What resolution can your equipment *really* display?

[Paul Bethke]

Hi Gang!

What resolution is your HDTV equipment *really* capable of displaying? 1920x1080 (1080i)? Don't be so sure...

I raised this question in another topic, but was quickly dismissed by the assumption that the ATSC standard was related to the actual resolution being presented to our eyes.

I apologize for the off-topic post there, and have created a topic for this question by itself.

In order to get some insight into the answer, I did a sampling of the HD display equipment currently for sale online. I looked at the "top-of-the-line" (i.e. most expensive) models I could find. Here's what I found...

Plasma
------
$12,499 - Sony  PFM50C1 - 1365x768
$9,999 - Toshiba 50HP82 - 1366x768
$7,920 - Sharp LCPD50U - 1280x768
$6,488 - Panasonic PT42PHD4P - 1024x768

Projection
----------
$9,999 - Sharp XVZ9000U - 1280x720
$7,599 - Sony VPLVW12HT - 1366x768

Rear-Projection
---------------
$12,000 - Mitsubishi WD65100 (DLP) - 1280x720
$2,699 - RCA HD52W140 - 1200 lines

Tube
----
Vague information only - buzz words, mostly.
(RCA D34W20 said it has Horizontal Resolution of 910)

Looking specifically at those I've seen mentioned in posts on this board...

Mitsubishi 55819 - 1200 lines
RCA P61310 - 1440x1080
Sony KD-34XBR2 - not specified - What is "Hi-Scan" really?

The Mits 55819 has the potential of displaying the entire 1920x1080 pixels, the horizontal capability is not listed. The RCA fall short horizontally, and who knows on the Sony.

I would think that with today's technology, the "Tube" TVs have the best potential of pulling off a 1920x1080 resolution. I say this because computer monitors have taken the phosphor size down to a level facilitating many pixels per inch. Now, have the manufacturers taken that monitor technology into TVs? I don't know. If I sit in front of my Tube HDTV at the same distance I would for a computer monitor, the TV has much larger phosphor dots, indicating less density.

Doing the calculation, however, shows that for a 34 inch TV to display all 1920x1080 pixels would need a "dot pitch" of .45 (horiz), which is slightly less than half the density of today's computer monitors. So Tube displays have potential.

Plasma and Projection units are clearly not "there" yet. The current state-of-the-art here seems to have reached 720p resolution, or 1280x720 (aka XGA).

I have seen (somewhere) a LCD display for a Mac computer with a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels, so that is a promising sign.

Don't get me wrong - even at the current display resolutions, HDTV is spectacular to behold, and I have a hard time watching shows the "old" way.

I am anxious to experience HDTV when it becomes capable of displaying all 1920x1080 pixels. I saw one article calling this "fully resolved" HDTV. Works for me!

Food for thought. Please elaborate, correct, and clarify.

[Pat]

I think you are correct regarding consumer grade HDTVs not being able to fully resolve a 1920x1080 signal.  But it doesn't really matter very much for a couple of reasons.  First, the transmitted signal is compressed and the full resolution is therefore not present.  Second, human eyes cannot resolve that well at normal viewing distance, especially in color.

Contrary to your presumption that glass TVs have the highest potential, I would guess 3-gun projectors have the highest potential.  If we add "at a reasonable price" to your statement, you're probably right.  But, as I understand it, each gun has an idefinite resolution, and is not made up of dots as a full-color CRT is.  Convergence, of course, is another matter.

LCD, DLP, plasma, and other technologies have a fixed resolution.  They have other advantages, but the "distinct pixel" limitation is a negative, given the need to display multiple resolutions, as is the case.

(Incidentally, I didn't notice anybody "dismissing" your question.  Maybe you're reading something in that wasn't intended.)

[Matt Heebner]

While it might be true that consumer level monitors do not achieve the true 1920x1280 (true HD) or 1080, I would think that most people would not be able to even tell unless they are watching a 90" or larger screen. Front projection systems can reach that resolution, and very high end ones with the help of a external scaler, can go even higher...1080p !
Sitting 10 feet from my 55" Mits, I don't think I would be able to tell true HD resolution from what I am actually getting. I've even read in articles that watching HD on a TV less than 40" is kinda silly because anything less than that and you really lose alot watching HD at normal viewing distances.
 Still would be an interesting comparison if we could do a double blind test.

Matt

[This message has been edited by Matt Heebner (edited 10-07-2002).]

[borghe]

I really feel the need to address some of this.

 

Originally posted by Paul Bethke:
Plasma
------
$12,499 - Sony  PFM50C1 - 1365x768
$9,999 - Toshiba 50HP82 - 1366x768
$7,920 - Sharp LCPD50U - 1280x768
$6,488 - Panasonic PT42PHD4P - 1024x768

As you acn see, the top 3 all support 720p perfectly. 720p is generally done by plasmas because a plasma display (any LCD actually) isn't capable of interlacing. The last one falls short, but only because it is a 4x3 set. We have always known that 4x3 sets won't display the full number of scan lines. It's the trade of you make to not have side-boxing on 4x3 material.

 

Projection
----------
$9,999 - Sharp XVZ9000U - 1280x720
$7,599 - Sony VPLVW12HT - 1366x768

Again, these seem to be LCD projection systems and fall into the same pattern as the LD plasma systems listed above.

 

Rear-Projection
---------------
$12,000 - Mitsubishi WD65100 (DLP) - 1280x720
$2,699 - RCA HD52W140 - 1200 lines

These two are odd comparisons. One is a CRT based RPTV, the other is a DLP RPTV. Very different in how the image is displayed.

 

Mitsubishi 55819 - 1200 lines
RCA P61310 - 1440x1080
Sony KD-34XBR2 - not specified - What is "Hi-Scan" really?

The Mits 55819 has the potential of displaying the entire 1920x1080 pixels, the horizontal capability is not listed. The RCA fall short horizontally, and who knows on the Sony.

Out of these I can guarantee that the mits can do 1920x1080i, and the Sony I believe should also be 16x9 meaning it will do that res also. The RCA you have listed here is a 4x3 set, so it's resolution you are corerct in.

Everything in this post really comes down to this. All 16:9 CRT pased sets will display 1920x1080. All 4x3 CRT sets seem to have 1080 lines, but will then relegate to 1440 horizontal pixels. This will give you a resolution of 1440x810 on 16:9 material. You will still have letterboxing going on. LCDs, because of their inability to interlace (and because it is more cost effective) will almost always run a resolution of ~720 lines. Most actually go to 768 I would imagine to use something from the manufacturing process of 1024x768 displays which have been around for years now. Some actually are only providing 720 lines to not waste unused pixels.

The bottom line is, if you get a 16:9 CRT, you will get the full picture but will almost always need your 720p material upconverted. If you get an LCD based system, you will get native 720p but will need your 1080i material downconverted. If you get a 4x3 set, you will always get an image at a lower resolution than a 16x9 set. I think the reason that most manufacturers don't give this info is because they don't want to confuse the average Joe. Coming from a perhipherial point of view, there is a market for all 3 TVs, and going into as much detail as I just did would probably scare people away. Anyway, that's why you should do research before buying.

[gparris]

So as I understand it, the Mits or Sony can really deliver the goods for quality HD picture as it is properly transmitted. Projection sets of good quality like these are terrific and a good plasma ( if higher priced) will do the trick at the same distance/size screen in a comparison even though it is 720 (or slightly more) because it is progressive,not interlaced. I have seen plasmas next to projection sets displaying the same HD feed side by side for the same approx size screen and felt the plasma actually looked sharper, but definately costlier.  Heck with 4:3 screens and 810i, I will keep my analog WEGA a little longer if that's all it gets in the HD version ( not my main set ).
Not getting off track, but the whole purpose about plasma is to reduce the size and bulk of the set and park it more places that the projection sets can-without shuttering the viewing room like you do with overhead projection units...so why do A/V manufacturers of DVD players, Sat boxes and A/V receivers all still make their equipment like plasma doesn't exist? If the plasma is 4 inches deep, why are the supporting components all a foot or more deep like nothing happened? When I assist in installs, customers ask me where to hide the bulky products and why didn't these be made slimmer,too? Not everyone that can afford a plasma can purchase a in-wall configuration or, deal with Bell'O's classic "glass-and-hide-those-wires" effect! What is with the manufacturers as prices drop on plasma? Can't they see there is a need for 4" deep components as well?

[Pat]

Regarding side-by-side comparisons of Plasma vs Rear Projectors -- I suspect you are seeing the effects of the generally horrible set-up RPTVs have in stores.  They have the **potential** of excellent performance, but do require proper calibration, focusing, and convergence.

I think a line of slim components would sell very well, even if they merely switched the front-to-back dimension with the top-to-bottom one -- that would give a nice "wall of equipment" look that would look pretty impressive.  In addition, DVDs, CDs, and tapes would be a more natural fit with the cabinetry.  I'm really surprised nobody has done this.  I do recall a CD player with a vertical orientation intended for in-wall installation, but not an entire line of equipment.