We recently did a review of the Pioneer Elite PRO-150FD 60" Plasma TV back in November (Podcast 224) so when Pioneer offered us the 42 inch model we weren't sure that we wanted to review a TV that was so similar. Since the TV was 720p we decided that it was different enough to warrant a review.
Technically speaking 1024X768 is not even HDTV according to the ATSC. The resolution 1024X768 is considered HD by the (Consumer Electronics Association) CEA for obvious marketing reasons. It is even called "HDTV Plasma" in many circles. While we are actually incorrect in calling it 720p. We did this to specifically bring attention to the fact that the panel is not 1080p. In the end, the panel does display 720 horizontal lines drawn on the screen progressively.
We regret that this may have actually caused more confusion.
Ara Derderian
But in the end, for many people (especially when you can only use a 42) with an HD signal, it is still going to look very good, and very much like HD. Especially when a resonable distance away. 42" at this resolution has been called HD for years now. And no one has filed any class action suits. So choosing to quibble if this is truely HD or not is somewhat late - and fruitless.
Heck, I have a 15" 4:3 that's probably only 800 x 600 that shows an HD source and while small, it's a good picture as I look across my office. Function over label would be my decision process (not recommending it be sold as HD though). And, the Kuro sets are very functional!
But in the end, for many people (especially when you can only use a 42) with an HD signal, it is still going to look very good, and very much like HD. Especially when a resonable distance away. 42" at this resolution has been called HD for years now. And no one has filed any class action suits. So choosing to quibble if this is truely HD or not is somewhat late - and fruitless.
I could ALMOST buy that argument if it was 1366 x 768 - at least that would have more pixels than a 1280x720 HD signal.
Just because some (or even many) people are ignorant to the differences doesn't make it ok to igore technical accuracy.
To me, you are preaching to the choir. While I can rationalize the situation(s), I still take all advertising and marketing hype as first fraud and manipulation, and secondly as an information source. I am total agreement that calling 1024 wide - HD is wrong. But, alas, it's pervasive.
I have an instinct that to reduce the cell size to make denser 42" sets is an expensive tooling problem - and again for normal distances it wouldn't be noticed so much so maybe not so economically viable. Thus that is why we see what we do in 42".
Man, you guys need to get over the 720p thing. I have a 42" 9UK in my bedroom, which looks very nice,especially when compared with your average LCD "true 720p" display. Resolution isn't everything!
Man, you guys need to get over the 720p thing. I have a 42" 9UK in my bedroom, which looks very nice,especially when compared with your average LCD "true 720p" display. Resolution isn't everything!
I agree that you guys are WAY OVERFOCUSED on the native resolution factor when determining whether a TV is capable of processing an HD signal well. Remember that the factors that determine PQ are contrast ratio (linked to black level), color saturation, color accuracy and then -- yes, fourth ranked -- resolution. A fixed pixel display with literally higher native resolution than another panel may process and display an HD signal in a fashion that a group of viewers would conclusively judge to be grossly inferior to the panel with lower native resolution. The higher native resolution panel may even fail a comparison on PERCEPTIBLE picture clarity or apparent resolution. How is this possible.? Firstly, on an engineering level, not all pixels are created equal. There is also no axiom in engineering circles that having denser pixelation in your display panel automatically creates higher perceptible resolution. What happens on the processor side does matter, the quality of the pixels in your panel does matter. The reason the 42" Pioneer Kuro plasma outperforms the PQ of its rivals in that screen size despite the "limited" density of its pixelation is because of its extraordinary black level that lays the foundation for superb color rendering and color saturation. Great black levels also enhance a "cleaner" look to signal processing and thus the appearance of greater clarity or resolution. I hope what I say here puts to rest your overemphasis on a panel's native resolution.
It is quite surprising that the PRO-950 has the PQ that it does precisely because with its non-standard, essentially XGA computer resolution, it is having to scale ALL inputed signals up or down. You would think, on specs, that this TV would be doomed to dumbing down every signal it touches and floating in a sea of artifacts. But those of us who have seen the 950 perform with a variety of source material would have to acknowledge that nothing could be further from the truth. It outperforms other TVs in this screen size that have "standard HD" resolution panels. I believe that Pioneer R&D knew that at only 42" they had very little to be concerned about in the territory of visible scaling atrifacts and that the strengths of Kuro engineering would still push through and generate superior PQ.
You would think, on specs, that this TV would be doomed to dumbing down every signal it touches and floating in a sea of artifacts.
And it is. This is a performance concern for those seeking accuracy.
Put another way this exact same engineering design in a native HD 720 or 1080 pixel matrix making 1:1 pixel mapping the only difference would look better. Overall it will appear to have an edge in detail the other does not with the native HD scan rate. With specific images there will be artifacts with one that do not show up on the other.
I of course wouldn't quibble with the notion that 1:1 pixel mapping lays the foundation for a more accurate display of the inputed signal as is; at the same time, I would never suggest that a signal that has to go through scaling to conform to a panel's pixel matrix emerges unscathed. I too bemoan the fact the same enginering design for the 42" Kuro panels could not have been incorporated into a panel whose pixel matix is in snych with standard HD scan rates.
My main point was that despite this panel's matrix shortcoming, its PQ at a normal viewing distance is superior to other TVs of this screen size and that it pulls off this level of performance because its strengths command your attention, not any loss of resolution or scaling artifacts. With price wars and economies of scale being what they are, I don't think we can expect Pioneer or any other manufacturer to invest in the unique tooling and additional R&D necessary to advance performance in this plasma panel size much higher.
