Just curious what insight people might have regarding these two plasma resolutions.

I just purchased a Prima PH42T7 42" 1024x768 and am quite pleased with it, however there is also an EyeFi PX4200 1280x1024 model available for about the same price. Only thing is I have no way of viewing this model in person and would have to order it sight unseen. I like that is has a higher resolution and has the same chipset. The Prima uses a Samsung panel and the EyeFi is an LG. Both use the Pixelworks PW118 DNX chipset.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks

The PX4200 is a LCD (not plasma) and has a native resolution of 1920x1080 (not 1280x1024).

http://www.asihome.com/ASIshop/manuals/LX4200_Specs.pdf?osCsid=f47118ca71f98170209c6a517

Actually the PX-4200 is a plasma and it does have a 1280x1024 resolution.
http://www.asihome.com/ASIshop/product_info.php?products_id=2174&osCsid=f47118ca71f98170209c6a517

mterzich linked to the LX4200.

I've no insight on which might be superior. Both are going to scale the image to the available pixels, both have non-square pixels, and since both have the same chipset...

Only the "my eye" test will help you.

I would look for something with square pixels. Look for panels with 1280x720 or 1366x768 resolution.

What's the PQ difference between square and non square pixels?

Psychologically it can be very distracting to know you are looking at abnormally shaped pixels, even when you are sitting at a normal viewing distance were you can't physically discern the shape of those pixels. ;)

Haha, very funny. ;) Actually, I think there is a visual difference. Because the pixels on these displays are rectangular, there is more noticeable stair stepping along the top and bottom of the pixels. So while the vertical resolution is the same, the wide pixels will cause more noticeable jaggies on lines and edges of objects.

So I take it this is another of those minute details that is basically indiscernible, yet causes great angst amongst videophiles looking for the holy grail of HDTV. Whatever that is. :rolleyes:

Personally, square pixels are very important to me because I double my TV as a computer monitor.

Content= Square pixels therefore my TV=square pixels.

Its simple I think. Maybe you can see it, maybe you cant, maybe some times, sometimes not. I think in all situations possible, you want 1:1 pixel mapping, or as close as you can get. Changing the ratio then stretching it is far from ideal.

Haha, very funny. ;) Actually, I think there is a visual difference. Because the pixels on these displays are rectangular, there is more noticeable stair stepping along the top and bottom of the pixels. So while the vertical resolution is the same, the wide pixels will cause more noticeable jaggies on lines and edges of objects.
That is an argument for more/smaller pixels, but the pixels on a 1280x1024 display aren't any wider than that of a 1280x720 display of the same size, the pixels on the 1280x1024 display are actually shorter and hence there is less chance of seeing any jaggies on such a display compared to one that is native 720p.
Personally, square pixels are very important to me because I double my TV as a computer monitor.
There is nothing inherent to rectangular pixels to exclude displays that employ them from making good computer monitors though. Assuming a respectable scaler anyway, 1024x768 widescreen plasmas and such can display a variety of 16:9 desktop resolutions that are perfectly functional for the vast majority of uses.
Content= Square pixels therefore my TV=square pixels.

Its simple I think. Maybe you can see it, maybe you cant, maybe some times, sometimes not. I think in all situations possible, you want 1:1 pixel mapping, or as close as you can get. Changing the ratio then stretching it is far from ideal.
But you aren't going to get 1:1 for everything on any fixed pixel display as content comes in various resolutions. Heck, the vast majority of content at this point is SD and that doesn't even have square pixels to begin with anyway. In the long run having quality scaling hardware is far more important than having 1:1 for any particular resolution, and with respectable scaling it doesn't rightly matter if the pixels are square, rectangular, or shaped like Lucky Charms.

So I take it this is another of those minute details that is basically indiscernible, yet causes great angst amongst videophiles looking for the holy grail of HDTV. Whatever that is. :rolleyes:
Heh, I tend to think real videophiles know better. ;)

Yea but at this res, you wont get 1:1 on anything, not even close.

And again, that generally doesn't matter anywhere but in one's head.

That is an argument for more/smaller pixels, but the pixels on a 1280x1024 display aren't any wider than that of a 1280x720 display of the same size, the pixels on the 1280x1024 display are actually shorter and hence there is less chance of seeing any jaggies on such a display compared to one that is native 720p.


This would seem to suggest that a 1280x1024 display would have less jaggies than a 1024x768 display, therefore, all else being equal, it would have superior PQ.

Square pixels are very important for PC use, because as you said, the images would need to be scaled for rectangular pixels. Scaled images are fine for TV and DVD viewing. But the PC input, especially text, would appear soft and unacceptable for me.

By "would" I take it you never tried it? I'll bet you'd be surprised and what good scaling hardware can acomplish.

And yeah stucandu, all else being equal and assuming you are sitting within a distance that you can notice the difference, the higher the resolution the better.

Enough of the talking, 1366x768 is the superior res......question answered, then it goes HD res's from there.......done

aspect ratios

16/9=1.77
1366/768=1.77
1920/1080=1.77
1280/720=1.77

1024/768=1.33
1280/1024=1.25

WHO WANTS THOSE ASPECT RATIOS?????

I want 16X9

The aspect ratios on all the displays mentioned here is 16x9, the ratio of horizonal to vertical pixels is seprate from aspect ratio.

umm no there not check your math according to the top they are NOT 16x9, no matter how much you want to believe they are

1024x768 is has an aspect ratio of 1.33....16x9 has an aspect ratio of 1.77
1024x768 is equivalant to 4x3 which is also equal to 1.33
1280x1024 has an aspect ratio of 1.25....16x9 has an aspect raio of 1.77
1280x1024 is equivlant to 5x4 which equals 1.25 also

all content has square pixels. This TV uses the ratio of pixels for 16:9, that a 4:3 TV would, meaning it ALWAYS has to crop and stretch.

Back me up necrolop with the above

No, no cropping, just sctretching and/or squishing.

umm no there not check your math according to the top they are NOT 16x9, no matter how much you want to believe they are

1024x768 is has an aspect ratio of 1.33....16x9 has an aspect ratio of 1.77
1024x768 is equivalant to 4x3 which is also equal to 1.33
1280x1024 has an aspect ratio of 1.25....16x9 has an aspect raio of 1.77
1280x1024 is equivlant to 5x4 which equals 1.25 also
Again, the ratio of horizonal to vertical pixels is seprate from aspect ratio which is derived from the width of the display compared to it's high. Your math is right, but you are working with the wrong numbers.

Yea u can put a 16x9 display on there, but it wont be native and thats what everybody on here is shooting for......so u can go ahead and get your pan scan TV, and ask the flintstones at the same time how there doing.....because thats a thing of the past

all content has square pixels. This TV uses the ratio of pixels for 16:9, that a 4:3 TV would, meaning it ALWAYS has to crop and stretch.

Traditional DVD's don't use square pixels.

Do you ever think we will get to a point with Plasma technology where we see the 42" models move up to 1366x768 like their 50" brethren? I mean, we are starting to see 1080p 50" models, one would think there would be a trickle down effect on technology or is the glass just too small to fit the current technology.

Does anyone know of any other 1280x1024 PDP's out there?

I didn't even know of the one you brought up until I saw this thread. I'm guessing they just starting making the glass and that is the first model out.

Does anyone know of any other 1280x1024 PDP's out there?

Stu, this is one of the reasons I never went for an HD plasma and went for the Eyefi LX4700 instead - a square pixel HD panel at less than 50" but greater then 42". No plasma out there does that. And of course the 1080p is gravy - no plasma does that either, save for the new Panny's coming out this year.

On the square pixel issue, if you are planning out using hdmi/DVI from a PC source, then square pixels are essential if you don't want your desktop to look stretched, especially if you are able to pixel-match your screen with something like Powerstrip. In this case I mean "if" because most plasmas don't have sceen resolutions that are directly divisible by 8, which is a necesity for most video cards to achieve perfect 1:1 pixel matching. It seems most LCD panels have this solved, but for some reason, plasmas don't. Perhaps this is because LCDs have roots in computer systems and Plasmas have roots in A/V systems.

What would a Plasma look like if it had circular pixels?

Youd have to call the screen door effect the "Cheese Grater" effect

I guess circular digitality is too hard to comprehend!

it is more a matter of the space in between with round pixels you get:

00
00

rather than squares or rectangles which can have less space between.

Nonsense -- long ago stadium message boards had circular pixels. In those days they were called "light bulbs". I guess this goes to prove that when your seat is far enough away from the display, you can't see the space between pixels no matter what shape it might be.

Heh, I've always said that as long as the pixels are small enough and close enough together as well as combined with a scaler that handles mapping to them well, they can be shaped like Lucky Charms for all it matters. But again, square or rectangular pixels is most effective way to get the best effect.

Could a Lucky Charms set show rainbows?

At least circles are vertically and horizontally symmetrical - like squares. They too would not affect that aspect ratio of pixel-matched desktops. A better analogy would be to use ovals for the rectangular pixel crowd.

Ok

1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels

1024x768 = 786,432 pixels

That's almost twice as many pixels.
Logic would tell you that you'll get a better picture, less stair-stepping and other artifacts.
I only wish I could see one of these in person and do an acid test with various signals. But I can't.

Anyone live in Vegas? Care to check them out?
http://www.usa.eyefi.tv/contact.htm

I would still go with a TRUE 16x9 screen that runs native 16x9......and not have to force a 16x9 image where it doesnt belong, remember...im sure most of us tried to do with old CRTs when DVDs just came out, it looks ugly, stretched garbage

That is because old CRTs are 4:3, these displays are 16:9.

That is because old CRTs are 4:3, these displays are 16:9.

The displays are not true 16x9....we have discussed this earlier, to display a 16x9 image on these TVs it would require stretching and cropping....which is in my opinion ghey.....get a TRUE 16x9 TV.....the TVs with native resolutions that are stated above(1024x768 &
1280x1024) .....are pan scan TVs, dont deny it.....

aspect ratios

16/9=1.77
1366/768=1.77
1920/1080=1.77
1280/720=1.77

4/3=1.33
1024/768=1.33
5/4=1.25
1280/1024=1.25

1024x768 is has an aspect ratio of 1.33....16x9 has an aspect ratio of 1.77
1024x768 is equivalant to 4x3 which is also equal to 1.33
1280x1024 has an aspect ratio of 1.25....16x9 has an aspect raio of 1.77
1280x1024 is equivlant to 5x4 which equals 1.25 also

I thnk the term 'pan and scan' is incorrect in regards to how a signal is processed for a non-native 16:9 panel. The image is scaled to fit the display, but that is quite different than panning and scanning from my knowledge. Also, I don't believe that stretching and cropping is quite what happens during the scaling process either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I'm viewing 16:9 content on my current 1024x768 display I can't detect any stretching of the image or any kind of distortion at all, so I think that good scaling is the key, not necessarily native 16:9 aspect ratios.
Still, I thank you for your input.

"Pan and scan" normally refers to a feature in DVD mastering where a specific 4:3 area of a 16:9 frame is identified to be sent when the output is to 4:3, but I don't think anyone actually goes to the trouble.

As I understand movieguy's post, he is possibly overlooking the fact that pixels can be rectangular so that for example a 1024x768 plasma can be 16:9 even though the resolution would suggest it isn't.

I didn't even know of the one you brought up until I saw this thread. I'm guessing they just starting making the glass and that is the first model out.

Who is making this glass, I wonder? My understanding is there are only a handful of plasma glass manufacturers (Panasonic, Hitachi/Fujitsu, LG/Samsung, Pioneer, and a couple others). It seems odd that such glass would make its debut with so little fanfare, and on a lower tier product.

I thnk the term 'pan and scan' is incorrect in regards to how a signal is processed for a non-native 16:9 panel. The image is scaled to fit the display, but that is quite different than panning and scanning from my knowledge. Also, I don't believe that stretching and cropping is quite what happens during the scaling process either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I'm viewing 16:9 content on my current 1024x768 display I can't detect any stretching of the image or any kind of distortion at all, so I think that good scaling is the key, not necessarily native 16:9 aspect ratios.
Still, I thank you for your input.
No, you aren't wrong, movieguy is wrong and simply ingoring what I already explained to him eriler in this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7586819&&#post7586819). Again, notthing is cropped as the panel is phyically 16:9 in aspect ratio, and there while there is stretching and or swishing involved it is done to conform to the aspect ratio of the source rather than distorting it.


And yeah mkoesel, I have no clue who would be making the glass either. I'm just assuming the listed specs are right as I haven't been able to dig up any conflicting specs for the model.

LG makes the panel. It's in the EyeFi product spec sheet.

LG makes the panel. It's in the EyeFi product spec sheet.

Thanks.

This glass should look great displaying PC input at 1280x720 (720p). You don't get 1:1 in the vertical direction, but there are extra pixels rather than too few so it should not be an issue. Much better than 1280x720 on typical 1024x768 42" glass, I'll bet.

Whatever you like say kylebisme , the quote below will still remain true, Im sorry, that was the main point im trying to get across



The displays are not true 16x9....

The displays are not true 16x9...

The resolution is not 16x9, but the physical dimensions (aspect ratio) certainly are.

So if we define "true 16x9" to mean "both 16x9 resolution and aspect ratio" then you are correct. Of course, someone else could freely define the term in a different way.

The resolution is not 16x9, but the physical dimensions (aspect ratio) certainly are.

The AS is not 16x9......as already stated above...just do the math, it can scale it to be 16x9, but it wont be native

I understand that you mean the physical look of the TV might be 16x9 or appear to be that wat, but if it was true 16x9, it would have no problem displaying 16x9 images nativly

The AS is not 16x9......as already stated above...just do the math, it can scale it to be 16x9, but it wont be native

AS? You mean AR, correct?

"Do the math" -- a fine idea. Here are figures from the Panasonic TH-42PX500 (a typical widescreen 1024x768 42" display):

screen width = 920mm
screen height = 518mm

So:

920/518 = 1.7760
16/9 = 1.7777

It is not exactly 16:9, but its pretty damn close. No less close than any other HDTV, including all those with square pixels.

Yea I meant AR, sorry......you mean length and width correct?.....so if the screen is just about 16x9, whats stopping you from putting a 16x9 res. on their from like a computer....and it not looking like a champ, is this just not possible??

Why would they make a 16x9 TV thats native res is 4x3 or 5x4?.....thats strange to me

If the screen itself is 16x9, why not have a native 16x9 res?

I guess thats stupidity on the manufacters part?? This is very weird to me that they would do such a thing

**edit to answer your question BELOW so not to add another post
Yes, my own definition of true 16x9 means that the physical aspect ratio of the TV is 16x9 and the resolution it outputs is 16x9, that way its not scaled, cropped, stretched or anything else it might do to the picture, basically untouched...hence I say true 16x9

I understand that you mean the physical look of the TV might be 16x9 or appear to be that wat, but if it was true 16x9, it would have no problem displaying 16x9 images nativly

Sorry, for the double reply, you added this after I started my post.

Again you use "true 16x9". Is this not your own nomenclature? If not, very well, but I'd like to see the source for the definition.

A 16:9 aspect ratio plasma screen with 1024 x 768 pixels, contains pixels with a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Take the TH42PHD8UK:
1024 x 768 pixel count - 920mm x 518mm screen dimensions - .898mm x.674mm pixel dimensions = 1.332 AR pixels.

Some of the previous posts are presuming a square pixel.

The screen is true 16:9, but doesn't have a 16:9 pixel count.

Cool, thanks for the clarification......so basically that sort of supports my definiton of a true 16x9 TV as I defined it a couple post back, I dont know if thats the correct terminology for it, its just what I say

Yea I meant AR, sorry......you mean length and width correct?....

Yeah I meant width and height, sorry bout the typo.

so if the screen is just about 16x9, whats stopping you from putting a 16x9 res. on their from like a computer....and it not looking like a champ, is this just not possible??

Yes, actually its very possible. Its just that you won't get a 1:1 pixel mapping. This can lead to poor picture, but it need not. For example if you fed the TV I mention above a 1024x576 resolution, it would look quite good. The problem there is that this is not a standard resolution, and not very much screen real estate either.

But outside of PC use, the non-square pixel issue is really not important. TV and movies have few static images in them, and you won't be watching those at 1:1 resolution to begin with, so there will always be stretching.

Why would they make a 16x9 TV thats native res is 4x3 or 5x4?.....thats strange to me

If the screen itself is 16x9, why not have a native 16x9 res?

I guess thats stupidity on the manufacters part?? This is very weird to me that they would do such a thing

Its limitation of the technology. Plasma technology is only just now to the point where they can make pixels small enough to fit more than 1024 of them across a 42" screen. Now, regarding using 768 lines instead of 720, thats a legacy issue. Plasmas were originally sold as Kiosks and boardroom displays, typically to be fed by a PC. So, in order to avoid losing some lines, they made them 768 instead of 720.

Yeah I meant width and height, sorry bout the typo.



Yes, actually its very possible. Its just that you won't get a 1:1 pixel mapping. This can lead to poor picture, but it need not. For example if you fed the TV I mention above a 1024x576 resolution, it would look quite good. The problem there is that this is not a standard resolution, and not very much screen real estate either.

But outside of PC use, the non-square pixel issue is really not important. TV and movies have few static images in them, and you won't be watching those at 1:1 resolution to begin with, so there will always be stretching.



Its limitation of the technology. Plasma technology is only just now to the point where they can make pixels small enough to fit more than 1024 of them across a 42" screen. Now, regarding using 768 lines instead of 720, thats a legacy issue. Plasmas were originally sold as Kiosks and boardroom displays, typically to be fed by a PC. So, in order to avoid losing some lines, they made them 768 instead of 720.


Okay Guys...what's the bottom line here? Is the PX4200 any good as a HDTV Plasma?? Inquiring minds need to know!

Thanks.

The AS is not 16x9......as already stated above...just do the math, it can scale it to be 16x9, but it wont be native

I understand that you mean the physical look of the TV might be 16x9 or appear to be that wat, but if it was true 16x9, it would have no problem displaying 16x9 images nativly

With all of the discussion on square vs. retangular pixels I must assume that those of you that insist on square pixels simply have never seen a 42 or 43 inch plasma that you find acceptable since NO one makes one with square pixels (THEY ARE ALL RECTANGULAR). The vast majority of 42/43" HD plasmas (incl. Panasonic and Pioneer) are 768 X 1024 pixels which are only square if the aspect ratio of the display were 3 X 4 (which it is not). With a 16 X 9 panel the pixels must be retangular with this resolution. You have to go up to the 50 inch plasmas to get square pixels. Given everything equal more pixels are better and without a doubt a 1024 X 1280 panel will display a higher resolution image with less stair stepping than a 768 x 1024 panel.

Ron Jones
www.dtvmax.com

Does anyone know if there's a video card that has an aspect option (16x9/4x3)???

For example, you could choose 1024x768 + 16x9 (or 4x3)

THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

My 42" 1024x768 plasma has a VGA input. It is pixel to pixel and razor sharp, however, it's stretched horizontally because the computer's 1024x768 output is 4x3.

Note, you can play movies from the computer just fine with this setup if you use VLC media player because it has an aspect setting which corrects the missmatched aspect. Just select 16x9 in VLC!

Dude, 4 month old thread...

Run your desktop at 1280x720 @ 60Hz...

Does anyone know if there's a video card that has an aspect option (16x9/4x3)???

For example, you could choose 1024x768 + 16x9 (or 4x3)

THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

My 42" 1024x768 plasma has a VGA input. It is pixel to pixel and razor sharp, however, it's stretched horizontally because the computer's 1024x768 output is 4x3.

Note, you can play movies from the computer just fine with this setup if you use VLC media player because it has an aspect setting which corrects the missmatched aspect. Just select 16x9 in VLC!
Hey, I've got a Prima 42" 1024x768 TV as well - The closest I've found is to use Media Player Classic http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ because it lets you compress or pull out the image.