1. Join Now

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

Why can't they make plasmas in sensible resolutions?!

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by NicolasB, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,036
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +660
    I thought I'd like a display that can handle a 1080i signal (1920x1080) at native resolution. But unsurprisingly I can't afford one of those.

    So then I thought maybe something that can display 720p (1280x720) at native resolution. But there don't seem to be any, except maybe that new 40" LCD screen, and I can't afford that.

    So then I thought I'd like something that has square pixels (so I can use it with a PC without messing up the aspect ratio) and has a resolution of at least 1280 horizontal and 720 vertical, so that it can at least display a 720p signal without downscaling. These actually do exist, e.g. 1365x768 50" panels. But I think these are still probably still a bit out of my price bracket - are there any such screens that sell for less than £6000?

    So then I thought, how about something that can display a PAL progressive signal at native resolution? Nope.

    Or something that is >= 1024x576 with square pixels? Nope, unless we go back to the £6K 50" screens again.

    So now I'm down to 42" panels, and I have to make a stark choice between something with a 1024x768 resolution whch will look silly with a PC, or going down to 853x480 - but I'm damned if I'm going to spend thousands on a display only to have it downsample the image, I don't care how good the scaler is).

    Hmph hmph hmph. :mad:
     
  2. cybersoga

    cybersoga
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +25
    Well, you'll just have to wait a for new technology if you want genuine 1920x1080 :) Some LCD's have higher resolution, but theyre not perfect either...
     
  3. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,036
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +660
    I'd be happy with a 50" 1365x768 display if it cost £3000. :smoke:
     
  4. Darren Blake

    Darren Blake
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Norwich, UK.
    Ratings:
    +15
    Have you had a look at a 1280x768 or 1280x720 desktop running on a screen with 1024 horizontal pixels? IMHO its not as bad as it sounds (especially if you run with large fonts).

    Failing that, could you use Powerstrip or something to run at 1024x576 or something close?
     
  5. ReTrO

    ReTrO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    3,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    High Wycombe, Bucks, UK
    Ratings:
    +59
    The Sharp 30" 16:9 LCD is 1280x720
     
  6. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    The new iiama 40" is 1280x768, which I know is 15:9 and will have pixels 7% off square, but it's hard to see, and target price is around £4k I believe. The key advantage in that res. is that radeon carss will display it 'out of the box', no powerstrip, no messing. DVI and VGA supported at that res. Contast 650:1, not that brilliant I know, but there's drawbacks to everything.
     
  7. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,036
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +660
    I suppose it's possible to use a PC screen resolution that it is not the same as the display resolution, and stick some sort of external scaler in between the two. If the scaler is good enough it'll look okayish. But it's annoying that one should have to do this. A display with square pixels would eliminate the need for the scaler under those circumstances, and probably look better.

    PC-wise I'd like to be able to have the plasma driven at native resolution, and then play Doom 3 on the plasma with the sound fed through my Bryston/Nautilus sound setup. :)

    Actually the PC side of things is of secondary importance. I'm more annoyed by the fact that you can't get something that will display a PAL signal without vertical downscaling unless you go up to 1024x768.
     
  8. Wayne Moule

    Wayne Moule
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    1,365
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +32
    "The 42PMA400 supports HDTV of

    720/60p,
    1080/50i,
    1080/60i,
    1035/60i."
     
  9. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Wayne, the hitachi may support these modes, but it's not NATIVE, and it's unmappable with a PC, in my view in fact the worst plasma to buy for PC use. Not worst for anything else, don't take that wrong, it's actually a 1024x768 screen with software interpolation to the quoted res, fine for a video source, but no good if you want to address those pixels with a computer.
     
  10. joys_R_us

    joys_R_us
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It really is annoying that all these companies only look at the NTSC standard although the European market is potentially as big.

    WE WANT 1024 X 576 (PAL !!!) resolution !

    Are they all sleeping or what. It can't be that difficult to change one production line to PAL resolution. At least Philips should know we have PAL all over here...

    Also bezels in different colors would be fine. But oohhh they are so sleepy or are governed by beancounters (like me btw :D )

    Kemal
     
  11. chienmort

    chienmort
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Plasma screens are in sensible resulutions if you understand the concepts behinfd the design.

    With the exception of the 1024 X 768 screens around, all are designed with the the NTSC market in mind. There are 480 active lines in NTSC and if you divide 480 by 9 then multiply by 16 you get 853 (as the screens are designed in NTSC land, we are stuck with 480 lines). Hence most screens are 852 X 480 or 853 X 480 with square pixels.

    The screens that are 1024 X 768 have oblong pixels and are designed for use with computers wher the resolution is usually 1024 X 768 or XGA. Beware as the video circuits in these screens are often not as good as the lower res screens.

    Please note there is no such thing as PAL progressive . PAL is the colour coding system used in most of Europe and it is interlaced.
     
  12. Wayne Moule

    Wayne Moule
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    1,365
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +32
    It was a quote from Home Cinema Choice comparing it to the C42PD3000 non HD output.

    I've got a GF4 4200,would this be any better?
     
  13. Darren Blake

    Darren Blake
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Norwich, UK.
    Ratings:
    +15
    I hate to disagree, but as far as I know it is a 1024x512 screen with ALIS interlacing to get the claimed 1024 vertical resolution. I am using this screen (rectangular pixels, ALIS, internal scaling and all) and I can pretty much read everything on the desktop, even using small fonts.

    I would have thought that moving images (games etc) were less of an issue for this type of screen than "serious" computer use where text and menus need to be sharp to make it easy on the eye.

    I shall be tweaking text sizes for better readability but it won't take much of a tweak.
     
  14. Wayne Moule

    Wayne Moule
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    1,365
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +32
    I've got XP Pro and a GF4.

    What leads are you using for this set up and what screen output?
     
  15. Darren Blake

    Darren Blake
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Norwich, UK.
    Ratings:
    +15
    I'm running '98 (yes, really :eek: ) and a Mentor GF4 graphics card. 5m Lindy gold 15 pin VGA cable direct from PC to screen (freebie from Nexnix when I bought the screen). 1280x720 and 1280x768 are both "out of the box" resolutions for the drivers than came with the graphics card (although I did download updates from NVidea's website).

    First time I plugged the PMA in, it was recognised as a "plug & play monitor" by Windows. I did have to adjust the vertical and horizontal positions slightly to get all of the desktop on the screen, but apart from that the setup was absolutely painless.
     
  16. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    What the man wants is a true 16:9 screen addressable with a PC. An alis screen, regardless of my typo error, will just not do that. You're right, theya re fine with moving images, whatever maker's name ends up on th Bezel, just not good with a PC for that purpose.
     
  17. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,036
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +660
    Well, yeah, there is.

    If a DVD player is producing progressive-scan output then the original source material could be NTSC or PAL.

    If it's NTSC, then the progressive output will be 60Hz, 480 lines, and (assuming it's from a movie) require 3:2 pulldown.

    If it's PAL then the output will be 50Hz, 576 lines, and frame-for-frame.

    Granted, the output will probably be RGB or component video, but you have to use some term to distinguish between the two.
     
  18. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    The above (in bold) is incorrect.

    It is an interlaced panel, as Darren Blake stated. It has 1024 x 1024 actual pixels, though at every frame refresh (either 60th or 50th second - lets stick with 50 for PAL) it displays a 1024 x 512 feild.

    The first feild of 1024 x 512 is displayed in 1/50th of a second, the second field of 1024 x 512 is displayed in the second 1/50th second. Therefor a complete frame of is displayed in 1/25th second.

    The whey they arrive at the resolution is the fact that it has 1024 x 1024 actual pixels. Though because of the way it works, at any given refresh period it can only use 1024 x 512 of them.

    I say CAN, because this is a physical limitation of a 1024 x 1024 ALIS panel (Alternate Lighting of Surfaces I believe it stands for). It lights lines alternatley, not simutanously. Below is a quote explaining:-

    For PC purposes as the signal is obviously progressive, the ALIS panel will treat it in exactly the same manner as any other progressive source, in that it will scale the incoming source to 1024p, convert to 1024i (two feilds of 512) and then display.

    So the resolution for PC sources, indeed all sources, at any given refresh rate is 1024 x 512.

    It does have rectangular pixels, as do hosts of other displays. As I am not a HCPC chap I dont know how it will look. Perhaps youre better off listening to someone who has one and uses in the manner, like a previous poster does.
     
  19. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    I've used them repeatedly with a PC, but as stated, Mr. B is looking for a panel with square pixels and 16:9, the alis panel was a total red herring.
     
  20. tbrar

    tbrar
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    609
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi Maw,

    As stated Im not a PC and Plasma chap, I have never used a PC on an ALiS panel. Consequently, I dont know how it looks.

    Other people on the thread, like you, have used PC's on the panels, therfore are best placed to comment

    My comments were just to clear up the following statement re:- ALiS Panels, which was incorrect:-


    Cheers


    Tony
     

Share This Page

Loading...