Going from 900p@16.4" to 1080p@18.4"

[hendra]

When watching Blu-ray, would I notice more detail if I switch from 1600x900@16.4" to 1920x1080@18.4" laptop or would it just be a bigger screen?

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by hendra

When watching Blu-ray, would I notice more detail if I switch from 1600x900@16.4" to 1920x1080@18.4" laptop or would it just be a bigger screen?

Yes, you would notict a difference - on both fronts.
Bigger screen and higher resolution.

Contrary to what come would have you believe, you do *NOT* need a huge ass screen across the room to get the benefit of Blu-ray.

Post typed from my #1 BD VAIO - 17" and 1920x1200 display.

[lojack1976]

I have to disagree. You won't see any difference whatsoever other than the obvious larger screen. I went from a 1080p 42" tv to a 50" 768p tv for my living room, and guess what...no difference in sharpness or detail at all and that's even if I'm right up on it. At that size the lines of resolution don't have enough space between them for you to see between with the naked eye even if you are right up on the screen. One panel may have a better contrast ratio than the other so black levels may vary, and the video cards in each could give a different picture, but as far as the resolution goes it will not affect the movie at all.

[dadkins]

42" to 50' at he same resolution of 768?
No doubt!
From 8-10 feet, that small of an increase of screen size with no increase of actual resoliution, there will be little change whatsoever.
Had you jumped t0 1920x1080, you would have seen an improvement - one would hope.

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by dadkins

42" to 50' at he same resolution of 768?
No doubt!
From 8-10 feet, that small of an increase of screen size with no increase of actual resoliution, there will be little change whatsoever.
Had you jumped t0 1920x1080, you would have seen an improvement - one would hope.

You must not have read my post correctly. My 42" is a 1080p tv with a 1920x1080p resolution and my 50" is a 1366x768p resolution. Being right up on the screen you still don't see any difference in sharpness, and I've gone back and forth between the two many times to try and see a difference. You're just not going to unless there is a drastic size difference in the screen, and when you are talking about a 17" or 19" screen the difference is absolutely impossible to tell with such a small change in resolution. The lines are just way too close for the eye to determine the difference.

[dadkins]

My bad!
Still...

So, 768 is the same as 1080?
What's the source?
Uhm, I can see the difference between my 17" 1440x900 as opposed to the other 17" 1920x1200.
Same size, higher res - there is a big difference!

Sounds like you have a setting or two wrong or using some inferior source material.

[lojack1976]

You can see the difference in resolution when running your computer programs as in the icons getting smaller but sharper, but there is no way you can see the difference in a Blu-ray movie. The computer will scale it to the set resolution, and on a screen that small there is absolutely no way you are going to see the difference in a movie. Its just not possible. The difference between 1440x900 and 1920x1080 is very small in the first place. Do you realize that 1,440 lines by 900 lines on a screen that small is virtually the same as 1,920 lines by 1080 lines? We're talking the difference of displaying 2,340 lines versus 3000 lines on the screen...on a 17" screen! The OP is talking about going from a 1600x900 resolution to 1920x1080...just a 500 line difference when were talking thousands! I tell you its impossible to see the difference in regards to movies. You can look at nearly any professional hdtv review and they will tell you that even on a 50" screen the difference between 720p and 1080p is nearly impossible to discern, and here you are talking about a 17" screen. I'm sorry but if you think there is a difference in what your Blu-rays look like on screens that size with such close resolutions its only wishful thinking. The smaller the screen the closer the lines are to each other and the human eye just can't see such fine detail. Oh, and I have an extensive movie collection by the way with with well over a hundred Blu-rays and a PS3 outputting 1080p to my 50" 768p TV that accepts 1080p signals. I also have a Samsung Blu-ray player in my bedroom outputting at 1080p to my 42" 1080p TV, so there is definitely nothing wrong with my settings or sources.

[dadkins]

Since you have never seen these displays, you cannot say.

A little information for you:
A 17" 1920x1080 display at 22" viewing distance is directly comparable with a 72" 1920x1080 display at 8 feet.

"outputting 1080p to my 50" 768p TV that accepts 1080p signals"
Accepting 1080p and displaying 1080p is a whole different matter friend!
Post that in the HDTV forums, see what they tell you.


The thing you keep missing(common misconception BTW) is viewing distance friend.
Absolutely! From 8 - 10 feet away, no one could see the difference on a 17" screen! DUH!
At 22". you better believe you can!

Tell ya what, lets compare apples to apples, ok?

Set up your 42" HDTV in your garage.
Now, back away to across the street.
No freakin doubt there will be no telling what is displayed!
Now, get within 5 feet of it, you *CAN* tell!

So, when you start saying HDTV reviews, you have to remember - they're sitting 10 feet(or more) away!

Here is a good tool to maybe educate you on viewing distance vs screen size:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

Might explain why you cannot see the difference between screens.
For 42", the maximum viewing distance for fully resolved HD 1080 is 5.5 feet.
Betting you are a bit past that mark, huh?
For 50", if it were 1080, would be about 6.5 feet.
So, since the 50"er is not 1080 and you are most likely a bit out of range anyways... that would be your issue in not seeing the difference.

Math for you...
1366 x 768 = 1049088 pixels
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels

Your 50" set is shy 1024512 pixels of being able to display Blu-ray properly - at any distance!

[lojack1976]

First off I didn't say that my tv displayed 1080p. I said it accepted it which is a response to you questioning my sources...my friend. It's also pretty relative since both of my TV's have native progressive resolutions...which if you don't already know is the preferred method of displaying lines of resolution. Believe me when I tell you that there is no difference in sharpness or detail that can be seen between the two when I'm right up on the screen...NONE. It doesn't matter if I'm 10ft. or 10" away, and I've studied these screens side by side repeatedly trying to see a difference that would've justified me spending extra on a 1080p 50". We're talking about going from 1600x900 to 1920x1080 not 800x600 to 1920x1080. I'm sorry but you are fooling yourself if you think that your movies look better by going from 1600x900 to 1920x1080 on a 17" screen. The difference between those resolutions is negligible. You need eyes of a hawk to see that difference my friend. And being that I've been in the computer industry since '99 I think that I do know something about resolution.

[dadkins]

Yeah, thanks lojack!

Yeah, I know you didn't, THAT'S the point!
You said it accepted 1080p - that is a big difference from being able to display 1080p.
No sh** Blu-ray isn't impressive at 1366 x 768. DUH!
Nearly half of the res is not being shown!
You are off by over 1 million pixels friend!

1600 to 1920 is 320 of horizontal pixels.
320 pixels is noticable.
If you think it's not, then you think wrong.
If you actually try it and cannot see the difference, LensCrafters.



^^^ That image is 320 pixels wide.
If you think that losing or gaining 320 pixels cannot be noticed, you're lost!
That equates to roughly 2 7/16" worth of picture on this 1920 display.

BTW, making claims about "I've been in the computer industry since '99" on a messageboard means nothing... I've been in the buisness since '85 but that doesn't mean anything to you, does it?

No, it doesn't.
Just words on a page, aint it? LOL!

Thanks again lojack!

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by dadkins

No sh** Blu-ray isn't impressive at 1366 x 768. DUH!

That is one of the most ridiculous statements that I've ever seen or heard. If that were the case then professional reviewers wouldn't favor many Pioneer 720p TV's over many other 1080p TV's. You have this perception that resolution is the be-all end-all for visual excellence which is too far from the truth. Sorry but I've learned over the years that all the technical specs in the world doesn't necessarily equate to real world performance. A lot of things look good on paper. Just because something is superior from a technical aspect doesn't mean you can see it with the naked eye. Do you even have an idea of how small a pixel is on a 17" screen? I have a 22" lcd monitor with a resolution of 1680x1050 and it has two dead pixels. Each pixel is so small you have to have your face within inches to see them and even then they appear to be small specs of dust. On an even smaller screen you would be even more hard pressed to see them because the pixels are even smaller. Hell, it took a year before I even noticed them because I thought they were dust particles when I was cleaning it. The advantage of higher resolutions come with larger screens. On small screens you reach a point where it just doesn't make a difference. If you keep adding pixels to a screen eventually you reach the point of diminishing returns because the will be so tightly packed together that your eyes can no longer tell the difference when you add more. Comparing a 320 pixel image to an image with millions of pixels is not even comparing apples and oranges. Its more like apples and space ships. Another point you're not accounting for is the type of signal. For instance, 720p(1280x720) looks sharper than 1080i(1920x1080) even though 1080i is a higher resolution. The manner in which the lines are displayed makes a significant difference. 1080i can even introduce artifacts during fast motion. All sorts of factors determine picture quality and resolution is just one part of the puzzle. I'll take an excellent 3MP camera over a crappy 12MP camera any day of the week.

[dadkins]

1080i(1366x768)?
Dude, WTF do you think 1080 stands for?

Here:



Whatever you say friend, whatever you say!

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by hendra

When watching Blu-ray, would I notice more detail if I switch from 1600x900@16.4" to 1920x1080@18.4" laptop or would it just be a bigger screen?

Maybe dadkins can explain this, I have asked this question before on a different thread, same basic subject and not gotten an answer. If the Blu-ray disc has a 1080P version on it and you are playing it to a monitor/hdtv at a lower resolution where is the downsampling occuring and wouldn't this potentially affect image quality or accuracy in reproduction?

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

Maybe dadkins can explain this, I have asked this question before on a different thread, same basic subject and not gotten an answer. If the Blu-ray disc has a 1080P version on it and you are playing it to a monitor/hdtv at a lower resolution where is the downsampling occuring and wouldn't this potentially affect image quality or accuracy in reproduction?

That all depends on the player/playback source.
With a computer, the scaling can either be done on the machine/Graphics settings or the HDTV itself will handle the scaling.

With a PS3, the PS3 can handle the output scaling or the TV can handle it.

With a STB... I really haven't had any experience, but I imagine you could just let the TV handle it if the STB doesn't provide scaling abilities/output.

To truly appreciate the 1080p of Blu-ray, one needs to display the video at the proper resolution and view the display at the recommended distance.

Yes, the downsampling will affect the PQ.
Not by a large factor, but it will be less than ideal.



Hope this helps!

[zicmubleu]

Thanks for the answers dadkins. So in the end the OP might be affected by how his system is scaling the image, sounds like two different monitors and one laptop PC. As complicated as resizing an image would seem to be I would have thought it might be significant on replaying a video but I will take your word for it.

As a personal preference I would always want to watch a Blu-ray in the full 1080P format, but all I have are LCD HDTVs no Plasma, so I can see the screen-door effect if I am up close. Overall I would be more concerned with how the scaling treated the tossed pixels in a real time situation like a video. My most intense viewing is of jpeg slideshows so I have a chance to look for minute details in the image.

[Semp1]

Lojack you have no idea what you are talking about the first thing that indicates this is the fact that you do not even know what the resolution of 1080i is, it's exactly what 1080p is which is 1920x1080 pixels of interlaced lines instead of progressive hence the "i",not the resolution you put. I understand the point you are trying to make with taking a quality piece of hardware over crap but to make a statement that reviewers think some 720p pioneers are better than the most recent top of the line 1080p displays is ridiculous and about 2 years too late since Pioneer has been making only 1080p big screen plasmas for the last few years. The one thing I have noticed about this forum is it does not have as many knowledged people as others and alot of posters you can tell are teens which is fine the problem is people put wrong know it all information out there and others believe what they are reading...nest time do a little research before you go and argue with people who know a little more than yourself...

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

Thanks for the answers dadkins. So in the end the OP might be affected by how his system is scaling the image, sounds like two different monitors and one laptop PC. As complicated as resizing an image would seem to be I would have thought it might be significant on replaying a video but I will take your word for it.

As a personal preference I would always want to watch a Blu-ray in the full 1080P format, but all I have are LCD HDTVs no Plasma, so I can see the screen-door effect if I am up close. Overall I would be more concerned with how the scaling treated the tossed pixels in a real time situation like a video. My most intense viewing is of jpeg slideshows so I have a chance to look for minute details in the image.

Define "up close".
My 42" LCD only starts "showing" the individual pixels when you get within 2.5 feet - too close.
Anything 3 feet and above, no "Screen Door" effect.
Maximum distance recommended for my 42" 1080p LCD is 5.5 - 6 feet.
I sit normally just under 6 feet.
The PQ is phenominal!

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by dadkins

That all depends on the player/playback source.
With a computer, the scaling can either be done on the machine/Graphics settings or the HDTV itself will handle the scaling.

With a PS3, the PS3 can handle the output scaling or the TV can handle it.

With a STB... I really haven't had any experience, but I imagine you could just let the TV handle it if the STB doesn't provide scaling abilities/output.

To truly appreciate the 1080p of Blu-ray, one needs to display the video at the proper resolution and view the display at the recommended distance.

Yes, the downsampling will affect the PQ.
Not by a large factor, but it will be less than ideal.



Hope this helps!

Originally Posted by dadkins

Define "up close".
My 42" LCD only starts "showing" the individual pixels when you get within 2.5 feet - too close.
Anything 3 feet and above, no "Screen Door" effect.
Maximum distance recommended for my 42" 1080p LCD is 5.5 - 6 feet.
I sit normally just under 6 feet.
The PQ is phenominal!

When I am looking at a jpeg slideshow I have created sometimes I will get within inches to see the detail in the photo. I use a 14MP camera so the image is downsized by the time I have run it through my Sony Vegas/Architect software and unfortunate recompression during rendering. Then when I am viewing it on the screen I will get close to see if I kept the detail I wanted or maybe just notice something in the photo I had not seen before. I am becoming slightly far sighted so the big screen is more comfortable to see than a 22" computer monitor.

I know this forum is aimed at Blu-ray movie watchers in general, but the HDTV has a lot more to offer for my use. Photography is my first love, a big screen finally makes it easy to see great detail in a living room environment. I can't wait until stuff like 4K resolution TVs come out!!

[dadkins]

Oh I know...
Sometimes, I leave the HDMI connected from one of these laptops to the TV, great having a 1920x1080 computer display @ 42".

As with any display, you can get too close - this laptop has a 1920x1200 display(17")
Too close starts at 6".

I have corrected a few nay-sayers about watching a Blu-ray on a laptop.
Not all laptops are created equally...
Not all laptop displays are cheap.

RAW and TIFFs are great, but remember, anything over 2million(2MP) is kind of a waste on any common display.
Ya can't split pixels.
Try feeding 4MP to a 2MP(+/-) display, you will lose some clarity.
Higher feeds, ya lose a lot more.

Same applies to feeding 1920x1080 to a lesser display. You will lose some of the clarity.

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Oh I know...
Sometimes, I leave the HDMI connected from one of these laptops to the TV, great having a 1920x1080 computer display @ 42".

As with any display, you can get too close - this laptop has a 1920x1200 display(17")
Too close starts at 6".

I have corrected a few nay-sayers about watching a Blu-ray on a laptop.
Not all laptops are created equally...
Not all laptop displays are cheap.

RAW and TIFFs are great, but remember, anything over 2million(2MP) is kind of a waste on any common display.
Ya can't split pixels.
Try feeding 4MP to a 2MP(+/-) display, you will lose some clarity.
Higher feeds, ya lose a lot more.

Same applies to feeding 1920x1080 to a lesser display. You will lose some of the clarity.

dadkins - I agree. Don't cringe but I just use jpeg, the images start off at about 3-5MB in size so my first step is to process the image in Photoshop. During this step I try to crop it to be close to the 16x9 aspect ration to make full use of all those pixels. I also resize the image to about 4MP, generally 3840 pixels wide.

Next I import the images into Sony Vegas to edit them into a single file which resizes them to the 1920-XXXX size and add sound. The next step is to author the Vegas output files in Architect which unfortunately seems to recompress them again.

I learned my lesson with digital photoframes about using full size images, they don't do a good job of resizing them to the display format. In the Blu-ray slideshow instance the resize turned out to be necessary to reduce the processor load it seemed, the full size images were too much for the PC to complete successfully with Vegas.