768p Upscaling question

[sim-and-sim]

This has probably been answered a billion times I'm just not searching for the right thing.. but.....

Ok so, my TV, Sony Bravia 32V4500 (please stop laughing, I'm embarrassed enough as it is...) is a 768p screen... It does the whole 1080p rescaling jazz, and I'm wondering, for upscaling DVDs (mainly TV shows....) am I better of telling my PS3 to upscale to 720p or 1080p....

[ijokr]

Actually yoúr tv is 1080p according to sony...http://www.sony.co.uk/product/t32-v-...TechnicalSpecs

I don´t get what´s wrong with it, there´s no 768p, it´s 720p. If this doesn´t answer your question, please put more info I will gladly help.

[sim-and-sim]

If you scroll down the bottom of that link you sent me, you'll see:

Display Resolution (Pixels) 1366 x 768 (3.1 Mega Pixels)

The TV can take in and decode a 1080p picture, but it rescales it to 768p...

My question is, is it better to upscale to 720p and let the TV resize it to 768p, or should I upscale to 1080p and have the tv resize it down to 768p..

720p is the closest to the native resolution of the TV, but the TV will have to upscale it... 1080p is well off 768p, and the tv will have to down scale the picture... down scaling an upscaled picture..

[ijokr]

ok, sorry about that, I didn´t see the resolution. You´re right, the tv is 1366 x 768, 720p is native in this. Since it is a 32 inch tv, you will not notice the difference between 1080p and 720p, not to mention that the tv will not give a true 1080p but an upscaled. What I recommend is set the playstation, dvd player, or whatever you hook up to 720p because the less processing involved, the better. 1080p is noticeable in tv´s starting at 50 inch, but only if you´re close, at the optimal distance it won´t make a difference.

[lojack1976]

My TV is 768p also. I'm no expert at this, but from what I've gathered its best to send in a 1080p signal. When Cnet reviewed some 768p TV's in the past they used 1080p signals. Their reasoning was that the best possible signal that can be sent should be used. It makes sense to me. Why would you want to upscale a lesser 720p signal to 768p when you can take an already superior 1080p and scale it down to 768p? Its just like up-scaling DVD's to 1080p...its not going to look as good as an already 1080p Blu-ray since up-scaling involves adding lines that aren't there in the first place. Down-scaling removes lines that you already have, so the picture is definitely going to be superior to an up-converted 720p source since you will have 768 lines of actually material from the 1080p source versus 720 actual lines from the 720p source with 48 made up lines added. I don't know how easily you can actually see the difference, but using the 1080p source is definitely the better way to go.

Down-converting 1080p does not require more processing than up-converting 720p either. From what I've read, the only signal that requires more processing is 1080i since it has to be de-interlaced before you can actually convert it to a progressive signal. You should never feed your set that signal if you can avoid it. If you ever watch NFL games in HD over the air you can easily see the artifacts on sets that don't scale 1080i well.

[Doc_Stew]

Originally Posted by lojack1976

My TV is 768p also. I'm no expert at this, but from what I've gathered its best to send in a 1080p signal. When Cnet reviewed some 768p TV's in the past they used 1080p signals. Their reasoning was that the best possible signal that can be sent should be used. It makes sense to me. Why would you want to upscale a lesser 720p signal to 768p when you can take an already superior 1080p and scale it down to 768p? Its just like up-scaling DVD's to 1080p...its not going to look as good as an already 1080p Blu-ray since up-scaling involves adding lines that aren't there in the first place. Down-scaling removes lines that you already have, so the picture is definitely going to be superior to an up-converted 720p source since you will have 768 lines of actually material from the 1080p source versus 720 actual lines from the 720p source with 48 made up lines added. I don't know how easily you can actually see the difference, but using the 1080p source is definitely the better way to go.

Down-converting 1080p does not require more processing than up-converting 720p either. From what I've read, the only signal that requires more processing is 1080i since it has to be de-interlaced before you can actually convert it to a progressive signal. You should never feed your set that signal if you can avoid it. If you ever watch NFL games in HD over the air you can easily see the artifacts on sets that don't scale 1080i well.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what he said!!

[dTm]

Try both with the same test material and see what you like more, after all - you will be the one watching it.