| What the best resolution for veiwing DVDs? |
| 1920 x 1080p |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1920 x 1080i |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
| 1440 x 960p |
|
33% |
[ 9 ] |
| 1440 x 960i |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1440 x 720p |
|
14% |
[ 4 ] |
| 1280 x 720p |
|
37% |
[ 10 ] |
| None of the above (explain in post) |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 27 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: 8" PJ DVD Resolution |
|
|
There's a lot of debate about what resolution is the best to use with 8" PJs for DVD viewing.
I use to run 1280 x 720 @ 72Hz, but lately I've been running 1280 x 720 @ 60Hz. I like it, and being of the "less is better" school of thought, I think I'm going to stick with it.
But I'm always interested in knowing what others are doing, and why, so I thought I do a poll. I know I didn't include all options (PAL for instance), but I think I got most of them. If you run a resolution not covered in the poll, let us know what it is and why.
Last edited by Phil Smith on Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I had to delete refresh rate options to get the poll down to a size that would be accepted.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
linecircle
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
1440x810p. I'd probably try for 1440x960p if the pj can resolve it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ridebreck
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 943
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1280x720p @ 60 here. But then again, my DVD player doesn't have too many options.
_________________
"Hooray Beer!!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Matt your Panny looking so good was the reason I tried 60Hz. It may not be much, but I think the picture is a little sharper with the lower bandwidth.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustGreg
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 3098
Location: Kenosha, WI
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1920X1080i@60 on a Panny S97 via DVI to Moome. The 720p just didn't look as good.
_________________
Greg
"Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care!" --Jimmy Buffett
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think there's 'one' right answer to this Phil... it all depends on what your PJ can resolve correctly as well.
In a perfect world however, I'd say it's a rez that's an even multiplier of the [NTSC] DVD resolution of 720x480. So something like 1440x960 would scale very nicely.
For refresh, even multipliers of 23.976Hz would do. In most case x3 is best which yields 71.928Hz.
This is all in NTSC land of course. PAL would be different since the DVD native resolution/refresh rate is different.
In the real world, 1440x960@71.928Hz is pretty high. Not many PJ's have the bandwidth or (more importantly) the resolving power to do that correctly. Mostly 9" machines only, or at a minimum good 8" machines on a 4x3 screen.
| Phil Smith wrote: | | I had to delete refresh rate options to get the poll down to a size that would be accepted. |
I upped it to 20 entries. (For next time).
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | I don't think there's 'one' right answer to this Phil... it all depends on what your PJ can resolve correctly as well. |
Kal, that is the "more is better" school of thought. My PJ has no problem resolving 1280 x 720 @ 72Hz, but I think it looks a tad sharper at 60Hz, possibly because of the lower bandwidth.
Clarence commented that his focus was soft on one side of the picture when he ran 1080p @ 72Hz, but not when he ran 1080p @ 60Hz (I think those were the resolutions). That got me to thinking about bandwidth, which I didn't pay any attention to until then. I figured any resolution I would run would be well within the limits of my G70, so why worry about it.
What about running lower resolutions and refresh rates that were well with in the limits of the PJ? It seems to me the less strain you put on the PJ, the better job it can do. Less bandwidth makes them run cooler, less scan lines and lower refresh rates give the PJ more time to paint each line, which MAY result in a better line. I know that's a very non-technical and simplistic explanation, but the point I'm trying to make is the best picture you get out of your PJ may be the one that's well within it's limits rather than one that pushes it to it's limits.
This also plays hand in hand with how much 480p is improved by upscaling. You start out with 480 lines of original info, and no what matter what you do to it, that's all you'll ever have. You may end up with 1080 lines, but the added lines are derived from the original 480. So I think that any scaling other than what is required to eliminate visible scan lines from your seating position is overkill. It adds absolutely nothing to the picture, other than possibly softening it up, which is a bad thing!
Like I said in the original post, there's a lot of debate about what's best. What a projector is capable of is one way of looking at it. Keeping the load low so the PJ so it's can perform at it best is another. And what are the practical limits of improving 480p is yet another.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | I know that's a very non-technical and simplistic explanation, but the point I'm trying to make is the best picture you get out of your PJ may be the one that's well within it's limits rather than one that pushes it to it's limits. |
Exactly! That's the point I was trying to make in my post, but I guess I didn't do a very good job! 
If a PJ had unlimited capabilities, then 1440x960 would probably be best (as would any even multiplier of the DVD source rez).
But in the real world this doesn't work out since our PJ's have limits. So the right answer is some rez that's below your PJ's limits.
Problem is that everyone's limits are different since we all have different PJ's, so there's no one answer that's right.
Example: Clarence (who sucks ) with his G90 can do 1440x960 no problems as it doesn't stress his PJ at all. The rest of us have to use something a bit lower.
Kak
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
linecircle
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | This also plays hand in hand with how much 480p is improved by upscaling. You start out with 480 lines of original info, and no what matter what you do to it, that's all you'll ever have. You may end up with 1080 lines, but the added lines are derived from the original 480. So I think that any scaling other than what is required to eliminate visible scan lines from your seating position is overkill. It adds absolutely nothing to the picture, other than possibly softening it up, which is a bad thing! |
Not only to scale until scanlines are gone, but to scale until you can't visually resolve each pixel. Take a simplified scenario of a 45deg edge, as long as you can resolve the pixels from your seating position, you'll see the jaggy. Otherwise the ideal solution would be to get the beam spot larger so you could do 480p without seeing scanlines, and it'll look blocky and ugly.
Further complicating things is the scaling algorithm, nudging towards some ideal integer ratios.
Put all these factors together, and you'll find the ideal for your setup.
Also with 60Hz, don't you notice micro-stuttering on film pans and such?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | But in the real world this doesn't work out since our PJ's have limits. So the right answer is some rez that's below your PJ's limits. |
Right. But I'm suggesting running resolutions and refresh rates that are WELL below the PJ's capabilities. Audiophiles run power amps at 1/4 to 1/3 their capacity. I'm not sure that analogy applies here, but I think it's very possible that a PJ loses something when run at 90%-95% of it's capacity, which is what most people do.
| linecircle wrote: | | Take a simplified scenario of a 45deg edge, as long as you can resolve the pixels from your seating position, you'll see the jaggy. |
That's a good point. Seating position plays a role in all of this as well. At a 1.4 seating position, running 1280 x 720p, I don't see scan lines or have jaggies. Running a higher resolution would serve no purpose.
| Quote: | | Further complicating things is the scaling algorithm, nudging towards some ideal integer ratios. |
810p doesn't seem to fit into what you're saying, but I'm not sure it really matters anyway. I've played around with a lot of resolutions. Never once did I see anything to make me think my video card wasn't handling that particular resolution very well. Ideal integers may matter more to people than to scalers.
| Quote: | | Also with 60Hz, don't you notice micro-stuttering on film pans and such? |
I might once I get rid of the stutter I have because of running a sharpness filter that requires horsepower than my CPU can deliver. I'll have turn my sharpness filter off and look for judder. I never noticed any when watching Matt's Panny DVD player on my PJ. Playback seemed perfectly smooth. Maybe I didn't watch it long enough, maybe I'm not sensitive to it, or maybe it didn't stutter. I'm not sure.
I think you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of making it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbaisey
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 821
Location: Southern Cal LA / Seattle WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I find on most NEC 8" 1440X960P is fine but on some 1280X720P is the best selection. Its not the projector but the signal chain that defines it for me. This can be anything from cables or the source itself. Most wifes like the lower resolution because they are use to TV. The guys like the higher the better so its a compromise most of the time. HD the wifes like 1080I but not on topic. Doug
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
on my M8500 1440 X 960 just looks the best. I can never get 720P to look as good. I only watch DVD though through HTPC, no broadcast so I'm surethat's part of the reason.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
linecircle
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: |
810p doesn't seem to fit into what you're saying, but I'm not sure it really matters anyway. I've played around with a lot of resolutions. Never once did I see anything to make me think my video card wasn't handling that particular resolution very well. Ideal integers may matter more to people than to scalers. |
No, I don't follow my own advice
The quasi-scientific experiment done by someone a while back on avs compared different scale ratios and the integer ones fared better. But to be able to notice the artifacts, one has to zoom up A LOT. So maybe in the end the scaling ratio factor is miniscule. And you are right, neither have I ever seen an image turn ugly just because the scaling wasn't mathematically ideal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benny
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 29
Location: Inner Melbourne, Aust
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I recently discovered the merits of feeding my XG-1350 a differently scaled DVD signal ( I'm in PAL land ) so I've amended my previous preference ( 1440x810Px50Hz ) and now run at 1280 x 1152P x 50Hz. I wrote a dissertation on it over at AVS for those interested in the read.
The benefits of optimal scaling in the vertical outweigh the small degradation of softening that the slight scanline overlap brings. Running a slightly lower horizontal res also seems to allow the PJ to control the beam drawing more easily.
I've recently set up a XG-750 and XG-1100 locally with similar res's that showed the same benefits. Like myself, the owners are running HTPC's with MP-1 modded Radeon cards, so the signals being fed into theirs are very clean. There's an old adage ... CRAP IN - CRAP OUT ... and if you feed a projector with the best possible signal you will reap the rewards.
Cheers
Russ
_________________
It's converged! Now if only I could remember what I did ......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Quote: | | Also with 60Hz, don't you notice micro-stuttering on film pans and such? |
I might once I get rid of the stutter I have because of running a sharpness filter that requires horsepower than my CPU can deliver. I'll have turn my sharpness filter off and look for judder. I never noticed any when watching Matt's Panny DVD player on my PJ. Playback seemed perfectly smooth. Maybe I didn't watch it long enough, maybe I'm not sensitive to it, or maybe it didn't stutter. I'm not sure. |
I turned the sharpness filter off. What I assumed was stutter due to the sharpness filter was mostly stutter due to ReClock's inability to sync 60Hz. There may be a way to make that work but I was unable to do so.
So I switched back to 72Hz. The first thing I noticed is it wasn't nearly as bright. I had to up gain and brightness settings. The second thing I noticed was 72Hz was a little sharper. That might be due to a better setup, but probably not. Not sure why 72Hz is sharper, not sure why I thought 60Hz was sharper to begin with. In any event, so much for my low bandwidth/more sharpness theory.  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
derfla
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 547
Location: eastern ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
wish I had an idea what looks best. just got a m8500 a few weeks "curt where are those spare tubes i got off of ebay?" so if someone knows what looks best on my 8500 I would like the input. by the way nice forum curt/kal I like the feal of things in here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisWiggles
Opinionated SOB
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2529
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1440x720p 16:9 for me, @72hz. doing this at 960p in 16:9 is too much IMO, but is wonderful on a 9-incher.
For all of you using 1280x720p still for DVD, if you have a way of using 1440, try it. I keep saying this in multiple places, yet there are still people running 1280x720. 1280x720 is great for HD, so if you do a lot of HD use that, but if you're watching mainly DVD, 1440 h-resolution reduces scaling artifacts. Throw up a resolution pattern/wedges/sweeps and take a look.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrisWiggles wrote: | | Throw up a resolution pattern/wedges/sweeps and take a look. |
A couple of months ago I tried 1440x720p @72Hz at your suggestion Chris. It looked softer than 1280x720p @72Hz on my PJ.
Can you see the difference in the resolution patterns from your seating position? If not, I'm not sure it really matters.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisWiggles
Opinionated SOB
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2529
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I can definitely on patterns. On content I haven't really gone back and forth, I'd have to find some very specific pans and images to hunt for differences. I don't see any change in softness when i use 1440 instead of 1280, but if you do then I can understand your choice.
I'm glad you tried it though, there are a lot who just use 1280 unawares without trying 1440, when watching SD content. I just encourage everyone to try 1440 and see what they think.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
