| Author |
Message |
    
Adrian Heney
Citizen
Username: Adrianheh
Post Number: 13
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |     |
About to make the plunge into the world of Plasma TVs. I have done my research and determined that Plasma (vs. LCD) is for me.
What I am struggling with is this: do I really need HDTV, or is EDTV sufficient for my needs. I am aware that the resolution is better on HDTV sets, and the picture is about 20% better on an HDTV set...but is it worth the extra $1,000 that you pay?
From what I have learned, it often comes down to the source input. With that said, is the native resolution of Comcast digital cable high enough to maximize the picture on a 1080 x 768 HDTV? Should I tell myself that the 20% improvement wont matter that much and go EDTV?
Need help from the videophiles out there in the world of MOL. Any help much appreciated. |
Rick B
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 946
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 4:50 pm: | |
Adrian,
do you mean:
"is the HDresolution of Comcast digital cable high enough to maximize the picture on a 1080 x 768 HDTV? "
The native analog signal and digital signal will not come anywhere near that resolution. Only the HD signal from comcast will, and I am not sure, but I don't think many things are broadcast much higher than 720i. That will change in the future though. DVDs and gaming systems like xbox360 can achieve these resolutions however.
I am not expert or videophile, but that is what I thought.
Also...from what i hear (plasma vs. lcd). If you are going below 36" i hear LCD is the way to go, but for bigger, plasma is the way to go. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3184
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 5:47 pm: | |
I find the visual difference of EDTV negligible when compared to HDTV. I had also heard that "regular" (non-HD) broadcasts appear horrible on an HDTV, whereas non-HD broadcasts are not too bad on EDTV.
It all comes down to what the majority of your viewing will be. For example, if you watch alot of CNN, network news and an occasional DVD, spending an extra $1000 for HDTV doesn't make sense.
If you will be watching mostly sports, HBO-HD and Network shows in HD, than perhaps it may be worthwhile.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3185
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 5:49 pm: | |
By the way, the message boards at avsforum.com are a great source of information for questions like this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/ |
Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:43 am: | |
Like you I was about to make the jump to a nice HD flat screen TV. Having a background as an EE who spend my first years out of college in a R&D lab working with satellite communications equipment and broadcast video I was excited that we were finally leaving the NTSC world. NTSC was the broadcast specification defined in the late 40's and will finally be replaced by the HDTV spec by 2009. Having studied this quandary for the last 6 months I'm amazed at the amount of misinformation and untruths being perpetuated surrounding HDTV.
This is what I have discovered, first the true broadcast spec for HDTV requires 1920 lines horizontally and 1080i (i for interlace) vertically. If the screen resolution is less then this - electronic manipulation is occurring by the digital tuner in the form of signal interpolation - in some cases this is not necessary since the cable & satellite providers have compressed the HDTV - so if Comcast has a 720p spec (p for progressive scanning) and you have a true HDTV with a screen resolution of 1080i x 1920 - the tuner will have to expand the 720 vertical lines to 1080 lines - It does this by averaging information between pixels and filling in the 360 pixels with this mathematical interpolation. The end result in less then spectacular.
Having seen a true HDTV using the Japanese spec (which is better then the spec adopted by the FCC) I find most of the current offerings in store sub par. To see what I'm talking about visit the Sony Building at the corner of 57th & Third Avenue (if it's still there) - I had visited close to 10 years ago - they provide a free tour and had a HDTV CRT showing a ballet. I stood there and watched for 15 minutes, amazed at the clarity - it was as if you could reach in a pull out one of the dancers - it was that real.
Once you see this, you will realize that we are still in a pre-HDTV stage - only if you purchase a HDTV with the 1080i x 1920 resolution (there were 2 at Best Buy - and since the signal was degraded or compressed you couldn't tell the difference compared to the inferior displays) and then the question is where do receive the best HDTV broadcast - It's not cable or satellite but with a high gain UHF antenna pointing to NYC - no compression - full spec - the downside you will only receive the regular free networks 2,4,5,7,9,11 & 13 - there are additional Public Broadcast signals coming from Montclair and Newton in addition to Long Island and Conn, with a range of 70 miles I'm not sure if you can pick up Philadelphia.
As far as television design the Plasma is the way to go - the problem with the current LCD technology, assuming you has the proper resolution is the refresh rate. This is why as I watch the Giants on New Years Eve on a neighbors new JVC 40+ inch LCD HDTV - I pointed out the various flaws in his $2000 joke. As Tiki ran up the field and you focused on the number of his jersey you would notice a slight ghosting - signal refresh rate wasn't fast enough - I won't get into why this happens (I don't have the time) but I do know that the new generation of LCD's will be have refresh rates that are twice as fast as what’s in the stores today - ergo the 50% off discounts we are all seeing.
For background reference you can usually find out which resolutions an HD set is capable of displaying from that TV's manual. If 480p is listed that would equal 720x480, 720p would equal 1280x720, and 1080i/p would equal 1920x1080. Maybe I'm naive, but if a set is listed as being able to display a certain resolution I take that as being accurate. Therefore some HD televisions don't display full resolution, these are the units that will electronically alter the signal in which you will lose clarity and make you wish you waited (how could they even be called HD in that case bothers me)
Regarding what is a true HDTV, the line has been stretched pretty low. All the consumer CRT sets available, have had limits on the number of horizontal scanning lines they can resolve. Due to the large dot-pitch of the screen phosphors (.64mm to .84mm, typically), they range from only about 570 to 670 scanning lines. The LCD, Plasma and other thin screen types can resolve 720 to 768 scanning lines. This will undoubtedly improve, as smaller screen dots will be used in the future. The dot-pitch on computer screens is usually about .22mm to .28mm. With each generation (I believe we are in the 7th) the pixel dot pitches size gets smaller and the resolution greater. Based on a really well written paper I read this summer on the state of HDTV market in the US, less the 5% of the HDTV on the market in December 2004 had the true HDTV spec. I went to look at a Westinghouse LCD at Best Buy which had the spec and was under $2000 – unfortunate it was sold out.
The bottom line is wait – it’s not soup yet – unless you have to feed your ego..wait..
And for all the others that think their new flat screen is all that it can be...visit the Sony building in NYC - you will then see the light.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2248
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 11:53 am: | |
politicalmon - wow. Thanks for such a detailed explanation. We recently debated buying a plasma or an LCD and chose the LCD. The decision was based on a compromise of picture quality and size constraints. We've been pretty happy with our choice but as others have noted the display on 480 is less than optimal. Broadcasts in 720 or 1080 are quite amazing. Unfortunately there are only a few that broadcast in 1080.
I watch tons of sports on our tv and I've never noticed the ghosting (maybe I'm not paying attention). I notice details that I've never been able to see before, individual blades of grass, the stamping on the footballs that were used in the Rose Bowl last night, etc.
I'm also fairly confident that our setup is not optimized so the picture could be better.
But anyway thanks for your input it is extremely informative (even if I don't understand the mechanics behind all of what you said.) |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11760
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:02 pm: | |
People used to expect their appliances to last 20 to 30 years. Now I suppose a TV becomes obsolete in about three or four, depending on how cutting edge you want to be. So if you don't mind spending $500 per year ($2000 over four years) then it's worthwhile.
I'm staying low tech, because most of this stuff doesn't matter much to me. I bought my 27" TV in 1989 for $500, and it's good enough for me, for now.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8276
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:07 pm: | |
If I leave my Panasonic plasma on 24/7 it will last 20 years. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11764
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:19 pm: | |
And will it last as long if you turn it off occasionally?
Seriously, it might work, but won't there be new standards or features that will make you itch for new gear?
|
Rick B
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 949
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 7:49 am: | |
Thanks Politicalmon, that was a nice post.
Can you comment on EDTV? What is the point of it? Seems like a way to cut HDTV standard in half or something. |
TarPit Coder
Citizen
Username: Tarpitcoder
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 8:04 am: | |
PoliticalMon is right-on with his summary:
Real HDTV calls for a display capable of 1080 vertical, 1920 horizontal. That's 1920x1080. Realize though that 1080i is interlaced. The other common standard is 720p(rogressive) - But it's not that simple.
If you have an LCD on your machine, try setting the display properties to other than the native resolution of the panel - for a 1280x1024 display try 1024x768 - See how it looks. That's interpolation - and it's really horrible.
That's why some people still prefer good old-fashioned (HEAVY) CRT's for displaying HD content - as the tube can dynamically adjust to the resolution of the input signal (Like a multisync computer monitor).
Now here's the really scary part - that you may have guessed.
So you buy a nice display capable of 1080i, with 1080 pixels vertically. What's it going to do when you display 720p?. It's going to interpolate! So what if you don't want to interpolate - We need to find a nice integer multiple for both resolutions.
720*3 = 2160 and 1080*2 = 2160.
So if you TRUELY don't want to have interpolation - you need a display that will do 2160 pixels vertically. This is because 2160 is an even integer multiple of the native display resolutions of 720p, 1080i.
Hope this helps and makes sense -- Tarp.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10195
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 9:45 am: | |
Sports, I think a lot depends on how techy you are and if you have a trained eye. I do not fit either profile.
When we wander through the HD displays in an appliance store both Mrs. K and myself are wowed by the clarity on most of the sets.  |
TarPit Coder
Citizen
Username: Tarpitcoder
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:26 am: | |
Aha! This brings up a great story I heard.
It went along the lines of:
Several years back a BBC Executive was walking thru engineering when suddenly he stopped, staring at a monitor. He said to the accompanying party something along the lines of 'This must be HD! It's amazing! It's so sharp'. To which a technician piped up and said 'Sir, that's studio quality PAL'.
The long and short of it being - What you see on your average TV is nothing like the quality of even Studio quality NTSC or PAL. You lose LOTS of quality by the time it gets to your set.
That's the argument for EDTV - If you could actually get studio quality NTSC or PAL on your TV you'd be quite impressed.
Unfortunately cable and satellite providers digitally compress the absolute hell out of the video they send for a really simple reason. More channels over less bandwidth - means providing more channels for less money for them. It's not much better if you are on an antenna with NTSC -you get color weirdness and lose lots of resolution.
Lots of the HDTV craze is just rampant marketting. The electronics companies love it -- They are very excited by the idea of convincing you to toss out your perfectly good TV Set and throw your hard earned dough down on some brand spanking new HD set...
|
darrensager
Citizen
Username: Darrensager
Post Number: 200
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:03 pm: | |
I'm not spending the money unless I can get a 1080p. Otherwise its wasted $$$.
A ton of 1080p sets are on their way within the next year. I've kept my last NEC for the past 20 years. I can wait a bit longer to make sure what I get will handle the 1080i broadcast and the next generation of DVD format no matter if its Blue-ray or another format.
I agree with Politicalmon. Wait a bit more. I wish I went to the CES show this week in Vegas. They're showing all the latest goodies.  |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8305
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 10:08 am: | |
Here's an Apple plasma rumor
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/01/exclusive_apple_plasma_displays_to_roc k_mwsf.html |
Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon
Post Number: 79
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:28 pm: | |
Well, I didn't comment on EDTV since I saw it as a temporary ploy to sell TVs that don't quite measure up to the HDTV standard yet are an improvment over the NTSC standard. Why bother - the HDTV standard has been set - only purchase a display that adhere's to this standard. The only catch is what percentage of current programing is broadcasting true 1080 x 1920 HDTV content? This coupled with an investigation of what the media companies are doing to that original HDTV signal before it comes into your home? Why throw your money into the wind? I'm planning on setting up a high gain UHF antenna and picking up all the local network station via HDTV for free - and initally running them into my PC with a HDTV tuner via the PCIe (PCI Express) interface. I hope to get the kinks out of this system just in time to purchase a high capacity Blue laser DVD burner from Sony. This way I hope to have a library of high definition DVD content mostly from PBS ready to go when I decide it's time to pull the trigger on a nice flat screen display - sometime a year from now. The only thing that concerns me are the additional measures the broadcasters are forcing on the HDTV manufacturers concerning policing the publics ability to duplicate copywrited content - but thats another topic. |
scrim
Citizen
Username: Scrim
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 5:07 pm: | |
I posted information on another thread but thought some of you here might find it usefull.Aw heck, here is the thread: /discus/messages/3135/95807.html?1133822293 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page