My telly, I'm a bit confused about the HD'ness

Feek · 15-03-2008, 01:12

I've got a Panasonic TX-32LXD700 but I'm a little confused about exactly how HD it is.

The instructions list both 1080i and 1080p as available inputs via either HDMI and Component and up to 1366x768 on the PC input.

I've currently got my Xbox connected via the PC input and my Wii via the component.

But is 1366x768 the equivalent of 1080p/i? I always thought it was lower, ie 720p/i If that's the case, wouldn't I be better off connecting my 360 via component and moving the Wii over to the PC input if such a cable is available?

Flibster · 15-03-2008, 01:54

Welcome to my hatred of 'HD Ready'

You screen is not an official HD resolution. This is extrordinarily common.

1366x768 is closest to 1280x720 - if you can do 1:1 pixel mapping then you will have black borders all aroudn the image in the middle.

If you push 1280x720 to the tv this will get resampled up to 1366x768 - thus decreasing the quality.

If you push 1920x1080 through it - it will get resampled down to 1366x768 - again, losing quality.

Whats wrong with producing HD Ready sets that MATCH THE BLOODY HD RESOLUTIONS?!

Thing is - even 852x480 is considered HD - thats barely better than DVD.

I really wish that the spawn of satan bizzarre resolution tv's would just bog off. 1280x720 is official - make a panel that IS that resolution. 1920x1080 is official - make a panel that IS that resolution.

Ranting over for the moment...

Really, on the Xbox and Wii front- the Wii is probably best over component as there is an official cable for that, and get the 360 on either HDMI or VGA. Will make very little difference at all.

Simon/~Flibster

Feek · 15-03-2008, 02:08

Gotcha.

So, when I download a 1080p .mkv and convert it to play on my telly through the 360, which one of the following should I choose?

divine · 15-03-2008, 02:38

MPEG2 6144kbps 720p 192kbps

or

H.264 720p 3072kbps 160kbps

First one should be better quality as it's higher bitrate.

Unless MKV passthrough plays it direct, in which case i'd use that, however i'm not sure what that actually means.

I also share Flibsters frustrations, it's disgusting how common the use of non standard resolution is, along with plastering numbers like 1080p all over TVs just because they can process those signals but are otherwise exactly the same as non '1080p' sets.

I personally wouldn't buy anything other than a 'Full HD' 1920x1080 panel if it were me.

Feek · 15-03-2008, 02:46

The 360 won't directly play the mkv files hence needing to do the conversions, I'll have a play tomorrow and check that that first one plays.

I picked up this particular set partly on the grounds of the review I linked in the first post here and it certainly does me well, but I have the advantage in that I can change my telly every year or so if I want so I might have to look at that later this year. Not sure how easy it is to get a 'full HD 1920x1080' set in the size I'm after though, really don't want to go above 32"

Mark · 15-03-2008, 03:35

Nice TV. Panasonic have long been regarded for the quality of their screens - regardless of the funny resolutions (which is not just a Panasonic thing - other manufacturers use them too most likely due to some fascination with XGA resolution).

You may in fact find that the panel is only using 1280x720 pixels - CRTs used to bury the edges of the display in the bezel, and while LCD monitors don't do this, there's nothing to stop LCD TVs from doing it and using marketing doublespeak. Marketing hype aside I think I'd prefer that over 6.6% upscaling.

I can't fault divine`'s selection of resolutions, but the choice of MPEG2 over H.264 might not be as clear-cut as it would at first seem since H.264 is supposed to be more capable at lower bitrates. Might be worth trying one of each and seeing which you prefer - if you have the time. I haven't done this comparison so I don't know if this information is correct.

PS - I'm thinking of getting the 26LXD70 for my bedroom. 32in is a bit big for there.

divine · 15-03-2008, 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I can't fault divine`'s selection of resolutions, but the choice of MPEG2 over H.264 isn't as clear-cut as it might at first seem since H.264 is supposed to be more capable at lower bitrates. Might be worth trying one of each and seeing which you prefer - if you have the time. I haven't done this comparison so I don't know if this information is correct.

PS - I'm thinking of getting the 26LXD70 for my bedroom. 32in is a bit big for there.

I know H.264 is meant to be much better but i'm dubious as to it's ability to half the bitrate yet keep identical quality. The MPEG2 stream also has [slightly] higher quality audio accompanying it, something that swayed my choice a tad.

I probably should have expanded more than 'it's higher bitrate' as it is true the codecs themselves play a huge part but either way I think the 6144 MPEG is likely to edge the 3072 H.264 due to the sheer difference in bitrates.

I think 32" Full HD TVs are becoming more common now, so shouldn't be hard to find soon really...

Mark · 15-03-2008, 03:54

Agreed - and I hadn't noticed the audio difference (as I'm currently re-ripping all my CDs at ~256kbps VBR MP3 for quality reasons I really should have).

divine · 15-03-2008, 04:01

Quality = lossless = FLAC

Start again!! and buy a 500GB hard drive or two for all the space that'd need

Mark · 15-03-2008, 04:35

I'm not a pedantic audiophile. Like most people, my ears can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3* and the original source CDs, so for me lossless = FAIL.

* I actually use 192kbps to 320kbps high quality VBR, which seems to average out somewhere around 245-250kbps

15-03-2008, 01:12	#1
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	My telly, I'm a bit confused about the HD'ness I've got a Panasonic TX-32LXD700 but I'm a little confused about exactly how HD it is. The instructions list both 1080i and 1080p as available inputs via either HDMI and Component and up to 1366x768 on the PC input. I've currently got my Xbox connected via the PC input and my Wii via the component. But is 1366x768 the equivalent of 1080p/i? I always thought it was lower, ie 720p/i If that's the case, wouldn't I be better off connecting my 360 via component and moving the Wii over to the PC input if such a cable is available? __________________

15-03-2008, 01:54	#2
Flibster Moonshine Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,388	Welcome to my hatred of 'HD Ready' You screen is not an official HD resolution. This is extrordinarily common. 1366x768 is closest to 1280x720 - if you can do 1:1 pixel mapping then you will have black borders all aroudn the image in the middle. If you push 1280x720 to the tv this will get resampled up to 1366x768 - thus decreasing the quality. If you push 1920x1080 through it - it will get resampled down to 1366x768 - again, losing quality. Whats wrong with producing HD Ready sets that MATCH THE BLOODY HD RESOLUTIONS?! Thing is - even 852x480 is considered HD - thats barely better than DVD. I really wish that the spawn of satan bizzarre resolution tv's would just bog off. 1280x720 is official - make a panel that IS that resolution. 1920x1080 is official - make a panel that IS that resolution. Ranting over for the moment... Really, on the Xbox and Wii front- the Wii is probably best over component as there is an official cable for that, and get the 360 on either HDMI or VGA. Will make very little difference at all. Simon/~Flibster __________________

15-03-2008, 02:08	#3
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Gotcha. So, when I download a 1080p .mkv and convert it to play on my telly through the 360, which one of the following should I choose? __________________

15-03-2008, 02:38	#4
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	MPEG2 6144kbps 720p 192kbps or H.264 720p 3072kbps 160kbps First one should be better quality as it's higher bitrate. Unless MKV passthrough plays it direct, in which case i'd use that, however i'm not sure what that actually means. I also share Flibsters frustrations, it's disgusting how common the use of non standard resolution is, along with plastering numbers like 1080p all over TVs just because they can process those signals but are otherwise exactly the same as non '1080p' sets. I personally wouldn't buy anything other than a 'Full HD' 1920x1080 panel if it were me. __________________

15-03-2008, 02:46	#5
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	The 360 won't directly play the mkv files hence needing to do the conversions, I'll have a play tomorrow and check that that first one plays. I picked up this particular set partly on the grounds of the review I linked in the first post here and it certainly does me well, but I have the advantage in that I can change my telly every year or so if I want so I might have to look at that later this year. Not sure how easy it is to get a 'full HD 1920x1080' set in the size I'm after though, really don't want to go above 32" __________________

15-03-2008, 03:35	#6
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Nice TV. Panasonic have long been regarded for the quality of their screens - regardless of the funny resolutions (which is not just a Panasonic thing - other manufacturers use them too most likely due to some fascination with XGA resolution). You may in fact find that the panel is only using 1280x720 pixels - CRTs used to bury the edges of the display in the bezel, and while LCD monitors don't do this, there's nothing to stop LCD TVs from doing it and using marketing doublespeak. Marketing hype aside I think I'd prefer that over 6.6% upscaling. I can't fault divine`'s selection of resolutions, but the choice of MPEG2 over H.264 might not be as clear-cut as it would at first seem since H.264 is supposed to be more capable at lower bitrates. Might be worth trying one of each and seeing which you prefer - if you have the time. I haven't done this comparison so I don't know if this information is correct. PS - I'm thinking of getting the 26LXD70 for my bedroom. 32in is a bit big for there. Last edited by Mark; 15-03-2008 at 03:48.

15-03-2008, 03:54	#8
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Agreed - and I hadn't noticed the audio difference (as I'm currently re-ripping all my CDs at ~256kbps VBR MP3 for quality reasons I really should have).

15-03-2008, 04:01	#9
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	Quality = lossless = FLAC Start again!! and buy a 500GB hard drive or two for all the space that'd need __________________

15-03-2008, 04:35	#10
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I'm not a pedantic audiophile. Like most people, my ears can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3* and the original source CDs, so for me lossless = FAIL. * I actually use 192kbps to 320kbps high quality VBR, which seems to average out somewhere around 245-250kbps Last edited by Mark; 15-03-2008 at 04:38.