Half Empty or half full? Why 768x1024 is HD

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 04:36 PM

Buddy, you are and was proven wrong. They go by vertical scan lines and 720p is the minimum.
Most fixed pixel displays scale anyway, not the issue here.

"Remember, TVs are measured on the diagonal: The width of the screen changes, while its height remains more or less constant. Thus, it is the number of pixels on the vertical axis that really determines how much detail is visible."
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html
1024x768 is HD
"A 42-inch flat-panel plasma display, for example, comes in at least two resolution "sizes": 854 x 480 (called ED) and 1024 x 768 (called HD)."

The articles are not in conflict. You are talking about interlaced scan lines, 1080i, they are 540 odd then 540 even, they are never together so it's really 540.
The 720p format is better for two reasons, you get 720 at once, a painted picture and 720p has 60 frames per second,1080 has 30.
This debate was about if a 1024 set was HD, as equal to the 720p signal.
Now we know that the detail of HD is measured in vertical lines and the set is 768.
The day that this 1024x768 set is not considered HD, is when 720p is no longer considered HD.
I believe that article said that 720p is still HD quality.
They may be laying the ground for a 1080p marketing promotion. If anyone falls into that........ LOL.
First of all like my article says below, at an average distance you can hardly perceive 1366x768 with the human eyes.

720p better than 1080p
"at the average viewing distance, with the average size of consumer HDTV sets, the human eye would not actually be able to perceive the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p. This is because the 720p image "saturates" the perceivable resolution of the eye at this distance"
http://www.witwib.com/720p

Actually here is another article that says 720p is better than the 1080 interlaced signal you described.
This site says that 720p is HD and 1080i is HDTV as defined. Most of the 1080i signals is really 1035x1440

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/DTV_Bandwidths.htm

Interlaced sets are going bye bye, and I don't think any major broadcasters are going to transmit 1080p. That is going to be for games and blue ray They don't even have a set that can receive 1080p from a set top right now. It's all augmented up conversions & again, you can percieve 60 frames per second & 60 frames is better than 1080p's 24
"humans can perceive up to 60+ fps".
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

But really cant tell the difference between 1080p & 720p

John C · 02-20-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weberman

1366X768 is the minimum resolution to be considered HD and it also has a 16X9 aspect ratio.

Are you suggesting that the 1280x720 ATSC 720P signal is therefore NOT HD? I think you will find very little support for that position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weberman

1920X1080 is a true 16X9 aspect ratio. It also exceeds the minimum requirements to be called HD which is at least twice the resolution of SD.

No such "twice" requirement exists. In the ATSC specification it says that "High definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of a conventional television...." The word "approximately" is very important and it allows for some wiggle room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weberman

As explained in my prior post 1024X768 is a 4X3 aspect ratio and does not meet the requirements to be true HD.

That would be a true statement, not because of the resolution but rather because the specification does explicitly require a 16:9 picture aspect ratio. To the best of my knowledge, it does not explicitly require square pixels and therefore the ratio between horizontal and verticle resolutions is not required to be 16:9 so long as the overal picture itself is 16:9. So long as a 1024x768 television does have a total picture that is 16:9, I continue to believe it qualifies as HD under the applicable standards.

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 04:51 PM

They talk out their ass!
Show the articles like I showed LOL!!!!

HELLO READ...
"and 1024 x 768 (called HD).""
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 05:04 PM

Sorry ZEDD,
To answer your question, they go by vertical scan lines.

That is why 768x1024 is HD.

It's All In the (Vertical) Resolution.
" Remember, TVs are measured on the diagonal: The width of the screen changes, while its height remains more or less constant. Thus, it is the number of pixels on the vertical axis that really determines how much detail is visible."
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html

and that is from the bible site of plasmas.

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 05:18 PM

oops,
they are even calling the Sony 768x1024 HD.
WOW, I cant find one 1024x768 called EDTV. Why is that?
Model: Sony KE-42XBR950 Plasma Television
Description: 42-inch HDTV Plasma Display, Widescreen 16:9 Format
Resolution: 1024 x 768
http://www.highdefforum.com/showthre...979#post118979

Why is everyone so misinformed? LOL!!!

tanaka · 02-20-2006, 05:19 PM

The people who are trying to say that 768x1024 is HD have provided numerous links/proof to back up there argument, especially sole survivor. Do you guys on the other side of the argument have anything to back you up besides your personal opinion?

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 05:50 PM

Thanks,
Should be called a day, but I was waitin for Ward.
I wanna see the kind of guy he is now.

They should save this thread as a precedent
1024 x 768 IS HD

Samsung must be misleading too
SAMSUNG PPM-42H3 42" 1024x768 HD PLASMA

http://www.plasmacity.com/PLASMA_DIS...NG/PPM42H3.htm

zedd · 02-20-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weberman

To repeat:

A 1024x768 resolution has a 4x3 aspect ratio (The math is 1024 divided by 4 times 3 equals 768 or if you prefer 768 divided by 3 times 4 equals 1024) and therefore cannot be HD because HD has to have a 16x9 aspect ratio. The 1024X768 display has rectangular shaped pixels that allows the 4x3 1024x768 resolution to be scaled to cover the 16x9 display area required for HD.

The math is what they are refusing, indeed 1024x768 or wrongly listed as put 768x1024 IS 4:3 in resolution. That is why i posted the equation so they could figure it out for themselfs and even so, if they like it thats all that matters. These guys act like they are selling the damn things, and who would buy anything below hidef resolutions anyway? Including ED, present company excepted..of course

zedd · 02-20-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanaka

The people who are trying to say that 768x1024 is HD have provided numerous links/proof to back up there argument, especially sole survivor. Do you guys on the other side of the argument have anything to back you up besides your personal opinion?

MATHAMATICS

John C · 02-20-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zedd

The math is what they are refusing, indeed 1024x768 or wrongly listed as put 768x1024 IS 4:3 in resolution. That is why i posted the equation so they could figure it out for themselfs and even so, if they like it thats all that matters. These guys act like they are selling the damn things, and who would buy anything below hidef resolutions anyway? Including ED, present company excepted..of course

As discussed above, the pixel ratio of 1024x768 is, in fact, a 4:3 pixel ratio. However, the HD standards call for a 16:9 picture ratio, not pixel ratio. Most HD sets and signals use a 19:9 pixel ratio as well because it provides square pixels and equal amounts of horizontal and vertical resolution. But the HD standard does not actually require square pixels. 1024x768 can be presented in a 16:9 picture so long as the pixels are rectangular to address the inherent mismatch.

zedd · 02-20-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John C

Most HD sets and signals use a 19:9 pixel ratio pixels

Im a bit confused here, pixel ratio or aspect ratio? Regardless of i have not seen this referal in any reference material. Im curious to read up on it, where might i find it?

John C · 02-20-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zedd

Im a bit confused here, pixel ratio or aspect ratio? Regardless of i have not seen this referal in any reference material. Im curious to read up on it, where might i find it?

Obviously I meant 16:9. Ooops.

The pixel ratio is simply the ratio of horizontal to verticle pixels.

The picture ratio is the ratio of the horizontal to verticle measurements of the screen.

For HD formats, to the best of what I have been able to decipher from my various readings, the aspect ration is referring to the picture ratio, not the pixel ratio.

If you have 4 pixels across and 3 down and you space them evenly, then the screen will be 4:3 as well. If you space those same pixels unevenly, then you can make the picture pretty much any dimentions or ratio you desire - though the more it change from the native pixel ratio the worse the picture will look and you "lose" resolution in one dimension.

I am not sure about references for all of this except to say that weberman had a pretty nifty chart HERE. You will see that several formats, especially the 16:9 wide screen ED ones, include rectagular pixels to adjust for the fact that the signal is not natively 16:9.

The actual ATSC DTV standards that govern all of these formats are available on the web at http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53c_amend-1_corr-1.pdf

S0LE_SURVIV0R · 02-20-2006, 08:34 PM

Everyone was lying.
Every site selling a 768x1024 set and the review at the HD plasma buying guide.
"854 x 480 (called ED) and 1024 x 768 (called HD)
That was lie too. We believe all lies. OK, with no proof, we will disbelieve all we read and say, yea you're right. It's not HD. They all wrong and your right.
Sue them all, every site selling them calling them HDTV, go on 60 minutes LOL! Sue Panosonic, LG, Sony, Pioneer, Samsung, Magnavox all of them for false advertising.

The site was wrong that said detail is mesured by the vertical pixel count. Sue him to. Sue them all.

tanaka · 02-20-2006, 08:55 PM

zedd wrote:

"MATHAMATICS"

I don't question your "mathamatics". I question how you interpret the numbers you come up with. Everyone here knows the "mathamatics". The arguement comes down to how everyone interprets the numbers being thrown around.

Im still waiting for some proof, links, whatever, to back you up.

Your Opinion + no proof=
Sole Survivor + his over 15 different sources=

FSTFUGGER · 02-20-2006, 09:14 PM

Instead of wasting all that time going for proof like I, and many of us have before, lets just be like ward.

42" plasmas can be HD, and thats a fact. Case closed. you can debate this all you want, but its still a fact. I have no proof, but who needs proof. Im me, and thats all the proof I need. The talking head has spoken. Its now ok for the moderators to lock this thread.

Wow, that was easy.

02-20-2006, 04:36 PM	#46
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	Buddy, you are and was proven wrong. They go by vertical scan lines and 720p is the minimum. Most fixed pixel displays scale anyway, not the issue here. "Remember, TVs are measured on the diagonal: The width of the screen changes, while its height remains more or less constant. Thus, it is the number of pixels on the vertical axis that really determines how much detail is visible." http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html 1024x768 is HD "A 42-inch flat-panel plasma display, for example, comes in at least two resolution "sizes": 854 x 480 (called ED) and 1024 x 768 (called HD)." The articles are not in conflict. You are talking about interlaced scan lines, 1080i, they are 540 odd then 540 even, they are never together so it's really 540. The 720p format is better for two reasons, you get 720 at once, a painted picture and 720p has 60 frames per second,1080 has 30. This debate was about if a 1024 set was HD, as equal to the 720p signal. Now we know that the detail of HD is measured in vertical lines and the set is 768. The day that this 1024x768 set is not considered HD, is when 720p is no longer considered HD. I believe that article said that 720p is still HD quality. They may be laying the ground for a 1080p marketing promotion. If anyone falls into that........ LOL. First of all like my article says below, at an average distance you can hardly perceive 1366x768 with the human eyes. 720p better than 1080p "at the average viewing distance, with the average size of consumer HDTV sets, the human eye would not actually be able to perceive the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p. This is because the 720p image "saturates" the perceivable resolution of the eye at this distance" http://www.witwib.com/720p Actually here is another article that says 720p is better than the 1080 interlaced signal you described. This site says that 720p is HD and 1080i is HDTV as defined. Most of the 1080i signals is really 1035x1440 http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/DTV_Bandwidths.htm Interlaced sets are going bye bye, and I don't think any major broadcasters are going to transmit 1080p. That is going to be for games and blue ray They don't even have a set that can receive 1080p from a set top right now. It's all augmented up conversions & again, you can percieve 60 frames per second & 60 frames is better than 1080p's 24 "humans can perceive up to 60+ fps". http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html But really cant tell the difference between 1080p & 720p __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television" Last edited by S0LE_SURVIV0R; 02-20-2006 at 04:48 PM.

02-20-2006, 04:51 PM	#48
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	They talk out their ass! Show the articles like I showed LOL!!!! HELLO READ... "and 1024 x 768 (called HD)."" http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television" Last edited by S0LE_SURVIV0R; 02-20-2006 at 04:56 PM.

02-20-2006, 05:04 PM	#49
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	Sorry ZEDD, To answer your question, they go by vertical scan lines. That is why 768x1024 is HD. It's All In the (Vertical) Resolution. " Remember, TVs are measured on the diagonal: The width of the screen changes, while its height remains more or less constant. Thus, it is the number of pixels on the vertical axis that really determines how much detail is visible." http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html and that is from the bible site of plasmas. __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television"

02-20-2006, 05:18 PM	#50
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	oops, they are even calling the Sony 768x1024 HD. WOW, I cant find one 1024x768 called EDTV. Why is that? Model: Sony KE-42XBR950 Plasma Television Description: 42-inch HDTV Plasma Display, Widescreen 16:9 Format Resolution: 1024 x 768 http://www.highdefforum.com/showthre...979#post118979 Why is everyone so misinformed? LOL!!! __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television"

02-20-2006, 05:19 PM	#51
tanaka Paradigm Studios' Babey! Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 210	Just an observation... The people who are trying to say that 768x1024 is HD have provided numerous links/proof to back up there argument, especially sole survivor. Do you guys on the other side of the argument have anything to back you up besides your personal opinion?

02-20-2006, 05:50 PM	#52
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	Thanks, Should be called a day, but I was waitin for Ward. I wanna see the kind of guy he is now. They should save this thread as a precedent 1024 x 768 IS HD Samsung must be misleading too SAMSUNG PPM-42H3 42" 1024x768 HD PLASMA http://www.plasmacity.com/PLASMA_DIS...NG/PPM42H3.htm __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television" Last edited by S0LE_SURVIV0R; 02-20-2006 at 06:05 PM.

02-20-2006, 08:34 PM	#58
S0LE_SURVIV0R Watch this in HD! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Boston Age: 45 Posts: 287	Everyone was lying. Every site selling a 768x1024 set and the review at the HD plasma buying guide. "854 x 480 (called ED) and 1024 x 768 (called HD) That was lie too. We believe all lies. OK, with no proof, we will disbelieve all we read and say, yea you're right. It's not HD. They all wrong and your right. Sue them all, every site selling them calling them HDTV, go on 60 minutes LOL! Sue Panosonic, LG, Sony, Pioneer, Samsung, Magnavox all of them for false advertising. The site was wrong that said detail is mesured by the vertical pixel count. Sue him to. Sue them all. __________________ Sony 40 LCD flat panel XBR & Panasonic 37 768p Plasma HD TIVO The human eye can barely perceive a 1366x768 resolution 10 feet away from a 50 inch see http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm 720p Fastest & Best Temporal Resolution Sony "The world's greatest high definition television"

02-20-2006, 08:55 PM	#59
tanaka Paradigm Studios' Babey! Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 210	zedd wrote: "MATHAMATICS" I don't question your "mathamatics". I question how you interpret the numbers you come up with. Everyone here knows the "mathamatics". The arguement comes down to how everyone interprets the numbers being thrown around. Im still waiting for some proof, links, whatever, to back you up. Your Opinion + no proof= Sole Survivor + his over 15 different sources= Last edited by tanaka; 02-20-2006 at 08:59 PM.

02-20-2006, 09:14 PM	#60
FSTFUGGER Panasonic "ED" Plasma! Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 94	Instead of wasting all that time going for proof like I, and many of us have before, lets just be like ward. 42" plasmas can be HD, and thats a fact. Case closed. you can debate this all you want, but its still a fact. I have no proof, but who needs proof. Im me, and thats all the proof I need. The talking head has spoken. Its now ok for the moderators to lock this thread. Wow, that was easy. __________________ Panasonic TH-42PD50U Plasma Yamaha YHT-360 Home Theater Xbox 360 Premium