1080 HD TVs

In article <f2BUTDCYAIJHFwur.DeleteThis@bancom.co.uk>, Tony sayer wrote:
> >> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far, 
> >> far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
> >
> >As long as you don't mind different parts of the image moving independently 
> >of each other, rapid cutting sequences degenerating into little squares, 
> >large areas with smooth gradients such as a clear evening sky being covered 
> >with contour lines, and dark shadows looking like dancing jigsaw puzzles. 
> >Digital broadcasting gives us a different set of faults to try to ignore, 
> >but it is certainly not free of them.
> >
> >Rod.
> >
> >
>
> The "if its  dig-it-al", "it must be better" politburo are very good at
> their work eh?.... 
> -- 
> Tony Sayer

It's quite extraordinary how effectively the "truth by repetition" method
works. An alien observer might wonder if homo sapiens really had brains. Too
many of them are happy to believe what they're told, rather than their own eyes
and ears, as long as they're told often enough.

Rod.

Graham Murray <newspost RemoveThis @gmurray.org.uk> wrote:

> aa RemoveThis @xx.com (Bion) writes:
>
> >> Is the size of display the important factor here? Is it not the same as
> >> for LCD computer monitors in that the 'native' resolution of the display
> >> (irrespective of the screen size) should be the same as that of the
> >> signal being displayed? So should the resolution of the HD TV screen not
> >> be the same as that of the broadcast signal or other source (eg
> >> HD-DVD/Blueray)?
> >
> > I don't know the technicalities, but I've tried it with my own eyes. It
> > is an important factor. It makes no difference if your viewing
> > distance/screen size is too small to detect each pixel.
> >
> > In any case, most HD broadcasts and HD games are 720. Conversely
> > displaying such material on non-native 1080 also makes little
> > difference.
> >
> > If you look at review sites like cnet.com or www.hdtvtest.co.uk the best
> > rated screens are most often, Pioneer or Panasonic, of which most are
> > x720.
>
> Which would fit the theory that images look best when shown at the
> native resolution of the display. To display a 720 image on a 1080
> screen would mean either having to display the image smaller than the
> screen size or that some pixels in the image would be displayed as 1 on
> the screen and others as 2. Irrespective of whether individual pixels
> are visible, surely the picture must look better if all the pixels are
> the same size not with some twice the length/depth of others.

It doesn't fit the theory. 720 Pioneers and Panasonics are near enough
always rated among the highest, even for displaying 1080 material. This
I imagine is possible because 1080 upscaled from 720 or shown natively
looks the same from average viewing distances.

Obviously there seems to be more important factors which go into making
up what is considered a good picture.

Some manufacturers are aware of this fact and spend their money on these
areas, while others are more interested in showing off big numbers in
their advertisements.

Try it out yourself. Sevenoaks is a good place to demo.