The Neverending Upscale Discussion Thread * Summary=#457

Granted... we are currently all stuck in front of a monior, and some people are trying to make us believe that we aren't able to see the difference between 800*600 1024*720 1200*1024 etc.
lol

 

I really hope that class action suit against MSFT gains some ground. I don;t believe in upscaling of anything, from DVD, to mp3's.

If u start off with a bad recording, you end up with a higher bitrate of the same bad recording.

 

Not at all. Looking at what 20/20 can resolve at a given distance from a given sized display, and comparing that to how far people tend to sit to various sized displays, 768p looks like a reasonable choice to me. A lower display resolution like 720p will often result in a softer image, and in many cases while a higher resolution will simply go unnoticed.

It would be crazer to always have them run 1080p at 1:1, as a lot of content is poorly edited in the sense that it has junk pixels near the edge of the signal which are better not seen.

That would suck for resolutions besides the display's native one, you'd have to watch lower resolutions windowboxed and not be able to see the whole picture when using higher resolutions. The best design is a good scaler to handle all resolutions well, including overscaning the native resolution slightly to aviod the mess I mentioned directly above.

I can't say I've ever had the chance to see a 36" 1080p display, or a widescreen 480p model for that matter, but the chart does jive with my personal experience with various viewing distances on displays of other sizes and resolutions, at least after accounting for the fact that my vision is 20/15 rather than 20/20.

Are you by chance confusing display resolution with rendering resolution? The chart is in reference to display resolution, where as text being rendered at 1080p can be much cleaner looking than text of the same display size rendered at 480p, even when that text is viewed at 10+ feet, and regardless of that 1080p text is being downsampled to 480p or displayed natively.

Sounds more like you are just missunderstanding what people are trying to explain to you.

 

Yet a high quality recording of someone playing a crap keyboard will never sound like anything more than crap. I'd rather they work on over all image fidility even when that means compromising the resolution rather than pushing out games rendered at HD but with crappy texture filtering and sometimes not even any AA at all.

Granted, I don't excuse Halo 3 as it has crap texture filtering an no AA along with a rendering resolution notably below that which MS claimed would be the baseline.


And on a side note, whether you belive in upscaling or not, you can't listen to in MP3 without it effecively being upscaled by the analog conversion needed to drive speakers, and you can't watch most DVDs without scaling either even on a 480 ine display as movies on dvd are generally stored at 720x480 which is 3:2 aspect ratio, nd that either needs to be scaled to 16:9 or 4:3 depending on the format of the movie.

 

1. 720p upscaled to 768p... you're telling em that it looks better after the said conversion??? I'd be amazed if that's true. but you seem to know what you're talking about, and as a noob around here I'll be the last man to tell you you're wrong.

2. About 1:1 output. I understand the need for scaling if u wanted a 480i/p 720i/p image to fit on a screen that is natively 1080i/p. Of course it needs to be scaled up otherwise the image would take up far less than full screen.

What I don't understand is why a 1080i/p output signal needs any scaling to be viewed on a native 1080i/p screen.

 

1. Yes, somewhat better, assuming the scaling is done well and you are sitting close enough to view increase in sharpness.

2. For instance, on a display with no overscan you will often see things like overlaid images such as letter boxing that doesn't quite cover the very edge of the image in one or more directions. Some display types inherently overscan and when content makers use displays with overscan they can't insure the images they create looks good all the way to the edges.

 

The board which came up with the ATSC standard defined these resolutions. This was in the late 80s or early 90s when nobody else was working on digital TV. Japan had MUSE but that was analog and Europe had some demonstrations (like the Barcelona Games) but nothing specific.

I think the 768p came from computer monitor heritage. Display makers sold 768p as HD (or in many cases, even lower resolution) and a lot of people bought such off-standard resolution displays, often plasmas, in the early part of this decade.

 

Kyleb I read again and... I have to confess.... that you're right I misunderstood... I read too quickly at my job.

Anyway In my particular case (that nobody really care for ) I always stand pretty close from the television so.
Anyway valid pont.

 

hmm seems i (+ others) misunderstood.

thus the graph shows a screenshot say of 999999x999999pixels
viewed on a screen with 480p,720p,1080p,1440p

i thought it was a picture of 480p shown at 480p vs a picture of 1080p shown at 1080p, which based on experience i know 480p is much harder to read text (even over distance)

 

The ATSC defined the signal resolutions for HD, and manufactures developed their HD display standards to suit that. The use of 768 lines surely was inherited from the PC technology, but it has always qualified as HD because that is more than enough resolution to fully resolve the vertical resolution of 720p content. That is of course assuming the display is designed to support at least 720 lines at 16:9 aspect ratio, which all progressive scan displays sold as HDTVs do.

 

so kyle, you're saying that the overscan helps eliminate jaggies / edge enhancement? Is that your point?

Okay. So if we had better camera / video capture technology this wouldn't be an issue?

 

Overscan helps to eliminate garbage that can be on the very edges of broadcast tv shows. I've never seen it on anything being broadcast in HD though. But if I'm watching a 1080i HD show with 1:1 pixel mapping (or even on a tv with very little overscan), sometimes I can see garbage on the top of the SD (but upconverted due to it being an HD channel) commercials.

 

I've got full control of overscan/underscan on my plasma, as I did the one before this one, and in both cases I started out with no overscan on any input and nudged it up on most inputs over time to aviod the garbage that would otherwise be displayed on the very edges of various content. Upcoverted SD brodcast on an HD channel is the most comon offeder I've come across, but I've also seen it in acutal HD brodcasts as well as in games.

 

Are you reffering to the compression BS we can see in SD digital broadcasts?

On an HDTV, if ur watching SD broadcasts, analog > digital.

This nonsense of switching over to digital cable means one thing. COMPRESSION SQUARES! lol
Some of you may know that normal analog cable did indeed contain free HDTV channels.

 

Hate to bust your bubble, but those free HDTV channels were digital too.

Compression is a bigger problem with the satellite providers trying to save on bandwidth.

 

No he isn't, I recomend rereading his comment has it suggests nothing of the sort.

 

No that's not what I'm referring to at all.

 

Quaz, Burnout Paradise 360 demo shots:

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/bpdemo360/

 

1280x720p MSAA 2x

 

HDTVs were being sold a long time before CE mfrs. had QAM/ATSC tuners as "standard" which is how we got the designators HDTV Ready and HDTV. Also, not every provider has clear qam and for those that do it isnt as if you can get every HD channel that they offer and you still had to be subscribed to at least their basic analog service. I bought an OnAir Creator for my HTPC and I could only pull the locals and if someone in my area was watching an on demand movie I could pull that as well but the hassle wasn't worth it.

So if you were already paying your cable provider you may as well buy their HDTV package, of course there is what I did which is cancel Comcast cable video and download all my shows from the 360 video marketplace, the wife watches her shows from each shows respective web page if they are not on video marketplace.

Oh and as mentioned QAM is most certainly digital.