[JoshHB]

I live in Europe where we have PAL.

It has higher res. as NTSC and much better colors reproduction.


We are use to a much better PQ as Americans. (not meant in a mean way)


To us are Natural Colors, high Resolution (sharpness) much more important.


anyhow.....this is another tread of Plasma Res.


Panasonic (or Panny) , and others 42" like Philips, Pioneer, NEC and co. have a resolution of 852 x 480 and Sony on the other 1024 x 1024


THIS IS NOT A ELECTRONIC (SWITCHES) RESOLUTION - THIS IS A NATIVE !!!! RESOLUTION !!!!


What does it mean?


852 x 480 means this plasma have 852 Picture elements horizontally and 480 vertically.


Each picture element have three colors (red-green-blue)


an 852x480 have 408.960 pixels and

1024x1024 Sony have 1.048.576 pixels (or Picture elements)


that means that pixel size in sony plasmas is much smaller (double that much) than panny and co.


My Comp. Monitor is a 19" and pixel size is 0,25. No matter witch resolution I choose 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1152x864 it is a always much sharper picture than a Monitor that have a pixel size of 0,28 or 0,30 (like most LCD)


In a PAL Res. Plasma can show about 525 Lines (DVD about 480-500 lines)


And of top of all - it is BETTER TO LOOK 525 LINES THROUGH 1048576 (OVER ONE MILLION) PIXELS THAN ONLY !!! 408960 (ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED) PIXELS.


What some users here (like oferlaor f.ex.) is trying to tell you is an absolute nonsense.


They only try to explain why Pannasonic have a same Price as Sony and it not worth it!


PS I wouldn't´ say no to Panasonic but I would be an Idiot to buy it for more that 3,500 -4000 $ as such low end Plasma worth are.


Have a nice Day Joshy

 

[MarkTaylor]

Way to make an entrance


One thing I have found that differentiates these boards from so many others is that although there is lively debate people do not generally 'flame' each other.


It isn't very polite to open with a first post and refer to long term members as talking nonsense.


Still leaving that aside, you may want to take a look here :

http://www.*******************.com/p...explained.html


The 1024x1024 glass made by Fujitsu and used by Sony is not quite as far ahead of the others as the maths may suggest since it does not use all 1024 lines active in the same frame. It is a great piece of glass, no question, but not as far ahead as it would at first appear.


As to Euro's being used to better picture quality than the USA, I guess that debate has been decisively ended with HD TV. What ever we've been used to in the past in Europe, it will not stand up to the new HD signals.


Mark

 

[JoshHB]

Nothing change in my view after I read the article. (I read it also before)


But as I already said:


"They only try to explain why Pannasonic have a same Price as Sony and it not worth it! "


Can 852x480 show a 1600*1200 Comp. Resolution?

and wenn how it looks like?

 

[MarkTaylor]

Ultimately it is always an individual choice and you must buy the screen that suits your needs best.


If you prefer the Sony then that is the best choice for you.


Others who have viewed these screens prefer the Panasonic and have voted with their wallets.


I doubt we'll ever get universal agreement on a single plasma screen as being the best in all circumstances.


If I needed a 1600x1200 display I wouldn't be using a plasma, but that is my choice.


Enjoy what you have bought, and support the aims of this forum by reporting back on your experiences by all means, but threads that just seek to say 'plasma x is better than plasma y!' don't tend to lead anywhere.


Mark

 

[JoshHB]

I´m, not speeking hier about buying sony!

I only spoke about resolution.


"viewed these screens prefer the Panasonic and have voted with their wallets" ist absolutly a lie!


Most people here ask about expiriences with plasmas. So....that mean they didn´t see it, or have they?


After DVD comes BlueRay with much higher resolution.


To buy a 852 x 480 in this time is a pure waste of money!


I had a opportunity to see the both Monitors one by another with a same dvd source.

That how I know that what you saying its absolutly a pure nonsense.


Contarst Ratio 3000:1 - did anybody said that in this moment (May 2002) there is no equipment in this world that can proof that?

 

[MarkTaylor]

I'll not be posting in this thread again.


You really need to moderate your tone and manner, this isn't the kind of board where flame wars are the normal state of affairs.


Mark

 

[Esben]

JoshHB, better start behaving!


You're so fixated on resolutions that you cannot accept other factors. I don't see what it is you want from this discussion? If Mark tries to comment and tell you something you just say he's all wrong and a liar.


Resolution is not everything. It does matter, but when viewing a plasma screen you don't sit 40 cm from your monitor like with a computer monitor and therefore resolution is not as important as you may like.

What's more important is color reproduction, black levels, contrast etc. but res. is not the overgod.


If you went to a store and saw the Sony screen next to a Panasonic screen you'd discover the same thing.

Quote:

My Comp. Monitor is a 19" and pixel size is 0,25. No matter witch resolution I choose 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1152x864 it is a always much sharper picture than a Monitor that have a pixel size of 0,28 or 0,30 (like most LCD)

That, I cannot agree. Put your monitor up next to a TFT-panel. You could do this with a laptop, as it would serve the same purpose. It's very obvious the TFT-panel is much sharper since each pixel has a fixed size instead of on the CRT-screen where a ray beams the pixels on the screen.


Pixel size does make a difference in sharpness on CRT-screens, but on TFT-panels, plasmas etc. it only makes the pixels larger, not less sharp.

 

[JoshHB]

Hi Esben...


You are realy the first one who can say that LCD is sharper than CRT...


Thats why all the Profess. use LCD screens. And I mean those who realy depend on PQ and its sharpnes and color production...


There ist no a single Compt. Review that can verify your view!


Yes, I can compare LCD and CRT Monitors. In my office we use LCD. They don´t need to much space on table and they are very good for Text only use.

 

[JoshHB]

Great Idea Esben.


If the pixel size doesn't´t matter lets make a 1 (one) Pixel Plasma monitor

and bury this discussion forever!

 

[Laurence]

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkTaylor I'll not be posting in this thread again. You really need to moderate your tone and manner, this isn't the kind of board where flame wars are the normal state of affairs. Mark

Yes. Let's keep it cordial, Joshy.


Maybe a bit too much coffee this morning?

 

[JoshHB]

Of course I´m angry.


Replays that I get here are absolutely without any logic. (tread from Esben).


On the other side treads from MarkTaylor have logic. Och yes, he said...resolution doesn't't matter and gives me (and others who can read this tread) a link: http://www.*******************.com/p...explained.html


This is a commercial Site!


A Site that "looks" like a real review site, looks very serious and for a newbies here is a opinion that they made a crucial one.


Please look at this link:
http://www.*******************.com/wheretobuy.html


See? Now who is the Official Sponsor of that site?


----"Och, you know...we ordered so many of Panny Plasmas...and ....you know...can you please give me some Suppot"-----


Dear Lawrence should I remind you:


"You may not use the AVS Forum to either advertise or promote commercial endeavors without permission from an AVS Administrator. This includes direct posts, as well as, active links to other sites on the Internet. Direct all such requests via e-mail to an AVS Board Administrator."


They get money from each plasma they sell (sponsoring)


Greetings Joshy

 

[Laurence]

Joshy,


Right or wrong about your anger, your combative, obnoxious way of posting will ultimately get you booted. Second warning.


Laurence

 

[Esben]

Quote:

Originally posted by JoshHB Hi Esben... You are realy the first one who can say that LCD is sharper than CRT... Thats why all the Profess. use LCD screens. And I mean those who realy depend on PQ and its sharpnes and color production... There ist no a single Compt. Review that can verify your view! Yes, I can compare LCD and CRT Monitors. In my office we use LCD. They don´t need to much space on table and they are very good for Text only use.

It depends on what you'd call a "professional".


They could use a Sony FW900, 24" widescreen monitor with a 2304x1440 resolution. Thus you'd be able to view much detail at the sime time as having lots of area visible at the same time, thus making work easier and more efficient.


Or the could use a very expensive 20" screen calibrated for extremely exact color reproduction.


For medical imaging your best monitor would be one of the newer IBM TFT panels running very high resolution.


For the profesionals color reproduction matters most they buy the very expensive monitors calibrated for the right color reproduction.


For layout professionals you buy a Sony FW900 because you can view 2 A4 pages side by side with detail to show the pages while still being able to read what's on them.

Could you not use a TFT-panel instead? Yes you could, but at which resolution? Running 2304x1440 vs. running 1280x1024 or even 1600x1200. The numbers count for these people since they can't read the text at low resolutions.

Economics also count, so they choose a Sony CRT-widescreen monitor instead of a very expensive TFT-panel.

They don't want to pay $6000 for ONE screen (running 2048x1536)


CRT's can be sharp, sharper but not sharpest. On a TFT-panel you can be sharpest, sharpest or sharpest.


A certain resolution e.g. 1024x768 tells you that there's 1024 pixels horizontally and 768 vertical.


On a 1024x768 TFT-panel there's the exact same number of physical transistors (actually there's 3, 1 for each color, which ClearType takes advantage of). With the same number of transistors to the number of pixels you have to show you'll have 1 TFT-pixel for each pixels you need to show.


The TFT-pixel is physically one pixel and will because of that not have any blurry edges or anything. It will show the pixel and that's it. No color blead or anything.


With a CRT-screen you don't have the same correspondance. There's a beam which tries to show a pixel as sharp as possible. The square is close to a 100 % accurate square, but it will never be 100 %. It will be close, but never as close as the TFT-panel.

Quote:

Originally posted by JoshHB Great Idea Esben. If the pixel size doesn't´t matter lets make a 1 (one) Pixel Plasma monitor and bury this discussion forever!

Please don't get arrogant! http://www.mopedgallery.dk/cgi-bin/mad.gif


Pixel size does matter. A larger pixel will be larger and since it's larger it will be more blocky. But it will not decrease it's sharpness as it's absolute.

 

[zhe zhang]

Look at the words we are using:

Quote:

What some users here (like oferlaor f.ex.) is trying to tell you is an absolute nonsense. but I would be an Idiot to buy it for more .... ...... ist absolutly a lie! what you saying its absolutly a pure nonsense absolutely without any logic.

 

[JoshHB]

"Pixel size does matter. A larger pixel will be larger and since it's larger it will be more blocky. But it will not decrease it's sharpness as it's absolute."


Now I understand what you meant....


You speak about that ONE pixel. Yes you are right no matter how big it is - it will always be sharp.


But we (I mean I did) speak about resolution - not in a relation of a singe Pixel but of a screen it self.


Please answer me these questions:


1.How many Pixels on a 852 x 480 Plasma needed for a 1600x1200 resolution to be shown?


2. How many Pixel on a 1024x1024 Plasma needed for a 1600x1200 resolution to be shown?


Hope you can answer those question.


Joshy

 

[rogo]

All I know is that the Sony plasma in question is just over 500K pixels, not 1 million. The Panasonic is over 400K pixels. The 20% greater "resolution" of the Sony translates into vastly inferior picture quality. I'm sure that's true on PAL as it is on NTSC.


Mark

 

[JoshHB]

dear rogo:


1024 x 1024 = 1.048.576

852 x 480 = 408.960


Amount of over 1 mio Picture Elements (each containing 3 colors) is right!

Sony writes: 3.145.728 (1.048.576 x 3) and it has 10bit RGB Video Driver

Can show Compt. resolution till 1600x1200 (60Hz) and 1280x1024 with 85Hz


And also every possible Video Signal (pal/secam/ntsc and 1080i

1024 x 1024 pixels

Pixel pitch 0.90 x 0.51 mm

Active area (W/H) 921 x 522 mm

Viewable picture area 42-inch/1,058 mm (measured diagonally)

Driver 10-bit RGB

Colours 16.8 million colours simultaneously

Type AC-type Plasma Display Panel

with anti-reflection screen

Colour system** PAL/NTSC/SECAM/NTSC4.43 /PAL-M/PAL 60

Sampling rate 13.5 to 140 MHz

Input/Output

NTSC 60Hz 483 lines

PAL 50Hz 575 lines

SECAM 50Hz 575 lines

NTSC4.43 60Hz 483 lines

PAL60 60Hz 483 lines

1080/24PsF 24 Hz 1080 lines

1080/50I 50Hz 1080 lines

575/50P 50Hz 575 lines

480/60P 60Hz 483 lines

1080/60I 60 Hz 1080 lines

720/60P 60Hz 720 lines


Have Fun Joshy

 

[CINERAMAX]

"We are use to a much better PQ as Americans. (not meant in a mean way)"


Nicht Korrect!


Haven't you heard about HDTV? America is the picture quality Global Power.


Even though Sony uses Fujitsus higher res Glass, they do not incorporate the required AVM Video Procezor that Fujitsu implements.


Therefore the Sony is schleckt!


Maybe the Fujitsu is better at this resolution. Still 42" is a bit Klein.

 

[JoshHB]

NTSC was the first Color System.


Pal and SECAM followed. The biggest difference between NTSC and the other systems is that in Color reproduction.


HDTV is not a common system in USA. Only the very few exquisite people can afford it. The rest of about 99.99% can not.


see here:
http://www.divx.com/support/guides/guide.php?gid=10

 

[JoshHB]

How many people in USA have HDTV? -Realy?