Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY
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 |
Certainly all good points, and the reference is certainly interesting.
All I would add is that scaling isn't all "black and white" (pardon the pun), there's good scalers and not-so-good scalers; some are, in fact, damn good, and do a pretty good job of minimizing the effects described above. I would say that the scaling issue is much more important with regard to upscaling SD programming to
any HD display, since most people are still watching more SD than HD.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The same category of people also bought 1280 x 720 and 1366 x 768 sets with the same lack of realization. Should they be upset as well? Sorry, I just can't buy that. And, as I have said previously, there's a horde of lawyers out there who would be filing tons of class action suits if there was even a smidgen of merit to the argument that 1024 x 768 is not HD.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Nothing wrong with trying to raise awareness, but I disagree with the use of catagorical statements ("1024 x 768 is
not HD") in lieu of reasoned explanation.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No problem, in the future, I will endeavor to preface myself with "in my opinion" before stating the clear reasons
why it is my belief that there is no basis in fact or specifications to suggest that 1024 x 768 is categorically
not HD.
Frankly, I don't think I am in any manner "interpreting" ATSC standards; rather I am citing them as a basis for my "opinion".