Is this TV Ok for Sky HD??

"Piggy" The wrote in message
...

"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.


Sorry that is wrong the fields are 540x1920

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:01:00 GMT, "Piggy" The wrote:


"Piggy" The wrote in message
...

"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.


Sorry that is wrong the fields are 540x1920

Correct. Interlacing is only used vertically. So a 1024x768 panel is very far from being able to
reproduce a 1920x1080i HDTV picture accurately.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"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.



--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

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

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

"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.

"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/

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.

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.

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.