Viewing HDV

Kurth Bousman · January 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM

Are 700 + line ws lcds and projectors enough for hdv considering that most cameras are showing about 700+ lines of resolution ? Are are they losing something if their shot at 1080i ? thanks- Kurth

Kurth Bousman · January 16th, 2006, 12:34 PM

ok- I'll be more specfic. Will one see a difference when viewing 1080 footage from a z1 or comparable hdv camera on a 720 line lcd vs. , for example , when viewing on a 1050 line monitor using fcp , for an example. The main reason is the Infocus SP5000,the cheapest 720 16x9 lcd projector on the market- around $1300. When I project my z1 footage at home on my nec xga , I only get about 570 lines of resolution vs a true 16x9 chip which will do the full 720 . But maybe a new monitor like a dell 24" is a better solution if I'll be seeing the footage at a higher resolution. Opinions welcome ! thanks Kurth

Steve Crisdale · January 16th, 2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

ok- I'll be more specfic. Will one see a difference when viewing 1080 footage from a z1 or comparable hdv camera on a 720 line lcd vs. , for example , when viewing on a 1050 line monitor using fcp , for an example. The main reason is the Infocus SP5000,the cheapest 720 16x9 lcd projector on the market- around $1300. When I project my z1 footage at home on my nec xga , I only get about 570 lines of resolution vs a true 16x9 chip which will do the full 720 . But maybe a new monitor like a dell 24" is a better solution if I'll be seeing the footage at a higher resolution. Opinions welcome ! thanks Kurth

Opinions welcome?

Assuming that they are, and someone like myself won't get crucified for actually stating a personal opinion - having been asked to provide one...

With that proviso in mind: here I go...

All the mention of "scan lines" is the detritus left over by those who can't comprehend that such terminology no longer relates to digital technology. It's one reason why you'll never see actual resolution stated as a specification for analogue equipment - such as CRT TVs; because they don't actually have a "resolution" - but they have scan lines.

As far as I'm concerned, the same principle that should be used with any digital technology for when deciding on the most successful combination of reproduction/display equipment applies: namely - if the resolution is easily divisible between devices, then it should give optimum results when scaling.

So if you get a monitor that has 1280x720 pixel resolution (or close enough - preferably a bit more), it should do a superior job of scaling a 1920x1080 image. I know it'll be difficult for a few (that is the word few) folks to spot the word "should" amongst the ones that I've written, so they'll likely also ignore my advice to always go and check before you buy - regardless of anyone's opinion... even mine!!

Ron Evans · January 16th, 2006, 06:52 PM

This is a frequent topic expecially differences between LCD and CRT. In a digital sense one has to think of the image as an array of dots( pixel). These pixels can be square or rectangular which creates even more confusion. But simplistically say 1920x1080 for a HD 16x9 image or a 1280 by 720 16x9 image. For a monitor that displays a 1:1 image there will be no scaling involved however any other screen that is smaller in its array or in fact bigger and attempts to fill the screen will have to scale the image. The viewer is now at the mercy of the capablilities of the scaler and unfortunately most are not very good. For a CRT the scan lines are fixed for the particular standard but the horizontal detail may not be what is expected. That is, cheap NTSC TV's will all have 480 interlaced scan lines but many have difficulty achieving 330 overall lines of resolution. The electronics are able to scan 240 even and 240 odd scan lines but run out of capability to horizontally scan in much greater detail. A 1080i set needs to scan 540 even and 540 odd scan lines so you see must have a wider bandwidth electronics which usually translates into a corresponding increase in overall lines of resolution between 700 and 1000 for the better CRT HD monitors. LCD's have individual pixels and thus need to translate any incoming signal into this array of pixels. A pure digital signal can either be displayed 1:1 pixel to pixel or be scaled to fit. IN the case of my Dell 2405 one can choose whether the monitor scales or plays 1:1. I can assure you the scaling is poor!!! My FX1 component output on the Dell is acceptable but much inferior to the playback through my Sony HiScan CRT TV. In my experience don't scale if you can avoid it. CRT is a more pleasing picture for my FX1 output. I am going to wait for the Toshiba SED sets later this year and see if they really do offer the best of CRT and LCD technology.

Ron Evans

January 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM	#1
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Viewing HDV - options ? Are 700 + line ws lcds and projectors enough for hdv considering that most cameras are showing about 700+ lines of resolution ? Are are they losing something if their shot at 1080i ? thanks- Kurth

January 16th, 2006, 12:34 PM	#2
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	ok- I'll be more specfic. Will one see a difference when viewing 1080 footage from a z1 or comparable hdv camera on a 720 line lcd vs. , for example , when viewing on a 1050 line monitor using fcp , for an example. The main reason is the Infocus SP5000,the cheapest 720 16x9 lcd projector on the market- around $1300. When I project my z1 footage at home on my nec xga , I only get about 570 lines of resolution vs a true 16x9 chip which will do the full 720 . But maybe a new monitor like a dell 24" is a better solution if I'll be seeing the footage at a higher resolution. Opinions welcome ! thanks Kurth

January 16th, 2006, 06:52 PM	#4
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	This is a frequent topic expecially differences between LCD and CRT. In a digital sense one has to think of the image as an array of dots( pixel). These pixels can be square or rectangular which creates even more confusion. But simplistically say 1920x1080 for a HD 16x9 image or a 1280 by 720 16x9 image. For a monitor that displays a 1:1 image there will be no scaling involved however any other screen that is smaller in its array or in fact bigger and attempts to fill the screen will have to scale the image. The viewer is now at the mercy of the capablilities of the scaler and unfortunately most are not very good. For a CRT the scan lines are fixed for the particular standard but the horizontal detail may not be what is expected. That is, cheap NTSC TV's will all have 480 interlaced scan lines but many have difficulty achieving 330 overall lines of resolution. The electronics are able to scan 240 even and 240 odd scan lines but run out of capability to horizontally scan in much greater detail. A 1080i set needs to scan 540 even and 540 odd scan lines so you see must have a wider bandwidth electronics which usually translates into a corresponding increase in overall lines of resolution between 700 and 1000 for the better CRT HD monitors. LCD's have individual pixels and thus need to translate any incoming signal into this array of pixels. A pure digital signal can either be displayed 1:1 pixel to pixel or be scaled to fit. IN the case of my Dell 2405 one can choose whether the monitor scales or plays 1:1. I can assure you the scaling is poor!!! My FX1 component output on the Dell is acceptable but much inferior to the playback through my Sony HiScan CRT TV. In my experience don't scale if you can avoid it. CRT is a more pleasing picture for my FX1 output. I am going to wait for the Toshiba SED sets later this year and see if they really do offer the best of CRT and LCD technology. Ron Evans