Plasma screen resolution question

edders

I agree with LCD's having somewhat washed out blacks...even the best of them. And as usual you did a good job with the resolution Boby.

The person may want to consider power consumption. I know that does not seem important to many people, but it was a factor for us. My lady friend spends a lot of time in bed watching tv, due to health. While I like the picture of Plasma's we found out that they consume a lot more power than a LCD of the same size, that was the deciding factor for us.

We're not part of the British Plasma ban, just trying to be a bit green.

Ed in Sacrilegious Tomato

BobY

I'm just going to repost my response to you in another thread, as it covers all your points:

You are, in fact, interpreting the ATSC standard to suit your own opinion, as evidenced by the following:

1) You cite the vague "Term Employed" description of HDTV in the Definition section of the spec.

2) I have shown there is a much more specific definition in the ATSC document "A/54A: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard"--the document which tells readers how to interpret he ATSC Digital Televison Standard.

3) Your citation contains the phrase "approximately twice that of conventional television", which is inherently subjective and open to interpetation. My subjective opinion is 720 lines is not approximately twice that of conventional television, yet since the ATSC defines one of the two HDTV formats as 1280 x 720, then it's clear even the ATSC does not consider the "approximately" definition to be "definitive".

I agree some scalers are better than others, but it's impossible to avoid distortion when scaling and the more scaling the more distortion. It's very easy to understand why. A pixel is either on or off (or one color or another color). If a particular detail is one pixel wide in a 1920-pixel line, when scaled down to 1024 pixels, the detail will either disappear completely ("falling between the cracks" of the 1024-pixel line) or it will be extended to one full pixel of the 1024-pixel line, nearly doubling the size of the detail compared to how it looked in the original signal.

As the article I linked to demonstrates, upscaling is far less problematic than downscaling--at it's worst, upscaling merely results in a softening of the picture, not pixelation and artifacts.

One may argue that they really don't care, especially for the price, and that's fine, but others do care and prefer to spend their money on an HD display that can actually reslove an HD signal, not simply a display that looks good with an HD signal. HD even looks better on an SD display than SD on an SD display, but that doesn't make an SD display an HD display.

If a person wants to see the difference, compare side-by-side any 42" 1024 x 768 Plasma with a Panasonic 42" 1920 x 1080 Plasma on a good HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc with the player set to 1080i/p, or hook up a computer or PS3/XBOX 360 at 1920 x 1080. Then they can decide for themselves whether the difference they see is worth the price, rather than someone deciding for them by not telling them the whole story.

Scottnot

Indeed, I have cited from a source (ATSC Standards) the exact term(s) which are used by ATSC in their definition of High-definition television. To whatever extent you are able to view this as "intreprerting" is somewhat beyond me.
I notice that you, on the other hand, have again "thrown" in the word "description", in some attempt, I imagine to obfuscate the facts and content of the ATSC standard to better serve your opinion.

Yes, you did indeed cite A54A, as follows: The first thing that I notice is that you put forth your citation as a "definition" when you wrote that "The ATSC document A54/A: . . . . contains this definition of HDTV". Ok, it's nice that you agree with what I have said all along; that it is a definition, not a description; and since we both agree on this point there is no need to obfuscate further as to the difference between definition and description, nor to worry about whether the use of the phrase "Terms Employed" in the same manner in both documents is or is not "vague".

Also, I think is is no less an acceptable definition that the similar definition contained in A/53.

Let's see, the first half of the A/53 definition states that: Well, if you're happy with that, so am I; it basically replaces "approximately twice" with "significantly improved", and "conventional television" with "conventional (analog NTSC) television". I see no problem with this.

Now, the second half of the A/53 definition provides that Great, (to use your phrase) that's pretty specific; it specifically points out that it "enables transmission of HDTV pictures . . . (in) one of two picture formats;" It is quite specifically addressing the transmission of HD content - there is clearly no mention of display resolution, nor any implied reference to it that I can see.

And let's be realistic here; even if one were to insist that the first half of the definition and the second half were equally relavent to any display requirement, then one would have to further accept that 1366 x 768 must be excluded from the ATSC definition of HDTV as well. mmmm, quite a conundrum I would say.

Perhaps the ATSC chose the phrases "approximately twice" in my citation and "significatly improved" in your citation for a reason, one of which could be to not restrict the rapid development of marketable displays for consumer purchase, and to leave the final determination to the market.

And, it could be that the ATSC felt the phrase "approximately twice" was, in fact too "definitive" and too restrictive, and so chose to relax the definition a bit to be only "significantly improved", thereby eliminating the possible confusion or restrictive requirement of the word "twice" and eliminting the issue of whether 720 is approximately twice that of conventional television, but suggesting that it is significantly improved.

Great, if you choose to refer to this aspect of scaling as "distortion", that is fine as well. Only now, the "degree of distortion" becomes quite subjective and difficult to define. Anyway, the "distortion" issue is hardly specific to 1024 x 768 displays nor should it be more of an issue with these displays than any others.

After a second reading of the article, I still did not get the same reading as you are suggesting here.

You're playing that silly word game again, suggesting that there is some inherent difference between "actually resolving an HD signal" and "a display that looks good with an HD signal. BobY, per your own "definitions", a 1366 x 768 display cannot resolve a 1920 x 1080 HD signal althought it can certainly make it look pretty darn good, so what can be your point

Good lord man, of course I expect people to be able, under the correct conditions, to be able to see the difference between a 1024 x 768, and a 1366 x 768, and a 1920 x 1080 display. That's what pricing an buying decisions are all about, but in no way does this someone seeing a difference mean that the less favored is not HD.

Anyway, I'll end my side of this with something that I posted earlier somewhere. Then I'm outa here . . .

The issue of 1204 x 768 sets not being HD had any merit at all it is certain that the hordes of lawyers in this country would have jumped on it long ago with a massive class action suit against all manufacturer's who sold such sets as HDTVs. Since the lawyers are pretty damn smart, know how to read standards, specifications and definitions; and since they have not jumped on the $$$$$ band wagon, it stand to reason that the position simply has no merit.

BobY

Well, like I said, we're never going to agree on the interpretation (and neither are those who agree with me or those who agree with you)--it's a long-standing debate that will end when manufacturers finally stop making these displays and then have to change their marketing to promote the fact that their new displays are "True HD" or whatever.

Of *course* you are interpreting. It's impossible not to, given that "approximately" and "significantly improved" are subjective evaluations. And, of *course* the "definition" you cite is vague, since it is non-specific (and therefore does not meet the definition of a "definition", regardless of what heading it falls under in the document, but I don't want to play your word games any more than you want to play mine).

Obviously you consider 1024 to be "approximately twice" 640, and 768 to be "approximately twice" 480. I don't. It's subjective. You are not "right" and I am not "wrong". Given that it is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, I prefer to go with specifics, as did the ATSC in document A54a.

There is no conundrum with calling displays of 1280 x 720, 1280 x 768 or 1366 x 768 HD--they are all capable of fully resolving one of the standard HD signal, 720p (1280 x 720). 1024 x 768 is not capable of fully resolving any standard HD signal.

You really need to get off the "transmission means OTA" kick. An HD DVD player "transmits" an HD signal to an HDTV over HDMI or Component Video. The ATSC standards for Digital Television are all-encompassing. I have never said that the ATSC has the authority to say what a display is or isn't, but they have the officlal authority to define what an HD signal is and since there is no authorized, official, specific definition of an HD display, it only makes sense to me to require that any display called HD should be able to fully resolve an HD signal and not simply look "significantly better" than an SD display. Sony's Super-Fine pitch SD CRT's looked "significantly better" than most SD displays. My Philips progressive-scan IDTV from 1989 looked "significantly better" than most SD displays. I guess they were all HDTV's, what a marketing goof!

I just don't understand why anyone (other than manufacturers of 1024 x 768 displays) wants to promote the idea that these sets are HD when they are incapable of fully resolving any standard HD signal. Is it that people who bought these sets don't want to face the fact that even though they like them, they really can't see an HD signal on them in HD quality (as defined by the ATSC as well, and cited in your example)?

Scottnot

Just gotta comment on BobY's two big points:

Fully resolved; as inandGreat, so "it only makes sense to" you sounds extremely "interpretive" and of considerable license. I can as readily say that it "makes no sense to me" quite simply because I am unable to find the term "fully resolved" anywhere within the ATSC standards, so I assume this is a criteria that is of no mention to the ATSC and to "impose" it would be inappropriate or indicate a considerable interpretive bias.
And, it makes no logical sense whatever to impose "fully resolved" on a "limited" basis; as in; well, 1024 x 768 can't "fully resolve" any HD formats, so it's not HD; but, although 1366 x 768 cannot "fully resolve" both of the HD formats, it can "fully resolve" one them, so it can be allowed to be called HD. Really, that is a just plain silly argument and again requires considerable interpretive and logical license. Or to put it another way - it just don't pass the common sense test!

And your suggestion that:You really need to get off the "transmission means OTA" kick. is, by gosh amazing. If you can cite any post in this discussion where I have used the term "OTA", that would be helpful. The last reference I made along these lines was: and I don't see any use of the term OTA there, nor can I find that I have used the term at any time in this discussion, so what could you be talking about? Perhaps I have, on occasion used the terms "broadcast" and "transmission" interchangably, however the fact remains that whether the specifications are for "broadcast" or "transmission", there is no indication in the standards that these specifications should or can be linked to "display resolution".

BobY

Not at all. "Fully resolving" simply means having it work to the standard. I expect every product I buy, no matter what it is, to do what it's supposed to do. So do most people. Of course the ATSC documents don't make such a statement, they presume the standard will be followed, else why bother with a standard?

Perhaps not *your* "common sense" test. I leave it up to the readers to decide if it's "common sense" that something called an HD display is utterly incapable of displaying all of the information in *any* HD signal.

I'm not applying "fully resolved" on a limited basis. A 1366 x 768 display is capable of fully resolving an HD signal--720p. That it doesn't fully resolve a 1080i/p signal doesn't alter the fact that it does fully resolve a 720p HD signal and that a 1024 x 768 display does not fully resolve any HD signal. Ever. Under any circumstances.

That's a big difference--the difference between some and none.

You are missing the emphasis. It's not that in order for a display to be called HD I think it has to fully resolve all HD signals, rather it has to be able to fully resolve some signal that is defined as HD. A 1024 x 768 display cannot do that.

[Sorry, please substitute "Broadcast" in place of "OTA" as in you really need to get off the "transmission means Broadcast" kick. The ATSC standards are not, in any way, limited to broadcasting. It's DTV, whether it's broadcast, cable, satellite, HD camcorder, HD disc player, computer graphics card, video game console or displays--the ATSC defines the signal format and what HD is as a result. My use of the wrong term does not change anything I said, but thank you for pointing out my bad.

1080PsF

This is from Wikipedia "When a voltage is applied across the electrodes, a torque acts to align the liquid crystal molecules parallel to the electric field, distorting the helical structure (this is resisted by elastic forces since the molecules are constrained at the surfaces). This reduces the rotation of the polarization of the incident light, and the device appears gray. If the applied voltage is large enough, the liquid crystal molecules in the center of the layer are almost completely untwisted and the polarization of the incident light is not rotated as it passes through the liquid crystal layer. This light will then be mainly polarized perpendicular to the second filter, and thus be blocked and the pixel will appear black. By controlling the voltage applied across the liquid crystal layer in each pixel, light can be allowed to pass through in varying amounts thus constituting different levels of gray."

"Twisted nematic displays contain liquid crystal elements which twist and untwist at varying degrees to allow light to pass through. When no voltage is applied to a TN liquid crystal cell, the light is polarized to pass through the cell. In proportion to the voltage applied, the LC cells twist up to 90 degrees changing the polarization and blocking the light's path. By properly adjusting the level of the voltage almost any grey level or transmission can be achieved."
Sorry about that I meant LCD. BTW your wrong see above about how LCD's work.
There is no difference between a monitor black level vs. a transmitted black level they both have to be the same otherwise you would never see the picture as it was shot. Why did I bring it up because you had a post that asked "do you know what a black level is?" and I answered yes and I gave it to you in IRE, mV, and binary. And I would have to say the bickering between you and BobY and you and I have done nothing to contribute anything to the discussion of the black level of a monitor.

Scottnot

Agreed. Ergo . . . ended.

Scottnot

You are defining "fully resolved" (your term, not the ATSCs) as "having to work to the standard" (your requirement).
You are making a rather grand assumption that the ATSC somehow agrees with you and that they simply presume that the standards will be followed in accordance with your definitions and requirements.
That's just too much presumption and assumption for me to get my teeth into. I don't think that the ATSC are a bunch of dummies, and if they had wanted to include these requirements they certainly would have very clearly done so; the fact that they have not done so leads me to conclude that what they have written is exactly what was what they intended; no more, no less, no assumptions, no presumptions.

Further, you might want to check Section 9.5 of A/54AAgain, referring to the display, no mention of "fully resolving" but rather a clear reference to "interpolation and format conversion". And no restrictions on the resolution of the "'native' display format of the receiver".
So, are the ATSC really dumb? Are they overly presumptive? Or have they left the issue of display resolution intentionally vague for obvious reasons. It's awfully clear that they intended the latter.
Sorry BobY, the way it is, is the way ATSC wants it to be, not the way you want it to be.


Wow, what a way to phrase a "loaded question"! . . . . . . Isn't "utterly incapable" sort of dragging the reader/consumer is a certain direction??? C'mon.

I would certainly leave it up to the readers (if there are any) to decide if it makes "common sense" that a display with a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels should be said to meet the the ATSC standards, and should rightly be called an HD display.

Couldn't disagree more. All logic and common sense fails with this approach. Continuing it will lead to arguing that since most available content is currently 1080, then most sets people are watching (ie., 1366 x 768s) aren't "true" HD, because they can't "fully resolve" the 1080 signal. It becomes ludicrous.
And, the issue is pretty well resolved in Section 9.5 which allows for interpolation and format conversion to the ‘native’ display format of the receiver with no specified restrictions or limitations on the "receiver" other than in the definitions cited earlier.
And again, "fully resolved" is your opinion and requirement BobY, not the ATSCs. You are welcome to use it in your buying decisions of course, but to suggest that other consumers are either wrong or have been somehow duped based on your requirements and opinions is a bit of a stretch.
Indeed, the readers/consumers ought to be able to decide for themselves . . . which, by the way, is the way the ATSC intended it to be.

Again, if the poor consumer has been so obviously duped by the meanie manufacturer's, where are the class action suits???
I'm still waiting for the first one to be filed.
If you are correct, BobY, there are billions of $$$ out there just waiting to be claimed.

nmlobo

I do not believe the referenced paragraph supports your point. Interpolation is a method of creating new data from existing data - not subtracting. i.e. a 1920x1080 display must be able to 'create' 640X360 pixels from a 1280X720 input to allow the signal to match the display.

Format conversion involves the changing an interlaced format signal to a progressive format again to match the display type (i or p).

The only partial support I find for your position is "ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard." which is contained in A/53 part 1 page 9. Note that it defines HDTV "quality" as being 'subjectively' (Existing only in the mind; illusory. - thefreedictionary.com) identical. This would infer that a set may be classified as HD if the viewer believes/perceives what he/she is seeing is identical to the HD signal.

BamaPanda

From what you are saying (I think) the vertical lines being at least 720 is what defines an HD set.
I had thought the next item - pixels - was the number of horizontal lines, but you are saying it is not - but is a measurement of pixels.
Can you elaborate on the 'Pixels' portion of this equation? I don't understand "during the active line".

Thanks

__________________
Everyone is a fan!

nmlobo

He is saying the same thing - Vertical lines do define HD. Each vertical line must contain a defined number of pixels (whic creates a horizontal line) i.e. a 1280x720 display should have 720 vertical lines (pixels) and each of these vertical lines should be 1280 pixels wide (horiz lines)

1080PsF

A frame of video is made up of active and inactive video. The active part is the visible part of the picture. The inactive part is the blanking area; there is horizontal blanking and also vertical blanking. The horizontal blanking contains the audio information, time code, and horizontal sync. The vertical blanking contains the closed caption info, Meta data, and vertical sync.

So in a 1920:1080 monitor running at 29.97fps each line consists 1920 active pixels and 280 inactive (blanking) pixels for a total of 2200 pixels per line. Now there are a total of 1125 lines and 1080 are active and the other 45 are the vertical blanking.

Scottnot

I am not saying it; that is a citation from the ATSC standards which was originally posted by BobY and I was merely quoting his quote; but . . .
No, the vertical lines of at least 720 defines the lowest vertical resolution in the transmisson standards - no reference here to the set itself.

Well, I didn't write it, but here's how I read it:
Most TVs are have their display resolutions specified in pixels, for example, 1366 x 768 pixel screen display or 1920 x 1080 pixel native resolution.
Well, clearly, 768 vertical pixels will result in 768 vertical lines of resolution; and 1080 vertical pixels will result in 1080 lines of vertical resolution.
I don't believe it is "conventional" to talk of "horizontal lines" (for technical reasons), but rather simply of horizontal resolution; hence the title heading of the ATSC table of "vertical lines" for the vertical aspect, and "pixels" for the horizontal aspect.
This can perhaps be made a bit more clear by referencing another extract from the ATSC standards which was cited above; A/54A, Section 9.5 says "Table 9.3, “vertical lines” refers to the number of active lines in the picture. “Pixels” refers to the number of pixels during the active line."
So, I think that we can comfortably conclude that:
720 active lines by 1280 pixels
means the same thing as;
720 pixels by 1280 pixels
means the same thing as;
1280 x 720 pixel display . . . . just so long as we don't get our horizontal and vertical confused.

BobY

I think you're correct that all we can do is argue. I can't follow your logic at all.

Of course people should expect products to work to the standards the products claim to work to, or else there is no reason for a standard to exist. This is beyond common sense. If you were to look at it outside the context of this discussion, you couldn't possibly disagree.

The debating point is whether a 1024 x 768 display works to the standard. The ATSC doesn't care. It's not their issue whether manufacturers make displays that work to the standard and it's not their issue what a manufacturer claims about their displays.

The only reason I dragged the ATSC into it, it they are the only ones who have actually specified something that is called HD. And they have been given the authority to do that. No one else has.

Unless all the CE manufactuers get together, form a steering committee and define just what an HD display is and then all agree to abide by that definition when marketing their products, then obviously no one in the CE world has any more authority than anyone else to say what an HD display is. It's a meaningless term that any manufacturer can use whatever way they want.

Given that reality, the only thing that makes sense is to say a display is HD if it is able to properly display an HD signal, since the signal is the only thing that has been specified.

You're the one who is making this much more complicated than it is. My "loaded question" is simple:

Given the absence of any objective definition of an HD display, should a display be considered HD if it cannot display *any* HD signal as it was intended to be displayed by those who defined the HD standard?

Based on your above logic in interpreting the ATSC dosuments, any display that can receive an HD signal and display it on the screen is an HD display, even if has a resolution of 200 x 100 pixels. Certainly the ATSC expects displays of different resolutions to scale HD signals for display. That doesn't make them HD displays. The ATSC doesn't care what anyone considers an HD display. Their job is to define HD and DTV formats and standards, which they did.

Of course my question is "loaded", because I think it is manifestly obvious for a display that calls itself HD to be able to properly display at least *some* HD signal, just as I expect an audio system that claims to be stereo to have two speakers and play two separate audio channels.

I didn't say consumers were somehow "wrong"--presumably they bought a display that satisfied them. That doesn't mean it's an HD display.

If your criteria of whether something is true or not is whether lawyers can make billions of dollars off it, that's pretty frightening.