I suspect the OP has now long since given up in this thread as once again a relatively simple question descends into chaos with the HD pedants :P
Not sure what HD ready means?
3 of 6
Originally Posted by Helmut10:
“AnotherBob
I have a 22" Sony TV with HD, so a practical experiment - Viewing distance less than ~2 metres and you can see the difference with HD, further away > 2 metres and there is no discernable difference.
Simple experiment, simple answer....”
“AnotherBob
I have a 22" Sony TV with HD, so a practical experiment - Viewing distance less than ~2 metres and you can see the difference with HD, further away > 2 metres and there is no discernable difference.
Simple experiment, simple answer....”
Thank you for that. I have understood very little of what has been posted here but this I can follow.
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“So what are you watching when you watch a SD source ? The original spec stated must be able to display 1080i50 and 720p50 at a minimum vertical resolution of 720 lines. That's a direct quoute from the original EICTA specification, something you insist is impossible. 1080i, 576i 1080p refer to the broadcast standard, not the display. If you watch the iplayer HD service what do think you are watching ?
All the original HD broadcasts were 1080i at 1440 x 1080, (Anamorphic HD), According to your ideas no TV ever made could display anamorphic HD.”
“So what are you watching when you watch a SD source ? The original spec stated must be able to display 1080i50 and 720p50 at a minimum vertical resolution of 720 lines. That's a direct quoute from the original EICTA specification, something you insist is impossible. 1080i, 576i 1080p refer to the broadcast standard, not the display. If you watch the iplayer HD service what do think you are watching ?
All the original HD broadcasts were 1080i at 1440 x 1080, (Anamorphic HD), According to your ideas no TV ever made could display anamorphic HD.”
Depends what you set it at, at the source. Yes a TV can output at SD with borders but it wont output/display 1080i if it's an HD Ready TV.
I know it's a direct quote. That's why I stated this is were the confusion starts as an HD Ready TV can't actually display 1080i. Inputting at 1080i on a TV with a resolution of 1280 x 720 will result in loss of quality to what 1080i can deliver.
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“You seem to be suggesting that "display" means to output without changing the input. I don't know of any current consumer TVs that can "display" 1080i.
You do also realise that for certain programming (typically fast motion) that 1080i can have as low as 5040 vertical pixels? Whereas 720p will always have 720. Which of 1080i or 720p is better depends upon the data i shown.”
“You seem to be suggesting that "display" means to output without changing the input. I don't know of any current consumer TVs that can "display" 1080i.
You do also realise that for certain programming (typically fast motion) that 1080i can have as low as 5040 vertical pixels? Whereas 720p will always have 720. Which of 1080i or 720p is better depends upon the data i shown.”
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying as that what displaying means. I never said any TVs could though
what is it with people putting words in my mouth.The image from 1080i is always going to have 1920 x 1080 resolution as all TVs are now progressive otherwise if I paused Virgin Media now then I would be missing some of the information. The 540 resolution of 1080i argument is pointless. 1080i carries the same amount of pixels as 1080p. The image quality (note not movement wise) is the same for both. The pixels of 1080p over 1080i don't magically look better just because 1080i is delivered to the screen differently.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“You seem to be separating display panels from the rest of the TV set. You can't reasonably do that! For most users of the English language, If an HD Ready TV (say 1024 x 768 like mine) is compatible with a) 1080i or 1080p input signal, it can display it - albeit downscaled at b) 1024 x 768 resolution.
How the TV gets from a) to b) is irrelevant really unless you are a TV designer. It can also display 720p and 576i input signals too - and in the case of 720p, both upscaled and downscaled at the same time. Clever stuff!”
“You seem to be separating display panels from the rest of the TV set. You can't reasonably do that! For most users of the English language, If an HD Ready TV (say 1024 x 768 like mine) is compatible with a) 1080i or 1080p input signal, it can display it - albeit downscaled at b) 1024 x 768 resolution.
How the TV gets from a) to b) is irrelevant really unless you are a TV designer. It can also display 720p and 576i input signals too - and in the case of 720p, both upscaled and downscaled at the same time. Clever stuff!”
So if it is downscaling it then it fails to be displaying it. It will input at 1080i or 1080p but then you will just lose the extra detail these resolutions bring. Hence you're not displaying at 1080i/1080p, you're displaying the TVs native resolution.
Originally Posted by AnotherBob:
“I'm happy with 22".”
“I'm happy with 22".”
Most TV programmes are now made with the assumption that you're watching on a larger TV and/or sitting closer - i.e. that the picture fills more of your field of view.
I'm surprised you're not missing important details some scenes, and the intended effect of most scenes. Maybe you are, but don't know?
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“It was the EBU who decided on 1080i for European HD broadcasting, initial tests of 720P (they did tests of both) by the BBC were a dismal failure, with a number of viewers reporting nausea on the 720P programmes.”
“It was the EBU who decided on 1080i for European HD broadcasting, initial tests of 720P (they did tests of both) by the BBC were a dismal failure, with a number of viewers reporting nausea on the 720P programmes.”
The EBU have never pushed interlaced HD. They have throughout preferred 720p50 and (largely theoretically and/or for production) 1080p50. Many (most?) EBU members ignore this advice in practice.
I have heard the nausea story too, but attributed to early Sky tests. I'm beginning to think it's an urban myth. Even if it happened somewhere some time, it makes no sense. It must have been down to some quirk or mistake in the testing (probably camera and/or display settings), rather than the video format itself.
Cheers,
David.
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“Yes that's exactly what I'm saying as that what displaying means. I never said any TVs could though what is it with people putting words in my mouth.
The image from 1080i is always going to have 1920 x 1080 resolution as all TVs are now progressive otherwise if I paused Virgin Media now then I would be missing some of the information. The 540 resolution of 1080i argument is pointless. 1080i carries the same amount of pixels as 1080p. The image quality (note not movement wise) is the same for both. The pixels of 1080p over 1080i don't magically look better just because 1080i is delivered to the screen differently.”
“Yes that's exactly what I'm saying as that what displaying means. I never said any TVs could though
what is it with people putting words in my mouth.The image from 1080i is always going to have 1920 x 1080 resolution as all TVs are now progressive otherwise if I paused Virgin Media now then I would be missing some of the information. The 540 resolution of 1080i argument is pointless. 1080i carries the same amount of pixels as 1080p. The image quality (note not movement wise) is the same for both. The pixels of 1080p over 1080i don't magically look better just because 1080i is delivered to the screen differently.”
You said that a TV with lower resolution could not display 1080i. Well they can by converting the picture to match the resolution of the display. A 1080p display also has to convert a 1080i picture to display it so they are both converting the picture - please explain why one is "displaying" the 1080i signal and the other isn't.
You obviously don't realise that the resolution of 1080i displayed on a 1080p TV is reduced whenever there is movement, you do not get 1:1 pixel mapping of 1080i to a 1080 display. (This comment does not apply when it's a naturally progressive source just riding on an interlaced signal and the TV recognises this as this is really 1080p anyway).
Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“I have heard the nausea story too, but attributed to early Sky tests. I'm beginning to think it's an urban myth. Even if it happened somewhere some time, it makes no sense. It must have been down to some quirk or mistake in the testing (probably camera and/or display settings), rather than the video format itself.
Cheers,
David.”
“I have heard the nausea story too, but attributed to early Sky tests. I'm beginning to think it's an urban myth. Even if it happened somewhere some time, it makes no sense. It must have been down to some quirk or mistake in the testing (probably camera and/or display settings), rather than the video format itself.
Cheers,
David.”
It's repeated on here "ad nauseam" (sorry) usually by Nigel. I can't think of any reason for this reported result and have never seen any proper evidence for it - in almost any such testing and in particular if people are told it is something new the some people will suffer affects such as nausea. By comparison the marketing reasoning of 1080 being "better" than 720 is clear as it's a bigger number even if the resulting picture is worse.
Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“Most TV programmes are now made with the assumption that you're watching on a larger TV and/or sitting closer - i.e. that the picture fills more of your field of view.
I'm surprised you're not missing important details some scenes, and the intended effect of most scenes. Maybe you are, but don't know?”
“Most TV programmes are now made with the assumption that you're watching on a larger TV and/or sitting closer - i.e. that the picture fills more of your field of view.
I'm surprised you're not missing important details some scenes, and the intended effect of most scenes. Maybe you are, but don't know?”
Thanks for that. However for the amount of TV we watch, I'm not that bothered. Our living room is not very large and we feel that a bigger TV would tend to monopolise the room.
Originally Posted by AnotherBob:
“Yes. Where else a would I want a TV?”
“Yes. Where else a would I want a TV?”
One that small, probably mounted on your wrist?
Certainly HD is no concern, for that matter even the old 405 would be more than sufficient
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“It's repeated on here "ad nauseam" (sorry) usually by Nigel. I can't think of any reason for this reported result and have never seen any proper evidence for it - in almost any such testing and in particular if people are told it is something new the some people will suffer affects such as nausea.”
“It's repeated on here "ad nauseam" (sorry) usually by Nigel. I can't think of any reason for this reported result and have never seen any proper evidence for it - in almost any such testing and in particular if people are told it is something new the some people will suffer affects such as nausea.”
I can't say I can think of any reason for it either?, but it's what the BBC reported, and the details were posted on these forums somewhere a long time ago now.
As for your 'something new' theory, 1080i was just as new and didn't produce the problems - as I recall the tests were done on alternate days?.
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“So if it is downscaling it then it fails to be displaying it. It will input at 1080i or 1080p but then you will just lose the extra detail these resolutions bring. Hence you're not displaying at 1080i/1080p, you're displaying the TVs native resolution.”
“So if it is downscaling it then it fails to be displaying it. It will input at 1080i or 1080p but then you will just lose the extra detail these resolutions bring. Hence you're not displaying at 1080i/1080p, you're displaying the TVs native resolution.”
I will quote the specs from my Panasonic HD Ready plasma TV manual:
Code:
Input signal that can be displayed ■ COMPONENT (AV2) / HDMI terminal +COMPONENT *HDMI (Signal name) +* 525 (480) / 60i, 60p +* 625 (576) / 50i, 50p +* 750 (720) / 60p, 50p +* 1,125 (1,080) / 60i, 50i * 1,125 (1,080) / 60p, 50p, 24p +/* Applicable input signal ● Signals other than above may not be displayed properly. ● The above signals are reformatted for optimal viewing on your display.
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“You said that a TV with lower resolution could not display 1080i. Well they can by converting the picture to match the resolution of the display. A 1080p display also has to convert a 1080i picture to display it so they are both converting the picture - please explain why one is "displaying" the 1080i signal and the other isn't.
You obviously don't realise that the resolution of 1080i displayed on a 1080p TV is reduced whenever there is movement, you do not get 1:1 pixel mapping of 1080i to a 1080 display. (This comment does not apply when it's a naturally progressive source just riding on an interlaced signal and the TV recognises this as this is really 1080p anyway).”
“You said that a TV with lower resolution could not display 1080i. Well they can by converting the picture to match the resolution of the display. A 1080p display also has to convert a 1080i picture to display it so they are both converting the picture - please explain why one is "displaying" the 1080i signal and the other isn't.
You obviously don't realise that the resolution of 1080i displayed on a 1080p TV is reduced whenever there is movement, you do not get 1:1 pixel mapping of 1080i to a 1080 display. (This comment does not apply when it's a naturally progressive source just riding on an interlaced signal and the TV recognises this as this is really 1080p anyway).”
Yes I did. No they can't if it's changing the input signal and downscaling then you are not displaying at 1080i/p and you are losing quality in what a true 1080i/p signal would show. Because one is converting an image which has the same resolution as the output of the TV while the other one isn't and you will lose out on pixels.
You obviously don't understand the way resolution actually works. The result of 1080i is 1920 x 1080 regardless if it is delivered differently. The argument that 1080i is really 540 us stupid and misleading to the final outcome of what you see on the screen.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“I will quote the specs from my Panasonic HD Ready plasma TV manual:
But anyway, we all know what we all mean, don't we?”
“I will quote the specs from my Panasonic HD Ready plasma TV manual:
Code:
Input signal that can be displayed ■ COMPONENT (AV2) / HDMI terminal +COMPONENT *HDMI (Signal name) +* 525 (480) / 60i, 60p +* 625 (576) / 50i, 50p +* 750 (720) / 60p, 50p +* 1,125 (1,080) / 60i, 50i * 1,125 (1,080) / 60p, 50p, 24p +/* Applicable input signal ● Signals other than above may not be displayed properly. ● The above signals are reformatted for optimal viewing on your display.
I don't see your point? This is why I said it was confusing in the first place as to the word displaying being used in the specs.
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“It's repeated on here "ad nauseam" (sorry) usually by Nigel. I can't think of any reason for this reported result and have never seen any proper evidence for it - in almost any such testing and in particular if people are told it is something new the some people will suffer affects such as nausea. By comparison the marketing reasoning of 1080 being "better" than 720 is clear as it's a bigger number even if the resulting picture is worse.”
“It's repeated on here "ad nauseam" (sorry) usually by Nigel. I can't think of any reason for this reported result and have never seen any proper evidence for it - in almost any such testing and in particular if people are told it is something new the some people will suffer affects such as nausea. By comparison the marketing reasoning of 1080 being "better" than 720 is clear as it's a bigger number even if the resulting picture is worse.”
Can't find the original document that states testers suffered nausea during 720p testing, but found one of the white papers from the BBC that briefly mentions it on page 3.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP209.pdf
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“Yes I did. No they can't if it's changing the input signal and downscaling then you are not displaying at 1080i/p and you are losing quality in what a true 1080i/p signal would show. Because one is converting an image which has the same resolution as the output of the TV while the other one isn't and you will lose out on pixels.
You obviously don't understand the way resolution actually works. The result of 1080i is 1920 x 1080 regardless if it is delivered differently. The argument that 1080i is really 540 us stupid and misleading to the final outcome of what you see on the screen.”
“Yes I did. No they can't if it's changing the input signal and downscaling then you are not displaying at 1080i/p and you are losing quality in what a true 1080i/p signal would show. Because one is converting an image which has the same resolution as the output of the TV while the other one isn't and you will lose out on pixels.
You obviously don't understand the way resolution actually works. The result of 1080i is 1920 x 1080 regardless if it is delivered differently. The argument that 1080i is really 540 us stupid and misleading to the final outcome of what you see on the screen.”
You clearly don't understand about the different types of de-interlacing and how they affect the picture. Genuine 1080i with movement only maps to 1080 vertical pixels through processing as does 720p. You seem to be of the opinion that you take a pixel from a 1080i signal and place it on a pixel on the TV screen this is usually not the case though may be for parts of the screen with no movement and a good de-interlacers.
I never said that 1080i is really 540. What I said was that "1080i can have as low as 5040 vertical pixels" which is correct especially with older TVs. In practice of course modern de-interlacers are better than old ones and they use a variety of de-interlacing techniques to improve the situation but you will not get 1080 lines with a true 1080i source with movement other than through processing (effectively upscaling). In practice of course given the size of most people's TVs the actual resolution from 720p or 1080i is more than sufficient.
Originally Posted by Deacon1972:
“Can't find the original document that states testers suffered nausea during 720p testing, but found one of the white papers from the BBC that briefly mentions it on page 3.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP209.pdf”
“Can't find the original document that states testers suffered nausea during 720p testing, but found one of the white papers from the BBC that briefly mentions it on page 3.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP209.pdf”
That doesn't relate to 720p causing a problem and 1080i being okay only that nausea occurred during fast panning on HD. Indeed the following comments from the same page would suggest that 720p would be better in this respect.
Quote:
“In the light of these issues, we propose that higher frame
rates be part of any future video format standard, tracking
or exceeding any future increases in spatial resolution.
This would help redress the imbalance between dynamic
and spatial resolutions which exists in current television
standards, and is a necessary precursor to further
increases in spatial resolution if further undesirable
constraints on production techniques are to be avoided.”
“In the light of these issues, we propose that higher frame
rates be part of any future video format standard, tracking
or exceeding any future increases in spatial resolution.
This would help redress the imbalance between dynamic
and spatial resolutions which exists in current television
standards, and is a necessary precursor to further
increases in spatial resolution if further undesirable
constraints on production techniques are to be avoided.”
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“I don't see your point? This is why I said it was confusing in the first place as to the word displaying being used in the specs.”
“I don't see your point? This is why I said it was confusing in the first place as to the word displaying being used in the specs.”
The point should be obvious, and it isn't confusing. My HD Ready TV with a 1024 x 768 pixel screen can display at full screen the following input signals:
525 (480) / 60i, 60p
625 (576) / 50i, 50p
750 (720) / 60p, 50p
1,125 (1,080) / 60i, 50i
1,125 (1,080) / 60p, 50p, 24p.
I seem to recall you suggesting that HD Ready TVs cannot display 1920 x 1080 input signals. ["A HD Ready TV cannot display at 1080i as it simply doesn't have enough pixels to display 1080i."].
Downscaling and upscaling are still displaying, if the picture can be viewed.
Originally Posted by AnotherBob:
“I have a Sony Bravia kdl-22ex302 TV in my living room and currently use it with a Topfield PVR. I'm told the Topfield doesn't do HD and that to see HD on my Sony I need a PVR which does HD. I see that I could get a Digital Stream DHR8206U for around £80 and that this can do HD.
Am I right in thinking that if I got the DS PVR I could see HD on my TV? Also is HD worth bothering with on a 22" TV?”
“I have a Sony Bravia kdl-22ex302 TV in my living room and currently use it with a Topfield PVR. I'm told the Topfield doesn't do HD and that to see HD on my Sony I need a PVR which does HD. I see that I could get a Digital Stream DHR8206U for around £80 and that this can do HD.
Am I right in thinking that if I got the DS PVR I could see HD on my TV? Also is HD worth bothering with on a 22" TV?”
This was the original question to which the OP hoped for an informed answer. It has developed in to a disgraceful handbag fight which you should all be ashamed of. As for insulting the size of his TV set, Is it normal Nigel to tell customers at your Matlock shop that their 22inch Tv is only good for use as a wrist watch?
Originally Posted by anthony david:
“This was the original question to which the OP hoped for an informed answer.”
“This was the original question to which the OP hoped for an informed answer.”
It was fully answered by post #8 and the informed answers accepted by the O/P in post #9.
The subsequent thread-drift is normal DS behaviour when someone starts claiming what may be incorrect or misleading information; it needs to be debated and corrected as necessary. Any insults are of course out of order but few have been party to any of that.
Originally Posted by AnotherBob:
“I have a Sony Bravia kdl-22ex302 TV in my living room and currently use it with a Topfield PVR. I'm told the Topfield doesn't do HD and that to see HD on my Sony I need a PVR which does HD. I see that I could get a Digital Stream DHR8206U for around £80 and that this can do HD.
Am I right in thinking that if I got the DS PVR I could see HD on my TV? Also is HD worth bothering with on a 22" TV?”
“I have a Sony Bravia kdl-22ex302 TV in my living room and currently use it with a Topfield PVR. I'm told the Topfield doesn't do HD and that to see HD on my Sony I need a PVR which does HD. I see that I could get a Digital Stream DHR8206U for around £80 and that this can do HD.
Am I right in thinking that if I got the DS PVR I could see HD on my TV? Also is HD worth bothering with on a 22" TV?”
I have the 23in Sony which I think is the predecessor to that TV, I think Sony replaced the 23 with 22 and 24in sets.
Anyway, I can clearly see a difference between sd and hd, but it depends on the quality of the sd material. The Sony 23in set is connected to a freesat hd box using hdmi. When showing CBS action ch, Star Trek tng series1 and BBC news hd, it's very easy to see that the BBC news hd channel is way ahead in quality. Likewise but to a lesser extent comparing ch5 to itv-hd, clearly shows the latter to be superior.
But, if you compare bbc1 sd to bbc1 hd, the difference is minimal.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“It was fully answered by post #8 and the informed answers accepted by the O/P in post #9.
The subsequent thread-drift is normal DS behaviour when someone starts claiming what may be incorrect or misleading information; it needs to be debated and corrected as necessary. Any insults are of course out of order but few have been party to any of that.”
“It was fully answered by post #8 and the informed answers accepted by the O/P in post #9.
The subsequent thread-drift is normal DS behaviour when someone starts claiming what may be incorrect or misleading information; it needs to be debated and corrected as necessary. Any insults are of course out of order but few have been party to any of that.”
I'm not sure that C.Farmer Ltd of Matlock would agree with you as he is on their website as a senior member of staff.
Originally Posted by anthony david:
“I'm not sure that C.Farmer Ltd of Matlock would agree with you as he is on their website as a senior member of staff.”
“I'm not sure that C.Farmer Ltd of Matlock would agree with you as he is on their website as a senior member of staff.”
Is that some kind of irony, sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, trenchancy, cynicism, mockery, satire, ridicule, derision, scorn or wryness? If not, you have me baffled with the oddest post of the day!
3 of 6
