Scaling artifacts: LCD vs Plasma

[Jose]

Why is it that image scaling artifacts are more evident in LCD's then plasma screens ? Shouldn't it be the same since the image is being upscaled to a different aspect ratio in both cases ? And most plasmas have a higher contrast ration, wich can can be more than the triple of LCD's, so artifacts should be even more visible on plasma.
Anyone ?

Done a google search but found mostly garbage, then thought it would be a nice topic here...

:pint:

[Waccoon]

What kind of artifacts, specificly?

[rare_j]

It can depend on the quality of the scaler hardware built into the set. So some LCD's may be better than some plasmas.

Generally though because LCD's are so much sharper you tend to notice the artifacts more, even on a smaller set.

[Ilwrath]

Generally though because LCD's are so much sharper you tend to notice the artifacts more, even on a smaller set.

That would be my thought.  Plasma has more of a glow (which looks softer) than a backlight with individually shaded cells (LCD).

[coldfish]

If there's one thing that really annoys me about the "new" display tech', its "Native Resolution"!

What's the point of awesome(tm) display quality when the input image data comes in 20 different formats, which have to be upscaled, downscaled, stretched and squished to match the device's -native- resolution, in the process the image quality gets mashed and warped to sh*t?

[rare_j]

Most LCD's have a 'soften' slider bar option which can soften up the scaled image a bit - I found this helped to hide the scaling aftifacts on LCD.

[Jose]

@coldfish

That's exactly what I think.

[Louis Dias]

DLP 4 ME

[Jose]

@lou_dias

Same problem, a whole bunch of different signals incompatible to the native resolution that have to be scaled (read screwed up).

[Louis Dias]

Jose wrote:
@lou_dias

Same problem, a whole bunch of different signals incompatible to the native resolution that have to be scaled (read screwed up).

All I know is on my 19" LCD with a native of 1280x1024, when I go to 1280x768 (only vertical is affected)  I actually lose horizontal clarity on the monitor...then I plug it into my RGB-in on the DLP and it looks perfect.  WTF?

DLP is a bit more natual as it's projected light on mirrors.  It seems to produce a pretty natural picture and I watch DTV all day long and DVD's and my Gamecube in progressive scan and ANALOG TV.

[leirbag28]

@Everyone


I'll tell you what I think the problem is......and this is JUST my opinion!


the Problem is Microsoft!........huh? you say?

thanks to good ole Windows and their Stupid retarded non standard Video resolutions.................DVD and movies and anything with normal Video resolutions dont look right, unless they conform to VGA type crap!

in other words 720x 480, 1440x960 and so on Versus  640x480, 800 x 600, 1024x768 (windows VGA res)

HDTV of course is a whole differet thing, but I believe all these devices conform to those Windows VGA resolutions which are wrong! for video.......Microsoft couldnt go to video.......so they made video go to them.

so now instead of being able to download true video clips  (352x240, 720x480)  you now have to be forced to use fake (320x240, 640x480)  crap and then stretch it for it to look normal or degrade it.

by the way.I  had an INFOCUS XL-1 DLP projector and it looked great with an Amiga via S-Video.

[Framiga]

without speaking that on  win, you have dedicated drivers, driver calibration tools and such.

since 2 days i'm on my nephew' 15" TFT (hes on holyday now so i've stol... erm tested it on my A4000).

I don't like it.

[maffoo]

leirbag28 wrote:

the Problem is Microsoft!

Wasn't the VGA standard defined by someone else (VESA springs to mind?) My understanding is that graphics cards support specific resolutions such as 320x240, 640x480 etc. and Windows naturally uses these resolutions. As much as I dislike Microsoft I don't think it's fair to blame them for this.

[d0pefish]

Just out of interest, is the picture quality any better if the scaling is a square factor?

Say for example, you have a 1600x1200 LCD, and you display an 800x600 screen on it. Surely the pixels would just be quadrupled and you should have a pixellated (obviously) but crisp display?

I've never really used a LCD properly myself but I have seen the blurring that happens when you use non-native resolutions. While they can be very nice in their native resolutions, I'm very happy with my CRT - it deals with everything I throw at it very well.

I am using a 19 inch Sony Multiscan Trinitron G400 with my Amiga 4000 - while it weighs an absolute ton and is huuuuge, it can display the outputs of my Cybervision PPC and scandoubler very well, from those low-res 320x256 games all the way up to 1600x1200. :-D

[Ilwrath]

I am using a 19 inch Sony Multiscan Trinitron[...]

You mispelt "Herniatron".  :-D  I've carted around lots of monitors, and I always cringe when I see a Sony monitor that needs to be moved.

Anyhow, I think the more modern LCD high-resolution displays do a lot better job than the older ones.  A friend of mine has one of the new Dell 21" flat panels LCDs, and I must say, it's beautiful in just about any resolution.  The first LCD that I'd consider an improvement over my ViewSonic GS815.