Are Panasonic EDTV'S Good And Is EDTV HD?

techjunky · 02-15-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdtvpros.com

Wow, you say this forum is a waste of time.

Also you say you wouldn't buy a tv w/res that low. And I wouldn't buy such a small tv (37"). I'm sorry I did buy a tv that small for my kitchen.

Dude you are hilarious! I said this forum would be a waste of time if I were a self proclaimed "pro" like yourself. A 37" television in your kitchen eh? I don't spend much time watching television in the kitchen. Matter of fact, I would never even think of buying a television for my kitchen. If you think that you can insult me by the size of your supposed "kitchen" television, I am far less than impressed. I have owned 55"HD RPTV's both in by bedroom and in my living room. Size of a television does'nt mean squat to me. You can go on and on about how "big" your kitchen television may be(absurd as that is!) I am so far from impressed. Please keep your superiority jabs limited to people that are impressed by the size of your ego. As far as I'm concerned, I will take you at your word. "I don't know , I just pretend to know".

weberman · 02-15-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdtvpros.com

So what is 1024 x 1024 hitachi 42" plasma

From PlasmaTvBuyingGuide.com

Pixel resolution with regard to plasma monitors is a tricky issue. Basically, all 42" plasma tv's have a built in converter/scalar to take care of the interpolation issue with matching up the incoming signal with the native pixel resolution. A 42" plasma monitor with 1024X1024 will not display a 1080i signal straight out. In order to show a true 1080I HDTV signal a 42" 16:9 plasma display monitor must have a native pixel resolution of 1920X1080. None currently have this resolution. All current 42" plasma monitors must do a certain amount of interpolating through the video processing chip/converter/scalar.

Because the 1024X1024 monitor seems closer in native pixel resolution to the 1080I signal than an 853X480 monitor it stands to reason that it would show the 1080i signal at a higher resolution - closer to the 1024 than the 853. However, the 1024X1024 monitor uses an interlace scan to see every other line while the 853X480 monitor uses progressive scanning. Using a comparison at a 60hz refresh rate, what you will actually see vertically is 512 lines on the 1024X1024 monitor compared with 480 vertical lines on the 853X480 monitor. Not much difference.

While the 1024X1024 (XGA resolution) plasma monitor still appears to have the edge in resolution we have to remember that the pixels are rectangles rather than square. This enables the monitor to produce the images for the 16:9 widescreen monitor. This means that the 1024 X1024 monitor has to do more interpolating on the horizontally stretched pixel, which can cause some softening. There is just a lot of severe scaling to be done there. The 853X480 monitor, having square pixels, will have an easier time with the horizontal conversion.

The 1024X1024 monitor can end up softening the image more due to the more severe horizontal filtering. It can depend upon the scalar/converter of the monitor as to which views the best.

This is where the difference between reasoning and true to life experience gets a little hairy. Contrast, brightness, and black levels come in to play with video images. What the eye picks up may be a much better picture on the 853X480 monitor because the converter/scalar does a better job of "blending" (through progressive scanning) the color information in such a way as to cause a crisper image. Contrast will necessarily translate into a better picture image given the effectiveness of the scalar/converter, though at the same time the 1024X1024 monitor may show a bit better depth/ three dimensionalities.

Since computer signals are progressive the 1024X1024 monitor will convert the signal very well to interlaced and provide a good resolution vertically. Obviously an XGA resolution will favor the 1024X1024 monitory because of the similarity in signal and pixel. Still image graphics for instance would look better on the 1024X1024 than on an 853X480 monitor because the refresh rate does not come into play. The progressive scanning 853X480 may look better using a computer with fast motion imaging, but generally the 1024X1024 monitor should display most computer graphic presentation materials better. A normal VGA resolution of 853X480 will match up nicely with the 853X480 monitor.

The 50" plasma monitors display somewhat different pixel resolutions. Native pixel resolutions of 1280X768 or 1365X768 are shown. These plasma monitors will use progressive scanning to show the best possible picture. An incoming 1080i signal will be cross-converted to 768P (as opposed to down-converted with an 853X480 widescreen monitor). An incoming 720P signal will be upconverted to 768P. Therefore, the viewer will get a full and true HDTV picture.

Ward Cleaver · 02-15-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Posted By HDTV"pros".com - "If I had a Sony 42" plasma say w/1024x768 and one with 1280x720 at say 5ft you probably..."

"If"..."say"..."probably"...

Bottom line, as I've said before...1280 x 720 is HDTV. 1024 x 768 is not.

Regards,
-Ward

hdaddict · 02-15-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techjunky

First of all, was I putting down people that can't afford a "HD" display?
No, I was merely stating that an "ed" television was a decent choice for a consumer on a very strict budget. I do disagree with the statments that you can't get an "HD"set for the price of many of the "ed" sets though. Many "ed" sets are just as expensive as a lot of the "HD" sets in the 32" to 40"range. When you start talking about larger screen sizes, that is where the price starts to separate more. No offense, but if some of you paid $3 to 4k for an ED television 2-4 years ago, then you were not very wise consumers. If you absolutly had to have the latest technology at that time, why would you sell yourself short and compromise for the second best? Cost? Was cost that big of a factor that you would want to have a television that would be quite inferior in a few short years. Was it cheaper in the long run to know that you would have to upgrade in a few years to have the "HD" set that is now the standard? As far as your comments about where a fool and his money part, I am assuming you are reffering to yourself. I will give an example of a smart consumer (such as myself)
Retail price for my Dennon AVR-4800 was $2499.00 price paid $999.00 at an online electronics store. The product is flawless
Retail price for my Sharp Aquos LC-37Db5u was around 3K and in many places much higher. Price paid in Dec. 2005 was $1850.00
I don't feel the need to go through all of my electronics and disclose the great deals I got on them, but you get my point now. A wise consumer will find a way to get what he or she wants. You don't have to charge up credit cards to get what you want. Shop around, if need be wait a couple months until the prices drop. Would that kill you on a purchase that you will be living with for many years to come? Just to let you know, not that it matters to anyone but me, but I have purchased all of my electronics with cash in hand. I even have friends that call me a "tightwad". Guess what though, I have a home theater in my living room and bedroom that are a source of envy from friends, and they are paid for in full. I don't have one cent on a credit card! So, to some this rant up, do your homework and shop around, when you don't do either of these is when a fool and his money can easily part ways. By the way (hdaddict), on top of being frugal and still being able to purchase extravagant electronics, I also have 10% of every paycheck going into a 401k loaded with mutual funds.

So are you saying my purchasing a $3200 citation 7.1 power amp 2 yrs. old on audiogon for $1k, my purchase of a marantz dvd player for 1/2 of retail on audiogon, my music hall cd player..retail $599, pd. $300 and so on........we most all shop online for audio and video equipment.........nice deals on good high end equipment can be found on audiogon all day long.....as I've been in the hi-fi hobby for around 30 years..........and no my buying a panny 'ed' set 3 1/2 yrs. ago for $2800 wasnt stupid when the 42" panny 'hd' set was $4500.........it was very smart of me to buy the ed when I plan on buying a 50" hd panny and putting the 42 in our bedroom.......so the money I saved by buying the ed, has grown to not being far from buying the 50". And by the way a 1024x768 semi-hd plasma will be inferior when the 1080p plasmas come out so you would be upgrading anyway.

sl7vk · 02-15-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

Bottom line, as I've said before...1280 x 720 is HDTV. 1024 x 768 is not.

Regards,
-Ward

Is this some kind of automated reply, or are you actually posting this?

You've repeated yourself about 8 times now.

zedd · 02-15-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdtvpros.com

I don't know i just pretend to know

He finally speaks the trueth!

Ward Cleaver · 02-15-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Posted By sl7vk - "Is this some kind of automated reply, or are you actually posting this? You've repeated yourself..."

I've repeated myself because there were a few unknowledgeable people out here who were incorrectly arguing that a 1024 x 768 plasma was an HDTV, such as yourself...

Quote:

Posted By sl7vk - "You're the only person that I've ever heard call 1024 x 768 ED."

Quote:

Posted By sl7vk - "You think that HD plasma's are ED. How am I supposed to argue with someone that thinks the HD symbol on all those 42 inch Plasma's that are sold is fake?"

Comments like these displays ignorance on the subject and a lack of understanding, so I am forced to repeat myself.

Listen closely...there is no such thing as a 42" plasma HDTV.

No plasma panel under 50" is capable of displaying true HDTV.

That is a fact. You can complain about it, whine about it or argue about it...but, that does not alter the fact that 1024 x 768 is not HDTV, while 1280 x 720 is HDTV.

Stop trying to beat a dead horse. Accept my correction, learn from it and move on.

P.S. - However, as I've said before, with the 852 x 480 resolution of your lower tier budget set, a debate on HD resolution is really well beyond your scope.

Regards,
-Ward

sl7vk · 02-15-2006, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

I've repeated myself because there were a few unknowledgeable people out here who were incorrectly arguing that a 1024 x 768 plasma was an HDTV, such as yourself...

Comments like these displays ignorance on the subject and a lack of understanding, so I am forced to repeat myself.

Listen closely...there is no such thing as a 42" plasma HDTV.

No plasma panel under 50" is capable of displaying true HDTV.

That is a fact. You can complain about it, whine about it or argue about it...but, that does not alter the fact that 1024 x 768 is not HDTV, while 1280 x 720 is HDTV.

Stop trying to beat a dead horse. Accept my correction, learn from it and move on.

P.S. - However, as I've said before, with the 852 x 480 resolution of your lower tier budget set, a debate on HD resolution is really well beyond your scope.

Regards,
-Ward

Classic Ward.... Just keep enjoying the ghosting and rattling bezel on that poorly rated Philips of yours. I'm sure you can tell the wife and your buddies that it is "full" HD when they wince at it.

Regards,
-Thomas

Ward Cleaver · 02-15-2006, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Posted By sl7vk - "Classic Ward.... Just keep enjoying the ghosting and rattling bezel on that poorly rated Philips of yours. I'm sure you can tell the wife and your buddies that it is "full" HD when they wince at it."

Obviously, you have no facts to debate with me.
You have come to realize that I am correct concerning plasma panels under 50" and you were wong.
So, the only thing you have left to respond with is foolish, immature prattle.

Regards,
-Ward

FSTFUGGER · 02-15-2006, 11:23 PM

Ward,
Looks like its up to you to get ahold of all the makers of 42" Plasmas, and let them know that they are all wrong by putting on all their adds and product displays that their 42" plasmas are capable of displaying HD resolutions. While you are at it, visit Sam's, Costco, Best Buy, Circut City, Tweeter and pretty much any store or chain of stores that they are falsely advertising their products too. Now, what to do about all those darn websites that claim 42" HD plasmas exist. Man this is going to be a lot of work, but Ward you are a smart guy. Im sure you have the means to change the worlds view as to what HD is.

to Ward!

Ward Cleaver · 02-15-2006, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Posted By FstFugger - "...get ahold of all the makers of 42" Plasmas, and let them know that they are all wrong by putting on all their adds and product displays that their 42" plasmas are capable of displaying HD resolutions."

Any knowledgeable person out here will tell you that no plasma panel under 50" is capable of true HD resolution.

FstFugger, I'll repeat this again for you.
Listen closely and you may learn something...

Some manufacturers promote TVs with a maximum resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels as "HDTV ready." This is incorrect. Although the total number of vertical pixels is greater than the 720 minimum necessary for HDTV, at an aspect ratio of 16:9 it would need 1280 pixels horizontally to display a 720-line HDTV picture.

Regards,
-Ward

picaddict · 02-16-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

It's not what "I'm" talking about sl7vk, it's what the C-Net review of your EDTV is talking about in the link that you gave me...
http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_TH...2.html?tag=nav

Again, I will quote from that review concerning your particular model EDTV...

"The TH-42PD50U has a native resolution of 852x480, which is significantly less than many other 42-inch plasmas."

The resolution on your EDTV is 852 x 480.
The resolution on most other 42" EDTV's nowadays is 1024 x 768.

So yes, when compared to the normal 42" EDTV resolution of 1024 x 768, your tv's resolution of 852 x 480 would indeed qualify (and quantify) it as being a "low" definition EDTV...certainly a "lower" definition than the standard 1024 x 768 found on most other 42" EDTV's nowadays.
What you have is a lower tiered, "budget model" EDTV.

Now, those are the facts.

Additionally, you should attempt to take the high road by staying on the subject matter of the thread and not come out here and levy immature personal insults or make personal comments directed at me simply because you're irritated that your television only has a resolution of 852 x 480.

On the other hand, neihter should you come out here to a High Definition forum and declare that your 852 x 480 television blows away 2/3's of the HDTV's on the market today.
Such comments make you sound foolish and laughable and lead me to believe that you are either trolling or else suffering from a very severe case of sour grapes.

Regards,
-Ward

I couldnt have said it any better. This thread is hilarious and provides for quite a bit of entertainment. No one should take things personally though, its a discussion forum about TV's for crying out loud. Is the panny ED a good TV? Sure, for the price, its excellent. I've seen it at COstco and have recommended it for several people who want something flat with a decent picture. But would not recommend it for any of my family/friends that want HDTV. Once HD-DVD or blue ray comes out...EDTV buyers may feel a bit of buyers remorse.

ChadT74 · 02-16-2006, 08:23 AM

Ward needs to go to the local gas station, dump gas on himself, light a match and run in the middle of a busy highway. I don't know if he is trying to be annoying but he is reaching the 8th level of annoying without adding anything to this discussion.

The basic discussion is about ED being any good and he is spitting out that 2340785 X 234902374072 isn't true HD. Thanks buddy we got that 27 post and 5 pages ago. You’re like every other moron I encounter in the business world the catches a signal minor flaw in something that does not matter (oh look the T in Team should be capitalized) and you use that or some fact to make yourself look smart or superior. I am really surprised that you have not pointed out spelling and grammatical errors in peoples post yet.

The fact is that ED right now gives off a really good picture and with a low quality HD signal that is split 27 times at Best Buy yes it might look better than a pure HD display. Guess what all displays are not the same, so just because some TV has is 1280 X 720 that does not mean it looks exactly like the next TV with 1280 X 720.

Here is a news flash, some people will not put on their least stained Batman T-shirt and stand in line for 3 days trying not to soil their Thundercats underwear while they wait in anticipation for the first $300 HD DVD player and end up going home with a $60 copy of Brokeback Mountain because it is the only HD DVD available. Everyone makes a decision based on their own personal situation and some people can't see paying the extra $$ for all that until the technology and price become more main stream. Yes I paid $250 for an early DVD player but the advantages over VHS made it a no brainer, but would I do that for HD DVD vs standard DVD not at $300 + more expensive DVDs. Again this is MY choice and people will disagree, but you don't seem to understand that it all comes down to how much one values the increased picture quality and usage.

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sl7vk

Is this some kind of automated reply, or are you actually posting this?

You've repeated yourself about 8 times now.

It is completely pointless for you to keep going rounds with Ward over this issue. A person could quite easily go crazy reading all of the posts that you two have exchanged "logic"on "HD" and "ed"qualifications. While I side with Ward on this issue, I have decided to take the high road and not beat a dead horse. You have your own "logic", and he has his. Be happy with your "ed" television, but don't push it on every consumer that comes on this site looking into televisions. This does happen to be the "HD" forum, thus "ed" televisions should be promoted on a different website. If a consumer comes to this website looking for knowledge into HD technology, he or she should not have to endure flame wars from "ed" owners screaming that "my set is just as good".

I really think that it would eliminate a lot of flaming if the mods would open up a part of this forum for the "Ed" owners. It would go against the purpose of having an "HD" forum, but it would also settle down a lot of the flaming.

sl7vk · 02-16-2006, 09:18 AM

Hey Tech, read the title of this thread! I don't push ED on anyone and I don't say it is superior to HD. I HAVE said that a quality ED set will display a picture better then some of the crappy Chinese or Korean manufacturers are putting out right now. Now, for those with such disdain for the Panny ED, there is no need to contribute to this thread is there? When someone asks should I get an LCD, I don't feel like wasting my time "pontificating" (as Ward put it and as he does so well) about the problems LCD's suffer. So why do you people feel it's worth your time to come and bash this particular product?

I can only assume it stems from some greater inadequacy.

02-16-2006, 09:18 AM	#120
sl7vk Panasonic Plasma Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 603	Hey Tech, read the title of this thread! I don't push ED on anyone and I don't say it is superior to HD. I HAVE said that a quality ED set will display a picture better then some of the crappy Chinese or Korean manufacturers are putting out right now. Now, for those with such disdain for the Panny ED, there is no need to contribute to this thread is there? When someone asks should I get an LCD, I don't feel like wasting my time "pontificating" (as Ward put it and as he does so well) about the problems LCD's suffer. So why do you people feel it's worth your time to come and bash this particular product? I can only assume it stems from some greater inadequacy. __________________ "Their LCD tv's are also assembled in the Netherlands...Belgium to be exact." -Ward Cleaver

Similar Threads to Are Panasonic EDTV'S Good And Is EDTV HD?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
panasonic edtv question	wassim17	Flat-Panel TVs	9	01-10-2005 07:09 PM

02-15-2006, 11:23 PM	#115
FSTFUGGER Panasonic "ED" Plasma! Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 94	Ward, Looks like its up to you to get ahold of all the makers of 42" Plasmas, and let them know that they are all wrong by putting on all their adds and product displays that their 42" plasmas are capable of displaying HD resolutions. While you are at it, visit Sam's, Costco, Best Buy, Circut City, Tweeter and pretty much any store or chain of stores that they are falsely advertising their products too. Now, what to do about all those darn websites that claim 42" HD plasmas exist. Man this is going to be a lot of work, but Ward you are a smart guy. Im sure you have the means to change the worlds view as to what HD is. to Ward!

02-16-2006, 08:23 AM	#118
ChadT74 How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 22	Ward needs to go to the local gas station, dump gas on himself, light a match and run in the middle of a busy highway. I don't know if he is trying to be annoying but he is reaching the 8th level of annoying without adding anything to this discussion. The basic discussion is about ED being any good and he is spitting out that 2340785 X 234902374072 isn't true HD. Thanks buddy we got that 27 post and 5 pages ago. You’re like every other moron I encounter in the business world the catches a signal minor flaw in something that does not matter (oh look the T in Team should be capitalized) and you use that or some fact to make yourself look smart or superior. I am really surprised that you have not pointed out spelling and grammatical errors in peoples post yet. The fact is that ED right now gives off a really good picture and with a low quality HD signal that is split 27 times at Best Buy yes it might look better than a pure HD display. Guess what all displays are not the same, so just because some TV has is 1280 X 720 that does not mean it looks exactly like the next TV with 1280 X 720. Here is a news flash, some people will not put on their least stained Batman T-shirt and stand in line for 3 days trying not to soil their Thundercats underwear while they wait in anticipation for the first $300 HD DVD player and end up going home with a $60 copy of Brokeback Mountain because it is the only HD DVD available. Everyone makes a decision based on their own personal situation and some people can't see paying the extra $$ for all that until the technology and price become more main stream. Yes I paid $250 for an early DVD player but the advantages over VHS made it a no brainer, but would I do that for HD DVD vs standard DVD not at $300 + more expensive DVDs. Again this is MY choice and people will disagree, but you don't seem to understand that it all comes down to how much one values the increased picture quality and usage.