AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › 1024x768 vs. 1280x1024
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1024x768 vs. 1280x1024 - Page 2

post #31 of 61
5/4/06 at 11:56pm
Youd have to call the screen door effect the "Cheese Grater" effect
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 61
5/5/06 at 2:34pm
I guess circular digitality is too hard to comprehend!
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 61
5/5/06 at 2:43pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 61
5/5/06 at 2:57pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 61
5/5/06 at 3:07pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 61
5/5/06 at 5:21pm
Could a Lucky Charms set show rainbows?
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 61
5/5/06 at 8:53pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 61
5/9/06 at 6:48pm
Thread Starter 
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
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 61
5/9/06 at 7:21pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 61
5/10/06 at 12:13am
That is because old CRTs are 4:3, these displays are 16:9.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 61
5/10/06 at 1:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 61
5/10/06 at 9:11am
Thread Starter 
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.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 61
5/10/06 at 9:37am
"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.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 61
5/10/06 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 61
5/10/06 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stucandu View Post

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. 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.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 61
5/10/06 at 11:31am
LG makes the panel. It's in the EyeFi product spec sheet.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 61
5/10/06 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolutionary View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 61
5/10/06 at 2:17pm
Whatever you like say kylebisme , the quote below will still remain true, Im sorry, that was the main point im trying to get across



Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

The displays are not true 16x9....
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 61
5/10/06 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 61
5/10/06 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:04pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:20pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:23pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 61
5/10/06 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

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

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 61
9/21/06 at 6:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 61
9/21/06 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by movieguy163201 View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 61
2/2/07 at 1:37am
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!
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 61
2/2/07 at 5:42am
Dude, 4 month old thread...

Run your desktop at 1280x720 @ 60Hz...
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › 1024x768 vs. 1280x1024