|
|
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
I like the look of this
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Mr Muffin Top" no.spam wrote in message ... I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? full hd is 1900x1080 - 1080i or 1080p that plasma will show 720p - 1280x720. it will downscale it a little though. that's the price you pay for a 42" plasma - if you want full 720p you'll need a 50" model. at the resolution it provides it does qualify for a HD ready sticker though. -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Mike Henry" wrote in message ... For a true 1:1 pixel mapping in HD you need at least a 1280 x 720 display. It would scale 1080p resolution down, and 720p would look perfect. Or for more money, get a 1920 x 1080 display. But to get anything other than those two resolutions now, today, seems strange. i've yet to see a plasma under 50" that can manage more than 1024x720 -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:47:45 +0100, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote: "Mike Henry" wrote in message .. . For a true 1:1 pixel mapping in HD you need at least a 1280 x 720 display. It would scale 1080p resolution down, and 720p would look perfect. Or for more money, get a 1920 x 1080 display. But to get anything other than those two resolutions now, today, seems strange. i've yet to see a plasma under 50" that can manage more than 1024x720 Which is why EICTA (European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations) the manufacturers trade association bent the defintiion of HD ready to include these sets even though they are clearly downscaling a true HD signal. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
Mr Muffin Top wrote:
I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? Its a 720p panel, unless the price is very good, you want to be looking towards a 1080p panel. A 720p panel will claim to be able to show a 1080i picture ( it will be expressed as 720p/1080i), however since very very few panels (close to non) are able to display an interlace picture, they just downconvert a 1080i picture to 720p. A 1080p panel can genuinly show 1080i (by turning it into 1080p), and is fast becoming the norm. Gaz |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... 1024x720 Which is why EICTA (European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations) the manufacturers trade association bent the defintiion of HD ready to include these sets even though they are clearly downscaling a true HD signal. -- Well for films there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p since they only run at 24 frames a second. Since 1080i is already transmitted there is little point in transmitting 720p at for a lower resolution on a 1080p panel. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Mr Muffin Top" no.spam wrote in message ... I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? I wouldn't compare monitor and TV resolutions,a monitor is much better quality, ie a DVD normally has a resolution of 720×576 which looks great on a TV but small on a monitor. -- RobertJM |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
|
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:14:17 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:
Mr Muffin Top wrote: I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? Its a 720p panel, unless the price is very good, you want to be looking towards a 1080p panel. A 720p panel will claim to be able to show a 1080i picture ( it will be expressed as 720p/1080i), however since very very few panels (close to non) are able to display an interlace picture, they just downconvert a 1080i picture to 720p. A 1080p panel can genuinly show 1080i (by turning it into 1080p), and is fast becoming the norm. Gaz I would be more concerned about the horizontal resolution. HDTV is 1920 pixels wide & this will be downscaled to 1024 pixels thus losing almost half the resolution. The pixels on a 1024x768 panel are rectangular otherwise it wouldn't be widescreen which again will be mucking up the HD picture as transmitted. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... You have explained the reasoning for the vertical downscaling. Now please explain how 1920 pixels wide being transmitted fits into 1024 pixels being displayed without downscaling. Defining a 1024x768 panel as HD is a fudge to allow the manufacturers to sell to unsuspecting consumers. The interlace also applies to the horizontal definition in HD, as with standard definition.. So the transmitted format is 540x960 per field, the 2 fields build the 1080x1920 frame. So the 1024x768 plasma your not losing any horizontal definition at all when viewing a film source. On a 1920x1080 panel, the only way to get every pixel different is with 1080p source, but film at 24fps isn't really directly compatible with it.. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
|
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
|
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
Piggy wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... 1024x720 Which is why EICTA (European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations) the manufacturers trade association bent the defintiion of HD ready to include these sets even though they are clearly downscaling a true HD signal. -- Well for films there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p since they only run at 24 frames a second. Maybe no difference on a 1080p panel, but on a 720p panel you will not see a 1080i picture as your tv will be unable to display interlaced video afaik. Gaz |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
"Piggy" The wrote in message ... The interlace also applies to the horizontal definition in HD, as with standard definition.. no it doesnt - not at all. a 1080i picture has true 1920 horizontal resolution. But, since you wont see a 1080i picture on a non crt tv, its resolution would be limited to 720p or 1080p, whatever the native resolution of the set. 1080i on a non 1080p panel is a marketing gimick. Gaz |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "Piggy" The wrote in message ... The interlace also applies to the horizontal definition in HD, as with standard definition.. no it doesnt - not at all. a 1080i picture has true 1920 horizontal resolution. We can only assume that sky always transmits full width resolution in 16:9, as it not always documented. I notice that ITV2 on terrestrial was transmitting 576x544 in 16:9. If HD ever comes to terrestrial the width resolution would certainly be squeezed because of the limited bandwidth. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Piggy" The wrote in message ... "the dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "Piggy" The wrote in message ... The interlace also applies to the horizontal definition in HD, as with standard definition.. no it doesnt - not at all. a 1080i picture has true 1920 horizontal resolution. We can only assume that sky always transmits full width resolution in 16:9, as it not always documented. I notice that ITV2 on terrestrial was transmitting 576x544 in 16:9. still doesnt make it horizontally interlaced! -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
In article , Mike Henry
writes In , "Mr Muffin Top" no.spam wrote: I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? I'd avoid it! It will scale every resolution that gets broadcast, before even producing a picture. Also if the aspect ratio of the screen is 16:9 (the spec on that website doesn't even say - watch out for those 15:9 and 16:10 displays!), then each pixel in that 1024x768 grid will be stretched. Non-square pixels and scaling 768-720 isn't a good start. "I'd avoid it" - you must be joking, the px70's are very very good panels!!!! I would thoroughly recommend this TV - the picture in SD is amazing let alone HD. When compared side by side with a full 1080p TV I struggled to notice the difference. Do a search on avforums.com and you will see plenty of very positive reviews. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
In article , Mike Henry
writes In , Paul F wrote: In article , Mike Henry writes In , "Mr Muffin Top" no.spam wrote: I like the look of this http://www.panasonic.co.uk/plasma-tv...0cab/index.htm And would use it to view Sky HD. The chap in John Lewis I spoke to said it would be fine for Sky HD. However the resolution is quoted as - Number of Pixels 786,432 (1,024 x 768) pixels - my computer monitor has a higher resolution that that? I'd avoid it! It will scale every resolution that gets broadcast, before even producing a picture. Also if the aspect ratio of the screen is 16:9 (the spec on that website doesn't even say - watch out for those 15:9 and 16:10 displays!), then each pixel in that 1024x768 grid will be stretched. Non-square pixels and scaling 768-720 isn't a good start. "I'd avoid it" - you must be joking, Nope. I'm deadly serious, for the reasons stated above. Any HD panel ought to at LEAST have an exact match for one of the two HD resolutions (720 or 1080 lines) so that it has 1:1 pixel mapping for a large proportion of time, and only scaling for the rest of the time because there is no option but to do so. And it must have square pixels, again to match HD broadcasts. That's before you even start looking at other factors. Have you actually seen this TV? From the sounds of it I'd say not in which case you can hardly make a judgement can you. If you have seen it first hand then fair enough, but I totally disagree - it is one of the best plasmas on the market for around the £1000 mark. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
In article , Mike Henry
Which part of the above explanation is a problem? Have you actually read the original post? It is about resolution and pixels (and from that, aspect ratio). Having a great panel, even the best in the world, but then scaling the pixels for EVERY resolution it will ever display, is an absurd and unnecessary degradation in quality. If it had 720 lines and square pixels, fine: compromise on the 1080i broadcasts and relish in the 720p perfection. But to actually recommend that someone who wants to watch HD should buy a 1024x768 display in 2007 when proper 720p and 1080p displays are available is just silly. The op said "is this TV Ok for Sky HD". I have Sky HD. I have this TV. As you have seen neither of those 2 working together how does that make your opinion valid? I have seen this side by side with a Sony 1080p LCD and there was very little difference in picture quality, unless you sit 2 inches from your TV of course. 1080p is not all it's cracked up to be, certainly not on a 42 inch screen. |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"Paul F" wrote in message
... In article , Mike Henry Which part of the above explanation is a problem? Have you actually read the original post? It is about resolution and pixels (and from that, aspect ratio). Having a great panel, even the best in the world, but then scaling the pixels for EVERY resolution it will ever display, is an absurd and unnecessary degradation in quality. If it had 720 lines and square pixels, fine: compromise on the 1080i broadcasts and relish in the 720p perfection. But to actually recommend that someone who wants to watch HD should buy a 1024x768 display in 2007 when proper 720p and 1080p displays are available is just silly. The op said "is this TV Ok for Sky HD". I have Sky HD. I have this TV. As you have seen neither of those 2 working together how does that make your opinion valid? I have seen this side by side with a Sony 1080p LCD and there was very little difference in picture quality, unless you sit 2 inches from your TV of course. 1080p is not all it's cracked up to be, certainly not on a 42 inch screen. Many thanx for your comments. I have read the reviews as you suggested and after reading what you had to say I have one on order. Again many thanx |
Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... still doesnt make it horizontally interlaced! ????...I corrected the original message, in which I said it was the full 1920 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com