[LJ25]

I currently own a Panasonic TH-42PX60U, and while the picture is great. I have a major issue with it, its native resolution. Now lets be honest here, HD is described as 1280x720. All 42 inch plasmas have a resolution of 1024x768, folks how can this be HD? The extra 48 pixels cannot compensate for the loss of nearly 300 pixels. While 1024x768 is much better than plain old 480p, it really doesn't reach up to that clarity and sharpness that HD is really capable of. I support both HD DVD and Blu-ray, and own several HD-DVDs. All of them look slightly soft and its definitely the lower resolution of the display. So by upgrading to a 50" Panasonic, will I get the sharpness and pop that I am looking for? I'm guessing yes since it has a resolution of 1366x768, but I would like to hear from folks who have had experience with this.


1024x768= 786,432 Pixels

1280x720= 921,600 Pixels (lowest resolution for HD)

1366x768= 1,049,088

 

[stripe]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ25 /forum/post/0


I currently own a Panasonic TH-42PX60U, and while the picture is great. I have a major issue with it, its native resolution. Now lets be honest here, HD is described as 1280x720. All 42 inch plasmas have a resolution of 1024x768, folks how can this be HD? The extra 48 pixels cannot compensate for the loss of nearly 300 pixels. While 1024x768 is much better than plain old 480p, it really doesn't reach up to that clarity and sharpness that HD is really capable of. I support both HD DVD and Blu-ray, and own several HD-DVDs. All of them look slightly soft and its definitely the lower resolution of the display. So by upgrading to a 50" Panasonic, will I get the sharpness and pop that I am looking for? I'm guessing yes since it has a resolution of 1366x768, but I would like to hear from folks who have had experience with this.


1024x768= 786,432 Pixels

1280x720= 921,600 Pixels (lowest resolution for HD)

1366x768= 1,049,088

The 50" will give you more pixels, yes, but they will be larger, and less dense than in the 42". The resulting image won't be "sharper" from the same viewing distance. Don't worry about the "loss" of pixels on your 42". Its been proven again and again that most people can't tell the difference between HD shown on an EDTV (480p) plasma vs. a "full" HD plasma, at typical viewing distances (9ft+), on a 42" set.


My experience with this? Well, I own both a panasonic EDTV and a HDTV (both 42"). I have also seen, many times, both the 42" and 50", side by side, on showroom floors. The difference that resolution does is very minimal, at best. Contrast ratio/black levels will make much more of a difference than resolution.


This being said, if your budget, and viewing distance can justify purchasing the 50" panny, then by all means, go ahead and indulge yourself

Just don't do this thinking your getting a much more detailed, hi-rez image, because that is not the case.


Have fun !

 

[julio388]

critical factors in picture quality in order from importance are: contrast level, color saturation, color accuracy , and then finally least relevance is resolution. So you guest it, contrast which gives us fine detail like pure whites and black; sparkle the screen with fine details. The higher the contrast the better the screen is able to bring out the fine details. When shopping for lcd or any flat panel don't let resolution be your primary consideration.

 

[Dufusyte]

Pixel density for various sizes and resolutions:

42" 1024x768 pixels (36.1" x 20.4" screen area)

37.6 pixels per inch, vertical

28.4 pixels per inch, horizontal

1068 pixels per square inch

50" 1365x768 pixels (43.5" x 24.5" screen area)

31.3 pixels per inch, vertical

31.3 pixels per inch, horizontal

980 pixels per square inch

58" 1366x768 pixels (50.7" x 28.5" screen area)

27.0 pixels per inch, vertical

27.0 pixels per inch, horizontal

729 pixels per square inch

61" 1365x768 pixels (53.2" x 29.9" screen area)

25.7 pixels per inch, vertical

25.7 pixels per inch, horizontal

660 pixels per square inch

65" 1366x768 pixels (56.5" x 31.8" screen area)

24.2 pixels per inch, vertical

24.2 pixels per inch, horizontal

586 pixels per square inch


1920x1080 models:

50" 1920x1080 pixels (43.5" x 24.5" screen area)

44.1 pixels per inch, vertical

44.1 pixels per inch, horizontal

1945 pixels per square inch

65" 1920x1080 pixels (56.5" x 31.8" screen area)

34.0 pixels per inch, vertical

34.0 pixels per inch, horizontal

1156 pixels per square inch

 

[SC0TLANDF0REVER]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dufusyte /forum/post/0

Pixel density for various sizes and resolutions:

42" 1024x768 pixels (36.1" x 20.4" screen area)

37.6 pixels per inch, vertical

28.4 pixels per inch, horizontal

1068 pixels per square inch

50" 1365x768 pixels (43.5" x 24.5" screen area)

31.3 pixels per inch, vertical

31.3 pixels per inch, horizontal

980 pixels per square inch

58" 1366x768 pixels (50.7" x 28.5" screen area)

27.0 pixels per inch, vertical

27.0 pixels per inch, horizontal

729 pixels per square inch

61" 1365x768 pixels (53.2" x 29.9" screen area)

25.7 pixels per inch, vertical

25.7 pixels per inch, horizontal

660 pixels per square inch

65" 1366x768 pixels (56.5" x 31.8" screen area)

24.2 pixels per inch, vertical

24.2 pixels per inch, horizontal

586 pixels per square inch


1920x1080 models:

50" 1920x1080 pixels (43.5" x 24.5" screen area)

44.1 pixels per inch, vertical

44.1 pixels per inch, horizontal

1945 pixels per square inch

65" 1920x1080 pixels (56.5" x 31.8" screen area)

34.0 pixels per inch, vertical

34.0 pixels per inch, horizontal

1156 pixels per square inch

I couldn't read your post as I have my msg board theme set to 'Silver' instead of blue/purple.

Your post is near impossible to read when there is white text involved.

 

[Dufusyte]

Right click on page, then "Select All" to highlight all the text.

anybody who does not use the default color scheme is a rotten egg

 

[stripe]

His post confirms exactly what I was saying before. 42" plasmas have higher pixel density than 50", even though they have a lower resolution. Thanks Dufusyte

 

[vermillion]



Quote:
Originally Posted by julio388 /forum/post/0


critical factors in picture quality in order from importance are: contrast level, color saturation, color accuracy , and then finally least relevance is resolution. So you guest it, contrast which gives us fine detail like pure whites and black; sparkle the screen with fine details. The higher the contrast the better the screen is able to bring out the fine details. When shopping for lcd or any flat panel don't let resolution be your primary consideration.

The original post mentions he notices a softness when using HD-DVD. I am looking at switching my Panasonic 42" EDTV as I just got a Toshiba HD-A2 and want to upgrade to HD this year. I hesitated buying the PX60 when I noticed it wasn't 720P. Add to this the fact that Panasonic just announced a new 42" technology at the CES show. Is he imagining the softness problem or is it an issue caused by converting to less than 720P? Will the new Panasonic 42" be out before Christmas and should it have a noticeable difference assuming all other factors you mention are equal or better?

 

[Elemental1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stripe /forum/post/0


His post confirms exactly what I was saying before. 42" plasmas have higher pixel density than 50", even though they have a lower resolution. Thanks Dufusyte

But not horizontally.

 

[Dufusyte]

Vertical resolution seems to be more important than horizontal resolution for human perception. Did you know Widescreen anamorphic DVD's are 4:3 resolution data that gets stretched horizontally ?

 

[Magic(tm)]

Nope the 42" 1080p from Pana was a prototype and from what the panasonic officials at CES said that model will likely come in 2008. (That's what I read I wasn't there myself!)

 

[Elemental1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dufusyte /forum/post/0


Vertical resolution seems to be more important than horizontal resolution for human perception. Did you know Widescreen anamorphic DVD's are 4:3 resolution data that gets stretched horizontally ?

Very true and that's interesting anamorphic info, thanks.

I still prefer the 50" plasma screen even though the pixel density is less overall.

It seems to be a sweet spot.

The 42" really loses a lot of size on 2.35:1 DvD's.

I wonder how many pixels are in actual use between the two on say a 2.35:1 DvD

 

[Lodrin]

I personally noticed the density when I was trying to decide between the 42" and the 50" Pioneer 7th gens.

 

[Lazybones]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 /forum/post/0

Very true and that's interesting anamorphic info, thanks.

I still prefer the 50" plasma screen even though the pixel density is less overall.

It seems to be a sweet spot.

The 42" really loses a lot of size on 2.35:1 DvD's.

I wonder how many pixels are in actual use between the two on say a 2.35:1 DvD

Since they are the same ratio... it should be the same. Simple fact is that on a bigger set the image will be bigger.

 

[Elemental1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazybones /forum/post/0


Since they are the same ratio... it should be the same. Simple fact is that on a bigger set the image will be bigger.

Yes, I understand but was wondering about actual pixel counts.

Shave the inches off the vertical, which cuts the 42" plasma's advantage even further and I can see the 50" being better.

This does not impact the horizontal advantage of the 50" unit.

I guess what I was getting at was when you account for the close pixel density between the two, what happens when you lessen the vertical by watching a 2.35:1 DvD.

I did some math..well...to do that I would need a 42 handy.

 

[LJ25]

Ok so what you guys are saying is that the picture on the 50" will not be as detailed as the 42"?

 

[Lazybones]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ25 /forum/post/0


Ok so what you guys are saying is that the picture on the 50" will not be as detailed as the 42"?

Correct, it is just bigger .

 

[Lazybones]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 /forum/post/0


I guess what I was getting at was when you account for the close pixel density between the two, what happens when you lessen the vertical by watching a 2.35:1 DvD.

Nothing, the pixels per inch does not change. Just like in the numbers above, the images on the higher resolution set are made of MORE pixels but the number of pixels per inch is lower because of the screen size increase. The pixels per inch is a constant and does not change no mater how much of the screen you are filling as they are based on the dimensions of the screen not the image.

 

[Magic(tm)]

Well hard to answer I think. At least the vertical resolution is better on the 50" even if it's not so so important for the eye as the horizontal. But why this 4:3 ratio. I mean why didn't they used a 16:9 ratio?

 

[jadalias]



Quote:
Originally Posted by vermillion /forum/post/0


The original post mentions he notices a softness when using HD-DVD. I am looking at switching my Panasonic 42" EDTV as I just got a Toshiba HD-A2 and want to upgrade to HD this year. I hesitated buying the PX60 when I noticed it wasn't 720P. Add to this the fact that Panasonic just announced a new 42" technology at the CES show. Is he imagining the softness problem or is it an issue caused by converting to less than 720P? Will the new Panasonic 42" be out before Christmas and should it have a noticeable difference assuming all other factors you mention are equal or better?

I have the 42PX60U and the HD-XA1. The picture is sharp, not soft at all (using Batman Begins, Accepted, Tokyo Drift). Furthermore, the colors on HD-DVD are AWESOME!


I am a dedicated videophile, and I have seen a lot of HDTVs and Projectors. I too worried about the resolution when I made my purchase. I have zero regrets now. Baseball Playoffs, Football Playoffs, HD-DVD's, xbox 360-it all rules. You will not be disappointed.


One thing to keep in mind is that with the PX60U, everything is going to get scaled by the tv. Therefore as far as regular DVD's go, you will want to input them at 480p. Get a DVD player with a good deinterlacer, but don't let it scale up to 720p or 1080i, because then you will be scaling twice (480i or 480p->720p->1024x768p) which tends to produce jaggies and a poorer picture than just sending 480 to the tv and letting it scale once (480i or 480p->1024x768p).