Why does my new TV look worse? *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

How could it be, when 1080p set has ~2x the pixels?
Is there some kind of "formula" to measure visual acuity and pixel size, but also includes distance as a parameter?

The maths isn't too hard, although you ned to know the human field of view/focal length and stuff. But basically, divide the horizontal resolution of your screen by length in mm to give you the size of a pixel in mm. Then position yourself (calculated from viewer's focal length) so that each pixel occupies the same amount of retina on your eye. The end result would be the 1080p set occupying a larger field of view with the same size pixels as a 720p set, but the resolution being the same.

The problem here is we're changing two variables, resolution and size. If the 1080p screens weren't getting larger, they'd offer more resolution per square inch so be higher fidelity. But as the screens get larger, you lose fidelty in favour of size. Then we throw in viewing distance for a third variable, and basically all attempts at objective analysis go flying out the window!

 

[green.pixel]

This should do it

I know about that one, it's kinda "bible" HDTV resource . I was thinking about something more "scientfic" with actual formulas being presented, like this:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12836
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html

 

[djskribbles]

If you had two TVs in the same range, only one being a smaller 720p (32") model and one a larger 1080p (40"), and then viewed them from a different distance each so that they occupied the same field-of-view, you could do a 'fair' comparison. Or you could view from distance so the pixel size is the same, and compare the larger screen space experience.

Even then, that's just one example. To definitively come up with an answer, we'd have to do this for at least a few of the major brands. Comparing with LCD's wouldn't be ideal as there are several panel makers. Even Samsung's own LCD's, within the same line aren't all S-PVA panels. And because there are only a handful of Plasma brands that make both 720p and 1080p (within the same year), using LG, Samsung and Panasonic as examples would be the closest 'fair' comparison we could make. For example:
Panasonic 50X1 vs 50S1
Samsung 50B450 vs 50B550
I'm not very familiar with LG plasmas so I dunno which models are comparable other than resolution. All 6 displays would have to be calibrated, preferably by the same person (calibrations vary quite a bit). If someone is willing to provide the funds, I will gladly go out and buy all 6 TV's.

 

[joker454]

Whether the 360's scaler is better than TV scalers is irrelevant. The question is does 720p output look better on a 1080p display or a 720p native display.

No, the 360 is the *perfect* test for this. It lets you take the identical 720p source output via identical cables, and scale it to 1080p on the identical tv, both via the tv's scaler and via it's own. It makes the test simple because everything in the chain is 100% identical, except the scaling in the end. If the 360's scaler (which is a high quality scaler) upscales it better than the tv then presto, you know that tv has a crappy scaler. Simple as that, it's the perfect test. Further, you can use two 360's (which I have) and display the identical content on native 720p and 1080p tv's at the same time, and a/b them as well. There are lots of options.

Those are like some of the worst offenders in term of scalers, well to be fair they make good TVs, is just that either signal processing is not their strength or maybe with Bluray and all the HD talk they just don't consider scaler to be that important. I am especially disappointed with Panasonic, since I was looking at their Plasma range.

That could very well be true. But those brands are very popular, which means many people are getting crappy scaling. So I figured it was important to mention that when people wonder "why does my new tv looks worse".

Why don't you consider buying a dedicated external hardware scaler? The beamer setup I use to play has a dedicated additional box for scaling...I can't remember how much this box costed and I cannot tell you if it is a better scaler compared to TV scaler, but it is definitively an option?!

Yeah everything I've heard about scalers is that those in tv's are typically bad, and people that really need good scaling will buy external scalers. I didn't want to spend that extra cash since for the most part I don't need it since this issue only affect PS3 exclusive games anyways.

The problem here is we're changing two variables, resolution and size.

That's why the 360 is the perfect test of the quality of a tv's scaler. Everything is identical, the same box producing the same image sent over the same cables to the same tv. Just toggle 360/tv scaler to compare the two. The 360 generates a variety of content right at native 720p, unlike with tv signals where you would be forced to use a handful of channels to compare with like ESPN which is 720p, since most channels are 1080i. Plus we don't know if the ESPN feed, or any other tv feed has been bastardized along the way with all manner of filtering, or swiped from a variety of sources. The 360 generates a native 720p clean frame every time. So pick your 360 game, slap it on, and compare. I'd like to do the comparison on a Kuro if I had access to one.

 

[AlNom]

ModNote: A few posts moved over here from the Image Quality thread.

 

[djskribbles]

No, the 360 is the *perfect* test for this. It lets you take the identical 720p source output via identical cables, and scale it to 1080p on the identical tv, both via the tv's scaler and via it's own. It makes the test simple because everything in the chain is 100% identical, except the scaling in the end. If the 360's scaler (which is a high quality scaler) upscales it better than the tv then presto, you know that tv has a crappy scaler. Simple as that, it's the perfect test. Further, you can use two 360's (which I have) and display the identical content on native 720p and 1080p tv's at the same time, and a/b them as well. There are lots of options.

That's not a fair comparison though -- all you've proven is that the 360's scaler is better than the TV's. That doesn't prove how that same 720p output would look on a 720p display vs the same output on a 1080p display (of the same size, similarly spec'd and calibrated to the standard). The fairest comparison would be the ones I listed above, otherwise there are too many factors that would affect the comparison.

 

[joker454]

That's not a fair comparison though -- all you've proven is that the 360's scaler is better than the TV's. That doesn't prove how that same 720p output would look on a 720p display vs the same output on a 1080p display (of the same size, similarly spec'd and calibrated to the standard). The fairest comparison would be the ones I listed above, otherwise there are too many factors that would affect the comparison.

Ok, but if you do a test as you suggest, with all things being equal, then the only differentiator is the scaler no? I mean if the two tv's are the same brand, similar panels, similar settings, similar calibration, similar size, etc, then the only difference between the 720p model and the 1080p model is that the 1080p model is relying heavily on it's scaler to make the difference when displaying 720p content. In the end, if it has a real good scaler it will look potentially better, if not it won't. So...testing the scaler lets you know that in the first place no? In the end it's all about the scaler, that will make or break the image, assuming one at least has the tv setup right. Hence using the 360 as a test mule is a good test because it has a good scaler. We know that a bad scaler will make the image look worse. So if a tv's scaler can't compete with the 360's, which is a good scaler, then it will likely fail when compared to a native 720p tv.

 

[djskribbles]

Ok, but if you do a test as you suggest, with all things being equal, then the only differentiator is the scaler no? I mean if the two tv's are the same brand, similar panels, similar settings, similar calibration, similar size, etc, then the only difference between the 720p model and the 1080p model is that the 1080p model is relying heavily on it's scaler to make the difference when displaying 720p content. In the end, if it has a real good scaler it will look potentially better, if not it won't. So...testing the scaler lets you know that in the first place no? In the end it's all about the scaler, that will make or break the image, assuming one at least has the tv setup right. Hence using the 360 as a test mule is a good test because it has a good scaler. We know that a bad scaler will make the image look worse. So if a tv's scaler can't compete with the 360's, which is a good scaler, then it will likely fail when compared to a native 720p tv.

True, but it won't necessarily fail when compared to a native 720p TV... 720p on a 65" 720p native TV may not necessarily look very good either because 65" is a fairly large set. That's probably why they don't make 65" 720p displays anymore.

Even if that is the case, that your scaler is poor and 720p will look better on a 720p native set, I don't think you can definitively say that's true for all TV's.

 

[Rangers]

Call of Duty 4 looks very nice on the new TV. I cant notice the upscaling too much either. Interesting for a 600p-ish game.

So far it varies by game..ODST bad, Gears 2 kind of middleish, MW2 pretty good. Small flaws like aliasing are magnified though.

I must say I'm rethinking my fundamental view that 720P>720P is better than 720p>1080p in light of this thread. I guess what comes to my mind is upscaling DVD players, and the fact they are alleged to be a quality improvement.

edit: then again, upscaling DVD players simply replace the upscaling in the TV, and they are fundamentally only trying to make SD content look better on a native HD display, so I guess that really doesn't speak to the issue at all.

 

[joker454]

edit: then again, upscaling DVD players simply replace the upscaling in the TV, and they are fundamentally only trying to make SD content look better on a native HD display, so I guess that really doesn't speak to the issue at all.

The reason good upscalers exist in dvd players is because tv's typically don't have good quality upscalers. Think about it, if tv's all had great scaling ability, then why would dvd players even bother to include scalers of any quality? They would just let the tv do it and save themselves the money. Fact is, most tv's just don't upscale very well at all. That led to an entire market of upscaling dvd players that do it much better than the tv can on it's own. Video game consoles are in the exact same predicament, the difference being that the 360 comes with a great scaler so in most cases you are better letting it do the scaling, while the PS3 doesn't so you are stuck with the tv's scaling of whatever quality it is.

Incidentally, don't feel bad if you can't see the difference, you can see even from this thread that many people can't. I'm real sensitive to graphics so I see it easily even from as far as 20 feet away. Then again I'm the opposite on audio, I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between DTSHD-MA, Dolby True HD or LPCM, amd 192kbps mp3's are good enough for me.

 

[djskribbles]

upscaling SD to HD is a lot different than 720p to 1080p. Upscaling DVD players were essentially introduced for HDTV owners. Plus SD scalers on modern HDTV's have improved greatly over earlier HDTV's. Not a good example to use at all.

 

[joker454]

upscaling SD to HD is a lot different than 720p to 1080p. Upscaling DVD players were essentially introduced for HDTV owners. Plus SD scalers on modern HDTV's have improved greatly over earlier HDTV's. Not a good example to use at all.

Scaling is scaling, whether it's 720x480->1920x1080, or 1280x720->1920x1080, there's both good and bad ways to do it. But don't take my word for it, do the comparison yourself! Take the same movie on the same 1080p tv, and view it with an older non upscaling dvd player, a current but cheap upscaling dvd player, and the PS3. Let me know which looks best. If you are correct, where you think current tv's have great upscalers, then you should see no difference between the non upscaling dvd players output and the PS3's. I'll wager though that you will find the PS3's output to be the best.

 

[djskribbles]

Scaling is scaling, whether it's 720x480->1920x1080, or 1280x720->1920x1080, there's both good and bad ways to do it. But don't take my word for it, do the comparison yourself! Take the same movie on the same 1080p tv, and view it with an older non upscaling dvd player, a current but cheap upscaling dvd player, and the PS3. Let me know which looks best. If you are correct, where you think current tv's have great upscalers, then you should see no difference between the non upscaling dvd players output and the PS3's. I'll wager though that you will find the PS3's output to be the best.

It's more difficult to scale such a low resolution to a high resolution because there's a greater discrepancy, especially going SD to a large HDTV. It's easier to distinguish 480p from 720p than it is 720p from 1080p, especially on larger TV's.

But again, were not comparing TV scalers to good/very good scalers. If the TV's scaler is sufficient (which most are IMHO) 720p will either look better or at least equal to 720p on a 720p native set. I'm not going to go any further in this argument. Just wanted to give my 0.02 on 480p -> HD vs 720 -> 1080p.

 

[Rangers]

It's more difficult to scale such a low resolution to a high resolution because there's a greater discrepancy, especially going SD to a large HDTV. It's easier to distinguish 480p from 720p than it is 720p from 1080p, especially on larger TV's.

But again, were not comparing TV scalers to good/very good scalers. If the TV's scaler is sufficient (which most are IMHO) 720p will either look better or at least equal to 720p on a 720p native set. I'm not going to go any further in this argument. Just wanted to give my 0.02 on 480p -> HD vs 720 -> 1080p.

Interesting perspective but do you have any real proof on this? It seems to just be an opinion. As I said, I have no opinion on it anymore.

I wonder what people on AVS forums would say, for example...

 

[djskribbles]

Interesting perspective but do you have any real proof on this? It seems to just be an opinion. As I said, I have no opinion on it anymore.

I wonder what people on AVS forums would say, for example...

The level of knowledge varies with each member at AVS Forum. I've been a member of AVS Forum since 06 with over 2,000 posts under the name "rahzel" but I'm not going to sit here and say I know more than someone who has 100 posts. But I'm pretty sure most would agree with me, that the jump from 480p to 720p is far more than 720p to 1080p. The smaller the pixel gets, the harder it is for the human eye to tell two resolutions apart. Screen size obviously is a factor, though, and some people have sharper eyes than others.

Again, upscaling DVD players were introduced for large screen/high resolution HDTV's. You need a good scaler to get such a low resolution/large pixel size to look good on a large high resolution screen. 720p vs 1080p, however, a high quality scaler isn't as important as the pixel size for even 1280x720 is quite small so it gets more difficult to tell apart from 1080p unless you have a fairly large TV. If you followed articles on the internet a few years ago when 1080p TV's were just starting to come in, there were LOTS of articles saying 1080p TV's aren't worth it unless you have a TV larger than X inches... that's because even 720p looks good on most HDTV's and until you get to the larger sizes, there is little to no benefit from 1080p when viewing general video content.

joker454 may have an argument in his case as he has quite a large set at 65"... a good scaler may be required to get 720p to look good on his 1080p 65" set. But how do you think 720p would look on a 65" 720p native set? Not very good either me thinks because a low resolution on a large display generally doesn't look very good either as proven by SD material on large HDTV's. That's probably one of the reasons why they don't exist anymore. 720p sets usually stop at a certain size. THIS is what were debating after all, not comparing TV scalers with high quality scalers. At least with 1080p native sets, the TV (even if the scaler isn't the greatest) will take a relatively lower resolution and try to scale it up to a higher resolution, so as long as it can do so adequately, IMHO, it should look at least as good as it would on the 720p native TV.

I think joker454 is fixated on the idea that no scaling is better than scaling, but sometimes it's better to scale up when dealing with such large TV's (again, IMHO) as long as the scaler isn't crap and doesn't f*** up the picture.

 

[joker454]

I think joker454 is fixated on the idea that no scaling is better than scaling, but sometimes it's better to scale up when dealing with such large TV's (again, IMHO) as long as the scaler isn't crap and doesn't f*** up the picture.

I'm in favor of good scaling! My 720p 360 games look great on my new 1080p tv because the 360 has a nice scaler. My 720p PS3 games do not look as good because it relies on my tv which does not have a good scaler. So take the same multi platform game that looked equally sharp on both 360 and PS3 when viewed on my old 50" 720p tv, and on the new 1080p tv the 360 version still looks great but the PS3 version looks blurred. That's the situation I'm in, a situation which would not exist had the PS3 had a good scaler. Alas it doesn't, so it's games will now never look as sharp as 360 games. Every other source I have has been upgraded on this new tv, DirecTV, ExpressVu, Sony CX500V video camera, PC, 360, PS3 Blurays, PS3 XMB, etc. Everything has improved across the board, *except* 720p PS3 games which have been downgraded. All the data I have seen points to only one conclusion, that tv scalers typically aren't all that good.

In the end I would say the same thing I said before, try it yourself and judge with your own eyes. Take your PS3 and 360 and play a multi platform game that looks the same on each on a 720p tv, then play them on a 1080p tv of whatever size, and let me know which one looks better to you. Try it! You'll see what I mean when I say that PS3 games typically get downgraded when viewed on a 1080p tv. I'm sure many won't notice, but I think you will given that you seem to be picky about image quality like I am. Hence, the thread question of "why does my new tv look worse" is answered for some people like me, where everything looks better on the new tv except 720p PS3 games which now look worse.

 

[AlNom]

I'm in favor of good scaling! My 720p 360 games look great on my new 1080p tv because the 360 has a nice scaler. My 720p PS3 games do not look as good because it relies on my tv which does not have a good scaler. So take the same multi platform game that looked equally sharp on both 360 and PS3 when viewed on my old 50" 720p tv, and on the new 1080p tv the 360 version still looks great but the PS3 version looks blurred.

I'm in the same boat. 720p (1365x768) 50" TV. I could "tell" something was a little off about playing Dante's Demo on my ps3 compared to when I tried it on 360.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

This has been a very interesting discussion/debate, but I just don't see how it is actually physically possible for a 720p image to look better upscaled to 1080p than it will on a native 720p screen.

Isn't upscaling just a mathematical model that uses the characteristics of the closest pixels to approximate the characteristics of the pixels that don't actually exist from the source?

By it's very definition, isn't upscaling going to provide a worse image by providing information that doesn't exist naturally?

 

[AlNom]

Isn't upscaling just a mathematical model that uses the characteristics of the closest pixels to approximate the characteristics of the pixels that don't actually exist from the source?

There are more ways than one to upscale... The point was clearly made that the scaling algorithm in the 360 is better on average than the ones used in televisions.

 

[Billy Idol]

Just a (probably) stupid question: when you guys are talking about hardware scaler...how does this work? I mean interpolation is just math and thus an algorithm and thus software...software basically just needs a CPU to work (especially if it is as easy as interpolation)?!?!?
So what is a hardware scaler?