happy to show you theirs too. You may be missing on something you would actually enjoy by assuming a picture can only be worse with upscaling based on your perhaps limited experience. Only trying to help anyway, if you're happy with what you got enjoy. But I guess that will mean you are limited to say a 36" CRT or having weirdo image size:viewing distance issues with a fixed pixel device.
     
  9. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    If that's your problem then either the screen is far too small or you're sitting far too far away from it.

    I have, thanks, several times.

    Well, no offence, Liam, but that's physically impossible, unless you're sitting so far from the screen that the maximum resolvable level of detail is only that of the original source material anyway. You can't create detail that isn't there. All you can do is blur the edges of the pixels.

    I've attached a simple illustrative screenshot. You have five bits of text here. The first represents a native 1080p image. The second represents that image downscaled to anamorphic PAL, then upscaled to 1024x576. The third is the image downscaled to anamorphic PAL, then upscaled back to 1920x1080.

    Image 4 is text designed to look good at 720x576, i.e. a 4:3 PAL signal. Image 5 is the same image upscaled to 1440x1080 (i.e. a 1080p screen but preserving the aspect ratio).

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what scaling algorithms scalers tend to use? I rather suspect they'll use something pretty basic: maybe bicubic if you're lucky, perhaps even just bilinear. For the scaling in my sample I've used the Lanczos3 algorithm - and I would be astonished if any real-life scaler used an algorithm as sophisticated as that, so almost certainly the effect a real life scaling device would have on the image quality would be worse than in this screenshot.

    So: put your face about a foot from your monitor screen, close enough that you can almost make out individual pixels in the native hi-def text but not quite, and then ask yourself if you prefer image 2 or image 3. Then ask yourself if you prefer image 4 or image 5.

    Seems to me you'd want to watch SD at image 2 size, and HD at image 1 size.

    (You need to view the picture full size, not just the "attached thumbnail"! :) )

    And no, I have not formed this opinion on the basis of this screenshot, in case anyone is dumb enough to imagine that I might have. It's simply an illustration of what I'm talking about.

    I've been holding off on a hi-def purchase until I can get something that is genuinely 1080p native (input and screen) and a decent quality and size. I was very tempted by the Ruby, but I'm a little short of funds, and I really can't face going into total blackout just to watch TV. (Worried about bulb costs, too). If the SXRD rear-projection sets in the Autumn live up to the hype, I'll be buying one of those, probably the 70" model for a viewing distance of 9 or 10 feet. At that distance I suspect SD will look a lot nicer letterboxed at 1024x576 than at 1920x1080: we'll see.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. NonPayingMember

    NonPayingMember
    Previously Liam @ Prog AV

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,525
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +830
    Fair enough Nic. Only trying to help. For clarification I've never once said I'm creating detail, just that for my viewing distance and screen size it looks razor sharp. There's always gonna be a penalty to pay with a larger screen, I'm never saying it will be as perfect as the original source, but all factors considered it's hardly unwatchable as you are making out!! My opinion anyway.

    N.B. 1024 x 576 will still be a horizontally scaled signal - you just can't win with video standards these days LOL!!!
     
  11. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    Nic I totally get what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, but to not scale Pal on a 1920x1080 display the image is going to be tiny, and that is what I tried to illustrate with the two pics above.
    But take a 9" CRT projector and 1080i material, why does the image look better when being deinterlaced to 1080p through a Crystalio scaler? Everything says that 1920x1080i should be fine and look razor sharp, and by deinterlacing it with simple scaling techniques should really soften the image if anything, but it doesn't, it looks sharper! That is because a processor does so much more than just scaling.
    On the BenQ HD2+ DLP projector scaled and processed 480i looked as good as 480p fed in on pass thru mode, when you were sitting so the screen sizes looked equal, you had to be about 12ft back with the scaled, screen filled image or around 5ft back with the small pass through image. I personally would prefer to keep my furniture in the same place and let the processor do its job, I can imagine what my wife would say if we had to move the room around everytime we changed channel and it went from SD to HD etc. :rolleyes: ;)


    I have long said that every display should have a pass through mode, not only for the reasons you say but also so it makes life easy to see when you are scaled correctly when feeding it native res.
     
  12. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Well, that depends on the size of the screen. If you're dealing with a 37" LCD panel then yes, you are going to have to scale up the picture or it'll just look silly. :)

    But suppose you're dealing with the aforementioned 70" SXRD rear-projection set. Using my "as near native as possible" approach you would be watching 1080i or 1080p material on a 70" screen; you'd be watching 720p material on a 47" screen; anamorphic PAL would be the equivalent of a 37" screen; and 4:3 PAL would be on a 30.5" diagonal 4:3 screen (768x576). All of these would have the same viewing distance - somewhere round 9 or 10 feet.

    The equivalent CRT TV screen sizes would actually be a couple of inches larger than the SD values suggest, because a so-called because I'm measuring the image diagonal, and a CRT of (say) 36" size doesn't actually have a 36" picture, it's more like 34". So our not-so-scaled PAL signal gives us a picture size equivalent to nearly a 40" widescreen CRT TV, or a 32" 4:3 TV - that's plenty big enough for SD viewing at a distance of 9 feet! If anything, actually a little bit big on the big side.

    Okay, please don't misunderstand me: I'm not suggesting that "scalers are useless". Scalers do a great deal more than scaling: switching, signal format conversion, deinterlacing, multi-point gamma correction, all sorts of goodies; and, as Liam points out, when viewing an SD signal you actually have to do some scaling in at least one direction, or you mess up the aspect ratio.

    Indeed, to be able to watch SD at native resolution on a hi-def screen you will probably have to use a scaler(!) because the screen probably won't have a native resolution option.

    But you could, for example, programme a scaler to convert an anamorphic PAL signal into a 1920x1080 signal which consists of the actual picture scaled to 1024x576 and the rest of the screen filled in black, rather than scaling the picture up to 1920x1080. The scaler would still be doing all of the other stuff that it normally does - deinterlacing, white balance, gamma correction, etc. - it's just that the non-black part of the picture would be smaller.

    No, but the point of what I'm suggesting is that you don't move around the room, you stay where you are and let the picture size change so that it is always the optimal size for the underlying signal resolution.

    I actually find upscaled SD objectionable enough that I feel obliged to sit farther back from the same size screen if it's showing upscaled SD than I do if it's showing native HD - again, it's the size of the pixels that determines my comfortable viewing distance, not the size of the picture.
     
  13. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,274
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +942
    Now that is a good point.

    My rule of thumb is to not to consider the screen size but sit 3438 pixels away!

    Mind you, with a good CRT display, I do think you can comfortably sit coser.

    Nick
     
  14. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,152
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,276
    I have allot of sympathy for this way of thinking and thinks it holds an interesting point of view. I am another one who like to watch from a 'distance'.
     
  15. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    Sorry Nic, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    I would be interested to see the SXRD in pass through mode with SD material (does it actually have a pass through mode?) Vs a scaler filling the whole screen.


    edit: NicolasB that was aimed at, not you Nic.
     
  16. redpavlos

    redpavlos
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    205
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +8
    I'm another one who likes to watch from a distance, but I don't necessarily want to fill the screen.

    By that I mean that if the movie is shot for 2.35:1 or 4:3, then that's the way I like to see it. In these circumstances I don't mind black bars at the top/bottom, or at the sides.

    I do prefer scaling up an SD image to fill the height of my 50" screen, simply because of where I sit in relation to the screen.

    The internal scaler on my screen is particularly good at dealing with text, by the way. I don't know how it does it, but it's effective. More difficult to do well is de-interlacing, irrespective of size.

    If I want the best picture quality, comparing like-for-like viewing distances in terms of picture height, then my 20" crt broadcast monitor is the one to use.

    But I rarely watch that way.

    The point is, viewing on a large screen and listening on high quality home cinema speakers offers a completely new and engaging experience with a huge step-up in 'wow' factor.
     
  17. Dale Adams

    Dale Adams
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    175
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +15
    Be astonished, then. Lanczos3 is a just variety of a windowed sinc function. All the algorithms used in DVDO scalers are based on windowed sinc functions for the filter coefficients. I'd be very surprised if the better scalers don't do this as well. The days of linear interpolation (i.e., "bilinear") have been over for a while now, although that does have it's place in certain circumstances.

    You'll probably find that the scaling algorithms used by many of the video processors (chips and boxes) are considered proprietary and hence are not disclosed. That's likely going to be the case for any company which has developed it's own scaling algorithms.

    By the way, the highly-aliased text example you use is not representative of normal video material. From personal experience I've found that many multi-lobe filters (and, in particular, those with high-amplitude negative lobes) offer poor results on this type of source material. There's simply too much ringing caused by the negative filter lobes for this to look good. That's typically not the case with sampled natural image material, however, which doesn't have the aliasing problems that computer-generated text does.

    - Dale Adams
     
  18. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,152
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,276
    any any thoughts on mixing scaling algorithms? We regularly have cases now where the DVD player scales to 720p and then the scaler / panel does another scaling operation to say 768p using a different algorith as it from a different company?
     
  19. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    I've always taken the view that scaling is best done in one place as that minimises repeated precision changes (and so potentual LSB errors), however its not always practical and i think a lot of people do some very strange and bad things like assuming 1080i ouput from their uscaling video player is better choice than 720p ouput...

    Also I'd guess that small scale factor are worse than large (e.g. 720->768) as there probably aren't enough taps in the scalers filter to avoid cyclic errors, although these don't tend to be very visible in natural video.

    All imo of course.
    John.
     
  20. tryingtimes

    tryingtimes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    4,094
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +531
    I don't get this
    Basically you look at a dvd on a 32" tv and a dvd on a really well set up projector at 7 feet at the same viewing distance and see which you prefer.
    I prefer the projector but YMMV. For some games I actually prefer the unscaled version - because that's how it was designed.

    Regarding scaling - I know NicholasB has seen this before, but this is a better example than the one in his post for the reasons Dale Adams outlined.
    The comparison screenshots are about 2/3 down the page
    http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...35&perpage=20&highlight=building&pagenumber=2

    The only time I sigh at the sight of scaling is when the original image is aliased - e.g. DVD subtitles, OSDs, which do, to be honest look horrible when scaled too far.

    I run an HTPC and everytime I run DScaler windowed, I'm amazed at how HD it looks (i.e. when it's showing without any scaling) but it's also only about 3 feet wide and it just doesn't envolop me in the same way - it's so easy to get sucked into things when it's filling your field of vision.
     
  21. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    That is actually a much, much worse example: it is extremely misleading in precisely the way that this thread is an attempt to prevent. What those images do is compare the image scaled over different pixel sizes.

    The reason going from the SD to the HD screen makes it look better is because the pixels are smaller. Whether making the image bigger makes things look more pleasing if the pixels stay the same size is a whole different question.

    Those examples illustrate, for example, the difference between an NTSC DVD picture shown full-screen on a 42" 852x480 display, vs the same image shown full-screen on a 42" 1920x1080 display. It's a given, under those circumstances, that the higher-res version will look better if you're close enough to the screen. But I'm interested in the difference between the picture being shown at 852x480 (letterboxed) and 1920x1080 (full screen) on the same display.
     
  22. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Oh? Cool! :)

    I carefully chose the font to be one that Windows does a very good job of antialiasing (without, of course, using Cleartype to do it). And, since the upscaled images were created by first downscaling the image, that farther eliminates artificially sharp edges. I'm not suggesting it's an ideal example, by any means, but it's not as bad an example as you're making out, either.
     
  23. tryingtimes

    tryingtimes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    4,094
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +531
    Hi there
    But isn't this comparison really easy to see in any regular AV shop.
    If a big screen picture (form a projector for example) doesn't make you go WOW, but a plasma does - your decision is made.
    It's not Home Cinema to me personally though.

    The scaling images from AVS I posted is a much harder concept for people to grasp which is why I disagree that it's misleading. It shows that enlarging your image can make more detail visable. If you don't like the softening, then that's for your eyes to decide.

    I just don't think that many people are hoodwinked into buying 100+" screens when a 32" lcd would have suited them better.
    Surely they are shopping for size first and foremost, and then trying to get the best quality solution possible.

    There are lots of high-end plasma owners whose jaws drop when they see a film on my setup.
     
  24. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    It doesn't take a genius to realise that it's comparing a number of images, all of which are exactly the same size. How, precisely, does this model "enlarging the image" to different degrees? :rolleyes: They're changing the size of the pixels not changing the size of the image.
     
  25. tryingtimes

    tryingtimes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    4,094
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +531
    But you've not taken into consideration the whole of my post - my argument isn't solely based on those avs images. Those just show that upsampling can remove aliasing noise.
    My main point is that size increases the physical reaction to the images - you feel more involved and are more attentive.
    There are trade-offs, but these are IMO easy to evaluate.
     
  26. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    "It removes the aliasing noise" is a polite (and inaccurate) way of saying "it makes it blurry". I know that the size of the picture has an impact. Obviously a large, sharp picture is preferable to a small, sharp one; and obviously a large, blurry picture is preferable to a large, pixellated one. What I'm questioning is whether a large, blurry picture is really superior to smaller, sharp one.

    In my opinion it isn't, and it surprises me how many people seem to disagree with that. I do wonder sometimes whether people actually approach this in a sensible way. It would be very easy to say, unthinkingly, "I want a big picture", then, when you see just how awful a large SD picture looks without scaling, get thoroughly caught up in discussions about the best way to scale and filter the image to make it look a little less awful. But I have to wonder whether people shouldn't occasionally step back and ask whether and SD picture should actually be that big in the first place.

    If you want "true home cinema" on a large screen then that seems to me to require a high definition source. Blowing up an SD image to 100" diagonal (to my eyes) can't look good, regardless of the quality of the scaling. Again, you can't add detail; the best you can do is make the pixel edges blurry.
     
  27. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    Can't beleive this is still going on.

    The point is, alot of the SD material looks nearly as good as some of the HD material using the correct kit, not always I agree, but I am amazed at some of the quailty that comes from an SDI modded sky box going into the Crystalio, and sdi dvd into it again looks stunning.
    Yes some HD material is better than other material and they really do look even better, but you get that now with SD too and I am sure it will be the same when we move onto the next standard as well.

    The difference in quality you get from SD on a big screen compared with only say 4 years ago is quite staggering, if you really think it is that poor then I can only think you have the wrong kit?

    I am afraid you will have to continue to be amazed at how many people disagree with you, because it seems there are quite a few.
    We must all be crazy mother feckers that live on the edge and scale our images!!! Who'd have thought!?? ;)
     
  28. tryingtimes

    tryingtimes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    4,094
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +531
    Well now I know that you're not trying to actually investigate this issue.
    That blurring is actually making the viewed image more accurate to the original.
    The world isn't made of sharp edged pixels - it isn't made up of totally smooth curves either, but it's a lot closer.

    But I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong about the screen size, I'm saying that it's really easy to demo a few setups and decide which you like.

    We know which you prefer, but don't go trying to tell us we've all got the wrong setup - we've been there, done that.
    Surely you don't think that we've just gone out and spent thousands of pounds on a big-screen setup without first having thought about (or owned) every option out there do you?
     
  29. lunddal

    lunddal
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    27
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    The thing you have to wait for is a display with a 3840x2160 resolution.

    Why?

    720p will be scaled by enlarging one pixel to 3x3 pixels - which means the pixels are enlarged, but no "blurry" scaling is involved.

    1080p will be scaled by enlarging one pixel to 2x2 pixels.

    1920x1080 will be the same as on a 1920x1080 native display and 1280x720 will be the same as on a 1280x720 native display.

    BUT, all this is pointless if the screen overscans - or if the source material has been scaled, processed by 1080i hardware or something else along the long way from camera to screen.
     
  30. lunddal

    lunddal
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    27
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    And to think that people 20 years ago had VCRs connected to Faroudja linedoublers and projectors :suicide:

    ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...