1024x1024 Plasma - why?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Some "HD" plasma widescreens sold in Europe have a native resolution of
1024x1024 pixels, and I'm confused! What is the philosophy behind this
configuration? It seems to have no relation to HDTV...

dOinK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dOinK wrote:

> Some "HD" plasma widescreens sold in Europe have a native resolution of
> 1024x1024 pixels, and I'm confused! What is the philosophy behind this
> configuration? It seems to have no relation to HDTV...
>
> dOinK

The 1024x1024 plasmas are ALiS - Alternate LIghting of Surfaces -
panels. All made by Hitachi, IIRC. These panels alternate between two
interleaved sets of 512 pixel rows (vertical axis), lighting up 512 rows
and then the other 512 rows. So these panels are not necessarily
progressive displays and may not be as sharp vertically as 1024x768
panels for 720P sources.

The 1024x1024 are technically HD panels because they provide 720
pixels of resolution along the vertical axis - which meets the CEA
specs. Other than the 42" 852x480 ED panels, all of the 42" HD plasmas
on the market have rectangular pixels - either the 1024x768p or the
1024x1024 ALiS panels. You have to go to the 50" HD plasmas to get
square pixels as most 50" plasmas are 1366x768. Don't get too hung up on
the rectangular pixel bit, the HD picture on my Panasonic 42" 1024x768
plasma looks damn good. It would look a tad sharper horizontally if it
had 1280x720 or 1366x768 pixels, but at a 8 to 10 feet sitting distance,
the difference is not all that obvious for a 42" widescreen TV.

Alan F

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I asked the same thing a while back. The reason they can make a widescreen
display with a square # of pixels is: The pixels aren't square.

How they can call that display HD is because the display will ACCEPT an HD
input and downconvert it. The requirement is to ACCEPT the HD input, not
necessarily DISPLAY HD in its native resolution. You are correct, 1024x1024
CAN NOT display HD in its true form. Probably still looks damn good but it
ain't HD.

--Dan

"dOinK" <doinkx@on-my-tan-line.no> wrote in message
news:d4t3is$n5g$1@bat-news01.osl.basefarm.net...
> Some "HD" plasma widescreens sold in Europe have a native resolution of
> 1024x1024 pixels, and I'm confused! What is the philosophy behind this
> configuration? It seems to have no relation to HDTV...
>
> dOinK
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thanks Alan and dg!

One more question: Any likelihood that sets able to display the full
1920x1080 resolution (without downsampling) will be available in Europe soon
(I have a har time finding any, even CRTs)? I used to have a 30" 1080i
capable Samsung CRT when I lived in the US last year, and would like
something similar here (currently located in Europe).

dOinK

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eYSdnYdNfbTMD-_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> dOinK wrote:
>
>> Some "HD" plasma widescreens sold in Europe have a native resolution of
>> 1024x1024 pixels, and I'm confused! What is the philosophy behind this
>> configuration? It seems to have no relation to HDTV...
>>
>> dOinK
>
> The 1024x1024 plasmas are ALiS - Alternate LIghting of Surfaces - panels.
> All made by Hitachi, IIRC. These panels alternate between two interleaved
> sets of 512 pixel rows (vertical axis), lighting up 512 rows and then the
> other 512 rows. So these panels are not necessarily progressive displays
> and may not be as sharp vertically as 1024x768 panels for 720P sources.
>
> The 1024x1024 are technically HD panels because they provide 720 pixels
> of resolution along the vertical axis - which meets the CEA specs. Other
> than the 42" 852x480 ED panels, all of the 42" HD plasmas on the market
> have rectangular pixels - either the 1024x768p or the 1024x1024 ALiS
> panels. You have to go to the 50" HD plasmas to get square pixels as most
> 50" plasmas are 1366x768. Don't get too hung up on the rectangular pixel
> bit, the HD picture on my Panasonic 42" 1024x768 plasma looks damn good.
> It would look a tad sharper horizontally if it had 1280x720 or 1366x768
> pixels, but at a 8 to 10 feet sitting distance, the difference is not all
> that obvious for a 42" widescreen TV.
>
> Alan F
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dOinK wrote:
> Thanks Alan and dg!
>
> One more question: Any likelihood that sets able to display the full
> 1920x1080 resolution (without downsampling) will be available in Europe soon
> (I have a har time finding any, even CRTs)? I used to have a 30" 1080i
> capable Samsung CRT when I lived in the US last year, and would like
> something similar here (currently located in Europe).
>
> dOinK

There are few true 1920x1080 TVs currently on the market in the US, so
I expect there are even fewer in Europe. The only one that is widely
available at the retail stores is the 1920x1080 Sharp 45" Aquos LCD TV
which has a rather soft picture which is apparently is due to filtering
choices and limited bandwidth of the electronics. Based on all the
comments and reviews of the Sharp 45" Aquos (including a surprisingly
honest one in the latest May/June issue of The Perfect Vision), my
recommendation for anyone thinking of getting one would be to wait for
the next model year. Give them another year or two to improve the set.
The 46" Samsung LCD TV has been rarely seen and has never apparently
shipped in any significant quantity in the US.

There are 1920x1080 microdisplay Rear Projection TV coming on the
market. The Sony 70" SXRD (?) based Qualia is available which gets rave
reviews, but is expensive at $13,000 USD list. 1920x1080 DLP RPTVs are
on the way, supposed to start showing up in June the last I heard.

If you really want to get a true 1920x1080 set, the good news is that
a year or two from now - at least in the US - they should be a lot more
common. Don't know about Europe, given the limited amount of HDTV
available there. But don't get too hung up on having a true 1920x1080 TV
unless you are getting a 50" or bigger set. At a sitting distance of
say, 8 feet for a 32 to 42" screen, you will be hard pressed to see the
difference between a 1280x720 screen and a 1920x1080 screen, assuming
good scalar electronics. You run into the limits of the angular
resolution of the human eye which is normally given as 1 arc minute or so.

Alan F

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

>dOinK wrote:
>
>> Some "HD" plasma widescreens sold in Europe have a native resolution of
>> 1024x1024 pixels, and I'm confused! What is the philosophy behind this
>> configuration? It seems to have no relation to HDTV...
>>
>> dOinK
>
> The 1024x1024 plasmas are ALiS - Alternate LIghting of Surfaces -
>panels. All made by Hitachi, IIRC. These panels alternate between two
>interleaved sets of 512 pixel rows (vertical axis), lighting up 512 rows
>and then the other 512 rows. So these panels are not necessarily
>progressive displays and may not be as sharp vertically as 1024x768
>panels for 720P sources.
>
> The 1024x1024 are technically HD panels because they provide 720
>pixels of resolution along the vertical axis - which meets the CEA
>specs. Other than the 42" 852x480 ED panels, all of the 42" HD plasmas
>on the market have rectangular pixels - either the 1024x768p or the
>1024x1024 ALiS panels. You have to go to the 50" HD plasmas to get
>square pixels as most 50" plasmas are 1366x768. Don't get too hung up on
>the rectangular pixel bit, the HD picture on my Panasonic 42" 1024x768
>plasma looks damn good.

>It would look a tad sharper horizontally if it
>had 1280x720 or 1366x768 pixels, but at a 8 to 10 feet sitting distance,
>the difference is not all that obvious for a 42" widescreen TV.

I'm thinking that:
1) The best picture is achieved if resampling is avoided, although
resampling in the horisontal direction is not so critical.
2) The most problems with resampling is in the vertical direction
combined with the conversion between interlaced signal to progressive
display (or the opposit) when the number of lines is not an easy
ratio. Especially when resampling also the frame rate
(24,30,50,60,75,100 Hz for different signal/content/display types).

This is why we would be much better off if there could be ONE HD
standard, to which the display manufacturers could optimise the
design.
/Jan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan B" <nospam@nospam.se>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: 1024x1024 Plasma - why?



> I'm thinking that:
> 1) The best picture is achieved if resampling is avoided, although
> resampling in the horisontal direction is not so critical.
> 2) The most problems with resampling is in the vertical direction
> combined with the conversion between interlaced signal to progressive
> display (or the opposit) when the number of lines is not an easy
> ratio. Especially when resampling also the frame rate
> (24,30,50,60,75,100 Hz for different signal/content/display types).
>
> This is why we would be much better off if there could be ONE HD
> standard, to which the display manufacturers could optimise the
> design.
> /Jan

Conversion (scaling, deinterlacing) have gotten pretty good recently, with
dedicated and inexpensive LSI "chips". I would say that avoiding conversion
is no longer necessary. Displays of various types and resolution can be
handled expertly regardless of the broadcast format. Even CRTs have an
optimum scan rate based on the electon beam diameter. If it's exceeded, and
the scan lines overlap, resolution is lost.