1 - 20 of 57 Posts

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
This is a little confusing. On the one hand this set reportedly has a resolution of 1024 * 768 (in Cnet reviews and others). Simple math shows us this is a 4:3 resolution. Yet in every photo it seems to be a 16:9 set.

So which is it? Is this a 4:3 set or a 16:9 set?

Regards,

Aris

RandyWalters

·
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
It's definitely a widescreen 16:9 TV. I think the pixels are rectangular.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
IE That would essentially be a forced picture stretch. Very unnatural.

It's physical aspect ratio (40 inches * 26.6 inches) = 1.50.

RandyWalters

·
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
All modern Plasma TVs are16:9, which translates to a 1.78:1 screen ratio - regardless of the number and/or shape of the pixels. Nothing is being stretched.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio

1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

JSpectre88

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1  /t/1463804/samsung-pn43e450-wide-screen-or-not#post_23092610

1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio

1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

Isn't your analysis going by a square pixel? If it's rectangular then it can cover more surface area.

budwich

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1  /t/1463804/samsung-pn43e450-wide-screen-or-not#post_23092610

1920 x 1080 Resolution is 16:9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. 1920 / 1080 = 1.78

To obtain the same aspect ration with 720 lines of resolution requires 1366 * 768, not 1024 * 768.

1024 / 768 = 1.3333 or 4:3 aspect ratio

1366 / 768 = 1.78, this is 16:9

I think you are right... something fishy. Perhaps the "spec sheet" is wrong.... you know how good some manufacturers are... these guys probably outsourced their web page to some low paid north american spec writers... IF not, as the screen is a 16:9 aspect, that would mean that a "degree" of processing is going on to actually "compress" (ie. scale) a 720p signal to allow it to "stretch" logically back out on the display.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
You are right, others have told me the pixels are rectangles. It may be touted as widescreen, but not specifically touted as 16:9.

The easiest way there is to find out if they messed with people is to display a JPEG of a circle or a perfect square. If you see an oval or a rectangle then you know, but I tkink they only stretched it a little, so many may not notice. It's a convenient way to hold costs down, but I don't agree with it. The real mystery is why you don't read about this in professional reviews.

Thanks for the info, it made it easy to rule out this unit.

Aris

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Rectangles would also further exaggerate the staircase effect of diagonal lines. Only company profits end up in better shape making rectangles.

budwich

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
probably. I think what some people were trying to point out was that the TV's display aspect ratio was indeed widescreen (ie. "16:9" physical measurement) based kind of your title question... perhaps it would have been better to pose "is it really only a 1024X768 resolution screen?". But as you have "investigated", you do have to read thru specs carefully as some manufacturers are playing games with resolutions.

sonyfan

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
IMO, with the 43" E450 it's essential to turn the Sharpness down to 0.

It only adds artifacts including the staircase effect of diagonal lines.

Plus a tech who works for Samsung posted last year said the same thing

adding the 'cell light' is a holdover from the LCD line and should be set to it's max.

He went as far to call the 'cell light' bogus.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·

Quote:
perhaps it would have been better to pose "is it really only a 1024X768 resolution screen?
It is, per manufacturers website, that must be right, they don't error on the low side, only on the high side.

Sharpness - Even with CRTs "sharpness" is an add-on circuit to embellish what's there, So it's no surprise that a display that has good detail inherent in its design will only suffer from added sharpness.

It reminds me of spices, add some only to bland food, and only in small quantities less you ruin it.

budwich

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
that was why I "jested" that they outsourced their web page to some "cheap north american spec writers".... it could be an error. There are plenty of errors out there. I have a samsung tablet (tab2 7) that samsung indicates everywhere (including their support group) that it connects to video devices via hdmi (plus something else)... it can't as it doesn't even output video via the particular output port provided.... probably a class action law suit but that another issue. Anyways, very observant owners of this set would be able to see whether the set a given native resolution..... hopefully, maybe.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
The Samsung owner's manual is not clear. Panny's 720p set is also 1024 * 768.

whipit

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
Both the sammy and panny are 16:9 ratio wide screen with the same 4:3 resolution. This leads to stairstepping and screen door effect, the latter being the bigger offender.

Here's a webpage from panasonic that stated a 16:9 res in the specs, it's an older tv but you get the idea.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-42PX34?t=specs

RandyWalters

·
Joined
·
18,322 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristide1  /t/1463804/samsung-pn43e450-wide-screen-or-not#post_23094936

You are right, others have told me the pixels are rectangles. It may be touted as widescreen, but not specifically touted as 16:9.

The easiest way there is to find out if they messed with people is to display a JPEG of a circle or a perfect square. If you see an oval or a rectangle then you know, but I tkink they only stretched it a little, so many may not notice. It's a convenient way to hold costs down, but I don't agree with it. The real mystery is why you don't read about this in professional reviews.

I don't understand why you think that these "720p" TVs (which are actually 768p) will stretch the image, but they do not. That's why you don't see it in reviews - because it is not happening. Nothing is being automatically stretched.

If you send this TV a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p signal, put the TV's aspect setting to FULL, and display a circle or square you'll see a perfect circle or a perfect square. They will not be stretched - they will appear in their original aspect.

Steve S

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,307 Posts
^^^All one has to do is get out from behind the keyboard and go to any store that sells these sets and look for one's self--they have 16/9 screens with no geometric distortion.

dabsac

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I have one of these and I can assure you there is no stretching what so ever with the picture. The picture is actually very good on this tv and better than the Phillips 1080p LCD it replaced in my bedroom.

Aristide1

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·

Quote:
If you send this TV a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p signal, put the TV's aspect setting to FULL, and display a circle or square you'll see a perfect circle or a perfect square. They will not be stretched - they will appear in their original aspect.

The only way that can happen is if the picture itself is cropped on the ends. I don't buy widescreen TVs for this purpose.

1 - 20 of 57 Posts