# How is this HD?



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

How is a unit with 1024x1024 native display, in a 16:9 package, HD? 

link

here's the part of the spec that wierded me out while shopping at Sam's last night: 
*Display:* TV system 
Screen size: 42" 
Pixel resolution: 1,024 (H) x 1,024 (V) native resolution for optimal HDTV performance 
Contrast ratio: 3,000:1 
Aspect ratio: 16:9 
Brightness: 1,400 cd/m2 
Viewing angle: 160° H/V 
Response time: 
HDTV compatible: 480p, 720p, 1080i input


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Looks like that model only had S-vid and Composite inputs also. No way that qualifies as an HD set.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

It has both HMDI and Component imput 1024x720 is HD so is 1024x1024. The standards were changed more than once since 1998.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*Too much, and it's not even HD*

It has HDMI input, S-video input: Mini din 4 pin, Composite video, and Component video input, but at a max res of 1024, it's not HD. Looks like the dreaded ED, or so-called "Enhanced Definition" which doesn't compare well against true HD.

It may be Sam's Club and it may seem like a good deal, but it's not Hi-def - don't waste your hard-earned money. I've seen "ED", and as a video pro, I'm not impressed.

I bought my 53" RP HDTV on sale almost two years ago and paid a (negotiated) price of less than $1200.

My advice: save your money and get a real HDTV display. You'll thank me later.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

olgeezer said:


> It has both HMDI and Component imput 1024x720 is HD so is 1024x1024. The standards were changed more than once since 1998.


 Isn't the majority of film being done in 16:9 and if watched on 3:4 tvs will be cropped? That why we've bought 16:9 HDTV's ?


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

HDTV is either 1080i, 1080p, or 720p. The MINIMUM resolution for a set to be called HD is 540p or 810i. Nick is right but the manufacturer is right also. As Soapy Smith said "Caveat Emptor"


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

ED=480p
HD can be either 720p(1280x720), or 1080i(1920x1080), plus like another dozen or so other combinations.....

Most plasmas and LCDs are natively 1024x1024, or even worse 1024x768, so they have to scale any non-native resolutions, and if the scalers in the units arent that good, you guessed it, the PQ suffers.....

I would much prefer that there were only two allowable HD resolutions(720p, and 1080i), yes I know that 1080p is coming in the near future, and the tvs had to do one of those natively. That way you could let an HD receiver output only 720p or 1080i to match the native res of your tv set. PQ would be much better than all that scaling crap going on.....


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

ken310 said:


> Isn't the majority of film being done in 16:9 and if watched on 3:4 tvs will be cropped? That why we've bought 16:9 HDTV's ?


As mentioned the sets scale the image. the image sensor is 1024x1024 and thru the magic of electronics it displays 16:9 images as 16:9.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> *Too much, and it's not even HD*
> 
> It has HDMI input, S-video input: Mini din 4 pin, Composite video, and Component video input, but at a max res of 1024, it's not HD. Looks like the dreaded ED, or so-called "Enhanced Definition" which doesn't compare well against true HD.
> 
> ...


If it can produce even a 720p picture it is technically an HD TV. having said that I do not disagree with your recommendation to buy something else.

I am still curious as to why the 16:9 aspect ratio is being questioned. What am I missing?


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> If it can produce even a 720p picture it is technically an HD TV. having said that I do not disagree with your recommendation to buy something else.
> 
> I am still curious as to why the 16:9 aspect ratio is being questioned. What am I missing?


The set is 1024x1024 that is 1:1 Conventional TVs are 1.33:1 or 4X3. HDTV signal is 1.78 16X9 1920X1080 or 1280x720


----------



## aussiejohn (Jan 3, 2006)

My 4 year old Hitachi plasma HD was an early 1024x1024 set.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Can't speak for all technologies... but the LCD screens are cut from larger sheets of LCD material.

It could be that 1024x1024 just happens to be a convenient size and price-point to cut the material.

Just because the screen is capable of displaying 1024x1024 doesn't mean that it actually uses them all in that fashion.

A 720p (1280x720) could be scaled down to 1024x576 just as a for instance... and thus be a 1.78:1 (16x9) widescreen image displayed on that LCD screen that doesn't take advantage of its full 1024x1024 capability.

Not sure how it actually works in this specific TV example... but just thinking hypothetically.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> If it can produce even a 720p picture it is technically an HD TV.


Actually a set can earn the HDTV label by being able to display 540p or 810i in the 16x9 viewable area. The official standards are not as tight as some wish they were. (Probably would be a lot less HD sets out there if the standard required 720p/1080i.)


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

You are right Mr. Long. I based my statement on the specs of the set. But it was still not accurate the way I presented it.


----------



## Oompah (Feb 8, 2006)

They probably made an error when publishing the spec.

How many other 1024X1024 Plasma screens have you seen? What would be the point? Sam's sells commodity goods - unless there were bunches like it, each one would be hideously expensive to build.

[Edit]
Hmmm... Google for HD Akai 42 1024 produces a number of hits for similar units from various vendors, some claiming 1024 X 768, others 1024 X 1024, all claiming 16:9, some "Ideal for HDTV" as well as VGA, XGA (1024 X 768 VGA) and UXGA (1200 X 1600), etc. Don't believe every thing you read. 
[/Edit]


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

haha, man what a fire this started  

I have no plans to buy this. just like to see what's out there when I'm giving advice to others. And when I saw the tag on this, and looked at the box and everything, it says it's a native 1024x1024. And I'm like, there's no way to display HD at a pixel for pixel level on that display. and, considering it's 16x9, how the heck can it look ok? Normally there's be over 1300 pixels across, and with 1024 vertical, 1900+ would be expected. Shouldn't that make the gap between pixels horizontally much larger than normal? wierd, is what I was thinking, so curious if anyone knew how a display like this is suppose to work. What the heck is the real native res? If I send it 720p, how is it going to operate? If it drops to a 540p display, and bars the top and bottom, that would defeat the point of being a widescreen. 

just really curious how something like this even works  The math just doesn't add up. It doesn't look bad, but they don't have real HD going to it as best I can tell either. From all the responses, I guess this struck you all as oddly as it struck me  at least I'm not alone haha


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

1024x1024 HD plasmas use a technology called ALiS. The 2 biggest manufacturers of this type of plasma are Fujistsu and Hitachi. If you google ALiS you can read up on what it does different.

As far as HD vs ED, while it may not be what you call a "True" HD, it is what is typically marketed as HD, it's not an ED plasma. ED plasmas are typically 853x480, while 42" HD plasmas are either 1024x768 (most), or 1024x1024 (ALiS). It's not until you get to the 50" Plasmas that you start getting what you'd consider "True" HD.

Personally, I have a 43" Pioneer 1024x768 HD plasma ans the scaler in it is awesome and pictures look great. 

As far as this TV, just because of the brand it is I wouldn't buy it.


----------

