Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Choice of Resolution?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:10:17 PM

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

I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
just default to that?

I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
appreciated.

More about : choice resolution

Anonymous
July 29, 2005 4:16:59 PM

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

> What type of display are you using?
>
> Richard.
> >

I have a 16:9 tv capable of displaying up to 1080i. Hopefully, that
answered your question. Let me know if you need more info or if I
misundersttod your question. Thanks.
July 29, 2005 6:26:06 PM

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

<jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122657017.859411.156480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
> just default to that?
>
> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
> appreciated.

What type of display are you using?

Richard.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:16:10 AM

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

We use a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD DVR cable box. Like your DVR, it is
possible to set it at various resolutions but it comes default set @ 1080i.
I have just left it there. Everything displayed on our Sony KDF-60XS955 at
that resolution from the DVR looks great. Well, the HD looks great and the
SD looks as good as I have ever seen it on that TV, via any method of
transmission, depending on the original quality of the SD picture. Your TV
set will take that 1080i picture and convert it to its native resolution.
Ours converts everything to 788p.

On the other hand, we have a Panasonic upconverting DVD player that can send
DVD pictures to the TV set at 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. Trying different
resolutions, I get the best picture, most like HD, when I set it to feed the
TV at 720p. So, you might just want to try things. You can probably also
set your DVR to feed at whatever resolution it gets the picture at.

mack
austin


<jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122657017.859411.156480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
> just default to that?
>
> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:57:56 AM

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

Have you tried it? Experiment a bit and see what happens.

--Dan

<jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122657017.859411.156480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
> just default to that?
>
> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:41:19 AM

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

On 29 Jul 2005 10:10:17 -0700, jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com spewed forth these words
of wisdom:

>I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
>watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
>switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
>resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
>just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
>just default to that?
>
>I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
>appreciated.

I leave my H-10 receiver set to "All" and "Native" set to "on". This let's my
Toshiba better detect the switch from 16:9 to 4:3.

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 6:18:43 AM

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

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:11ekt5vekofh84f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122657017.859411.156480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
>> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
>> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
>> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
>> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
>> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
>> just default to that?
>>
>> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>
> What type of display are you using?
>
> Richard.
>>
>
You can change the resolution quickly by using the 'up' arrow while watching
a program without going to any menu...

JustDave
July 30, 2005 1:33:19 PM

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

jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com wrote:
> I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
> just default to that?
>
> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
Set it to the max resolution of your tv set.
July 31, 2005 1:40:41 AM

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

Curmudgeon wrote:
> jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
>> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
>> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
>> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
>> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
>> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
>> just default to that?
>>
>> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>>
> Set it to the max resolution of your tv set.


That's certainly an option, but very often things look best at 720p.

Cheers,
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:09:22 PM

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

Ritz wrote:
> Curmudgeon wrote:
> > jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
> >> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
> >> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
> >> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
> >> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
> >> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
> >> just default to that?
> >>
> >> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
> >> appreciated.
> >>
> > Set it to the max resolution of your tv set.
>
>
> That's certainly an option, but very often things look best at 720p.
>
> Cheers,

Thanks to all for your suggestions. I will experiment with the
different resolutions. Right now I have it set for 1080i at all times,
but the SD channels look really bad. Thanks again, and I'll let you
guys know my opinion.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:44:03 AM

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

I concur SD channels are brutal in 1080i. I use 480p output from my
HD Tivo and my TV crops some and stretches the rest for a good
compromise so people don't look too short and fat.

I use the native resolution for the HD channels and change manually,
so for ESPN, FOX and ABC its 720p, 1080i for everything else I can
receive. Give that a try.

bossfan

On 1 Aug 2005 14:09:22 -0700, jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>Ritz wrote:
>> Curmudgeon wrote:
>> > jonvoights_toe@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just purchased a Directv HD DVR. It gives me a choice of resolution.
>> >> I have set it for 1080i. But, does it make a difference if I am
>> >> watching a program in a different resolution? Do I need to continue
>> >> switching the resolutions back and forth between the different
>> >> resolutions? (It gives me that option in the settings menu). Can I
>> >> just leave it at 1080i, and any programs with a lower resolution would
>> >> just default to that?
>> >>
>> >> I tried to google this topic, but no luck. Any help would be
>> >> appreciated.
>> >>
>> > Set it to the max resolution of your tv set.
>>
>>
>> That's certainly an option, but very often things look best at 720p.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
>Thanks to all for your suggestions. I will experiment with the
>different resolutions. Right now I have it set for 1080i at all times,
>but the SD channels look really bad. Thanks again, and I'll let you
>guys know my opinion.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:50:02 PM

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

On 2 Aug 2005 22:44:03 -0500 bossfan <dontspamme@dontspam.com> wrote:

| I concur SD channels are brutal in 1080i. I use 480p output from my
| HD Tivo and my TV crops some and stretches the rest for a good
| compromise so people don't look too short and fat.

It would be better to have a display device that can accomodate each
of the scan rates directly, or at some whole multiple directly. Since
1080i is not much different than 540p, then 480p would not be far from
that. 720p might be harder; maybe the TV manufacturers should learn
something from the computer display manufacturers about multiscanning.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:50:03 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2005 22:44:03 -0500 bossfan <dontspamme@dontspam.com> wrote:
>
> | I concur SD channels are brutal in 1080i. I use 480p output from my
> | HD Tivo and my TV crops some and stretches the rest for a good
> | compromise so people don't look too short and fat.
>
> It would be better to have a display device that can accomodate each
> of the scan rates directly, or at some whole multiple directly.

How is that going to help the poster. It is obvious that he wants his
screen filled. He's not concerned about cropping or distorting the image
as long as his damned screen is filled.

> Since
> 1080i is not much different than 540p, then 480p would not be far from
> that.

What does that have to do with filling the screen?

> 720p might be harder; maybe the TV manufacturers should learn
> something from the computer display manufacturers about multiscanning.
>

You, as usual, have completely missed the point.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:27:31 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:31:02 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On 2 Aug 2005 22:44:03 -0500 bossfan <dontspamme@dontspam.com> wrote:
|>
|> | I concur SD channels are brutal in 1080i. I use 480p output from my
|> | HD Tivo and my TV crops some and stretches the rest for a good
|> | compromise so people don't look too short and fat.
|>
|> It would be better to have a display device that can accomodate each
|> of the scan rates directly, or at some whole multiple directly.
|
| How is that going to help the poster. It is obvious that he wants his
| screen filled. He's not concerned about cropping or distorting the image
| as long as his damned screen is filled.

He never actually said he wants his screen filled, but if that is his
primary desire, then he will certainly need to have cropping and/or
distortion. Maybe he just wants it filled to the edge in one axis,
such as expanding 480 lines to 1080 lines (instead of 960 lines).
Then he can avoid cropping and geometric distortion, but will have to
put up with conversion artifacts or an expensive quality converter.


| > Since
|> 1080i is not much different than 540p, then 480p would not be far from
|> that.
|
| What does that have to do with filling the screen?

Nothing. I never said it did, and the OP didn't ask for that.


|> 720p might be harder; maybe the TV manufacturers should learn
|> something from the computer display manufacturers about multiscanning.
|>
|
| You, as usual, have completely missed the point.

As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:27:32 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>
> As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
> you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
> viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
> the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.
>

Once again, thanks for pointing out that the real world implementations
that are already in place are all wrong. It's really too bad you weren't
asked your opinion way bach when. You could have just told them what to
do and everything would be perfect.

What a laugh!

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:28:12 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:16:51 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

|> As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
|> you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
|> viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
|> the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.
|>
|
| Once again, thanks for pointing out that the real world implementations
| that are already in place are all wrong. It's really too bad you weren't
| asked your opinion way bach when. You could have just told them what to
| do and everything would be perfect.

Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i. If they operate at all the frame rates,
even better. This doesn't cost that much, as the computer display market
has shown.

A DTV tuner with an SVGA 15-pin connector for video output might be just
the thing. Use your multiscan computer display and let it run each video
format at its native, or easily doubled, scan rate. Tuners should NOT
be attempting to do any complex conversions unless it _knows_ the display
cannot do what it is getting over the air.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:28:13 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:16:51 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> |> As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
> |> you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
> |> viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
> |> the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.
> |>
> |
> | Once again, thanks for pointing out that the real world implementations
> | that are already in place are all wrong. It's really too bad you weren't
> | asked your opinion way bach when. You could have just told them what to
> | do and everything would be perfect.
>
> Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
> can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
> of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.

Sure, they can be made, but why? There is no particular reason not to
scale all inputs to match the display's capabilities.

> If they operate at all the frame rates,
> even better. This doesn't cost that much, as the computer display market
> has shown.
>
> A DTV tuner with an SVGA 15-pin connector for video output might be just
> the thing. Use your multiscan computer display and let it run each video
> format at its native, or easily doubled, scan rate. Tuners should NOT
> be attempting to do any complex conversions unless it _knows_ the display
> cannot do what it is getting over the air.
>

Look, moron. They do know. All (as in _ALL_) STBs have selectable output
geometry. The intelligent user (unlike yourself who is neither auser or
intelligent) will set the STB to produce the geometry that looks best on
their display. The STB will then convert everything to match the output
geometry. Internal tuners don't need that setting for obvious reasons.

With reasonably good, and increasingly inexpensive, scalars it makes
good sense to have a simple display and a good scalar. This is
especially true for fixed pixel displays, a point you continue to
deliberately ignore.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:28:13 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
> can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
> of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.

This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.

LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
"natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.

In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
resolution, and everything else must be converted.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going
| to take pan & scan anymore."
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:28:14 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
>
>
> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
>
> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.
>
> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
>

But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
have set the entire DTV industry straight.

I think we have a "worthy" replacement for starman. What do you think?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:47:21 AM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:32:29 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Jeff Rife wrote:
>> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
>>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
>>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
>>
>>
>> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
>> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
>>
>> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
>> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.

Strangely enough, there is one specific plasma panel (used in Philips
models) which is described as operating in interlaced mode.
(I don't know but I would not be surprised if it anyway re-scales
1080i signals to its native 1024i, instead of using a suitable
overscan.)

>> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
>> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
>>
>
>But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
>have set the entire DTV industry straight.
>
>I think we have a "worthy" replacement for starman. What do you think?

I don't claim to have the solution, but in my mind it would be
possible to optimise the displays for HDTV if it would be possible to
define _one_ HDTV standard. So working in that direction seems to be
the right thing.

I don't have access (yet) to HDTV-signals but I see motion artefacts
around moving contours on my LCD-TV (1280x720 pixel feed by DTV
signals 720x576/50i) which I believe comes from the re-scaling,
re-sampling of the field rate and conversion from interlace to
progressive.

I also assume that the MPEG artefacts that are there (by design to be
within the acceptance range of the human brain) must make it more
difficult for the scaler.

Even if it is possible to build better resamplers, I didn't get one of
those when I bought the TV. (Could be a cost issue, but it was
expensive as it was).
I'm pretty sure that there would be less aretfacts if the signal
wasn't re-sampled.
/Jan
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 9:59:23 AM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:02:24 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>With reasonably good, and increasingly inexpensive, scalars it makes
>good sense to have a simple display and a good scalar.

A scalar is a non-vector number; a scaler is used to... uhh... scale.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:24:43 AM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:02:24 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:16:51 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|>
|> |> As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
|> |> you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
|> |> viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
|> |> the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.
|> |>
|> |
|> | Once again, thanks for pointing out that the real world implementations
|> | that are already in place are all wrong. It's really too bad you weren't
|> | asked your opinion way bach when. You could have just told them what to
|> | do and everything would be perfect.
|>
|> Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
|> can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
|> of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
|
| Sure, they can be made, but why? There is no particular reason not to
| scale all inputs to match the display's capabilities.

Scaling has lower quality than displaying directly at that rate, unless
the scaling is an integer ratio (for example displaying 480 as 960 is
fine).


|> If they operate at all the frame rates,
|> even better. This doesn't cost that much, as the computer display market
|> has shown.
|>
|> A DTV tuner with an SVGA 15-pin connector for video output might be just
|> the thing. Use your multiscan computer display and let it run each video
|> format at its native, or easily doubled, scan rate. Tuners should NOT
|> be attempting to do any complex conversions unless it _knows_ the display
|> cannot do what it is getting over the air.
|>
|
| Look, moron. They do know. All (as in _ALL_) STBs have selectable output
| geometry. The intelligent user (unlike yourself who is neither auser or
| intelligent) will set the STB to produce the geometry that looks best on
| their display. The STB will then convert everything to match the output
| geometry. Internal tuners don't need that setting for obvious reasons.

This is proof that you post totally new things to attack people personally.
A couple people have tried to defend you. They simply cannot in the face
of your actual attitude problems.


| With reasonably good, and increasingly inexpensive, scalars it makes
| good sense to have a simple display and a good scalar. This is
| especially true for fixed pixel displays, a point you continue to
| deliberately ignore.

Good scalers in consumer products? An agile display is cheaper.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:26:21 AM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:32:29 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| Jeff Rife wrote:
|> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|>
|>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
|>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
|>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
|>
|>
|> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
|> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
|>
|> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
|> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.
|>
|> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
|> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
|>
|
| But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
| have set the entire DTV industry straight.

They didn't need to ask me. They could have asked engineers in the
computer industry.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:31:15 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:02:24 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:16:51 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |>
> |> |> As usual, you make up points. My point happens to be different than what
> |> |> you probably wanted to make. It seems you have no ability to see any other
> |> |> viewpoint besides your own, or to see all the bumbling design errors that
> |> |> the whole HDTV and DTV industry has introduced.
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> | Once again, thanks for pointing out that the real world implementations
> |> | that are already in place are all wrong. It's really too bad you weren't
> |> | asked your opinion way bach when. You could have just told them what to
> |> | do and everything would be perfect.
> |>
> |> Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
> |> can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
> |> of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
> |
> | Sure, they can be made, but why? There is no particular reason not to
> | scale all inputs to match the display's capabilities.
>
> Scaling has lower quality than displaying directly at that rate, unless
> the scaling is an integer ratio (for example displaying 480 as 960 is
> fine).

How odd. That's not the information I hear from people who actually
write scaling routines for a living. With a reasonable number of
significant digits and in real time, scaling artifacts for non integer
ratios have no more artifacts than for integer ratios.

If you doubt this, take a look at FFT and inverse FFT. I've coded these
and measured the THD of the results (for audio). Once the information is
in the frequency domain it is very easy to manipulate. Changing the
length of an audio segment without changing its frequency response is
pretty easy. The artifacts I measured were very low since I was using 64
bit floating point to caculate 16 bit samples.

> |> If they operate at all the frame rates,
> |> even better. This doesn't cost that much, as the computer display market
> |> has shown.
> |>
> |> A DTV tuner with an SVGA 15-pin connector for video output might be just
> |> the thing. Use your multiscan computer display and let it run each video
> |> format at its native, or easily doubled, scan rate. Tuners should NOT
> |> be attempting to do any complex conversions unless it _knows_ the display
> |> cannot do what it is getting over the air.
> |>
> |
> | Look, moron. They do know. All (as in _ALL_) STBs have selectable output
> | geometry. The intelligent user (unlike yourself who is neither auser or
> | intelligent) will set the STB to produce the geometry that looks best on
> | their display. The STB will then convert everything to match the output
> | geometry. Internal tuners don't need that setting for obvious reasons.
>
> This is proof that you post totally new things to attack people personally.
> A couple people have tried to defend you. They simply cannot in the face
> of your actual attitude problems.

Look, if you don't want to be called a moron, stop posting like a moron.

> | With reasonably good, and increasingly inexpensive, scalars it makes
> | good sense to have a simple display and a good scalar. This is
> | especially true for fixed pixel displays, a point you continue to
> | deliberately ignore.
>
> Good scalers in consumer products? An agile display is cheaper.
>

Once again you post proof of your ignorance. Please explain how a fixed
pixel display can be "agile".

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:32:57 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:32:29 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | Jeff Rife wrote:
> |> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |>
> |>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
> |>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
> |>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
> |>
> |>
> |> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
> |> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
> |>
> |> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
> |> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.
> |>
> |> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
> |> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
> |>
> |
> | But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
> | have set the entire DTV industry straight.
>
> They didn't need to ask me. They could have asked engineers in the
> computer industry.
>

They did. The computer geeks wanted nothing to do with interlaced
displays because they aren't bandwidth limited. If they had had their
way there would be no 1080i and quite possibly no HDTV at all.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:34:03 PM

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

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:32:57 -0400, Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:32:29 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>| Jeff Rife wrote:
>>|> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>|>
>>|>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
>>|>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
>>|>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
>>|>
>>|>
>>|> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
>>|> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
>>|>
>>|> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
>>|> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.
>>|>
>>|> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
>>|> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
>>|>
>>|
>>| But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
>>| have set the entire DTV industry straight.
>>
>> They didn't need to ask me. They could have asked engineers in the
>> computer industry.
>>
>
> They did. The computer geeks wanted nothing to do with interlaced
> displays because they aren't bandwidth limited. If they had had their
> way there would be no 1080i and quite possibly no HDTV at all.

Indeed. It was also the computer industry that convinced the standards
committee to have ATSC be based on square pixels.

Brad Houser
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:54:05 PM

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

Brad Houser wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:32:57 -0400, Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>
>>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:32:29 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>| Jeff Rife wrote:
>>>|> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>>|>
>>>|>>Most of the issues can still be dealt with. For example decent displays
>>>|>>can still be made that will natively operate in the major standard formats
>>>|>>of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.
>>>|>
>>>|>
>>>|> This is very, very hard to do for the majority of displays sold today even
>>>|> if their cost was increased by an order of magnitude.
>>>|>
>>>|> LCD, plasma, DLP, and LCoS can *never* support any interlaced mode
>>>|> "natively". Converting to progressive would be close, though.
>>>|>
>>>|> In addition, all these are fixed-pixel displays, which have *one* native
>>>|> resolution, and everything else must be converted.
>>>|>
>>>|
>>>| But it wouldn't have been that way if he had only been asked. He would
>>>| have set the entire DTV industry straight.
>>>
>>>They didn't need to ask me. They could have asked engineers in the
>>>computer industry.
>>>
>>
>>They did. The computer geeks wanted nothing to do with interlaced
>>displays because they aren't bandwidth limited. If they had had their
>>way there would be no 1080i and quite possibly no HDTV at all.
>
>
> Indeed. It was also the computer industry that convinced the standards
> committee to have ATSC be based on square pixels.
>
> Brad Houser

Of course, if phil-news-nospam had bothered to do the slightest amount
of research (I guess he doesn't know how) he would have found that out.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 9:03:40 PM

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

Brad Houser (bradDOThouser@intel.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Indeed. It was also the computer industry that convinced the standards
> committee to have ATSC be based on square pixels.

Did you forget a smiley?

Eight of the eighteen ATSC modes use non-square pixels. I've seen at least
one of them in real-world use (Fox 16:9 at 704x480), and some of the 4:3
modes are probably in use.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/MoneyToConsultants...
!