Main > Everything Else

Questions about 1080p

<< < (5/7) > >>

Howard_Casto:

--- Quote from: ahofle on January 08, 2008, 01:02:42 pm ---Remaster from original cells.

--- End quote ---


No... they re-scanned the original film from the archives, the original cells weren't touched, nor do they exist anymore. 

MaximRecoil:

--- Quote from: Jouster on January 08, 2008, 03:03:36 pm ---Ok...I'm all about dumb when it comes to TV's...someone please learn me good.

Tv, in order of resolution go:
SD
720p
1080i
1080p
?? ?

--- End quote ---

SD
480i
480p
720p
1080i
1080p
2K
4K


--- Quote ---I'm guessing from this thread that the i is interlaced and the p is progressive.
--- End quote ---

Yes.


--- Quote ---Does any of this change if you are looking at getting a projector?  I realize there are other factors to consider in getting a projector (lumens, contrast...blah, blah, blah), but what of resolution?

Jouster

--- End quote ---

Resolution is important for projectors as well. Higher resolution is better, all else being equal.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Jouster on January 08, 2008, 03:03:36 pm ---

Does any of this change if you are looking at getting a projector?  I realize there are other factors to consider in getting a projector (lumens, contrast...blah, blah, blah), but what of resolution?

Jouster

--- End quote ---

It all works the same with a projector.  However, resolution is probably especially important with a projector for no other reason than screen size.  Just as people say that you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p with a 40" screen or less (notwithstanding Howard's opinion), 1080p is going to be more important at 120" than it is at 50".  Larger screens need higher resolutions or the pixels are big and the images are blocky.

Howard_Casto:

--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on January 08, 2008, 01:15:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on January 08, 2008, 05:40:45 am ---So to sum up, a sd ntsc signal looks crappy not because of it's poor resolution, but it's poor quality.
--- End quote ---

They are both to blame. If you were to approximate the resolution of an SD NTSC signal (320x240) with a purely digital video, it will look bad displayed full-screen on an HD display, regardless of the quality of the video's encoding.



--- End quote ---

"Bad" is subjective... yes it'll look like a low resolution picture, because... well it is a low resolution picture (duh!) but a pure digital 320x240 will look dramatically better than a crappy degraded 320x240.  On top of that, NTSC is much higher resolution than you think (unless we are talking rabbit ears).  I'll just refer you to this link:

http://www.strata.com/support/3dmanual/ch13/ch13_7.html

Now with that being said, yes... sd signals are interlaced, but that only effects vertical resolution, not horizontal, so taking into account the extra border the actual resolution of your typical ntsc signal is 640x324, that's still a pretty low resolution, but interlacing (gasp!) actually does a good job of doubling the vertical res on lower end signals like ntsc, so unless we are looking at a static image, it still seems like a 640x480 image.  But wait, to confuse things even more, the type of tv plays a part again.  Analog tvs do interlaced just fine, they were designed to, digital tvs vary.  Your comb filter on your dtv may or may not be able to "de-interlace" a ntsc signal, making it look similar (but still not quite as good) as it would on an analog tv.  

Regardless, our main issue is still quality, it's just in this case were are also talking about loss of quality via interlacing/dinterlacing and filtering processes done to the image.  640x480i isn't THAT bad, and that becomes evident if you see it on a large screen projection tv, even if it supports hi-def, compared to a similar sized lcd tv.

So as I stated in my original post, it is partly to blame, but my guess is you just glanced at what I said and only read the last sentence.  ;)

MaximRecoil:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on January 08, 2008, 04:09:53 pm ---
"Bad" is subjective... yes it'll look like a low resolution picture, because... well it is a low resolution picture (duh!) but a pure digital 320x240 will look dramatically better than a crappy degraded 320x240.  On top of that, NTSC is much higher resolution than you think (unless we are talking rabbit ears).  I'll just refer you to this link:

http://www.strata.com/support/3dmanual/ch13/ch13_7.html
--- End quote ---

A typical over-the-air NTSC TV broadcast will only yield about 330 lines of horizontal resolution. You will always have 485 lines of visible vertical resolution, interlaced, which gives you 242.5. This roughly translates to a 320x240 digital resolution. Now if we are talking direct broadcast feed, then the resolution would be improved. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version