HDTV .. what a gip!

zod

Ok I bought one these 26" Dell HD ready LCDs ..

Bought a X800 Ati graphics card with DVI out and connected to the TV using the supplied DVI cable.

Downloaded a 24 frames per second (fps), and at the resolution 1920 x 1080 (1080p) HD sample from the microsoft site here

and ..

can't tell the difference between that and regular SKY on my CRT TV

So whats the story?

Gone West

Im looking for a cheapo x800 if you want to sell it on

zod

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Im looking for a cheapo x800 if you want to sell it on

What can you offer? .. oh no wait this is not the for sale forum :rolleyes:

Skyuser

Why anyone will buy a HD box from sky when it comes out is beyond me. They'll probably cost a fortune with a subscription and for what? 6 or 7 channels most of which are subscription based.

v10

I think its a all bull$hite .. Was down in Dixons today looking at a 37'' HD TV playing a DVD trough a HD DVD Player connected via HDMI cable and guess what .. it was no better in my opinion to the dvd player I have at home playing through my CRT TV.

Complete $hite, but sure we'll all buy it anyway :rolleyes:

Next best thing since Super-Plus Unleaded Petrol (remember that ?)

Emerson

v10 wrote:

I think its a all bull$hite .. Was down in Dixons today looking at a 37'' HD TV playing a DVD trough a HD DVD Player connected via HDMI cable and guess what .. it was no better in my opinion to the dvd player I have at home playing through my CRT TV.

Complete $hite, but sure we'll all buy it anyway :rolleyes:

Next best thing since Super-Plus Unleaded Petrol (remember that ?)

The player & cable may have been HD but was the source material?
The disc was probably SD.

v10

Emerson wrote:

The player & cable may have been HD but was the source material?
The disc was probably SD.

Right, So if I had a HD TV .. what sources of HD media/material are currently available to me ?

KdjaCL

v10 wrote:

Right, So if I had a HD TV .. what sources of HD media/material are currently available to me ?

Games and some clips of the internet that are about 4gbs, oh and Sky HD 9 and 10.

kdjac

Charles Slane

I've yet to see a plasma or LCD screen that looks as good as a CRT. At first I put it down to the way Dixons and the like show everything in the wrong aspect ratio and pump one signal through 40 TVs, but after all this time plasma still looks like the colours are bleeding and LCD looks blocky.

I reckon the public are being led up the garden path by the nose. Dixons have announced that they're going to stop selling CRTs - is this because they want to improve the quality of products for their customers? I doubt it.

Another interesting thing is that every LCD or plasma TV I've seen in people's houses has been sited at an angle in the corner of the room - taking up pretty much the same space as a CRT would have.

I won't be looking to spend a fortune on plasma or LCD until the picture quality improves dramatically.

jesus_thats_gre

There is a noticable difference in picture quality when the source is an actual high def source..

v10

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

There is a noticable difference in picture quality when the source is an actual high def source..

What source are you suggesting ?

jesus_thats_gre

Well my xbox 360 at 720p/1080i or a HD video at 1080p on my 24inch Dell widescreen monitor..

ixtlan

Skyuser wrote:

Why anyone will buy a HD box from sky when it comes out is beyond me. They'll probably cost a fortune with a subscription and for what? 6 or 7 channels most of which are subscription based.

There will always be early adopters and we should be glad of them, as otherwise it would take longer to get new technology! I suspect Sky will be happy to start HD transmission with a smallish number of high-payers, especially if there is a box shortage. I'm trying to resist the urge!

zod wrote:

can't tell the difference between that and regular SKY on my CRT TV

To reply to zod, it is puzzling... but perhaps I'll refer to Watty's view of HDTV. I disagree with him that only 40" plus benefits, but I guess we agree on things at the lower end... A 26" TV viewed from 2m away is not a good HD demo, although from close to the screen it should be noticeable.

I would also point out that on that TV there's not much point in downloading the 1080p files. The 720p will be closer to the native resolution, and will probably be just as good a picture.

To answer v10... it's worth bearing in mind that shops usually set up TVs very badly. Also that you probably didn't really see a HD-DVD (which aren't available yet) but rather an up-scaling DVD player. This picture (while supposedly better) is not real HDTV.

Ix

zod

ixtlan wrote:

The 720p will be closer to the native resolution, and will probably be just as good a picture.

Tried the 720p samples first and was so unimpressed went for the 1080 - no difference that I could tell

ixtlan wrote:

To answer v10... it's worth bearing in mind that shops usually set up TVs very badly. Also that you probably didn't really see a HD-DVD (which aren't available yet) but rather an up-scaling DVD player. This picture (while supposedly better) is not real HDTV.
Ix

So how exactly do you get a real source for HDTV ? Like I said the stuff I downloaded was no better?

ixtlan

Charles Slane wrote:

I've yet to see a plasma or LCD screen that looks as good as a CRT.

I won't be looking to spend a fortune on plasma or LCD until the picture quality improves dramatically.

Yes, there's a lot of merit to this argument. It seems to be idely agreed that for SDTV, CRTs give the best picture. LCDs and plasmas are in a way just too good! They need to scale the picture up, and if the source is poor (as it often the case on satellite TV) the larger image is even worse.

However... for HD material flatscreens are a necessity, and it really can look much better than SDTV. The problem is that there's not much HD material, which is why I won't upgrade my CRT until I can get a HD service.

Ix

ixtlan

zod wrote:

Tried the 720p samples first and was so unimpressed went for the 1080 - no difference that I could tell

So how exactly do you get a real source for HDTV ? Like I said the stuff I downloaded was no better?

I'm afraid I'm a bit of a back seat driver! My PC isn't fast enough to play those clips but I would have expected them to be pretty good quality? Can anyone comment? Actually they seem a little small?! 50-100Mb per minute? That's a lot smaller than the forthcoming Blueray/HDTV.

Even so, is it really not sharper/clearer? Even when you are close to the screen?

Ix.

v10

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Well my xbox 360 at 720p/1080i or a HD video at 1080p on my 24inch Dell widescreen monitor..

So what ? The Xbox 360 .. thats it at the moment ?

So I'll have to What for Sky to upgrade their service, then buy the new Sky HD box, then subscribe, then buy a HD DVD Player, then wait for the media to arrive before I can really experience HD ? What a load of Böllox.

BTW .. I have the same 26'' Dell HD Ready LCD that zod is refering to in the initial post and I have an Xbox 360 .. I've never connected to two as there in different rooms... Although I don't see much room for improvement in the quality of my picture .. am I wrong ?

Blaster99

v10 wrote:

Next best thing since Super-Plus Unleaded Petrol (remember that ?)

I do, and I would like to have it back along with everyone else with a performance car.

The main reason to buy flat screen now is just the physical size of the unit. The picture quality is certainly not it.

v10

Blaster99 wrote:

The main reason to buy flat screen now is just the physical size of the unit. The picture quality is certainly not it.

But you can buy a flat screen without HD for a lot less money. So if Picture quality is not the issue then why have HD ? I bought a 42'' Plasma today after looking at 30 Lcd's ranging from 20'' to 37'' with what I would call poor quality picture (granted probably a bad source) and then ended up buying the cheapest 42'' plasma in the store (@ €1430) because I was satisfied the picture was every bit as good as any other on display.

jesus_thats_gre

v10 wrote:

So what ? The Xbox 360 .. thats it at the moment ?

So I'll have to What for Sky to upgrade their service, then buy the new Sky HD box, then subscribe, then buy a HD DVD Player, then wait for the media to arrive before I can really experience HD ? What a load of Böllox.

BTW .. I have the same 26'' Dell HD Ready LCD that zod is refering to in the initial post and I have an Xbox 360 .. I've never connected to two as there in different rooms... Although I don't see much room for improvement in the quality of my picture .. am I wrong ?

Oh don't get me wrong, I am not questioning anyones decision to hold off on buying a HDTV right now. I am disputing that there is no difference beteen a SDTV and proper HDTV picture..

I was using my 360 on a standard def tv for a while. There is a massive difference in image quality when its connected to a high def tv at natice resolutions..

watty

720 or 1080 is much better than SD, if you have a big enough, good enough TV.

Next year really is when better HD sets will be out. The present ones arn't really that good and very overpriced. Also this year there will only be a handful of HD channels. Next year also should see a good range of titles in HDDVD and BluRay, also home players that play either.

You can use a decent XVGA monitor for Xbox 360, much cheaper than a HDTV as it is typically 17" or 19". Big enough for game play. But HD TV is really designed to meet needs of 48" and bigger TV viewing as those sizes show lack of resolution in SD TV, especially NTSC.

On a 28" WS at normal TV viewing distance, HDTV is a waste of money, but NTSC(480 line) to 720 line or PAL (576line) to 1080 line is a dramatic improvement on a 48" to 60" screen (if it truely does 1080 and not resampling of 1080 to 720).

HD Ready only means it will display the HDTV modes, it does not say anything about the quality, or if the native resolutions and refresh suit the modes for best quality.

A 26" HD Ready TV needs a viewing distance of about 2' (60cm) to see any advantage of HD TV. It is really a screen for ordinary TV in a very small room (or Kitchen 2nd set) or for PS3, Xbox360 or PC games.

Find out its native resolution (likely 720) and set the XBox to that.

Note that an ONLY 720 line native resolution HDTV can't display 576 line PAL without either artifacts or blurring the picture to less sharp than a same size CRT screen. It will display 480 line NTSC slightly less blurred than PAL, because it is 30% less sharp anyway.

The next resolution of HD TV than can display SD as sharp as an ordinary CRT is 1152 lines native resolution. NONE of the TVs I have seen in any shop in Limerick do more than 720 lines.

No HD TV can perfectly show 720 line and 1080 line (both will be on Sky HD depending on channel, no user choice, broadcaster decides) unless it has 1080 lines native and has a reduced size picture for 720 lines. If you try and "fill the screen" the picture is either blurred or has artifacts. All 720 line HD TV will display 1080lines by resampling. This will make picture quality slightly worse than if it had been 720 line. If the set has a "zoom" opton on 1080 transmissions, you might be able to get perfect quality at expence of "chopping" off all the edges
( 180 lines lost top and bottom, similar amount at edges).

the_syco

Here's an old site for ye: http://hd.sky.com/

Wolff

shouldve gone to specsavers !

Drag00n79

Thanks Watty for your last post. Most informative, as usual.

Sparky

ive watched HD on a laptop and on a 26" screen and yes there is no difference thats mind blowing.

but ive about 3hrs of sony, hitachi, lg and movie clips in hd that i used to our 32" samsung screen and i can tell you the difference was noticable

the HD dvd player was not a proper hd dvd player, its just an upscaling player to improve the picture, i have one my self.

if anyone wants a sony sample HD video to download i can upload it and give you the link.

watty

Another method is to scan stunningly good pictures that are A4 at twice the resolution of each mode you want to demo.

Smart resize each scan to 50% in Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop.

Display each on PC/Laptop with Graphics card set to THAT resolution.

That will give a really good idea.

ixtlan

watty wrote:

720 or 1080 is much better than SD, if you have a big enough, good enough TV.

But HD TV is really designed to meet needs of 48" and bigger TV viewing as those sizes show lack of resolution in SD TV, especially NTSC.

Hi Watty, still think this is overly pessimistic! Especially since it's not all about calculations of pixel numbers and distance. The reality is that digital TV is way off optimum PAL standards. So with HDTV you will at least get over a PAL standard. As we mentioned before, a good question is "can you tell the difference between DVD and TV?". Usually people can, and HDTV will be better than DVD.

watty wrote:

No HD TV can perfectly show 720 line and 1080 line (both will be on Sky HD depending on channel, no user choice, broadcaster decides) unless it has 1080 lines native and has a reduced size picture for 720 lines. If you try and "fill the screen" the picture is either blurred or has artifacts. All 720 line HD TV will display 1080lines by resampling. This will make picture quality slightly worse than if it had been 720 line. If the set has a "zoom" opton on 1080 transmissions, you might be able to get perfect quality at expence of "chopping" off all the edges
( 180 lines lost top and bottom, similar amount at edges).

This is all true, but I have to make sure people understand that while the sampling will degrade quality, it's unlikely that it will be very noticeable, and there is no way to avoid sampling. I don't know if any TV has a zoom option that you describe but even if it did... would you really advocate chopping 30% of the vertical picture away!! That would be worse than people with WS TVs zooming a 4:3 picture to 16:9. Far far worse!

All current and future HDTVs will sample. Most TVs have a vertical resolution of 768 lines, so they sample 720 up a little and 1080 down. A few (very few) have 720 lines. They still sample 1080 down. 1080 TVs will sample 720 up. There really isn't any way around it, but with good scalers it's not a big deal.

Yes, there will be better and cheaper HDTVs next year. And the year after... I'm waiting until I have a HD service. It seems pointless to have a HDTV otherwise, but that's my call.

Ix.

watty

ixtlan wrote:

All current and future HDTVs will sample. Most TVs have a vertical resolution of 768 lines, so they sample 720 up a little and 1080 down. A few (very few) have 720 lines. They still sample 1080 down. 1080 TVs will sample 720 up. There really isn't any way around it, but with good scalers it's not a big deal.

Yes, there will be better and cheaper HDTVs next year. And the year after... I'm waiting until I have a HD service. It seems pointless to have a HDTV otherwise, but that's my call.

Ix.

This simply isn't true. Not all current TVs resample. In the future they won't.

ONLY XGA and WXGA monitors have 768 native lines. True HDTVs don't.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,122629,00.asp
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/123


See this article about the issues of useing an XGA (1024 x 768) LCD monitor at non-native resolutions. The same issues apply to TV.

Ideally HDTV should have been 2 x480 lines = 960 in USA and 2 x 576 lines = 1156 in Europe. Then HD or SD would display perfectly. except for transatlanic stuff. Which is of course far too much of our content.

So with fixed pixel displays (DLP, LCD, Plasma) rather than CRT we are messed up till very high resolution WQXGA is common place. What ever set you get all the non-native modes are degraded. This is least bad with WQXGA and next least bad with 1080 line. But For Europe 720 line or 768 line is a disasater for SD PAL and Euro1080 quality.

MOST HDTVs in shops at present are NOT 768 line but 720 line.

From Hardware Secrets:
So, if you are an user worried about image quality, when buying a HDTV set pay attention to its native resolution. Preferably it should be equal to the resolution you will watch the most.
Which will be 1080 in Europe.

ixtlan

Very selectively quoting...

watty wrote:

ONLY XGA and WXGA monitors have 768 native lines. True HDTVs don't.

MOST HDTVs in shops at present are NOT 768 line but 720 line.

Eh??? !!!! I could count on one hand the number of native 720 LCD displays I've heard of! The latest was the Aldi 27" from a few weeks ago. If you go to www.komplett.ie and the TV section, where the TVs are pretty similiar to what you'll find in the shops, I don't think there's a single one that isn't 768 lines.
http://www.komplett.ie/k/kl.asp?bn=10616

I agree 720 would be better, but it's not usual. There have been many discussions along the lines of "why aren't LCD TVs 720?" usually answered by it's simpler to sync in with monitoring manufacturing.

I should add that some 768 TVs display 720 natively by showing black bars for 24 pixels above and below, but again that's rare. Most don't let you, they insist on scaling. And in fact I should also add that many current 1080 displays still scale 1080i because they want to overscan the image!

So, most HDTVs in shops at present ARE 768 line! Next year they will probably be 1080. And even then for the foreseeable future while there are 720p and 1080i broadcasts there will be scaling. There has to be scaling unless there's only one broadcast type, and nobody is suggesting that. There will be 720p and 1080i for years to come and if 1080p is added the older resolutions will remain.

Yes, scaling does reduce quality. Yes it's a problem, but how big? many TVs are good enough that it's not an issue, and they are getting better, which is good because the requirement to scale will be there for years to come.

Ix.

Blaster99

Are broadcasters (in Europe) working on agreeing on a resolution that they will all use? That would presumably be the simplest solution for the consumer.

Sparky

Blaster99 wrote:

Are broadcasters (in Europe) working on agreeing on a resolution that they will all use? That would presumably be the simplest solution for the consumer.

yeah 720p i heard, last time i checked

watty

Yes, All the SD resolutions and 720p50 and 1080i25

The preference is for 1080i

watty

komplett is a PC site, not representative.. Anyway 768 or 720 is irrelevent. You need a minimum of 1080.
A 1080 line native display will sho 720 line and SD resolutions much better than a 720 line will show SD resolutions and 1080 line/.

ixtlan

watty wrote:

komplett is a PC site, not representative.. Anyway 768 or 720 is irrelevent. You need a minimum of 1080.
A 1080 line native display will sho 720 line and SD resolutions much better than a 720 line will show SD resolutions and 1080 line/.

Yes, this is representative! Those are all mainstream LCD TV vendors! Sony, Philips, LG etc etc. Komplett are selling the same TVs as say Currys.

Sorry Watty I can't let you away with that. Most LCD TVs on sale are 768 lines. A very few small ones (26" or 27") are 720. A very few expensive ones (37" or higher) are 1080. If you really think general 27/32/37/40 inch TVs are 720, give me a few links of mainstream manufacturers.

Sure, you can argue 1080 is better, and Sony is calling this True HD, but anything at or over 720 meets HDTV requirements.

You are kind of contradicting your views on HDTV as regards the distance that people will perceive an improvement! If you argue that under 40" people can't see the different, then I don't see how you can argue that 1080 will make much of a difference over 720 for 32-37-40 TVs. Even with some scaling artefacts people most likely won't see a difference. Actually to be fair you are not contradicting your views I guess. Your point is that those smaller TVs aren't even worth using with HDTV?

The reality is that 32" probably will be a normal size TV for people, and they will see a big HD improvement on such a TV just because of the poor SD pictures we currently have. As I've said before, people could be annoyed if they realised that perfect SD could almost match HD at regular viewing distances, but we don't have perfect SD.

Personally I am waiting to get a HDTV. Why?

Because TVs will be cheaper .
Because I may be able to get a 1080 panel rather than 768 (but I might take a 768 if the price was really good). However for this point I'm just being a geek. I think the difference will be marginable. It will be more noticeable for bigger screens, but I don't think I can take more than a 40, and more likely it will be 37.
Because the TVs and scalers will be better, and response rates too.
But mainly because there's not enough HD content right now. If the content was here, I'd find it hard to wait.

Basically your points are valid, everything you've said is true (except about the dominance of 720 line TVs), but I think you are overly dismissive of current technology, and overly dismissive of the picture improvements of HDTV on 32-37 TVs. Of course I have no objective proof of this. We'll have to see.

Ix.

jeromeof

Guys,
The BBC have an interesting report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf

on the recommended resolution to use for HD broadcasts (and therefore required for HD TV's) and basically the conclusion of this report is that for average distance people sit (2-3M) from their TV's 720p is perfect. People basically won't see any more detail if they get 1080p TV's, unless they get 50 inch TV's. So, if you (like me) have a 32in LCD then 720p is as good as "you'll need" as you will never see anymore detail (unless you put you nose up to the screen).

By the way, I have downloaded lots of HD samples and got a few HD shows from the States and I have got to say that HD is "amazing". I watch these via native 1:1 VGA connection from my computer. In fact, anyone I have shown these demo's and "documentaries" too have been "godsmacked" by the quality, a couple of the neighboors are now going to by LCD's. I am amazed that Dixons/Curry don't set up their TV's like this as they would probably sell more Tv's.

That said, I also agree that for most people, they should wait until there is some HD content is available. Funny, after showing my Mother-in-law some the HD demo's, it took some persuasion to stop her from buying a new LCD TV , she couldn't understand that it was the quality of the signal rather than the LCD TV itself that made it so good.

If anyone has access to download HD stuff I highly recommend:
Amazon Adventure (IMAX HD movie)
Praying Mantis (Discovery HD TV documentary)
as these are real shows rather than just HD demo's.

Jerome

Tony

does the same 720/1080 difference apply to projectors?thinking about getting one to demo sky's hi def content.

Peace

Guys i was in harvey Normans and they were playing HD signal on HD plasma screens and the resulting picture was CRYSTAL CLEAR!

The only downside it that there isn't enough HD being broadcast right now.

Right now i'm trying to decide on HD Ready, HD Compatible or CRT and am in 3 minds about what to get.

ixtlan

Peace wrote:

Guys i was in harvey Normans and they were playing HD signal on HD plasma screens and the resulting picture was CRYSTAL CLEAR!

The only downside it that there isn't enough HD being broadcast right now.

Right now i'm trying to decide on HD Ready, HD Compatible or CRT and am in 3 minds about what to get.

Well, HD compatible could be a little misleading. It means that it's cabable of accepting a HD signal. However it may be displaying at a lower resolution. Or if it can display HD resolutions, it does not have all the required connections and might have issues with certain types of encrypted signals in the future. I would not get this, unless it was a really really good bargain.

I imagine the HD ready TVs are about the same price? Which are a safer bet.

But... despite my arguments with Watty, we kind of think alike... If you can avoid buying a HDTV you should. The prices are still dropping and the TVs are getting better. Last May I bought a 32" Philips CRT for €540 (to replace a Sony 29" 4:3 which cost €750 in 2002) to bring me into the widescreen era. Until I can get SkyHD I'll hold off on LCD. However that works for a geek like me who thinks that this TV only needs to last me 18 months. After all I'm paying Sky over €600 per year, so I kind of figure I can spend €300 per year on average on a TV to watch it. Most people want to get a TV that lasts them 7 years or more...

A general 32" brand name LCD price is 1200-1600. Next year? I'd be guessing 800-1200.

Ix

ixtlan

jeromeof wrote:

Guys,
The BBC have an interesting report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf

on the recommended resolution to use for HD broadcasts (and therefore required for HD TV's) and basically the conclusion of this report is that for average distance people sit (2-3M) from their TV's 720p is perfect. People basically won't see any more detail if they get 1080p TV's, unless they get 50 inch TV's. So, if you (like me) have a 32in LCD then 720p is as good as "you'll need" as you will never see anymore detail (unless you put you nose up to the screen).
Jerome

That's a very very interesting article.

It agrees with Watty that a 1080 line LCD display would be best for displaying even a 720 line image. Though they didn't test this... they were actually using a CRT.

However they also conclude that the vast majority of people will not have TVs over 37-42", for which a 720 signal is sufficient.

Since they publised this report, it suggests the BBC may broadcast mostly in 720p?

Ix

watty

jeromeof wrote:

Guys,
The BBC have an interesting report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf

on the recommended resolution to use for HD broadcasts (and therefore required for HD TV's) and basically the conclusion of this report is that for average distance people sit (2-3M) from their TV's 720p is perfect. People basically won't see any more detail if they get 1080p TV's, unless they get 50 inch TV's. So, if you (like me) have a 32in LCD then 720p is as good as "you'll need" as you will never see anymore detail (unless you put you nose up to the screen).

Jerome

This is what I have been saying, without a big TV, HDTV is a waste on money, 36" to 48" for 720 and 48" to 60" 1080. In WS format, really a 32" is barely noticable. It is still less height than a 28" 4:3 TV after all.

In fact COMPARING HEIGHT of picture, you needed 36" to have same quality on 4:3 material as a 28" 4:3 TV.

BUT there will always be a mix of 720 and 1080 transmissions. At 48", 1080 will look slightly worse than 720 on a 720 screen. So a Native 1080 line display is better even for 36" as it will be fine on 720 and perfect on 1080.

There will also alway be excellent back catalog material from TV and Cinema in 4:3 and from TV in 16:9 SD. Just as it was always deplorable to crop Cinema to 4:3, I regard it just as deplorable croping wider than 16:9 to 16:9 and ARC / crop older 4:3 material to 16:9, it makes it look badly framed and blurry.


A projector (DLP) is a very very good solution:
* Longer life and replaceable bulb
* Higher resolution and quality at same price as 48" screen
* Adjust from 32" to 72" screen size to suit material

Go for 1080 minimum, but if you can afford it QXGA or WQXGA on 60" screen is stunning, like cinema. Even my 4 year old laptop can do QXGA 2048 x 1536

ixtlan

watty wrote:

This is what I have been saying, without a big TV, HDTV is a waste of money, 36" to 48" for 720 and 48" to 60" 1080

Too downbeat!! Ask jeromeof, who appears to be absolutely delighted with his 32" TV. He seems to think HD is impressive on it.

watty wrote:

BUT there will always be a mix of 720 and 1080 transmissions. At 48", 1080 will look slightly worse than 720 on a 720 screen. So a Native 1080 line display is better even for 36" as it will be fine on 720 and perfect on 1080

Agreed. However this doesn't mean that a 1080 panel is an absolute requirement to enjoy HDTV. If 720/768 panels are dirt cheap next year, they might not be a bad choice. 95% of people might not notice a difference, particularly if most transmissions are 720p. We don't know yet.

Ix.

watty

P.S. The abstract of the results on the BBC test is VERY misleading:
* 17" Monitor used.
* 2.7 m test distance = 9 ft (many people are 6ft from screen on 32" WS TV)

Taking this into account 10% of people 10 ft away would see advantage of 35" screen for 1080 and at 6ft away over 70% of people.

If you have a 48" screen then 50% of people 9ft away will get advantage of 1080, and almost everyone only 6ft away. At 60" size almost 80% of people will see the better quality.

The tests did NOT show affect of resampling 1080 or 720 onto lower resolution native pixels.

Given that 48" or larger is more than average size today in USA and size of most TVs for sale in High Street for main HD viewing, what size to folks think will be typical for new TV purchases in 3 years / 36 months time?

The study's most glaring wrong assumption is that the commonest screen size is to be 37" to 42". This is obviously overly conservative estimate for 2006 purchases, never mind 2007/2008 when HD will really get off the ground.

I find that 36" WS or 28" 4:3 is a good size for general TV, but for Films and such like 48" to 60" is preferable for WS. So instead of broowing the projector to do this I hopw to buy a projector with zoom lens to adjust size of image to suit the atmosphere and content.

watty

ixtlan wrote:

However this doesn't mean that a 1080 panel is an absolute requirement to enjoy HDTV. If 720/768 panels are dirt cheap next year, they might not be a bad choice. 95% of people might not notice a difference, particularly if most transmissions are 720p. We don't know yet.

Ix.

Yes, What you say about dirt cheap (300 to 400 Euro?) 720 or 768 line panels is true...
But people are paying 1400 to 5000 Euro for panels that have poorer gray scale and pastel shade than CRT and only 720 line. Labelling decisions mean that in a Shop it is nearly impossible to know what you are buying...

In USA (my son just came back) the majority of actual HD (not the 480p digital), the 1080 is slightly more than 720, most sport is 720p as it has twice the temporal resolution, some is upsampled SD. They are allowed to call a 480 native line display "HD Ready" as long as it can resample and display 720 and 1080. I'm surprized as I thought few would be using 1080i30 in states, given the 3:2 pull down artifacts from film (not a problem on European 1080i25)

In USA many have bought HD displays but using them on Analog cable or analog aerial, unaware this is not HDTV!

Tesco has a 17" LCD computer monitor with NO resolution on box.

All the tests in last year in Europe have been 1080i25 MPEG2. But real services will all be MPEG4.

ixtlan

Hi Watty,

I won't quote you. Everything you say is true. It is a complex and confusing area, and there are people spending a lot of money on equipment that perhaps isn't worth what they think it is, and which is likely to be close to worthless in maybe 2 years.

It brings to mind a law of computing I've always believed in. If you buy something, you better make use of it immediately, because you can be sure that in a few months time there will be something better and cheaper available.

However getting back to the original argument. There are very definite benefits to HDTV, even on a 32" TV. That may be because SD is so far from it's optimum, but it will still make HDTV look far sharper than current satellite.

I think we would all agree that if you are buying a HDTV you should make sure you understand a little of the technology and the costs (and how they are dropping), and understand SD will likely look worse, and understand that HD isn't readily available yet.

Ix.

JDxtra

There's a Philips 32" LCD showing a feed from some sort of HD box in Arnotts, Dublin & it looks very impressive. The material shown is a HD promo loop by Philips.

dil999

I just bought a a 42" Panasonic pv500, and I have played the various windows HD stuff on it via the analog VGA input. There is no comparison with an SD broadcast. The picture quality is significantly better. Both 720p and 1080i clips are crystal clear.

Also, if you havent seen a plasma that can show an SD picture as good as a CRT then look at the Panasonic, either the HD or SD models. The picture quality is superb.

I am waiting for $ky HD with baited breath

Lennoxschips

They've been messing with TV technology for the past decade.

at the end of the 80s PAL colour TVs had been perfected
then came colour tv with flat glass
then we were all being told 100 Hz was the way to go (even though transmissions were still 50 Hz)
then came widescreen (even though most stuff is still 4:3)
then LCD
then plamsa

I still use analogue cable for most of my television (good quality cable network it is too) and that still looks better on my 1989 Sharp TV than it does on any other TV I've seen since.

The tv manufacturers could have waited untill the advent of LCD to introduce widescreen, but of course they made everyone buy widescreen CRTs first, to use up the last of their tube parts, hehe, suckers.

watty

1896 Mechanical TV demonstrated
1905 Modern Electronic TV with CRT based screen and camera described.
1926 Colour TV demonstrated
1930s Baird pushes his victorian Mechanical TV, Americans and EMI deomostrate Electronic TV
1950s Widespread TV leads to Cinema "inventing" animorphic lenses (Panavision) and also cropped (Matted) Widescreen.
1951 Color NTSC.

1950s to 1990s: Most WS films mutilated to 4:3 (Pan & Scan) for VHS or TV

PAL Colour perfect by 1970 actually.

Early 1980s Analog HDTV and hybrid Digital Satellite

Lots of stuff will always be 4:3 unless they mutilate it (a possibility).

1990s to now: Most WS films mutilated to 16:9 (almost none are) for TV. Many cropped to 16:9 for DVD. We were told WS was to see Cinema in Original Aspect Ratio (TV = 1.78:1 and most least Widescreen is 1.85:1, how did they get it wrong?)

LCD and Plasma still give inferior accuracy of dark greys, dark colours, near peak whites and pale colours. Can't do more than one resolution accurately.
DVD uses about 6 resolutions, DVB about 10 resolutions and HDTV two resolutions. None of which match PC resolutions.

2004 .. 2009: Cinema changes from Film to 2000 line approx HDTV using a fleet of dedicated satellites and GPS locked encrypted receivers to reduce film print costs and piracy. Texas Micro Mirror "DLP" type projectors exclusively.

Lennoxschips

1950s Widespread TV leads to Cinema "inventing" animorphic lenses (Panavision) and also cropped (Matted) Widescreen.

so they invented cinema widescreen way back then just as a marketing gimmick? interesting!

has there ever been any proper research done into what ratio is the best for human eyes?

agree with you about the LCDs not showing up dark colours properly

watty

I'd bet it is closer to 30s/40s/50s Academy Film Format (not much different to TV 4:3 = 1.33:1) than Ben Hur's 2.7:1 which looks like a ribbon even on a WS TV.

2.35:1 and 1.85:1 are two most common formats. Some film was matted / edited to 1.66:1 (5:3 or 15:9), Dr Strangelove. It ought to be on DVD animorphic with black bars at side, but is usually only available in orginal Cinema format as letterboxed in 4:3 frame. I think there was a recent DVD transfer made at 16:9 (1.78:1) with no bars at sides which is vandalism.

16:9 TV is 1.78:1

Sparky

any of the HD material i have shown/seen has been H264 encoded .ts (transport stream) files.

Currently my biggest file is 4.5GB and is a 13minute show of HD movie trailers from last November.


Watty have you written a book yet?, because you seriously need to. Your knowledge of things is quite amazing, if you do, i hope its a best seller and ill be the first to get it autographed