Explain me resolutions

[georgir]

I'm a little confused, why should the dvd format and its successors enforce only a given set of resolutions as standard/allowed?

I can understand that in the age of analog television, the signal had to be exactly a specific size to be displayed by the TV. But now with digital video, rescaling the image from any resolution to any other is a simple process, so why aren't arbitrary resolutions allowed in the DVD standards? We do have a bunch of DV resolutions already anyway, with PAL and NTSC both having 4:3 and Widescreen variants, and the lots of HDTV resolutions. So, chances are, in a lot of cases your player is doing a rescaling of the image anyway. Then why not allow all resolutions?

[thunderhawk]

mmm, dunno

they always wanna make a mess of it :lol:

:?

[tron3]

Originally Posted by georgir

...But now with digital video, rescaling the image from any resolution to any other is a simple process, so why aren't arbitrary resolutions allowed in the DVD standards? We do have a bunch of DV resolutions already anyway, with PAL and NTSC both having 4:3 and Widescreen variants, and the lots of HDTV resolutions. So, chances are, in a lot of cases your player is doing a rescaling of the image anyway. Then why not allow all resolutions?

Aspect ratio. People will choose difference resolutions and ultimately, neither DVD or blu-ray is going to support it. When you choose TOO high a resolution over a 480i pic, it actually looks worse as artifacts and other garbage becomes visible that normally is screened out.

Trust me, let them pick the resolution. Standards work better than now having a tv help desk...."WHy does my movie look like crap at 2048 lines?" Ugh :|

[john_1958]

High def should only be the resolution for broadcast as well as DVDs.

Regular DVDs and broadcast look like crap

[thunderhawk]

Yes...

I wonder if digital TV and HDTV broadcasts use Variable Bitrates...
Anyone?

[seenitdoneit]

Originally Posted by georgir

I'm a little confused, why should the dvd format and its successors enforce only a given set of resolutions as standard/allowed?

Um, that's the definition of a standard.

Originally Posted by georgir

I can understand that in the age of analog television, the signal had to be exactly a specific size to be displayed by the TV. But now with digital video, rescaling the image from any resolution to any other is a simple process, so why aren't arbitrary resolutions allowed in the DVD standards?

Because "arbitrary" and "standard" are mutually exclusive. And, scaling is not a "simple process" and it introduces artifacts into the displayed image.

Originally Posted by georgir

We do have a bunch of DV resolutions already anyway, with PAL and NTSC both having 4:3 and Widescreen variants, and the lots of HDTV resolutions. So, chances are, in a lot of cases your player is doing a rescaling of the image anyway. Then why not allow all resolutions?

Why? You can't change the resolution of the output device, it is what it is. Scaling is the process of throwing away resolution, and it isn't done in the player anyway. It's done in the dislplay device.

[Rob]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have one standard resolution for HDTV of 1920 by 1080p? tvs would then have to be made for this res, and all tv, movies would then output this res. Scaling is best avoided for obvious reasons.

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by Rob

Wouldn't it make more sense to have one standard resolution for HDTV of 1920 by 1080p? tvs would then have to be made for this res, and all tv, movies would then output this res. Scaling is best avoided for obvious reasons.

Hum that would be good but it would cost more to costumers... You can use a computer screen to display HDTV in 720p but in 1080p, it becomes a little more difficult... You have to buy a new computer screen, a new TV, always new things ! In the end, it cost too much ! :|

[Blu-Wave]

High definition has been in the US for some time, but is yet to launch en masse in Europe. Whilst 921kpixel 720p60 might seem good compared to NTSC's 307kpixel 480i60, it is less of a step up from PAL's 442kpixel 576i50 and even less of a step above SECAM's 786kpixel 768i60. :?

High definition was originally specified at over 1000 lines resolution by Sony and NHK in the sixties, resulting in modern full resolution HD of 1920 by 1080 pixels (2.1Mpixels), progressively scanned. Now that the worldwide launch of a disc that can support 1080p24 is imminent, many display manufacturers are preparing their fully compatible (1920 by 1080p24 capable) displays. If you've already bought an "HD capable" display that isn't 1080p24 capable you'll obviously want to get your money's worth out of it, but if not it's probably best to wait for true 1080p24 displays to come down in price.

The intention is to stay at 1920 by 1080 for some time, but to increase the frame rate towards and then beyond 100Hz as the technology matures. 8)

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by Blu-Wave

High definition has been in the US for some time, but is yet to launch en masse in Europe. Whilst 921kpixel 720p60 might seem good compared to NTSC's 307kpixel 480i60, it is less of a step up from PAL's 442kpixel 576i50 and even less of a step above SECAM's 786kpixel 768i60. :?

High definition was originally specified at over 1000 lines resolution by Sony and NHK in the sixties, resulting in modern full resolution HD of 1920 by 1080 pixels (2.1Mpixels), progressively scanned. Now that the worldwide launch of a disc that can support 1080p24 is imminent, many display manufacturers are preparing their fully compatible (1920 by 1080p24 capable) displays. If you've already bought an "HD capable" display that isn't 1080p24 capable you'll obviously want to get your money's worth out of it, but if not it's probably best to wait for true 1080p24 displays to come down in price.

The intention is to stay at 1920 by 1080 for some time, but to increase the frame rate towards and then beyond 100Hz as the technology matures. 8)

Don't worry, I've got a computer CRT screen who can support HDTV easily ^^ : Mitsubishi DiamondPro 2070 SB 1600x1200 @ 100 Hz (Max 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz) 8)

[Drew816]

I'd heard of Blu-Ray, and a co-worker just forwarded me this link; great resource!

Ok, so there are currently several different resolution formats out there available and supported, can someone list them out for me? 480, 780, 1080, and what's their pixel resolution Width x Height? What is the quality/resolution of a DVD right now? Broadcast HDTV the same resolution of a DVD?

Obviously if Blu-Ray is going to be in the 1920x1080 range then you'd have to play a TV/Monitor that supports these resolution and speed in order to be able to use it, no question there. But for the consumer looking for DVD quality does a 1336 x 800 (or somethign like that!) resolution monitor get you any closer to Blu-Ray is is the step up to a 1300 or 1280 monitor a waste of money? If we're not looking to go Blu-Ray for several years what's the minimum resolution monitor we should be looking at to support broadcast HDTV and DVD's?

Thanks for your time and happy viewing!

Drew816
Andrew
Columbus, Ohio

[Blu-Wave]

Hi Andrew,

the required resolution for a high definition system (to provide true cinema quality in the home) was defined by Sony and NHK (the Japanese national broadcaster) in the sixties as around 1000 vertical lines, with square pixels to give the same resolution both horizontally and vertically.

The agreed modern standard is 1920 by 1080 pixels, progressively scanned, but an intermediate version also exist (1280 by 720p) - which broadcasters like because it uses much less bandwidth (allowng more revenue). Blu-ray, however, has no problems storing over four hours of true high quality 1920 by 1080p film on a 50GB dual-layer disc, and now that the high resolution standard has been set more and more fully compatible displays are appearing.

Although lots of clever image scaling technologies are availble, a one to one pixel mapping between the disc and the display gives optimum results with minimum arefacts, so 1280 by 720p works best for intermediate material and 1920 by 1080p for full high definition. I would wait for full definition displays to improve and come down in price - especially as the mass-market launch of blu-ray is now scheduled until next year anyway, and go for one to one. Standard DVD is at 640 by 480 resolution, but being significantly higher resolution a full high definition display with careful image optimisation should be able to display it to a high standard - some top-end DVDs now offer image scaling (using super-resolution techniques) to make standard definition DVDs look their best on a high definition display. :shock:

Finally, when you do get to buy anything, remmeber to ensure that both the player/recorder and the display have HD-compatible digital HDMI interface with copy protection - or you'll find that most discs will refuse to play... ops:

I hope that this helps you with your decision,

Yours,

James


Incidentally, for the new millennium NHK have developed the next generation system after High Definition – called Ultra High Definition Video [UHDV] – with a resolution of 7680 by 4320 pixels progressively scanned at 60 frames per second! …but I wouldn’t hold my breath… :roll: