Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?

"John" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Malcolm H wrote:
It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing
distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern
plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe
the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger
that 42".

Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably be
disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is far
smaller than 42".

I'm glad that someone's brought this up. I just don't understand this
resolution lark at all and your statement above, Dave, has just confused
me altogether.

I use a 17" "traditional" (4:3) LCD monitor for my computer and it's
excellent running at 1024 x 768. How can a 43" telly use the same
resolution??

Bigger pixels! Sorry to sound flippant but that's basically it. Look
closely at your TV, you can see individual pixels. Now try with your
computer monitor - spotted any yet?

Of course your eyes at distance can't spot the difference and were you to
put, say, 132 columns x 25 rows of text on the TV screen, from the couch you
might be OK but try getting closer and it will be illegible. And you
certainyl can't put lots of text on the TV just because it's 42inches wide!

Paul DS.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Malcolm H wrote:
It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal
viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding.
Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p
but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens
much larger that 42".

Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably
be disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is
far smaller than 42".

I'm glad that someone's brought this up. I just don't understand this
resolution lark at all and your statement above, Dave, has just
confused me altogether.

I use a 17" "traditional" (4:3) LCD monitor for my computer and it's
excellent running at 1024 x 768. How can a 43" telly use the same
resolution??

Bigger pixels! Sorry to sound flippant but that's basically it. Look
closely at your TV, you can see individual pixels. Now try with your
computer monitor - spotted any yet?

Of course your eyes at distance can't spot the difference and were
you to put, say, 132 columns x 25 rows of text on the TV screen, from
the couch you might be OK but try getting closer and it will be
illegible. And you certainyl can't put lots of text on the TV just
because it's 42inches wide!
Paul DS.

Ah, brilliant - all becomes clear now. Thanks Paul

Slider wrote:

If you are getting
a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD.

Eh? How does that work then?

Andy

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Slider wrote:

If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a
720p LCD.

Eh? How does that work then?

Andy




i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -(
1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280.


--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:
In , "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
t.uk...
Slider wrote:

If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a
720p LCD.

Eh? How does that work then?

i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -(
1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280.

Quite a few plasmas are 768p not 720p i.e. 1024x768. You'll also find
a number of LCDs that are 1366x768.

Also note however that the combination of the way Tv is broadcast and
human percieve the result make horizontal resolution less important
than vertical resolution.

And therefore not square pixels either.

Which is irrelevant for TV. Possibly relevant for computer use.

Finally note that resolution is relatively unimportant compared to
contrast ratio and colour accuracy

In article , Yannick Tremblay wrote:
Also note however that the combination of the way Tv is broadcast and
human percieve the result make horizontal resolution less important
than vertical resolution.

And therefore not square pixels either.

Which is irrelevant for TV. Possibly relevant for computer use.

Finally note that resolution is relatively unimportant compared to
contrast ratio and colour accuracy

And programme quality of course. If the programme is rubbish, it
doesn't matter how many pixels there are, and they can be pentagonal
for all I care.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

I think you would care, actually. If you've ever been to the Alhambra
in Granada, you will have seen no pentagonal tilings:
http://www.coolmath.com/tesspag1.htm

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:17:11 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

it
doesn't matter how many pixels there are, and they can be pentagonal
for all I care.

In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:
In , (Yannick
Tremblay) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:

And therefore not square pixels either.

Which is irrelevant for TV.

Not in the HD age it isn't.

The theorical best results for 1080P HD material should be to
display it on a 1080P screen. However, if two screens need to
scale, it is totally irrelevant if they scale to square or rectangular
pixels.

HD is oversold. Humans don't have the visual accuracy to distinguish
between a 1920x1080 picture and a perfectly scaled 1280x720 one at 12'
on a 42" screen.

Bad scaling is more important. In a perfect world, you want no
scaling at all.

Downscaling is a lot easier than upscaling. So taking material that
is 1920x1080 and scaling it to 1280x720 or 1024x768 is relatively
trivial.

If you are going to downscale because the display is not 1920x1080, it
is totally irrelevant if you downscale to square pixels or dowscale to
rectangular pixels.

It is quite possible that a 1024x768 screen give you better results
than a 1280x720 one because there are more vertical lines (which are
more noticeable)despite having less total pixels. but the overall
result will depend far more on a lot of other display quality factors
than purely the resolution.

In practice a 1920x1080 panel dispaying a blue ray 1080P movie will
not necessarily give you a better picture than a 1280x720 panel. It
depends of a lot of other far more important factors than resolution.

Yannick

Yannick Tremblay wrote:
In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:
In , "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Slider wrote:
If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a
720p LCD.
Eh? How does that work then?
i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -(
1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280.

Quite a few plasmas are 768p not 720p i.e. 1024x768. You'll also find
a number of LCDs that are 1366x768.

Haven't looked at the horizontal res - I just asssumed the pixels were
square.

But which LCD TVs *aren't* 768? All the ones I've looked at are.

Andy