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? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #32 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #33 of 57
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.
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1 View Post

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

That chart has an error?
post #35 of 57
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
post #36 of 57
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
post #37 of 57
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.
post #38 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #39 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #40 of 57
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

Edited by 8mile13 - 3/19/13 at 6:04pm
post #41 of 57
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.
post #42 of 57
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.
Edited by budwich - 3/19/13 at 6:17pm
post #43 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #44 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #45 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #46 of 57
That's a lot of blue. eek.gif

Might I suggest the 42S60? biggrin.gif
post #47 of 57
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.
Edited by budwich - 3/19/13 at 9:02pm
post #48 of 57
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.

post #49 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #50 of 57
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.
post #51 of 57
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
post #52 of 57
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.
post #53 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
post #54 of 57
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.
post #55 of 57
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.
post #56 of 57
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.
post #57 of 57
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Samsung PN43E450 - Wide screen or not?