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

Similar Messages

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

Hey I want to know what resolution a personas 3000x 200x is because I am trying to make one, but the middle part of the picure is movin to the left so some thing is wrong with resolution and interpolation. PS, I use Gimp.

I use Debian and Gimp program to make my own personas but it seem like I have to know what resolution or interpolation is needed for the best result. I am trying to make one in size of 3000px wide x 200px high but don't know what resolution and interpolation is matching the requirements of Firefox or personas. For ex: in Gimp when scaling an image the interpolation possibilities are 4 like:
None
Linear
Cubic
Sync

Try the Personas forum.
* https://forums.mozilla.org/addons/viewforum.php?f=30

Photo resolution and jpeg size

Back in the early days of iWeb 1.0, there was a problem with uploading large (file)sized photo and the corresponding slow loading times for visitors to your site. If you used your original sized photos on a photo page, they would be displayed at 800px x 600px and could easily be over 500kb. The original photo, if memory serves me correctly, was still uploaded to the iDisk and acted as a drag of the whole website. Thus, the solution was to reduce all photos to 72dpi and size the photos for the photo page at 800px x 600px in Photoshop or a similar program. It also meant creating thumbnails for my blog page entries to be dropped into the placeholder photo box (reduce transparency to 0 - the thumbnail would appear properly on the blog summary page) and use a pre-sized photo for the blog page itself.
My question then is the optimal size for photos. Can one use original sized photos in iWeb 08 or does it make sense to continue to pre-process photos, reducing resolution and size? I guess this would not make sense for photos that you plan to make downloadable.
This discussion about color management I find extremely valuable, as I was always disappointed about how my site looked on Windows machines.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5249784&#5249784
Since I'm going to have to re-process the color balance of my photos when I rebuild my site in iWeb 08 (I believe its not possible to update my current iWeb 06 site for reasons I mentioned in another post), I wonder if I could use the original sized photos as is or whether I should reduce their size and resolution (most of the photos I've shot digitally are at 300dpi, I have also scanned all my old analog photos at 300dpi). Thanks!

I see I attached the link to the wrong discussion. It should have been this one. Scroll down to the workaround posted by Tomas, from August 26th.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&start=0&tstart=0
Anyway, yes, that's sort of what I mean. On my iWeb 06 website, I've scaled all my pictures down to 800px x 600px with a resolution of 72dpi for online viewing. The original photos, say 3000px x 2000px at 300dpi, are simply saved on my harddrive and not used in iWeb. The thought behind that was for faster loading times for people visiting my website. I'm pretty sure when I saved these reduced copies in Photoshop, the default color profile was sRGB. However, when I look at my site on my office (Windows) PC, the pictures appear dark, especially Black & White ones. But the color profile is a separate issue covered in Tomas' workaround.
Now, maybe I'm operating on a false assumption, but I thought with this new download feature in iWeb and .Mac Web Gallery you would want to use your photos in full resolution so that when a visitor sees a picture they like, they can download the picture from your site AND could even print it if they so chose. Again, I'm assuming you would use your full resolution photos when you build your site and iWeb would do its own scaling for viewing on the web, but the full resolution photos would be somehow held in reserve for the moment when someone selects 'download'. I'm just concerned that using an unscaled, full resolution photos, would slow down the page building speed so much, that visitors would be too border to bother waiting for the pages to load. Thanks.

Merge TIFF file Resolution and page size differs. Clue ?!

Hi All,
I'm able to merge multiple TIFF files into one. But the resultant multi page TIFF file has different resolution and page size than from the source files. The width and height will get exchanged, also those texts are appear stretched.
Noteably, it happens particularly with FAX pages of TIFF files, not with any others (like printed page TIFF files).
can you help me ? Please write here your points.
Thanks a lot,
Vasu

I see I attached the link to the wrong discussion. It should have been this one. Scroll down to the workaround posted by Tomas, from August 26th.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&start=0&tstart=0
Anyway, yes, that's sort of what I mean. On my iWeb 06 website, I've scaled all my pictures down to 800px x 600px with a resolution of 72dpi for online viewing. The original photos, say 3000px x 2000px at 300dpi, are simply saved on my harddrive and not used in iWeb. The thought behind that was for faster loading times for people visiting my website. I'm pretty sure when I saved these reduced copies in Photoshop, the default color profile was sRGB. However, when I look at my site on my office (Windows) PC, the pictures appear dark, especially Black & White ones. But the color profile is a separate issue covered in Tomas' workaround.
Now, maybe I'm operating on a false assumption, but I thought with this new download feature in iWeb and .Mac Web Gallery you would want to use your photos in full resolution so that when a visitor sees a picture they like, they can download the picture from your site AND could even print it if they so chose. Again, I'm assuming you would use your full resolution photos when you build your site and iWeb would do its own scaling for viewing on the web, but the full resolution photos would be somehow held in reserve for the moment when someone selects 'download'. I'm just concerned that using an unscaled, full resolution photos, would slow down the page building speed so much, that visitors would be too border to bother waiting for the pages to load. Thanks.

Max resolution and format for Apple TV from imovie and itunes

I use iMovie '09 to make movies from my HD 1920x1080P camera that I SHARE to mobile me, itunes and for use on Apple TV via itunes.
I am trying to figure out the max resolutions and formats.
If I SHARE from imovie with 960x540 it goes right into itunes and shows as an HD movie on the Apple TV
If i export from imovie in 1280x720p i can drag into and play from itunes however it doesnt show up on the Apple TV? i thought the apple TV supported 720p? is the format wrong? when you export it comes out as .mov and when you SHARE it comes out as .mp4?

I have been struggling with this for some time. We have great HD cameras, and fairly capable consumer grade video editing capability with iMovie; but we have limited HD viewing opportunities other than a computer.
Apple TV does play it in 720p provided you meet the specs below - perhaps your 720p movie exceeded these specs. You see, there is 720p, and then there is 720p with serious Mbps.
At least for me, when I export at 720p @ 5Mbps the viewing is jittery and not smooth. I guess it is too much processing, although it seems to work fine when it is a downloaded movie in HD, just not an iMovie production.
So, I just use the 960x540, which is clear and smooth, and wait for the day an improved Apple TV hits the market with the processing power to smoothly handle 720p and beyond. I have a big (100") screen, so I can use all the resolution I can get to keep that large of an image sharp.
The alternative is to use a Mac mini and route through HDMI to your TV. That does a good job but is more expensive (triple) the ATV.
Video formats supported:
H.264
up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution 1280x720 @ 24fps, 960x540 @ 30fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
MPEG 4:
• up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution 720x432 @ 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file format

Problems with filesize after exporting and scaling photos

I gave digital photo frames as Christmas gifts and wanted to load them up with many years worth of family photos, so I exported hundreds of photos from iPhoto and scaled them down to roughly 400 by 300 pixels to be used in the low resolution digital photo frames. The files vary in size from 40K to 100K.
The entire folder of over nearly 1,000 photos is only 86.2 megabytes in size.
However, when I went to copy the photos onto a new 512 megabyte SD card, only a couple dozen photos would transfer before I would get an error message saying there was no room left on the card. The finder would show over 400 megabytes available, but if I tried to drag even one more 40K photo on, I would get the same out-of-room error message.
I tried reformatting the card several times and several ways (including disk utility), but same problem. So I tried different SD cards, but same result. I tried CF cards, but same result. I tried different card readers, tried dragging the photos over one at a time, tried copying them with PhotoMechanic, tried doing it all from a different Mac, but always the same result.
It seems like there must be some hidden files being copied along with the photos that are taking up that extra space on the card. Never had anything like this happen before. It only affects these files that were exported through iPhoto 6.0.5 and scaled to a smaller file size. So I'm sure the problem must be there.
Has anyone had anything like this happen before? The organization and editing of all these photos took many hours so I would love to find a solution without having to start the entire process over.
Thanks.

I found a solution--though I don't understand why it works.
I was dragging photos (either in a group of hundreds of photos or individually) onto the card so they resided on the top level of the card's system heirarchy. That's when I would always get the "out-of-room" error message.
But when I inadvertantly dragged the entire FOLDER full of hundreds of photos onto the card, it worked fine. I guess the card structure allows for a folder full of hundreds of photos, but not those same photos when they are not in a folder.

Effective Resolution and INDD display settings

Hi Guys,
I recently have been getting some memory issues and issues exporting etc and wanted to know if my effective res is way above 300 thats causing the issues.
now...
INDD shows Typical Display @ 72ppi correct?
so would an image with 300 actual and say 1500 effective (20% of original size) try to display on Typical at 360pp
(1500/300)x72 = 360 (the image is 5x smaller than 100% resolution so is the preview 5 x 72ppi - 360ppi?)
is it making the image 72ppi @100% then scaling it down 5x to preview or is it scaling it down then doing the 72ppi preview conversion?
because images with a high effective preview alot clearer than images with 300 effective
and with over 140 images in my catalogue, would this extra processing be the cause of my errors on export and just chuggy previewing in typical mode?
so to simplify it a little
is this how the previews work?
300 and 1500 @ High Quality
72 and 360 @ Typical Display
or is it like this
300 and 1500 @ High Quality
72 @ Typical Display
with the bold numbers being the resolution that indesign will display

DammitRAWR wrote:
Where can i turn off resample in indesign to test this out?
or do you mean the resample when I scale down the image in photoshop?
and is the general concensus that placing images and scaling them down is just bad design practice?
all images should be placed as near to the final output size as possible?
Resampling takes place in Photoshop. ID only scales, which is why you see the effective resolution.
In photoshop you can use the same pixels to create a really large image (physical dimensions) at 72 ppi, or a smaller phsyical dimension at a higher resolutuion. If you save at 72 ppi, the preview ID sees is essentially the same size as the image itself, while if you save at 1200 ppi the preview will be greatly downsampled (and will look like it in typical preview mode in ID).
As far as scaling in ID, my feelings are that scaling is OK when the reult brings you into the target range for your desired effective resolution (i.e. there is not a big problem enlarging a 1200 ppi image to get a 300 ppi effective resolution, or reducing a 100 ppi image to get 300 ppi effective) though a lot of people will tell you it's better do do the scaling in Photoshop (and I'm generally in that camp for high-end work) so you can fix the sharpening, etc. Ideally your images will be on your page within plus-or-minus 10% of the target effective ppi, but it would be better to be a little low than to upsample in Photoshop. Downsampling, whether in Photoshop or in ID at output will always cause some loss of fine details, and if the effective res is too high you WILL be downsampling at output, so nothing is gained by usingf images that are too large, and your performance will suffer.
If your desired resolution is 300 ppi and your effective resolution is 4500 ppi, you really should be resizing in Photoshop.

Web viewer resolution and workflow ideas

hi,
i made a pubblication for iPad with resolution of 2048 x 1536px (ipad retina ready) and now I enabled the web view so I can see that pubblication on the web.
the problem is that the resolution (2048 x 1536) while works great on iPad and iPad retina, doesn't work on the web since the viewer doesn't scale to fit the browser window.
I'm trying to figure it out how can I make available the same publication without doing all the layout work in indesign (some folio are really complex, so this could be really time consuming) and I ho pe someone else had the same troubles before to give me an adivce.
my ideas are:
1. create a copy of my articles, and scale the contents page per page to a smalle size (for esample grouping all the objects on the page and scaling them down. I'm not sure this will work well with texts);
2. leave the articles like they are and work on the web viewer, making the web viewer scale to fit the contents (for example embedding the webviewer in an iframe, or other ways).
I'm asking you some tips, if you have any.
thank you very much!

You can add the 2048x1536 documents to any folio size with a 4:3aspect ratio. (Bob will likely tell you that there is no reason to create 2048x1536 layouts/folios; better to use 1024x768.) the way I see it, you have two options.
Create a 1024x768 rendition with Web Viewer Only selected. That way, that folio appears only in the Web Viewer, which means you can provide a different experience for unsupported features such as panoramas or camera effects.
Create a single 1024x768 rendition.
http://helpx.adobe.com/digital-publishing-suite/help/creating-web-viewer-only-rendition.ht ml

T430 1600x900 i5 Core: Mini DisplayPort To HDMI 1920x1080 TV Resolution And Sizing-Overscan Problems

Hello, and thanks in advance for any help. Also, my apologies if these issues have been previously resolved; I've spent 2 days searching for answers and none of my effort has resulted in a solution, either here or elsewhere.
I very recently for the first time connected my ThinkPad T430 2344-5GU (i5 core, native screen resolution 1600x900, Intel HD 4000 v9.17.10.2843, NVIDIA Optimus NVS 5400M v9.18.13.1100) to a Panasonic HD TV (native screen resolution 1920x1080) using a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI connector, with the hope of playing 1080p movies on my laptop while watching them on the TV. This seemingly worked fine at first--both audio and video were present--but I quickly noticed that the image on the TV was, very slightly, larger than the image on the laptop screen (cutting off roughly 5% of the image on each of the 4 sides) and that the resolution wasn't 1920x1080. So I hunted for a solution.
Windows display properties were no help. In fact, as soon as I tweaked something there I lost the picture on the TV (the options available are "Show desktop only on 1" (the laptop screen), "Show desktop only on 2" (the TV screen), and "Extend these screens", which annoyingly turns the TV blank yet allows the cursor to to enter the TV screen depending on the chosen layout and the cursor's approach direction to the TV). So, from having a functional-if-slightly-oversized-and-lower-quality picture on the TV screen I went to nothing, at least for my desired use.
Further research led me to the Intel HD 4000 settings, but those didn't even show that multiple screens were in use when the TV is attached. Finally, I tried using the NVIDEA Control Panel, but although multiple displays seem to be supported the best I can do when cloning is have the screens' resolutions meet in the middle at 1440x900, which makes them both look worse than the original plug-and-play result described above. Heck, I went so far as to enter the BIOS and try every combination possible under "Graphics": no NVIDEA, Integrated, Discrete, each with and without "Auto Detect NVIDEA capability" enabled and disabled. I even updated the NVIDEA driver to their newest, a version not available at the Lenovo Support site. Nothing. And worse, ever since my very first tweak under Windows display properties I wasn't able to return to the original functional-if-slightly-oversized-and-lower-quality picture.
At this point I used a very recent image to return my system to it's Pre Original Tweak state (allowing for the functional-if-slightly-oversized-and-lower-quality picture originally obtained), which is better than nothing, I guess, but surely not what I'd expect from a higher end laptop.
Please, does anyone know if there's a way to connect my T430, native resolution 1600x900, to an HD TV, native resolution 1920x1080, while actually maintaining each screens respective native resolution and not losing any of the image? Thank you again for your time.
Edit: After more research I've fit the desktop image to the screen by adjusting the TV's "Picture/Advanced picture/HD size" setting from "Size 1" to "Size 2". Now my only question is if it's possible to somehow play a 1080p movie at the TV's native resolution of 1920x1080 or if I'm stuck with the laptop's navtive resolution of 1600x900.

Try grabbing the latest NVIDIA driver off of the NVIDIA website. It might help.
Extending it should also allow you to run the 1600x900 T430 screen plus the 1920x1080 TV screen each at their native resolutions.
W520: i7-2720QM, Q2000M at 1080/688/1376, 21GB RAM, 500GB + 750GB HDD, FHD screen
X61T: L7500, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, XGA screen, Ultrabase
Y3P: 5Y70, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, QHD+ screen

Looking for suggestions for a new display: What size, resolution and refresh is recommended?

I've been using my laptop display, 15.6" and its just too small. I figured I'd purchase a display to plug into the laptop. I'd like suggestion on specs. I figured a 20 to 23 inch would work ok but I've seen some folks with dual screens. Lastly, I have no understanding of resoution, refresh rates to look for or brands to either look at or stay away from.
Any help would be great.
Thanks.

The good news is that you don't need to worry too much about the specs -- just about any monitor you purchase will be OK. First choose a size that fits in you work area, then pick the monitor from that range of products that has the highest resolution and refresh rates -- the monitors will all have very similar specs.
I've been using PCConnection
http://www.pcconnection.com/
as my primary source for computer purchases for over 12 years and highly recommend it. They have user's comments for most of their products, so you can get a feel for the satisfaction level of the products.
I've never understood the value of having dual monitors, unless one needs to have a couple of real-time monitoring apps open at the same time for instant feedback about the data....
Ken

Hi, how can I keep the same zoom level for all the pages I view in Safari and even when I close and open it. Indeed with a 27 inch Imac I have a lot of space, most of the websites are built for smaller resolutions and my sight is dropping !   Thx

Hi, how can I keep the same zoom level for all the pages I view in Safari and even when I close and open it. Indeed with a 27 inch Imac I have a lot of space, most of the websites are built for smaller resolutions and my sight is dropping !   Thx

Hi, how can I keep the same zoom level for all the pages I view in Safari and even when I close and open it. Indeed with a 27 inch Imac I have a lot of space, most of the websites are built for smaller resolutions and my sight is dropping !   Thx

I need some help resizing my images on PS6. I am using a mac and have been trying to resize with same resolution and constaining proportions but for some reaseon the smaller resized image appears pizelated.

I need some help resizing my images on PS6. I am using a mac and have been trying to resize with same resolution and constaining proportions but for some reaseon the smaller resized image appears pizelated. Heres an image of before and after. The first image I use is a JPG 72dpi 1500px x1500px and I want to downsize it to 600x600px same res, but it keeps pixelating, this has never happened before. Any suggestions, thoughts?
thanks!

I wouldn't say pixelated; more like blurry.
Like ConnectedCreative said, what steps are you using? Are you using "bicubic sharper" when resizing down?

How to copy and paste the graphics from illustrator to MS word. What I tried is exporting in png with highest resolution and then inserting in to word. This loses a bit of resolution in comparison to direct copy and paste as EMF. But if I do a copy and p

How to copy and paste the graphics from illustrator to MS word. What I tried is exporting in png with highest resolution and then inserting in to word. This loses a bit of resolution in comparison to direct copy and paste as EMF. But if I do a copy and paste, and then take a print of the document, all the graphs and text is printed upside down, flipped back.

Use the Pencil Tool
alex
adrian stock wrote:
> How to copy and paste a single pixel
>
> I want to copy a single pixel and then paste it in the
position of
> another pixel in the same image.
>
> (This is in effect changing the colour of the target
pixel, isn't it.
> But in my case copying an existing pixel seems simpler
than selecting a
> colour from the swatch or using the colour picker.)
>
> What is the most efficient way of doing this?
>
> I tried to select one pixel with the marquee tool. Then
copied it with
> control-C, but then how do I select the target pixel and
paste with
> control-V?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Adrian
>

IPhoto pics are low resolution and small

I've got other open tickets on here, but let's try and tackle this one for now.
I recently had my IT guy here at work update my OS and as a result, destroy my iPhoto as I know it.
It imported all my pics, lost the albums, used the face recognition and doubled the size of my folders AND seems to have imported the pics at a lower resolution.
When I click on an individual picture, on the display screen it shows up small in the window. I can zoom on it, but it looses resolution. It's just as if they were brought in at a low resolution, and lost the high resolution.
Let me know if something similar has happened to you, I can post pics of my screen if this is too hard to follow...
Thanks,
JT

2 - in the finder drag the iPhoto library from the current loction in the pictures folder to the desktop
I drag it down and it starts to copy the library...doesn't delete it. I'm assuming I can make that copy, then drag the original folder to the trash, then essentially deleting it?
Dragging the library to a new location on the same volume does not copy it but moves it and is virtually instant - if you drag it to a different volume it will copy it - by default both the pictures folder and the desktop folder are on the same volume so you are doing something incorrectly
if it is a copy on an external drive then drag it intact as a single entity to the pictures folder on your boot drive - if it was backedup using backup software (like Time Machine or other backup software) then use that software to restore it
The key is not where it is but how it got there - if it was copied to an external drive then drag it as a single entity to the pictures folder on your internal (main) drive - the drive your system folder is on (the boot drive - the drive you boot to wheb you start your computer
IF
you used a back up program to put it there then you use that backup program to restore it to the pictures folder on your main drive
LN

ATV resolution and scaling

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for