Spec me a 42" er
- Thread starter pitchfork
- Start date
XD-3 said:
You mean 730P? How can a 1024x768 set be 1080P? It can't. It means the set can accept a 1080p signal, but it'll downscale to native resolution.
Anyway I had a 42" Sharp XD1 set, apart from it's flaws (humming backlight & greyscale hosting) it was a superb LCD.
I thought 720p was the mid-range 'HD' resolution?
The Panasonic website says about the PX70:
V-real Technology For Ultimate High Picture Quality
1080p Digital Processing Chip-Set
1080p Digital Re-mastering Processor
3,072 Equivalent Steps of Gradation
Max. 10,000 : 1 Contrast
HD Optimizer
Advanced 3D Colour management
Motion Pattern Noise Reduction
Sub-Pixel Controller.
Other Features
VIERA Link
2 x HDMI Input
High Quality Elegant Design
PC Input
However, I think it does scale any 1080p input down to it's max resolution. AFAIK there are no 1080p 42" plasma screens yet, only 50".
The Pana's are one of the best around for picture quality and are stupidly cheap too. Which is nice.
The Panasonic website says about the PX70:
V-real Technology For Ultimate High Picture Quality
1080p Digital Processing Chip-Set
1080p Digital Re-mastering Processor
3,072 Equivalent Steps of Gradation
Max. 10,000 : 1 Contrast
HD Optimizer
Advanced 3D Colour management
Motion Pattern Noise Reduction
Sub-Pixel Controller.
Other Features
VIERA Link
2 x HDMI Input
High Quality Elegant Design
PC Input
However, I think it does scale any 1080p input down to it's max resolution. AFAIK there are no 1080p 42" plasma screens yet, only 50".
The Pana's are one of the best around for picture quality and are stupidly cheap too. Which is nice.
Seems to be some confusion here
42" plasmas have a custom Res of 1024X768 i.e. 4:3 but the pixels are physically rectangular. The scaling chip does the hard job here though.
768p would correspond to something like 1360X768 at 16:9 or 1024X768 at 4:3
So basically the scaler in the plasma will scale any signal upto 1080p on to 1024X768 pixels.
Needless to say information is lost here for higher res signals but the plasma will have other picture quality advantages which make up for lower res than LCD.
sid
42" plasmas have a custom Res of 1024X768 i.e. 4:3 but the pixels are physically rectangular. The scaling chip does the hard job here though.
768p would correspond to something like 1360X768 at 16:9 or 1024X768 at 4:3
So basically the scaler in the plasma will scale any signal upto 1080p on to 1024X768 pixels.
Needless to say information is lost here for higher res signals but the plasma will have other picture quality advantages which make up for lower res than LCD.
sid
Pretty sure Panasonic's new 42inch 1080p plasma's been released now, forget the model number though.
Still their 1024x768 plasma's have fantastic pictures, much better contrast, and colour purity than LCD's in my opinion. Pure resolution isnt everything unless of course your sitting 2 ft from the screen, and playing Xbox/Playstation etc, in which case LCD's better.
But for a 'Movie' system I'd pick a plasma over LCD every time.
Enjoy your new TV, Im sure you'll love it.
I correct myself, the TH42PZ700's only been released in japan so far, although its big brother the TH50PZ700's been released in the UK. These are the 1920x1080, full resolution 1080P plasmas.
Still their 1024x768 plasma's have fantastic pictures, much better contrast, and colour purity than LCD's in my opinion. Pure resolution isnt everything unless of course your sitting 2 ft from the screen, and playing Xbox/Playstation etc, in which case LCD's better.
But for a 'Movie' system I'd pick a plasma over LCD every time.
Enjoy your new TV, Im sure you'll love it.
I correct myself, the TH42PZ700's only been released in japan so far, although its big brother the TH50PZ700's been released in the UK. These are the 1920x1080, full resolution 1080P plasmas.
Last edited:
KaHn said:
yeah with true HD around the corner it would be sensible to buy a 1080p screen. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD will look fantastic on it. Wheras for lower resolution screens have to downscale. It'll look better than regular DVD-Video's, but if you paid full whack for HD-DVD player might as well get the full resolution out of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
KaHn said:
But you would be happy with a screen that cant do black detail and smears ?
Funny ol world.
Paper based specs whores *** !
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
squiffy said:
The only screen that can do justice to either Bluray or HD-DVD is the Pioneer 5000ex. Full HD res and true 24fps. Anything else is a total compromise, Think they are down to 4k now. But again i suspect its purely the numbers of the res you are refering to, again why the hangup on the res of the screen. I would be far more interested in a screen without Judder/smearing/poor blacks than the actual res - esp at 42" where you are not getting the full benefit of 1080p anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
KaHn said:
Well technical limitations of the technology or my eyes. The Samsung is actually pretty good, closest i have see a LCD get to plasma (better than a Bravia X) but it can only do a good black whilst crushing detail.
But the point i was making is why do pepole say 'you must get a 1080p set' its madness. The technology is in its infancy, none of the current tv's can scale and move anywhere near 1080 lines so you only get 1080p really with a static shot. Unless you feed the screen a pure 1080p signal that needs no adjustment you really arent getting the best from the source. If you put such an importance on 1080p get a 5000ex or wait for the plasma 2 or pany 1080p screens. The only reason to get a LCD would be if you use it for a pc desktop screen. But why get 1080p when feeding it freeview or dvds ? its madness, the future proofing argument is insane as we dont go digital until 2012 so HD terrestrial is miles off. As a Sky HD owner i still watch vastly more SD stuff than HD and ITV looks bad enough on a 720p screen. Its truly awful on a 1080p screen.
Lets get it straight, 1080p lcds are popular due to price and bragging rights, future proofing and watching todays mix of sources has no baring on getting a 1080p screen now as within a year the current sets will look awful compared to whats out then. The amount of 1080p material will have barely changed.
If you seriously feed a screen only 1080p then get a projector, as soon as you feed it anything below 1080p (even 1080i) you throw away all the resolution advantages and anything below 1080i looks vastly better on a 720p screen. (regardless of it being plasma or lcd or dlp or tripple ccd etc etc)
If you missed some earleir points I would be connecting my PC to it, but also I have used lower contrast ratio LCD's and I am just not a fan, these are the only screens (along with other true HD screens) I have seen which truely show a good picture. But we are all entitled to our opinions, I will save mine till I have had a play around with my samsung.
KaHn
KaHn
I see someone is bashing LCD (Plasma owner) typical really. Just because Plasma is behind. Plasma's aren't suitable for PC use, see the other thread with screenburn.
Anyway that Sharp 42" XD1 was superb, but it did have a few faults. SD was very good indeed (source was Oppo 981 and HTPC with FFDSHOW 1080p scaling)
LCD's can't reproduce a true black, but if the backlight is adjustable you can get a decent blend of blackness, however maximum contrast is reduced. Viewing in a darkended room helps, you really don't need 100% backlight/ contrast because it burns your retinas, and with the backlight down the black level is pretty good.
I had the Sharp used as a Windows desktop and it was incredible, you really need 1080p for a screen this size for GUI. 1024x768 for a Plasma is too low.
My brother has a Samsung LCD, the backlight can't be adjusted.
Anyway that Sharp 42" XD1 was superb, but it did have a few faults. SD was very good indeed (source was Oppo 981 and HTPC with FFDSHOW 1080p scaling)
LCD's can't reproduce a true black, but if the backlight is adjustable you can get a decent blend of blackness, however maximum contrast is reduced. Viewing in a darkended room helps, you really don't need 100% backlight/ contrast because it burns your retinas, and with the backlight down the black level is pretty good.
I had the Sharp used as a Windows desktop and it was incredible, you really need 1080p for a screen this size for GUI. 1024x768 for a Plasma is too low.
My brother has a Samsung LCD, the backlight can't be adjusted.
yeah but about 2.5 times the price!!!KaHn said:
going back the OP he clear hasn;t got the budget for the new FULL HD screens that are getting near - they are likely to be twice the price of the PX70 model.
If you budget is £800 then nothing comes close to the quality of the PX70.
I severly doubt that anyone could tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p if two screens were set up side by side - technology moves on but just buy what you can afford at the time.
Personally my 42PX70 and Toshiba HD-E1 looks stunning and for just over £1000 i am mighty mighty impressed!! IF you want to spend twice that feel free to do so
Last edited: