Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by fdxd, May 20, 2005.
How long until true 1080p plasma arrive?
In an affordable and useful(50" and under) size, maybe never. Cost and technical issues will delay their introduction to the point that competing technologies may have matured to a marketable state by then, IMO.
You never know though, but certainly not imminent
Maybe they should work on a 1080p camera first, eh?
Don't samsung have some monster with this already? It's about £30 000 IIRC, 74" or something like it. Sprout is right, they will find something better before solving the techn ical issues of pixel size. You can of course already get a 45" LCD with 1920/1080 res, it's about 4.5k, so fairly comparable with the quality end of the plasma market.
Is this so important on small 42-50 sizes?
I mean, will you be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p
dispayed on these sizes?
I think 1080p resolution is only important for 60"< screens.
I agree, i think a plasma with a 720 Res would be fine for 42" possibly 50" and then downscale 1080 as i just dont think theres a huge diff on a screen that size between them
Yes but who would want an LCD today. Greater resolution for awful black generation - I'd take the plasma any day. My computer display is a 23in Apple Cinema LCD and I would much rather watch a DVD on my 852x480 plasma.
Also don't the HD DVD specs cap out at 720p?
I just don't think we will see anything 1080p in the home within 10 years, if at all. So there won't even be anything to downscale. Now a digital cinema is a whole different story...maybe that just sneaks in under my 10 year view but I don't bet on it.
I am really tempted by the New 8 Series Panny Plasmas
still not sure if i should go for the 42" HD version with the 1024x768 res and use abit of downscaling or if i could accomandate the 50" version with the 1366x768 res so would not need to downscale atall
I guess it depends on price really.
Price and size. Sometimes bigger is not always better. Personally, I am waiting for the 8 series panels. I don't need the tuner etc.
While native 1080p video sources are probably still a few years away, native 1080i video sources are practically on top of us - and to display that without any loss of image quality on a plasma or LCD screen, you still need a full 1920x1080 display.
Comments along the lines of 'can you see the difference on a 50" screen?' seem to me to be misguided. The answer is "yes, you certainly can" - so long as you're sitting close enough. The advantage of a 1920x1080 screen is precisely that you can sit closer to it without the pixel structure of the image becoming visible (which is objectionable). For a 42" plasma screen with a resolution of 1024x768 you'd probably want to sit at least 10 feet back. But up the resolution to 1920x1080 and you could sit not much more than 5 feet away.
No doubt a screen that's twice as large and watched from 10 feet away would be preferable, but it's absurd to suggest that the extra detail "makes no difference".
"While native 1080p video sources are probably still a few years away, native 1080i video sources are practically on top of us - and to display that without any loss of image quality on a plasma or LCD screen, you still need a full 1920x1080 display."
Please explain what source you are talking about. HD DVD/Blu Ray? No. HDTV? No. What 1080i sources are practically on top of us?
Then please explain why a 1080i signal, deinterlaced to a progressive signal needs 1080 vertical pixels.
Yeh but i was only thinking of the added res of the 50" not really the bigger size as i am happy with 42" really
I think the majory it people would be more than happy with a Plasma which accepts 720 natively and then any 1080 sources scaled down, i know i am as 720 is fantastic and is more than good enough for me personly,
But to get 1368x720 in a 42in panel requires a whole different pixel dimension. May be quite a while...
Which is why i am debating on getting the new 50" 8 Series panny instead of the 42" version
I am just waiting on a suspected price now
Looks like i will look back in a year or twos time. 42 to sround 50" is what i would look at.
saw a great looking 60" LG hi-def plasma displaying hi-def 1080 today - but even at that size it was still a 720p plasma - and ten grand to buy too.
The playstation 3 boasts 1080p whilst the Xbox 360 is 1080i for sure and microsoft have intimated that you will get 1080p so the original question is valid.
Even the downscaling to 1024 with a computer fed game such as Far Cry does make a big difference. A 50" with a true 16:9 ratio is far better and will be a lot better with high def images (720p). Sadly the price differential is big. I know several people who will not buy plasmas because of this.
Mind you I am sure panasonic have a feature list for the G9 and G10 panels just to get us buying.
10 grand for an LG! they're pulling your string mate, you can get a panny 65" for 7.5k
not in harrods you can't!
hahaha i knew it had to be harrods!!!!!
Here for once I don't have to cast aspersions on LG, Welsh. I take it you agree that is a laugh! Nice money if you can get it I suppose, my conscience would give a serious twinge over that though.
stevekale - there's a 1080P 'Pro' Camcorder solution just around the corner!
The Panasonic AG-HVX2000 Camcorder can record 720P and 1080i to P2 memory cards and the folk at Focus Enhancements are promising 1080P via Firewire to FireStoreHD Discs in the very near future.
I believe we'll see 1080P 50" Plasma Displays late 2006 - the introduction of products such as the Sony Qualia 005 46" LCoS and Samsung LNR460D 46" LED is bound to push the Plasma manufacturers to launch sooner rather than later.
I believe D-Theatre already offers 1080i. So will BluRay and HD-DVD. So will Sky's HD service on certain programmes.
Er... because it does.
If you take a cinema film and convert it to 1080i, 50Hz then what you do is:
1) Take each of the original 24 film frames per second, and scan it at a nice high resolution.
2) Downcale each scanned frame to 1920x1080 pixels.
3) Split each 1920x1080 frame into two fields; the first field contains lines 1, 3, 5, etc. and the second field lines 2, 4 and 6.
When you play this back (slightly speeded up, so you actually see 25 of these frames per second instead of 24) what you want the display to do is to exactly reconstruct the original picture as of stage 2. So you end up with a 1920x1080 progressive signal, at 25 frames per second. If, in addition, you have to downscale each frame, it will make it look worse because you've lost detail.
Of course, 720p material shot on video as 720p has certain advantages, because of the frame rate. With 1080i from film, no matter what you do, you only have 25 frames per second of material, and it's important to show it at full resolution. But with 720p video you've actually got 50 distinct full frames per second of material, so, although each frame is only 1280x720 rather than 1920x1080, you have twice as many frames (which can, for example, make motion smoother).
It is also true, of course, that a film converted to 1080i may not actually contain the full 1080 vertical resolution, because it may be vertically filtered - this is necessary for CRT devices where the display itself is inherently interlaced. But for a fixed-pixel device you definitely need the full 1920x1080 to get the best possible picture.
LOL, I'm guessing youre talking about that crazy GOLD LG with matching speakers etc.
The LG specialist told me it was 1080p input and output.
Why do all the reps have no idea what they are talking about? It just goes to show 'how can the average consumer know what they are buying when people with half an IT brain like you and I are struggling to understand'.
Separate names with a comma.