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

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#174945 31-Oct-2008 17:46

lchiu7: 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.

Technically speaking, it scales the length down, but it scales the height up.

The point is, what exactly is HD? It's a marketing term.

Aside from the (I think quite serious) issue that they used egg shaped pixels to fake wide-screen (making 1-1 pixel mapping of a widescreen signal impossible) the issue of scaling 1280*720 to 1024*768 is not the deal-breaker when it comes to image quality. The technology used to generate the picture is far more important. Fundamentally, Plasma and LCD are very different, with each having strengths and weaknesses.

For my money, movies look way better on Plasma -but for connecting a PC, I would never buy anything less than 1080p (Plasma or LCD) in this day and age.

"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

#174972 31-Oct-2008 20:22

Quidam:
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

Yes but that was refering to it being 800X600. It was not suggesting that 1024X768 is not HD

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

euanandrews

1528 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#174989 31-Oct-2008 21:48

Quidam: 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.

There was never any suggestion by me that my old Phillips Plasma TV did not have a HD screen resolution...
1024*768 is technically basic HD...

The problem was, exactly as you have stated, I just worded it differently as I did not catch everything the techie said, nor understand it all...

The HDMI was the problem, and as a result, the only picture I could get was SD...so hence, as the techie stated, that particular model Plasma TV is not HD at all as I was originally lead to believe.

I should point out to, that while I am not quoting word for word as I did not record the coversation nor is my memory that great, but what I have posted is not my opinion, but what I was informed by the Phillips techie himself...

On stating my discussion with the Phillips techie with Harvey Normans, they then themselves contacted their Phillips reps to discuss this issue, and the result was, Phillips authorsied Harvey Normans to make the swap (obviously at no cost to Harveys, but actually Phillips)

So I assume the people who know the most about this model TV, know its limitations and hence did not argue the case, and offered to immediatley put it right with the swap.

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 206

Trusted

Snowflake

#174997 31-Oct-2008 22:31

richms: 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.

my screen is 848x480 and which it shows crispy clear text with 1:1 mapping there arent enough pixels to run most applications these days..... media center is fine (of course) and dvddecryptor works ok too but for most of the apps i use to get video of the HD camcorder i have to switch, temporarily, to 1024x768 and suffer the yukky text....

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

1 | 2 | 3