1080p HD TV Resolution is scaled

I bought myself the upgraded version of the Macbook Pro 15" retina with the 750m video card. However, when I try to hook up and HDMI cable to my Sony HDTV (1080p 1920 x 1080) the OS seems to need to scale everything and it looks dreadful. It's 100% unusable for gaming or surfing on my HDTV. Is there a way to get the resolution to output (the video card must support the resolution) directly as 1080p. I've tried mirror / non and none of the options for resolution is the HD standard.
It looks wonderful on my junky asus laptop running windows. Or is it simply a driver issue for now.

handshaking on the HDMI is probably telling the Apple TV that 480p is the best resolution available. it is not uncommon for some HDTVs that are 1080i capable to only support 480p or 1080i (requiring that 720p be upsampled and output as 1080i on set top boxes). i would not worry about it, though, for the time being. until you buy 720p HD content, you are not experiencing any signal / quality loss.
480p out of the A TV gets converted to 1080i inside of the Samsung TV, then gets displayed 1080p on the actual screen.
if you were able to output 720p, your A TV would just be converting 480p material to 720p on its outputs, then be converted to 1080i inside the TV and then 1080p on the display.
so you can see that by upping the output display resolution (if you were able to), you are not actually increasing the quality, just causing the video conversion to happen earlier in the signal chain, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on the conversion process in each step.
once HD material does become available for download / purchase, you might either want to a) wait for 1080 HD material to be an option... might be waiting a long time and might have to upgrade the A TV... or b) buy a new TV.

Similar Messages

ATV resolution and scaling

I'm a little confused about resolution and scaling. Currently I run my ATV through a projector which has a native resolution of 1280x720. As this exactly matches the ATV, I get a lovely picture.
I'm thinking of changing my projector for a plasma TV. Many plasma TVs are coming out in 1080i, which I think is more than I need as I will only be using it for ATV and as a 2nd monitor for my MBP. I'm also concerned about loss of image quality due to the upscaling from 720p. I'd rather get a TV that is 720p native, like my projector. However, this doesn't seem to be so simple. I've looked at a few TVs which claim to be 720p, yet all of them have a resolution of 1024x768. I understand there may be some around which are 1280x720, but all the ones within my budget seem to be 1024x768.
I would like to know how this different resolution is likely to affect my picture quality with ATV. I can see that 48 pixels can easily be lopped off to match 720, but what about the horizontal? Surely 1280 cannot be easily converted into 1024, at least not without a detrimental effect on picture quality?

the_beev wrote:
I'm a little confused about resolution and scaling. Currently I run my ATV through a projector which has a native resolution of 1280x720. As this exactly matches the ATV, I get a lovely picture.
I'm thinking of changing my projector for a plasma TV. Many plasma TVs are coming out in 1080i, which I think is more than I need as I will only be using it for ATV and as a 2nd monitor for my MBP. I'm also concerned about loss of image quality due to the upscaling from 720p. I'd rather get a TV that is 720p native, like my projector. However, this doesn't seem to be so simple. I've looked at a few TVs which claim to be 720p, yet all of them have a resolution of 1024x768. I understand there may be some around which are 1280x720, but all the ones within my budget seem to be 1024x768.
I have an older Panasonic with a 1024x576 panel it's HD ready and accepts up to 1080p signals. I have a newer full 1080p Panasonic full 1920x1080 panel.
Guess which I prefer?
The older one has picture quality that blows the other out of the water, but the main reason is I mainly watch SD stuff - I don't have an awful lot of commercial HD stuff though.
There's something about the old panel though that just looks smoother and more natural - probably a case of mature 1024x576 technology vs early 1080p technology, and poor upscaling of SD content.
I would like to know how this different resolution is likely to affect my picture quality with ATV. I can see that 48 pixels can easily be lopped off to match 720, but what about the horizontal? Surely 1280 cannot be easily converted into 1024, at least not without a detrimental effect on picture quality?
Don't worry about 'lopping off pixels', the 1024x576 panels are still 16:9 aspect ratio due to non-square pixel arrangements and scaling works very well with AppleTv 720p IMO.
So in some ways it may depend on what you're mainly watching, SD or HD - AppleTV should be fine with a 1024x576 panel. In general for plasmas/LCDs SD upscales quite poorly unless the sets have very good upscalers, so if you watch a lot of SD, a full HD set may give a worse subjective experience.
AC
Message was edited by: Alley_Cat

RDP resolution and scaling level issues between two Win8.1 systems

I'm trying to follow along with this blog post that describes RDB 8.1 resolution and scaling level updates:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/12/16/resolution-and-scaling-level-updates-in-rdp-8-1.aspx
I'm connecting from one Win8.1 Pro system to another and the scaling level control on the Display control panel, I'm getting an error message that says "The
display settings can't be changed from a remote session". Both copies of Win8.1 are Pro editions and have had all updates installed.
Shouldn't my install mean I've got RDB 8.1 with the latest video drivers and that I should
be able to make these changes? Thanks.

Hi Chris,
To verify, if you open a dialog on the remote system, for example, System Properties, and open the same locally and place them side by side, are they the same size, fonts, etc?
I need to do some testing to verify that auto scaling is not limited to Enterprise SKU. If we do not get it solved in the next day or so then I may want you to do a screen share and show me what is happening so that I can investigate further.
-TP

Can I restore resolution after scaling down?

I created a scene for an animation by painting in photoshop meant for HDTV 1080p. I scaled the image down in order to create a longer panel for a tracking shot, but now when I scale it back up to the correct size the resolution is terrible! Is there any way to restore the resolution? I was told I should have made it a smart object before resizing, but is there any way to fix the problem after the fact?

Assuming your painting is made of pixels (vs. shapes), other than going back in your History (assuming you're in the same Photoshop session), no. Once you've downsampled pixels, there's no getting the lost detail back.
Some thoughts:
Close the document without saving and reopen the original.
If you've already overwritten your master document, look for a backup of the file.
-Noel

Resolution for scaled up apps in ios 8

I just received my iphone 6 this morning :-)
As I got everything setup I am noticing that the 3rd party apps that are getting scaled up due to the bigger screen size look really bad and feel low resolution due to this
I recall during the setup there was a question if I wanted to enable a zoom mode and not sure if this is a result of that selection. However I cannot find that option anymore.
Any ideas? Do we have any option other than waiting for the 3rd party developers to retune the apps to the new screen size.

No sorry, What about using Zoom instead? Settings > General > Accessibility
Be sure to read how to use it or you'll be back asking how to get out of it :-)
https://www.apple.com/accessibility/ios/#vision

Preserve Resolution while scaling?

Smart-Object layers are ruining the quality of my work when scaling up.
I create 16-bit style animation where you can see the pixel jagged edges (think Street Fighter 2 look) using Photoshop. One of the cool tricks I learned was that rather than working at full resolution (1920 X 1080), was that I could work at 1/10th the size and do it in 1/10 the time.
That's because when working at full size, I have to use the grid feature and paint in each grid box to mimic a zoomed in pixel.
But working small, I simply use the pencil tool at 1px, and scale up using Nearest Neighbor, which preserves the hard edges. A brilliant time saving feature which allows me to focus on drawing the whole picture and not on filling in boxes, which is tedious at best.
The problem occurs when I work in CS4's animation timeline mode when I try to convert Image Size.
Normal layers preserve their hard edges when using the Nearest Neighbor method of re-sampling. Yet video layers must be converted to smart object layers in order to be resized. Regardless of whether I convert it to a smart object layer during the resizing process (which it does after a warning pop-up) or before I resize, the smart-object/video-layers appear fuzzy while the normal layers preserve their original hard-edge quality.
Why is that and is there a work around? I'd hate to have to re-animate everything using the tedious gridding technique.
Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback. I'll give it a shot and even try scaling each frame up as a normal frame and then copy/pasting into the upscaled version.
And After Effects is great for tweening animation, but not so much for traditional/cartoon animation.
Something like this requires drawing each new frame, and Flash is limited by the "vector look" :
http://vimeo.com/11315189 (made entirely in Photoshop by Kris Anka)
Photoshop should definitely consider enlisting the Flash team to better it's timeline abilities as well as fixing this basic issue of upscaling video layers (by not treating it like a video layer and instead looking at it like normal layers viewed with a time dimension).
Thanks again!

I am getting the error "This movie can be played only on displays that support HDCP" when attempting to play a HD movie from iTunes to my TV. The TV is a Samsung UN46B7000WF w/resolution 1080p

Hello Apple Community,
I am getting the message "THis movie can be played only on displays that support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection)." This is the first time I have tried to watch a HD movie that I bought from iTunes from my iMac to my TV. (This is also the first attempt to go from my iMac to my TV.) I have a Samsung LED tv that says it is HDCP compatible with Full HD (1080p) and Native resolution is 1920X1080. I bought a Rocketfish Thunderbolt to/Mini Displayport to HDMI adapter (says support is up to 1920X1200 video resolution) and Mediabridge ULTRA Series HDMI Cable (35 Feet) - High-Speed Supports Ethernet, 3D and Audio Return category 2 certified (supports resolution up to 4K including 1440p, 1080p, 1080i and lower).
I can get the iMac to display on my TV but am guessing that I have not managed the settings correctly in Display for either the iMac or the TV. In addition, I do not have sound yet. Although, the card from Mediabridge says that I need to update my drivers. Any help/advice with the settings for iMac to TV to watch in HD and adding HDMI drivers would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Lisa

Hello All,
I have figured out the sound issue: System Preferences>Sound and choose the TV for output.
Regards,
Lisa

Can MacBook Air (2012) handle 1920x1080 resolution on external display?

Hi there,
I was currently thinking about buying the following external display:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-E2251VR-inch-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B0060LCBTG/ref=cm_ cr_pr_product_top
I have read mixed things about connecting macbooks to external displays so wanted to ask the following:
1. Firstly can the MacBook air 2012 handle an external monitor with resolution 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz?
2. Secondly, I have heard some Macbooks, with some cables (predominantly HDMI), don't give the option of 1920x1080 when plugged in, instead cap it at around 1600 leaving the external screen blurry. Which connection is best to get the full 1080p resolution, DVI, VGA or HDMI?
Thanks for any help you guys can offer!
Rob

Thanks for your responses!
Captfred - I've tried plugging it into my friends screen now using my minidisplay to HDMI cable and the following options show up:
1080i
1080p
720p
1600x1400
1440x900
etc etc
Is the 1080p option 1920x1080? If I choose the 1080p option, the resolution looks nice and has large real estate on there, the only thing is if I full screen it the top and bottom are cut off? Is this a problem with the aspect ratio of the screen do you think?
Thanks again

Different resolution in preview and output format

Hi Folks
I need your help. We already captured a lot of e-learning material but come to a problem.
The output format quality is less good than the preview quality.
Win7 /Captivate 6
Capture resolution for software simulation is 1024x768.
Producing the material in swf and html. No compressing, set to best quality.
Open the preview: quality is nearly the same as the original source.
Open the swf directly or the html --> output looks cloudy, diffuse.
Test with an without scalable html. In case of scalable html it is hard to find the right resolution (1024x768) on a 1280x1024 resolution monitor, but you can find it and the the output is clear as the preview.
The output format resolution within the project is set to 1024x768. We measured the "true" output resolution on different produced output formats, and they are all a little bit higher than 1024x768, about 4% more heigh and width.
Of course, I was able to change the html-script which sets the start-format for an swf to open, if I change it to 1024x768 and save it, the quality of the swf is like the preview and sharp and ok. But in case of scalable html I cannot set the format. However, why the swf -even when i start/opeen it directly- didn't start with the right resolution set in the settings within the project?
Also our target group should not "search" for the sharp resolution by scaling the output window.
Why does captivate change the resolution? why is the preview ok and the produced swf not? I didn't understand that fact.
Also we like to produce with TOC, so the widht for TOC is 250. If I change the html script in that case to 1024+250=1274x768 the swf is also unshapr/cloudy and I havee no change to fit it to the right resolution (1024+TOC).
Regards
Rob

Vamsi mailed me offline and I have suggested looking at Using RH7 on my site where this problem is covered.
See www.grainge.org for RoboHelp and Authoring tips
Follow me @petergrainge

Have a bit of a problem. I'm trying to adjust the resolution on a 2013 27" iMac. Brand new, bought on April 6 2013 from Apple. My friend is 84 years old so, I'm trying to help him adjust the screen so he can see the screen. Any direction would be great.

OK. Have a 84 year old that has a hard time seeing the screen. I've been able to adjust Safari's resolution to accomadate him however, I would like to adjust the screen resolution. When I open preference's / displays, it doesn't have an option to adjust. Is there a way? Maybe thourgh terminal? The computer is the new 27" iMac purchased on April 6, 2013 from Apple. Yes, it is the newest iMac without the disk (DVD) drive. It's running Mountian Lion.
Anyone have some direction on how to solve this enigma???
bish

The purchase date isn't the important info here. The actual model of the iMac is and this info is in the model identifier. For example, I have a late-2012 iMac, model identifier is iMac 13,2. I will add that there is no 2013 model available. The most recent at this time is the late-2012 model which I have.
On my display if I select Apple->System Preferences->Displays then press the button "Display" I am presented with a screen which shows Resolution and Scaled as button options. "Best for built-in display" is the default, however, clicking on "Scaled" brings up the various resolutions that can be used with the display:
From this I can select a display with larger items, but keep in mind that while a larger image can be selected (using a smaller width x height value) it will not be as crisp and sharp as the default.

Higher Screen Resolutions on MBP

I dont post many questions here on the forum... But heres my rant of the day.
I have been a mac user for only a short while... making my first hardware purchase a few months ago (iMac 20").
After using the iMac for a while i realized that I wanted to upgrade my 3 year old Dell Inspiron 8600. But there lies the problem. The hardware specs on the new MBP's are outstanding except one thing, display resolution.
On my Dell I purchased the WUXGA screen that runs 1920x1200 natively on a 15.4" screen. I dont understand why apple decides to put these cheaper/lower resolution panels into there hardware?
Wouldnt it make since if you are going to release a top of the line machine you would follow suit with the LCD panels?
Just my two cents, please set me straight if I have crossed a line posting this here at an apple forum.
Adam

No, you're not out of line. And I think a fair number of people agree with you.
However, I think Apple's position is that any display/resolution combination that results in a pixel density much more than about 100-120 dpi simply makes things appear too small for most people and reduces visual consistency and usability. I happen to agree with them.
Sure, you can fiddle with font sizes and other settings in an attempt to offset the high pixel density, but most graphics used by the OS and on web sites don't scale well (in Windows and Mac OS X). As a result, you can get normal-sized text but everything else appears tiny. It looks odd and it's harder to use.
What we need is resolution independent scaling of the entire UI, and this needs to happen in the OS, in applications, and in web content. This would allow you to resize everything in the interface, making it as large or as small as you want regardless of the actual pixel density of your hardware. Of course, higher density displays provide sharper visuals, so manufacturers would naturally start increasing resolutions, even beyond today's densities, limited only by cost and GPU performance.
The good news is that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger already has the underpinnings in place for this resolution independent UI, and 10.5 Leopard is reportedly going to bring it out as a mainstream feature. But we'll still need to wait for the application developers and web developers to catch up, which will probably take a while.
So Apple's current use of 100-120 dpi displays isn't so much a question of "cheap hardware" but rather one of usability. I think Apple is biding their time until all the technology pieces are in place so this can be done right rather than the haphazard, incomplete approach currently taken by the Windows community.

Resolution question

I am trying to create a sign that will be 24 inches by 72 inches when printed by a sign company. I can't figure out how to send them what they need in terms of pixel inches with a requested resolution of at least 150 dpi. I am starting with a scanned business card which is understandably a giant leap in terms of size. Help!!! and thanks.

The text for your sign will be easy - if you use a Postscript font. Postscript fonts - like Times, Times Roman, and Helvetica - are mathematically defined. That means each letter isn't a collection of dots - which would lose their resolution when scaled up to perhaps a foot tall. Instead, the letter "O" (to pick one at random) is defined by the mathematical formula for a circle. Each letter has a different formula. The net result is that they don't lose resolution when you scale them up. I've printed individual letters ten inches tall using the Times font. They looked sharp and crisp.
These scalable fonts are how desktop publishing got started. At the beginning, you pretty much had to use the basic four postscript fonts - Times, Helvetica, Courier, and another whose name I've forgotten. Now there are many more postscript fonts. I know this because I owned a financial newsletter for 18 years. We switched to desktop publishing in 1986 - four months after desktop publishing was announced. I got started on Pagemaker (the first of the desktop publishing applications), and then switched to Adobe's InDesign.
As a computer fanatic, I was curious as to how the letters kept their resolution - even if you did something bizarre, like specifying that they should be printed at a font size of, say, 23.14. The answer is this use of mathematical formulas for each letter. When you scale up the formula for a circle (to go back to my letter "O"), you don't lose resolution. That's how postscript works.
Basically, you aren't going to have a problem if you use a postscript font in your sign. You are going to have problems if you want to include a picture on this sign. There, the scaling is going to cause problems.
All that I've said is true if you work with a desktop publishing application or a word processing application. I'm not sure what happens to Postscript fonts when you embed them into a picture. I don't know if they remain Postscript fonts. So be careful about using Elements to turn out the final product as a picture.
If you are thinking of having a sign printed, then you're probably already dealing with a commercial printer. Talk to them and explain what you want to do. They are the experts, and can tell you exactly what you need to do, the format you should use - and exactly how you should deliver the final product to them.
There are web sites that will license you very, very high-resolution pictures. These would be, say, 20 megabytes. Pictures like that could be scaled up without you having too many problems.

Resolution of the screen

I need to know who to change the resolution of the screen in the program, to run in every computer??
Can Anyone Help?
Carlos Lima

Hello Thomas,
Do you mean that the resolution in remote desktop is too high?
Please check your configuration as this article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/12/16/resolution-and-scaling-level-updates-in-rdp-8-1.aspx
Best regards,
Fangzhou CHEN
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

Macbook 2013 high resolution?

If I connect my macbook to philips television then suddenly my native screen goes into 1920 resolution (probably scaled). Can I without the external monitor set the high resolution?

All MBPs (including the 1st gen like yours) support up to 2560x1600 on an external display (and full native res on the internal simultaneously).

Dynamic Scaling fron Windows 8.1 to Windows 2012 not working

Hello, I am trying to RDP from my Surface Pro 3 into a Windows 2012 Server and the session doesn't seem to take my client scaling by default. Based on this article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/11/12/remote-desktop-protocol-8-1-update-for-windows-7-sp1-released-to-web.aspx the RDP session should take the scaling of my client and Scaling should be disabled on the server. In my case, the session starts with
the native resolution of my SP3 and I have to set scaling manually to 150% in the remote server.
Is this supposed to work automatically when connecting from Windows 8.1 to Windows Server 2012 using mstsc.exe?
Thanks.

Hi,
Thank you for posting in Windows Server Forum.
Yeah, agree with words of TP. In addition you can refer following article for details.
Resolution and Scaling Level Updates in RDP 8.1
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/12/16/resolution-and-scaling-level-updates-in-rdp-8-1.aspx
Hope it helps!
Thanks.
Dharmesh Solanki
TechNet Community Support

1080p HD TV Resolution is scaled

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for