Author Topic: And Microsoft loses a BIG one! (Read 9326 times)

Manedwolf · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2008, 07:30:26 AM »

Hell, even my massive 2005-model JVC 1080i tube HDTV looks absolutely incredible just on PBS HD. It looks like you can reach into the picture and touch blades of grass.

K Frame · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2008, 07:34:24 AM »

I was watching something a couple of months ago, and I'll be darned if I can remember what it was, but all of a sudden it dawned on me that the picture had a very, VERY distinctive three-dimensional quality to it. I felt as if I could have walked into the picture.

It was as if the actors were actually in my living room with the background receeding into the TV set.

That was extremely startling.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #27 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:59:13 PM »

I'm going to wander into some store, sometime this week, with TVs on display, and see what I see.

wooderson · « **Reply #28 on:** February 17, 2008, 01:09:36 PM »

I have seen movies on 720p and 1080p sets and the difference just isn't as astonishing as you claim. Maybe even imperceptible depending on the quality of the transfer, viewing distance, size of the screen, which technology is being used, etc..

There are a lot of variable, but even the vid-nut consensus seems to be that you're paying more for not an enormous gain in quality.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 17, 2008, 01:20:03 PM »

My wife can't tell the difference between content using the old 400-line standard vs. HD 780, or even HD 1080 on my 42" plasma.

Sucks to be her. grin

K Frame · « **Reply #30 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:18:23 PM »

The only thing I can say to that is either get your eyes checked, or buy some quality equipment instead of looking for the lowest price you can find.

It's true that the "leap" from one high def. resolution to the next isn't very perceptible to most people when viewed side by side, but the difference between the three IS noticeable when they are viewed side by side.

The difference is even greater when the viewing is done between bottom, mid, and high line sets.

MillCreek · « **Reply #31 on:** February 17, 2008, 03:44:20 PM »

So, knowing next to nothing about this, as I have not done any research yet, for something in the 30-40 inch range, is LED or plasma the better HDTV choice?

Manedwolf · « **Reply #32 on:** February 17, 2008, 03:48:51 PM »

Quote from: MillCreek on February 17, 2008, 02:44:20 PM

So, knowing next to nothing about this, as I have not done any research yet, for something in the 30-40 inch range, is LED or plasma the better HDTV choice?

LCD. Plasma has some serious drawbacks, most notably that they use up to three times the power of a tube TV. Your electric bill would hurt. Plus they can have burn-in if you watch networks with a constant logo.

There's a lot more to it than that, though. A manufacturer might have identical-looking LCDs, with one half the price of the other, because one is of much higher resolution (1080p, typically) than the other. Or just has a faster refresh rate, etc...

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 17, 2008, 05:40:24 PM »

Quote

So, knowing next to nothing about this, as I have not done any research yet, for something in the 30-40 inch range, is LED or plasma the better HDTV choice?

Do some homework.

They all have pros and cons. Plasmas suck more watts/inch, my 42" Hitachi 42HDS69 1080i plasma draws 300 watts, but they have exceptionally vivid colors, darker blacks, and the widest viewing angles in the industry. Much squawking was done about a supposedly short plasma life, but that was using plasmas made around plasma HDTV's infancy in 1999-2, when they could barely turn on let alone sustain an image. Manufacturers since 2005 now rate their plasmas to 60,000 hours until half-life, when half the useful brightness remains. That's 18 years for a homeowner who watches TV 3 hours a day. 60,000 hours is also the figure LCD manufacturers give, and that's compared to the 25,000 hour rating assigned to CRT televisions.

LCDs draw less current, about the same as the cathode ray tube televisions they replace. Figure around 130 watts for a 32" version and more for bigger models, up to 236 watts for a 42 inch Philips LCD. (It's not the liquid crystals, it's the CCFL backlights drawing the juice) If you don't spend the money for a quality LCD unit, you may also suffer from dead pixels, motion blur, and backlights that eventually die, and the cheaper versions also have viewing angle issues.

DLP HDTV uses the same backlight technology, but doesn't suffer from dead pixels.

Rear-projection LCD and/or DLP is the most energy-efficient, but you trade that off for the additional floor space required.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html

The wave of HDTV's future is OLED technology, just now leaving the laboratory.

Samsung is just now shipping an LCD HDTV with white LED backlights, which alleviates the dying CCFL backlight problem and higher power consumption. Prices are also higher for this variant, and it suffers from a tighter viewing angle than one backlit by the CCFL method.

For the budget-minded there are also several CRT HDTVs out there, and they have surprisingly good pictures, as well as power consumption rates as good as, if not better than, LCD HDTVs of similar size. Of course, you're not going to be hanging them on the wall, but with the money saved for the cheaper CRT television, you can buy a cheap TV stand and still pocket a goodly amount of cash.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #34 on:** February 17, 2008, 06:00:41 PM »

That's what I did in 2005, when the LCDs were still incredibly expensive. I got a CRT-based JVC iArt 1080i 36" for a whole lot less than a smaller LCD. The picture is absolutely incredible, sharp, vivid, and with very nice contrast.

Only drawback is that it weighs 150lbs.

wooderson · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2008, 06:01:23 PM »

Quote

It's true that the "leap" from one high def. resolution to the next isn't very perceptible to most people when viewed side by side, but the difference between the three IS noticeable when they are viewed side by side.

I keep reading this and I think I'm missing something...

RevDisk · « **Reply #36 on:** February 17, 2008, 07:37:27 PM »

Quote from: wooderson on February 17, 2008, 05:01:23 PM

Quote

It's true that the "leap" from one high def. resolution to the next isn't very perceptible to most people when viewed side by side, but the difference between the three IS noticeable when they are viewed side by side.

I keep reading this and I think I'm missing something...

I think he means if you progress up the scale serially (normal def, then cheap HD, then good HD), you won't notice much difference. If you put all three setups literally side by side, you definitely notice a significant difference.

wooderson · « **Reply #37 on:** February 17, 2008, 08:35:43 PM »

If so, 'good HD' and 'bad HD' is a function of much more than 720/1080 resolution.

The level of detail (or the quality of it) that's visible to our eye depends heavily on local contrast, color reproduction and black levels. These are resolution independent issues - trading up in $$$ from a 720p/1080i set to a 1080p may well be a step backward in contrast and blacks. (Which are, coincidentally, deep and rich in my cheap Vizio - which was one of my primary needs, as half the movies I own are devoid of color.)

HankB · « **Reply #38 on:** February 18, 2008, 04:14:48 AM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on February 17, 2008, 04:40:24 PM

LCDs draw less current . . . it's the CCFL backlights drawing the juice . . .

DLP HDTV uses the same backlight technology, but doesn't suffer from dead pixels . . .

Actually DLP HDTVs do not use cold cathode fluorescents, as they have to focus the light onto a relatively small light processing engine, typically something like a Texas Instruments' DMD, or digital micromirror device.

How small is the imager? Typically, less than an inch. Which means CCFLs are unsuitable for this application because of an etendue mismatch.

A lens then images the DMD onto the screen. Though rare, there CAN be dead pixels. The light source in these TVs is normally an arc lamp of some sort, though LEDs are beginning to make inroads, at least for rear projection sets.

I haven't made the transition to high definition yet, as my 10-year old 36" CRT TV is still working fine, it's long paid for, and unless I got a MUCH larger screen, at my viewing distance, I wouldn't notice a better picture than I'm getting now with DVDs. (The question is, will I get better content?)

MillCreek · « **Reply #39 on:** February 18, 2008, 06:10:57 AM »

I am actually starting to do some homework, reading Consumer Reports and the like, and it seems as if the LED televisions have made great strides in recent years.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #40 on:** February 18, 2008, 06:16:53 AM »

They have, especially in the area of contrast.

Brad

HankB · « **Reply #41 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:20:05 AM »

Quote from: MillCreek on February 18, 2008, 05:10:57 AM

I am actually starting to do some homework, reading Consumer Reports and the like, and it seems as if the LED televisions have made great strides in recent years.

LEDs - Light Emitting Diodes - are only recently being used as illumination systems for a few DLP TVs, and as a backlight for LCDs - Liquid Crystal Displays.

I'm not aware of any consumer TVs that use LEDs as pixel elements.

What I've noticed with LCDs is that the response time is improving; early LCD TVs (as well as smaller LCD computer monitors) would leave "artifacts" trailing behind any rapid motion. They're much improved now.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #42 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:26:26 AM »

Quote from: HankB on February 18, 2008, 07:20:05 AM

Quote from: MillCreek on February 18, 2008, 05:10:57 AM

I am actually starting to do some homework, reading Consumer Reports and the like, and it seems as if the LED televisions have made great strides in recent years.

LEDs - Light Emitting Diodes - are only recently being used as illumination systems for a few DLP TVs, and as a backlight for LCDs - Liquid Crystal Displays.

I'm not aware of any consumer TVs that use LEDs as pixel elements.

What I've noticed with LCDs is that the response time is improving; early LCD TVs (as well as smaller LCD computer monitors) would leave "artifacts" trailing behind any rapid motion. They're much improved now.

I always hated that ghost mouse pointer............

MillCreek · « **Reply #43 on:** February 18, 2008, 03:38:37 PM »

Of course, LCDs! And I even have a LCD display on my workstation at the office.

JohnBT · « **Reply #44 on:** February 18, 2008, 05:26:39 PM »

Greetings from a former Luddite. This a timely thread because I'll be needing a player now that I have a tv.

My 21-year-old 19" Mitsubishi was getting a little, well, old, so I bought a 40" Samsung lcd and added tv service to my FiOS plan. Great Googly Mooglies! I can actually see what's on the screen.

Circuit City was selling the 4061 at Christmas for $1299. I liked the $2500 Sony, but it wasn't anywhere near twice as nice. More like about 5%.

This all started last fall when my father's 27" Trinitron started failing and I got him a 32" Samsung lcd for his room at the home. He calls it the home, but he picked it and he's paying for it and it's really quite nice. I'd move in if the Mennonites would serve alcohol at meals. Wink

But I digress.

Just from reading avsforum.com, it seems as if a lot of the higher end models have some problems - too many cutting edge features no doubt. Now I get to study Blu-Ray instead of doing my taxes and my parents' taxes. Great excuse.

And remember, a $5 HDMI cable from monoprice.com works as well as a $75 cable from Monster (and better than the piece of junk cable the FiOS installer used.)

John the former Luddite. Bring on the Blu-Ray sales and rental movies.

RevDisk · « **Reply #45 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:33:31 AM »

I've been hitting the HD DVD fire sales. Very nice savings, I've been picking them up for roughly the same as DVD prices. In some cases, cheaper.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #46 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:34:48 AM »

Since it's doubtful that they'll re-release Serenity as blu-ray, might want to grab that.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #47 on:** February 20, 2008, 06:55:35 PM »

OK, I WAS WRONG!

I went to Best Buy the other night, and looked at some of the TVs. The best picture I saw was from a Samsung LCD, 1080p, running a Blu-Ray demonstration. Wow. It was a remarkable difference from any picture I've seen. (Like I said, I don't remember seeing anything HD before, so I'm not saying it's the best thing out there.)

However (but-monkey), I was watching a DVD tonight at home, on my thirty-dollar player and used TV, and I didn't miss any of that clarity. I didn't think about it. I definitely wouldn't spend much extra cash on it. I mean, I like Will Smith and everything, but I don't want to see every bead of sweat on his face. cheesy

seeker_two · « **Reply #48 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:43:19 AM »

Basically, the difference b/t regular TV/DVD and HDDVD/Blu-Ray on HDTV is like the difference b/t a regular donut and a donut with extra glaze, frosting, and sprinkles, right?......

It's getting close to breakfast around here.....

mtnbkr · « **Reply #49 on:** February 21, 2008, 03:50:46 AM »

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2008, 05:55:35 PM

However (but-monkey), I was watching a DVD tonight at home, on my thirty-dollar player and used TV, and I didn't miss any of that clarity. I didn't think about it. I definitely wouldn't spend much extra cash on it. I mean, I like Will Smith and everything, but I don't want to see every bead of sweat on his face. cheesy

I wouldn't replace a properly functioning TV for an HD set, but if I were in the market for a new TV, HD is the way to go. I'll probably be buying an HD LCD set this summer (with our "economic stimulus" check) since our TV is malfunctioning and getting worse with time.

Chris

News:

Author Topic: And Microsoft loses a BIG one! (Read 9326 times)