On 11/1/07, M. Adam Davis wrote: > > On 10/31/07, Sean Schouten wrote: > > Composite on 'full-HD' or 'true-HD' televisions also scale down- then > up, > > even though the input signal is actual HD. Oh, did I mention that I hate > the > > typical mr-salesman that can't get his facts straight? I mean; who in > hell > > mistakes 1024*786 for being a HD-resolution when your speciality is > selling > > HD-televisions? > > Technically 1024x768 (approximately 720p) is HD. There is no such > thing as "Full HD". There is 480i (typcial NTSC), 720p(or i), 1080i, > 1080p. Technically, 1024x786 is NOT 720p and thus not a 'HD' resolution; Simply because you're missing 256 pixels in width. Even if it would be, I still refuse to like salesmen that don't intimately know their products! The best consumer displays now support 1080p. > > I haven't heard of a diaply that downconverts the video and then > upconverts it - can you give an example or pointers to more info on > this? It's disturbing, unless it has to do with HDCP. In that case > the downconversion happens at the HDCP source, and the upconversion > happens on the monitor to display at its native resolution... > I am sorry to say that my source (read friend) has been NDA'd, so I don't have the reference design documents in hand. I can disclose that current composite (and perhaps component, but I would have to check to be sure) chips, do actually re-scale HD-inputs. IIRC, the chips that are responsible for re-scaling the signals are smart little buggers. They 'recognize' subtitles, split em from the picture, rescale the picture and merge it all up again, which aids the fact of you not noticing. Let me reassure you that this rescaling thing is limited to the composite (and possibly component) input. Rumors have it that there will be a cure on the market in 2009... I have been wondering about something HD for a while now, especially after knowing about the picture rescaling and some other dirty tricks HDTV manufacturers incorporate in to their televisions : How far are we willing to take this HD-FAD? If you ask me, it looks dangerously familiar to the story of people hearing the difference between 256kbit MP3's and their 320Kbit cousins. I remember reading about a lab-test where they subjected numerous people, including 'audio-freaks' with super-human hearing, to numerous MP3 bit rates and uncompressed music, just to find out that human hearing can't hear ANY difference 256Kbit+ IIRC. Knowing that there are some even higher HD resolutions on their way, I wonder: HOW MUCH more can one see with higher-than-HD? Sean. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist