Discussion in 'Plasma TVs Forum' started by djcla, Mar 28, 2006.
works out out be a widescreen 16:9 as it appears to be more 4:3?
The pixels are rectangular, not square - thus the actual resolution is 4:3 whilst the image is 16:9
Is there any downside to having rectangular pixels? I notice the 50" panels generally have square pixels (1366 x 768)
Looks really odd if you try to use it as a computer monitor.
that's true, but what about 1:1 pixel mapping for video sources?
There are no video sources which are 768 pixels high anyway so the lack of 1:1 mapping is not relevant.
again true, but i was considering a scaler to get native, hence wondering whether there is any difference (size of screen apart) from viewing the image on rectangular pixels or sqaure ones, on a 42/43" screen and 50" screen respectively.
On my 42" screen with rectangular pixels, using a scaler and it looks lovely to me. Better than most "squarey" screens I've seen in shops etc
I use 1368x768 on mine with an HTPC , desktop is slightly softer than at 1024x768 but its the right shape and video look as as good as 1:1 ( it might even be slightly better in some ways). Fair to say these panels might have had a little more attention paid to their horizontal downscaling capabilities.
Separate names with a comma.