| Author |
Message |
innof
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: Differentiation |
|
|
|
Hello to all. Just wanted to kindly ask if there is a big difference between 1024X768 and 720P. Thanx in advance for all of your insights. Regards.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
| innof wrote: | | Hello to all. Just wanted to kindly ask if there is a big difference between 1024X768 and 720P. Thanx in advance for all of your insights. Regards. |
1024X768 is considered a 4:3 aspect ratio, while 1280X720p is a 16:9 AR. So yes there is a difference.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
innof
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Okay Thanx. Is there a big difference in terms of resolution?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the thing to remember: If you display HD (widescreen) on an XGA (1024x768 - 4:3) display, you'll actually be using a portion of the display that's only 1024x576. Compared to 720p (1280x720), that amounts to about 64% of the resolution. So, yes - the difference is not trivial.
So, the comparison is 1024x576 vs. 1280x720. Big jump up - bigger than you'd think.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
innof
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, very interesting. The reason that I aked is that I've got my computer outputting 1024X768 while my DVD player is outputting 720P and I really can't see a difference between the two - Maybe it's just my eyes 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If your source is SD DVD, there wouldn't be much difference because both display resolutions are higher than the source. It would only be if you were playing HD source material that it would be obvious.
But... you're saying you have a computer outputting 1024x768 and a DVD player outputting 720p... to what display? If the display is 1024x768 and it's just resampling 720p to display it, you definitely wouldn't see much difference, regardless of the source (HD, SD, etc.).
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: |
1024X768 is considered a 4:3 aspect ratio, while 1280X720p is a 16:9 AR. So yes there is a difference.
|
This is not quite true. Pixels do not need to be square (for instance, pixels on a DVD are not square). There is no correlation at all between resolution and aspect ratio. The only relationship that exists is in a given implementation. In a fixed pixel device, the implementation binds these two. In a media format the implementation binds these two. In a CRT, the implemenation does not bind them.
Most fixed pixel implemations use square pixels, but not all. The most notable are early plasmas and DVD itself. Both use rectangular pixels. There were a number of 16:9 plasmas that has a resolution of 1024x1024 for instance.
I can set my Lumagen and CRT up to do 1024x768 in a 16:9 AR and 1280x720 in a 4:3 AR if I want.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
innof
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
My IBM laptop is outputting 1024X768 to an Extron 201 then to the projctor and my Sony DVD player (not Blu-ray) is outputting to a Fraoudja processor at 720P to my projector; I do apologize for not having qualified that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | MikeEby wrote: |
1024X768 is considered a 4:3 aspect ratio, while 1280X720p is a 16:9 AR. So yes there is a difference.
|
This is not quite true. There is no correlation at all between resolution and aspect ratio. |
Finally someone else who understands this fact. I've been saying this for how long now, but no comments.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | MikeEby wrote: |
1024X768 is considered a 4:3 aspect ratio, while 1280X720p is a 16:9 AR. So yes there is a difference.
|
This is not quite true. There is no correlation at all between resolution and aspect ratio. |
Finally someone else who understands this fact. I've been saying this for how long now, but no comments. |
Go through my posts, I've been saying it for years!!!! I'm about ready to give up. I used to have a whole long post that I kept cutting and pasting. This was my one last hurray on this fact. 
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
Read this post doing your best Cliff Clavin impersonation. Sorry Dave! I did see some of those plasmas with 1024X1024, thought it was freaking weird, but I do see your point.
| Person99 wrote: |
This is not quite true. Pixels do not need to be square (for instance, pixels on a DVD are not square). There is no correlation at all between resolution and aspect ratio. The only relationship that exists is in a given implementation. In a fixed pixel device, the implementation binds these two. In a media format the implementation binds these two. In a CRT, the implemenation does not bind them.
Most fixed pixel implemations use square pixels, but not all. The most notable are early plasmas and DVD itself. Both use rectangular pixels. There were a number of 16:9 plasmas that has a resolution of 1024x1024 for instance.
I can set my Lumagen and CRT up to do 1024x768 in a 16:9 AR and 1280x720 in a 4:3 AR if I want. |
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: Re: Differentiation |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | Read this post doing your best Cliff Clavin impersonation. Sorry Dave! I did see some of those plasmas with 1024X1024, thought it was freaking weird, but I do see your point.
| Person99 wrote: |
This is not quite true. Pixels do not need to be square (for instance, pixels on a DVD are not square). There is no correlation at all between resolution and aspect ratio. The only relationship that exists is in a given implementation. In a fixed pixel device, the implementation binds these two. In a media format the implementation binds these two. In a CRT, the implemenation does not bind them.
Most fixed pixel implemations use square pixels, but not all. The most notable are early plasmas and DVD itself. Both use rectangular pixels. There were a number of 16:9 plasmas that has a resolution of 1024x1024 for instance.
I can set my Lumagen and CRT up to do 1024x768 in a 16:9 AR and 1280x720 in a 4:3 AR if I want. |
Mike |
Not sure what I did to offend you (OK, so I offend a lot of people ) that caused you to want to put me down. However, unlike Cliffy, my post is completely accurate.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lighten up Dave - I think Mike was just flipping you some good-natured sh*t. I don't see where anybody was offended.
I also don't think he was casting any doubt on the accuracy of your post, but simply comparing the "odd knowledge" nature of your post to one of Cliffy's diatribes. I can actually hear Dr. Crane saying something about pixels being square and Cliff saying, "Well, actually it's a little-known fact that pixels don't have to be square." and then going on for about 2 minutes about non-square pixels.
Come on - he was joking around - it was funny.
Cheers,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Lighten up Dave - I think Mike was just flipping you some good-natured sh*t. I don't see where anybody was offended.
I also don't think he was casting any doubt on the accuracy of your post, but simply comparing the "odd knowledge" nature of your post to one of Cliffy's diatribes. I can actually hear Dr. Crane saying something about pixels being square and Cliff saying, "Well, actually it's a little-known fact that pixels don't have to be square." and then going on for about 2 minutes about non-square pixels.
Come on - he was joking around - it was funny.
Cheers,
SC |
OK--bad morning.
I will say though, given the established character of Cliff, any comparisons can only mean, "you are a know-it-all that doesn't really know anything!" Not the kind of response you like to read when you are trying to help people!
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
