Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution
From: DAB sounds worse than FM (dab_is_at_low.quality)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: DAB sounds worse than FM: "Re: Twitter vs Number of Lines"
- Previous message: DAB sounds worse than FM: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- In reply to: davidrobinson_at_postmaster.co.uk: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Next in thread: Kevin Bracey: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Reply: Kevin Bracey: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:19:19 GMT
davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> The reason that we examine the worst case scenario is because this
> sets the limit - so it's an obvious case to go for when trying to
> figure out what the limit is!
In my years of watching TV I have never seen the whole screen flash.
In my years of watching TV I have never seen a screen full of alternate
black and white lines with a pitch equal to the scan-line pitch on TV.
Basically, you appeal to the worst case scenario, but that worst case
scenario never happens.
In each and every post you mention a flashing screen. Personally I think
your telly is on the blink.
> Also, your suggestion that the human visual system's inherent low pass
> reduces the need for a pre-interlace vertical filter in video is about
> as valid as an argument that the human auditory system's inherent low
> pass reduces the need for a pre-sampling anti-alias filter in audio.
I've never said that the *need* is reduced; you always *need* a filter.
What I did say is that the 0.7*Fs factor can be *relaxed* for HD
compared to SD.
> In audio, without correct filtering, the (usually inaudible) high
> frequencies will be aliased right down into the audible band, where
> they will be very audible and objectionable. (Thanks to Kevin for this
> obvious, excellent example btw!)
I've just answered this in reply to Kevin's post.
> Likewise, as you've been shown at least 10 times, without correcting
> filtering, the (usually invisible) high vertical frequency detail will
> be transformed into highly visible flashing by the interlacing
> process.
AIUI, all TV uses a vertical (anti-aliasing) lowpass filter that does
not obey Nyquist's criterion. But when watching DTT have you ever seen
"highly visible flashing by the interlacing process"? I haven't.
> btw, whether you watch on an interlaced or progressive display is
> irrelevant - at that limit, even the progressive display can't "know"
> whether the original image contained temporally-static spatially-high
> frequency components, or temporally-flashing spatially-low frequency
> ones. The two domains are entirely confused by interlacing, and this
> area of confusion must be avoided in interlaced signals by the use of
> appropriate filters. Hence (to bring us back to where we started) you
> do not and cannot have 0.9x1080 effective pixels of resolution in a
> 1080i system.
To correct you: I originally said that you should be able to increase
the 0.7 factor. IIRC, it was you that introduced the 0.9 factor, and I
merely said that you might be able to. In hindsight I doubt 0.9 would be
feasible, but I am sticking with my assertion that the 0.7 factor could
be increased.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm
- Next message: DAB sounds worse than FM: "Re: Twitter vs Number of Lines"
- Previous message: DAB sounds worse than FM: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- In reply to: davidrobinson_at_postmaster.co.uk: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Next in thread: Kevin Bracey: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Reply: Kevin Bracey: "Re: 1080i & 720p HDTV Resolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|