fmian

Was reading through the specs of the latest 1080p Panasonic plasma here .

It's clearly listed as a 1080p capable model, however the native resolution is only 1366 x 768. Doesn't a screen have to have at least 1080 horizontal lines of pixels to actually show 1080 lines progressively?
Also, of the listed HDMI input formats, 1080p is not there.
What gives?

jiggawhat

That doesn't make much sense to me either. I'm pretty sure the rez should be 1920x1080


Edit: wanted to add that you should check out the Mitsubishis if they are available in your area.

Adam Tyner

It does what a lot of sets do -- convert 1080i input to 1080p internally and then downscale to 768p upon display.

jiggawhat

They shouldn't even call those sets 1080P sort of shady to me.

RoboDad

Where is it referred to as a 1080p display? All the blurb says is that it's internal chip set can process images at 1080p resolution prior to displaying them. The actual display resolution is clearly stated as being 1366x768. I don't see anything misleading at all.

jiggawhat

I'm basing it off his post.

Edit: It does mention that 1080P in the description enough times for most people to think that it is a 1080P capable display.

tonyc3742

That does sound misleading, when these are the first two paragraphs in the description, and the 1366x768 is way down in the specs.
# 1080p Digital Processing Chip Set - This allows the Plasma to process full-HD video signals in their original condition without down conversion, allowing the reproduction of highly expressive images with exceptional detail.
# 1080p Digital Re-mastering Processor - This processor up-converts a variety of video signals, such as those from analogue broadcasts and DVD movies, to provide a level of image quality the approaches full-HD.

Reading those, and maybe taking just a quick glance at the specs, I would definitely expect to see a 1080p image on the screen.

Supermallet

There are barely any 1080i plasma sets, and right now I can only think of one 1080p, made by Pioneer.

Adam Tyner

There are none 'cause plasmas are inherently progressive.

Spiky

This is why I try to educate people about marketing BS. There are always 2 specs to consider. One is output resolution, in this case the physical number of pixels. The other is input resolution, and that is where it refers to 1080p. It means this is one of few TVs that can actually process a 1080p signal. But it is still only 768p output. So, in marketing terms (legalized lying to the public), everything is accurate.

A tip that works on plasmas is to look at the size. They cannot make a 42 inch with true 720p resolution, and they cannot make a 50" with a 1080 resolution. The plasma cells are too big to fit that many. They (Pioneer, for sure) claim to be working on skinnier plasma cell technology, but there is no TV, yet. Pioneer's was supposed to be out in July, a 42" for $10k. Haven't seen it, yet.

Spiky

While there aren't many, all the 65" and larger plasmas are 1080p.

RoboDad

It might be worth clarifying this point a bit. It isn't the 720 (vertical) resolution that is the problem with 42" plasmas, it is the 1280 (horizontal) resolution. There are many 42" plasmas that feature a vertical resolution of 768 pixels, but they only provide 1024 horizontal pixels, rather than the proportional 1366 that they would need to provide square pixels, and to accommodate the full resolution of a 720p signal.

fmian

I'm not looking to buy one. We just sell these at work and while I'm quite proficient at selling computers we've recently merged and I have to learn up on the new AV technology as well. Just a bit surprised that no one in the AV section at work knows about this. Not even the boss.

namja

I'm about to order my first HDTV, and this got me thinking.

How does a 50" plasma (1366x768) compare to TVs that have actual 1920x1080 resolutions? Would it necessarily look worse?

DVD Josh

Spiky, no, say it isn't so. You overlook the square pixels of Plasma. Indeed, as Robo says, they are in fact 720 (768) and 1080.

Spiky

Hey, Josh,
Sorry if I was incomplete. As Robo also said, it is the horizontal dimension that is not up to spec. I did not mean to imply that the 42" plasmas do not reach 720 pixels vertically. The problem is they do not reach 1280 pixels sideways, if you notice they are all 1024x768, which is a 4:3 ratio. Yet they are 16:9 shape. Pixels are rectangular on these sets to make the 1024 stretch to fit the 16:9 shape. On 50" or larger, or 42" EDTVs, they have enough space for normal square pixels, and have both 16:9 shape and ratio.

And on the 50" sets, I wasn't implying they make one with a poor resolution here, either. But instead of shrinking the horizontal to try to fit in a 1080 model, like they do on the 42", they simply don't try to make a 1080 model at all. There are a few 65, 80, and ~100 inch 1080 plasmas.

namja,
Fox and ABC only offer 720 resolution TV to you. So for those networks (and all their related networks), the 768p plasmas (or any technology) essentially match up properly. Most other networks do 1080i, which doesn't look bad at 720p/768p at all. It might look more detailed on a 1080 set, but it won't look "bad". Downrezzing gives a pretty good picture. That's why so many people are very happy with their 480p EDTVs, watching HDTV downrezzed.

Spiky

Actually, in checking out Pioneer's website , they do claim to have one of these new "Deep Encased Cell Structure" sets available since June. The 50" 1080p model is for sale, apparently.
Anyone have $10K?

lizard

There's your solution Namja! 50 inch plasma and 1080x1920 resolution. What more could you ask for? (Besides a lower price...)

fmian

I still don't get how it can process a 1080p signal if it can't even accept anything higher than 1080i through either hdmi or component.

Adam Tyner

It's not processing a 1080p signal. Like I said in my first post in this thread:

It's easier to process 1080p than 1080i since you have all of the information in a frame on-hand at once, which is why the new Panasonic plasmas (as well as a decent number of other sets) do this.

fmian

Oh, sorry. Must have missed that.