i recently brought a HD tv... for $600 it does 768p... or otherwise known as 1360x768.

picked up a digital tv hd tuner... most streams are in 1080i/p but it still looks crap... computer hooked up to it looks ok

questions

since it cant do 720p natively should it always look crap?

when will i start to notice the 'good quality' of HD?

what things can i do to take best advantage of the tv, eg what things can i check to make sure im not limiting the tv in any way?

im using composite cables to connect from digital hd tuner to tv the red, green and yellow or whatever they are.

cheers for any advice or ups and downs you can let me know about with high def tv and such.

its a awa 81cm tv btw

well there's your problem

768 is 720p, the extra lines (48) get stolen by the fairies

try here also

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?&CODE=01

problem is in the cords.. you need to use component!!! blue, green and red

thanks crazymorton.

tit i'm using those cables mate. the only step up i can find is the HDMI ones and i think its more of a problem of the stations not outputing high definition tv programs all the time, some stuff looks great... anyone got an opinion/experience on this?

denny, are you serious? :( so they just get merged or something? surely a tv that has to scale 'down' from 1080 and 'up' from 720 would never be as clear as a native 720p tv right? why does it behave this way, why not just make 720 native tellies?

sif not use DVI

Your tv should have a scaling chip that converts its inputs to a res it can display. If your set top box is capable of running at 720p, you should have no issues.

scaled < correct res to begin with..

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that a lot of stuff broadcast on HDTV channels in Australia isn't yet really HD - its just normal 576 PAL scaled up.

3dee - yeh but the quality of the scaler is a huge factor in how well scaled stuff looks.

last edited by Hogfather at 09:39:38 28/May/08

Most Australian-made shows are in HD, be it s*** like Neighbours or the news, and so are some of the movies and new US TV shows. The rest is just scaled up. I'd say it's about 40% HD content.

scaled < correct res to begin with..

Correct, however considering up until recently Channel 7 HD was 720P/50hz, its not always possible to be completely perfect. If you have a 1366x768 TV, its never possible.

Yeah but what I'm saying is why would you buy a 768p TV knowing full well that 'apparently standard' HD res is 720 or 1080?

Channel 7 HD was 720P/50hz

was? Unless they went to 1080p I always thought 720 was a standard HD resolution (at least for movies and xbox/ps3 games).

Isn't HDTV broadcast in 1080i?

Yeah in Australia HDTV is broadcast as 1080i. HD refers to the source side of a display, not just the output. That is why you get some real weird resolutions. Some plasma screens even have a resolution at 1024x1024 (rectanglular pixels) but still accept 1080i signals (so it is a HD TV).

The fact that a screen has a specific resolution does not mean it does not support other input resolutions. "HD" plasmas are generally 1024x768, and yet they output 720p, 1080i and 1080p perfectly well.

I don't really understand that TBH mongie, its bugged me for a while.

Is there some ninja trick how a TV with 768 rows of pixels can output a signal that's 1080 rows and yet retain te high quality image? Isn't "HD" in the digital world directly tied to resolution? Would a 720p signal on a plasma look just as good as a 1080p one, since the screen only has 768 rows anyway?

A Full HDTV [sic] has a resolution of 1920x1080. Your ninja monkey is the scaling algorithm. A cheap TV isn't going to scale as well as an expensive one or a dedicated scaler. The reason the signal still looks good is because of the data being fed to it. It has plenty of resolution in the source to create the output signal. The 768p doesn't output 1080p (or i). It takes a 1080i signal and scales it to 1024x768. It is the same concept of taking a large photo and reducing the image size to fit onto your monitor. It still looks crisp but there is still some compromise in detail. The 1080i/1080p/720p et al refers to inputs, not outputs.

last edited by Herron at 15:11:25 28/May/08

This is also why watching SD on a big screen looks kinda crappy... just the reverse effect.

It still looks crisp but there is still some compromise in detail. The 1080i/1080p/720p et al refers to inputs, not outputs.

Yeh I get that (the scaling monkey). So a 720 line TV can't really be "1080p" no matter what the marketing guys say - check. Its just scaling the same way that my Bravia does (another 720p TV).

In practice, its nearly impossible to tell the difference between any of the HD resolutions.

If you're looking at a 42" screen (or similar) from 2-3M away, i'd challenge almost anyone to spot the difference between 720p and 1080i (or 1080p for that matter).

Yeh totally agree mongie, the whole "full HD thing" is a bit of a swindle I reckon for < 50" TVs.

Recent converstaion at my house:

Old mole: "ohhh nice TV! is that 1080p?!"
me: "Nah 720p"
Old mole: "Oh .. well our Bravia is full HD"
me: "..."

Felt like smacking her. I really needed a snappy comeback but I'm a bit slow sometimes. She was standing right in front of the TV ffs!

I reckon you could have told her it was "ULTRA MEGA HDTV" and she'd believe you.

Marketing ploys... they come up with these tricks to sell they're products and then people turn into spooks.

The thing to remember is that for an increased resolution to matter, you need to be able to physically see the different pixels. If you are far away from the screen, then you cannot differentiate the pixels - they blur together.

Of course, this means that for a given screensize (lets say 42 inches), when you go from 1280x720 ("HD") to 1920x1200 ("Full HD") the individual pixels get much smaller - thus, you need to sit closer to the TV to actually be able to see the improved resolution.

This site has a recommended viewing distance for TV's of various sizes and resolutions: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.php

Notice for a Full HD 42" set it recommends sitting 5.5 feet (approx 165cm) from the TV - much closer than most people would setup their lounge chairs. Even for the Full HD 50", 6.5 feet (just under 2m) is very close.



last edited by Nathan at 17:03:36 28/May/08

nathan and mongie, your posts have been invaluable to helping me understand what i should be satisfied with and be content with my purcahse.

thanks heeps guys!

thus, you need to sit closer to the TV to actually be able to see the improved resolution.

Doesn't the eye have a resolution of like 20 jigga-pixels tho? I'm sure you'd actually notice the difference as long as you have good vision.
Its like the argument of 30fps being 'apparently' the most you need (total bs - completely depends of source material).

Its like the argument of 30fps being 'apparently' the most you need

There is only one person in the history of this forum who supports that argument.

Doesn't the eye have a resolution of like 20 jigga-pixels tho? I'm sure you'd actually notice the difference as long as you have good vision.

Human eye is nothing like a digital camera. Its more a case of if you have Eyes of the Hawk! maybe you could notice pixels.

I have a damaged optic nerve so I'm no benchmark, although people point out that the text on my computer is too small a lot. No way in the world I can see pixelation at all on my lounge.

I don't think its meant to be quite that scientific. The point is, if you look at two screens side by side, with the same source material, one capable of 1080P and one only 1366x768, there will be a difference, but it really isn't a MASSIVE difference.

The main thing you're going to find lacking on a cheaper LCD is actual panel quality - Colours looking more washed out, and colours just not being particularly colourful. Black levels will not be as good etc.

The problem is, that sales people tend to use figures to sell products - I know cause I used to do the same thing... Its a lot easier to convince someone to upsell based on whether something is "Full HD" or not, than it is to say "This one has better colours - can you see that?"

Because of that, people tend to think that if it isn't Full HD then its not worth s***, and we end up with this sort of debate. I would guess if you put a 1024x768 pioneer plasma up against a "Full HD" Soniq LCD, you'd notice the picture quality difference a long time before you'd notice the pioneer's lacking resolution.

last edited by mongie at 10:28:10 30/May/08

+1 ^above post