Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

you see less with some HDTV?

Jun 4, 2005 1:34PM PDT

Today I visited Costco and saw Pioneer 43" HDTV and Panasonic 42" EDTV side-by-side. I noticed that the Pioneer HDTV was showing less picture, that is, it was cutting picture from both sides. The Panasonic EDTV was showing more picture.
In one frame there were 4 persons on the screen on the Panasonic one and Pioneer was showing 3 and a half.
Is it some picture setting (zoom etc) that was not correctly set on the Pioneer one, or is my teory below true?
The Pioneer HDTV has a resolution of 1024 x 768, so that width-to-height ratio is 1024/768=1.33
Panasonic EDTV has a resolution of 852 x 480, so the width-to-height ratio is 852/480=1.77
That means we see 1.77-1.33=0.44 less in most HDTVs with resolution of 1024x768. And that is why I was seeing only 3 and half persons on the Pioneer model.

Most plasma HDTVs being sold today are not truely HDTV anyways. If my theory is true then I will just buy an EDTV and not bother with the more expensive HDTV for now.

Please let me know if you guys can shed any light on this topic.
Thanks.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
one more thing
Jun 4, 2005 1:44PM PDT

The minimum resolution for a HDTV is 1,280x720
Again here the ratio is 1280/720=1.77

- Collapse -
haha
Jun 4, 2005 9:30PM PDT

there are several things at play here, & lets break it down into modules. here are the main points:

0) basic understanding of native/widescreen
1) video source device [sends video signal]
2) video display device [decodes video signal]
3) video display device [displays video signal]

0) native aspect ratio means that there are 4 pixels horizontal for every 3 pixels vertical. its called 4:3 and the decimal ratio is 1.33 (as stated above). widescreen aspect ratio means there are 16 pixels horizontal for every 9 pixels vertical. its called 16:9 and the decimal ratio is 1.77 (as stated above). when I say pixels, that can stand for actual pixels on a screen or pixel data in a signal.

1) the video source device you use (such as a DVD player) outputs a video signal that has pixel data in it. this is where it starts to get tricky. many video source devices can be setup to feed video to a specific kind of display device (that has a certain aspect ratio). If there is 4:3 video data to be output & the device knows its sending the video to a 16:9 screen, then it might do video processing to strech the image horizontally or perhaps add empty black blocks on the left & right of the actual video data. The output device might also just send out the 4:3 image & let the display device decide what to do.

2) the video display device receives a video signal & might do video processing on it before fitting the data to its screen pixels. an example of such processing might be when a 4:3 TV receives a 16:9 video signal. some TVs will add empty black blocks above & below the video data or perhaps it will squeeze it horizontall & everything will look thin. Perhaps it will just display the middle portion of the video data & discard the rest. whatever processing it (or the output device) performs, it usually means quality loss because some interpolation or scaling is done & pixels are smashed or stretched to make things work.

3) your diplay device (TV) has a native resolution with means how many pixels are actually on the screen & are lit up for each frame of video. most TVs can receive signals that have video resolution higher than its native resolution, so it scales the image down some so it will fit.

the phenomenon you were witnessing was probably a combination of many things:
4:3 HDTV vs 16:9 EDTV (like you said).
The 4:3 tv was set to fit image (no letter-boxing).
Which means that it would scale a 480x854 image up to 768x1366 & then discard the outside 342 pixels (171 on left and 171 on right).
Something like this could be remedied with the proper video setting (or perhaps that TV had really crappy video processing options (doubtful)).

- Collapse -
hmm...
Jun 5, 2005 12:32AM PDT

Thanks 3luke3 for your reply. Tell me, what happens when a 1024x768 pixel HDTV receives a pure HD transmission of 1280x720. What do I have to do to see the full picture? Will there be horizontal blank bars at the top and bottom?

The 1024x768 pixel Pioneer PDP-4312 is advertised as 16:9 aspect ratio. (don't know why)

1280/720 = 1.77
16/9 = 1.77
1024/768=1.33

- Collapse -
I have wondered about this too.
Jun 5, 2005 1:33AM PDT

Perhaps the pixels on the 1024 sets are elongated, longer horizontally than vertically.

- Collapse -
well....
Jun 5, 2005 11:41AM PDT

first of all, I just browsed around for the last 25 seconds & from what I read... I would stay away from that pioneer TV (& costco) Happy lol.

second of all, when THAT 4:3 set receives THAT 16:9 image, it SHOULD do one of two things. Video "purists" everywhere debate on which option is better and both have their points.

Option one: scale down the image to fit horizontally, giving you the letter-boxed look and preserving the aspect so nothing is fat or thin. This scaling involves data loss and could produce unwanted smoothing or aliasing (jagginess).

Option two: don't scale the image at all, just discard 128 pixls on the right and left sides each. Here the data loss is more obvious, but the image that you do see is more "pure" and unprocessed. This of course would still leave a letterboxed look, but it would only be 24 pixles on top/bottom each compared to 96 pixels on top/bottom from option one.

-luke

- Collapse -
EDTV
Jun 5, 2005 4:30AM PDT

I agree. It makes sense to buy the EDTV. Unless you are buying over 50" it doesn't make much sense to go with the HDTV. The Panasonic 42" is great. I just bought it and it's fabulous.

- Collapse -
WHY EDTV
Jun 19, 2005 5:10AM PDT

I just bought a new Sony 65" hi-def t.v and it is stunning I have never even seen a EDTV set for sale I guess you mean a t.v. thats 720 vs my 1080, i only know that when Iam watching a hi-def program and they switch to an advertisment the picture goes from hi-def to 720 and sometimes to 480 and and the 720 siginal really looks nasty , Also I did see a projector that was 720 and the d.v.d looked as good as my Sony ,but when salesman switched to a Hi-Def source the picture did not look good I mabey be all wet please reply stewart norrie

- Collapse -
EDTVs are 480p
Jun 20, 2005 4:40AM PDT

HDTVs are 720p or 1080i (and eventually 1080p)

I've never seen them sell rear projection EDTVs, but there are a ton of ED plasmas available -

If you're watching TV in high def, it's either a 720p signal or a 1080i signal (depending on the station ESPN/ABC (Disney) and Fox use 720p, while I beleive most others use 1080i)
I'm sure you're TV looks awesome in HD, but commericals are typically in Standard def (480i) and probably look crappy because of production costs.

I think DVDs look the same on all these TVs because DVD's are only 480p.

EDTVs often seem to have higher contrast ratios that HDTVs at lower prices - which makes the picture really "pop" but you're just not getting the same resolution

- Collapse -
re
Jun 5, 2005 1:30PM PDT

3luke3 hits it right on the nose. I know some of that what he siad may be hard for everyone to understand. Easiest thing to help you is don't buy a 4:3 tv. Also just like what was said earlier the aspect could have been zoomed it which cuts off the screen. So just don't get a 4:3 tv

- Collapse -
hehe
Jun 6, 2005 7:14AM PDT

I agree. Do what the sears guy says. Happy Buying a 4:3 tv is like buying a record player & trying to play CDs on it. well... not exactly alike Wink

- Collapse -
hello
Jun 6, 2005 10:00AM PDT

what are you talking about 3luke3?
I never mentioned 4:3 TV, if you read my posts carefully I was always talking about 16:9 Pioneer PDP-4312 HDTV.
Anyway, I have still not gotten answer to my question. I will go to Costco and try the Sales Rep. But I know, he/she won't know anything about this.

- Collapse -
re
Jun 7, 2005 1:48AM PDT

ok in other words you were looking at a picture that had been zoomed in or depending on the source it could have been zoomed in as well such as a satelite or cable box. An HD an ED widescreen are going to show the same amount of picture on the same broadcast. The Ed just isn't going to show as much resolution as the HD. The only way there would be a differnce is if one was zoomed in, or one was a 4:3 and zoomed in to fill the screen

- Collapse -
ok
Jun 7, 2005 9:19AM PDT

Tell me, what happens when a 1024x768 pixel HDTV (16:9) receives a pure HD transmission of 1280x720. What do I have to do to see the full picture? Will there be horizontal blank bars at the top and bottom? Or, the picture will be cut from both sides? How is that all 42" HDTVs with 1024x768 are being advertised as 16:9, which it is not. It is 12/9

The 1024x768 pixel Pioneer PDP-4312 is advertised as 16:9 aspect ratio. (don't know why)

1280/720 = 1.77
16/9 = 1.77
1024/768=1.33

- Collapse -
also
Jun 7, 2005 12:23PM PDT

with EDTV you see more, because
852/480=1.77 which is HDTVs real aspect ratio
852/480 = 16/9 = 1.77

- Collapse -
omg...
Jun 7, 2005 12:55PM PDT

you said it yourself, you gave the resolution and the aspect ratio (1.3333). THAT PIONEER IS A 4:3 TV. face it.

- Collapse -
agreed
Jun 7, 2005 1:04PM PDT

Not only this Pioneer, most 42" HDTVs are 1024/768=1.333=4:3, but all these TVs are said to be 16:9 wide screen.
why is that? Why there is no mention of this anywhere on CNET or other sites?

- Collapse -
apples and oranges
Jun 7, 2005 1:41PM PDT

16:9 and 4:3 are SCREEN formats, not resolution formats. A 16 inch screen is 9 inches high in 16:9 and a 16 inch screen is 12 inches high in a 4:3 set.

- Collapse -
No official explanation, but...
Jun 7, 2005 7:51PM PDT

..perhpas each pixel is longer on its horizontal axis than it is on its vertical axis. Or perhaps the pixels are spread farther apart horizontally than they are vertically. I agree that these sets are not 4:3 but 16:9. I have seen many of them from several manufacturers.

- Collapse -
HOLY COW!!!!!!
Jun 13, 2005 5:56AM PDT

Are you saying that they stretch a 4:3 pixel ratio resolution onto a 16:9 inch ratio screen? I WOULD DEFINITELY STAY AWAY FROM THOSE TVS, what a piece of junk.

- Collapse -
clever26 is right ..with caveot
Jun 13, 2005 11:53AM PDT

Essentially you are correct. Here's a good article I found on the subject (thanks for the question - it helped educate me).
http://www.projectorcentral.com/true_hdtv.htm
Your right that a 1024 x 768, 16:9 TV will not use the entire screen (to some extent). For 1080i to fit in this native resolution, it will be compressed to fit into an area 1024 x 576. Only 1920 x 1080 will fit 1080i without compression. There are only 2 cases where HDTV scaling isn't required. 720p at 1024x720 and 1080i at 1920 x 1080. However scaling is apparently required to deal with a variety of formats.

Anyway - article explains all this I hope:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/true_hdtv.htm

Related question: Is cable, Satellite, over-the-air transmitting both 1080i and 720p?

- Collapse -
yes
Jun 14, 2005 11:15AM PDT

that's what I am talking about. Also, I saw at Costco they were playing wide-screen movie DVD on Pioneer PDP-4312 and there it was - blank horizontal bars on the top and bottom. This way, 43" TV looks small, with only so much viewable area.
So I guess, these are the only 2 possibilities:
1. blank horizontal bars on top and bottom
or
2. picture gets cut from both sides, left and right.

Too bad, there is nothing decent in the market yet. I wish there was a decent HDTV plasma with 1280x720p in the $4000 range.

- Collapse -
Hmmm... not looking hard enough?
Jun 14, 2005 3:35PM PDT

You're looking for a well priced 42'' HD Plasma? Look no further than Samsung or Panasonic. Both well under $4,000.

- Collapse -
About the widescreen movie
Jun 15, 2005 1:17AM PDT

just because you have black bars on top and bottom on a widescreen movie with a widescreen tv it means nothing. Flip the moive over and look and the back and it will give you the aspect. Most widescreen movies are between 2.35-2.40 aspect. Which in turn will leave you with letter boxing and if you do the math it will show you that you should only have about 95% of the screen filled with the 2.35 aspect. I have yet to see a movie with 1.77 aspect. Seeing as how there is no industry standard for movie makers you will find all different types of aspects

- Collapse -
hmm...
Jun 15, 2005 7:10AM PDT

2.35 : 1 is called anamorphic widescreen
16:9 is just called widescreen

I have several movies at home with standard (16:9) widescreen

- Collapse -
right but
Jun 19, 2005 11:21AM PDT

I know that its anamorphic widescreen but that seems to be the normal thing. There is not one new release movie in widescreen that we sell thats actaully 1.77 and would actually be without some lettering boxing.

- Collapse -
ya... I guess mine are 1.85:1, not 1.77:1 :)
Jun 21, 2005 5:25AM PDT

not anamorphic, but not exactly 16:9 either. *sigh.... Happy

- Collapse -
problem solved I think
Jun 18, 2005 4:35AM PDT

Dont shop at cosco frys etc they no nothing about home theater I went to a high end retailer and bought a home theater system that is awsome and cost me less in the end I bought a KP-65wv600 Sony 3 gun rear project t.v. and it only cost $2500 I find the picture as good as the l.c.d, d.l.p sets at half the price and I dont care if it weighs a ton in closing I just joined this chat group would like to hear from you just post under stewart norrie good luck

- Collapse -
problem solved I think
Jun 20, 2005 2:35AM PDT

When I worked at Fry's I spent some time with the TV salesmen explaning this tech stuff to them, some got it, some didn't and some could care less.
The Sears TV guy that posts here knows his stuff, but I'm feel the he is the excption and not the rule.
You can shop Costco and FRY's, BUT get your info here and other fourms before you go. John

- Collapse -
re
Jun 21, 2005 9:28AM PDT

there are a few of us out there that actually enjoy learning about electronics, but I guess we are an exception. Most people around here (circuit city, best buy) could care less. I'm 22 and have alot of other things going on in my life but one thing I enjoy is my electronics. I do my best to learn as much as I can and be as prepared for customers that I can. In the end it pays off. I get know learn about alot of cool stuff and making 40K working less than 30 hrs a week while finishing up college isn't too bad either.

Theres a ton that know more than me such as 3luke3 and thats why I'm on here to help myself learn as well

- Collapse -
re
Jun 22, 2005 1:35AM PDT

Hi, Can we clone you??? John