Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 03:16 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P50ST60?t=specs

The physical dimensions of this 50 inch unit are 46.1 * 27.5.
The works out to 1:67. but that includes borders, and it's a lot wider than the 1.5 size of the 43" unit.

I'm not surprised people don't get it. Many people watch movies of 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 16:9 screens, and they believe they are getting the whole picture because their screen is full. 16:9 is only 1.78 aspect ratio. I started playing around with my pc and monitor. I get bars displaying 2.35 wide films on a 16:9 screen, because VLC player is displaying the entire picture, not rescaled to fill the frame.
Aristide1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Randy, according this chart 1024x768 is 4:3.


Apparently these guys don't know what they are talking about either.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #33 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 03:33 PM
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Randy, according this chart 1024x768 is 4:3

Then please explain why my 1024x768 Panasonic TH42PX50U Plasma TV is a 16x9 widescreen TV with everything being displayed in the proper aspect ratio?? Every single Plasma TV made since 2002 is a widescreen 16x9 TV - none of the 1024x768 screens are 4:3.

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR333, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
post #34 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 03:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Leon!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

Apparently these guys don't know what they are talking about either.

That chart has an error?
Leon! is offline  
post #35 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JSpectre88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

You should care, people buy cars because of 40 mpg ratings, but in the real world they don't deliver

I was more or less referring to not caring about you or this discussion, not standards and ethics. rolleyes.gif
JSpectre88 is offline  
post #36 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 04:05 PM
Newbie
 
BNZ Three's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

Apparently these guys don't know what they are talking about either.

that's assuming a display with SQUARE pixels. A lot of 720p plasma televisions implement a RECTANGULAR pixel.

Basically take a 1280 x 720 image, remove 256 lines of horizontal resolution, it will shrink the picture into a 4:3 image. Now stretch it out back into it's original shape without adding any lines of resolution, your pixels will become rectangular. The TV removes 256 lines of horizontal resolution from the input, but has already stretched the image back to its original shape instead of squashing the picture BECAUSE it uses rectangular pixels.

Therefore a 1024x768 Plasma TV is a 16x9 HDTV
BNZ Three is offline  
post #37 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whipit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SGF
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

You should care, people buy cars because of 40 mpg ratings, but in the real world they don't deliver.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-42PX34?t=specs
Nothing in the specs suggests this model is 16:9, but here:

If you actually read the page you quoted above(I also quoted it) you can see on the highlighted aspect ratio5th line down it states 16:9

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P50ST60?t=specs
The 16:9 spec is in clear view.

Does anyone really believe that's just an oversight?
It's physical screen dimensions are 40 inches by 26.7 inches.
The math speaks for itself.

If you take a 720p and 1080p widescreen tv and put them side by side you can't see any difference in aspect ratio. Just go to Best Buy and have a look.
whipit is online now  
post #38 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 05:06 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNZ Three View Post

that's assuming a display with SQUARE pixels. A lot of 720p plasma televisions implement a RECTANGULAR pixel.

Basically take a 1280 x 720 image, remove 256 lines of horizontal resolution, it will shrink the picture into a 4:3 image. Now stretch it out back into it's original shape without adding any lines of resolution, your pixels will become rectangular. The TV removes 256 lines of horizontal resolution from the input, but has already stretched the image back to its original shape instead of squashing the picture BECAUSE it uses rectangular pixels.
Quote:
instead of squashing the picture
Instead of truncating the picture, you were correct up to this point.
Quote:
Therefore a 1024x768 Plasma TV is a 16x9 HDTV

In name only, a marketing gimmick. And the pixels lost are lost only these screens, but if people willfully (and bllndly) choose to believe that the removing of

Amazing how math simply pisses off the masses.

There has not been one single rational explanation why the physical dimensions of these units have a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, while 16:9 screens all have ratios close to 1.78.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #39 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon! View Post

That chart has an error?

The chart has no error unless the rules of division have suddenly changed.

1600 * 1200 is also 4:3 format. It's a higher resolution that standard HD, but it ain't no wide screen.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #40 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 06:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters 

Then please explain why my 1024x768 Panasonic TH42PX50U Plasma TV is a 16x9 widescreen TV with everything being displayed in the proper aspect ratio??

I do understand the rectangular pixel aspect but i am still not convinced that a 1024x768 widescreen will show a picture perfect aspect ratio.

Quote:
Issues of non-square pixels

Directly mapping an image with a certain pixel aspect ratio on a divice whose pixel aspect ratio is different makes the image look unnaturally stretched or squashed in either the horizontal or vertical direction. For example, a circle generated for a computer display with square pixels looks like a vertical ellipse on a standard-definition NTSC television that uses vertically rectangular pixels. This issue is more evident on wide-screen TVs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio#Issues_of_non-square_pixels
8mile13 is offline  
post #41 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
budwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I think you might be barking up the wrong TV. Yes, the display resolution IS less than a standard HD 720P but arguing that the screen itself isn't a widescreen is the wrong "bark". I don't believe there is any standard definition that specifies the physical dimension of the term "widescreen". Further, some "widescreens" were produced as "16:10" ratios.
budwich is offline  
post #42 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 07:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
budwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I think that "statement" (ie. direct mapping) is actually the issue. It isn't done like that.. The scaling processes available today don't just do "simple math subtractions / adds". On sets, as others stated, you might only see some "stair steps" (or equivalent) on diagonals... and that's probably if you are up really close to the display.
budwich is offline  
post #43 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 08:37 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by budwich View Post

I think you might be barking up the wrong TV. Yes, the display resolution IS less than a standard HD 720P but arguing that the screen itself isn't a widescreen is the wrong "bark". I don't believe there is any standard definition that specifies the physical dimension of the term "widescreen". Further, some "widescreens" were produced as "16:10" ratios.

I never stated it wasn't wide screen, by whatever unorthodox measures they used to achieve it, but even their own ads don't claim 16:9 resolution. All I did was pose a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

By this definition, 4:3 misses being wide screen by a couple of millimeters.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #44 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 08:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Perhaps it's best resolved here:

http://lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect/

Because people here are clearly mixing "pixel aspect ratio with picture aspect ratio."


This statement in the link only adds confusion:
Quote:
•If you are presented with some data, a major hint that you have non-square pixels is that your images will be 720 pixels wide (or 704, in the case of MPEG). 640 and 768 are major hints of square data.



It's also addressed here, the level of frustration mirrors this thread.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47476


http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/233447-42-inch-plasma-widescreen-(16x9-hdtv-has-native-resolution-1024-x-768-(4x3)

In this link you see some great remarks:
Quote:
a plasma TV's mechanical (native) resolution has little to do with its aspect ratio. Most plasma TVs are 16:9, but their native resolutions are all over the place: 1024x768, 1366x768, 1024x1024 (Sony), etc., all indicating that the pixels ARE NOT always square.

So think it's widescreen? Well good for you.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #45 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 09:09 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect/

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/233447-42-inch-plasma-widescreen-(16x9-hdtv-has-native-resolution-1024-x-768-(4x3)

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47476

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1287324

Love this comment in the last link:
Quote:
I have seen alot of TVs with a resolution of 1024x768 advertised as HD. I dont know how they get away with it as you must be at least 1280x720 to be considered a true HD TV.
Quote:
Go with a TV that has a native resolution of 1920x1080, or 1280x720. It will make your life much easier when getting 1:1 pixel mapping and HTPC use. And with the prices 1080p HDTV's are at right now, you might as well just go with one to make life much easier and to get the best picture possible with 1:1 pixel mapping.

The last statement addresses how 1024 * 768 fabricates a wide picture.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #46 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 09:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JSpectre88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
That's a lot of blue. eek.gif

Might I suggest the 42S60? biggrin.gif
JSpectre88 is offline  
post #47 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 09:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
budwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

I never stated it wasn't wide screen, by whatever unorthodox measures they used to achieve it, but even their own ads don't claim 16:9 resolution. All I did was pose a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

By this definition, 4:3 misses being wide screen by a couple of millimeters.

Good luck.... you obviously don't read very well or don't understand what you're reading.
budwich is offline  
post #48 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 10:23 PM
Member
 
doublemazaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's an example of how a wide screen can have a 4x3 pixel ratio.

You'll notice the 'picture' is widescreen, standard 16x9 dimensions, but the 'resolution' is 16x12, because the pixels are not square.

The video processing will map the source video onto the rectangular pixels and you'll usually never notice.

doublemazaa is offline  
post #49 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 10:37 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by budwich View Post

Good luck.... you obviously don't read very well or don't understand what you're reading.

It clearly states anything over 1.37 is wide. Did you miss that? Or did you miss the fact that 1.33 is a tiny bit below 1.37?

Here's the end result.

Yep, there's no stetched image on a wide screen 1024 * 768 image. It takes a real 16:9 format (1280*720) and downscales it, so that it fills the screen, made up of rectangular pixels. There are 2 reasons this works well.

1. Plasma is pleasant overall to begin with.

2. Downsizing causes fewer artifacts than upsizing. Anyone who uses Photoshop can vouch for that. Is there a loss of resolution? Of course. Is it pleasant? Yes, Are you happy with it? Yes. Is it a manufactured result? Very much so.

http://www.highdefforum.com/flat-panel-tvs/20198-why-1024-x-768-not-hdtv-14.html

Here the emotional responses go on for 17 pages. There's no reason to believe this site would prove more logical. And the results show exactly that, from plain denial to the typical ad hominem attacks. It's easy to tell a lot of remarks here are driven by emotion, if one truly didn't care about any of this they would not post at all, as opposed to posting "I don't care," which frankly is simply irony.


In regards to doublemazaa's image yep, that's the gimmick. What's missing from this picture is that while a circle will still appear as a circle it will have far worse jagged edges than a 1280 * 720 screen which isn't playing this game.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #50 of 57 Old 03-19-2013, 11:21 PM
Member
 
doublemazaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

What's missing from this picture is that while a circle will still appear as a circle it will have far worse jagged edges than a 1280 * 720 screen which isn't playing this game.

Yes, this is true, a circle will look more jagged than it would on a set with square pixels, but that's just because circles have the same aspects as the square pixels (1x1). There are other shapes that rectangular pixels will render better than square pixels. In the end it comes down to whether it bugs you or not in the sources you watch.
doublemazaa is offline  
post #51 of 57 Old 03-20-2013, 05:55 AM
Newbie
 
BNZ Three's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Lets just use a tape measure and some MATH.

Width = 37.75 Height= 21.5

31.75/21.5 = 1.7558139

Looks like it's 16x9 (or extremely close) to me.

In conclusion a E450 43" Samsung Plasma is in fact a 16x9 Widescreen TV for all practical purposes
BNZ Three is offline  
post #52 of 57 Old 03-20-2013, 06:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 963
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 124
The image processor just stretches the image to fit, but in such a way that the aspect ratio isn't distorted. I've seen a lot of 1024x768 plasmas, and I can hardly tell the difference between them and an a standard 720p LCD (I still get them time and again to repair.) I can see it, but it wouldn't bug me.
tom669 is offline  
post #53 of 57 Old 03-20-2013, 08:15 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Aristide1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom669 View Post

The image processor just stretches the image to fit, but in such a way that the aspect ratio isn't distorted. I've seen a lot of 1024x768 plasmas, and I can hardly tell the difference between them and an a standard 720p LCD (I still get them time and again to repair.) I can see it, but it wouldn't bug me.
Yes it's called downscaling, a loss of resolution, in layman's terms it's called cheating.
Aristide1 is offline  
post #54 of 57 Old 03-20-2013, 01:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 963
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Yes. The fact that 1080p 42" plasmas are possible shows a 1920 horizontal resolution is possible, but it's been deemed cheaper to make them 1024 wide.
tom669 is offline  
post #55 of 57 Old 03-20-2013, 05:27 PM
Newbie
 
BNZ Three's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

Yes it's called downscaling, a loss of resolution, in layman's terms it's called cheating.

it's called, you get what you pay for. You want 1:1 pixel mapping with square pixels? Pony up the money.
BNZ Three is offline  
post #56 of 57 Old 03-21-2013, 09:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
HD Hockey Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Screen Fit setting FTW. See all the HD content, crystal clear in widescreen the way it was shot.

take your math elsewhere.
Quote:
Screen Fit: When your TV inputs HDMI (720p / 1080i / 1080p) or Component
(1080i / 1080p) signals, displays the full image without any cut-off.

 

50" Samsung Plasma HDTV | Networked Yamaha RX-V573 7.1 AV | BIC DV-32CLR Center | JBL 2600 Mains | Fluance AVBP2 Bi-Pole Surrounds on Soundcast SCS-100 wireless surround | Onkyo SKC-530 Sub | Networked Sony BDP-S590 

 
HD Hockey Guy is offline  
post #57 of 57 Old 06-14-2013, 03:21 PM
Newbie
 
nathan mudhall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not a reply but an experiment that I tried. Would appreciate any critique on my methods. I have a PN43E450 purchased at BB. Worse than horrible in the store(s) Much better than expected at home. Yes it is wide screen - no doubt. I use an OPPO 103 as my source and OTA video. All the discussion about pixels and square pixels AND RECTANGULAR pixels just seemed too weird so I thought I'd see for myself.

Now to my very simple experiment. I decided to use my computer and make some rectangles in Adobe Photo Shop. The first was 1280 x 720, then 1024 x 768, then 1366 x 768, then 1368 x 768. All these were pixel by pixel. I put them on a USB stick and burned them into a DVD. Run them through the USB on the OPPO and the Samsung.

Guess what? The 1024 x 768 filled the top and bottom and left room on the sides. The 1280 x 720 sat in the middle of the screen black bars top and bottom. The 1368 (1366) x 768 filled the entire screen. I ran these images on my laptop monitor (1366 x 768) and the presentation was identical. On my 19" 4x3 desktop LCD 1600x1200 the results were the same. Filling the proper spacing on the monitor.

I next changed the resolution on USB stick to 1350 x 768, then 1340 x 768. The image shrunk on the right side of the screen.{ My screen shows some non uniformity on the left edge (columns of extra unlit pixels).} I can force to OPPO to do many different resolutions but the results were always the same. Please tell me my methology is wrong or I'm missing something here. ...

It seems to me that the panel is actually 1350+ x 768 pixels. No rectangular pixels here. It may be why the picture quality is so good for a 720P tv. Would really appreciate anyones thoughts on this.
nathan mudhall is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

Tags
Samsung Pn43e450 43 Inch Class Plasma 450 Series Hdtv
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off