[Tigerriot]

I saw someone talk about this in another post but I was hoping for a direct answer to this question. With the new 42" Panny HD model and it's 1024 X 768 resolution does that cause any distortion on the picture because of it's rectangular pixels?


This person also said that square pixels were perfect and thus more desirable.



What's this all about and does it matter? Thanks.

 

[rogo]

No. Unless you are running a Windows desktop, it generally makes no difference.


Video sources don't care. The internal scaler of the TV is well aware of the pixel shape.

 

[vegetable420]

Tigerriot, I might have been the person you saw discussing this earlier. Sorry if that's the case


Anyway, as far as I know rectangular pixels don't really create an distortion issue until you get to the point where you're trying to match pixel-for-pixel. For example when a 42" HD plasma (1024x768 or 1024x1024) renders an HD signal it converts the square pixels to rectangles and everything looks fine. It you use a plasma for a computer monitor though you really want the display to have square pixels so small fonts and icons don't get smudged when converted to rectangles. This is more pronounced when display a computer image simply because there is a lont of 1-2 pixel wide lines (characters, window borders, etc).


I'm not aware of any 42" plasmas that have true square pixels and I've heard plenty pf people sing the virtues of 50" plasma because they do have square pixels. Truthfully 50" plasmas are better - they have more pixels, can be more easily used as a computer display, and are (of course) bigger. Unfortunately they are too expensive and too big for some of us. I bought a 42" Panny HD plasma and the non-square pixels don't bother me. I displays HD, SD, and videogames great. I haven't and probably won't hook up a PC to it because I personally have no reason to.


I hope I helped a little.

 

[vegetable420]

wow, perhaps once i reach the 15k club I'll be as concise as rogo


It took me 2 paragraphs to explain what he did in about 30 words.

 

[stormsweeper]

NTSC "pixels" are already rectangular, but in a different direction. 4:3 NTSC video has a purported resolution of 720x480, but a square pixel display will only be devoting 640 to the horizontal dimension. This doesn't really matter for video, though, for the same reason 60fps isn't painful in video, but is for a computer display.

 

[rogo]

Vegetable: Some of my posts use way too many words. So don't worry about it.

 

[Tigerriot]

Thanks for the explanations guys.



I'm getting my second Sony XBR950 LCD Projection delivered today. If it has any problems, i've already discussed it with my salesman and i'm getting a Plasma and thats that. So, i'm just trying to complete my purchase research in case I have to pull the trigger quickly.


I'm still debating over the Sony 42-XS910 and the new Panny 42" PX25U.



I'm attracted to the Sony for it's ALiS design and it's ability to handle fast motion quite well. I'm attracted to the Panny for it's superior black levels and cable card/HDMI features. I just wish the Panny had a DVI input as I just got a Comcast cable box and I can use the DVI on the Sony.


Hopefully the tv I get tonight is just perfect and I don't even have to make that decision.

 

[Clepto]

The Panny has HDMI... I'd rather have that than DVI anyway, and you can get DVI -> HDMI cables...

 

[Felgar]

I'll step up as one of the ones that has been saying square pixels are better, and extolling 50" units for that reason. Veg covered the topic well though and I agree with everything he said. Of course, all 42" ED plasmas have square pixels, though they're not great for PC use anyways because of the low resolution.


I've really got to spend some time with the new Alis displays so that I can substantiate my opinions again with new info. But I would lean away from Alis, not toward it. Since when did an interlaced panel have the abilty to handle motion well? That's exactly it's drawback, in my opinion. For DVD viewing esspecially (arguably the majority of critical viewing until there's a lot more HD content) you lose all the advantages/capability of progressive scan which is really the solution for good motion.


For HD I do have to admit that we're being shown quite convincingly that 720p broadcasts don't live up to their 1080i counterparts - this is both perpexing and disappointing because I was really looking forward to the day when we had high resolution motion-artifact-free sports broadcasts.


I guess the point is that *if* the vast majority of your viewing is 1080i HD then an Alis makes sense, otherwise I'd really lean away from Alis. My $0.02.