I think I am going with this one:

On 9/2/2012 11:19 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
On 02/09/2012 00:45, Les Cargill wrote:


Makers don't publish a DPI spec much for TVs so it's hard to say how
many actual picture elements there are. I get the feeling that the
difference between 720p and 1080p is the guts of the TV, not the screen
per se.


it's simple - one has 720 pixels, the other 1080.
it's not like with CRTs where some have a clearer picture than others -
the lcd and plasma sets contain specific numbers of pixels.




So you *could* have a 720p TV that has less than 720 pixels up and
down and 1280 pixels across. I don't think the published spec is a
contract to have that many little boxes on the screen.

I think 720p, 1080i and 1080p are classifications, not physically
descriptive. I think they are about the bandwidth over media, not
necessarily the number of little boxes on the screen.

If you know of a good source that proves me wrong, I'd be grateful.
I haven't found anything by Googling.

I do have one of these:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...961&CatId=3649


It's 1366 X 768, so 720X1280 program material is "dithered up" to
that resolution even if the 1366x768 describes the physical layout
of the screen. There are not 186/2 - 93 dark pixels on the edges -
I looked.

I could figure out the actual expected value of the dot pitch and
then take a measuring tape to the thing, but that would be ...
weird

--
Les Cargill

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3. In this
case, 16:9 programming will display letter boxed, zoomed and cropped, or
- unimaginably - stretched vertically.
Bandwidth, as you have noted, is the frequency used in transmission. A
maximum has been set for domestic OTA digital TV channels, 19.4 mbps,
but no minimum is specified. Any aspect ratio can be used at any bit
rate up to the maximum within the band allocated for TV transmission.

Picture quality is often measured in bits per pixel, which obviously is
a number less than one. However, the different codecs are more or less
efficient than each other, and bpp is only a guide when comparing
compressed sources that were similar to begin with and processed in the
same way. That said, the larger the bpp the better the picture is
likely to be because the source information content will likely be higher.

In article Les Cargill writes:

So you *could* have a 720p TV that has less than 720 pixels up and
down and 1280 pixels across. I don't think the published spec is a
contract to have that many little boxes on the screen.

Not really. If it doesn't have 720 rows of pixels, it isn't 720p, it
is something else converting the signal to display on its panel.


I think 720p, 1080i and 1080p are classifications, not physically
descriptive. I think they are about the bandwidth over media, not
necessarily the number of little boxes on the screen.

No, bandwidth specifications are in bits (or megabits) per second.
720p, etc., are descriptions of the display.

The RCA DPTM70R 234 x 480 resolution of the display, but it displays
program signals sent in 480, 720, and 1080 line formats.

Others list 240 x 480 resolution in the display. Neither of these is
16 x 9, but they also don't claim that the pixels are square.


Just to complicate things a little, many of these sets will overscan
the signal slightly, so they are not exactly matching the 1080 lines of
picture with 1080 lines of display. (Or, 720...)


It's 1366 X 768, so 720X1280 program material is "dithered up" to
that resolution even if the 1366x768 describes the physical layout
of the screen. There are not 186/2 - 93 dark pixels on the edges -
I looked.

Another example of a screen where the pixels are apparently not square.

Alan

In article clover writes:

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3.

It is only 4:3 if the pixels are square. Not all displays have square
pixels.

Alan

On 9/2/2012 11:02 PM, Alan wrote:
In article clover writes:

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3.

It is only 4:3 if the pixels are square. Not all displays have square
pixels.

Alan

I'm sorry, please explain what pixel shape would give me a full screen
16:9 aspect ratio, on a 1024x768 display.

On 9/2/2012 11:02 PM, Alan wrote:
In article clover writes:

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3.

It is only 4:3 if the pixels are square. Not all displays have square
pixels.

Alan

Never mind, I did the math. 25% wider.

On 03/09/2012 16:50, clover wrote:
On 9/2/2012 11:02 PM, Alan wrote:
In article clover
writes:

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3.

It is only 4:3 if the pixels are square. Not all displays have square
pixels.

Alan

I'm sorry, please explain what pixel shape would give me a full screen
16:9 aspect ratio, on a 1024x768 display.


rectangular!
there used to be lots of 16:9 42 inch plasma sets that were 1024x768 - I
recall that at one time nobody expected full 1080 plasmas with screens
smaller than 50" - this is back in the time when they still made 32"
plasmas.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

This site ( http://reviews.cnet.com/hdtv-resolution/ ) suggests that
there is little, if any, visible differences among the various screen
sizes and aspect ratios when displaying HD images. I very much
disagree. We have two inexpensive 32" 1360x768 (as displayed by the
set) TVs with variable frequencies to accommodate various sources.
Panned images of buildings and trees have obvious blurring pretty much
regardless of the source. Whereas the 55", 1920x1080/240, has crystal
clear panned images from all descent sources, i.e. Blu-Ray, HDTV, DVD,
NetFlix, YouTube, etc. Similarly, the America's Cup races being made
available on YouTube look like SD on the 32" displays, while they appear
truly HD on the 55" set. Even more amazing when considering that the
bit rate of YouTube's transmission is a small fraction of that of DVDs.

As long as Sears has a good return policy, say like Costco, then the
best test is for the OP, Metspitzer, to put one in his home and find out
whether he likes it.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:28:16 -0700, "stevev" wrote:



"Metspitzer" wrote in message
.. .

I think I am going with this one:
http://www.sears.com/panasonic-42inc...2&blockType=G2

Anyone think this is a bad choice?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't plasma still have very high energy use
(especially 1080p). LED LCD has the lowest, with LCD in the middle. Be
sure to turn off completely when not in use.


The energy guide claims

http://www.panasonic.com/includes/do...EL_outline.pdf

that this unit supposedly only draw 70 watts,
Note: I've heard certain plasmas, are pre=programmed to degrade the picture constrast
after a couple thousand viewing hours..

As for 1080i/p LED/LCD set's
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Samsung-40-Class-LED-1080p-240Hz-HDTV-3.7-ultra-slim-UN40EH6000/20554026'
http://i.walmart.com/i/rb/0003672523666.pdf

that draws 48 watts..

Note: Tv's with more features,. smart tv, ethernet, etc..increases the baseline power
consumption, even if you don't use those feaures..

On 9/2/2012 11:02 PM, Alan wrote:
In article clover writes:

Without need of a reference, 1366x768, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are all
the same aspect ratio. 16:9. 1024x768 is not. It is 4:3.

It is only 4:3 if the pixels are square. Not all displays have square
pixels.

Alan


Thanks for this reminder, Alan. I'd forgotten that. Had I visited the
OP's link, I guess I might have been reminded, seeing the widescreen
pictured.

I fail to understand how 1024x768 can legitimately be called HD though.
Not only does the algorithm used to resize the image have to throw
away 20% of the 1280 horizontal image, it also needs to add 6.7% to the
vertical image, if it is to fill its native H/V aspect. Whereas,
1920x1080, 1366x768, and 1280x720 scale a 16:9 image in identical
fashion evenly between H & V; i.e. to scale 1280 to 1366 and 720 to 768
the increment is 6.7% in both directions. Likewise, 1280 to 1920 is a
150% increment and 1366 to 1920 a 140% increment for both H & V.

I would think that the black bar fanatics here would find this
non-conforming 1024x768 aspect ratio to be much more offensive and a
marketing inspired perversion of the tag HD.