# What do you make of this? 16:9 Plasma with 1024x768 native..

Tags:
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

How odd, a 16:9 monitor that has a native 4:3 resolution. Can anybody
explain how this functions?

Thanks,
--Dan
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

dg wrote:

> How odd, a 16:9 monitor that has a native 4:3 resolution. Can anybody
> explain how this functions?
>

Rectangular pixels.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:15:15 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>How odd, a 16:9 monitor that has a native 4:3 resolution. Can anybody
>explain how this functions?

You are probably assuming that the pixels are square. ;-)

Kal
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T2vhd.37493\$QJ3.30136@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> How odd, a 16:9 monitor that has a native 4:3 resolution. Can anybody
> explain how this functions?
>
> Thanks,
> --Dan
>
Sounds like a misprint, to me. It should be 1365 by 768. Are you sure
that's the official specification of the pixel count? It could also be 1280
by 720. But 1024 by 768 is more commonly a computer monitor - - unless the
pixels aren't square - - then it could indeed be a 16/9 screen. Look closely
at the pixels to see if they are 33% wider than their height, or do a count
in two directions to see if the density is lower in the horizontal
direction. If the pixel density doesn't indicate a difference, then chalk it

Chuck
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Chuck Olson wrote:

> Sounds like a misprint, to me. It should be 1365 by 768. Are you sure
> that's the official specification of the pixel count? It could also be 1280
> by 720. But 1024 by 768 is more commonly a computer monitor - - unless the
> pixels aren't square - - then it could indeed be a 16/9 screen. Look closely
> at the pixels to see if they are 33% wider than their height, or do a count
> in two directions to see if the density is lower in the horizontal
> direction. If the pixel density doesn't indicate a difference, then chalk it

You may want to read at: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html

1024 x 768 is a common on HD plasmas ....
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Sorry, I meant to include a link:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=100369...

Pioneer PDP-4310

Since this is a Costco page, the data could be wrong, but I have seen other
(unofficial) references to this display being 1024x768. It is obviously a
widescreen 16:9 display from the pic (unless IT is wrong).

Thanks,
--Dan

"Chuck Olson" <chuckolson01@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:0lvhd.450435\$mD.328605@attbi_s02...
>
> "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:T2vhd.37493\$QJ3.30136@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > How odd, a 16:9 monitor that has a native 4:3 resolution. Can anybody
> > explain how this functions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Dan
> >
> Sounds like a misprint, to me. It should be 1365 by 768. Are you sure
> that's the official specification of the pixel count? It could also be
1280
> by 720. But 1024 by 768 is more commonly a computer monitor - - unless
the
> pixels aren't square - - then it could indeed be a 16/9 screen. Look
closely
> at the pixels to see if they are 33% wider than their height, or do a
count
> in two directions to see if the density is lower in the horizontal
> direction. If the pixel density doesn't indicate a difference, then chalk
it
>
> Chuck
>
>
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

"SaltiDawg" <saltidawgNOSPAM@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:41869021\$1@news101.his.com...
>
>
> Chuck Olson wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a misprint, to me. It should be 1365 by 768. Are you sure
>> that's the official specification of the pixel count? It could also be
>> 1280
>> by 720. But 1024 by 768 is more commonly a computer monitor - - unless
>> the
>> pixels aren't square - - then it could indeed be a 16/9 screen. Look
>> closely
>> at the pixels to see if they are 33% wider than their height, or do a
>> count
>> in two directions to see if the density is lower in the horizontal
>> direction. If the pixel density doesn't indicate a difference, then chalk
>> it
>
>
> You may want to read at: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
>
> 1024 x 768 is a common on HD plasmas ....
>

SaltiDawg,

I just read that article and have a question for you. The question focuses
mainly on that chart they show about a third of the way into the article.

I'm interested mainly in the middle two columns. The EDTV (852x480) will
display a picture when you give it an HDTV signal. The HDTV (1024x768) will
also display a picture when you give it an HDTV signal. Both of those
models, however, cannot display ALL the pixels of a 1280x720 HD signal.

My question is, since these models are both incapable of displaying a
1280x720 image, what is the threshold where a tv goes from being "EDTV" to
"HDTV"? For example, if I made a 978x550 display that was capable of
showing a HDTV signal would that be an HDTV? How big does it need to be in
order to be considered HD? Appartently 852x480 is too small and 1024x768 is
big enough. What's the cutoff?

Anonymous
a b C Monitor

> "SaltiDawg" <saltidawgNOSPAM@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
> news:41869021\$1@news101.his.com...
>
>>
>>Chuck Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sounds like a misprint, to me. It should be 1365 by 768. Are you sure
>>>that's the official specification of the pixel count? It could also be
>>>1280
>>>by 720. But 1024 by 768 is more commonly a computer monitor - - unless
>>>the
>>>pixels aren't square - - then it could indeed be a 16/9 screen. Look
>>>closely
>>>at the pixels to see if they are 33% wider than their height, or do a
>>>count
>>>in two directions to see if the density is lower in the horizontal
>>>direction. If the pixel density doesn't indicate a difference, then chalk
>>>it
>>
>>
>>You may want to read at: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
>>
>>1024 x 768 is a common on HD plasmas ....
>>
>
>
> SaltiDawg,
>
> I just read that article and have a question for you. The question focuses
> mainly on that chart they show about a third of the way into the article.
>
> I'm interested mainly in the middle two columns. The EDTV (852x480) will
> display a picture when you give it an HDTV signal. The HDTV (1024x768) will
> also display a picture when you give it an HDTV signal. Both of those
> models, however, cannot display ALL the pixels of a 1280x720 HD signal.
>
> My question is, since these models are both incapable of displaying a
> 1280x720 image, what is the threshold where a tv goes from being "EDTV" to
> "HDTV"? For example, if I made a 978x550 display that was capable of
> showing a HDTV signal would that be an HDTV? How big does it need to be in
> order to be considered HD? Appartently 852x480 is too small and 1024x768 is
> big enough. What's the cutoff?

Since saying that 1024x768 is HD is a marketing choice, it really
doesn't matter. Marketeers will say whatever they can get away with to
lure the unsuspecting into making a purchase. AFAIK, there is no FTC
definition of HDTV. If they felt they could get away with calling
978x550 HD, they would.

It is up to you to decide if 1024x768 has enough resolution for you to
call it HD. As you think about that consider that the quality of the
scalar is very important since 1280 pixels have to be filtered down to
1024 and 720 pixels have to be filtered up to 768. For the absolute best
rendition of 720p the native resolution of the display panel should be
1280x720. Then there is no need for scaling of 720p signals. 1080i
signals will still have to be scaled.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

> My question is, since these models are both incapable of displaying a
> 1280x720 image, what is the threshold where a tv goes from being "EDTV" to
> "HDTV"? For example, if I made a 978x550 display that was capable of
> showing a HDTV signal would that be an HDTV? How big does it need to be in
> order to be considered HD? Appartently 852x480 is too small and 1024x768 is
> big enough. What's the cutoff?

There is no requirement for an HDTV to display ALL of the Pixels that
make up an HD OTA signal. That apparently bothers some of the poster
here, but they will have to deal with it. (Usually they are the same
folks that have heartburn if the native resolution of an HDTV is not
720p (or 1080i.)

as you know, the FCC has established the parameters for broadcasting
digital TV OTA - this includes multiple HD allowed formats. The
Consumer Electronics Association has mandated the requirements that must
be met to label a receiver or TV as "HD."

"High-Definition Television (HDTV):

HDTV refers to a complete product/system with the following minimum
performance attributes:

all ATSC Table 3 video formats
Display Scanning Format: Has active vertical scanning lines of 720
progressive (720p), 1080 interlaced (1080i), or higher

Aspect Ratio: Capable of displaying a 16:9 image1

Audio: Receives and reproduces, and/or outputs Dolby Digital audio "

You will note that there is absolutely no minimum required number of
horizontal pixels EXCEPT the number to yield a 16:9 image which would be
determined with the 720p signal. IF square pixels, that would be 720 X
(16/9)= 1280

IF the pixels were 1.333 times wider than tall and the native resolution
was 768p, that would be 768 X (16/9) X (1/1.333) = 1024

Any HD Tv with a native resolution of less than 1920 X 1080 will NOT be
able to display ALL of the pixels contained in a 1080 ATSC signal. If
one finds this is unsatisfactory, than one might wait for a 1080i or
1080p set.

Hope this helps.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

SaltiDawg wrote:
>
> as you know, the FCC has established the parameters for broadcasting
> digital TV OTA - this includes multiple HD allowed formats.

This is called Federal Regulation and is enforceable by law.

> The
> Consumer Electronics Association has mandated the requirements that must
> be met to label a receiver or TV as "HD."

This is the decision of a manufacturer's organization and has no legal
meaning.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> This is the decision of a manufacturer's organization and has no legal
> meaning.

It certainly has meaning as to what may be labeled HDTV - live with it. ;-)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

SaltiDawg wrote:

>
>
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> This is the decision of a manufacturer's organization and has no legal
>> meaning.
>
>
> It certainly has meaning as to what may be labeled HDTV - live with it. ;-)
>

Care to cite any enforcement mechanism? It is a marketing decision by a
marketing group. That is all the meaning it has.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Care to cite any enforcement mechanism? It is a marketing decision by a
> marketing group. That is all the meaning it has.

I don't quite understand your agenda????

I simply have reported what the facts are - I haven't said that I voted
for them. Heck, it's obvious that you should be in charge of what may
be labled an HDTV as you can't leave it alone. Good by.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

SaltiDawg wrote:

>
>
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Care to cite any enforcement mechanism? It is a marketing decision by
>> a marketing group. That is all the meaning it has.
>
>
> I don't quite understand your agenda????
>
> I simply have reported what the facts are - I haven't said that I voted
> for them.

What did I state that is not also a fact?

> Heck, it's obvious that you should be in charge of what may
> be labled an HDTV as you can't leave it alone. Good by.
>

You are being quite insistent on what can be labeled HD yourself. I am
merely pointing out that there is _NO_ legal definition of an HD
display. In the absence of an FTC rule making, the manufacturers can
legally call any resolution HD. In the absense of such a ruling it is up
to the individual consumer (not you) to decide what is HD.

As a consumer, my decision is 1280x720 _mimimum_ resolution. I would not
consider buying any display below that minimum as an HD display.

Live with that.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In the absence of an FTC rule making, the manufacturers can
> legally call any resolution HD. In the absense of such a ruling it is up
> to the individual consumer (not you) to decide what is HD.

This is like the "HD-ready" label for sets that have no tuner but do accept
HD component (or DVI) inputs.

The CEA had come up with "official" terms to describe sets like this and sets
with tuners inside. But, some stores found that "HD-ready" was confusing
to people, because they thought all they needed was the display, because
it was "all ready for HD".

Now, every store has their own way to describe these things, including having
to deal with the difference between OTA-only HD tuners and unencrypted QAM
cable tuners, and CableCard tuners. Since there is no law about it, stores
can do what they want, although they try to do the right thing, and seem
to be much better at it than describing the quality of the display.

--
Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
SPAM bait: | afford that if we pooled our money together...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Drew Carey
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

Boy, this is getting way too technical even for me. (And, I'm an Advanced
Class FCC licensee (kw5kw) and the I.T. Manager at my work.)

By reading at the FCC website, and various others, I've come to the
conclusion that a new television may be labeled with the "HD for High
Definition" if it is capable of displaying 720p or greater. If it has an
external tuner then it is to be labeled "HD Ready" and if it has an internal
tuner it may be labeled "HD". It has no bearing on how many pixels are
finally in the display, but if the display itself can properly display the
720p picture.

If it is incapable of displaying 720p but is better than or equal to 480p
then it must be labeled "ED" for enhanced definition.

If it is only capable of 480i then it is "SD" for standard definition.

That's the way that I've been able to decipher the plethora of information.
It could have a total of 4 million pixels and the rest of the electronics
allow only 480i then it is "SD".

Russ

"SaltiDawg" <saltidawgNOSPAM@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:4187b2db@news101.his.com...
>
>
>
>
> > My question is, since these models are both incapable of displaying a
> > 1280x720 image, what is the threshold where a tv goes from being "EDTV"
to
> > "HDTV"? For example, if I made a 978x550 display that was capable of
> > showing a HDTV signal would that be an HDTV? How big does it need to be
in
> > order to be considered HD? Appartently 852x480 is too small and
1024x768 is
> > big enough. What's the cutoff?
>
>
> There is no requirement for an HDTV to display ALL of the Pixels that
> make up an HD OTA signal. That apparently bothers some of the poster
> here, but they will have to deal with it. (Usually they are the same
> folks that have heartburn if the native resolution of an HDTV is not
> 720p (or 1080i.)
>
>
> as you know, the FCC has established the parameters for broadcasting
> digital TV OTA - this includes multiple HD allowed formats. The
> Consumer Electronics Association has mandated the requirements that must
> be met to label a receiver or TV as "HD."
>
> "High-Definition Television (HDTV):
>
> HDTV refers to a complete product/system with the following minimum
> performance attributes:
>
> all ATSC Table 3 video formats
> Display Scanning Format: Has active vertical scanning lines of 720
> progressive (720p), 1080 interlaced (1080i), or higher
>
> Aspect Ratio: Capable of displaying a 16:9 image1
>
> Audio: Receives and reproduces, and/or outputs Dolby Digital audio "
>
> You will note that there is absolutely no minimum required number of
> horizontal pixels EXCEPT the number to yield a 16:9 image which would be
> determined with the 720p signal. IF square pixels, that would be 720 X
> (16/9)= 1280
>
> IF the pixels were 1.333 times wider than tall and the native resolution
> was 768p, that would be 768 X (16/9) X (1/1.333) = 1024
>
> Any HD Tv with a native resolution of less than 1920 X 1080 will NOT be
> able to display ALL of the pixels contained in a 1080 ATSC signal. If
> one finds this is unsatisfactory, than one might wait for a 1080i or
> 1080p set.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

It seems to me that if the TV can *accept* HD signal and display it, no
matter the output resolution, they are calling them HD or HD Ready. i.e.
even if the TV can not display real HD, but can *accept* 720p or 1080i and
downconvert it, they are calling that HD. Thats just what I feel from
looking at stores and websites.

--Dan

"kw5kw" <qwerty.kw5kw@swbell.net.qwerty> wrote in message
news:NZRhd.14905\$bP2.9261@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Boy, this is getting way too technical even for me. (And, I'm an Advanced
> Class FCC licensee (kw5kw) and the I.T. Manager at my work.)
>
> By reading at the FCC website, and various others, I've come to the
> conclusion that a new television may be labeled with the "HD for High
> Definition" if it is capable of displaying 720p or greater. If it has an
> external tuner then it is to be labeled "HD Ready" and if it has an
internal
> tuner it may be labeled "HD". It has no bearing on how many pixels are
> finally in the display, but if the display itself can properly display the
> 720p picture.
>
> If it is incapable of displaying 720p but is better than or equal to 480p
> then it must be labeled "ED" for enhanced definition.
>
> If it is only capable of 480i then it is "SD" for standard definition.
>
> That's the way that I've been able to decipher the plethora of
information.
> It could have a total of 4 million pixels and the rest of the electronics
> allow only 480i then it is "SD".
>
> Russ
Anonymous
a b C Monitor

dg wrote:

> It seems to me that if the TV can *accept* HD signal and display it, no
> matter the output resolution, they are calling them HD or HD Ready. i.e.
> even if the TV can not display real HD, but can *accept* 720p or 1080i and
> downconvert it, they are calling that HD. Thats just what I feel from
> looking at stores and websites.
>

I haven't actually seen that, but I have seen 852x480 EDTVs with a
prominent "HD" in the model number.

Matthew
Related resources:
!