HD Ready Plasma 1024x768

[Talisa]

I am a little confused on some of the wording on technical websites. I know what 1024x768 means physically, but what does it mean in the world of HD TV's.

As I understood it, the term 1080P HD derrives from the resolution of 1920x1080. Is this correct, and if so, why is a TV 1080P when it is only 768 according to specs?

Lost and confused

[Muad'Dib]

It is confusing Talisa and i'm sure the companies that make these TV want it that way.

If a TV has a native resolution of 1920x1080 then the panel has a physical pixel structrure consisting of 2073600 pixels. If on the other hand it only has 1024x768 then the panel has just 786432 pixels. To stop people being put off by the lower resolution panel which is alot cheaper to make TV companies list resolutions TVs are capable of excepting. So when you feed a TV which has a native resolution of 1024x768 with a signal consisting of 1920x1080 lines you still get a picture. With some older models you would just get a blank screen. So the TV has whats known as a scaler to convert the higher resolution into one that matches the panel.

I'm not sure if this is true in your case though.

[Talisa]

So the bottom line is that it can still display full 1080P HD image as it is supposed to be seen and I am not losing anything in terms of quality of picture in sharpness etc?

[Muad'Dib]

After looking at the specs it does indeed seem to have a native resolution of 1024x768.

I wouldn't say this is a big deal though on a TV of 42". Games wise you can use more AA which has the same effect of higher resolutions. For movies i doubt you would see much difference either depending on how far away you sit.

So the bottom line is that it can still display full 1080P HD image as it is supposed to be seen and I am not losing anything in terms of quality of picture in sharpness etc?

You won't be able to see full 1080p from a blu-ray no, the TV will convert/scale it to 768p. You will still get the benifit of sharpness Blu-ray provides though, as its allways better to down convert a signal than upconvert imo.

You'd have to have ultra razor sharp eye sight to see the difference between 1080p and 768p on a 42" TV at say 10'.

[Talisa]

Think I am missing something here.

Yes the TV appears to be native 1024*768 as you rightly pointed out from the specs, but am I still getting 1920*1080 when I am watching Blu-Ray? Or is this 1024 etc only relating to PC input display capability?

Sorry if I am being thick

[Ian H]

Your TV will accept the 1080p signal from your BD player and rescale this internally to 1024x768 to display.

You might not get the full benefit of the 1080p source, but that doesn't mean you will be missing out, some cheaper 1920x1080 panels actually give a lower quality image than a 1024x768 panel, its not all about pixels, its about how your TV handles the image.

I've got a 1920x1080 Samsung LCD, and a friends lower resolution Pioneer givesa much better picture, but at three times the price it should do.

If your happy with the picture quality and the price you paid don't worry about it, just sit back and enjoy.

[Muad'Dib]

If you have your Blu-ray player set to 1080p then the TV will tell you what input signal it is not what its actually displaying. If the panel doesn't have the physical pixel its impossible to display it.

Try setting the player to 720p and see if you can tell the difference.

[Talisa]

I am not unhappy with the TV at all. It all links back to the thread I placed on here relating to RF interference. I have agreed (scowling) that Samsung may take the TV for three working days to be tested to see if they can find a faulty component. They say it should not be knocking out radio transmissions.

However, if they are unable to find a fault, I have got Amazon to agree to refund me for the TV in which case I shall be back in the market again. Hence doing a little more research now to try and understand what is best to get, if I replace.

50" Native at 1920 rez sounds good

[Muad'Dib]

You might see a difference at 50" but like Ian says it depends on the quality of the TV in question. A sharp 768 TV might look better than a soft 1080p TV. Its a tough call.

[Smackos]

Toni, when it comes to screen size and resolution the first thing when deciding on which one suits your needs best is based on how far away you actually sit from the screen. Obviously the closer you sit to a screen of any given size then the more you'll notice the difference in resolution mate..

The easy answer is to go for the highest resolution you can but If you sit fairly far away then you probably won't notice a heck of a lot in real world terms.

[Talisa]

Thanks for that. I would say that I will be sitting about 4 to 5 metres from the screen. Will measure it properly tomorrow. Hopefully, they will find something wrong with the existing TV, resolve it and then the whole subject is moot anyway.

[Dark Knight]

............ 50" Native at 1920 rez sounds good

That certainly SHOULD be a great picture with a 1920 source at most distances

Sorry to hear about the grief Toni

[Smackos]

Deano's right, for roughly the distances your talking about then stepping up to 50 inches you should certainly benefit from the added resolution.. I'd also check things like the contrast ratios and any other added features that differ the two models just in case you'd be loosing out in other area's whilst stepping up in resolution.

[Dark Knight]

Deano's right, for roughly the distances your talking about then stepping up to 50 inches you should certainly benefit from the added resolution.. I'd also check things like the contrast ratios and any other added features that differ the two models just in case you'd be loosing out in other area's whilst stepping up in resolution.

Oh so true Mat...... I should think before i type more often

[Smackos]

..no worries Deano.. 2 heads are better than 1 mate..