or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not?

This is a little confusing. On the one hand this set reportedly has a resolution of 1024 * 768 (in Cnet reviews and others). Simple math shows us this is a 4:3 resolution. Yet in every photo it seems to be a 16:9 set.

So which is it? Is this a 4:3 set or a 16:9 set?

Regards,
Aris

### Gear mentioned in this thread:

It's definitely a widescreen 16:9 TV. I think the pixels are rectangular.
IE That would essentially be a forced picture stretch. Very unnatural.

It's physical aspect ratio (40 inches * 26.6 inches) = 1.50.
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P42X5?t=specs

It appears this panasonic is another 1024 * 768 (4:3) set masquerading as a 16:9.

And again, the overall size of the unit has an aspect ratio of 1.5.
All modern Plasma TVs are16:9, which translates to a 1.78:1 screen ratio - regardless of the number and/or shape of the pixels. Nothing is being stretched.
1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio
1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

Something doesn't add up here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio
1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

Something doesn't add up here.

Isn't your analysis going by a square pixel? If it's rectangular then it can cover more surface area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio
1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

Something doesn't add up here.

I think you are right... something fishy. Perhaps the "spec sheet" is wrong.... you know how good some manufacturers are... these guys probably outsourced their web page to some low paid north american spec writers... :-) IF not, as the screen is a 16:9 aspect, that would mean that a "degree" of processing is going on to actually "compress" (ie. scale) a 720p signal to allow it to "stretch" logically back out on the display.
Edited by budwich - 3/17/13 at 9:59pm
You are right, others have told me the pixels are rectangles. It may be touted as widescreen, but not specifically touted as 16:9.

The easiest way there is to find out if they messed with people is to display a JPEG of a circle or a perfect square. If you see an oval or a rectangle then you know, but I tkink they only stretched it a little, so many may not notice. It's a convenient way to hold costs down, but I don't agree with it. The real mystery is why you don't read about this in professional reviews.

Thanks for the info, it made it easy to rule out this unit.

Aris
Rectangles would also further exaggerate the staircase effect of diagonal lines. Only company profits end up in better shape making rectangles.
probably. I think what some people were trying to point out was that the TV's display aspect ratio was indeed widescreen (ie. "16:9" physical measurement) based kind of your title question... perhaps it would have been better to pose "is it really only a 1024X768 resolution screen?". But as you have "investigated", you do have to read thru specs carefully as some manufacturers are playing games with resolutions.
IMO, with the 43" E450 it's essential to turn the Sharpness down to 0.
It only adds artifacts including the staircase effect of diagonal lines.
Plus a tech who works for Samsung posted last year said the same thing
adding the 'cell light' is a holdover from the LCD line and should be set to it's max.
He went as far to call the 'cell light' bogus.
Quote:
perhaps it would have been better to pose "is it really only a 1024X768 resolution screen?
It is, per manufacturers website, that must be right, they don't error on the low side, only on the high side.

Sharpness - Even with CRTs "sharpness" is an add-on circuit to embellish what's there, So it's no surprise that a display that has good detail inherent in its design will only suffer from added sharpness.

It reminds me of spices, add some only to bland food, and only in small quantities less you ruin it.
that was why I "jested" that they outsourced their web page to some "cheap north american spec writers".... it could be an error. There are plenty of errors out there. I have a samsung tablet (tab2 7) that samsung indicates everywhere (including their support group) that it connects to video devices via hdmi (plus something else)... it can't as it doesn't even output video via the particular output port provided.... probably a class action law suit but that another issue. Anyways, very observant owners of this set would be able to see whether the set a given native resolution..... hopefully, maybe. :-)
The Samsung owner's manual is not clear. Panny's 720p set is also 1024 * 768.
Both the sammy and panny are 16:9 ratio wide screen with the same 4:3 resolution. This leads to stairstepping and screen door effect, the latter being the bigger offender.

Here's a webpage from panasonic that stated a 16:9 res in the specs, it's an older tv but you get the idea.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-42PX34?t=specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

You are right, others have told me the pixels are rectangles. It may be touted as widescreen, but not specifically touted as 16:9.

The easiest way there is to find out if they messed with people is to display a JPEG of a circle or a perfect square. If you see an oval or a rectangle then you know, but I tkink they only stretched it a little, so many may not notice. It's a convenient way to hold costs down, but I don't agree with it. The real mystery is why you don't read about this in professional reviews.

I don't understand why you think that these "720p" TVs (which are actually 768p) will stretch the image, but they do not. That's why you don't see it in reviews - because it is not happening. Nothing is being automatically stretched.

If you send this TV a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p signal, put the TV's aspect setting to FULL, and display a circle or square you'll see a perfect circle or a perfect square. They will not be stretched - they will appear in their original aspect.
^^^All one has to do is get out from behind the keyboard and go to any store that sells these sets and look for one's self--they have 16/9 screens with no geometric distortion.
I have one of these and I can assure you there is no stretching what so ever with the picture. The picture is actually very good on this tv and better than the Phillips 1080p LCD it replaced in my bedroom.
Quote:
If you send this TV a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p signal, put the TV's aspect setting to FULL, and display a circle or square you'll see a perfect circle or a perfect square. They will not be stretched - they will appear in their original aspect.

The only way that can happen is if the picture itself is cropped on the ends. I don't buy widescreen TVs for this purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

The only way that can happen is if the picture itself is cropped on the ends. I don't buy widescreen TVs for this purpose.

Says who?...
I have the E450 and it's a fantastic tv for the price.
Nothing is cropped when it's set to 'screen fit' including 4:3.
Screen fit is the default setting and there is no extra picture processing.
I don't like black bars so I use 16:9, wide fit and wide fit 2 when needed.
I like old Hammar and Vincent Price films and with 16:9 or wide fit it's a perfect fit with no cropping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

The only way that can happen is if the picture itself is cropped on the ends. I don't buy widescreen TVs for this purpose.

I give up. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Are you in a foreign country by any chance?
Randy, according this chart 1024x768 is 4:3.

The bottom line is that something the OP read is incorrect, and the PNE450 is definitely a widescreen 16X9 TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters
The bottom line is that something the OP read is incorrect, and the PNE450 is definitely a widescreen 16X9 TV.
ok. So what is the affect of rectangular pixels on pq?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88

Says who?...

Sience? Mathematics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13

ok. So what is the affect of rectangular pixels on pq?

And a "square" of 500 pixles * 500 pixels will look different on these 2 screens.

The stretch is small scale, the TV dimensions themselves are 1:5, not 1:78. Not even close.
Its understandable how a 10% stretch may not be noticeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1

Sience? Mathematics?

Edit:

Nevermind. I don't honestly care.
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:

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?
Quote:
the PNE450 is definitely a widescreen 16X9 TV.

It's physical screen dimensions are 40 inches by 26.7 inches.
The math speaks for itself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
• Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not?

### Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not?