Plasma screen resolution question

BamaPanda

I agree.
That really is a subject that BobY does like to jump on.
I guess all who have bought a 42" PDP with that resolution may need to know they don't have the best there is.
And all this time I thought I was watching HD!

__________________
Everyone is a fan!

Scottnot

It's pretty clear that you have no idea how LCD panels work. Nothing is converted from mV to bits at the display level.
It appears that you are thinking about modulation levels for composite or component analog circuits, since I have never heard of and to the best of my knowlege, there is no such thing as composite digital video or component digital video.

No, the LCD uses a backlight, that is why it is "usually" brigher.
Has nothing to do with applied voltages.

BobY

I jump on it because I see no reason people should be misled by manufacturers who are trying to make a buck off them. You could watch an HD signal on a 320 x 200 display, but that still doesn't make it an HD display.

You may not care. Others may not care. But 1024 x 768 is not HD. The ATSC has rigidly defined HD formats, not some vague description of "at least twice the number of lines of SD" (BTW, 768 is not "at least twice the number of lines of SD"). The ATSC is the only body with the authority to say what HD is and so far they say it's at least 1280 x 720 pixels.

Is someone likes how a 1024 x 768 Plasma looks and likes the price, then they should buy it and be happy. But if they are looking for an HDTV and think they are getting a great deal on one, there is no reason they should be misled. They should know that a 1024 x 768 display will only show them 1/3rd the detail of the most common HD format out there, then they can make an informed decision.

It's patently obvious consumers don't understand much about HD and there is much confusion. I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should remain uninformed.

Scottnot

Let's be accurate then; 1024 x 768 is not one of the ATSC defined broadcast formats.

Correct - for broadcast formats.

But, Boby, that IS the ATSC definition of "High-definition television" - that it AFAIK, that is the only definition that ATSC has ever put forth regarding display resolution.
Now, if you are unhappy with the vagueness of their definition, please bring it up with them.

Indeed, and neither is 720 . . . besides, it doesn't have to be "at least twice as much", only needs to be "approximately" . . . according to ATSC.

For broadcast, yes.
For display, NO!

Agreed, so let's not add to the confusion, please.

BobY

Misleading people may make things easier, but doesn't reduce confusion.

The ATSC specs don't apply only to broadcast, they are definitions of HD formats and as such are also used to define standards for interface chips (like DVI/HDMI transceivers), Video DSP chips, Computer graphics cards, Hi-Def disc players, HD DVR's, HD Video Game consoles, etc.

Read the ATSC docs--the quote you provided is not a definition of HD, it's a description. It's like the difference between saying "a mile is 5280 feet" and "a mile is longer than a yard". There is no industry-wide, officially accepted and recognized definition of what constitutes an HD display. Absent that we can either let it mean whatever anyone wants it to mean whenever it suits their agenda, or we can do something sensible, like base it on the industry-wide, officially accepted and recognized definition of what constitutes an HD signal.

Unless you have a warehouse full of 1024 x 768 displays to sell, I'm not sure why anybody has an issue with me pointing out that a 1024 x 768 display, no matter how good it may look, it utterly incapable of resolving any HD signal. If that doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but what value is there in leaving people with the impression that it can?

BamaPanda

Now I am a bit confused. I thought there was one digital signal being sent out, from whatever the source might be - whether it be a broadcaster such as ABC, NBC etc - to Dish, Direct, cable companies etc.

That digital signal will be SD to HD, right? The TV will resolve as much detail as it can - right? My 720P set (1024x768) will resolve a 1080i signal (to progressive, of course), or a 720P signal, or even a 480P or i signal.

As I said before, it is a shame that the signal being sent out is not referred to as digital, and then label the TV's in the resolution or detail level that they are capable of resolving that signal to.

I have been searching a bit on this, and I am not a technician -BUT - HD is defined in many different ways ...such as by the number of vertical lines being at least 720, thus defining HD without really considering the horizontal lines ..to a totally different standard in other countries, such as Australia.

It is obvious that the ATSC - to you, BobY - is saying what you proclaim. It is also obvious that others read the same documents, and come to different conclusions.

What a predicament!

Edit:
As for being misleading, the whole industry is so full of crap as far as concise info that the normal consumer can understand that it almost seems deliberate to keep the confusion factor as high as possible!

__________________
Everyone is a fan!

BobY

That's precisely why I think it is sensible to use the ATSC standards. The ATSC is not simply a broadcast organization nor simply a manufacturer organization--in their own words:

The ATSC "is an international, non-profit organization developing voluntary standards for digital television. The ATSC member organizations represent the broadcast, broadcast equipment, motion picture, consumer electronics, computer, cable, satellite, and semiconductor industries. ATSC creates and fosters implementation of voluntary Standards and Recommended Practices to advance terrestrial digital television broadcasting, and to facilitate interoperability with other media."

By virtue of being recognized by the FCC in the US and the various regulatory agencies of other countries, it is a quasi-governmental body with officially delegated authority. This is not true of any other organization associated with HD.

Your approach to clarifying things is a great idea. The CE industry will never do it, as it won't allow them to mislead consumers if they want to.

Realistically, though, saying a display will resolve a signal to whatever the display is capable of has always been true. It's just like those specs for audio equipment that list frequency response as 20Hz to 20KHz and don't list the deviation (like +/- 3dB). They can say it's 20Hz to 20KHz, even if the deviation is +3/-40dB. It's intentionally misleading without being technically inaccurate.

I have a good telescope that can resolve the rings of Saturn. I also have a cheap spotting scope that will also resolve the rings of Saturn--it resolves them as a flat, indistinguishable blur, but it still resolves them. Should I be able to advertise the two scopes as equivalent? Suppose we said any telescope that can resolve the rings of Saturn is "HD", should I be able to say they are both "HD" scopes?

Scottnot

Agreed, so why start telling folks who have purchased 1024 x 768 sets that they don't have HD - wow, talk about confusion.

I have read (a great deal, certainly not every word) of the ATSC docs.
Funny, the quote is in Part 1, Section 3; the title of which is "Definitions" .
So, how then is it NOT a definition? The ATSC seems to think it IS a definition.

Other than by default and historically 1024 x 768 has been "accepted" as HD by both industry and consumers; and since 1024 x 768 was for years the most common display resolution for plasma sets, why confuse the consumer at this point.

As I stated above, I think there is a rather clear industry-wide and consumer accepted definition of what constitutes HD, and it seems to work well. I mean, I haven't seen any slick manufacturer trying to introduce a 1024 x 576 HD TV, so why worry.

Now, if you feel strongly that the industry has been misleading and the consumers have been duped, you can certainly write to all the manufacturers who have offended, write your congressman, write to the ATSC, or bring a class action lawsuit. But in the meantime . . . .

Huh??????
"incapable of resolving"???????
You're kidding, right?

1080PsF

I’m sorry I didn’t mean for you to ever think that I was talking about the display converting the signal from mV to bits. When I was talking about converting the signal I meant either at the camera or an A to D on a VTR. Yes, you are right when the signal gets to the display it is already bits but the monitor then converts those bits back to voltage because that is how an LED lights up is by volts not bits. Bits are just a binary value so that the picture that was captured will be displayed the same on all monitors.
Well I guess if YOU (Scott) have never heard of composite and component digital video there must be no such thing. Why don’t you talk about things that you might know something about instead of blowing hot air about things you have no clue about.
CCIR-601 is the definition for parallel component digital (656 is for serial component digital). 4fsc is the way composite digital works (that is 4 times the frequency of sub-carrier). But how can I ever think that you would know anything about this when a lot of the people that I work with don’t even understand this stuff.

BobY

Why would you think I'm kidding? There are two format resolutions in use for HD signals:

1) 720p, which is 1280 x 720. A display with 1024 pixels across is incapable of resolving a 1280 pixel line. It scales the 1280 pixels down to 1024, distorting the image in the process.

2) 1080i/p, which is 1920 x 1080. A display with 1024 pixels across is incapable of resolving a 1920 pixel line. It scales the 1920 pixels down to 1024, distorting the image even more in the process.

A 1024 x 768 display is only capable of resolving 1/3rd the pixels in a 1080i signal, by far the most commonly used HD format.

It's really no different than having a set of speakers with a frequency response of 50Hz-12KHz. Sure, you can play a 20Hz-20KHz signal through it, you may even like the sound if it, but you are fooling yourself if you think you are hearing the whole signal as well as it could be reproduced.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scottnot

Good, because that it the point of the discussion and the point of achieving "black levels" on any fixed pixel display. There are no voltages associated with this, only "on" bits and "off" bits. (of course, the bits are turned on and off by "logic levels" which are indeed voltages; but the differenece between the on state and the off state can be any chosen logic circuitry - TTL, DTL, etc., and do not discriminate minor voltage changes).

" . . that is how LED lights up . . " But we're not talking about LEDs; we're talking about LCD or Plasma fixed pixel displays.
In any event, not correct. As noted above, sure, the signal bits are converted to screen driver bits both of which are voltages, just at different levels; but the screen driver bits are on/off logic levels, not analog voltages. In the case of fixed pixel screen adjustment, there are no screen voltage adjustments per se, only pixels turned "on" or "off". There are not "dimmed" pixels or individual pixel brightness controls - each individual pixel is either ON or OFF. With an 8-bit display this results in 256 gray scale values and 16,777,216 colors all achieved without any dimming, only on/off.

Needless to say, there is a big difference between "fixed pixel screen display" and encoding methods for transmission. Why you are bringing up the later is a mystery and certainly can contribute nothing to any discussion of fixed pixel display "black level" or contrast ratio.
I think I am talking about something that I understand a bit better than you, however.

BobY

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.

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

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.

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.

Scottnot

First, your original rationalization in Post #25 appeared to have only the requirement that an "HD Display" be able to fully resolve, without any scaling. And that any need for scaling results in "distorting the image in the process".

When that didn't work, you added an additional requirement to your rationalization (Post #26) . . . saying, and I paraphrase: "Well, sure, a 1280 x 720 HDTV will not "fully resolve" a 1920 x 1080 signal either, but thats ok, because 1280 x 720 is one of the standard ATSC defined broadcast formats.

So, let's see, seems that you have now modified your original implied requirement that for a display to be considered HD, it must be able to "fully resolve" HD signals to, the condition that it only be able to "fully resolve" "any" HD signal from any source. Suggesting, of course that we can throw out and ignore all that mumbo jumbo regarding how scaling "distorts the image in the process", because, certainly a 1920 x 1080 broadcast format signal displayed on a 1280 x 720 set must scale the image, and you certainly accept that 1280 x 720 is HD.

But, wait, there is still a problem with the logic here, because per your new definition, in order for a display to be considered HD, it's ok to scale the image but only if it scales it to one of the standard HD broadcast formats.

Well, that puzzles me again. You see, I've got this TV, and damn if it doesn't have a 1366 x 768 display. Now, when I input a 1080 signal to my set, not only must it scale that image to fit my display, but wouldn't you know, it does NOT scale it to ANY ATSC standard HD broadcast formats!! Wow, I guess I don't have a HDTV either.

Sorry BobY, your definitions of what can be an HD display just don't work.
Seems it would be best to stick with the ATSC definition provided in
Standards, A/53, Part 1, Section 3 (Definitions), SubSection 3.3 (Terms Employed) which clearly states that and contains the following definition: I really gotta point out that ATSC really thinks that this is a definition and not a "description", as you have so often claimed, for what reason(s) I can only guess at.
And, since ATSC has never, to my knowledge, spoken further on this issue, it would seem that, as a governing body, they are comfortable both with their definition and the results of their definition both in terms of products marketed and consumer acceptance and satisfaction.

Scottnot

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.


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.


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.

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".