[Osamede]

What is the best quality LCD or Plasma TV between 37" and 42" with true 1366 x768 pixel resolution? Many of the TV's I have been told about, including the Panasonics, seem to have actually have 1024 x 768 pixels which is really 4:3 native resolution, not 16:9.

[meltcity]

The Panasonics are 16:9 native, not 4:3. Their pixels are oblong, not square.

While it may seem logical that 1366 x 768 LCD would deliver sharper pictures than a 1024 x 768 plasma, resolution and definition are not the same.

[ntlhellworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osamede

What is the best quality LCD or Plasma TV between 37" and 42" with true 1366 x768 pixel resolution? Many of the TV's I have been told about, including the Panasonics, seem to have actually have 1024 x 768 pixels which is really 4:3 native resolution, not 16:9.

Take into account that all SD widescreen (DVDs, sky, etc) are all at 720x576 resolution which is actually 16:9 squished into a 4:3 frame. Those wider pixels are the right shape to stretch it back correctly.

-Chris

[Osamede]

But essentially seems to me that the TV's with 1024 x 768 will be better adapting to SD content, but compared to 1366 x 768, worse with HD content - no?

Basically ,my situation is that I have to replace a older TV and my wife would prefer it to be a thin flatscreen that we can stick on the wall.

So I have to get a Plasma or LCD. For the budget and size of room I am working with, it seems what I end up looking at are 40-42" plasmas and 37-40". I'm basically indifferent between those sizes, dont want more than 42" and dont want less than 37"

So basically I'd like to get the most bang for the buck and just trying to figure out which of LCD's at 1366 x768 is best, so that I can match that up against the best 42" TV at 1024 x 768 and make a decision.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osamede

So basically I'd like to get the most bang for the buck and just trying to figure out which of LCD's at 1366 x768 is best, so that I can match that up against the best 42" TV at 1024 x 768 and make a decision.

I must admit, I didn't realise there were Plasma's about with only 1024 resolution? - it could explain why the Pioneers I've seen haven't been very impressive?, perhaps they were only 1024?.

I would suggest though, comparing them on both SD and HD, side by side on the same picture if you can - but I would also suggest that buying a 1024 screen is probably not as 'future proof' as a 1366 screen, as HD is likely to become far more common.

[Pingu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

Take into account that all SD widescreen (DVDs, sky, etc) are all at 720x576 resolution which is actually 16:9 squished into a 4:3 frame. Those wider pixels are the right shape to stretch it back correctly.

-Chris

BBC HD broadcast in anamorphic 16:9 also. Not sure about other UK HD channels.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I must admit, I didn't realise there were Plasma's about with only 1024 resolution? - it could explain why the Pioneers I've seen haven't been very impressive?, perhaps they were only 1024?.

Plasmas with screen sizes smaller than 50" are 1024 x 768 native (42"/43" models) or 1024 x 720 native (37" Panasonic). This should change with higher resolution models out later this year from both Pioneer and Panasonic.

If the Pioneer plasmas you have seen weren't very impressive I doubt it was because of the horizontal resolution. The factory settings on the recent Pioneers are rubbish and simply do not do the screens justice!

I know you are firmly in the LCD camp and nothing is going to change that but, with the exception of a couple of 1080p LCDs I have seen running 1080p Blu-ray material, I have yet to see an LCD that matches the definition of the best plasmas (at 1080i resolution or below).

Panasonic's 42PX60 plasma is now sale in Currys for £700, and it's an absolute bargain.

---

Last edited by meltcity : 01-04-2007 at 13:19.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

Plasmas with screen sizes smaller than 50" are 1024 x 768 native (42"/43" models) or 1024 x 720 native (37" Panasonic). This should change with higher resolution models out later this year from both Pioneer and Panasonic.

If the Pioneer plasmas you have seen weren't very impressive I doubt it was because of the horizontal resolution. The factory settings on the recent Pioneers are rubbish and simply do not do the screens justice!

They weren't new Pioneers, I've no idea how old they were though?.

Quote:

I know you are firmly in the LCD camp and nothing is going to change that but, with the exception of a couple of 1080p LCDs I have seen running 1080p Blu-ray material, I have yet to see an LCD that matches the definition of the best plasmas (at 1080i resolution or below).

Not so much the 'LCD camp' as the 'Sony camp', and Sony dropped Plasma a while back - because we sell mostly Sony. The big advantage is we do our own service on them, where most sets are done by the manufacturers agents - which are usually pretty naff!!. We went to a LOT of effort to get the LCD/Plasma service authorisation, and were in the first wave of such dealers.

Quote:

Panasonic's 42PX60 plasma is now sale in Currys for £700, and it's an absolute bargain.

Sounds good!.

[ntlhellworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingu

BBC HD broadcast in anamorphic 16:9 also. Not sure about other UK HD channels.

Err, BBC HD is 1440x1080. You sure about that ?

-Chris

[timmillwood]

I would go for the 42" Pioneer

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

Err, BBC HD is 1440x1080. You sure about that ?

-Chris

Yep. This has been confirmed by cappers. The BBC specified HDCAM as the submission format for the HD trial, and HDCAM has a native resolution of 1440 x 1080i. HDCAM SR does the full 1920.

The point is there is no technical reason why pixels should be square, whether in video formats such as widescreen 'PAL' or HDTV or on displays (that said I have never seen an LCD with non-square pixels). Interlaced signals have a lower vertical resolution than the stated resolution anyway, so the pixels on a 1440 x 1080i recording are approximately square in terms of effective resolution.

[Pingu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

Err, BBC HD is 1440x1080. You sure about that ?

-Chris

Do the maths - 1440x1080 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, which obviously contains a 16:9 picture.

---

Last edited by Pingu : 01-04-2007 at 19:38.

[ntlhellworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingu

Do the maths - 1440x1080 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, which obviously contains a 16:9 picture.

Oh ? I know its used by the sony FX1 HD camcorder but Ive never seen that resolution used in 4:3 before. Strange.

-Chris

[Osamede]

This is not a scientific test and I am a newbie to all this, but I went into John Lewis on Sunday afternooon and my impression was that looking from about 6-7 feet away, BOTH the 37" LCD's and the 42" plasmas were similarly mediocre, maybe even just bad, in terms of SD picture quality.

Going back to about 10-15 feet away, it didnt get much better. At a price below £1,000, I only found one 42" LCD and one 37" LCD (both 1366 x768) that had what I perceived to be "good" picture quality from an SD feed - and to be honest, no Plasma below 42" even made the grade in terms of picture quality.

I cant really say I found any 32" LCD's with decent image quality images either.

This was a bit demoralising. My living room watching distance is 10-12 feet absolute maximum and for the amount of money being asked for these devices, there was very little I would be willing to shell out my hard earned cash for.

I really dont have a deep hunger for a flatscreen, but my wife wants one, as we need a new TV and she feels a LCD or plasma will be less intrusive to the decor of the living room.

Looks like it is going to be a tossup between those two TV's at £800 ish - or me picking up a banger/used 480 resolution Plasma and just refusing to play this game. Too much of this product is just awful in terms of SD picture quality, regardless of the LCD/Plasma/number of pixels used.

What was even more demoralising was that many of these TV's were crap, even with HD inputs.

Kudos to John Lewis for showing it like it is, though.....

[Tony Boman]

I don't think you should get hung up on resolution or number of pixels. You need to compare TVs with real life SD and HD inputs and then make a decision based on that.

I have the Pioneer PDP-427XD Plasma. Before deciding on this, I looked at top of the range Sony LCDs (X and W series) as well as the Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas. I checked all these out next to each other with SD and HD inputs. All the TVs, LCD or Plasma were great with HD input, but for me, the plasmas really were the only choice for SD inputs.

It is all a matter of taste of course, but I love my Pioneer. Although I have a SKY HD box, of course 99% of TV output is still SD, and a lot of 4:3 SD output at that! With normal SD TV input from the Sky HD box I find the picture stunning. Of course, I can stand 6 inches from the screen and see some problems, but sat 8 to 9 feet away, wow! I have of course, changed the lousy default settings and now have a great picture.

As for HD input, well it is just great, roll on more of it to look at.

I chose the Pioneer over the Panasonic purely on cosmetic look and some slightly better reviews. I am very happy with my decision. So far I have not suffered any image retention either which is something LCD lovers always attack plasmas for. I still think the general rule of LCD up to 32" and then plasma from 37" is valid.

In November 2006, Home Cinema Choice gave the Pioneer PDP-427XD 5 stars and a Best Buy at £2100. I paid £1277 for it, so believe it is an absolute bargain.