 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Finally got myself a HDTV, an entry level, 32 inches Sony Bravia. Not FullHD,
just up to 720p or 1080i, as the terminology goes.
It's got a neat feature: a USB slot. Which is handy considering I still got no
HD content provider except whatever goes on digital TV -- my PC is not nearby
the TV and I've got no wifi router nor bluray (yet). BTW, isn't it funny to see
HD content mixed with SD content on digital TV? I mean, you look at the news
and there is the anchor spilling out in full HD glory and then they begin to
actually broadcast the local news and it's in SD. Guess it was like that in the
transition from B&W to color TV's too... or perhaps it's just here in Brazil...
:P
Anyway, I browsed lot of places to fill my 8GB thumbdrive with quality HD
content, including povray HOF and youtube for some of those gorgeous 6 minutes
HD demos Sony had for their Bravia line. :)
So, after much fun seeing videos (MP4 only), listening to music and seeing
pictures, here's my question: is the 720p limit bogus? Actually, it's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA
I mean, perhaps it's only for videos, not pictures? Perhaps it's a limit in the
mp4 decoder, not in the screen itself? I'm even unsure about this as the
decoder seems to cope with 1080p videos just as well (probably downscaled).
Fact is, the screen was pretty able to display pictures higher than the 768
limit without even filling up the whole screen -- and yes, I tried different
"wide" size modes. It has not seemingly "downscaled", they simply display just
nicely in normal size mode, leaving plenty of empty space. Like this one:
http://imagico.de/pov/pict/lotw_038_09.jpg
1273x900px and it is centered on screen, with plenty of empty dark space both up
and down and to the sides.
Some of the largest from povray HOF, like Pebbles:
http://hof.povray.org/images/pebbles.jpg
1600x1200px, it fits just perfect vertically, but there's obvious empty space to
the sides. I'm not sure if it's downscaled in any way to fit vertically because
the vertical empty space from the previous picture could very well account for
about 300 pixels, 150 in the bottom and 150 to the top.
To clear any doubt, here's one at 1280x1024 that still leaves a few dozens of
empty pixels up and down and plenty to the sides:
http://www.wallpaper77.com/upload/DesktopWallpapers/cache/Island-Beach-landscape-beach-1280x1024.jpg
So, have you guys had a similar experience with your TV's? The spec sets some
physical limit and yet you realize pictures seem to go well above? What do you
think is the catch? Perhaps despite the spec setting a 768 limit of vertical
resolution, it should have more to display 1080i content?
I find it all quite bizarre...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:12:00 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Finally got myself a HDTV, an entry level, 32 inches Sony Bravia.
KDL-32EX302? That is the only entry-level 32" Bravia I could find; the
other 32" models are all "Full-HD", i.e. 1080p. There might be other
models available where you live though.
> Not FullHD, just up to 720p or 1080i, as the terminology goes.
It does not display 1080i either, it just accepts (and downscales) such
input signals. The 32EX302 accepts 1080p as well, but not on all inputs.
> here's my question: is the 720p limit bogus?
No.
> Actually, it's described in the specification of the TV as a
That is the actual resolution of the display panel, and thus the upper
limit of what the TV can display.
> Perhaps it's a limit in the mp4 decoder, not in the screen itself?
No, the limit is in the panel itself.
> I'm even unsure about this as the
> decoder seems to cope with 1080p videos just as well (probably
> downscaled).
Yes, downscaled.
> Fact is, the screen was pretty able to display pictures higher than the
> 768 limit without even filling up the whole screen -- and yes, I tried
> different "wide" size modes. It has not seemingly "downscaled", they
> simply display just nicely in normal size mode, leaving plenty of empty
> space.
If the image is larger than 1366x768, it gets downscaled. You might not
notice any lack of detail, because the images you are looking at are not
very big to begin with, but they do get downscaled.
> So, have you guys had a similar experience with your TV's? The spec
> sets some physical limit and yet you realize pictures seem to go well
> above?
The limit is indeed physical; it cannot be exceeded.
> What do you think is the catch? Perhaps despite the spec
> setting a 768 limit of vertical resolution, it should have more to
> display 1080i content?
Anything larger gets downscaled. There is no way around that.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:12:00 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Finally got myself a HDTV, an entry level, 32 inches Sony Bravia.
>
> KDL-32EX302? That is the only entry-level 32" Bravia I could find; the
> other 32" models are all "Full-HD", i.e. 1080p. There might be other
> models available where you live though.
EX305, which I didn't find at the Sony site outside Brazil. Possibly a model
based on this one, with adaptations for brazilian digital TV.
> > here's my question: is the 720p limit bogus?
>
> No.
>
> > Actually, it's described in the specification of the TV as a
>
> That is the actual resolution of the display panel, and thus the upper
> limit of what the TV can display.
>
> > Fact is, the screen was pretty able to display pictures higher than the
> > 768 limit without even filling up the whole screen -- and yes, I tried
> > different "wide" size modes. It has not seemingly "downscaled", they
> > simply display just nicely in normal size mode, leaving plenty of empty
> > space.
>
> If the image is larger than 1366x768, it gets downscaled. You might not
> notice any lack of detail, because the images you are looking at are not
> very big to begin with, but they do get downscaled.
If they get downscaled why there still are plenty of empty pixels at the
borders, both vertical and horizontal?
Just to be absolutely sure, I rerendered a scene of mine in the exact 1366x768
resolution:
http://i49.tinypic.com/xsne9.jpg
I don't understand why a picture in the exact resolution of the specced
resolution would need to get so "downscaled" as to leave plenty of empty pixels
all around.
I was about to agree with you that it's all downscaled because I thought perhaps
it could be that normal display mode was actually trying to fit all pictures to
4:3 screen proportion. But this doesn't follow, because pictures larger than
16:9 are not following this rule.
It's also worth of note that pictures far smaller than the supposed physical
limit seem to display in correct proportion in relation to the larger pictures.
I'm thinking of asking this in a specialized HDTV site...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:52:43 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> If they get downscaled why there still are plenty of empty pixels at the
> borders, both vertical and horizontal?
Because that is how the software/firmware chooses to display them. Why the
software was written that way I cannot say.
> I was about to agree with you that it's all downscaled because I thought
> perhaps it could be that normal display mode was actually trying to fit
> all pictures to 4:3 screen proportion. But this doesn't follow, because
> pictures larger than 16:9 are not following this rule.
>
> It's also worth of note that pictures far smaller than the supposed
> physical limit seem to display in correct proportion in relation to the
> larger pictures.
Make no mistake; the large pictures *are* getting downscaled. It could be
that the software only supports scaling to certain predefined dimensions.
It could be that the software looks at all the images and chooses a fixed
scaling factor based on the dimensions of the largest one. It could be
that a wizard did it. It could be any number of things, but nothing the
software does can overcome the fact that the display panel only has
1366x768 pixels.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:12:00 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > Finally got myself a HDTV, an entry level, 32 inches Sony Bravia.
> >
> > KDL-32EX302? That is the only entry-level 32" Bravia I could find; the
> > other 32" models are all "Full-HD", i.e. 1080p. There might be other
> > models available where you live though.
>
> EX305, which I didn't find at the Sony site outside Brazil. Possibly a model
> based on this one, with adaptations for brazilian digital TV.
>
> > > here's my question: is the 720p limit bogus?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Actually, it's described in the specification of the TV as a
> >
> > That is the actual resolution of the display panel, and thus the upper
> > limit of what the TV can display.
> >
> > > Fact is, the screen was pretty able to display pictures higher than the
> > > 768 limit without even filling up the whole screen -- and yes, I tried
> > > different "wide" size modes. It has not seemingly "downscaled", they
> > > simply display just nicely in normal size mode, leaving plenty of empty
> > > space.
> >
> > If the image is larger than 1366x768, it gets downscaled. You might not
> > notice any lack of detail, because the images you are looking at are not
> > very big to begin with, but they do get downscaled.
>
> If they get downscaled why there still are plenty of empty pixels at the
> borders, both vertical and horizontal?
>
> Just to be absolutely sure, I rerendered a scene of mine in the exact 1366x768
> resolution:
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/xsne9.jpg
>
> I don't understand why a picture in the exact resolution of the specced
> resolution would need to get so "downscaled" as to leave plenty of empty pixels
> all around.
>
> I was about to agree with you that it's all downscaled because I thought perhaps
> it could be that normal display mode was actually trying to fit all pictures to
> 4:3 screen proportion. But this doesn't follow, because pictures larger than
> 16:9 are not following this rule.
>
> It's also worth of note that pictures far smaller than the supposed physical
> limit seem to display in correct proportion in relation to the larger pictures.
>
> I'm thinking of asking this in a specialized HDTV site...
BTW, only now I noticed the TV comes with a small set of sample pictures of
landscapes. Look bright and amazing and here's the catch: their resolution is
1920x1080. They fit the whole screen in normal mode. They also display the
same in "wide" or "face zoom". I wonder why would they fill a TV with images
this size if they wouldn't fit except downscaled.
of course, I'm not complaining, I just find it odd! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2010 01:36:18 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I wonder why would they fill a TV with images this size if they wouldn't
> fit except downscaled.
They probably use the same images for all their TV models.
On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:52:43 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Just to be absolutely sure, I rerendered a scene of mine in the exact
> 1366x768 resolution:
> http://i49.tinypic.com/xsne9.jpg
> I don't understand why a picture in the exact resolution of the specced
> resolution would need to get so "downscaled" as to leave plenty of empty
> pixels all around.
Try one at 1280x720. The software in the TV may well be using this
resolution internally.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:52:43 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Just to be absolutely sure, I rerendered a scene of mine in the exact
> > 1366x768 resolution:
> > http://i49.tinypic.com/xsne9.jpg
> > I don't understand why a picture in the exact resolution of the specced
> > resolution would need to get so "downscaled" as to leave plenty of empty
> > pixels all around.
>
> Try one at 1280x720. The software in the TV may well be using this
> resolution internally.
just done. It just displays smaller than the previous one, plenty more space
left. :P
I'm right now looking for a brazilian forum to ask about this model...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:10:48 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Try one at 1280x720. The software in the TV may well be using this
>> resolution internally.
>
> just done. It just displays smaller than the previous one, plenty more
> space left. :P
It is possible that the software is using 1920x1080 as a baseline, with
anything smaller getting scaled proportionally. Of course, since that
particular model can only display 720p, even the baseline gets downscaled
by a DSP eventually, but the software is probably near-identical on all
models.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:10:48 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Try one at 1280x720. The software in the TV may well be using this
> >> resolution internally.
> >
> > just done. It just displays smaller than the previous one, plenty more
> > space left. :P
>
> It is possible that the software is using 1920x1080 as a baseline, with
> anything smaller getting scaled proportionally. Of course, since that
> particular model can only display 720p, even the baseline gets downscaled
> by a DSP eventually, but the software is probably near-identical on all
> models.
oh
so that would mean to display the images at full resolution, I should use "wide"
or "face zoom" mode? I'm trying to think of an image that would lose obvious
detail when downscaled that would show up in those modes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> so that would mean to display the images at full resolution, I should use "wide"
> or "face zoom" mode? I'm trying to think of an image that would lose obvious
> detail when downscaled that would show up in those modes...
A grid.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
