Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottnot
OK, following your logic:
1080i/p, which is 1920 x 1080. A 1280 x 720 display which has 1280 pixels across is incapable of resolving a 1920 pixel line. It scales the 1920 pixel line down to 1280, "distorting the image more in the process."
Therefore, if we follow your logic, 720p is not HD either.
Please explain.
|
Yes it is, because there is a standard HD format, 720p, which is 1280 x 720 and that display would fully resolve that signal. I agree, it won't fully resolve a 1920 x 1080 signal, but it will fully resolve other HD signals.
Look, if there was a standard HD format of 1024 x 768, you'd have no argument from me, but there isn't and it's just a simple fact that a 1024 x 768 display cannot fully resolve *any* HD signal from any source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottnot
As for the dictionariazation of the discussion, I would disagree that scaling "distorts" the image; it certainly renders it at a lower resolution, but with proper scaling, does NOT distort it in any meaningful way. Now, using "stretch mode" to get a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 display - that distorts the image; but not scaling.
|
All you have to do is look at an image of something like a fence or venetian blinds or a staircase and you will see the scaled signal is distorted. You will see the fence posts varying in width or the blinds and stairs varying in height as the original pixels are rounded up or down to fit the lower resolution display. This also leads to greater pixelation on angles. It's unavoidable.
The article I'm linking to, in it's entirety, is superb, but I'm just going to isolate this one part to show you what I mean:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...07-part-5.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottnot
I understand your analogy very well, but it doesn't really "prove" anything. I doubt that many owners of 1024 x 768 sets are "fooling themselves" into thinking that they are seeing the entire 1920 x 1080 signal anymore than I believe that I see the whole signal on my 1366 x 768 set. We both understand quite well that we are not viewing it "as well as it could be reproduced", but we find it satisfactory and of sufficient quality to be called HD.
|
I suspect there are many people who bought these "HD" displays without realizing they couldn't fully resolve an HD signal. Neither of us can know for sure, but the average consumer buying an HDTV has little concept of native resolution, scaling, etc. They may be very happy with how the display looks, but they might still get upset if they know they didn't get what they thought they paid for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottnot
Really BobY, couldn't you just preface your comments with "in my opinion" or "IMHO". Because saying that it is not HD is what is confusing to many people, and rightly so.
|
I suppose I am indeed trying to raise a question in the minds of consumers that will lead them to investigate and understand what they are buying rather than being misled by those who stand to profit by their ignorance. If that's "confusing", so be it.
If you want me to say "in my opinion" these are not HD displays, then you need to say "in your opinion" they are, as your view is based on an interpretation I completely disagree with, not on any official specifications.