What model is your plasma and how do you rate it because I was in Currys
having a look (no I won't buy from them) but out of 5 units they had maked
as HD-Ready, only one supported HDCP which I believe is required for some
Sky HD broadcasts.

I'm trying to put together a short list before I take the plunge.


Mine is a Pioneer "XDE" model. And I am pleased with it.

As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.

Read the technical spec of your chosen model and check that it has either
DVI or HDMI interface which supports HDCP
That the screen can accept and display incoming signals of "720p" or "1080i"
format.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.
Obviously, the higher the better.

Brendan

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:42:12 +0000 (UTC), "Brendan DJ Murphy"
wrote:

What model is your plasma and how do you rate it because I was in Currys
having a look (no I won't buy from them) but out of 5 units they had maked
as HD-Ready, only one supported HDCP which I believe is required for some
Sky HD broadcasts.

I'm trying to put together a short list before I take the plunge.


Mine is a Pioneer "XDE" model. And I am pleased with it.

As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.

Read the technical spec of your chosen model and check that it has either
DVI or HDMI interface which supports HDCP
That the screen can accept and display incoming signals of "720p" or "1080i"
format.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...
As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Yes.
But many poor plasma owners need to convince everyone that 1024 is enough.

Loz

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...
As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Yes.
But many poor plasma owners need to convince everyone that 1024 is enough.

Loz

Pixels do not necessarily have to be square-shaped.
If they are square, then yes, you will need more horizontal pixels for a
16:9 aspect ratio.

Brendan

PS. Please dont call me "Shirley"

The Panasonic, Pioneer 42/43" HD plasmas are 1024 X 768
The Hitachi 42" interlaced is 1024 X1024
same as the Fujitsu (as its the same panel)

"Brendan DJ Murphy" wrote in message
...

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...
As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Yes.
But many poor plasma owners need to convince everyone that 1024 is
enough.

Loz

Pixels do not necessarily have to be square-shaped.
If they are square, then yes, you will need more horizontal pixels for a
16:9 aspect ratio.

Brendan

PS. Please dont call me "Shirley"

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:52:09 +0000 (UTC), "Brendan DJ Murphy"
wrote:


"loz" wrote in message
...

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...
As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Yes.
But many poor plasma owners need to convince everyone that 1024 is enough.

Loz

Pixels do not necessarily have to be square-shaped.
If they are square, then yes, you will need more horizontal pixels for a
16:9 aspect ratio.

Hmm, I've just looked up the minimum requirements for a display
calling itself "HD Ready" (The EICTA "Conditions for HD Labelling of
Display Devices"):

"The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or
display engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio."

So it seems a display can have fewer pixels horizontally than a 720p
HD broadcast (meaning scaling), and still call itself HD Ready...

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...

Hmm, I've just looked up the minimum requirements for a display
calling itself "HD Ready" (The EICTA "Conditions for HD Labelling of
Display Devices"):

"The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or
display engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio."

So it seems a display can have fewer pixels horizontally than a 720p
HD broadcast (meaning scaling), and still call itself HD Ready...

Yep.
As I read it, a 1x720 display could claim HD Ready

Loz

"Brendan DJ Murphy" wrote in message
...

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...
As mentioned in previous posts, the key things too look out for for
High-Definition are the following.
That the screen itself has pixel resolutions of at least 1024 x 768.

1280 x 720, Shirley?

Yes.
But many poor plasma owners need to convince everyone that 1024 is
enough.

Loz

Pixels do not necessarily have to be square-shaped.
If they are square, then yes, you will need more horizontal pixels for a
16:9 aspect ratio.

whatever shape they are, you need more of them for proper HD.
1024 doesnt = 1280 whether they are square, oblong, round, triangular....

Loz

loz wrote:
"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...


Hmm, I've just looked up the minimum requirements for a display
calling itself "HD Ready" (The EICTA "Conditions for HD Labelling of
Display Devices"):

"The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or
display engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio."

So it seems a display can have fewer pixels horizontally than a 720p
HD broadcast (meaning scaling), and still call itself HD Ready...


Yep.
As I read it, a 1x720 display could claim HD Ready

Loz


If I was not impatient, the sensible thing to do would be to wait 6
months or even a year to buy a cheaper HD setup with confidence.
Unfortunately, I AM IMPATIENT!
Hime

Brendan DJ Murphy wrote:

I am an existing Sky subscriber but I do not have Sky+. I have recently
wanted a Sky+ digibox but have decided to wait until the HD-Sky+ boxes are
available.

Hopefully, it shouldn't be much longer now until Sky launches an advertising
campaign for their new HD digiboxes.

If you already have 'free' Sky+ (ie two premium packages or more)
I'd recommend that you get hold of a Sky+ box anyway. It really is a
nice addition to Sky and makes it a much better experience. Chances
are that Sky will offer a deal to their existing Sky+ users when the HD
service comes out but until then you'll get a lot of use out of the
older system.


Gav