HD TVs
- Thread starter Ballah06
- Start date
I agree with most everything you're saying, please don't destroy your credibility with me by endorsing monster cables. :ack:kennith said:
I have new advice for everyone considering going HD. Don't do it. You will make a mistake and spend money on something that won't get you what you expected. Rather, learn about HD, learn about the new audio formats, learn about this stuff before buying it.
If you do not, your DTS Master will end up being Dolby Digital. Your upconversion won't happen, you will have artifacts in your picture, and you will be wondering why you spend all that money when your neighbor has a cheaper setup that is far superior in every way.
I'm warning you all. There is a lot of misuinformation here, and I am not going to take it on myself to clear it all up.
Cheers,
Kennith
If you do not, your DTS Master will end up being Dolby Digital. Your upconversion won't happen, you will have artifacts in your picture, and you will be wondering why you spend all that money when your neighbor has a cheaper setup that is far superior in every way.
I'm warning you all. There is a lot of misuinformation here, and I am not going to take it on myself to clear it all up.
Cheers,
Kennith
jim-00-4.6 said:
I'm not. Just don't use componant where you should use HDMI, and end up not getting some feature you paid for. This new shit is picky, man. Half the stuff just won't work if you connect anything wrong, and god forbid you don't have compatible hardware.
Cheers,
Kennith
hey fwiw I am diggin DTS 5.1 and see no need to go to 7.1...
HD TV is real, at 42" either 720 or 1080 are vast upgrades over non HD
plasma rocks over LCD. If in doubt, visit my crib, and sit back in my reclining couches and see if my 15" servo controlled subwoofer and pioneer plasma make you doubt the worthy-ness of the costs...
HD TV is real, at 42" either 720 or 1080 are vast upgrades over non HD
plasma rocks over LCD. If in doubt, visit my crib, and sit back in my reclining couches and see if my 15" servo controlled subwoofer and pioneer plasma make you doubt the worthy-ness of the costs...
I have a 32" Sharp AQUOS LCD. They're a little harder to find but it has great speed, brightness, and contrast. It's a 720p/1080i but still awesome for gaming and sports. I've had no problems with aliasing or black levels. (edit: I've had this in very bright rooms and it's still money. great viewing angle too)
Don't rag on DLP, my buddy has a 72" and it's absolutely rediculous. Lifesize cheerleaders - nuff said.
Don't rag on DLP, my buddy has a 72" and it's absolutely rediculous. Lifesize cheerleaders - nuff said.
Last edited:
I've got the LG FUll HD 37" and I couldn't be more pleased. It supports 24/30/60Hz, has a "PC" mode and has numerous inputs. It also has the HD tuner and the connection for the new HD antennas.
I also have an HD camcorder that supports 24P/30P/60i. This monitor is hooked up to my computer which doubles as my video editing/processing machine and our HTPC. I have my video card set up to run the native rez of the monitor (1920x1080@24Hz/30Hz/60Hz) depending on my source material (film vs. video vs. NTSC interlaced, etc.).
I've run SD, HD, Full HD through this setup now for a week or so and I can tell you, Full HD with the proper rendering is far superior. There is no substitute for data if your sitting at about the 6-8' range. Beyond that, my eyes have a hard time other than the 3D effect that the Full HD seems to give. Could be the video renderer on my PC, though, I'm using EVR (MS) and Haali's renderer both.
My only complaint, and this is common knowledge, is that the LCD just can't quite get the blacks that the Plasmas get, given a proper, professional calibration.
HTH.
I also have an HD camcorder that supports 24P/30P/60i. This monitor is hooked up to my computer which doubles as my video editing/processing machine and our HTPC. I have my video card set up to run the native rez of the monitor (1920x1080@24Hz/30Hz/60Hz) depending on my source material (film vs. video vs. NTSC interlaced, etc.).
I've run SD, HD, Full HD through this setup now for a week or so and I can tell you, Full HD with the proper rendering is far superior. There is no substitute for data if your sitting at about the 6-8' range. Beyond that, my eyes have a hard time other than the 3D effect that the Full HD seems to give. Could be the video renderer on my PC, though, I'm using EVR (MS) and Haali's renderer both.
My only complaint, and this is common knowledge, is that the LCD just can't quite get the blacks that the Plasmas get, given a proper, professional calibration.
HTH.
kennith said:
Yeah, I forgot about BluRay. I'm still trying to find one of those Beta players to hook up...those were the days. Remember LaserDiscs? we had one of those back when I was younger. They were cool, but stupid big.
HSTruman said:
edumacate yoself man
http://www.cnet.com/hdtv-world/
Plasma screens are more reflective, but this has been addressed with the Panasonic PX77U series and others with anti-reflective glass.
Cnet tested that screen here and it completely eliminates glare for those that are concerned about that issue.
The power consumption myth is incorrect and has been addressed in several articles. Home Theater Mag tested 42" Plasma vs 40" LCD and found the Plasma used less power. You can read it here: http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/106gear/
They are "more prone" than LCD sets, but burn in stopped being an issue several generations ago. Current Plasma screens have less burn in than CRT screens and it is not a factor unless you leave static images on the screen for weeks on end.
OLED technology, if they solve the short lifespan, blue LED problems, price, scaling and production will challenge LCD's more than Plasma screens since OLED is more of a next generation LCD screen without a backlight. The only OLED screen for sale is 11" and $2500, upcoming screens are 27" and $5000. Compare that to a 50" plasma for $2000.
Lastly, Plasma is not on its way out because sales are up more than 50% this year, largely due to them becoming available in sizes smaller than 37", a market largely left up to LCD's until now. You can see the data here: http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/2494/206/
kennith said:
I prefer Component over HDMI. Why? Component was developed by broadcast engineers. HDMI was developed by computer geeks. Missing bits of analog signal are a lot less noticable than missing bits of digital signal. Unfortunately movie studios and those in bed with the (RE: Sony) are pushing those formats.
az_max said:
I've run my HD DVDs via HDMI and via component, and there IS a difference, esp in color saturation. It was worth an investment in a 2nd HDMI cable for me
kennith said:
Troof!!
Yes, I am a "trained" techie and a long time geek and I still have trouble with some of it that is supposedly ready for prime-time.
I'll throw this out there too. If you take good SD master with a top-notch transfer, like LOTR, get a good $100 video card with DVI/HDMI out (any of the newer ATI and nVidia stuff), hook it up to a Full HD panel at native rez (DVI/HDMI) with true 24P playback (Inverse Telecine and 24Hz refresh, synched audio/video streams) and a modern renderer with correct colorspace conversion (BT601 vs. BT709) and correct luma range (PC[0-255] vs. TV[16-235]), you can make it very difficult to say that the HD source is better.
Get that?
az_max said:
You don't have a choice. If you want the best video as well as the best audio, you have to use HDMI. Nevermind what is superior or not, there is no choice. Sucks, but it's true. Personally, I don't like it. We spent all those years coming up with ways to seperate signals as far as possible from each other, and it was all for nothing in the end, because now it's all one cable.
At leat the result is superior. I just have to wonder, though, just how much better it could be.
For example: Many Bluray players will NOT output uncompressed audio over any other cable type. If you don't use HDMI, you don't get what you paid for. Many recievers will not scale video coming from any other source, so no HDMI, no proper scaling, if you use your reciever as a video processor. Same with deinterlacing and 2:3 pulldowns. Some video processors, source units, and even recievers are capable of not even bothering and sending a preprocessed doubled 24fps signal. If you have that, you paid a boatload for it. If you try and use anything other than HDMI 1.3 to send the signal, you have lost it. Oh, and your TV had better be capable of it as well, or again, no dice.
Also, most every bluray video on the market included one of the new surround mixes. Nevermind how many damn speakers you have, that is entirely irrelevant. Forget it completely, forever. What matters is that audio quality on the old mixes sucked compared to what you are buying now. DTS was real good, but nothing like what you hear off of a Bluray DTS Master disc. So, you have a fancy source unit with the Master Audio lable on it, right?
What people don't know, because they never checked, is that most of those units don't actually send that signal uncompressed, even though it can be sent that way. Most of them can only present 2 channels of this audio. The ones that can handle all of it process it inside the player, and if you don't have a stack of amps the size of texas, you can't hear it. The few that remain can properly send this format, and I mean few. Got a reciever? Great. Does it process DTS Master Audio? No? Well then you will hear old fashioned DTS. Oh, it does process it? Got HDMI 1.3 on everything? Oh, back to regular DTS again.
Sure, some like the pop of LCDs and that's fine. Some liked Dolby (can't imagine why) some like DTS. That's all ok. But when these people go out to HD everything else in their system, they are in for a shock. Quite a lotof what they bought is not in fact even future resistant, let alone future proof.
There are good reasons the same brand has a player for 200, and a player for 1000. You had better determine what you will need in the future before you think you got a deal. Got a PS3? Cool games, I'm sure, but you won't get the advanced audio, and don't forget what happened to the PS2 units that were used as DVD players.
I don't want to get into too much more of this, but bloody be careful. You aren't talking pennies here, this crap is expensive, even the cheap stuff is expensive. Don't screw it up by buying things without knowing what all those little stickers on the faceplate really mean.
Cheers,
Kennith
noee said:Troof!!
Yes, I am a "trained" techie and a long time geek and I still have trouble with some of it that is supposedly ready for prime-time.
I'll throw this out there too. If you take good SD master with a top-notch transfer, like LOTR, get a good $100 video card with DVI/HDMI out (any of the newer ATI and nVidia stuff), hook it up to a Full HD panel at native rez (DVI/HDMI) with true 24P playback (Inverse Telecine and 24Hz refresh, synched audio/video streams) and a modern renderer with correct colorspace conversion (BT601 vs. BT709) and correct luma range (PC[0-255] vs. TV[16-235]), you can make it very difficult to say that the HD source is better.
Get that?
Yeah, but I don't want to run my theatre out of a computer.
I used to, but since I went proper on almost everything, man, I was missing a lot. It was also kind of a pain in the ass. Still, you can get some good stuff out of a computer, if you know what you are doing. The new trend in high end is these media center pcs. Now the home theater is locking up too, right alongside my cellphone, and my new car. One of these days we will see the blue screen of death on the whitehouse.:rofl: The ticket is to pay that close attention to how your real home theater gear is set up. You don't have to spend a fortune, just make sure everything is right as rain when you are done setting up, and you would be suprised.
I will not dissagree with you though. Computers can do well, but they have a brick wall of a limit.
Cheers,
Kennith