Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is 1024x 1024 true HD?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:22:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'm confused, Dell's 42" plasmas say HDTV on their website but resolution is
listed as 1024 x 1024. Is this true HD, or upconverted to HD?

More about : 1024x 1024 true

Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:22:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Martha Stewart's cellmate wrote:

> I'm confused, Dell's 42" plasmas say HDTV on their website but resolution is
> listed as 1024 x 1024. Is this true HD, or upconverted to HD?
>

Since the FTC is useless, there is no definition of HD displays. Some
manufacturers claim that 1024/768 in a 16:9 format are HD. I disagree.
If it isn't 1280x720, at least, I wouldn't consider buying it.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:22:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If you have a standard analog TV, you'll see TV shows displayed in 480i
resolution. The 480 refers to the number of horizontal lines that make
up the picture. The "i" means interlaced, which means that half of the
lines are drawn in one 1/60th-of-a-second pass, then the other half of
the lines are drawn in another 1/60th-of-a-second second pass, to draw
the "full" picture every 1/30th of a second.

There are two DVD resolutions. The first is 480i, which uses the
interlaced method to draw the images onscreen. The second is 480p, also
known as progressive scan DVD. Progressive scan means that all of the
lines are drawn sequentially and in one pass, which creates smoother
images than the 480i picture. The progressive scan 480p image isn't
high definition, but it's the next best thing.

The main resolutions used to deliver HD programming are 720p and 1080i.
The 720p picture is drawn with the same method we discussed for
progressive scan DVD, giving you a picture with 720 horizontal lines,
each consisting of 1280 pixels. The 1280 x 720 resolution gives you the
16:9 wide screen aspect ratio that defines HD. The 1080i picture is
drawn in two passes using the interlaced method. However, because there
are far more lines in a 1920 x 1080 picture, the visibility of the lines
is reduced and the level of detail is increased. Some say 720p does a
better job with fast-moving images, while 1080i is the highest possible
HD resolution in terms of detail. At the end of the day, both
resolutions deliver a superior picture - nothing else comes close.

SO I JUST PLUG HD PROGRAMMING INTO MY TV AND I SEE THE HIGHER
RESOLUTION, RIGHT?

Not so fast. There are two issues when it comes to resolution: the
resolution of the signal being sent to the TV, and the resolution that
the TV is capable of displaying. This is where the native resolution of
your TV comes into play. The native resolution describes the amount of
vertical and horizontal pixels your TV can show. To display true 1080i
HD as it is intended to be seen, you need an HDTV with a native
resolution of 1920 x 1080 or higher. Many HDTVs can handle a maximum of
720p at full resolution, and 1080i programs are converted to fit their
screen. In addition, there are digital TVs that have lower than 1280 x
720 native resolution, but are able to convert and display both 720p
and 1080i images.

LONG STORY SHORT, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO ME?

It means that you can read about HD resolution all the live-long day,
but the best way to understand HD resolution is by watching it. Go to
an electronics store and take a look at what's playing on the HDTVs.
Find out what the resolution of the programming is (Discovery HD
Theater, an electronics store favorite, is 1080i). Then decide what
degree of resolution is satisfactory for your viewing needs. Perhaps
you'll only be satisfied with a top-of-the-line model that allows for
maximum HD resolution. Perhaps you'll find an HDTV that has a lower
resolution but looks better to you for other reasons: contrast ratio,
color temperature, etc. It's time to take another trip down the HDTV
aisle and see the big picture for yourself.


--
charper1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by charper1
Related resources
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:52:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

This is just a copy & paste from the HD info page for NTSC and it didn't
say that it was a native resolution just a resolution in general.


--
charper1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by charper1
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 6:15:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:47:18 -0500, charper1
<charper1.1i3kdw@satelliteguys.us> wrote:

>There are two DVD resolutions. The first is 480i, which uses the
>interlaced method to draw the images onscreen. The second is 480p, also
>known as progressive scan DVD.

Careful: this, as written, is not correct.

There *are* two DVD resolutions, but those resolutions are 480i and
576i (NTSC and PAL, respectively). There are no 480p DVDs. The only
things that might be 480p are some (many?) DVD players that will
output a progressive-scan image from a 480i DVD, and some (many?)
display devices that can handle a 480p image. The 480p output from a
progressive-scan DVD player is processed from the 480i material on the
disc.
December 31, 2004 1:49:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <gng9t05edjp3i7mfd8phud13gq8lk4kbgg@4ax.com>,
karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me says...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:47:18 -0500, charper1
> <charper1.1i3kdw@satelliteguys.us> wrote:
>
> >There are two DVD resolutions. The first is 480i, which uses the
> >interlaced method to draw the images onscreen. The second is 480p, also
> >known as progressive scan DVD.
>
> Careful: this, as written, is not correct.
>
> There *are* two DVD resolutions, but those resolutions are 480i and
> 576i (NTSC and PAL, respectively). There are no 480p DVDs. The only
> things that might be 480p are some (many?) DVD players that will
> output a progressive-scan image from a 480i DVD, and some (many?)
> display devices that can handle a 480p image. The 480p output from a
> progressive-scan DVD player is processed from the 480i material on the
> disc.

So then, what exactly is the point of a progressive scan DVD player??

My TV currently takes a 480i input from my DVD player and converts it to
720p for display. A progressive scan DVD player, you are saying, will
take the same 480i input (because that's what your saying is actually on
the DVD) convert it to 480p, and then my TV will convert that to 720p.

How is that an 'advantage'??
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

42 wrote:
> In article <gng9t05edjp3i7mfd8phud13gq8lk4kbgg@4ax.com>,
> karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me says...
>
>>
>>There *are* two DVD resolutions, but those resolutions are 480i and
>>576i (NTSC and PAL, respectively). There are no 480p DVDs. The only
>>things that might be 480p are some (many?) DVD players that will
>>output a progressive-scan image from a 480i DVD, and some (many?)
>>display devices that can handle a 480p image. The 480p output from a
>>progressive-scan DVD player is processed from the 480i material on the
>>disc.
>
>
> So then, what exactly is the point of a progressive scan DVD player??

To deinterlace in the digital domain.

> My TV currently takes a 480i input from my DVD player and converts it to
> 720p for display. A progressive scan DVD player, you are saying, will
> take the same 480i input (because that's what your saying is actually on
> the DVD) convert it to 480p, and then my TV will convert that to 720p.

That is exactly what will happen.

> How is that an 'advantage'??

It may not be. The idea is that if the DVD player does the deinterlace
in the digital domain then there will be fewer D->A, A->D conversions
and the player can take advantage of flags in the MPEG input stream.
Since your display is probably not capable of showing 480p directly, as
many CRT HDTVs can, There would propbably be fewer conversions if you
use a 480i input.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 6:42:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Karyudo (karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> - the source for DVD movies is, of course, progressive -- it's film,
> at 24fps. So 480i contains *all* the resolution of 480p when the
> source is film.

This is not true.

In order to reduce interlace artifacts, filtering is done before the MPEG
compression. This loses some resolution.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostNetworkPasswor...
January 1, 2005 11:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
created it. The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10t8t3qq0o67i60@corp.supernews.com...
> Martha Stewart's cellmate wrote:
>
> Since the FTC is useless, there is no definition of HD displays. Some
> manufacturers claim that 1024/768 in a 16:9 format are HD. I disagree. If
> it isn't 1280x720, at least, I wouldn't consider buying it.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

curmudgeon wrote:

> Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
> created it.

The FCC has no power to enforce anything about displays. They defined
the broadcast standard.

> The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
> definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.

The FTC has made no rules about advertising HD.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:02:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

curmudgeon wrote:
> Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
> created it. The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
> definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.

The definition of what is meant by "HD" is not set by the FTC. The FCC
set the ATSC broadcast standards, but I don't know if they specified
which of those 18 are to be called HD. The FTC probably has not waded
into ED vs HD; got other more important issues to deal with.

The CEA (Consumer Electronics Organization) has defined HD to mean at
least 720 vertical scan lines or pixels. Nothing about horizontal
resolution. So 1024x720 is HD by CEA definition. So would 1x720 if you
want to take it to the silly extreme, but fortunately no one sells a set
that way.

For the record, I recently purchased a 42" 1024x768 Panasonic
commercial plasma. One reason I hesitated for a long time in buying it
(along with waiting for prices to drop) was because of the 1024
horizontal resolution and rectangular pixels that you get with the
current 42"/43" HD plasmas. While I would prefer it had either 1280x720
or 1366x768 resolution, I will say that the picture is damn good for HD
broadcasts. People can get fixated too much on pixel resolution alone;
the quality of the display and scaler electronics matters too.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:42:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The CEA (Consumer Electronics Organization) has defined HD to mean at
> least 720 vertical scan lines or pixels.

We know what you mean, of course, but there are no "vertical" scan lines...
only horizontal ones. The CEA standards also require 720 *progressive* scan
lines. If the display is interlaced, the minimum goes up to 1080.

> Nothing about horizontal
> resolution. So 1024x720 is HD by CEA definition.

Also, 4:3 sets get a break because they don't even need 720 scan lines in
the 16:9 area to be called "HD". So, a 960x720 progressive-scan 4:3 display
could call itself "HD" by the CEA standard, even though you end up with only
960x540 in the 16:9 area for display of "HD".

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going
| to take pan & scan anymore."
January 1, 2005 9:51:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:43:56 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>curmudgeon wrote:
>
>> Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
>> created it.
>
>The FCC has no power to enforce anything about displays. They defined
>the broadcast standard.
>
>> The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
>> definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.
>
>The FTC has made no rules about advertising HD.
>
>Matthew

Chicken shits
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
January 1, 2005 9:53:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:02:16 -0500, Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

>curmudgeon wrote:
>> Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
>> created it. The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
>> definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.
>
> The definition of what is meant by "HD" is not set by the FTC. The FCC
>set the ATSC broadcast standards, but I don't know if they specified
>which of those 18 are to be called HD. The FTC probably has not waded
>into ED vs HD; got other more important issues to deal with.
>

Like what?
Thumper
> The CEA (Consumer Electronics Organization) has defined HD to mean at
>least 720 vertical scan lines or pixels. Nothing about horizontal
>resolution. So 1024x720 is HD by CEA definition. So would 1x720 if you
>want to take it to the silly extreme, but fortunately no one sells a set
>that way.
>
> For the record, I recently purchased a 42" 1024x768 Panasonic
>commercial plasma. One reason I hesitated for a long time in buying it
>(along with waiting for prices to drop) was because of the 1024
>horizontal resolution and rectangular pixels that you get with the
>current 42"/43" HD plasmas. While I would prefer it had either 1280x720
>or 1366x768 resolution, I will say that the picture is damn good for HD
>broadcasts. People can get fixated too much on pixel resolution alone;
>the quality of the display and scaler electronics matters too.
>
> Alan F
>
>
>
>
>
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:37:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The confusion is that computer people don't understand exactly how video
engineers and film people define resolution.

Resolution is measured per unit of picture height, so it's INDEPENDENT of
the aspect ratio. The PIXEL COUNT (used by computer people) DEPENDS on the
aspect ratio. A 1024x768 PIXEL standard computer monitor (4:3) and
a 1366x768 PIXEL widescreen computer monitor have the SAME RESOLUTION
768x768

Since 720p and 1080i are considered visually equivalent, RESOLUTIONS of at
least 700 vertical and
at least 700 horizontal (equivalent to 720 x 1280 PIXELS) are true HDTV.
Some people freak to see that a high
end CRT display is rated at "only" 800 lines horizontal. But multiply that
800 by the aspect ratio and you get 1422.

So the 1024 x 1024 RESOLUTION display is 1024*(16/9) x 1024 PIXELS or
1820x1024 PIXELS

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:7oxBd.9105$6i.6399@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Of course there's a definition for HD displays...you quoted it and the FCC
> created it. The FTC may not ENFORCE the advertising of it...but the
> definition still remains...1280x720 and 1920x1080i. PERIOD.
>
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10t8t3qq0o67i60@corp.supernews.com...
>> Martha Stewart's cellmate wrote:
>>
>> Since the FTC is useless, there is no definition of HD displays. Some
>> manufacturers claim that 1024/768 in a 16:9 format are HD. I disagree. If
>> it isn't 1280x720, at least, I wouldn't consider buying it.
>>
>> Matthew
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:14:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <A%JBd.15113$RH4.12164@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> writes:
> The confusion is that computer people don't understand exactly how video
> engineers and film people define resolution.
>
> Resolution is measured per unit of picture height, so it's INDEPENDENT of
> the aspect ratio. The PIXEL COUNT (used by computer people) DEPENDS on the
> aspect ratio. A 1024x768 PIXEL standard computer monitor (4:3) and
> a 1366x768 PIXEL widescreen computer monitor have the SAME RESOLUTION
> 768x768
>
> Since 720p and 1080i are considered visually equivalent, RESOLUTIONS of at
> least 700 vertical and
> at least 700 horizontal (equivalent to 720 x 1280 PIXELS) are true HDTV.
> Some people freak to see that a high
> end CRT display is rated at "only" 800 lines horizontal. But multiply that
> 800 by the aspect ratio and you get 1422.
>
> So the 1024 x 1024 RESOLUTION display is 1024*(16/9) x 1024 PIXELS or
> 1820x1024 PIXELS
>
I agree -- another way of looking at the 'resolution' figures:

A standard HDTV display, capable of showing the full resolution
of the ATSC 1080i signal would be capable of a horizontal resolution
of 1080 TVL... (I use the units of TVL to minimize the confusion with
other measurement schemes like effective pixels of resolution -- but
even that isn't technically correct.)

So, that fancy, full resolution HDTV display can provide only 1080TVL
calculated as: 1920H * 9 / 16... This can be a little off-putting
when the total amount of horizontal lines that can be resolved would
be 1920. A display that provides 800TVL of resolution in the 16x9 format
could certainly still be a good looking, sharp display.

John
January 2, 2005 1:00:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt wrote:

>
>
> For the record, I recently purchased a 42" 1024x768 Panasonic
> commercial plasma. One reason I hesitated for a long time in buying it
> (along with waiting for prices to drop) was because of the 1024
> horizontal resolution and rectangular pixels that you get with the
> current 42"/43" HD plasmas. While I would prefer it had either 1280x720
> or 1366x768 resolution, I will say that the picture is damn good for HD
> broadcasts. People can get fixated too much on pixel resolution alone;
> the quality of the display and scaler electronics matters too.
>
> Alan F

Hi Allan,

I was considering buying a 42 " Panasonic 1024 x 768 TH-42PHD7UY but was turned
off when I found out about the s-video and other brightness problems mentioned
on AVS forum in last few months. Some are really worked up over it. How does
your plasma work for you and do you have any brightness issues with it?

George
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George wrote:
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
>> For the record, I recently purchased a 42" 1024x768 Panasonic
>>commercial plasma. One reason I hesitated for a long time in buying it
>>(along with waiting for prices to drop) was because of the 1024
>>horizontal resolution and rectangular pixels that you get with the
>>current 42"/43" HD plasmas. While I would prefer it had either 1280x720
>>or 1366x768 resolution, I will say that the picture is damn good for HD
>>broadcasts. People can get fixated too much on pixel resolution alone;
>>the quality of the display and scaler electronics matters too.
>>
>> Alan F
>
>
> Hi Allan,
>
> I was considering buying a 42 " Panasonic 1024 x 768 TH-42PHD7UY but was turned
> off when I found out about the s-video and other brightness problems mentioned
> on AVS forum in last few months. Some are really worked up over it. How does
> your plasma work for you and do you have any brightness issues with it?
>
> George

I have not really noticed the S-Video brightness level problem. I use
the component input most of the time. However I do feed an S-Video
signal from my set top box to a Tivo (SD) and sometimes have switched to
the S-Video signal so I can zoom the SD stations to full screen to
minimize chances of burn-in in the first 100 hours of use. I have not
really looked for the uneven brightness levels using the DVE DVD test
patterns, but if it is there, it does not affect the picture quality
from what I can see. I have not followed the very long thread on this
enough to know if everyone is supposed to have this problem or not. I'm
very happy with the TH-42PHD7UY picture quality, period.

There is also the complaint about changing black levels on the
letterbox bars outside of the picture for bright scenes and I have
noticed it, but it is a rather subtle effect while picture itself looks
superb. My take is that one should be looking at the movie, not spending
time looking at the black bars above and below the picture.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

charper1 wrote:
> If you have a standard analog TV, you'll see TV shows displayed in 480i
> resolution. The 480 refers to the number of horizontal lines that make
> up the picture. The "i" means interlaced, which means that half of the
> lines are drawn in one 1/60th-of-a-second pass, then the other half of
> the lines are drawn in another 1/60th-of-a-second second pass, to draw
> the "full" picture every 1/30th of a second.
>
> There are two DVD resolutions. The first is 480i, which uses the
> interlaced method to draw the images onscreen. The second is 480p, also
> known as progressive scan DVD. Progressive scan means that all of the
> lines are drawn sequentially and in one pass, which creates smoother
> images than the 480i picture. The progressive scan 480p image isn't
> high definition, but it's the next best thing.
>
> The main resolutions used to deliver HD programming are 720p and 1080i.
> The 720p picture is drawn with the same method we discussed for
> progressive scan DVD, giving you a picture with 720 horizontal lines,
> each consisting of 1280 pixels. The 1280 x 720 resolution gives you the
> 16:9 wide screen aspect ratio that defines HD. The 1080i picture is
> drawn in two passes using the interlaced method. However, because there
> are far more lines in a 1920 x 1080 picture, the visibility of the lines
> is reduced and the level of detail is increased. Some say 720p does a
> better job with fast-moving images, while 1080i is the highest possible
> HD resolution in terms of detail. At the end of the day, both
> resolutions deliver a superior picture - nothing else comes close.
>
> SO I JUST PLUG HD PROGRAMMING INTO MY TV AND I SEE THE HIGHER
> RESOLUTION, RIGHT?
>
> Not so fast. There are two issues when it comes to resolution: the
> resolution of the signal being sent to the TV, and the resolution that
> the TV is capable of displaying. This is where the native resolution of
> your TV comes into play. The native resolution describes the amount of
> vertical and horizontal pixels your TV can show. To display true 1080i
> HD as it is intended to be seen, you need an HDTV with a native
> resolution of 1920 x 1080 or higher. Many HDTVs can handle a maximum of
> 720p at full resolution, and 1080i programs are converted to fit their
> screen. In addition, there are digital TVs that have lower than 1280 x
> 720 native resolution, but are able to convert and display both 720p
> and 1080i images.
>
> LONG STORY SHORT, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO ME?
>
> It means that you can read about HD resolution all the live-long day,
> but the best way to understand HD resolution is by watching it. Go to
> an electronics store and take a look at what's playing on the HDTVs.
> Find out what the resolution of the programming is (Discovery HD
> Theater, an electronics store favorite, is 1080i). Then decide what
> degree of resolution is satisfactory for your viewing needs. Perhaps
> you'll only be satisfied with a top-of-the-line model that allows for
> maximum HD resolution. Perhaps you'll find an HDTV that has a lower
> resolution but looks better to you for other reasons: contrast ratio,
> color temperature, etc. It's time to take another trip down the HDTV
> aisle and see the big picture for yourself.
>
>

Charper -- this is an excellent explanation. I have a related question,
though. My monitor's rez is 1280x720. My DTV tuner can be set up to
output either 1080i or 720p via the DVI port. Which should I set it to?
Will I see any more detail if i set it to 1080i? Or will the monitor
remove the extra detail when it converts the 1080i signal to fit the
native resolution?
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 2:46:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"cledus" <cledus@noemail.net> wrote>
> Charper -- this is an excellent explanation. I have a related question,
> though. My monitor's rez is 1280x720. My DTV tuner can be set up to
> output either 1080i or 720p via the DVI port. Which should I set it to?
> Will I see any more detail if i set it to 1080i? Or will the monitor
> remove the extra detail when it converts the 1080i signal to fit the
> native resolution?

Always match the native resolultion and the input if possible...you avoid an
extra conversion. And monitors seldom do as good a job as a tuner box.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:08:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:A%JBd.15113$RH4.12164@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The confusion is that computer people don't understand exactly how video
> engineers and film people define resolution.
>
> Resolution is measured per unit of picture height, so it's INDEPENDENT of
> the aspect ratio. The PIXEL COUNT (used by computer people) DEPENDS on
> the aspect ratio. A 1024x768 PIXEL standard computer monitor (4:3) and
> a 1366x768 PIXEL widescreen computer monitor have the SAME RESOLUTION
> 768x768
>
> Since 720p and 1080i are considered visually equivalent, RESOLUTIONS of
> at least 700 vertical and
> at least 700 horizontal (equivalent to 720 x 1280 PIXELS) are true HDTV.
> Some people freak to see that a high
> end CRT display is rated at "only" 800 lines horizontal. But multiply
> that 800 by the aspect ratio and you get 1422.
>
> So the 1024 x 1024 RESOLUTION display is 1024*(16/9) x 1024 PIXELS or
> 1820x1024 PIXELS

This is good information and is true when talking about broadcast signals or
traditional TVs, but is not necessarily true if you're talking about an LCD
or plasma display with a fixed resolution (ie, an actual fixed pixel array).
In most of these cases, 1024 IS the actual maximum number of pixels across
the entire width of the display.
!