1. Join Now

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

Advantages of XGA vs 1024x576

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by maj74, May 27, 2003.

  1. maj74

    maj74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    699
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ipswich
    Ratings:
    +23
    Here's a thought.

    I'm assuming that an XGA panel uses 576 horizontal pixels when showing a film.
    Now people keep saying that they want a 16:9 projector and the comments people are making about waiting until this new TI chip comes out got me thinking!!

    The 1024x576 panel may be designer made for film, but unless it has a lens shift feature you either have to set it up dead centre or use the dreaded keystone.

    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4:3 panel of the HT1000 and my Sharp PG-M20X gives you twice the flexibilty, you can use the whole panel for 4:3 material, but come 16:9 and you can use the ability to shift the 576 lines up and down within the panel to give you FAR more flexibilty with locating the picture in the correct place without having to use keystone correction and still have exactly the same resolution.

    Just a thought for those people desperate to have those 16:9 panels!

    And before anyone says, 'but you have the grey bars top and bottom', I know, but on a high contrast pj, they're hardly noticeable and the extra versatility is worth it IMHO.
     
  2. Kramer

    Kramer
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    99% of PJ viewing in with widescreen material (1.78/1.85/2.1/2.35:1).

    Can't see your arguement for having to use lens shift/keystone correction with a 16/9 PJ :confused:

    XGA (1024x768) panel PJs are basically derived from data PJs, which on the whole were 4/3 (not critizising the HT1000/Sharp) - 16/9 is the way to go.

    Overspill? Why have it? It's not necessary & is detrimental to viewing pleasure :p

    Also, having a panel with 25% being unused (i.e. 576 from 768) seems folly to me - then again, just my opinion :)

    Now, 1280x720, or even 1366x768 - that's more like it :smashin:
     
  3. maj74

    maj74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    699
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ipswich
    Ratings:
    +23
    Quote "Can't see your arguement for having to use lens shift/keystone correction with a 16/9 PJ"

    I merely meant that if you need to have the pj high up, on a wall let's say, with a 4:3 panel you can drop the image to the bottom of the panel.

    Likewise, on coffee table if nec, you can raise the picture up the panel, without having to angle the pj and then use keystone.

    I have to have my pj very high on the back wall as the arch into the room is underneath it. A 16:9 pj without lens shift would need to be angled down and then use keystone to correct the distortion.

    With my Sharp PG-M20X, I just shift the picture to the bottom of the panel, and voila.... no keystone necessary... It does make sense..surely!!?
     
  4. Kramer

    Kramer
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, makes sense now :cool:

    Basically using the fact you can move the image within the panel as a type of lens shift.

    Hoping to see a HT1000 very soon...
     

Share This Page

Loading...