How do sub 50" plasma screens qualify as "HD Ready"?

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by loz, Nov 5, 2005.

  1. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Many so called "HD Ready" plasma displays don't have sufficient horizontal resolution to qualify as HD Ready.

    The HD Ready logo requires
    "The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or display
    engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio."
    The spec also says wide aspect ration should be 16:9 +/- 5%.

    720 lines with 16:9 ratio = 1280x720.

    Yet countless sub 50" plasma sets are only 1024 wide.

    How do they justify the HD Ready label?
     
  2. sapgem

    sapgem
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    83
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    Unfortunately nowhere does it say the pixels have to be square! So any horizontal resolution would seem to do, as long as its 16:9 and the vertical res is 720. I very much doubt its a coincidence that it lets the current 'HD' plasmas qualify as HD ready, a bit of a fudge IMO.
     
  3. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,595
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +921
    You're making the PC-based assumption that pixels on displays are square. There is no reason for a pixel to be square - and in standard def 702/720x576 based digital TV the same resolution is used for 16:9 and 4:3 - and in neither resolution are the samples/pixels square.

    There are a number of HD Ready plasmas that have 1024x1024 or 1024x720 resolutions. In neither case are the pixels square. If you think about it - a pixel is made up of three cells - one for R, one for G and one for B. If you go for square pixels, then you have to make the individual red, green and blue elements all fit into a square - and in reality it might be easier to make them fit into a rectangle.
     
  4. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    I am well aware of the difference between square and rectangular pixels.

    However, the spec does say "Resolution", not display size.
    Sub 50" plasma do not therefore have a 16:9 display resolution, only a 16:9 display size.

    Unfortunately, such nuances are open to interpretation. Because no specific horizontal resolution is quoted, in the way that vertical resolution is, it allows devices that are not true 16:9 resolution to get the HD ready logo by merit of the fact that they are 16:9 in size.

    But AFAICS, your average plasma display does not merit an HD Ready logo, as in horizontal terms they offer little advantage over existing SD diplays. The increase from 852 to 1024 is just 172 pixels, or 20%. Hardly a huge increase.
     
  5. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,555
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    If you're cynical you could suggest that the plasma manufacturers lobbied the EICTA and got the definition worded in such a way as to make 1024 wide displays 'HD ready'.
     
  6. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,846
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +975



    Cynical?

    Nah, realistic:)

    Imagine the scene, EICTA spokesman talking to members..
    "Hey guys minimum horizontal res will be 1280"

    Most of the audience start screaming since their current mainstream panels and the next generation only do 1024.

    "Ok, you pay the bills so the min res will be 1024"

    Cheers from crowd and congratulate themselves on saving millions while making sure of a HD display market to bridge the gap between now and 1080p.

    :)
     
  7. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    At the end of the day EICTA is just a trade organization so it can define HD however its members see fit.
    As it says in its mission statement
    "promotes the collective interests of the information and communications technology and consumers electronics sector".

    So it serves them no interest to set the bar for HD above their current capabilities.
    Even so, it doesn't serve the interests of the consumer (IMHO)
     
  8. Quickbeam

    Quickbeam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Most of the major TV manufacturers produce both plasmas and LCDs.

    If EICTA had tried to force the 1280 issue, those manufacturers with eggs in both baskets would have refused to support the HD-Ready logo, not just on their plasmas but on their LCDs as well.

    I don't think people are being short changed. Looking at the Hi-Vision HDTV demo in John Lewis today, on a 37PV500 with 1024 x 720 resolution, it took my breath away - miles better than the soft and blocky Comet demo incidentally. Looked pretty high-def to me.
     
  9. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,595
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +921
    Yep - resolution is NOT the only thing that impacts picture quality. A 1024x720 picture with decent colourimetry, gamma, greyscale and black level performance can easily be more watchable than a 1280x720 picture delivered with poor performance in these areas.

    The PV500s certainly look better than many other displays I've seen.
     
  10. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,595
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +921
    Yep - but given that all SD sources are likely to be limited to 720/702 or 544 samples horizontally as source resolution, then neither an 852 or a 1024 panel will be fully delivering its quoted resolution when fed an SD signal.

    If you are feeding a panel with an HD signal then a 1024x720 panel will obviously outperform a 852x480 panel in both dimensions. Though you are correct that an 852x480 panel may look better fed a 720p signal rather than 576i signal, I'd hope a 1024x720 would look better still...
     
  11. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    It may not serve their interest but if they are going to use existing 720P as a standard for their HD then they should properly address true HD as it should be. 1024 x 720/768 is not HD. The original poster is correct; it is a flawed spec and misleading spec.
     
  12. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Though that 1024 x 720 screen will not give you minimum HD quality. No getting around that.
     
  13. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    But a display with 1280 resolution would give a noticeably higher resolution picture and that is what HDTV is all about.

    It may have looked higher def to you than SD but it wasn't minimum spec HD.
     
  14. Tarbat

    Tarbat
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,592
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Easter Ross, Scotland
    Ratings:
    +303
    And not all 1280x720 displays are really 1280x720. Take the HD-Ready Samsumg DLP TVs. With a 50hz signal through HDMI, these DLP TVs only display a 1200x673 picture. Whereas many LCD and plasma HD-Ready TVs display the full 720 lines of vertical resolution.

    So, how can a TV that only displays 673 lines of vertical resolution qualify as "HD-Ready"?
     
  15. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +943
    720 x 1024 DOES meet the minimum spec for HD ready because the requirement is for at least 720 lines of resolution and a 16:9 or 10 aspect ratio.

    I wouldn't buy one, though. You would never get it pixel-matched to any HD source.

    Incidentally, I watched a SIM2 demo yesterday with an anamorphic lens that projected a 2.35:1 aspect picture. It was actaully displaying 720 x 1280. I can't imagine it will catch on because of the cost, but it sure looked good.

    Nick
     
  16. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have no knowledge of your claim about the Samsungs you are referring to. My position is a TV or monitor shouldn't be classified as HD if they don't even meet the minimum spec for established HD.
     
  17. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    It may meet the new European spec for HD but it certainly doesn't meet the minimum spec for established HD. 720P is 1280 x 720. No getting around that.
     
  18. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    how does 720x1024 = 16:9?
    Only if the display size is 16:9 using rectangular pixels.
    But it isnt 16:9 display resolution
     
  19. kenji-san

    kenji-san
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    he didn't say that it didn't live up to the Hd Ready logo, but that 1024*720 doesn't live up to TRUE HD, which is 1280*720.
    the Hd Ready logo is something EICTA just invented, and as said they worded the formulation of what constitutes a hd picture cleverly to adopt to current plasma/lcd screens out there, which atm isn't up to it.

    So even though something is Hd Ready, does not mean it's true hd capable.
     
  20. kenji-san

    kenji-san
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    i've said this before, but the hd ready logo, i don't think it was the best for consumers. as screens capable of showing the established hd of 1280*720 or even 1920*1080 comes through, people will in time get confused about what constitutes a true hd picture.
    Both the 1920*1080 and 1024*720 will classify as Hd Ready, but the picture resolution (at least horisontal) is almost twice!! Is this mislabeling fair for consumers?

    Unless they will come up with a new term for TRUE hd resolution screens, i think the Hd Ready logo was just a scam to get people hyped on Hd early, and just start buying almost-hd screens.
     
  21. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,595
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +921
    Though pixel matching is a bigger issue for PCs (which are inherently pixel based when it comes to text and bit image display) than it is for video (which is usually based on a sampling of a much higher resolution source - the real world) - as HD isn't based around pixels it is based around samples.

    Samples are not inherently "square" as display pixels tend to be - so pixel matching becomes less of an issue in the horizontal domain with real video sources. Sure it is great if you can get it - but decent re-sampling algorithms can mean a non pixel-matched displays also look good horizontally.

    The situation is slightly different vertically - as the line-structure IS very definitely present in a video signal - and vertical filtering is more difficult to implement - especially with interlaced signals.

    I'd always chose a line-matched display if I could - but horizontal pixel->sample matching would be less of an issue personally.

    Here's another question:

    How many 1280x720 and 1920x1080 line displays actually 1:1 line and pixel match? Are there any that perform an over-scan simulation zoom to avoid seeing the inevitable junk that exists around the edges of pictures (such as poorly timed camera edges, DVE borders, blanking errors etc.)

    Given the large number of analogue-triax based Philips LDK 6000 HD cameras around (they may be digital in the camera head and the CCU - but the link between them is still analogue RF carrier based) there is a potential loss of 1:1 pixel matching from camera to display in this case anyway isn't there?
     
  22. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +943
    Rear projection TVs usually underscan by a few percent to keep the edges clean. This doesn't matter much for video, but is important for PC monitors. I think plasmas and LCDs usually show the whole frame.

    Pixel-matching is important for digital displays to avoid the display re-scaling the picture, which always degrades PQ.

    HD displays can usually be pixel-matched using the VGA input, but DVI and HDMI inputs are usually more difficult - often impossible, or only possible at 60Hz, which is undesirable.

    Why all the fuss about 1024 pixels lines? This only applies to 37" and 42" plasmas (where you can't have the pixels any smaller even if you wanted to, and even if you could, you might not be able to see the difference). If you want a 720x1280 display - go and buy one! If you want to save a bit of money, that's a choice (just not mine).

    HDTV is defined as 720x1280 or 1920x1080, but is not the standard that has been adopted over here, thank you, and with good reason.
    HD ready is not the same thing, and includes other essential interfacing requirements.

    Nick
     
  23. kenji-san

    kenji-san
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    stephen neal, i'd imagine pixel matching would, like pc, also be desirable for xbox360/ps3 gaming, where games are designed around a specific resolution, e.g. 720p? aiui video sampling only applies to film stuff?

    whats the good reason?

    and why come up with the hd ready logo and NOT tie it to the already established minimum requirements of hd, the 1280*720 resolution? Other than wanting to sell off 1024*720 screens as hd screens?
    And if 1280*720 screens are too expensive to buy right now, why not wait with the whole hd ready thing until they are affordable? It's not like we're gonna miss out on anything. There's no hd stuff to view right now anyway.


    i don't think the fact that hdmi being a necessity makes up for lack of resolution.



    Hd ready = hoax, i'm tellin ya! :D ;)
     
  24. vince31

    vince31
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Swindon
    Ratings:
    +13
    After reading through this thread it seems that the purists want to define HD as 720 vertical by 1280 Horizontal pixels. This would be fantastic, if only all of the pixels were square, in truth they are not. Therefore, such a screen would not have a 16:9 display size and therefore a circle would not be a circle! i.e. a stretched horizontal image as far as I can see.
     
  25. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +943
    Some people really are being rather naive here.

    Manufacturers make 720x1024 plasmas because that's what they can make. If they could make 720x1280 plasmas, then they would. But the pixels would be too small.

    If you want a plasma, and you want it 42" or 37", then 720/768/1024 x 1024 it has to be. This has nothing to do with HDMi or EICTA or European vs American High Definition standards. Just labelling something HD compatible or HDTV does not mean that you can plug in a box and get HD video, and that is what EICTA try to achieve in spite of the ignorance or dishonesty of some retailers.

    You have to draw the line somewhere between SD and HD, and given the number of plasmas actually out there with 1024 pixels/line, that is a pragmatic and reasonable place to draw it. HDTV has it's line in one place, and HD ready is in another. It's not difficult to see if you just try to consider things from other people's points of view.

    Nick
     
  26. kenji-san

    kenji-san
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    great. let them make the 1024 screens then.


    thanks.

    1. there is no european vs us high res standard; there are 2 standards, 1280*720, and 1920*1080.
    2. in spite of eicta's good intentions, in the end it just creates more confusion than clarification. Just look at these boards, with people asking wether 1024 screens are really hd. Also, in long run more confusion will ensue when the above mentioned 2 resolutions become more widespread, as the hd ready doesn't specify anything other than 'hd ready'. so they either should've waited with the hd ready logo, or made some kind of multiple hd ready logos, like hd ready low, medium, high or whatever, to differentiate between 1024, 1280 and 1920. If people are gonna spend alot of money buying high res screens in the first place, i'm sure they would like to know what they will get for their hard earned money.

    why do you have to draw the line between sd and hd, now? We can't use hd to anything, now. The screens arent here yet (affordable screens that is), and the content isn't here yet.

    look, i can appreciate the fact that, in order to clarify which screen is of higher resolution compared to sd, some thought there was need of some kind of labelling. the problem is that labelling saying hd. as it's not hd. but i can see that it wouldn't be as attractive to call it "extra high standard definition!" ("a little higher res than your ordinary set, but you'll have to buy another set in a year or two in order to get the real deal!")

    as said, in my opinion, i don't think it was necessary for the labelling, as there is no demand for what the label stands for at the moment. so only reason for going forward with hd ready logo now, when affordable 1280 screens are lacking, is just to create artificial demand, or hype, or having customers thinking 1024 is hd, which is untrue.

    so i'm not saying "curse tv manufacturers for making 1024*720 sets", just that they shouldn't label it as a hd set.
     
  27. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good post Kenji. Of course you are absolutely correct because you and I are simply comparing the numbers with the existing HDTV standard. As far as I know America is the only country using 720P so unless European authorities which to redefine what 720P actually means then 720P will always mean 1280x720 resolution. 1024x720 should simply be referred to as E(extended)DTV.
     
  28. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    It has nothing to do with being a purist. It has to do with simple common sense.

    A 1024 x 720 screen is simply not going to resolve the same detail as a 1280 x720 screen. 1280x720 resolution is the minimum resolution for HDTV and there is no getting around that.
     
  29. 10bii

    10bii
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Huh?

    Well fine, but in that case you can go the same route as Australian authorities and say 576P is also HD. In truth any informed Australian would and does know better.
     
  30. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    More like manufacturers would like us to be naive, so they can pull the HD wool over our eyes.

    Yet, nearly every 23" and above LCD has resolution this high, and more.


    Of course you can only buy something that is being manufactured. But that doesn't mean manufacturers should label something HD just because it is all they can manufacture.
    HD Ready ought to be clear about HDTV resolution. But it isn't. It is a fudge to help current manufacturers shift current inventory.

    a couple of years from now, those same manufacturers will be trying to sell those same customers a need to upgrade (again) to some read HD standard. Once of course they can manufacture them.

    The HD standard shouldn't be based on "pragmatism", but on something genuinely offering high definition.
    And I cant for the life of me understand why you think HDTV and HD Ready should permit different resolutions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...