 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> 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.
that should be useful. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> 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.
make no mistake: I'm not suggesting the software is pulling a Jesus here. :)
What I'm suggesting is that perhaps they just advertise the display is 1366x768
because it can't, for some reason or another, display 1080p video content but
the physical screen is still 1080p. That or the picture are being unreasonably
scaled down. Yes, I realize that by Occam's razor the latter should win out,
but the facts don't seem to add up.
I just crafted away quite a few 1 pixel grids with 100x100px of spacing between
the lines, in several resolutions, including 1366x768 and 1920x1080. I've not
rescaled of course, I generated a new 1 pixel grid for each one with Gimp _>
Render -> Pattern. The 1080 one fits the whole screen just like the previous
patterns or anything like that. The 768 one doesn't fit the whole screen as
expected.
It's very bizarre and amusing...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2010 03:33:19 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I just crafted away quite a few 1 pixel grids with 100x100px of spacing
> between the lines, in several resolutions, including 1366x768 and
> 1920x1080. I've not rescaled of course, I generated a new 1 pixel grid
> for each one with Gimp _> Render -> Pattern. The 1080 one fits the
> whole screen just like the previous photos. Each line is 1 pixel wide,
> The 768 one doesn't fit the whole screen as expected.
Try a small-scale checker pattern, i.e. with each square just one or two
pixels pixels wide. You could also try a resolution test chart:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html
Because the scaling is so slight (1080 -> 720 is only a reduction by one
third), any loss of detail will be very subtle. Furthermore, a pixel-wide
line is likely to stay pixel-wide and just get a slight reduction in
unlikely to be a problem unless the scaler is really crappy.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> make no mistake: I'm not suggesting the software is pulling a Jesus here. :)
>
> What I'm suggesting is that perhaps they just advertise the display is 1366x768
> because it can't, for some reason or another, display 1080p video content but
> the physical screen is still 1080p. That or the picture are being unreasonably
> scaled down. Yes, I realize that by Occam's razor the latter should win out,
> but the facts don't seem to add up.
>
> I just crafted away quite a few 1 pixel grids with 100x100px of spacing between
> the lines, in several resolutions, including 1366x768 and 1920x1080. I've not
> rescaled of course, I generated a new 1 pixel grid for each one with Gimp _>
> Render -> Pattern. The 1080 one fits the whole screen just like the previous
> patterns or anything like that. The 768 one doesn't fit the whole screen as
> expected.
>
> It's very bizarre and amusing...
well, after several tests... we have a winner! And 768 it is indeed! Made a
grid with 1-pixel lines separated by exactly 4 pixels and I could clearly count
each pixel inbetween in several different spots by using the "face zoom"
visualization. No such luck with the other resolutions, that displayed
what really made it click with me was adding a small "foobar" writing in small
9-pixel font and reading it clearly and identifying exact pixels. :)
Damn, why can't they simply use 1:1 pixel instead of re-scaling smaller
pictures? bizarre...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:59:19 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Damn, why can't they simply use 1:1 pixel instead of re-scaling smaller
> pictures? bizarre...
I think the software simply creates a 1920x1080 image (by downscaling
larger images, and adding borders to smaller ones) regardless of display
panel. That image then gets sent to a final scaler that fits the image to
the panel resolution. I am guessing they do it that way because it lets
them use the exact same software on all models.
For "best" results you should pre-scale any images to 1920x1080 before
putting them on the USB storage.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:59:19 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> > Damn, why can't they simply use 1:1 pixel instead of re-scaling smaller
> > pictures? bizarre...
>
> I think the software simply creates a 1920x1080 image (by downscaling
> larger images, and adding borders to smaller ones) regardless of display
> panel. That image then gets sent to a final scaler that fits the image to
> the panel resolution. I am guessing they do it that way because it lets
> them use the exact same software on all models.
>
> For "best" results you should pre-scale any images to 1920x1080 before
> putting them on the USB storage.
thanks for the advice, dude.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why not try one of the test-cards on this page (far down):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_card
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/27/10 16:36, nemesis wrote:
> 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.
This stuff can be confusing. My TV has Full, Wide, another one similar
to Wide, 4:3, Zoom, and perhaps one more. I usually set it at Full.
It's a pain to get the "proper" resolution (at least for video -
haven't tried photos). Mine is 1080p. But something broadcast at 720p
(wide screen) will still show up and fill the screen because the aspect
ratio is the same. Something with a different aspect ratio will not -
even if it's bigger than my TV's resolution - because it's trying to
maintain the aspect ratio.
But then again, when I get stuff broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio, the
Full mode sometimes shows it at the proper aspect ratio (so black bars
on the side). But sometimes it is stretched.
I'd say go and figure out *precisely* what those modes mean.
I have a PS3, and over there you can set it to show it at the *exact*
resolution. So if it's 320x200, it will show up quite small on the screen.
--
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 05/27/10 16:36, nemesis wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This stuff can be confusing. My TV has Full, Wide, another one similar
> to Wide, 4:3, Zoom, and perhaps one more. I usually set it at Full.
>
> It's a pain to get the "proper" resolution (at least for video -
> haven't tried photos). Mine is 1080p. But something broadcast at 720p
> (wide screen) will still show up and fill the screen because the aspect
> ratio is the same. Something with a different aspect ratio will not -
> even if it's bigger than my TV's resolution - because it's trying to
> maintain the aspect ratio.
what about pictures? Have you tried that one? Do pictures larger than the
screen appear smaller by default?
yeah, it's a pain.
> I have a PS3, and over there you can set it to show it at the *exact*
> resolution. So if it's 320x200, it will show up quite small on the screen.
oh, I got this TV both because my old CRT was dying a slow death and to
eventually finally grab a PS3 (mainly for God of War 3 and bluray movies). :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/29/10 11:20, nemesis wrote:
> what about pictures? Have you tried that one? Do pictures larger than the
> screen appear smaller by default?
My TV only takes in SD cards, not USB. Since I don't have such a card,
I can't check. I can view photos via the PS3, but then that's not
dependent on the TV modes.
Try a smaller image than what the TV specs are, but of the same aspect
ratio. It wouldn't surprise me if it shows up full screen on some mode.
> oh, I got this TV both because my old CRT was dying a slow death and to
> eventually finally grab a PS3 (mainly for God of War 3 and bluray movies). :)
I got the PS3 because it had 3 things:
1. Ability to play Blu-Ray.
2. Ability to stream videos from the computer.
3. Ability to stream from NetFlix.
I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
Still, it was about $100 cheaper than buying all 3...
--
If it's easy it's a trick. If it's hard it's a technique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
