1. Join Now

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

Plasma question

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by MJ, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. MJ

    MJ
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    173
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +4
    In my quest for a suitable screen to replace my aging JVC 32" I see plasma screens with vertical resolutions of 480, 768 and 1024. 1080 I think as well, not sure.

    Since PAL dvds are 576 and NTSC dvds are 480 (I am correct in this assumption, yes?) how come we are stuck with SD plasma screens with only 480 vertical resolution?

    With HD being 720 or 1080 how come HD plasma screens have a native vertical resolution of 768? Why not 720? I think I've seen a 1080 screen so that makes sense. So where does 1024 come from?

    I guess if the picture is good what does it matter, the internal scaler takes care of all the coversions. To me this doesn't make sense. The native resolution doesn't match the existing source, certainly in this country anyway.

    Finally if you've managed to stay with me this long without getting bored with my prattling on, can anyone who has had for a substantial period possibly side by side tell me of their findings with regard to comparison of picture quality between an SD and an HD plasma screen with PAL dvds because it seems to me that moving from a 32" CRT to a 50" SD plasma screen is going to be a retrograde step because of the increase in size and the reduction in resolution on PAL dvds.

    I'm not keen on buying an HD screen because of the cost. Maybe with time they will come down to sensible prices.
     
  2. Steve_P

    Steve_P
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,338
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Ratings:
    +142
    Vertical resolutions of 768 or 1024 are a legacy from computer display standards. Remember plasma displays were originally designed for the computer display sector before they made the jump to home cinema. I'm guessing that as time progresses you'll see more displays with a 720 vertical resolution. 1080? I didn't know there were any plasmas with this vertical resolution, LCD's yes but not, as far as I am aware plasmas.

    As for whether a 50" SD panel is going to be retrograde step for you after a 32" CRT I'm afraid for all the advice you'll get here at the end of the day the only judge that you will be able to trust is your own eyes. Best go out view some demo screens and make up your own mind. Thinking about it are there any manufacturers making 852x480 50inchers? :confused: I thought from 50" and above they were all higher def screens.

    S.
     
  3. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    I guess that's a question only the manufacturer can answer - a resolution like 1024x1024 is really odd (and no, the picture is not squarish but 16x9).
    Also seen some newer displays that have a resolution of 1366x768, i.e. WXGA (Wide-XGA) which corresponds to 16:9

    Here is a site that conveniently lists some of the current (US) models and their resolution: Plasma TVs
     
  4. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,785
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +667
    The 61" LG Plasma has a resolution of 1920x1080, and the sharp 45" LCD does too.

    All 50" screens are at least 1204x768, and fed with a decent source and the right screen you will not think that it is a step backwards, I promise :)
     
  5. Steve_P

    Steve_P
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,338
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Ratings:
    +142
    That would be ALIS panels they are interlaced displays so the res is more like a 1024x512 as alternate lines are illuminated separately, kinda similar to how CRT's work.

    gizlaroc, thanks for the heads-up on the LG :) I didn't know it had a res of 1920x1080, I bet that's a stunner, :eek: I wonder if it can take 1080p? :devil:

    S.
     
  6. MJ

    MJ
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    173
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +4
    Thanks for the replies.

    Yes I think your right Steve P. The 50" screens are 768, 480 screens tend to be 42" or less. Thanks for clearing that up.

    It would certainly make sense for 720 screens to be produced with HD just around the corner. Still don't see why 480 but no 576. I thought I had seen a 1080 plasma screen somewhere.

    Yes I appreciate that I will have to judge for myself whether it is a retrograde step or not and I will get some demos.

    What I should have asked was about the comparison of a 480 42" with a 768 42" since I'm probably not going to spend enough to get a 768 screen (maybe it would pay to wait for more choice in DLP RPTVs). I ask because the 480 picture on a PAL dvd will be downscaled where as the 768 will be upscaled but won't have any more detail potentially than 576 other than what the upscaling introduces artificially. If we were talking CRT then it's easier to visualise because of the line structure.

    Oh and thanks for the url Reiner.
     
  7. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,785
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +667
    IMHO there is very little difference with a 480 vs 768 screen when you are sitting more than about 8ft away, that is with HD material, and with SD material the lower res screen (if you are not adding scalers etc.) is preferable, definitely looks sharper.

    Whilst in New York I was watching a HD feed on a 480 panasonic and the 768 panasonic (right next to each other) and from 8ft or so you had to really look to tell which was the higher res screen.
    If you can afford to go with the HD screen then do so otherwise you will always be thinking "now if I had .......". If you can't afford it then know that you are not really missing a great deal and think of the £1000 you saved :)
     
  8. MJ

    MJ
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    173
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +4
    Gizlaroc, thank you for that. Viewing distance is probably about 10 to 12 feet so 480 v 768 may not be an issue going by your experiences. Obviously I will still have to get a demo.

    As for affordability my reasons are two fold. I didn't want to tie up too much money in a screen with a life span that is still in uncharted territory (regardless of what the manufacturers tell us) and eventually I will want to move up into HD but when prices are sensible and then preferably a 1080 screen. I could then relegate the 42" to the bedroom. If I do get a 42" then the JVC (which is now 8 years old with a picture far superior than some new plasma screens I have seen) will go in the sitting room.

    I still haven't written off the idea of a DLP RPTV based on their prices and other peoples reviews but it would have to be a slim model and the only one available is under the Thomson badge. I'll stop there as this is the plasma section.
     
  9. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,785
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +667
    My money would be on an NEC VM5 at the moment, I should get my NEC XM3 today, if it is as good as the pansonic with the added bonus of of connectivity and hdcp etc. I will be a happy bunny, if it isn't as good then I will move it on.

    I will keep this for 2 years, and then swap if there are decent 1920x1080p screens from Toshiba using there new technology for a realistic price.
     
  10. MJ

    MJ
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    173
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +4
    Yes I've just been eyeing that model up at just over £1500 it looks good value. I've been eyeing up the 50XM4 but at nearly £4k it's more than I want to spend. £2.5k is a lotta lolley.

    I'm drawn towards the Pioneer 43MXE-1 but at over 2k without any modules and no HDCP it's no contest even if it is 1024x768 and it's 4kg heavier.
     

Share This Page

Loading...