1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

32" LCDs: Why 1366x728

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs' started by benwong, May 25, 2005.

  1. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Another one guys.

    This issue has been brought up before, but I can't recall reading a definitive answer.

    Why do all new 32" LCD screens have the native resolution of 1366x768, when 720P is 1280x720??! I realise you'll get a slightly higher res picture when connecting to a PC, but surely these screens are aimed more at the 720P standard sources? :confused:

    The 1366x768 screens are already struggling with SD broadcasts of present due to scaling issues, but then, wouldn't there will be scaling issues when HD broadcasts become a common thing too? :rolleyes:

    Wouldn't a 1280x720 screen fair better for this purpose?

    Another point is; why 1366x768? It's not a resolution used in computing (to my knowledge) and it certainly doesn't conform to the HD standard resolutions..

    Makes me wander.. should I really spend cash on a screen that will never (in the foreseeable future) be used at native res when used as a TV? :rolleyes:

    Ben
     
  2. ianh64

    ianh64
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,233
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    SW London/Surrey borders
    Ratings:
    +63
    Its actually 1366x768 and is basically 16:9 wide screen of the 4:3 1024x768 XGA format, hence W-XGA. Nothing more sinister than a hangover from PC use, its just that PC's have problems with this resolution too!

    -Ian
     
  3. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ah, I see.. sorry, have edited the above post accordingly... but that doesn't solve the fact that 720P's going to be 1280x720.. there's going to some sort of scaling going on there which usually means reduced PQ...

    Just seems like a funny resolution for manufacterers to make their screens at, that's all..

    Ben
     
  4. Xelon

    Xelon
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +53
    So 720p will actually be displayed natively in 15:9 format?

    So I summize if you are going to watch lots of HDTV (720p) or view WMV-HD 9 (720p) Films via a HTPC, then 15:9 panels would be the way to go, on the other hand if you view mainly standard Widescreen DVD's then 16:9 would be more appropriate.

    Maybe I'm completely wrong, but thats the way it seems to me currently.
     
  5. jimsan

    jimsan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,610
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    Dumfries, SW Scotland.
    Ratings:
    +9
    You are completely wrong. 1280x720 is 16:9, (1280 x 768 is 15:9) but just a more logical resolution for TV use.

    I've griped about this before too, and it does seem like a pretty silly situation. I had mentioned before, that what we really need is 768p broadcasts!That would do nicely....

    Jimmy
     
  6. mickbarlow

    mickbarlow
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    just to throw a another spanner in the works, my dad AE700 projector detects a 720p input from a pc as 750p @ 60hz???
     
  7. ianh64

    ianh64
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,233
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    SW London/Surrey borders
    Ratings:
    +63
    That would be including the blank lines. Quite a few manufacturers display inputs that include the non visible portion of the picture - ie 625 instead of 576. Its the same thing.

    It really does confuse some people including manufacturers. My DVD manufacturer still is adament that 1366x768 is the same as 1280x720, its just that the 768 lines includes the blank lines and overscan which is not the case.

    -Ian
     
  8. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly.

    So theoretically, a 1280x720 screen will be better for HD broadcasts, and other HD sources (future games consoles, and HD DVD players).

    And 1366x768 screens are good for.... any suggestions guys? :rolleyes:

    Ben
     
  9. leeb

    leeb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    880
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Melton Mowbray
    Ratings:
    +52
    Marketing purposes! Higher resolution, so it's gotta be better right? ;)
     
  10. barongreenback

    barongreenback
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +60
    On that subject I have to say full marks to Samsung for having the common sense to put a 768p upscaling mode on their DVD players - wish others would do the same.
     
  11. ianh64

    ianh64
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,233
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    SW London/Surrey borders
    Ratings:
    +63
    I think its a compromise on price. It was probably cheaper and easier to stretch a 1024x768 panel to 1366x768 and write a decent scaling algorithm than to build a 1280x720 panel from scratch that would still need a to scale 480, 576 and 1080 lines. A decently scaled image from 720p to 768p is not perfect, but it can be done well enough for most people to not to notice the difference.

    -Ian
     
  12. YellowCows

    YellowCows
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    141
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    No No,

    These resolutions are extensions to the VESA (i.e. PC display standards - e.g VGA (600X480), SVGA (800X600), XGA (1024X768) etc.) standard as these screens (Plasma & LCD) were originally intended for the PC market - then filtered through to the consumer market.

    As for why LCD screens have such similar resolutions, simple - there are only a handful of panel manufacturers who produce the LCD panels used by all these manufacturers - LG/Philips (who supply their parent companies and some others, such as Apple and Dell), Samsung (who supply Sony), Sharp (who supply Panasonic, Loewe, Toshiba & JVC among others) etc. All these panels are similar because they all come from standardised volume production facilities.

    As for what 1366X768 is good for when the broadcasting standard is 1280X720, it actually is higher in resolution - so a 720p signal would have to be scaled up on a 768p display. Where this might be problematic is if the display's internal scaler is inferior, it might introduce noise, emphasise artefacts or soften the picture, reducing the perceived resolution. A quality scaler would ensure this does not happen, however, and in the end you would not be losing any picture information. The combination of a properly calibrated 768p display fed 720p with a digital signal at native rate from a good scaler can easily equal or beat the performance from a similar setup with a 1280X720 screen. Further, when scaling down, say from a 1080i (or p) signal, the higher resolution of the 768p screen would ensure a sharper picture, due to better pixel mapping, than could be achieved with a similar quality 720p screen.

    HTH

    Moory :)
     
  13. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I see.. but surely most of these manufacturers have cottoned on to the fact that the majority of these screens are now used for home tv sets? I don't see how a 32" tv set with a resolution of 1366x768 is at all useful as a main PC screen. The resolution is just too low for such a large area (unless you're sitting about 6+ foot away, about the same distance as most sofas are from home tv sets?).

    This also begs the question; if their originally meant for PC use, why do so many have such poor support for running the screen via DVI or DSUB at native resolutions? :confused:

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's possible. :nono:

    I don't see ANY hi res LCD screens (including the 9986) 'beat' the performance of a top of the range CRT with a SD input. Why? Because the CRT is running at native resolution.

    The 1366x768 screen cannot possibly show a better image than a 1280x720 screen when fed a 720P signal, due to the fact that it's not displaying each pixel as it should be displayed. The 1280x720 screen is showing all the information the signal has, at 1:1 pixel mapping, whereas the 1366x768 screen will be using something like 1.07 pixels to show 1 pixel information from the feed.

    There's no denying that a good scaler can produce performance that comes close to a good screen running at native res, but I don't see how it can 'beat' the performance.

    Am I missing something here?

    Ben
    (P.S. apologies if this post sounds at all aggressive Moory, my aggression is actually aimed towards the LCD manufacturers) :smashin:
     
  14. ianh64

    ianh64
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,233
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    SW London/Surrey borders
    Ratings:
    +63
    I totally agree with you there. I run 1600x1024 on a 17" monitor and its a bit small for my liking, a few more inches would probably do it so the wife said. But when I tried my 32" display at 1366x768 it was so weird. I had no extra vertical resolution than my 14" laptop and little extra in the horizontal plane yet I had to sit so far back it was uncomfortable.

    The physical panel design was an extension of PC technology, but the electronics and the rest is very different. The lack of support for DVI and D-Sub is mostly as a result of the internals being for video rather than PC use.


    LCD's and plasmas are fixed pitch devices, CRT are not. So there is no 'native' resolution for a CRT as such. Apart from the size of the mask and size of the phosphors which have no bearing on the available resolutions, a CRT is equally happy at whatever resolution it will accept.

    Agreed. At the very least a scaled image will be less sharp, but with some input, this may not be a bad thing.

    I think we are paying the price for having more affordable screens in the first place. In a world where joe public is happy with compressed music, I suspect the manufacturers thought it was the same with video.

    -Ian
     
  15. msg

    msg
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Darlington
    Ratings:
    +14
    How does one determine the quality of an LCD TV's scaler before purchase? Any giveaways in the specs?

    Any obvious differences between manufacturers or is it down to particular models?

    Currently considering the Samsung LExxR41BD (or at a push, the Panasonic TXxxLX500). Any comments on these LCD's?
     
  16. simontoghill

    simontoghill
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have a Sharp LC26GA4 with 1366*768 resolution and when using 720p in AV mode there is some overscan. So surely 720p into a 1280*720 display would either have no overscan, and map 1 to 1, or have overscan and still have to scale.

    would not having an overscan a problem or an advantage?
     
  17. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Agreed. My point is, since the main use of these screens is NO LONGER for PC use, why use 1366x768 as a native resolution? Surely the panel factories know this by now?! :confused:

    Plus, why are the set manufacturers continuing to buy and use these screens from the factories when they know full well the end product is going to be used for mainly video inputs?

    Sorry mate, what I was supposed to say was 'because the SD signal is being displayed at native resolution' and therefore no scaling is needed. :)

    Ben
     
  18. matt_p

    matt_p
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    845
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +38
    Crickey, does it really matter?

    I have been watching some 720p files on my terribly terribly 1366x768 32ld7200, and do you know what? The picture is awesome.

    I'm honestly not bothered that there is some scaling going on. I sure as hell can't see any signs of artifacts or other such horribleness. No-one has perfect vision. Once you're settled on your sofa watching a movie, are you really going to be sat there thinking "Goddamn resolution scaling! You're ruining my picture!"? Of course not.

    I bought my tv to watch some great quality images, and that's what it provides. If I wanted to sit and count loads of tiny dots, I'd buy an ant farm.
     
  19. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Matt,

    the point is, some of us are shelling out £1000+ of our hard earned cash to buy a piece of kit that will never be used to it's full potential due to the fact that it will never receive it's 'optimum' feed on normal video sources.

    I don't know about you, but for the amount of money I'm planning to spend on an LCD screen, I want to make pretty damn sure it's gonna be the best.

    My worries are that LCDs have a well know issue with displaying feeds that are not of it's native resolution. It's well documented that all large hi res LCD screens struggle to deal with SD feeds as well as CRTs. Even though the 720P feed is near the resolution of these screens, it's not the same and I'm worried this will show when a 1280x720 screen is compared directly to a 1366x768 screen which will in turn make me wish I looked for a different screen!

    Just out of curiosity Matt, what source is your 720P feed?

    Ben
     
  20. mickbarlow

    mickbarlow
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    unfortunatley i do.... :suicide:
     
  21. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You'd be surprised at just how big the market is out there for after market good quality scalers due to the Hi Res LCDs and Plasma screens making a meal of the scaling..

    And I stick to my original point, if these screens were made at the correct resolution, it would save the Set Manufacturer a lot of time and money as they would not need to write any coding to do any scaling for 720P signals, and it would save the end user money as A) they would get cheaper sets, and B) they don't need to spend money on scalers.

    Having said that, whether the difference justifies the need for a scaler is another point entirely.



    Ben
     
  22. matt_p

    matt_p
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    845
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +38

    The scalers are mainly for scaling standard def sources to LCD/plasma resolutions, I thought? It's surely a much harder task to scale 480p/576p to 768p than it is to go from 720p to 768p. If that makes sense??

    I doubt anyone would bother buy a scaler to scale their 720p source up to their 768p screen.

    As for your other point, if it was cheaper for the manufacturer to produce 'true' 720p sets, that gave noticably better PQ, there wouldn't be any 1366x768 sets. They'd all be 1280x720.

    To turn it around the other way, why would a manufacturer spend more money to make an 'inferior' product? My guess is that:

    a) 1366x768 screens are cheaper

    and b) the pic difference in scaling 720p up to 1366x768 is negligible.
     
  23. matt_p

    matt_p
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    845
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +38
    Sorry, I replied to your last post but didn't see this one a couple of posts above it!

    I've got some HD Divx trailers and a couple of WMV HD movies (national geographic type) that are 720p.
     
  24. Forest Fan

    Forest Fan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +18
    Apologies if someone has already mentioned this...

    The problem with displays that have a native resolution of 1366x768 and which scale a 720p signal up to 1366x768 comes when connecting a PC to the HDMI port for example.

    When you use powerstrip and send a 720p signal via the HDMI port to some displays, as it's scaled up you don't get dot for dot and PC input looks crap.

    This scaling issue is what probably stops some panels displaying a 1366x768 signal properly from PCs via the HDMI port.

    1280x720 is the way forward.
     
  25. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, the reason why these screens are cheaper, is probably because the panel manufacturers produce a lot more of these screens than standard 1280x720 screens. Which is why I made the following point:

    There doesn't seem any good reason why these factories continue to pump out 1366x768 screens if they're being used as TV sets. If factories stop/reduce producing these panels, and increase the production of standard 1280x720 panels, it would be cheaper! Wouldn't that benefit all of us? :smashin:

    That's the exact thing I'm afraid of.. :rolleyes:

    Ben
     
  26. deeplyblue

    deeplyblue
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    332
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18
    I don't know if this is correct - the market for new computer LCD screens is still very large - including countries who - having no HD (poor benighted souls) - still use CRT for their televisions. Even in my own extended family (all UK) we've bought/ are buying about 8 new LCD screens in the last 18 months - only one of which is for a TV. And that excludes laptops.

    I'd be interested if anyone has any actual figures for computer/TV use of LCD screens.

    Again, this speaking from ignorance of Hard Fact, but ... The cost of setting up manufacturing facilities for electronics is horrendous - which is why there are so few companies making screens for the entire world demand. It also makes it difficult for existing plant to be altered from one process to another, even a very similar one.

    I also suspect we are caught in what I call "the QWERTY trap". Originally typewriter keyboards did not have the QWERTY or (or AZERTY) layout we know today. QWERTY came in as device to *slow down* people who could hit the keys so fast that Edwardian era typewriters got jammed. Then everyone learned to use that layout, so typewriters kept on being made with QWERTY key layouts, because that was the one everyone was trained for. So we're still stuck with that a century later, despite numerous attempts to improve.

    Thus the electronics are made for the screens that were manufactured, and the screens then have to made that way to suit the electronics.

    Having said all of this, I tend to agree that as the manufacturers are now facing upscaling much production to 19" + screens, and the advent of HD, this could be a sensible point for them to consider re-jigging the electronics as well. And then there's the Media PC phenomenon.

    One of the reasons I'm waiting for the next generation of LCD screens is the premise that they will operate more smoothly with a PC feed (the 1:1 pixel mapping, Yes?). Has anyone with a Media PC actually working in their living room any comment on this one?

    db
     
  27. benwong

    benwong
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Db, you're probably right, in the current overall LCD market, LCD panels are purchased more for PC use than TV use, and I myself have just bought a 19" monitor. :smashin:

    However, I'm not talking about ALL LCD screens, I'm talking about 32" widescreen panels. How many 32" widescreen panels have you seen marketed and sold purely for PC use? How many people do you know who own 32" widescreen monitors? How many of the above 8 panels are 32" widescreen monitors?? Have a look on Ebuyer, Dabs and any other IT retailer for a 32" widescreen LCD panel with only inputs for PC use.

    Now, you may find a few 32" LCD panels intended for use as commercial displays etc and therefore lack tuners and other common TV inputs, but tell me this; which market is larger? You'll find many many more 32" panels made for home TV use. In most cases 32" LCD screens are just too small for commercial use anyway, especially when 42" plasma displays offer a much larger picture for fewer ££s.

    And I'm going to restress another point I made earlier in the thread;

    Going back to my 19" LCD monitor I just bought, the resolution of that is 1280x1024. This is the same resolution as most 17" LCDs too. Now, a 32" screen is twice the size, but the resolution is only slightly more on the horizontal plain. Developing these 32" panels with the intention to use them as PC screens just doesn't seem to hold water.

    The only situation I see this at all useful would be using it with a pc in the living room, doing some slight web surfing etc. from your arm chair, but this can easily be done on a 1280x720 screen anyway!

    I fail to see how this relates to the LCD screens. The QWERTY keyboard was devised as you say for a very good purpose; from what I can gather, a 1366x768 resolution screen of this size just does not serve any purpose. 1366x768 is simply too small for use as a computer monitor at this size, and too big for the future HD 720P feeds.

    I apologize if I'm coming across as argumentative, I'm just trying to get my point across thats all :D

    Ben
     
  28. jimsan

    jimsan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,610
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    Dumfries, SW Scotland.
    Ratings:
    +9
    All I can say at this point, benwong, is that I entirely agree with you.

    I just cannot fathom how a multi-billion dollar industry has managed to lead itself down this crazy resolution route. I suspect that the reasoning previously mentioned (WXGA - wide computer format) is correct. But it is still incredibly silly. Thing is, we are lumbered. This resolution is here to stay, and I suspect that the 720p broadcast format is too! Absolutely crazy.

    HD Ready my arse. You have to upscale 720p and downscale 1080i. AAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

    So, scalers it is then........damn....or......1080 vertical resolution! There are, or will be, increasing numbers of these, but they are big and they are expensive.

    Jimmy
     
  29. deeplyblue

    deeplyblue
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    332
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18
    So, let me get this right. There are only a few manufacturers making these screens, so they have a stranglehold on the market, as entering it (seting up your own factory) is very difficult. There are cheaper models on the market which don't have what you want, but there is effectively no competition to the very expensive versions?

    I think you have just given us the answer, Jim.

    db
     
  30. deeplyblue

    deeplyblue
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    332
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18
    ben
    Yes, argumentative I know. I think I once went through the classic "You argue about everything." "No, I don't." exchange. Remember we're the ones who make forums interesting and keep civil liberties alive. Just so long as no one says, "Arguers of the world unite." ... :rolleyes:

    Your point about the 32" screen not being much aimed at the PC market is taken. People that plutocratic, sorry I mean "high-powered", usually end up with three screens in a row. However, I am wondering whether the resolution problem is not confined to 32" screens. I'm dealing with a total absence of fact here - how far down the size range does this go?

    My point about the QWERTY example is that it was a historical compromise that has, technically, no justification in today's market, but bedded itself in to the system. No one starting from here would go that way. But we aren't starting from here, and technological trends can be very hard to buck.

    Does that mean I can't play my games over the PC link? Will it make any difference if I throw a tantrum? :mad:

    db
     

Share This Page

Loading...