High definition v Full High definition for better or worse.
I started writing this ages ago, it was going to be the first blog on the site but time has moved on and I just found the draft and thought it was time to finish it.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with trying to get higher resolution screens as a general principle, but it seems to me that this can be distracting from the key objective of getting a better picture. Let’s not forget about all the other good things that make for a good picture such as properly set brightness and contrast, not to mention good black levels, properly adjusted grey-scale, and accurate colour. So many images I see, particularly in display screens in shops have (as musicians would say) all the dials turned to 11. This may make the set stand out in the shop but it is hardly what you want to watch at home.
I would venture to suggest that unless you are planning to view static images such as still photographs on the screen then the above factors combined with good video processing is far more important than having a screen with a gazillion pixels of resolution.
Don’t get me wrong about this; a high quality, properly set up and calibrated full definition screen (1080p) will always look better than a lower definition screen of the same quality that has also been properly set up.
From a personal viewpoint, I find that sufficient resolution is when you cannot see the pixel structure and this is going to be a function of screen size and viewing distance. If I am viewing a small TV let’s say 23" and I am more than about 6 foot away from it then a screen that resolves 720p is completely sufficient. If I am in a cinema room with a 2.35:1 projection screen of about 12 foot then I want the best picture possible for the maximum number of people, front row as well as back row so bring on those pixels, the more the merrier!
One last thought, more pixels means that more video processing power is required to scale anything that is not in the native resolution of the chipset being used, or anything that does not refresh at the same frame rate as the original source material. Quality video processing does not come cheap and I wonder how many cheap "full definition" screens and projectors are going to suffer from poor image quality because of poor video processing. Now there's one to ponder.
jeff
First of all, there is nothing wrong with trying to get higher resolution screens as a general principle, but it seems to me that this can be distracting from the key objective of getting a better picture. Let’s not forget about all the other good things that make for a good picture such as properly set brightness and contrast, not to mention good black levels, properly adjusted grey-scale, and accurate colour. So many images I see, particularly in display screens in shops have (as musicians would say) all the dials turned to 11. This may make the set stand out in the shop but it is hardly what you want to watch at home.
I would venture to suggest that unless you are planning to view static images such as still photographs on the screen then the above factors combined with good video processing is far more important than having a screen with a gazillion pixels of resolution.
Don’t get me wrong about this; a high quality, properly set up and calibrated full definition screen (1080p) will always look better than a lower definition screen of the same quality that has also been properly set up.
From a personal viewpoint, I find that sufficient resolution is when you cannot see the pixel structure and this is going to be a function of screen size and viewing distance. If I am viewing a small TV let’s say 23" and I am more than about 6 foot away from it then a screen that resolves 720p is completely sufficient. If I am in a cinema room with a 2.35:1 projection screen of about 12 foot then I want the best picture possible for the maximum number of people, front row as well as back row so bring on those pixels, the more the merrier!
One last thought, more pixels means that more video processing power is required to scale anything that is not in the native resolution of the chipset being used, or anything that does not refresh at the same frame rate as the original source material. Quality video processing does not come cheap and I wonder how many cheap "full definition" screens and projectors are going to suffer from poor image quality because of poor video processing. Now there's one to ponder.
jeff
posted by Castle Sound & Vision at
09:00
0 Comments
