Plasma Resolution...1080p FulHD but 1024x768 res...???

[snadge]

ive noticed a lot of PLASMA TVs on eBuyer have 1080p as selling points but the actual resolution is much lower.. usually 1366x768 and even some with 1024x768... how can this be a 1080p TV???

heres an example of many...

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/132101

it says 1080p FullHD - but the res is a mere 1024x768...??

ALSO - How does a resolution of 1024x768 go into a widescreen ratio? 1024x768 is a 4:3 ratio resolution isnt it?
someone told me it has 'wide' pixels but if that were the case the image would look distorted (short&fat)


Thanks

[jagabo]

Most reputable manufacturers use it to mean a native resolution of 1920x1080, but there is no standards body that defines what "FullHD" means. Anyone is free to use the term in whatever way they choose.

That particular plasma display may be able to receive a 1920x1080p freeview broadcast but it has a native resolution of 1024x768. Everything it displays will be resized to that resolution. The pixel elements on the screen are wider than they are tall so 1024x768 pixels form a physical frame of 16:9 ratio.

A 4x3 pixel display with square pixels forms a physical 4:3 frame (each square represents one pixel):



With "fat" pixels it can form a 16:9 frame:

[snadge]

like i say if the pixels are wider then that would distort the image wouldnt it? giving it a short and fat look??

and sureley they shouldnt be allowd to say its 1080p when infact its not..
FullHD usually means it displays the fullHD 1080p resolution

I see that model says it has 1080p processing chip or summit and 1:1 pixelling

If you can get 37" 1080x1920 resolution LCDs why do PLASMAs 42" only come in 1024x768 resolution? surely the sharpness of the picture is going to be poor with a 1024x768 on a 42" screen or bigger (i see 50"+ with 1024x768) well at least compared to 1080x1920 Res LCDs???

[edDV]

like i say if the pixels are wider then that would distort the image wouldnt it? giving it a short and fat look??

and sureley they shouldnt be allowd to say its 1080p when infact its not..
FullHD usually means it displays the fullHD 1080p resolution

I see that model says it has 1080p processing chip or summit and 1:1 pixelling

If you can get 37" 1080x1920 resolution LCDs why do PLASMAs 42" only come in 1024x768 resolution? surely the sharpness of the picture is going to be poor with a 1024x768 on a 42" screen or bigger (i see 50"+ with 1024x768) well at least compared to 1080x1920 Res LCDs???

All HDTV sets process the incoming image to the native resolution of the display. A 1080p processor might accept 1920x1080i/p and process at that resolution before it downscales to native 1024x768 resolution for display. More important is how it upscales PAL and 720x576 DVD to 1024x768. That is what you will be watching 90% of the time.

The emphasis on 1920x1080p is probably a way to give the impression that the TV is BluRay ready. Deception? I think so. Does it matter? That depends how close you sit to this 42" plasma HDTV. You would need to be inside 4 feet to see a difference between 1920x1080 and 1024x768.

By the way, Panasonic 42" 1024x768 is an excellent set for viewing from two meters or more. Panasonic is the best at budget plasma. They are also best (along with Pioneer) for larger and more expensive models.

Interesting that power consumption is not specified. Plasmas have the highest wattage.

[jagabo]

You would need to be inside 4 feet to see a difference between 1920x1080 and 1024x768.

With clean material the difference in sharpness will be obvious significantly farther than 4 feet. THX recommends 1920x1080 for a 42" display at 4 feet. The equivalent clarity with a 1024x768 display would be something like 6 to 8 feet -- depending on whether you go by the horizontal or vertical resolution. Of course, not all sources have the true resolution for the difference to be visible.

[edDV]

Well lets say the zone of difference is 4-6 feet. 1366x768 would be a better compromise these days and that resolution indicates a recent plasma panel design. 1920x1080 is overkill for a 42" but would be welcome for 50" or above.

[snadge]

Well lets say the zone of difference is 4-6 feet. 1366x768 would be a better compromise these days and that resolution indicates a recent plasma panel design. 1920x1080 is overkill for a 42" but would be welcome for 50" or above.

i see they make 37" 1080p... and heard of a 32" one last week

like you say it depends on how close you sit... i have 32" 1366x768p TV and i sit about 6ft away
ive been toying with the idea of getting a bigger TV but i would prefer PLASMA for true / better blacks and colors but with the high resolution of 1080p - though I wouldnt like to get bigger than 42" and I cant find a Plasma thats 1080p - i will probably settle for LCD

[jagabo]

1920x1080 is overkill for a 42" but would be welcome for 50" or above.

Not if your sitting 6 feet away.

[edDV]

According to the Panasonic Vierra catalog, the 42" 1024x768 TH-42PX70 uses 270W, the higher end 42" 1920x1080p TH-42PX700 uses 494W.
http://techdocs.panasonic.co.uk/docs/1z47cb4ed7z1z24edez656ez504446z25z5e1f2dc1db0c5e8..._Catalogue.pdf

A typical 42" 1080p LCD would use about 150W or less.

LCD power consumption seems to vary by screen area as the backlight grows in size. Plasma power consumption scales more by pixel count than screen size. Screen size is still a factor. The 65" 1080p TH-65PX600B takes 720W. Ouch.

[jagabo]

My Samsung LNT-4665, a 46" 1920x1080 LCD, consumes 100 to 150 watts (measured at the power plug) at my usual backlight setting (2 to 4, out of 10). At full brightness it consumes about 300 watts.

[snadge]

is there such a thing as a 1080x1920 PLASMA ???? i bet it costs a fortune if there is...

the cheapest 1080p set i can find is around £750

[jagabo]

There are many 1920x1080 plasmas now. 42" and up.

[snadge]

is there? i will have a look for some tomorrow - im off too bed, g'night

[jagabo]

For example, Amazon.com: Panasonic TH-42PZ700U 42" 1080p Plasma HDTV - Price:US$1,232.88

[edDV]

1920x1080 is overkill for a 42" but would be welcome for 50" or above.

Not if your sitting 6 feet away.

I think anyone looking to buy should view both side by side with a BluRay source (plus a PAL source) and make a judgement. Better to add a 1080p LCD for a three way comparison.

[jagabo]

1920x1080 is overkill for a 42" but would be welcome for 50" or above.

Not if your sitting 6 feet away.

I think anyone looking to buy should view both side by side with a BluRay source (plus a PAL source) and make a judgement. Better to add a 1080p LCD for a three way comparison.

I'll agree with that one!

[edDV]

I like the picture on the 46" 1080p Samsung 4665 but the neighbors 42" 1024x768 Panasonic plasma doesn't look bad either at normal viewing distances (6-9 feet). I'm the only one that tries to sit closer

I have to say these ~$1100 42" Panasonic plasmas make a great average man solution. They look good with SD, DVD and HD. The 46" Samsumg looks better but costs twice as much. If my computer room CRT HDTV fails, a 42" Panasonic plasma will be a consideration. The next earthquake might knock that CRT to the floor.

PS: since I sit ~5ft from the CRT I'd need to get the 1366x768 or 1920x1080 plasma models. Prices are dropping.

[samijubal]

Panasonic's new models are just hitting stores now, at least in the U.S.
Now would be a great time to get a good deal on last year's models.

[snadge]

so - how does the 'fat' pixel work?

if a PLASMA has 'wide' pixels to form 16:9 on a 1024x768 resolution wont the picture be distored? i.e. wide (short&fat)..?

[jagabo]

No the picture will not be distorted. It will simply have less resolution on the horizontal axis.

Here's a simple example. Say you have a 1920x1080 16:9 source and a 16:9 TV with a 960x1080 native resolution. When you put the source onto the screen you average together pairs of pixels. The final picture is the same 16:9 shape, there is just less resolution on the horizontal axis.

[snadge]

so does this mean 1080x1920 LCD sets will have much sharper image than plasma?

[jagabo]

If the source has sufficient resolution they have a much sharper picture than a 1024x768 plasma of the same size. A 1920x1080 plasma will have the same resolution.

[samijubal]

Sharper isn't always better. Unless you've got a high quality source to go with that sharp picture, it will look worse.

[jagabo]

Blurrier isn't always better.

[edDV]

All the conversion is done in the HDTV set's internal processor. For example,

352x480i
720x480i/p
1280x720p
1920x1080i/p

Would all get converted to 1024x768p* for display.
16:9 material would fill the screen, 4:3 material would be displayed with sidebars.

*actually about 5% more with overscan but 1024x768 would be displayed. Sorry for confusing you more.

[samijubal]

It's not blurrier, it's called softer. Unless all sources fed to the TV are very high quality, soft is better than sharp. Panasonic plasma picture quality simply can't be beat for the price. They look good with all sources, good or bad.

Back to the orignal post, it looks like that seller copied the wrong specs for that TV. If you want the right specs, go to Panasonic's website and look there.

[snadge]

its all down to preferences isnt it... I prefer sharper and I would rather have a 1080p 42" TV than a 1024x768 or 1366x768 42" TV - I know SD Feed wont look as good as HD feed but what can you do? SD feed is always gunna look poorer on massive sets it just doesnt have the definition to look sharp, decent upscalers can make it look better - I personally will be trying out models instore with both HD and SD feeds before I actually buy one online..
Problem there is most stores in UK dont even make the effort of putting HD feeds through thier TV's they just turn em on and have a poor on-board freeview reception displayed - My dad went into Tescos Hardware Dept and said to the guy who kept hassling him "Why dont the TVs have a decent HD feed in them - you would probably sell more?" and the rep said "ahh it would take ages to wire them all up..." so my dad said "well - i dont wanna look at them then .. tata.." hehe

But its true - if these stores had HD feed going through all thier HD tvs they would sell a lot more, when people walk in and see fuzzy TV screens they just gunna think - well whats all the fuss about? its crap!

[samijubal]

If you want sharp, you should be looking at LCDs.

[kayoubi]

ahh I think its because your link is talking about Panasonic's cheaper model. Their cheapest actually. The more expensive ones are 1920x1080. just becareful that each brand has many lines of the same product.

I have the 42" 1080 panasonic. tried even just dvd upconvert on hdmi, beautiful. can't wait to get a blu-ray player.

[samijubal]

I don't see any difference between just using my SD DVD player and letting the Panasonoic upconvert and using the Toshiba's upconversion. If I look hard, the Toshiba is slightly sharper, not even noticable at my normal viewing distance. Other than that there is no differnce at all. All the people that rave about upconverting players must have TVs with poor upconversion.