I think we're using different terms to mean the same idea. I'm pretty sure your computer is still sending out the same full 1920x1080 raster, the difference between that and your 1825x1006 is lost to empty data, ergo, you've just lost 240k pixels of image area.
Yes and no. By lost, meaning the extra resolution, yes. Equate this to opening up your display preferences and selecting 800x600 instead of 1024x768. All SwitchResX does is to tweak the timings in the driver. You end up with a perfect, edge to edge OS X desktop. Nothing is cropped, it's just at a lower resolution.
This isn't the same as some media players like Plex and whatnot that simply use less display area and scale the images down to the app 'display area' defined in the Overscan settings. This is an actual defined 'resolution' in your display preferences.
The people that want to hook a mini up to their HDTV are a niche within a niche within a niche.
Hardly. What makes you say that? A Mac Mini connected to your TV is the PERFECT solution to setting up a computer in the living room to watch movies and photos, play music with the iTunes visualiser at parties, catch up on TV shows with the BBC iPlayer, have a computer the kids can use for games (with a wireless keyboard and mouse) so you can keep an eye on them rather than have them go off to their bedrooms, etc.
I have one set up just like that, the only downside is having to route the audio to a separate amplifier so it's more awkward to use than just turning the TV on. If Apple produced a new Mac Mini with HDMI and BluRay I'd upgrade my existing Mini in a flash.
Create a good VNC app for the iPad and I'll buy one of those too, just to use as a fancy wireless keyboard and trackpad for the Mini (think iTunes Remote on steroids).
Neither of those will replace the MBP I use as my main work machine but as a family computer for use in the lounge I don't think the combination can be beat.
I have one set up just like that, the only downside is having to route the audio to a separate amplifier so it's more awkward to use than just turning the TV on. If Apple produced a new Mac Mini with HDMI and BluRay I'd upgrade my existing Mini in a flash.
Can you REALLY not get your TV to play audio from the Mac mini? With my TV, I can think of three options to make that work.
Yes and no. By lost, meaning the extra resolution, yes. Equate this to opening up your display preferences and selecting 800x600 instead of 1024x768. All these apps do is to tweak the timings in the driver. You end up with a perfect, edge to edge OS X desktop. Nothing is cropped, it's just at a lower resolution.
This isn't the same as some media players like Plex and whatnot that simply use less display area and scale the images down to the app 'display area' defined in the Overscan settings. This is an actual defined 'resolution' in your display preferences.
I wasn't saying the desktop was cropped at all. It is the raster signal that is left out.
The problem is that doing that means it's probably not the panel's native resolution. With any flat panel, you pay a scaling penalty any time you use a resolution that's not pixel for pixel to the panel matched to the panel. And if you play video on that computer using the TV as the output, you probably pay two scaling penalties, it scales the video to your computer's resolution, and the TV scales the TV input.
I just tried it again on my recently purchased TV, if I let it overscan, it's scaling and showing obvious scaling artifacts. I tell the TV to fit the signal to the panel, it has a 1:1 pixel mapping, the full 1080p raster shows with no scaling artifacts.
I wasn't saying the desktop was cropped at all. It is the raster signal that is left out.
The problem is that doing that means it's probably not the panel's native resolution. With any flat panel, you pay a scaling penalty any time you use a resolution that's not pixel for pixel to the panel matched to the panel. And if you play video on it, you probably pay two scaling penalties, it scales to your computer's resolution, and the TV scales the TV input.
The clock frequencies do not change. By adjusting the front and back porch, you basically just delay or advance the start of the active signal area. It doesn't change the PAR, but rather the active area of the scan line from what I understand. I see no noticable scaling artifacts switching between 1080P, 720P, or a custom resolution.
Can you REALLY not get your TV to play audio from the Mac mini? With my TV, I can think of three options to make that work.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
Your mini just needs a TOSLINK adapter. It comes with digital optical out via the same port that you plug a simple analog headphone into (the headphone jack). You basically use HDMI or DVI for the video signal, and a fiber optic cable for the audio via a TOSLINK adapter.
Would be fine if you routed sound and picture to your AV amp with the one cable. Then continue on from the amp to the TV with another HDMI. That's how I have my ONKYO set up with my Apple TV. All inputs go to the amp and one HDMI goes to the TV. The TV stays on the one source setting and all the switching between sources is handled by the amp. Easy
It isn't really any harder for me either. 2 cables to my receiver and "poof" I'm done. I prefer optical audio myself even on my old mac mini. Why bother using a port you can't hook up to a regular pc monitor?
The clock frequencies do not change. By adjusting the front and back porch, you basically just delay or advance the start of the active signal area. It doesn't change the PAR, but rather the active area of the scan line from what I understand. I see no noticable scaling artifacts switching between 1080P, 720P, or a custom resolution.
Front porch and back porch is for analog TVs and CRT monitors. The term doesn't apply with a digital connector.
To see whether you're scaling, try this on the TV:
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
I guess it depends on the inputs your TV has. Mine has a computer audio input which works in conjunction with the HDMI video input. If yours does not, perhaps this gizmo would work: link
What's simpler than a hard drive? Optical media was always inherently more complex than random access disks. The same goes for tapes. If you can just drag files over and not worry about some sort of hidden mastering process, then the whole thing is much better. It will be more robust because it is simpler. It will also be easier.
A bus powered USB drive is like a gigantic floppy drive and about the same size too.
You can use on any machine with a USB port. ALL of your Macs will be able to use it. The same goes for PCs. Whereas PC BD-ROM drives are still rather unusual.
Then there's always the fun potential of disks not getting along with individual drives. There's bound to be some of that nonsense with bluray.
My point, and what I was responding to was that having a BD drive in my machine that I could use to either play BD movies from or record them to the HDD was simpler than having a DVD drive in the machine, and a separate BD player connected to the system.
I've never had a problem playing Cd, DVD, or BD disks from my PS3, though I prefer playing Cd's through the Cd player, as the quality is better for that.
I did not think I was. I am pointing out three separate usages.
1) Burning home movies to distribute to family
3) Burning backup data (in my case native AVCHD files - which I don't want to overwrite)
2) Stating the previous poster had his BRD costs wrong for the home theater usage (I have a blu-ray player for this)
Why burn anything? seriously? Compress the files and upload your movies as h264's and let your family download them. Don't you guys have 100 mb cable yet? If not, it's just around the corner. I live in the sticks and have it, so i would assume just about anyone can get it and it doesn't cost any more than DSL did a few years ago.
Further, Hd's are stupid cheap and only getting cheaper. Burning takes forever, burned disks are not archival and when it comes time to transfer those files from an obsolete format, get ready to waste a bunch of time. Not to mention you'll have to burn 2 copies if you want redundancy and you've got files strewn about across potentially hundreds of disks. Forget it, I've already done that with DVD and I don't want to waste time doing it yet again.
Why burn anything? seriously? Compress the files and upload your movies as h264's and let your family download them. Don't you guys have 100 mb cable yet? If not, it's just around the corner. I live in the sticks and have it, so i would assume just about anyone can get it and it doesn't cost any more than DSL did a few years ago.
Optimum is a regional carrier, with reach into only three states. Also, their site doesn't advertise a speed faster than 30Mb download, 5Mb upload.
Hardly. What makes you say that? A Mac Mini connected to your TV is the PERFECT solution to setting up a computer in the living room to watch movies and photos, play music with the iTunes visualiser at parties, catch up on TV shows with the BBC iPlayer, have a computer the kids can use for games (with a wireless keyboard and mouse) so you can keep an eye on them rather than have them go off to their bedrooms, etc.
I think the point is, why would you need the rest of the computer if it only plays media? do you really want a keyboard and mouse hooked up to your TV? A mac mini would require that in it's current form. I've done it and I'm much happier with the Apple TV. Surfing the internet and working on a television display just isn't practical. People want something more like a traditional appliance than a computer. Put the server in a closet and forget the extra hassle.
Optimum is a regional carrier, with reach into only three states. Also, their site doesn't advertise a speed faster than 30Mb download, 5Mb upload.
Only 3 states? Ok then I take that back. The 100mb plan is "commercial" so i guess I need to take that back as well. I assumed "city dwellers" had easier access to high speed because they always have. The hudson valley has never gotten anything first in telecom. Guess things have changed. Makes me happy though.
And as usual you haven't read the comment or understood anything about Apple's product line. Where is the slot in that drive? What part of the slot-laoding tech coming after tray-loading at a higher cost often with slower speeds is hard to comprehend? But thanks for pointing out that even the tray-loading drive is selling on eBay for $500 when people claim that they can buy a whole Blu-ray player at BestBuy for under $100.
Firstly, the 9.5mm blu-ray burner sells for $342. I updated the link. Keep in mind that burning could be limited to the high-end models, with playback available across the board, just as it was when Apple adopted DVD.
Secondly, Apple is one of the only PC manufacturers that use slot-load drives; I honestly don't know of any other to be honest. They're also probably the only laptop manufacturer who doesn't limit 9.5mm drives to some premium "ultra slim" series, instead making their entire line-up equally thin. So it's no surprise that, given Apple's reluctance to adopt blu-ray, no slot load blu-ray drive is available on the market.
But given that Panasonic was producing samples of a tray-load 9.5mm blu-ray drive two years ago, I highly doubt any technical challenge remains for producing a 9.5mm slot load blu-ray drive if Apple expressed interest in ordering 12 million of the things per year. I don't recall any slot load DVD players being on the market before Apple put them in the 1999 iMac DV series, either. Lots of hardware components have seemed to not exist before showing up in a new Mac or other Apple product over the years.
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
I'll have to fire it up and copy the URL over..back in a sec.
You need to look at what's going on around you, right in front of your face. Blockbuster is circling the drain. Hollywood Video has already assumed room temperature. Netflix is in the process of moving to online content delivery. iTunes is already there.
How much evidence does it take to get the picture? Physical media is on the way out and the trend is accelerating. Blu-ray is completely useless as a data storage or backup media when blank discs are expensive and one can buy a 1TB hard drive for under a hundred bucks. Online content delivery is "good enough" and getting better. The Blu-ray titles are twice as expensive as standard DVD. Walk into any video rental store, or Walmart and take a look at the Blu-ray section squirreled away n the corner. Blu-ray is a technology whose time has already come and gone. It's legacy will be as a transitional technology. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me.
So why should Apple waste its time and expense on a technology that is on the way out, just like the floppy disk drive was when the iMac was introduced?
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
Here you go. Not sure if the bit of the screen I captured has the data you're looking for though. Since it's a lower resolution you can't see the whole screen. Let me know if I need to capture a different section.
EDIT: Hmm..the raw TIFF look much better than the PNG, but it's 6 MB in size. Not sure if I can upload that to ImageShack or not. Let me give it a try.
Comments
Is it pixel perfect, meaning not scaled?
I think we're using different terms to mean the same idea. I'm pretty sure your computer is still sending out the same full 1920x1080 raster, the difference between that and your 1825x1006 is lost to empty data, ergo, you've just lost 240k pixels of image area.
Yes and no. By lost, meaning the extra resolution, yes. Equate this to opening up your display preferences and selecting 800x600 instead of 1024x768. All SwitchResX does is to tweak the timings in the driver. You end up with a perfect, edge to edge OS X desktop. Nothing is cropped, it's just at a lower resolution.
This isn't the same as some media players like Plex and whatnot that simply use less display area and scale the images down to the app 'display area' defined in the Overscan settings. This is an actual defined 'resolution' in your display preferences.
The people that want to hook a mini up to their HDTV are a niche within a niche within a niche.
Hardly. What makes you say that? A Mac Mini connected to your TV is the PERFECT solution to setting up a computer in the living room to watch movies and photos, play music with the iTunes visualiser at parties, catch up on TV shows with the BBC iPlayer, have a computer the kids can use for games (with a wireless keyboard and mouse) so you can keep an eye on them rather than have them go off to their bedrooms, etc.
I have one set up just like that, the only downside is having to route the audio to a separate amplifier so it's more awkward to use than just turning the TV on. If Apple produced a new Mac Mini with HDMI and BluRay I'd upgrade my existing Mini in a flash.
Create a good VNC app for the iPad and I'll buy one of those too, just to use as a fancy wireless keyboard and trackpad for the Mini (think iTunes Remote on steroids).
Neither of those will replace the MBP I use as my main work machine but as a family computer for use in the lounge I don't think the combination can be beat.
I have one set up just like that, the only downside is having to route the audio to a separate amplifier so it's more awkward to use than just turning the TV on. If Apple produced a new Mac Mini with HDMI and BluRay I'd upgrade my existing Mini in a flash.
Can you REALLY not get your TV to play audio from the Mac mini? With my TV, I can think of three options to make that work.
Yes and no. By lost, meaning the extra resolution, yes. Equate this to opening up your display preferences and selecting 800x600 instead of 1024x768. All these apps do is to tweak the timings in the driver. You end up with a perfect, edge to edge OS X desktop. Nothing is cropped, it's just at a lower resolution.
This isn't the same as some media players like Plex and whatnot that simply use less display area and scale the images down to the app 'display area' defined in the Overscan settings. This is an actual defined 'resolution' in your display preferences.
I wasn't saying the desktop was cropped at all. It is the raster signal that is left out.
The problem is that doing that means it's probably not the panel's native resolution. With any flat panel, you pay a scaling penalty any time you use a resolution that's not pixel for pixel to the panel matched to the panel. And if you play video on that computer using the TV as the output, you probably pay two scaling penalties, it scales the video to your computer's resolution, and the TV scales the TV input.
I just tried it again on my recently purchased TV, if I let it overscan, it's scaling and showing obvious scaling artifacts. I tell the TV to fit the signal to the panel, it has a 1:1 pixel mapping, the full 1080p raster shows with no scaling artifacts.
I wasn't saying the desktop was cropped at all. It is the raster signal that is left out.
The problem is that doing that means it's probably not the panel's native resolution. With any flat panel, you pay a scaling penalty any time you use a resolution that's not pixel for pixel to the panel matched to the panel. And if you play video on it, you probably pay two scaling penalties, it scales to your computer's resolution, and the TV scales the TV input.
The clock frequencies do not change. By adjusting the front and back porch, you basically just delay or advance the start of the active signal area. It doesn't change the PAR, but rather the active area of the scan line from what I understand. I see no noticable scaling artifacts switching between 1080P, 720P, or a custom resolution.
Can you REALLY not get your TV to play audio from the Mac mini? With my TV, I can think of three options to make that work.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
Your mini just needs a TOSLINK adapter. It comes with digital optical out via the same port that you plug a simple analog headphone into (the headphone jack). You basically use HDMI or DVI for the video signal, and a fiber optic cable for the audio via a TOSLINK adapter.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...k+mini&x=0&y=0
Would be fine if you routed sound and picture to your AV amp with the one cable. Then continue on from the amp to the TV with another HDMI. That's how I have my ONKYO set up with my Apple TV. All inputs go to the amp and one HDMI goes to the TV. The TV stays on the one source setting and all the switching between sources is handled by the amp. Easy
It isn't really any harder for me either. 2 cables to my receiver and "poof" I'm done. I prefer optical audio myself even on my old mac mini. Why bother using a port you can't hook up to a regular pc monitor?
The clock frequencies do not change. By adjusting the front and back porch, you basically just delay or advance the start of the active signal area. It doesn't change the PAR, but rather the active area of the scan line from what I understand. I see no noticable scaling artifacts switching between 1080P, 720P, or a custom resolution.
Front porch and back porch is for analog TVs and CRT monitors. The term doesn't apply with a digital connector.
To see whether you're scaling, try this on the TV:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/683...art1080tf3.jpg
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
I'm using the HDMI input on my TV and that expects audio to come on the same cable. If you know of a solution that will inject the audio and doesn't cost $500 please tell me, I have looked into this. My Mini has DVI not Mini Displayport, so the Displayport+Digital audio => HDMI adapters you can buy won't work.
I guess it depends on the inputs your TV has. Mine has a computer audio input which works in conjunction with the HDMI video input. If yours does not, perhaps this gizmo would work: link
What's simpler than a hard drive? Optical media was always inherently more complex than random access disks. The same goes for tapes. If you can just drag files over and not worry about some sort of hidden mastering process, then the whole thing is much better. It will be more robust because it is simpler. It will also be easier.
A bus powered USB drive is like a gigantic floppy drive and about the same size too.
You can use on any machine with a USB port. ALL of your Macs will be able to use it. The same goes for PCs. Whereas PC BD-ROM drives are still rather unusual.
Then there's always the fun potential of disks not getting along with individual drives. There's bound to be some of that nonsense with bluray.
My point, and what I was responding to was that having a BD drive in my machine that I could use to either play BD movies from or record them to the HDD was simpler than having a DVD drive in the machine, and a separate BD player connected to the system.
I've never had a problem playing Cd, DVD, or BD disks from my PS3, though I prefer playing Cd's through the Cd player, as the quality is better for that.
Clearly a fake image, come on guys, check your sources:
yeah, c'mon people. This poster clearly knows his stuff, he realises too that the image is merely for illustration purposes.
.
I did not think I was. I am pointing out three separate usages.
1) Burning home movies to distribute to family
3) Burning backup data (in my case native AVCHD files - which I don't want to overwrite)
2) Stating the previous poster had his BRD costs wrong for the home theater usage (I have a blu-ray player for this)
Why burn anything? seriously? Compress the files and upload your movies as h264's and let your family download them. Don't you guys have 100 mb cable yet? If not, it's just around the corner. I live in the sticks and have it, so i would assume just about anyone can get it and it doesn't cost any more than DSL did a few years ago.
Further, Hd's are stupid cheap and only getting cheaper. Burning takes forever, burned disks are not archival and when it comes time to transfer those files from an obsolete format, get ready to waste a bunch of time. Not to mention you'll have to burn 2 copies if you want redundancy and you've got files strewn about across potentially hundreds of disks. Forget it, I've already done that with DVD and I don't want to waste time doing it yet again.
ps. why are you out of order?
Why burn anything? seriously? Compress the files and upload your movies as h264's and let your family download them. Don't you guys have 100 mb cable yet? If not, it's just around the corner. I live in the sticks and have it, so i would assume just about anyone can get it and it doesn't cost any more than DSL did a few years ago.
Optimum is a regional carrier, with reach into only three states. Also, their site doesn't advertise a speed faster than 30Mb download, 5Mb upload.
Hardly. What makes you say that? A Mac Mini connected to your TV is the PERFECT solution to setting up a computer in the living room to watch movies and photos, play music with the iTunes visualiser at parties, catch up on TV shows with the BBC iPlayer, have a computer the kids can use for games (with a wireless keyboard and mouse) so you can keep an eye on them rather than have them go off to their bedrooms, etc.
I think the point is, why would you need the rest of the computer if it only plays media? do you really want a keyboard and mouse hooked up to your TV? A mac mini would require that in it's current form. I've done it and I'm much happier with the Apple TV. Surfing the internet and working on a television display just isn't practical. People want something more like a traditional appliance than a computer. Put the server in a closet and forget the extra hassle.
Optimum is a regional carrier, with reach into only three states. Also, their site doesn't advertise a speed faster than 30Mb download, 5Mb upload.
Only 3 states? Ok then I take that back. The 100mb plan is "commercial" so i guess I need to take that back as well. I assumed "city dwellers" had easier access to high speed because they always have. The hudson valley has never gotten anything first in telecom. Guess things have changed. Makes me happy though.
And as usual you haven't read the comment or understood anything about Apple's product line. Where is the slot in that drive? What part of the slot-laoding tech coming after tray-loading at a higher cost often with slower speeds is hard to comprehend? But thanks for pointing out that even the tray-loading drive is selling on eBay for $500 when people claim that they can buy a whole Blu-ray player at BestBuy for under $100.
Firstly, the 9.5mm blu-ray burner sells for $342. I updated the link. Keep in mind that burning could be limited to the high-end models, with playback available across the board, just as it was when Apple adopted DVD.
Secondly, Apple is one of the only PC manufacturers that use slot-load drives; I honestly don't know of any other to be honest. They're also probably the only laptop manufacturer who doesn't limit 9.5mm drives to some premium "ultra slim" series, instead making their entire line-up equally thin. So it's no surprise that, given Apple's reluctance to adopt blu-ray, no slot load blu-ray drive is available on the market.
But given that Panasonic was producing samples of a tray-load 9.5mm blu-ray drive two years ago, I highly doubt any technical challenge remains for producing a 9.5mm slot load blu-ray drive if Apple expressed interest in ordering 12 million of the things per year. I don't recall any slot load DVD players being on the market before Apple put them in the 1999 iMac DV series, either. Lots of hardware components have seemed to not exist before showing up in a new Mac or other Apple product over the years.
Front porch and back porch is for analog TVs and CRT monitors. The term doesn't apply with a digital connector.
To see whether you're scaling, try this on the TV:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/683...art1080tf3.jpg
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
I'll have to fire it up and copy the URL over..back in a sec.
You need to look at what's going on around you, right in front of your face. Blockbuster is circling the drain. Hollywood Video has already assumed room temperature. Netflix is in the process of moving to online content delivery. iTunes is already there.
How much evidence does it take to get the picture? Physical media is on the way out and the trend is accelerating. Blu-ray is completely useless as a data storage or backup media when blank discs are expensive and one can buy a 1TB hard drive for under a hundred bucks. Online content delivery is "good enough" and getting better. The Blu-ray titles are twice as expensive as standard DVD. Walk into any video rental store, or Walmart and take a look at the Blu-ray section squirreled away n the corner. Blu-ray is a technology whose time has already come and gone. It's legacy will be as a transitional technology. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me.
So why should Apple waste its time and expense on a technology that is on the way out, just like the floppy disk drive was when the iMac was introduced?
This. So very well stated.
Front porch and back porch is for analog TVs and CRT monitors. The term doesn't apply with a digital connector.
To see whether you're scaling, try this on the TV:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/683...art1080tf3.jpg
If it's scaling, you will see several "waves" in the 1080p boxes made up lines of different thicknesses and different shades of gray. The lines are supposed to be equally sized and equally spaced black and white lines, each line is one pixel thick. That way, it should be easy to tell if it's 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If it's just gray, then the TV may be filtering it, covering up the scaling artifacts.
Here you go. Not sure if the bit of the screen I captured has the data you're looking for though. Since it's a lower resolution you can't see the whole screen. Let me know if I need to capture a different section.
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4...ncapturevj.png
EDIT: Hmm..the raw TIFF look much better than the PNG, but it's 6 MB in size. Not sure if I can upload that to ImageShack or not. Let me give it a try.