Pioneer Elite Pro-950HD 42" Elite Kuro Plasma TV

[The HT Guys]

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.

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/reviews/2007/12/pioneer_elite_pro-950hd_42_elite_kuro_plasma_tv.php]Read the Full Review[/url]

[akirby]

Since when does 1024x768 = 720P?

[arad]

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

[stevekaden]

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!

[akirby]

[quote="stevekaden"]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.
[/quote]

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.

[stevekaden]

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".

[akirby]

I think a lot of it has to do with using pre-existing sub assemblies that were probably made for computer monitors to keep costs down.

[tsteves]

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!

[Richard]

unless you happen to be looking for it... and that is the deception that has ticked us off since HDTV marketing began!

[cwest54]

[quote="tsteves"] 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![/quote]

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.