"Nath" wrote in message
. ..

"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
ignore 852x480 42" screens.

Why?

Justin.



PAL will have to be scaled down (therefore loose rez) to 480 lines.

However NTSC is 480 lines so no scaling is done. I've seen the Panasonics-
pretty good picture, although at the same viewing distance as my own 42"
screen I can see the pixel resolution



You talk such ****ing ****e like I have never read. Idiot face, It's no
wonder you can see the pixels on the plasma, it's 2 feet away from your wank
tube woofer & your spunky bed, live at home povvie.

Sell your supposed gear & buy a house you ****ing titwrench.

BTW, I have had both 40"+ rear Pros & 42inch plasma's, you talk utter
****ing cowslurry.

"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"Nath" wrote in message
. ..
"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
ignore 852x480 42" screens.

Why?


PAL will have to be scaled down (therefore loose rez) to 480 lines.

I know that - but the other option is not exactly great either! ;-)

The OP said to totally ignore 480 displays - I don't agree... We're not
likely to get a HDTV feed anytime in the future so 480 screens are just
fine... The Panasonic scaling is excellent.

Justin.



Exactly Justin, don't listen to others (who normally don't own the said
item) use your OWN eyes/ears to judge. By purchasing & living with the said
item puts you well in front of shop window reviewers like (Burger King)
Nath.

"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"Nath" wrote in message
. ..
"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
ignore 852x480 42" screens.

Why?


PAL will have to be scaled down (therefore loose rez) to 480 lines.

I know that - but the other option is not exactly great either! ;-)

The OP said to totally ignore 480 displays -

I didn't say "totally".

I don't agree... We're not
likely to get a HDTV feed anytime in the future so 480 screens are just
fine... The Panasonic scaling is excellent.

Justin.



Well except that there are 576 lines in a PAL picture.

The other reason [for me anyway] is that you can put a small slave PC in the
lounge and do a bit of web browsing from the sofa. True VGA is 640x480 and
will fit, but a higher resolution screen will be able to display something a
little more useful.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
ignore 852x480 42" screens.

Why?


PAL will have to be scaled down (therefore loose rez) to 480 lines.
I know that - but the other option is not exactly great either! ;-)
The OP said to totally ignore 480 displays -

I didn't say "totally".

So which bit of 'ignore 852x480 42" screens' doesn't mean "totally"? :)

I don't agree... We're not
likely to get a HDTV feed anytime in the future so 480 screens are just
fine... The Panasonic scaling is excellent.

Well except that there are 576 lines in a PAL picture.

Indeed - but even with an NTSC signal you're not likely to get a 1:1 line
mapping. It's one of the 'problems' with a fixed resolution display - you
can't have the best of both worlds...

An excellent article of 480 vs 1024 is he http://tinyurl.com/2hw7m

The other reason [for me anyway] is that you can put a small slave PC in
the
lounge and do a bit of web browsing from the sofa. True VGA is 640x480
and
will fit, but a higher resolution screen will be able to display something
a
little more useful.

That's the only reason to go for a higher res plasma... (IMHO)

Justin.

"AR" wrote in message ...
Hi there,

you'll be pleased to know there is a magazine called "What Plasma" from
the
makers of What TV. You should find the first issue on sale at your local W
H
Smith now. Try the computing section and the entertainment section. Cant
make up their mind what classification it is.

AR

This does sound interesting - will try and check it out!

I hope their opinions can be trusted, quite often I find reviewers seem to
vary greatly in what they say about products.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So I have finally decided to ditch the old telly and get a plasma
screen.

Yes yes, I know a projector is better but it isn't really practical for
my
setup.

You reckon - alignment, burn out, walking in front, image brightness and
power consumption...

Having seen image quality, in terms of performance per pound you do get a
lot more with a projector, I mean £2.5k buys you a basic 42 inch plasma
display (852*480), but you can buy a 1024x786 projector for the same money,
that can easily give you a 60 inch screen.

But issues such as you mentioned mean that I have ruled them out.


Finding reviews for plasma screens has prooved more difficult than I
thought
at first, the only proper (i.e. paper) ones I have found have been from
What
HiFi magazine:

First they recommended:

JVC PD-42D30ES for £5,500

This month they recommend the:

Pioneer PDP-434HDE for £4500

The above two are 42 inch screens, but I noticed that there was a 50
inch
version of the Pioneer for sale:

Pioneer PDP-504HDE for £5799

This seems like quite a good deal, a 50 inch screen for under £6k. But
is
it
any good? I am really having trouble finding any reviews for this,
online
or
offline.

Also, WhatHiFi magazine recommends using a Pioneer DVD player (which
costs
£1000 (!)) and a Pioneer amp to take advantage of Pioneer's "HDMI"
interconnects. Along with surround speakers this pushes the system price
to
nearly £9k. Is this worth it?

The DVD is definitely NOT worth it.

I have always wondered if there is any discernable picture quality
difference between the very cheapest (£29.99) DVD players, and the most
expensive (over £1,000).

In the days of video there were noticeable differences between cheap and
expensive machines, but now I am far less convinced when everything is
digital decoding.


Finally, I am confused about where to buy. Shops I have visisted tend to
have a poor range, or silly prices, so I am looking online. So far the
places I see with reasonable choice a

www.empiredirect.co.uk
www.homecinemaheaven.com

Try Sound & Vision in Bolton [le Moors*], D&C or Richer Sounds.

Is that the "Sevenoaks Sound & Vision"? I have one near me in Crawley.

What Video & Widescreen (Nov. Edition) has a table of review results.

Including only the (best for any make) 1024 x 768+ for 42" these a -

Fujitsu P42HHS10S £5k4 5
Hitachi CL42MA400E £3k 5 "no tuner"
JVC PD-42PD20 £6k5 (1280x1024) 4.5
JVC PD-42D30ES £5k5 4
Philips 42PF9964 £5k8 4.5 "one of the best plasma's money can buy"
Sony KE-42MR1 £8k 4 "flawed performance"

ignore 852x480 42" screens.

I agree with this statement entirely, that is a pretty low res and at that
point you are merely sacrificing quality to achieve size.

There are larger higher resolution screens from

Fujitsu, NEC, Panasonic, Pioneer (not reviewed), Samsung, Sharp, Thompson,
Toshiba and Yamaha. None under £5k though.

You need to be about 3m from a 36", 4m from a 42" and 5m from a 50" in
order
to be able to view it properly.

For my money the Philips 9964 is the best because: -

Pixel Plus cleans up the image (seen this working at a show).
Best tuner box with loads of inputs including VGA.
Best teletext.
About £3k5 on the street.


OK well cheers I will have to add it to my shortlist and check it out!

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So I have finally decided to ditch the old telly and get a plasma
screen.

Hi Oliver!

Hi Tim- tis a small world eh? :)

Try your local richersounds for value for money and advice - they have
good
deals on domestic plasma TVs which compete with the online prices and you
get to play and take away. Wait until the middle of the month though, got
a
DVD from them today and they're mega busy.

I have never had any trouble with Richer Sounds. Panasonic plasma 2499

I hadn't thought of them, I didn't know they had gotten into the plasma
business, my main criteria though is choice, most places only have 2 or 3
displays running, not really enough to get a really good feel for the
relative quality.

http://www.richersounds.com/index.ph...l.php&p=206557

without tuner, but not a problem for most people now (get a twin tuner
freeview or a sky+ box)

I have Sky, so I would probably not use the tuner anyway

50" pioneer is 4999 from them.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
I have always wondered if there is any discernable picture quality
difference between the very cheapest (£29.99) DVD players, and the most
expensive (over £1,000).
In the days of video there were noticeable differences between cheap and
expensive machines, but now I am far less convinced when everything is
digital decoding.

That's true to a degree. It's all a question of diminishing returns, a DVD
player costing £400 is not twice as good as one costing £200. Buy a DVD
player based on it's features (e.g. progressive scan) and your budget...


ignore 852x480 42" screens.

I agree with this statement entirely, that is a pretty low res and at that
point you are merely sacrificing quality to achieve size.

In modern terms it *is* 'low res' but remember the signal that will be fed
to the display is roughly the same. A higher res screen does not invent
extra information that is not there!

Best to test a 480 and 1024 display side-by-side with your typical inputs.
Any decent shop will do this - it's a large sum of cash to part with without
demo'ing first...

If you're feeding VGA to it (from a PC) then the higher res is almost
certainly worth the extra.

Justin.

"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"Nath" wrote in message
. ..
"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
ignore 852x480 42" screens.

Why?


PAL will have to be scaled down (therefore loose rez) to 480 lines.

I know that - but the other option is not exactly great either! ;-)

The OP said to totally ignore 480 displays - I don't agree... We're not
likely to get a HDTV feed anytime in the future so 480 screens are just
fine... The Panasonic scaling is excellent.

I find that downscaling tends to look better than upscaling unless you're
using an outboard scaler, too...

I'd rather have a 480 screen than one of those weird 1024x1024-but-16:9
jobs. Don't trust non-square pixels! ;)

-Vin

"Justin Cole" wrote in message
...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
I have always wondered if there is any discernable picture quality
difference between the very cheapest (£29.99) DVD players, and the most
expensive (over £1,000).
In the days of video there were noticeable differences between cheap and
expensive machines, but now I am far less convinced when everything is
digital decoding.

That's true to a degree. It's all a question of diminishing returns, a
DVD
player costing £400 is not twice as good as one costing £200. Buy a DVD
player based on it's features (e.g. progressive scan) and your budget...


ignore 852x480 42" screens.

I agree with this statement entirely, that is a pretty low res and at
that
point you are merely sacrificing quality to achieve size.

In modern terms it *is* 'low res' but remember the signal that will be fed
to the display is roughly the same. A higher res screen does not invent
extra information that is not there!

No, but I think there is an advantage to be had even if the screen is at a
higher res than the signal, modern electronics usually interpolate the
image, so it does actually look better even though technically there is no
extra detail.

Best to test a 480 and 1024 display side-by-side with your typical inputs.
Any decent shop will do this - it's a large sum of cash to part with
without
demo'ing first...

I have had a glance, and IMO 480's are not worth bothering with. When you
consider you can get a top-of-the-range 32 inch widescreen TV for half the
price, which offers a much better picture, then the basic plasma's don't
make a good case for themselves.

If you're feeding VGA to it (from a PC) then the higher res is almost
certainly worth the extra.

Justin.