I realize that your CRT FP can handle the whole gamut, I was asking what device you will be using to feed the native passthru to your CRT. Since you want native passthru, you must have something to process the signal with that you would rather use. Or were you just showing off your equipment?
Native resolution passthrough?
- Thread starter TheTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 8K
I realize that your CRT FP can handle the whole gamut, I was asking what device you will be using to feed the native passthru to your CRT. Since you want native passthru, you must have something to process the signal with that you would rather use. Or were you just showing off your equipment?
Uh, no other device is needed. Component out from 622 to component in on projector. The projector is a multiscanning/multisync device.
If you are going on about a device that can decode mpeg2 or mpeg4 then I think you are trying to split hairs and are being intentionally obtuse.
Obtuse? IS this a way to avoid answering questions? I thought the OP was asking about native passthru so he could process the signal with his equipment and not let the 622 process it.
I'm not talking about MPEG decoding, I'm was asking you what device you were processing the signal on that you needed native passthru in order to allow you to do the processing on the "original" signal. However, you have indicated that you are not processing the signal at all since you have a FP CRT that can handle the range of frequencies and resolutions.
You are indicating that you do not process the signal at all but want to send the native format straight to your FP CRT. So, if CRT does not have a native resolution and does not exhibit digital artifacts like SDE or RBE, what difference does it make if Dish sends you native, 720p, or 1080i? Your CRT will render it as the same image regardless.
Why do you care about native passthru at all since your CRT doesn't care and will render the image regardless?
Digital display owners are concerned about native passthru because they want to reduce the amount of signal processing and subject the signal to the best processor available to them in order to create a native resolution that will work with their display.
I'm sorry if you are taking this as a personal affront to your reply and not as a request to understand why you are concerned at all about native passthru. It's important to help people understand what the purpose and function of each technology is so that they are not needlessly chasing after it and demanding that it be added to their equipment just because it sounds cool or is purported to be the next step in the path to the Home Theater Holy Grail.
The faulty assumption here is that CRTs don't have or need processing capability. The fact is that they have (and need) considerable processing capability to overcome the weaknesses inherent in CRT technology as well as the problems associated with MPEG compressed HD content and NTSC derived SD content.
If you take a look at the feature set for a quality CRT based HD display, you will find a comb filter as well as motion compensation technology. CRTs are unique in the need for pincushion compensation and a number of other filters.
If you take a look at the feature set for a quality CRT based HD display, you will find a comb filter as well as motion compensation technology. CRTs are unique in the need for pincushion compensation and a number of other filters.
I know about those processes as well. Let me be clear:
Why does a FP CRT need native passthru if the signal is not going to be processed by a scaler or processor to achieve another resolution, rather than allowing the 622 to scale / process the signal for you?
Teran’s point is valid. It is true his projector will “render the image regardless”. However, the video signal sent to the projector need not be unnecessarily altered and degraded.
8bitbytes stated “digital display owners are concerned about native passthru because they want to reduce the amount of signal processing and subject the signal to the best processor available to them…" CRT projector owners want native passthru so that there is no image degrading signal processing.
With native passthru to a CRT it is easier to send the original unaltered broadcast resolution to the display. If Teran is watching ESPN HD the native 720p resolution would be sent to his CRT with no unnecessary conversion to 1080i. Similarly, if Teran is watching HBO HD the native 1080i resolution would be sent to his CRT with no unnecessary and poorly implemented de-interlacing & down rezzing to 720p.
8bitbytes stated “digital display owners are concerned about native passthru because they want to reduce the amount of signal processing and subject the signal to the best processor available to them…" CRT projector owners want native passthru so that there is no image degrading signal processing.
With native passthru to a CRT it is easier to send the original unaltered broadcast resolution to the display. If Teran is watching ESPN HD the native 720p resolution would be sent to his CRT with no unnecessary conversion to 1080i. Similarly, if Teran is watching HBO HD the native 1080i resolution would be sent to his CRT with no unnecessary and poorly implemented de-interlacing & down rezzing to 720p.
Last edited:
Native passthru is needed for those few channels (mostly sports) that are progressive scan. My 622 is set for 1080i so that my 1080p set gets the highest resolution but when viewing a progrssive scan channel, I want my set to display it properly without having to remember which channels are 720p and manually change the 622's settings to match. The motion blur is considerably reduced with progressive scan.
There is no assumption that CRTs don't process a signal. But just so we're clear:
1) Comb filters are only used when processing a standard def composite video signal -- no one in their right mind is sending composite video to a CRT projector.
2) What are the inherent weaknesses of CRT that require considerable processing?
3) Problems with MPEG compressed HD & NTSC? -- They are no different with CRT than for digital displays. If they are different, then how?
4) Motion compensation technology? You're kidding right? Motion compensation is a method of de-interlacing used to align two fields in a video picture. It has has nothing to do with which type of display technology is used.
5) Pincusion correction is not a filter, nor are any other of the myriad geometry controls available in a good CRT projector which allow for perfect image alignment.
But if CRT does not have fixed pixels and native resolutions, can you really say the image will be that different? Maybe it will look a hair sharper.
It seems to me that the ones who would benefit the most from native passthru are those who will be processing the signal with a high end processor to give them 1080p which is then sent to their 1080p display.
Yes, for a CRT projector the image is often considerably better without conversion resulting in a much sharper image.
In the end native passthru is simply a convenience, as we can all manually select the output resolution of our HD receivers. Whether we let the HD reciver, an outboard processor, or the display (if digital) convert the native resolution to our desired resolution depends on which device best de-interlaces (for 1080i) and scales.
By the way, the best CRT projectors with 9" LC tubes do benefit from a good outboard scaler for conversion of all signals to 1080p, otherwise scanlines become bothersome.
Thank you.
I have been considering a good used 9" system but I'm not totally dissatisfied with digital, yet. But, I do like to tinker...
I agree with rglore. I hate that. I'm watching Gallery HD and there I want to see every brushstroke. I then switch to watching football and I get a headache if I don't go into system preferences and switch it to 720P. My LCD handles 1080P and displays it nicely from a 1080P source, but continually switching really is distracting, and unfortunately, very annoying to my wife, I guess. Okay, I know.
I'm in the same boat. Have a Sony HD CRT 4X3 with enhanced 16X9 mode. That's exactly why I'm considering going with Direct (maybe) if and when their HD ever goes up.
The likely flawed assumption here is that DIRECTV (or anyone else) offers a 4:3 aspect ratio stream on any of their HD channels.
It is also a flawed assumption that CRT televisions can display an infinitely variable combination of horizontal and vertical pixel counts. Most CRT televisions are indeed limited to the display speeds in the market that they are sold in and do not magically adapt to "alternative" display modes without significant adjustment to the beam sweep.
I was looking at a spec sheet of the Sony KV-32HS500 32" CRT HDTV and it had only three native display modes: 960i, 480p and 1080i. 480i content is upscaled to 960i or 480p and 720p content is scaled to 1080i.
Thanks for saving me from typing most of this ...
Who says everyone is in their right mind
There are inherent weaknesses; but they aren't related to processing.
CRT's lack of a defined picture structure can sometimes hide this where a fixed pixel display shows it more readily.
To be more precise -- it is used on native interlaced material; like live sports, news etc. It isn't needed on any film or film equivalent material.
Digitals have their own issues -- nothing's perfect and I prefer 10-25 pounds hanging over my head to 100+
CHeers,
Who says everyone is in their right mind
There are inherent weaknesses; but they aren't related to processing.
CRT's lack of a defined picture structure can sometimes hide this where a fixed pixel display shows it more readily.
To be more precise -- it is used on native interlaced material; like live sports, news etc. It isn't needed on any film or film equivalent material.
Digitals have their own issues -- nothing's perfect and I prefer 10-25 pounds hanging over my head to 100+
CHeers,
The flawed assumption here is your assumption you know what I am trying to get and why I'm trying to get it. I can pretty much assume you have never seem my setup, and without seeing it, it's obvious you have no idea what I'm talking about, or what I would like to box to do. If the original signal is not an HD format, then I would like the box to send the signal as 480i or p (ie, ScI-FI Network). Seeing that, my TV will stay in a 4x3 aspect. If the program is in 720p or 1080i (any of the HD channels), I would like the box to send that 720p or 1080i signal to my TV. Seeing that, it will automatically compress all of the lines into a 16x9 area within the 4x3 screen.
My entire purpose for this is so SD content, in 4X3 aspect will fill up the entire screen. Otherwise, if the TV thinks it's getting an HD signal from the dish receiver, and it's a 4X3 ratio, then it will still compress the signal into a 16:9 aspect, but the 4X3 will be a small screen inside the larger screen. This is done automatically by the TV, and it can not be disabled.
I can assure you that my television does have 480i as one of it's native resolutions.
Last edited:
Oh yea, and the reason I was thinking about going to Direct is because their HD receiver does pass through 480 contect as 480. 720 and 1080 come through as that.
My Sony 4x3 CRT with 16x9 squeeze mode was just picked up by the local school a few days ago.
Although it had a really excellent PQ, back 5 years ago, I'm glad that it happened not to be the model with HD support.
My advice to CRT owners is to get a 2007 HD TV set. Meanwhile, the S-Video trick is a small price to pay for not having to make the $$ outlay.
Nothing personal, but if all ten of you go to D*, no one will even notice - 4x3 CRTs are not on the radar screen for any provider.
PS A 32" 4x3 CRT in 16x9 mode, is the equivalent of a 29.4 inch 16:9 TV . For a while, I rationalized about not getting a 16x9 set, because the 4x3 picture is smaller and "most TV is still 4x3". While that is true, it turns out that the 16x9 material (DVDs and HD TV content) is much more worthwhile as a larger image, while the SD material of 4x3 does not benefit from a larger image, which only reveals the low resolution more. The worst part is that 2.35:1 movies are only 11 inches high on a 32" 4x3 set.
Although it had a really excellent PQ, back 5 years ago, I'm glad that it happened not to be the model with HD support.
My advice to CRT owners is to get a 2007 HD TV set. Meanwhile, the S-Video trick is a small price to pay for not having to make the $$ outlay.
Nothing personal, but if all ten of you go to D*, no one will even notice - 4x3 CRTs are not on the radar screen for any provider.
PS A 32" 4x3 CRT in 16x9 mode, is the equivalent of a 29.4 inch 16:9 TV . For a while, I rationalized about not getting a 16x9 set, because the 4x3 picture is smaller and "most TV is still 4x3". While that is true, it turns out that the 16x9 material (DVDs and HD TV content) is much more worthwhile as a larger image, while the SD material of 4x3 does not benefit from a larger image, which only reveals the low resolution more. The worst part is that 2.35:1 movies are only 11 inches high on a 32" 4x3 set.
My 36" Sony CRT displays HD a tad bigger than a 32" 16x9 TV. And yes, I'm planning on moving up to a "2007 HD TV set" but I'm still convinced that my CRT (Sony XBR) has a better picture than almost anything out there these days. LCDs look sterile to me, and while Plasmas are better, I still think a CRT offers a better picture quality. Completely subjective, of course, but it's my TV so I can be subjective about it...
BTW - pduncan - PERFECTLY stated about wanting 4x3 SD to fill the screen. Nothing my kids watch is in HD so there's still plenty of 4x3 TV around. And even if I got a 42" 16x9 TV, my 36" 4x3 still gives a bigger 4x3 image (I refuse to stretch it). I'm not going to buy a new "bigger" TV that actually reduces the size of my (SD 4x3) picture.
BTW - pduncan - PERFECTLY stated about wanting 4x3 SD to fill the screen. Nothing my kids watch is in HD so there's still plenty of 4x3 TV around. And even if I got a 42" 16x9 TV, my 36" 4x3 still gives a bigger 4x3 image (I refuse to stretch it). I'm not going to buy a new "bigger" TV that actually reduces the size of my (SD 4x3) picture.
Similar threads
