As for the model number of the " best reviewed HDTV" , if you can' t remember the model numbers, how do you know it isn' t the one I own?

As for the 720p to 768 scaling, I' ll explain this like an adult, let' s see if you respond with something other than the child-like comments you like to throw out.

I made some quick images for everyone to look at. The images themselves aren' t of anything special, just a bunch of tiled screens from an emulator because I wanted to start from an uncompressed pixel for pixel image and not some crappy image (like a JPEG) to best represent my point.

[url=" http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/720.png" ]Click here to see the 720p image (1280x720)[/url]

[url=" http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/768.png" ]Click here to see the same image scaled up by 3% to 1365x668 (which is not a recognized HDTV format)[/url]

Notice how the 768 version is noticeably more blurry. If it looks fine to you, then that' s great! But to me it is not acceptable. Different TVs use different methods of scaling the image, and they all result in differing quality.

[url=" http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/scaling.png" ]Click here to check an image comparing different scaling methods.[/url]

This image is sized 200% to better illustrate my points. The original 1:1 is a small sample taken from the 1280x720 image, and the rest were taken from the 1365x768 image upscaled in various different ways. Observe.

The original 1:1 is pixel perfect in every way. No distortion anywhere. Everything is represented exactly as the source is, pixel for pixel.
Bicubic resampling is the best way to scale (which is also what the large 1365x768 link above used), but it still results in some loss of sharpness and also introduces some artifacts as a result of the scaling. Notice the new grey lines above the score box that are not in the original image.
Nearest Neighbor doesn' t seem to lose anything in sharpness, but you do get new pixels that don' t belong. Look at the round, green orb thingy in the lower left. It has quite a few new big, black pixels at various points around it that is not in the original source material. As the screen moves or scrolls, these extra nastified pixels will become very apparent. I don' t think too many if any TVs use this type of scaling.
Bilinear resampling is a pretty bad form of scaling as well. It has all of the same stuff introduced to the screen as bicubic, but it also adds and extra layer of blur. Many TVs do this because it is very quick and easy. And speed is important when dealing with common lag time found in LCDs and DLPs.

Overscan is irrelevant as the image is still being scaled by 3%. If the image was being displayed at 1280x720 and the rest of the pixels were beyond the border of the screen, then it is not being scaled at all. But most LCD, DLP and plasma TVs have little to no overscan these days.

Now again, this may all be fine for you, and if it is, that' s great! I personally don' t like it. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn' t mean they are a dumb fuck who can' t keep a job and is a complete loser. Only someone with the inability to express his viewpoints would say stuff like that. I am prepared for your angry childish insults and fanboy-ish remarks. Or you could try talking like an adult to express your points, but somehow I don' t think you are capable of doing that.

EVIL:I would expect you to know how to add nonstandard resolutions to your PC (like 720p) - I guess you' re not that well oriented PC owner after all.

Notice how the 768 version is noticeably more blurry. If it looks fine to you, then that' s great! But to me it is not acceptable. Different TVs use different methods of scaling the image, and they all result in differing quality.

I didn' t think it was that blurry compared to the first one....

eh... uh....

...I have bad eyesight though.

I also didn' t notice differences , but my desktop res it 1400x1050 so maybe it was noticable on 1024x768.

Thankfully I know how it should looks with even minor scalling and can' t deny that Joe is right.That' s why I ask him whenever I have any Video/audio question.

It was extremely easy to tell for me. I do have 20-10 vision though. It would be interesting know the distance/size/resolution images have to be for a person of 20-20 vision to be able to tell the difference.

That image is a pointless example, you' re showing it off to people who are probably 1 foot away from their monitor, if they step back another 7 feet simulating actual distance for TV-viewing it would be impossible for them to detect the difference. On a medium/large size HDTV you have to view from afar, if you get close enough to detect the difference in those images you are already too close for optimal TV watching.

If you have HD programming the image is fed to you with overscan, yes nowadays they dont need to do that but theres still people on TVs with overscan issues so they still do. When a 720p TV loses say 20 lines, a 768 loses none and upscales the image to fill the few extra lines left.

You assume you' re blowing up 720 lines to 768 but its more like 740 lines to 768.



Gangsta - Some games dont run properly on non-standard resolutions no matter what you do with your video settings. Excuse me for not being able to re-code the game to fit my needs.

Thank you for your well-mannered reply. I agree that the optimal viewing distance will be much further away than one sits from their computer monitor. But to compensate for the increased distance, screens must get larger as you pointed out. So it is more or less the same difference. The optimal viewing distance is about 1 and a half to two screen heights away from the monitor/television/movie screen. If you get too terribly much further away than that, then not only will you not be able to tell the difference between scaled/non-scaled material, but you' ll also start to lose the advantages in the extra detail provided by HDTV.

Evil Man kicked ass

Gangsta - Some games dont run properly on non-standard resolutions no matter what you do with your video settings. Excuse me for not being able to re-code the game to fit my needs.

OK I didn' t know that.I thought PC games are completely customisable.I know you can do it for movies and other stuff though.

Evil Man kicked ass 

I hope that' s sarcasm...

It better be.

I' d like to point out once again Joe' s hypocrisy. He says he can' t stand the upscales from 720 to 768p but he is perfectly fine with the upscale from 1280x720p to 1920x1080i - which is about 900 times more noticeable.

Considering most games this gen are/will be 720p that upscale would be atrocious wouldnt it joe? You get a blown up piece of shit image and on top of that it' s interlaced, LMAO.

I' m waiting for you to reply with another brainless half-assed reason why upscaling 720p to the ass-tastic 1080i, a 33% upscale that loses progressive scan in the process, is superior to the unnoticable 3% upscale from 720 to 768.

That time of the month, Evil Man? It took you two weeks to even reply, so I assume you' re just looking for some more fun. You aslo seem to be dragging information from who knows where because I don' t see where I said that upscaling from 720p to 1080i is " perfectly fine" . But this really seems to be bothering you. At least I don' t suck at driving and parking.

Notice how he avoids the question.

Hypocrite.

You preach 1080i and downplay 768p for the sole reason of a 3% upscale, yet you' re fine with a 33% upscale of 1080i because you reccomend them over 768.

And intentionally going on an HOV lane to save 40 minutes of time is sucking at driving? This just confirms you don' t even own a car as you have no idea what you' re talking about.

I learned the art of avoiding the question from you. Why did it take you two weeks to respond?

Show me where I praise 1080i in all of its glory. I am sad to see you turn back into an ass again. You were doing so well, too!

It' s simple.

You claim 768 is trash.
You reccomend 1080i.

By this, one can see that you prefer 1080i.

Yet, the reason you dont like 768 is because of a 3% upscale. But wait, 1080i has to upscale ten times more on the same source. Hypocrisy at it' s finest.

Here is the true story of Evil Man:


I am sick of arguing with you. That' s all you ever want to do with anyone. Seriously. You have issues. You can claim I am wrong all you want, that' s fine by me. You can have fun arguing with yourself (your other personality being that Emo guy).

Actually it all makes sense to me now - you prefer 1080i because you are poor and that' s all you can afford, you don' t actually have a reason. You' re just mad at people that can afford technology not from 80 years ago.

And we know you' re poor because you' re an old fuck that still doesn' t even own a car.

1+1 = 2

You have no argument, I know. I exposed you and you hide behind little drawings trying to grasp on to whatever shred of dignity you still have left, pathetic.

Hey now don' t make fun of my HDTV which I bought in 1926! That was a prime year for HDTVs I say!

But if you want to talk hypocrisy, let' s look at you, Evil Man. I noticed this the other day but didn' t post it because you weren' t starting shit with me at the time. But now since you did, all' s fair:

September 16th - " Post your picture!"

Originally posted by Evil Man:

So that just further confirms that he' s gay, only a pussy fag uses forums features like ignore.

September 29th - " Cheap model PS3 a better value"

Originally posted by Evil Man:

You' re right, I just added him to my ignore list he' s pretty useless, just comes to talk shit and doesnt debate the argument we' re talking about.

Either Evil Man is a hypocrite, or he is a gay pussy fag. Take your pick. Either way Evil Man = Owned!

Oh owndizzle!