No your TV can input at those resolutions. It will output or display at the native resolution of the screen.

That is correct as an HD Ready TV doesn't have enough pixels to display 1920 x 1080. If you were watching a Blu-ray on a HD Ready TV then it's a great stretch of the imagination in saying you're display at 1080p, which in turn would confuse people who didn't know about the technology.

Another glaring misconception, there were some HD Ready TV's that had 1080 line panels. Hitachi made a 40" model.

Did they 'make' it, or was it just a Vestel (like most Hitachi's).

Not sure it was a long time ago, the set was launched about 3 months after I bought my first HD TV. A Sony 40" with a 768 line panel. It didn't support 1080p50/60 just the basic requirements for a HD Ready badge.

The minimum requirement for TVs using the HD Ready logo is a 720p display panel and the ability to display (scaled as necessary) input signals of 576i, 720p and 1080i. Some of them will also allow inputs of 1080p to be displayed (scaled) on their 720 or 768 panels. That's how it's defined, look it up.

And yes, it's a stupid definition which still leads to confusion, even to this day. God help us if the same idiots allow "UHD Ready" logos.

Not really a misconception at all. I was talking about HD Ready TVs with a resolution lower than "Full HD". Anyway, have you got any proof of this?

Which was my whole point. The requirements for the minimum standards is actually worded wrong. If you are displaying something it means you are seeing it. They should have just said "and has to input at 1080i". Simple and pretty easy to understand for people who aren't into technology. You are not displaying 1080i/1080p on HD Ready TV, the display will be the native resolution of the TV.

Nevertheless, that's how it is defined. I've edited my post btw, for precision (HD Ready TVs have to accept 1080i inputs but can scale and display it at 720 'lines' or greater).

I hope the industry will not fall into the same trap with UHD. You won't catch me going anywhere near 4K until UHD TV standards are finalised, but I can see confusion developing over that (4K vs. UHD, which may not be the same) - money-grabbing manufacturers that they are.

But again, why is that of the slightest concern? - all that matters is the picture quality.

Hitachi 42PD9700 Picture Master HD - 1024x1080 H6Alias panel - went on sale 2006 irc.

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=516

There were other models...

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=541

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=531

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=585

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=576

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=63&proid=581

1280x1080 resolution......

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=62&proid=570

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/p...g=62&proid=533

You are not being consistent. You do not see 1080i on a modern TV so you do not "display" it either. There is no difference in this respect whatever the resolution as the 1080i image has to be processed before display.

Again the problem is that you don't seem to understand how the displaying works. 1080i does NOT map pixel to pixel on to a 1920x1080 screen - you could do this but the result would be awful.

That is the misconception.....

It did have a lower resolution than Full HD, even though it had 1080 lines vertically, it only had 1024 lines horizontally, it's still regarded as a HD ready TV.

Spot on.


Not convinced it means that. It means you need higher refresh rates, which for progressive means higher frame rates and for interlaced means higher field rates. 1080i50 and 720p50 both have the same refresh rate. With raw signals displayed on CRTs, 1080i50 looked better full stop. Bring coding, deinterlacing, and flat panels into the equation and it becomes content dependent.

Cheers,
David.

And again I never said it was a concern. I said it was confusing.

Ok cheers for that.

Yes I am Have I said otherwise?

There is no problem. My point was that the HD spec was confusing and has used the wrong word.

No it isn't. Go back and reread what was said.

Only to you.

Can you answer a few simple questions

1 Can your HD TV display a BBC-SD SD channel using the highest available SD 720 x 576 resolution.

2 Could your previous CRT SD TV (assuming you had one), display PAL 625 line colour transmissions ? (Hint it's a trick question ), or your newer HD TV of whatever native resolution.

3 Do you really think that a 1080i TV signal represents every single pixel from the original source exactly as it was transmitted ? The very fact that it's possible to transmit this number of pixels relies on a very lossy compression system AVC/H264 for HD and Mpeg2 for SD.

4 Have you ever seen the best broadcast HD picture I ever saw on a domestic TV, generated from the original BBC-HD test transmissions at 1440 x 1080 at the original very high bitrate used. The TV in question was a Pioneer Kuro with guess what 768 lines of vertical resolution ?

5 Do you have any idea why the bitrate used for transmission affects the final picture quality ?

6 Any idea why a Blu-ray disc picture quality looks a lot better than the best HD broadcast ?

7 Why do you think that picture quality is purely based on the number of pixels ?, It's true that all other things being equal that if you display a static image with 1920 x 1080 pixels on a 1920 x 1080 display it will have more detail compared to a 768 line display. What you ignore is unless you get very close to the TV (much closer than most of us do), you will not see any difference at all.

8 Why doesn't a 24 megapixel image from the latest DSLR cameras not look any better on say a A4 print than one from a 12 Megapixel image ?

9 What's the highest resolution in pixels/inch you can use to print an image on a desktop printer, before it's nor possible to discern any extra detail ?

10 Do you have any idea how mpeg compression discards data to make HD broadcasting possible, or how using less compression results in a closer approximation to the original content (Higher quality encoders can give similar results using lower bitrates).

It wasn't confusing until you came on here and seem to deliberately want to confuse people?.

You say one thing and then when it is repeated back to you seem confused. You make a big point about "displaying" and then when pulled up on it deny you posted it.

No it's not confusing to me. I know they've used the wrong word to describe what they mean. Your questions are irrelevant to what I was talking about.

To us it isn't all though to people who don't know about technology it is.

Have you being smoking something?

That word is 'display, right? If so, I disagree with you, because the spec for HD Ready TVs doesn't claim that sets must display "all the resolution" of a 1080i input. All of the picture area yes, but 720 resolved pixels vertically (one of the designated HD resolutions) at 16:9 aspect ratio is all they are required to display.

The main thing they got wrong was the name "HD Ready", which would have been better as "HD 720" or similar.

Have you?