Its the putting right that counts

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Its the putting right that counts - Harver Norman

1 | 2 | 3

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#174802 31-Oct-2008 09:24

This thread makes for excellent reading.

I'm in the same situation, purchased a TV from Dick Smith around 18 months ago and recently tried to connect a Zinwell freeview HD box to it. The TV only has a DVI input but the manual says it is hdcp capable, so a hdmi/dvi adapter or cable should work fine. No joy from the zinwell box with multiple cables/adapter options and the hd box was returned. I'm running an ET box now (which has no copy protection on either hd outputs, component or hdmi) into TV's DVI input no problems.

So a dvi input that doesn't work with any copy protected source is problem #1, (which probably includes all bluray/ps3 etc). I know I've had this TV a while but I figure that the freeview HD source is still relatively new, so I was not likely to have checked this aspect of the hd input when I purchased it and could only go on what the manual says (hdcp capable) and what the sales guy said as well.

Second problem is that when I checked the manual the screen resolution is something crazy like 852x480, which I can only guess is some NTSC standard resolution. So even if I can get a HD source to connect, I've got nowhere near enough pixels to really show it. So my "ready for HD" screen is totally different to a "HD ready" screen.

I figure this is almost the exact same situation you were in so I've contacted Dick Smith and have linked to this thread for them to view. I'll post back on any (if any) response I get from Dick Smith, but I'm really hoping I have a story to tell similar to your outcome!

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#174806 31-Oct-2008 09:34

And 852x8480 Plasma is not HD or even HD ready. It's a SD resolution.

Where was this TV advertised or marketed as being HD capable? If DSE were marketing this TV as HD or HD capable and you have proof of this then there should be no issues taking this further. This TV is certainly not capable of displaying HD signals. If you don't have any proof of this marketing you might fall into the category of other early adopters where people seemed to think that all flat panel TV's were HD when this was not correct.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#174810 31-Oct-2008 09:50

Yeah totally agree on the resolution and that this would be an open and shut case if I had a copy of a flyer or similar saying it was hd. All I have is that the manual says it should accept a hd signal, (even describes how to connect your dtv box with hdcp output), and the sales guy said this would mean it's ready for hd. Given it won't work with the official zinwell hd tv box, I'd suggest that's not quite correct! Will see what they come back with.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#174812 31-Oct-2008 09:54

If they sold you the TV as HD then they are stupid and should have to replace it since they lied about it. If they just said that it accepts 1080i and 720p then no, they should not. But if the resolution was clearly displayed on the sales material then they may be able to argue their way out of it.

As for not working with the zinny over a hdmi to dvi cable, thats quite often the case, because even tho dvi can have hdcp, its still not a hdmi signal because of the timings with it not accepting audio via the input.

Richard rich.ms

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#174814 31-Oct-2008 10:06

Yeah fair call. I'll see how they go with it but not holding my breath. Many TV's accept a resolution higher than they natively display, so sales companies can get away with saying it's ready for hd, as opposed to the later marketing defined concept of hd ready being 720p native ish and full hd being 1080. In this case I just don't think it is ready for hd as it just doesn't work with an approved hd box source.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#174837 31-Oct-2008 11:46

Jaxson: Yeah fair call. I'll see how they go with it but not holding my breath. Many TV's accept a resolution higher than they natively display, so sales companies can get away with saying it's ready for hd, as opposed to the later marketing defined concept of hd ready being 720p native ish and full hd being 1080. In this case I just don't think it is ready for hd as it just doesn't work with an approved hd box source.

Surprised you didn't read the manual when you bought it? In any case it's semantics really. I wouldn't say they were trying to mislead (obviously, don't know the exact situation). Is it ready for HD? Yes, it can display an HD signal (720p, 1080i - I presume you're not having any problems with your ET box?). Does it make the most of that HD signal? No, but that doesn't mean it's not "ready" for it, depending on your definition.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#174850 31-Oct-2008 12:47

Yeah agreed Bazzer. My brother bought this TV and I'm chasing this up for him. He asked if it was ok for the coming freeview HD and the shop guy checked the manual and as it showed how to connect to a DTV box the answer was yes. We're running an ET box on this via the DVI in and yes this works fine, and was a lucky alternative to the official zinwell which doesn't work on this TV. (Zinwell also has component capped at SD so it's a total no go on this TV). I'll see what they say, but might fall into the early adopter category as sbiddle mentioned. Just tricky when HD TV finally arrives and can't be used (well officially) on the TV they said was ok for it.

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#174855 31-Oct-2008 13:03

Hi all (and great thread by the way).

There seems to be a suggestion here that 1024*768 is not HD (I'll now refer to this resolution as 768p). I dispute that. In fact I previously disputed that with Sony after reading some advertising on their website, the result of which was that they removed the advertising and sent me a gift-pack for setting them straight.

It was hard to fully discern the facts of the original problem, but what I read from it is that the original Philips TV was allegedly down-scaling the HTPC /HDMI signal to 800*600. A very odd claim if the TV had a true native resolution of 1024*768. I think what the Philips Tech actually meant is that even though the TV has a 768p resolution, it will not accept a HD signal eg (720p; 1080i/p) via HDMI.

This would explain why you initially had no picture as your HTPC was probably sending at least a 720p signal to the TV. But by turning the TV off and on, the HDMI handshake probably re-negotiated the highest "input resolution" the TV could handle (with the HTPC) -which according to the tech is 800*600. So the HTPC switched to 800*600 and you now had a picture, just not a very nice looking one.

On these grounds, I agree the TV is not HD ready, but that is not the same thing as saying 1024*768 is not a HD resolution. IMHO, It is.

A bit of history. Plasma TV's, unlike LCD TV's are not back-lit. Each pixel is like a small light-bulb. The challenge then, is making these light-bulbs small enough that you could fit 1280 of them across a 42 inch sized screen (the minimum length to satisfy 720p). Until fairly recently, that technology did not exist. The best they could do was 1024, and for reasons I am not quite sure of, they went with 768 lines. Possibly because this is one of the standard VESA resolutions, and in any event, if gives you a 4:3 aspect ratio, not 16:10 as all wide-screen TV's support.

So the obvious question is why does a Plasma with 1024*768 resolution have an aspect ration of 16:10? The answer is that the Pixels are not square. They are shaped like eggs which means the physical aspect ratio is stretched to16:10. The implications of this are simple. Any input source is simply scaled (up or down) to 1024*768 and as long as the input signal is widescreen (eg 720p or 1080i/p) then that aspect ratio will be preserved due to the shape of the TV screen.

Now I happen to own 3 HD TV's and the first one I purchased is a wonderful 42inch Panasonic Viera with 768p native resolution. It will accept a 720p or 1080i input signal (via HDMI) and will scale it to 768p. It does an amazing job of this, and in my personal opinion, beats the two 1080p HD LCD TV's I also own in terms of overall picture quality. No doubt this is due to a large number of factors that have nothing to do with the resolution. But people love the concept of high resolution, it's easy to get your head around, more is better, less is worse -end of story. PC gamers are just as bad, they want to run at resolutions of 1920*1200 or higher, even if it means the game runs like a slideshow.

Whether you believe a 768p TV that can accept 720p or higher input singals deserves to be called HD is somewhat of a pointless argument, but my opinion is it definately is, and it turns out Sony agreed with me. You might note that 768 lines is actually higher than the minum requirement of 720 so it actually has to upscale the vertical resolution of a 720p signal.

Lastly, there is one pretty significant down-side to 768p. For HTPC, if you want 1-to-1 pixel mapping, you would need to use a D-Sub cable and specify the true resolution of 1024*768. This is great and it works. The problem is that the HTPC assumes 1024*768 means you have a 4:3 TV. The result is that if you play a DVD (or games) it will look very stretched, with large black bars above and below the picture. This is unacceptable for HTPC usage so the alternative is to send the TV a 720p/1080i signal (via HDMI) and allow the TV's inbuilt scaler do it's work. You don't get 1-to-1 pixel mapping, and text output can suffer somewhat, but for Video it really is irrelevent.

"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#174881 31-Oct-2008 14:44

Quidam:
Hi all (and great thread by the way).

There seems to be a suggestion here that 1024*768 is not HD (I'll now refer to this resolution as 768p). I dispute that.

Sorry but I cannot find anything in this thread that suggests that?

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#174887 31-Oct-2008 15:18

Hmm while looking for the suggestion that 768P is not HD I had a better look at the link to the TV in question.

I now have to ask if the Philips tech knew what he was talking about. The PDF is very clear that it is HD. Capable of desplaying 720p and 1080i. It also shows the native resolution as 1024 X 768. Although this means that it has to squash the vertical lines to fit 1024 it is still 720p
Where he got 800X600 I cannot understand. I also cannot understand how He said it is definately not marketed by Phillips as HD. It is very clearly shown as being HD through that PDF.

Yes I agree that 1024 X 768 is a very ugly stanard but it does still conform the the 720p requirements which do not seem to state that it must be 1280 across.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#174894 31-Oct-2008 15:34

OK last post before someone else pipes in.. I did find this statement which is false.

"Plasma WXGA Panel, 1024 x 768p
This state-of-the-art plasma screen technology gives you widescreen HD resolution of up to 1024 x 768p pixels. It produces brilliant flicker-free progressive scan pictures with optimum brightness and superb colors. This vibrant and sharp image will provide you with an enhanced viewing experience."

Well sorry but that is XGA NOT WXGA. WXGA is 1280X768.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

butlerboy

457 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

#174900 31-Oct-2008 15:55

At the end of the day as long as the tv performs as it should thats the main thing. I've got a panasonic PV8 which has a resolution of 1024x768 which I paid $1300 for and the picture is stunning. IMHO it performs better than a lot of LCD tvs with supposidly better resolution that cost twice as much.

lchiu7

6521 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 543

Trusted

#174901 31-Oct-2008 15:56

Well IMHO 1024x768 isn't HD even if the set can display a HD signal. After the HD standards are 720p or 1080i so to even display 720p the 1024x768 set must throw away some image or scale it. Of course how it looks to the consumer is a different matter. On a smaller display it might not even be noticeable but for this in GZ I would think it's not an acceptable situation.

Staying in Wellington. Check out my AirBnB in the Wellington CBD. https://www.airbnb.co.nz/h/wellycbd PM me and mention GZ to get a 15% discount and no AirBnB charges.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#174929 31-Oct-2008 17:09

After trying for ages to get an acceptable pic on a mates 1024x768 plasma off a PC I would not touch one. Even a 848x480 would be preferable for PC use IMO, at least you can do a 1:1 on that without getting chubbovision, or having to have the tv scale everything thru what appears to be the worst scaler ever invented like the 1024x768 plasma did.

Richard rich.ms

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#174944 31-Oct-2008 17:37

Nety:
Quidam:
Hi all (and great thread by the way).

There seems to be a suggestion here that 1024*768 is not HD (I'll now refer to this resolution as 768p). I dispute that.
Sorry but I cannot find anything in this thread that suggests that?

The very first post!

It was marketed in the shop as 'high definition', and had a screen resolution of 1024 x 768p...so hence the CSR told me its HD...

Its NOT high definition.

Urh...ok...

He made it clear, that the model, while it has a higer resolution, when it uses the HDMI connection, it is actually downscaling the pitcure and I am actually seeing 800 x 600 (just better than SD TV)...

He said it is definately not marketed by Phillips as HD

"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)

1 | 2 | 3