 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
A friend of mine just bought a samsung dynaflat hdtv. He did this because after asking the salesman "How can I get most benefit from dvd's?" the salesman told him he needed an hdtv set. I was unaware of this. I thought that most current non-hdtv sets are fully capable of displaying dvd's 500+ lines of resolution. So what is the benefit in having an hdtv set for dvd? Does progressive scan double the line output to 1000+ or something?Thanks for any input
Follow Ups:
To view a DVD, in it's best possible resoloution, you would need a monitor that can display a 480p image in a 16x9 "window".There are two reasons why no analogue monitor I know of will fit that bill...
First off, I know of no analogue monitor that can accept anything above a 480i signal.
Second, even if you had a 4x3 analogue monitor that could display a 480p image it would have to be able to maintain that resoloution in a 16x9 window...meaning that the "black bars" at the top and bottom of the screen couldn't be fairly counted as lines of resoloution.
So, yes, I think the notion that you need a HD monitor to best view a DVD is correct.
:-)
Steve
One thing that hasnt been fully mentioned is the 'anamorphic' DVDs (most are). Not many people seem to be aware that when they watch a DVD in letterboxed format that the information on the DVD disk isnt letterboxed. Its your DVD player that derives this letterboxed image using algorithums (varies depending on manufacturer). The players typically will take 5 scan lines from the disk and make 3 to display. The disk itself uses all 480 vertical scan lines.
If you go into your DVD players setup menu and tell it you are using a 16x9 TV, it will not create the letterboxed image, but output the full 480 lines. With a HDTV, you tell it to stretch the image horizontally, restoring proper aspect ratio. Some standard TVs (such as the Sony Wega's), also handle the anamorphic mode by applying a vertical squeeze (using magnetic deflection) to squeeze these images down to letterboxed format. The advantage, of course, is you now use all 480 scan lines to reproduce the image, and not waste any to the black bars. This results in a sharper, better defined image. The closest thing you will find to high definition using a standard TV.
It's raster "squeeze", and I did mention it. The squeeze is important for 4:3 displays, especially for non-anamorphic, letterboxed - otherwise you are using up resolution to display black bars.Philips, Toshiba, and the newest Panasonics are other manufacturers I know of besides Sony who offer this feature.
Yes, you mentioned it, but just in passing. Since I dont know of any manufacturer who calls it raster squeeze (Sony calls it 16:9 enhancement mode), I thought a bit more information would be useful.
I'm glad more manufacturers are starting to offer it. When I got my Wega, Sony was about the only one.
Its only to be used for DVDs recorded in anamorphic mode. You do NOT want to use it with non-anamorphic disks, or you will distort your image. Non-anamorphic recordings do not use the full vertical image space, but have the black bars as part of the image. Fortunatly, most disks are anamorphic. For those unfamiliar with this mode, there are various terms used to describe disks recorded this way. Some say 'anamorphic', some say 'enhanced for widescreen TVs', etc.
I think I've got the picture now. Interesting. Thanks so much for clearing this up.
The salesman probably said what he did because most HDTVs can accept progressive signals from a prog-DVD player...progressive scan gets rid of those annoying scan lines present in the image of regular TVs, and, in theory, displays a smoother, more detailed, more filmlike image. Almost all HDTVs also have an internal line doubler, which takes interlaced (regular) signal from a non-progressive DVD player and upconverts it in the set, again the result being no scan lines.In actual practice, the quality can vary - not all progressive players, nor all doublers, are created equal. (A bad doubler can even make the picture look worse in some cases by adding or accentuatung digital artifacts.) You may or may not consider the capability to be worth it on a small, direct view set. The main benefit, beside being able to receive hi def programming with a set top box or OTA tuner, is that the line doubling, either by the player or HDTV, eliminates those pesky scan line. Done right, it can look wonderful. Certainly by the time you get to large displays, you want an HDTV - scan lines on a big set are unwatchable IMO.
In theory, the top of the line HDTVs also have better picture quality features that will enhance DVD viewing - 3:2 pulldown, raster squeeze for more resolution on letterbox DVDs, ability to defeat SVM, etc. (Though, in truth, a few non-HDTV sets have these features as well.)
I just bought a 34" direct view widescreen HDTV, and one of the reasons I got it was the great DVD picture using the set's internal line doubler, even though I have a progressive player (RP56 - I reset it to interlaced instead of progressive).
This is the short, oversimplified explanation. Go to avsforum.com or hometheaterforum.com to the FAQ if you really want to know. Or just go down to your local Circuit City and look.
My understanding is that component video inputs on the set is the biggest improvement on DVD. I've seen a Philips 32" set with component input for $500 that had a great picture and would assume this will drop to $400-$450 after the first of the year. I was going to hold out for HDTV before replacing my 11 year old 27" (that has a bad S-input), but am now seriously considering the 32" and waiting for all the controversy about HDTV inputs to settle down.Bruce
Yes, component is better than s-video but, IMO, is not the big jump you get from composite to S-video.
By all means zero in on a unit that has component input BUT do not that influence you too much. DVD players vary quite a lot so no set can improve on what comes out of that player. Similarly, video cabling can make a difference. Finally, the electronics in the set vary, particularly in processing the complex video signal. And bigger is not necessarily better. It depends how well it is implemented. Too big and the scan lines become distracting without effective line multipication + bigger magnifies deficiencies in the signal, particularly broadcast material but sadly, also in some carelessly engineered DVDs.John
Peace at AA
Peace at AA
I certainly agree that S is better than composite. That's the problem with my current set. The color does not maintain the same tint over the whole picture in S. Composite does not demonstrate this. I did all the switching out of cable, connecting through the receiver then directly to the set and I was having the same problem through my S-VHS VCR tuner. So I was able to narrow the problem down to the S input in the set. My DVD player, Panasonic DVD-RA60, produces, in my opinion, an excellent picture. I had a Pioneer DV 440 before that and the Panasonic is at least the Pioneer's equal. As far as I know, none of the lower lines of TV's have any extra signal processing that should get in the way. As to bigger not necessarily better, true, but my TV is approx 10 feet from my viewing position. Anything 4:3 aspect is big enough on the 27" but certainly could stand to be larger. Widescreen DVD's, OTOH, which is my viewing preference, are too small on the 27", so a 32" is certainly a good size for me. I went to Sears as they had a Sylvania 32" on sale for $309. While I'm sure the Sylvania would look better compared to my current set, the $429 ($399 at Best Buy) Magnavox (S input) and the $499 Philips (probably the same basic set with component input) looked so much better that I couldn't see buying the Sylvania, even at a price I've never seen a 32" set go for. So I have thought about this and as HDTV hasn't straightened out the input situation, a decent low line 32" should fit the bill for me and make me less anxious about HDTV. I certainly can't see spending much on a set unless you know it will be totally compatible with future standards. And you'll never find a salesperson that either knows whether a set is future proof or won't lie and tell you it is to complete the sale. So that's my lengthy story and I'm sticking to it : ).Bruce
I purchased a '99 model, 32" set, in early 2000. After connecting it, I noticed there were vertical stripes of alternating dark (charcoal) gray and lighter gray. The repair tech said it was a faulty power supply and not fixable, so I sent the TV back and purchased a Panasonic. No problems since and a very, very nice picture with DVDs.BTW, very few TVs on the market today are "future proof." The FCC is trying hard to get Americans to adopt digital TV (it won't be HDTV due to bandwidth issues) so it will have more spectrum to auction off. It recently issued a ruling that all sets must have digital tuners built in by 2007. So just get what you'll enjoy now, then purchase outboard equipment (i.e., digital tuner) or a whole new unit when necessary.
Will digital TV be pretty much all that is available in 2007, or will analog still be around?I'll be kind of bummed if TV sets start going digital. I switched to digital but than went back to analog. Digital would often have problems with the picture breaking up in blocks, and the quality wasn't really any better than the analog picture. At least HDTV will become more common, which is a good thing to say the least...
Abraham
I understand few sets being future proof which is why I can't see spending the bucks currently on a high-end set. Panasonic's do look good (I even helped a friend pick out a $800 Panasonic flat 32") but generally are more expensive, not quite as high as Sony (close, though) but more than Philips/Magnavox. The Philips and Magnavox I saw at Sears had pretty good pictures and were indistinquishable one to the other (no real surprise here). They both made the Sylvania (don't know who makes these currently) look pretty sad, especially in sharpness of text and overall "look" of the picture. I tried for about ten minutes to adjust the Sylvania to look closer to the P/M sets with no success. I'm not looking for "state of the art" just a decent picture that will temper my desire for HDTV for a few more years while that format is finallized (thought it was earlier this year and found out differently with the various dvi and firewire issues). I really only looked because the Sylvania was $309. I wasn't looking for $400-$500. But I've now seen the extra $ is worth it (more so than the $300-$400 extra a flat 32" Panasonic would cost). Plus I figure that next year the P/M sets will be lower still, especially if TV's don't sell for Xmas. Besides I really need to get my new front speakers and receiver first, so I'm looking at about March/April.Bruce
I don't recall the model #, but given your tight budget, may be worth some more Internet sleuthing and side-by-side comparos . . .
Sharp has kind of been an enigma. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, their "linytron" (sp?) sets were considered second only to Sony at a much lower price. Then it seemed they backtracked and started making only cheaper sets. Now it seems they are trying to go upmarket with a lot of different products. But if there is one around when I go to a store, I'll certainly give it a look.Bruce
The saleshack was probably referring to an HDTV set's ability to accept a progressive scan signal. But that doesn't have anything to do with HDTV. You could buy any TV that will display 1080i/480p/720p and you're good to go. You'd be ready for HDTV down the road and enjoy better picture quality from your DVDs.
I guess this is a confusing topic that needs to be broken down to a number of parts. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is:* a HDTV set is capable of receiving HDTV transmissions without any special decoder box
* all sets, HDTV or otherwise, without line doubling, tripling or quadrupling, reproduce DVD in basically the same way (variations in circuitry will increase fidelity but from the same base)
* larger sets, particularly rear projection, benefit from line doubling etc.
* front projection benefits even more from line doubling etc
However it IS dangerous to generalise as results can vary enormously according to how the complex video signal is processed. There are good and bad systems of each type.
However I do think the salesman was either being ignorant (quite likely), duplicitous or even downright dishonest. If the HDTV set did line doubling of the standard DVD or TV signal then it would be improved but, as I understand it, the HDTV term is meant to only meant to indicate its capacity to handle HDTV signals. However I guess the term is likely to be misused and corrupted as happened to many audio terms.
Hope this helps.
John
Peace at AA
"* a HDTV set is capable of receiving HDTV transmissions without any special decoder box"No, an HDTV set is capable of REPRODUCING the HDTV transmission fed to it via either HDTV satellite box or OTA digital tuner. But either or both of those outboard pieces of equipment are required. Some HDTV sets feature a built-in tuner, but most do not.
Technically, a "full" HDTV set does have a HD tuner on board. An HDTV monitor needs the outboard tuner. When you look at ads, that's why most are labelled as a monitor. I know, picky, picky : ).Bruce
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
