what offers a better dvd picture - Mac powerbook 17" or Sony A series 17" laptop ?

[babka]

I wonder since the mac has a resolution of 1440 x 900 while the sony has a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Doesnt that mean the picture is much better on the sony since it has many more pixels....

1.3 million versus 2.3 million on the sony.

Or does that just mean you can open many more windows and see it more clearly??

 

[Fender2112]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. DV format is based on lines per inch not pixels per inch. If your viewing window is set at 640x480 pixels (which I think is standard NTSC format), the video will appear larger or smaller based on the screen resolution. Not necessarily better or worse. A DVD will play clear and crisp on your TV but not a computer monitor. Perhaps on an HD monitor but not regular ones. This is because TV and HD monitors display lines per inch. Standard NTSC is like 480 lpi. HD is 720 lpi. Then you throw in interlaced and noninterlaced video signals. Computer monitors and TV monitors are differnt animals even though the signals are digital. Kind of like WMA vs AAC.

 

[MisterMe]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. DV format is based on lines per inch not pixels per inch. If your viewing window is set at 640x480 pixels (which I think is standard NTSC format), the video will appear larger or smaller based on the screen resolution. Not necessarily better or worse. A DVD will play clear and crisp on your TV but not a computer monitor. Perhaps on an HD monitor but not regular ones. This is because TV and HD monitors display lines per inch. Standard NTSC is like 480 lpi. HD is 720 lpi. Then you throw in interlaced and noninterlaced video signals. Computer monitors and TV monitors are differnt animals even though the signals are digital. Kind of like WMA vs AAC.

You are confused. Video resolution, either analog or digital, is based on the absolute number of lines, not the lines per inch. Standard definition is 480i at a ratio of 4:3. Enhanced definition is 480p at a ratio of either 4:3 or 16:9. In either case, the 480 is 480 whether is it spread out over a screen has a diagonal measure of 12 inches or 12 feet. High definition may be either 720p or 1080i. Again the 720p has 720 lines, whether it is spread over a screen with diagonal measure or 5 inches or 75 inches. The same goes for 1080i. As a general proposition, you cannot adjust the number of scan lines on a TV monitor. On most modern computer monitors, you can. This is, however, not recommended for fixed-pixel displays.

The old standard resolution for Mac monitors was 72 dpi (dots/inch). The Windows standard was 96 dpi. Improvements in technology have rendered those old standards inconvenient--not so much obsolete as inconvenient for a number of reasons. The user may adjust the actual resolution of a monitor to suit his/her needs. At any rate, computer monitors generally have much higher pixel densities than TV monitors. At any point in time, the pixel densities of computer monitors tend to be relatively constant over the spectrum of monitor sizes. Computer monitors tend to display more pixels as they get larger. They have no defined maximum. TV monitors tend display the same number of pixels as they get larger. They have a defined maximum of 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Video content tends to look best on a computer monitor when it displays one pixel of content on one pixel of the monitor. At this 1:1 ratio, my 23" Apple Cinema Display can display 16:9 1080i HD content at full resolution with space left over at the top and bottom. At 1:1, widescreen DVD occupies less than one quarter of the screen. The DVD appears crisp, clear, and small. To get a larger image, you need to be careful. At 1:4, one content pixel will occupy 4 monitor pixels. You will see blockiness in the picture when you sit close to the monitor. At nonintegral ratios, such as those produced on most monitors when you display a DVD at full-screen, monitor pixels may have portions of several content pixels. That may not be so pleasant to watch up close.

 

[Fender2112]

Yeah, I was a bit confused. That answer was better than mine. I knew it had something to do with lines vs pixels. I never made the connection that TV monitors had fixed resolutions. That explains why some of my videos do not fill the whole the screen.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[BakedBeans]

You are confused. Video resolution, either analog or digital, is based on the absolute number of lines, not the lines per inch. Standard definition is 480i at a ratio of 4:3. Enhanced definition is 480p at a ratio of either 4:3 or 16:9. In either case, the 480 is 480 whether is it spread out over a screen has a diagonal measure of 12 inches or 12 feet. High definition may be either 720p or 1080i. Again the 720p has 720 lines, whether it is spread over a screen with diagonal measure or 5 inches or 75 inches. The same goes for 1080i. As a general proposition, you cannot adjust the number of scan lines on a TV monitor. On most modern computer monitors, you can. This is, however, not recommended for fixed-pixel displays.

The old standard resolution for Mac monitors was 72 dpi (dots/inch). The Windows standard was 96 dpi. Improvements in technology have rendered those old standards inconvenient--not so much obsolete as inconvenient for a number of reasons. The user may adjust the actual resolution of a monitor to suit his/her needs. At any rate, computer monitors generally have much higher pixel densities than TV monitors. At any point in time, the pixel densities of computer monitors tend to be relatively constant over the spectrum of monitor sizes. Computer monitors tend to display more pixels as they get larger. They have no defined maximum. TV monitors tend display the same number of pixels as they get larger. They have a defined maximum of 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Video content tends to look best on a computer monitor when it displays one pixel of content on one pixel of the monitor. At this 1:1 ratio, my 23" Apple Cinema Display can display 16:9 1080i HD content at full resolution with space left over at the top and bottom. At 1:1, widescreen DVD occupies less than one quarter of the screen. The DVD appears crisp, clear, and small. To get a larger image, you need to be careful. At 1:4, one content pixel will occupy 4 monitor pixels. You will see blockiness in the picture when you sit close to the monitor. At nonintegral ratios, such as those produced on most monitors when you display a DVD at full-screen, monitor pixels may have portions of several content pixels. That may not be so pleasant to watch up close.

firstly thanks for an insight full post... and taking the time to explain... so how would i set my powerbook to its best dvd playback mode?? normally i just stick it in an watch it.... is there anything is should be doing to make it a better pic??? 1.5superdrive rev c powerbook btw

 

[ChrisFromCanada]

firstly thanks for an insight full post... and taking the time to explain... so how would i set my powerbook to its best dvd playback mode?? normally i just stick it in an watch it.... is there anything is should be doing to make it a better pic??? 1.5superdrive rev c powerbook btw

No you are doing it fine.

Great post MisterMe, and if anyone is second guessing him everything he said is correct.

 

[babka]

So Misterme, can you tell me if the Sony would provide a better picture then ? Im still confused. thanks

 

[babka]

Hello?

 

[mulletman13]

Say the DVD runs at resolution 1024 x 768 (i know it doesnt)

The Sony, although it has more pixels in the screen, the movie itself would run in a smaller window, and would have to be 'blown up' to fill the screen... it would also have to be 'blown up' on the PB with less pixels, however to a lesser degree. So basically for the DVD format it is depending on the size you want to watch the movie at.... Both will display the movie at it's maximum resolution, but the PB will display it bigger (losing more screen real estate) while it will take up less space (but have same quality) on the Sony. Hope that explanation kindof helps (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[SkudShark]

another thing to consider is that sony uses Xbrite displays, higher contrast and brightness, and the glossy look is nice, just takes getting used too.

I love my PB, I just wish it had those new displays in them that HP, Sony, Toshiba and the likes, use.

 

[BakedBeans]

listen babka....

ive been think about this...

powerbooks are very very good for watching dvds... amazing infact...
but it would be crazy to buy a sony that runs windows...just becuase is had very slightly better dvd play back.. then you would have to blow it up...and that would be worse (probably)

what im saying is dont base a 2000 dollar disision on how it plays dvds because the truth is you human eyes probably can tall much defferent..and you will be blown away by the powerbooks dvd playback any way, and its a much much better machine than any windows laptop (imho)

 

[babka]

Thanks for the answers everyone! The powerbook seems alot wider too compared to the sony. Just the looks. although the specs on the sony is 16" wide vs. powerbook width of 15.4" . I really like the widescreen look.

 

[G5orbust]

another thing to consider is that sony uses Xbrite displays, higher contrast and brightness, and the glossy look is nice, just takes getting used too.

I love my PB, I just wish it had those new displays in them that HP, Sony, Toshiba and the likes, use.

That xBright thing looks so great. I hope all laptop makers adopt that.

 

[vraxtus]

Video content tends to look best on a computer monitor when it displays one pixel of content on one pixel of the monitor. At this 1:1 ratio, my 23" Apple Cinema Display can display 16:9 1080i HD content at full resolution with space left over at the top and bottom. At 1:1, widescreen DVD occupies less than one quarter of the screen. The DVD appears crisp, clear, and small. To get a larger image, you need to be careful. At 1:4, one content pixel will occupy 4 monitor pixels. You will see blockiness in the picture when you sit close to the monitor. At nonintegral ratios, such as those produced on most monitors when you display a DVD at full-screen, monitor pixels may have portions of several content pixels. That may not be so pleasant to watch up close.

This is your answer.

Think of the movie in terms of frame. If each frame is scaled to the maximum resolution of the display, the larger the projected image, the more muddy it will seem. This is due to the fact that most DVD players for laptops use bi or trilinear algorithms to inflate the image to the appropriate size. Thus, when the image is 1:1, it's going to look the sharpest... whereas if the image has to be blown up to 1:4, then it will not be ask crisp as it would look if the ratio was 1:1.

 

[diehldun]

Jesus...

so in other words, the PowerBook 17" is better to view DVD's than the Sony, right?

 

[vraxtus]

so in other words, the PowerBook 17" is better to view DVD's than the Sony, right?

Ideally a 12" would be best.