AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Using a plasma with a aspect with a 16:9 ratio, is it possible to set up windows in wide screen format with a native pixel ratio of 1024x768?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
Yes simply run XGA but you will have a short and fat desktop and associated applications which do not have aspect ratio control... For a pure Media machine this is not much of an issue but for web work / image work / other things it may be...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
You are asking two different things: you want an aspect ratio of 16:9, but you also want a resolution of 1024x768. The problem is that 1024x768 is 4:3, not 16:9. If you want square pixels (proper aspect ratio), then you have two choices: either run 1366x768 which is a 16:9 ratio, or run 1024x768 with black bars on the sides.


If make the 1024x768 fit into only a portion of the screen horizontally, this way it will appear at a 4:3 ratio but you will be wasting a lot of your screen area. In addition, if you use this mode a lot, the phosphors in the center area of the screen (covered by the 1024x768) will wear more than the ones at the sides, where the image is black. This burn-in is very common amoung widescreen CRT owners, and your plasma screen is certainly not immune to it. Yes, plasma screens do in fact use phosphors as the fundamental method of generating light. They use a plasma discharge in a small cell (per pixel) to excite the phosphor, instead of a beam of electrons as in a CRT.


To do this, set up a custom resolution at 1366x768 in powerstrip (some video cards and/or drivers have this res already available). Now, click 'lock total geometry', and adjust the horizontal size to 1024. You will notice that the front and back porch values will be unusually high; this is normal, since the 'porch' is the blank area before/after the picture, which is large in your case.


Instead of using powerstrip, you could run 1024x768, and go find the geometry adjustments somewhere in the advanced section of your display properties (different for each manafacturer or driver provider). Use these to adjust the horizontal size of the image down until it looks like you want it. The video card drivers accomplishes these adjustments by adjusting the 'porch' values on output. Depending on the video card or drivers, you may not get enough adjustment out of this control to achieve a 4:3 ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Quote:
Originally posted by macboy
You are asking two different things: you want an aspect ratio of 16:9, but you also want a resolution of 1024x768. The problem is that 1024x768 is 4:3, not 16:9. If you want square pixels (proper aspect ratio), then you have two choices: either run 1366x768 which is a 16:9 ratio, or run 1024x768 with black bars on the sides.
Yes this is the problem, windows needs a widescreen mode 16:9 that can be displayed in a resolution of 1024x768 rectangular shape pixels or even better would have been a plasma with a native res of 1280x720, good for 720p.


1024x768 in 4:3 aspect will be compressed vertically, flat icons and pics and video will be out of aspect. Can input 1360x768 (near 16:9) but scaling will degrade PQ and 60Hz input will require pull-down of a 50Hz tv broadcast. Not so good for a AUD$10k screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
But what is the issue with having compressed pixels ?? I run an anamorphic lens on a 4:3 projector to output a 16:9 image (pretty much the same as you)...


Almost any media application worth the name has aspect ratio control... Use dScaler for TV (if you dont simply use the plasmas inputs).. Use Zoom Player or TheaterTek for DVD... Use Media Centre for image browsing... Use MainLobby for scaled menu systems...


For HTPC purposes this is a non issue... For web browsing and regular PC use how important is the squeeze problem... For me it does not bother me as my HTPC setup is for media only...


BTW I can see no merit in using the 1366x768 advice above as it will be scaling the signal if it even accepts it... I could see using 1280x720p if you need the square pixel input (images looking right for non aspect ratio aware applications) but I find the fuzzy pixels that scaling text gives a strain on my eyes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
icons, text. dont think dscaler worts with my dvb-t card. Would be nice to be able to get things right for that price. you can display your pics in correct ratio while in 16:9?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
Lock total geometry then set the vertical pixels to 576, this will maintain the timings for 1024x768 but give you a 16x9 letterbox desktop of 1024x576.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
oooh !


i'm very interested in getting the panasonic th-42phd6uy which has a native resolution of 1024x768 - i want primarily as a HTPC monitor but am very worried about getting a native resolution that would work happily with my setup. Can someone tell me if they have much success with this 1024x576 setup ? Is text crisp and sharp ?


Thanks !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
Wayne... If he has a 16:9 device that uses 1024x768 with non square pixels, if he uses a 1025x576 he will have a 2.35:1 ratio desktop letterboxed inside his 16:9 screen... Not desirable and possible burn in issues with plasma...


I know many of the DVB softwares have some AR control... As I dont use DVB yet I dont know which ones... Photo images etc can use anamorphisized by Media Centre... As to text and icons... For me thats a non issue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
deleted double post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
I don't think there's a way to avoid the plasma's scaler in this case.


With a plasma having non-square pixels, you should just feed it a widescreen ATSC signal like 720p or 1080i and let it (plasma) scale it back to 1024x768. This should work for your desktop and overlay (TT, etc).


You can't get pixel perfection with these kinds of devices that are 16:9 and have resolutions of 1024x1024 or 1024x768.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Phat Phreddy
Wayne... If he has a 16:9 device that uses 1024x768 with non square pixels, if he uses a 1025x576 he will have a 2.35:1 ratio desktop letterboxed inside his 16:9 screen... Not desirable and possible burn in issues with plasma...
True. At 1024x576, the desktop will still appear stretched horizontally because of the non-square pixels. But, to put it another way, it will look compressed vertically. That may be just fine if the display can apply a vertical stretch such that the ratio goes from 2.35:1 to 16:9 and fills the entire screen (removes the letterboxing).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
Personally I just dont see the issue... Send the device 1024x768... have the desirable 1:1 implications of HTPC use and bypass the scaler... Use media software that has aspect ratio control...


Gaming in compressed mode looks bearable to me (better than pillarboxing)... Web browsing is no hassle... Icons, so what ?? The only hassle perhaps are web based images that dont get uncompressed... Try simply using it with the 25% compression and see what bothers you, for me its not been an issue.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top