[Bob Reynolds]

I'm considering upgrading my TV (Sony 32" high scan CRT 4:3) to a flat panel. I'm leaning towards plasma, but with my 8' viewing distance I'm leery of going much beyond 40" sets. I like what I've read about the Pioneer PDP-4270HD, but its native resolution is 1024 x 768. How can that be considered a 16:9 aspect ratio?

[JohninCR]

.... its native resolution is 1024 x 768. How can that be considered a 16:9 aspect ratio?

It's can't without losses.  I prefer 4:3 for almost all material anyway.

[Bob Reynolds]

.... its native resolution is 1024 x 768. How can that be considered a 16:9 aspect ratio?

It's can't without losses.  I prefer 4:3 for almost all material anyway.

Losses in what way? Vertically? Horizontally?

[slugworth]

 If my math is correct 1024 x 576 = 16 x 9, so you would either lose pixels vertically or a 16 x9 dvd would be distorted (stretched vertically after scaling) this is just speculation.

[srb]

I would look for a set that has a native resolution of 1366 X 768 (or 1920 X 1080) which is 16:9.

It looks like the majority of 42" plasmas are 1024 X 768.

The majority of 50" plasmas are 1366 X 768, and most 40-47" LCDs are either 1366 X 768  or 1920 X 1080.

[Bob Reynolds]

If my math is correct 1024 x 576 = 16 x 9, so you would either lose pixels vertically or a 16 x9 dvd would be distorted (stretched vertically after scaling) this is just speculation.

That's same calculation I made. Thanks. It would be nice to know exactly what processing the set is doing.

[Bob Reynolds]

I would look for a set that has a native resolution of 1366 X 768 (or 1920 X 1080) which is 16:9.

It looks like the majority of 42" plasmas are 1024 X 768.

The majority of 50" plasmas are 1366 X 768, and most 40-47" LCDs are either 1366 X 768  or 1920 X 1080.

I just don't have the room for a 50" plasma and I'm not willing to accept the limitations of LCD just to get the full 1920 x 1080 resolution. I've concluded that it's still too early to swap my CRT.

Thanks to all that replied.

-- Bob

[ooheadsoo]

What are the limitations of lcd?  Only one I still see is a limited black level, and that can be assisted with the right ambient lighting.  My sips lcd tv has no off axis issues whatsoever.

[Bob Reynolds]

What are the limitations of lcd?  Only one I still see is a limited black level, and that can be assisted with the right ambient lighting.  My sips lcd tv has no off axis issues whatsoever.

Black level; the off-axis issue may not be one for me; poor response to motion.

[Jade East]

Plasma screens don't have a very good future at this point.

[Bob Reynolds]

Plasma screens don't have a very good future at this point.

Why is that? I've not been actively reading video stuff, but Pioneer is devoted solely to plasma.

[Jade East]

Lcd tv technology is rocketing forward due to  market forces.
120hz lcd technology is coming on line now that means the
screens will display 2x more frames than 1080p@ 60hz.
Contrast ratios are climbing and response times are
dropping while broad competition means prices are
good for the consumer. Lcd technology is closing in
on the qualities that made Plasma a higher quality
display in the past and I expect that market force
will give plasma manufacturers a very tough road to
travel.

[Incredulous]

I don't think anyone has answered the original question so I'll give it a shot.  The pixels in the case of a 16:9 screen size but 4:3 resolution (in this case 1024x768) are rectangular.  The processor in the panel does the appropriate manipulation to preserved the aspect ratio.

[Bob Reynolds]

I don't think anyone has answered the original question so I'll give it a shot.  The pixels in the case of a 16:9 screen size but 4:3 resolution (in this case 1024x768) are rectangular.  The processor in the panel does the appropriate manipulation to preserved the aspect ratio.

Sorry for being dim, but I'm having a hard time wraping my head around the idea of a pixel being rectangluar. Can you provide more info?

[ted_b]

I don't think anyone has answered the original question so I'll give it a shot.  The pixels in the case of a 16:9 screen size but 4:3 resolution (in this case 1024x768) are rectangular.  The processor in the panel does the appropriate manipulation to preserved the aspect ratio.

??   1024 x 768 is 4:3, period.  To get 16:9 you need to stretch (process the signal digitally).  Pioneer marketing is spinning 4:3 resolutions and trying to sell you that it will do 16:9...it will, just not natively.  For true native 16:9, go get 1366 x 768 or any multiple of 16:9.  The newest Sony Blue-ray player does 1080p very nicely, so I'd use 1080p as your goal, not necessarily 768p.  More $$, of course.

[viggen]

I think the pixels are not square rather they are horizontally rectangular.

[Incredulous]

I'd suggest reading the multitude of threads on avsforum.com regarding rectangular pixels.  Search google with "rectangular pixels site:avsforum.com" - here's one such thread, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=672685.

Regarding my comment on aspect ratio - true, 1024x768 is 4:3 - however, the panel isn't going to display a distorted image, i.e. a 16:9 image is going to look correct with regards to proportion.

And for the record, I wouldn't ever buy a rectangular pixel panel myself - I own a Panasonic 37" commerical plasma with 852x480 resolution.