skintigh

I've asked a number of store workers why exactly none of their HDTV's supported the full 1920 horizontal resolution and why many of their "HDTVs" don't even support 1080, but nobody could answer me, nor even knew what the standard was. (I assume no Sony supports the full resolution, as Sony never lists resolution and that is usually because they are the bottom of the barrel. If you don't believe me, call them and ask point blank. I did.) In fact, the only HDTV I've found that supports the full 2 million pixels is Pioneer Elite. I've even seem "HDTVs" that don't even support 0.5 million pixels. Pathetic.

I pointed this out in a forum once, and was quickly told I was a troll and stupid and the salesmen who sold me my hdtv (I don't own one yet) tricked me into thinking resolution is important when it's not. I asked for clarification, but of course received none.

Is there some reason resolution is not important, and if so can I relabel my 400x400 tv as HDTV?

zarlor

Well, if you ask me resolution is definitely important. Important enough for me that I bought a Zenith IQB64W10W (at the bargain basement price of $6,000 over 2 years ago, although the MSRP was aroun $9,500) because it has 9" CRTs and is able to provide full 1920x1080i. (The Pioneer Elite is one of the few sets still on the market with 9" guns, BTW.) MOST HDTVs only come with the more "standard" 7" CRTs, the problem with those is that even if the CRT display was fully capable of resolving 1920x1080 the lens itself, at that size, couldn't precisely display that resolution so you have dots blurring into each other, as it were.

Personally I find it nice that I can walk up to my set's screen and actually be able to see the line structure if I look at it close enough. Especially since I use my computer connected to it. So for me resolution is a big factor.

Now the 7" sets are, obviously, going to be cheaper and, since the lens can't handle a full 1080i resolution why not shave off a few extra dollars by cutting down their resolution as well? I guess I can see the logic in that, so that's probably what you are looking at and it might be why some folks who might be "in the know" would suggest that resolution is not important... at least to that extent.

As for a "standard" any set which cannot resolve the minimum ATSC standard 720p resolution cannot be called an HDTV. The problem here is that I think most manufactureres take that to me 720 lines of resolution, conveniently ignoring that little progressive scan p on the end and accept 720i as the minimum HD resolution. Unfortunately for the masses the manufacturers won't make it any easier because they'll be more than happy to try and sell HDTVs side by side with their NEW ALL DIGITAL TVs! Of course a Digital TV does not at all mean that it has a resolution of at least 720 lines. At least, for the most part, a digital TV will mean that they will usually do at least 640x480p (progressive scanned DVD resolution), which is still a darned sight better than our analog 640x480i (or thereabouts). But it's definitely not HD.

Finally there are those who would argue that at the "standard" viewing distance (wherever they figure that number from) with most "standard" sized TVs the human eye, for the vast majority of people, couldn't tell the difference between 720 lines and 1080 lines in the same framespace anyway, so why bother with the higher resolution when "most" people couldn't tell the difference anyway? They may or may not have a point, but it depends, really, on how well YOU can tell that difference I would say.

So, I guess in large part you see less and less of the 9" CRT, true high resolution sets mainly because of cost. Only the high-end of the market is willing to pay the price point for the equipment requirements for that resolution. Now that these sets are under $2,000 (with 7" CRTs, mind you) we've seen sales continue to incrementally increase, especially in that low-ball price-point marke. So a lower resolution set SELLS. If they can cut corners and still sell the sets, despite the loss of quality from the real high resolution sets, they'll do it, is my guess.

__________________
Lenny Zimmermann
zarlor@acm.org

DISCLAIMER: I am not and have never been some kind of video expert. Take absolutely everything I post (along with anything else you read on the internet) with a HUGE grain of salt! If you really want the most complete and truthful answer, go to engineering school and find out how this stuff REALLY works.

skintigh

Yeah, the retard that flamed me said something about not being able to tell the difference at viewing distance or whatnot, and I wasn't really in any position to argue either way. But, my thought was: if your eyes are so bad you can't see the difference, don't buy an HDTV! Making all TVs low resolution for the blind is like making all movies rated G because some might be watched by kids.

I too plan on using my tv with my computer, which is where the lack of resolution would really stand out... I ASSUME...

Tell me: when a 1024x768 "HD"TV is given a 1080x1920 HDTV signal, what happenes to the 62% of data it can't display? Are the top and bottom 30 lines dropped and the outer 1200 lines dropped, or is only every third verticle line displayed, or is the 1080x1920 smeared in some analogue way over 1024x768 pixels, or what?

zarlor

That all depends on the processor that set would use for "downconversion". It would probably downconvert in much the same way as if you told a paintprogram to change an 800x600 picture down to a 640x480 picture. It may interpolate based upon bordering pixels, or it may use one of the methods you mentioned. I'm not certain and I assume it would depend on the set and the engineer for the downconverter.

As for your assumption... I made some comparisons when I was doing my shopping a couple of years ago. Personally I thought the 7" CRT sets looked a bit soft when compared to the crispness of the Zenith I decided to get. I could also see the line structure on that Zenith while some of those 7" sets were not quite so clear. It's possible that the problem could have been the calibration differences between the sets, but I'm doubtful of that since they were all calibrated by a fairly high-end video store, probably in about the same way. (Gotta love a video store that knows how to calibrate a set and disply them in low-light conditions so you can really COMPARE sets!)

So I'd say if resolution IS important for you, don't skimp it. And I personally believe resolution IS important. I'd say go for a 9" CRT set, wether it's an RPTV or an FPTV. A TV will tend to last you for many years so I think it's a decent investment, especially for something you can use as a full entertainment and business system, when hooked up to a computer like that.

Just my 2cents, though. YMMV.

__________________
Lenny Zimmermann
zarlor@acm.org

DISCLAIMER: I am not and have never been some kind of video expert. Take absolutely everything I post (along with anything else you read on the internet) with a HUGE grain of salt! If you really want the most complete and truthful answer, go to engineering school and find out how this stuff REALLY works.

woodman

skin:
There is so much misinformation about this subject that to get a real and true answer to your question is gonna be difficult at best. So many people confuse horizontal scanning lines with "resolution" and also think of video display resolution in the exact same way as computers, that it's no wonder that so much confusion is so abundant. Even Lenny here - while no doubt sincere and well-meaning is confused about a bunch of things.

First off, the number of scan lines is not what's being discussed when "resolution" is the topic. It's the ability of the electron beams to turn on and off as they streak across the screen at breakneck speed - "painting" one of the scan lines that make up the image. To add insult to the equation, there is NO standard way to measure this criteria, so that leaves the mfg. to "spec" it however he wants!

To talk about 1920 pixels of "resolution" is a misnomer, since if all 1920 pixels are illuminated, there is no resolution at all, but merely an entire white horizontal line. It takes a change from illuminated to not to create anything that we may call resolution . Therefore, the maximum such resolution IMO would be 960 in the horizontal plane ( a series of 960 white VERTICAL stripes) . Some video "experts" choose to limit the resolution measurement area still further by restricting it to what occurs across the horizontal dimension of the same width as the image height.

Got you thoroughly confused yet? Sorry 'bout that.

I disagree totally with Lenny on another point - namely that 9" CRTs are necessary for "full resolution". What he also fails to mention (probably because he doesn't know either) is that 9" CRTs are way more expensive than 7" tubes, AND they have a shorter life expectancy for some unknown (to me) reason! So, if you follow Lenny's advice and opt for a set with 9" CRTs, I'll pray for you that they give you your money's worth before they need to be replaced.

While it may be true that a set with 9" tubes is capable of a slightly better picture than a set with only 7" tubes, I'd suggest that you look at the two side-by-side. If you decide that the 9" tube set is "worth" about 3 times the cost of the 7" set, go for it. You'll have my deepest sympathy!

__________________
woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

skintigh

I see what you mean about the word "resolution" but that's just semantics. We both mean there are 1920 dots per horizontal sweep, even if that can only make 960 verticle white lines... with another 960 black lines inbetween, for a total of 1920 line... We think in dots, you think in lines.

I also agree that CRTs make the issue a little more nebulous as they are analog. BUT, the signal is digital, so we know exactly how many pixels the TV is supposed to be able to display. And we also know that any time a company can legally exaggerate it's product's abilities, they will, so if they list a TV as having less pixels, we know it has less than the standard.

I have seen HDTVs that ARE digital, like LCD or plasma, and none of them can support all the pixels in the datastream. What gives?


About 9" guns, I have to back up zarlor, for now - I have yet to see a TV with 7" guns that can handle 1080x1920.


I will try to do a side-by-side, but that's much easier said than done. It's doubtful either TV will be set up correctly and equally, and what are the odds the employees will lug tvs around the store for my benefit?

woodman

Not very likely unless you had checkbook in hand and told them you were ready to buy TODAY. Then, they would (or should).

__________________
woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

skintigh

<<<Of course you do and I do. You grew up viewing the computer as the end-all, be-all technology, while I spent my lifetime (50+ years) working with television. But stating resolution in a computer display vs. stating the same for a video display is NOT just a matter of semantics. You see, in a computer display, the size of a pixel changes as the resolution changes. This makes objects appear larger or smaller on the screen as the "resolution" is changed. In a video display, the size of a pixel is what size it is and the "resolution" has nothing whatever to do with it. >>>

It just sounds like you're angry that nobody uses your definition anymore.

<<<What gives is that making an LCD or a plasma display that contains 1920 pixels across the screen would be both difficult and VERY expensive, so the mfgs. just opt to make such display devices with enough pixels so that the pictures look good - even though they don't qualify as "hi-def". And when you refer to "all the pixels in the datastream" are you implying that there's ever a NEED for 1920 pixels on every horizontal scan line to properly display the detail that's present in ANY "real world" image? This is where people get the idea that Hi-Def signals require 32MHz of bandwidth at all times. This is totally false, but it's been repeated so often, that it tends to become "fact". >>>

I don't NEED anything. I want 1920 pixels. I want the full standard. I want the full picture. If I didn't want these things, I wouldn't want an HDTV. I would stick to my regular tv. Maybe some people are happy with paying full price and getting 1/2 to 1/4 of what they want, but I'm not. I've done the "buy cheap, upgrade later" and it always seems to work out to be more expensive.

I think the reason bandwidth varies is the compression. With no compression, even if every pixel were the same color and never changed, the signal would still eat all the bandwidth. Don't the signals get a full channel of bandwidth no matter what? That would make tuners less complicated.

<<<How could you possibly know this as a fact? The only way to "prove" any TV set's resolution capability would be to feed it a 960 white striped image and count the lines that are visible on the screen. I doubt seriously that you've ever done this. >>>

Why would I bother doing that when I can READ the resolution provided by the company that made the TV? If the manufacturer admits it can only handle 768 pixels, why would I need to test that it can handle 1920 black and white lines?

woodman

No, skin, I'm not angry at anything (much). I'm only trying to be helpful to those that I perceive as needing some help in navigating the technological waters that we find ourselves in. To respond to several of your points:

Quote:
I don't NEED anything. I want 1920 pixels. I want the full standard. I want the full picture. If I didn't want these things, I wouldn't want an HDTV. I would stick to my regular tv. Maybe some people are happy with paying full price and getting 1/2 to 1/4 of what they want, but I'm not. I've done the "buy cheap, upgrade later" and it always seems to work out to be more expensive.

You're not understanding what is going on here with this Hi-Def television that we've been blessed with. Just because a set is capable of 1920 pixels across a scan line does NOT mean that an image will come along that NEEDS to change every other one on each and every scan line as it goes across the screen. In fact, using 600-700 pixel "changes" across a scan line would be an extreme (and rare) situation in my experience.
**************************************************

Quote:
I think the reason bandwidth varies is the compression. With no compression, even if every pixel were the same color and never changed, the signal would still eat all the bandwidth. Don't the signals get a full channel of bandwidth no matter what? That would make tuners less complicated.

No, the bandwidth requirements depend solely upon the complexity of the image(s) being transmitted and received. Some images only require a Meg or so for multiple "frames" of video. Other images take anywhere from 8-16Megs worth. Occasionally, an image will come along that needs 20-25Megs of bandwidth, but this is extremely rare. You are correct about compression reducing bandwidth requirements. That is what makes it possible to transmit Hi-Def images in a 6MHz wide RF channel allotment that TV broadcasters must work within. All DTV signals are compressed - including the most detailed Hi-Def ones. This doesn't preclude the reception of an image that might contain some scan lines that require nearly all 1920 pixels in the display, but this will happen so rarely that ol' Rip Van Winkle can go back to sleep for awhile. A long while.

I hope you understand that my posts are NOT intended as argumentative or as a putdown of your knowledge. I'm only trying to help you understand what you're asking about, so that you don't get misled by well-meaning but technically inept souls on the internet and (especially) in retail stores, where ineptitude is rampant.

__________________
woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

skintigh

So, you're saying a screen that only supports half the pixels of the standard can display the same image as a screen with the full resolutio, because the total number of color changes is a couple hundred? I can see how that would be true if the changes were spread way out so they were all 3+ HDTV pixels wide, but if the changes were next to each other they would be lost or blurred or something.

Frankly I doubt your 600-700 stat, I'm sure every single pixel is different by at least it's least significant bit, though compression probably eats many of those changes.

Also, I think you're confusing digital and analog signals. A uncompressed digital signal should always take the same bandwidth. It will always send 24 bits per pixel per frame (or whatever the standard it) even if every pixel is 0/0/0.

Compressing it is where the image complexity and change comes into play. HDTV uses the mpeg2 standard, right? That records key frames every second and just the changes inbetween, which sometimes causes that wonderful 1 pixel pogo effect on so many channels where the entire image bounces up and then down again every 2 seconds. I assume whoever converted the signal to digital didn't sync some interlaced signal right somewhere.

woodman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skintigh
So, you're saying a screen that only supports half the pixels of the standard can display the same image as a screen with the full resolutio, because the total number of color changes is a couple hundred? I can see how that would be true if the changes were spread way out so they were all 3+ HDTV pixels wide, but if the changes were next to each other they would be lost or blurred or something.

A display that's only capable of "supporting" half of the pixels is certainly NOT an HDTV set or HDTV-ready or HDTV monitor at all. None of the above labels would be correct. They have to be capable of as many pixels as the format will allow ... ever. My whole point being that rarely (if ever) do that many changes ever take place on any given scan line.


Quote:
Frankly I doubt your 600-700 stat, I'm sure every single pixel is different by at least it's least significant bit, though compression probably eats many of those changes.

No, skin, they're not. Put a DVD into pause mode on an HDTV set, get a magnifying glass and look closely at the screen. You'll be amazed (no matter what sort of image you pick) that there are not just 3 pixels side by side that are identical, often there are dozens and dozens! Sometimes even hundreds! So doubt my facts and figures all you want. I'm a bit curious on what basis you challenge my facts. What is your background in electronics and TV technology, anyway?


Quote:
Also, I think you're confusing digital and analog signals. A uncompressed digital signal should always take the same bandwidth.

Yes, it would. That's why our new ATSC television format uses MPEG2 compression. Otherwise , there's be no Hi-Def images in our new digital TV system ... only a different way to transmit essentially what we've been using for all these years.

It will always send 24 bits per pixel per frame (or whatever the standard it) even if every pixel is 0/0/0.

No, sync - only 8 bits are used to convey pixel illumination density, and only when there's a change from preceding pixels will ANYTHING be sent. That's where much of the bandwidth requirements are diminished.

Compressing it is where the image complexity and change comes into play. HDTV uses the mpeg2 standard, right? That records key frames every second and just the changes inbetween, which sometimes causes that wonderful 1 pixel pogo effect on so many channels where the entire image bounces up and then down again every 2 seconds. I assume whoever converted the signal to digital didn't sync some interlaced signal right somewhere.

Where do you get your DTV signals from anyway? If you're seeing images bounce up and down every few seconds, something is seriously wrong somewhere along the line. Perhaps you need a new signal provider.

__________________
woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

57U

I will leave my post as originally posted below, but this edit is intended to correct my false impressions regarding horizontal resolution. The following is a quote from someone who appears to know what he's talking about.

"Your television is a rear-projection CRT. The lines you were counting were in the plastic screen at the front of the TV. Their purpose is to disperse the light horizontally so that people can watch the TV over a wide viewing angle. They have nothing to do with how fine a detail the TV set can show (other than the TV will be incapable of showing detail finer than these lines). You need a high definition "Avia-like test pattern" source to measure resolution "

Original post below:

OK Guys, this was so interesting I decided to do some counting. I put my trusty 10X loupe to my eye and looked very closely at my Hitachi 61" widescreen HDTV (61UWX10B).

1. I put a piece of tape 40 mm from the edge of the screen.
2. I counted 55 very well defined vertical white (coloured) lines and 55 very well defined vertical black lines in those 40 mm.
3. This gives 1.375 lines/mm (actually twice that many, but I'll only count the white or black ones).
4. My set is 1400 mm wide.
5. This is 1920 lines (1.375 x 1400 with a very small margin of error).

By the way, my set has 7" guns.

I found it interesting that the black vertical lines were actually wider than the "white" ones, since your eye thinks the screen is completely full of colour from even a short distance.


Vertical Resolution Discussion:

When I looked for pixels in a vertical direction, I could not find any. There was what appeared to be a smooth transition between colours as I moved up and down. I was using a static screen (like Headline News) and looked at the colour changes as I went from various colours to white, etc. I found this very interesting, because there was really no way to tell the "vertical" resolution. I tried DVDs, Standard Def. and High Def. Although the picture was clearer when viewing High Def from a distance, closeup, there did not appear to be any difference because of the "very smooth" transition between the colours. This may be Hitachi's "Virtual HD" (upconversion) at work on the DVD and standard def feeds....

Someone found the following link regarding the history of TV resolution. I'm posting it again here as I find it useful:

TV Resolution History

__________________
57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Hitachi 61UWX10B HDTV, Yamaha RX-V1 A/V Receiver, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT

SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs)

Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

57U

I have edited my post above in italics to correct some misconceptions I had...

__________________
57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Hitachi 61UWX10B HDTV, Yamaha RX-V1 A/V Receiver, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT

SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs)

Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

woodman

I had written a somewhat scathing rebuttal to the quote because I (incorrectly) believed that the person you quoted was one of those expert "wannabes" that are the source of so much misinformation that proliferates this HDTV business. I was led to believe this until I went back and re-read your post. I had thought that you had used an Avia or V-E "resolution" test pattern when you did your "line" counting. When I re-read your original post and found that you were looking at a broadcast TV image, I had to erase all that I had written.

The only way to "measure" or evaluate a set's resolution capability is with a test pattern consisting of vertical white stripes on a black background. Also, thinking back on it, I don't remember ever looking at an RPTV screen with a magnifying glass. I did look at direct-view CRTs in that fashion many, many times, but I'm not sure that trying the same thing with a lenticular lens on the front of an RPTV would yield the same sort of result or not. It's entirely possible that what you counted was merely the angles of the lens, and nothing more.

I'd be interested to know what the result would be using the test pattern I referred to. Do you have an Avia or V-E disc? If so, run your "test" again and post the result, would you?

__________________
woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

57U

I don't currently have the time to redo my "test" but it's my understanding that you need a high definition "AVIA-like" source. It doesn't seem to matter what image I display on the TV, I "see" the same number of "lines" with my loupe.

When you run AVIA's resolution test on a DVD, they only have up to 500 lines on their test pattern, which my set was capable of receiving easily using S-Video or Component video cables. Using composite video cables, the set showed about 400 lines which is to be expected. I believe the highest resolution possible from a DVD is about 540 lines.

I do not have a high def test pattern source, sorry. I will have some time in a week or so and then I'll fire up Avia and see if there is any difference when looking at the vertical stripes you mentioned.

__________________
57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Hitachi 61UWX10B HDTV, Yamaha RX-V1 A/V Receiver, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT

SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs)

Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

zarlor

Well... I certainly have not intention of misleading anyone, but as is tremendously obvious from this thread this kind of technology can be EXTREMEMLY complex. So we often try to simplify it as best we can. Both analog video and digital display technology and terminolgoy both tend to apply to how things are done on an HDTV, IMHO. I certianly don't want to have to explain scan-line technology every time someone has a question. I try to simplify and maybe I should state that more clearly when I respond to questions on this forum.

I'm also by no means a video expert, (although I will admit that I am a computer expert and professional by trade) only an interested consumer who's tried to educate himself on the subject.

The problem is that many of the individuals asking questions on this forum are not at all experts or even have a basic understanding of the technologies involved. So, at least when I try to provide some answers to these questions and help foster interest in HD and just provide what small amount of help I can, I try to take that into consideration and HOPE that I can simplify a concept well enough that most such individuals can understand an answer in a general way and not be completely lost or bored by the response.

Should you feel far more capable at being able to do more of that, woodman, please feel free. I have tried several times in several forums to state that I may by no means an expert and that anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt and only the sum of knowledge I have been able to garner to date (although I would think that statement implicit in ANYTHING anyone tells you on the Internet or anywhere). Hmmm.. maybe I'll just add a disclaimer to my sig...

__________________
Lenny Zimmermann
zarlor@acm.org

DISCLAIMER: I am not and have never been some kind of video expert. Take absolutely everything I post (along with anything else you read on the internet) with a HUGE grain of salt! If you really want the most complete and truthful answer, go to engineering school and find out how this stuff REALLY works.

Ratman

Not being an expert by any means, but from doing a lot reading (and I could be wrong) over the years, the only type of set that is capable to reproduce the ful resolution/pixels/scan lines, etc,etc are RPTV's with 9" CRT's.

Personally, I really don't understand why everyone gets so freakin' torqued over subjects like this! You know what you want/need, go look at some sets, see one you like and you buy it.
Abide by the KISS priciple and use the general rule of thumb: if the set can produce a picture at 720P or better, it's an HDTV.

skintigh

<<<A display that's only capable of "supporting" half of the pixels is certainly NOT an HDTV set or HDTV-ready or HDTV monitor at all. None of the above labels would be correct. They have to be capable of as many pixels as the format will allow ... ever. My whole point being that rarely (if ever) do that many changes ever take place on any given scan line.>>>

Um, you lost me again. Then how can a 1024x768 (much less than half) display call itself "HDTV?"

<<<Quote:
Frankly I doubt your 600-700 stat, I'm sure every single pixel is different by at least it's least significant bit, though compression probably eats many of those changes.

No, skin, they're not. Put a DVD into pause mode on an HDTV set, get a magnifying glass and look closely at the screen. You'll be amazed (no matter what sort of image you pick) that there are not just 3 pixels side by side that are identical, often there are dozens and dozens! Sometimes even hundreds! So doubt my facts and figures all you want. I'm a bit curious on what basis you challenge my facts. What is your background in electronics and TV technology, anyway?>>>

MSEE.

Any digital image, even one that looks all black, if taken from a real (analog) source will be full of pixels that are at +/- a few bits. That's what makes stegenography possible. Lossy compression destroys that info, though.

But, as you should know, DVDs are compressed with a lossy algorithm, so maybe it really does eat all the tiny changes. Never looked that close. Still, if the changes do occur close together, wouldn't a lower resolution monitor lose some of those transitions?

<<< It will always send 24 bits per pixel per frame (or whatever the standard it) even if every pixel is 0/0/0.

No, sync - only 8 bits are used to convey pixel illumination density, and only when there's a change from preceding pixels will ANYTHING be sent. That's where much of the bandwidth requirements are diminished.>>>

Sync?
Um, unless you're talking about black and white TV, you need more than illumination. RGB, HSI, whatever, you need 3 components. Isn't HDTV RGB?

If you're talking about mpeg 2, key frames are sent every second or so. Simply tracking all pixel changes takes too much data, and lossy tracking produces a mess after a few seconds.

Atomic Flip

To all of you who argue that they want the "full" resolution.

Let me ask you this.

What is it worth having all the resolution available to you if there isn't a source available to even take advantage of it?!

If you want full resolution just to hook up a PC to your TV then get an LCD projector... for enough money you can find one with the resolution you seek. CRT's are a dated and dying technology. LCD, DLP and PLASMA are the only way you are ever going to get your "pixels" with the exactitude you demand.

As far as HDTV sources are concerned. I have yet to see an image that can actually render a difference from one adjacent pixel to the next. You see.. because of lenses, focus, film grain and other variable effects on the video source.. it is simply given that you will be wasting atleast 30% of those pixels on redundant information. i.e. data that does not add to or subtract from the image. That is why you are able to use things like "compression" (MPEG 2 and such) to eliminate this redundant information and rerender the image from the encoding in approximately the same (or more honestly ... acceptably similar) appearance as the origional source. Be it film, digital camera, etc. etc. It will all have some waste.

Now... if we are talking digital displays for use with a computer.. that is a different story.. since the OS it's self will often use image data defined down to the very pixel.. because of the nature of it's make-up. But we aren't getting projection televisions for use as computer displays are we? I certainly hope not!

Let me tell you why. The simple problem of convergance already nullifies any hope of achieving an accurate display of the source when you are rating things down to the pixel. With good CRTs and fine focus glass lenses... yes maybe you can reduce the effects of convergance... but they are already so magnified when compared to a standard CRT used in traditional computer displays.. that the bleeding and misalignment of colours would most likeley overlap the pixel boundries with a great deal of marginal error. That is why you would be wasting your time looking for a "source accurate" digital display in a RPTV.

I agree with Woodman on most parts of his first post to this thread. Talking about "pixels" in a format that is based on scan lines is rather like comparing that "age old cliche" (apples and oranges).

Peace,
A.F.