anyone have an LCD HD TV?
anyone have an LCD HD TV?
anyone have an LCD HD TV?#0
Posted: 7/13/06 at 10:35pmwe're thinking of taking the plunge and buying one to hang on the bedroom wall. anyone have one that they really like?
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/04
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#1
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:14pm
No, but I've been seriously considering it. I haven;t looked into it that much. I watch my DVDs on my iMac, which has an HDTV quality flatscreen. But it's a 20 inch. My bedroom TV is a 27 inch. I'd love a bigger plasma to mount on the wall. Posst back here if you find something you're happy with!
FYI, I've been tempted within the past few weeks by QVC (or HSN, I forget which). They were selling a package of two flat screen TVs (I think they were HDTV), a DVD player and sound system for either $1299 or $1799 (I know, I know...big difference but I forget the exact price...it may have been between these two amounts). If you don't want to spend that much all at once they usually have a FlexPay system where you can spread the billing out over three months (for large purchases).
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#2
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:22pm
well, of course the price is the problem. we'll prolly only be able to get a 27" LCD, although i'd love to have a 32" 
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/04
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#4
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:57pm
I bought the 40" SONY BRAVIA XBR and I'm in love with it!!! (It comes in a 32" size as well, which would probably be perfect in a bedroom.) I got it about three weeks ago, which accounts in large part for my absence from the board. (As if anyone noticed) I can't tear myself away from it. I'm watching Letterman in High-Def right now. The picture is amazing. I highly recommend it, despite its somewhat steep price-tag. I'd steer clear of Plasma. Although the prices have plummeted, I think they're going to be phased out soon. SONY isn't even making Plasmas anymore. They're totally focusing on LCDs.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#5
Posted: 7/14/06 at 12:27am
Just one thing to keep in mind about LCDs; they only support 720p High-Def. Most High-Def channels broadcast in 1080i, and High-Def DVD players and DVDs will also support 1080i. So, if you want a set that supports 1080i, and gives you the best possible High-Def picture, you'd have to go with something other than an LCD. SONY has a rear-projection television that supports 1080i High-Def. But it only comes in 50" and 60". The 50" is priced the same as the BRAVIA 40". So, you get more bang for your buck, but it's not wall mountable. Although it's much smaller in size than the old picture tube TVs (the 50" is under 100LBS.) and the picture will blow you away. They had a High-Def DVD player (which hits the market next month) hooked up to one in the SONY STYLE store where I bought my T.V. and you could practically melt into the picture. It was pure eye candy. In fact, I'm thinking of buying one in the fall and moving the BRAVIA into the bedroom.
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#6
Posted: 7/14/06 at 1:42amluscious ... are you a doctor??
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/04
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#7
Posted: 7/14/06 at 7:40amLuscious, I'm jealous! I want that Bravia.
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#8
Posted: 7/14/06 at 8:48am
Hi, Luscious---I'm not sure who told you that LCD monitors don't come in 1080i (or 1080p), but it just ain't true. There are plenty of them on the market now that will display true 1920x1080 HD.
Sharp has several out there ranging in size and price.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#9
Posted: 7/14/06 at 1:39pm
You're right best12. My bad. I was focusing on Sony, who doesn't currently have an LCD that supports 1080i or 1080p. However, Sharp, Toshiba, Proton, and a couple of others do. But I'm a SONY man all the way. (And no, I don't work for SONY.) In any event, sorry for the misleading information.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#10
Posted: 7/14/06 at 1:55pm
By the way best12... do you know much about 720p vs. 1080i or 1080p? I'm just starting to read up on it. I've read that some feel that 1080i doesn't work as well for moving images as it does for still images, which accounts for why most High-Def sports channels currently broadcast in 720p. Do you know if this is true or not? Do you think it makes that much of a difference in the picture quality of a High-Def broadcast or High-Def DVD? Do standard (non High-Def) broadcasts and DVDs look as good on a 1080i set? I own over 1000 DVDs which I'm not about to upgrade to High-Def anytime soon, and I want them to look as good as possible. So, this is going to play a major part in my decision whether to invest in a 1080i TV. Any info you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#11
Posted: 7/14/06 at 5:39pm
Hi again, Luscious. Sorry, we're moving our offices today (to a "de-luxe apartment in the sky"), so I haven't been crazy-lurking around here quite as much as usual. I'll try to answer your questions, as best I can, but I have to type fast. Hope they make sense!
I'm actually working on both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats right now, helping to develop the current and future graphics and content interfaces for both. Fun, fun, fun! Setbacks, setbacks, setbacks!
While I'm not an expert on video streaming and the various broadcast issues (where IS Grizzabella these days??? THERE'S your expert!), I do understand how motion "behaves" in the various formats.
Okay, sounds like you know this already but when people say "hi def," this could be any number of image sizes or frame rates. Quite a few variables, actually. Then, there's the "p" or "i" thing, which means "progressive" frames of motion (solid, with no fields, aka little horizontal lines running through the screen when anything moves on it), or "interlaced" which means it has either lower or upper field dominance in the video to smooth out any motion or telecine footage.
Better cut to the chase on this...
Even the best hi-def consumer monitors out there now will display a maximum image quality of 1920x1080i (interlaced) signal. They're all running through an interlace filter currently (but that may change soon enough), even if they claim to be 1080p video. We currently deliver our motion at 1080p, and then it displays 1080i (at best).
With HD… if it is displaying an interlaced signal, you're REALLY going to see those little horizontal lines running through the image whenever anything moves (particularly on any horizontal pans). Again, I'm no expert on broadcast signals and feeds, but it makes sense that sports channels would opt to display a lesser quality HD image (720p) that supported progressive motion, since they do LOTS of horizontal pans, following players and game balls, etc. You'd get very tired of those interlaced, jagged-looking lines in HD.
On to other things...
I, too, own over 1000 DVDs (God, bless you for that!), and I'm not getting rid of them either. You can already display your standard def (720x480) DVDs on your HD monitor. You should definitely own a progressive DVD player, and hopefully you can get an HD up-converter too. They run about $100-200 now, but I just saw a DVD player at Costco the other day that had progressive display capabilities, PLUS had its own built-in HD up-converter. So you might consider just getting one of those instead, if you don't already have a progressive DVD player.
Lots of folks ran out to get DVD players with progressive display, and the players all pretty much have this option now, but it only really WORKS if you have a progressive HD monitor (like you do now). You have to set your DVD player to "progressive," but you should know what that means when you do it.
Most film is shot at 24 fps (frames per second), and then converted through a "telecine" process that changes them to the NTSC video standard (used by North America, South America, Japan, etc.) to 29.97 fps. In order to do that (mathematically), it will display 3 solid (progressive) frames of motion, followed by 2 interlaced frames, which is actually splitting the information of ONE single frame stretching it out over 2 frames of video. It roughly adds 6 more frames of video to each second of the display (taking 24 to approx. 30 frames per second). This "magic" is called 3:2 pull-down. (3 progressive, 2 interlaced)
Most studios now encode their feature films to video as "progressive" with the 3:2 pull-down in it. This means that for folks with standard def NTSC TV monitors, you will get the 3:2 pull-down image. If you own a hi-def progressive monitor, you can switch your DVD player to a "progressive" signal, and it will actually decode the video at 24 fps progressive, basically removing this 3:2 pull-down on the fly as you watch it. Pretty cool, huh?
BUT… The progressive decoder in your DVD player only works if the piece was encoded as “progressive” in advance. If the authoring house encoded it as “video” (not "progressive") the signal will still have the 3:2 pull-down in it, even if you don’t want it to. This interlaced option is necessary for any footage actually SHOT on video (as opposed to on film). Or if the 3:2 pull-down cadence isn't maintained throughout the entire piece. If it's not a consistent cadence on the whole piece (3:2,3:2,3:2, etc.), the piece can't be encoded as progressive in authoring. If they try to, your DVD player's decoder will take the first cadence, and then when it goes off-track, the image will start to jitter pretty badly and looke terrible. I say this so you don't think your DVD player is broken if you've set it for "progressive" but you're still seeing an interlaced (video) image. The interlacing may be necessary because of the nature of the piece.
So... if you have an HD up-converter and a progressive DVD player together, your standard def DVDs will look pretty dang good! They are coming from your DVD source at either 720x480 or 920x480 (anamorphically stretched), so it's not a true HD image. It may look a LITTLE soft, but honestly, I've been fooled by a standard def DVD signal several times already. I thought it was HD, and I was wrong. (And I have an "evil eye" for this kinda stuff, but they put one over on me.)
That's my suggestion!
Sorry if your head exploded reading that.
Back to work again! Bye!
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#12
Posted: 7/14/06 at 6:04pm
best12... my head is spinning... but thanks so much for taking the time to respond in such detail. I'm going to read your post a few more times and hopefully it will all begin to sink in. I have a progressive DVD player. So it sounds like what you're saying is that I should invest in a HD up-converter in order to get the best possible picture from my standard format DVDs on my LCD HD set. I'll definitely look into it. Now... if I decide to run out and buy the new Sony high-def DVD player that hits stores next month, would I still need a HD up-converter? My guess is no, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Thanks again for taking the time out from your busy day to reply to my post. You're a wealth of information and it sounds like you have a way cool job!
re: anyone have an LCD HD TV?#13
Posted: 7/14/06 at 6:20pm
Hi again! I don't know if Sony's new DVD player will have an up-converter in it or not. I just saw this first one a Costco the other day. I'm sure there are DVD players around with it. But including the converter didn't seem to affect this price too much. I think this progressive DVD player with the up-converter was about $150 there. And converters alone will run you about $100-200, these days. It's up to you. If you don't need to get a whole new DVD player, then don't. On the other hand, if you don't want to hook yet another gadget up to your TV, it might be worth it to have it all included in one unit.
Bye again! (back to boxes)
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thanks best12bars!#15
Posted: 7/15/06 at 9:38am
Thanks to best12bars, I'm off today to buy a new Sony progressive scan, HDMI supported, DVD player with built-in HD up-converter. I also realized that I'm going to need an HDMI Switcher, as my new Bravia only comes with one HDMI port and the Hi-Def cable box/DVR is hooked into it. So, that's one strike against my new TV. Why only one HDMI port when they're coming out with more and more HD components every day that you might want to hook up to a HD TV? Oh well... I LOVE everything else about the TV. That's my only complaint, thus far. And thanks again to best12bars for the wealth of information. Your posts and PMs have been extremely insightful and helpful. On the other hand, my partner wants your head on a platter!
Thanks best12bars!#16
Posted: 7/15/06 at 9:55am
LOL!
Tell him my head on a platter needs an HDMI switcher too.
You're very welcome, BTW.
And you're right about needing more ports. If you do end up buying either a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player soon, you'll need an HDMI port for THAT hookup as well. Personally, I would wait a bit on buying either format of HD player... as most (if not ALL) of the critics are shouting right now.
Bugs galore, upgrades coming, prices dropping, etc. You know, the usual drill with new technical stuff.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thanks best12bars!#17
Posted: 7/15/06 at 10:08am
best12... That's exactly why I decided to go with a new up-converter DVD player. I've made the decision not to run out and buy a HD player anytime soon. (And I see SONY has now pushed back the release of their Blu-ray player to October.) With two competing formats (HD-DVD and Blu-ray), knowing me, I'd choose the one that doesn't survive. (Beta-max anyone?) And if my standard DVDs look as good as you've described with the up-converter DVD player hooked up to my HD TV, than I'll be one very happy pappy tonight! And to think, I didn't know what an "up-converter" was before reading your post on this thread yesterday afternoon. You really enlightened me... and lightened my wallet. LOL!
Thanks best12bars!#18
Posted: 7/15/06 at 10:19am
Cool! Just don't come hunting me down if some of your standard def DVDs don't look spectacular even with the up-converter. Remember not all DVD encoding or source material is alike. And your HD monitor and up-converter together are going to bring out ALL the faults on the DVD picture.
Newer films with the best possible source material (the absolute best being a straight digital-to-digital transfer, which would be computer animated movies like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and others) will look the best on your TV. Those are the ones that you should be hard-pressed to tell if they're not HD. I was completely fooled the other day looking at a clip from Robots. Older films, non-progressive encodes, or overly-compressed encodes are going to have visual flaws and you'll be able to see them all in glorious HD! And anything shot directly on video (not film) will probably look less than wonderful.
Still, you'll be viewing your current DVD collection with the best possible solution: Progressive player with an up-converted signal. Best of luck to you, and I'd love to hear your results!
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Thanks best12bars!#19
Posted: 7/15/06 at 11:10am
Phillips is a good brand. I wouldn't go with Plasma quite yet. I don't think they've been perfected. Wait until they're out a little longer.
And hanging/mounting these suckers on the wall is so two years ago. Put it on a sleek table or modern TV stand/wall unit.
You didn't think Phantom2 knew this ****, did you? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"I broke the boundaries. It wasn't cool to be in plays- especially if you were in sports & I was in both." - Ashton Kutcher
Thanks best12bars!#20
Posted: 7/16/06 at 3:38am
the philips was the most impressive picture we saw at sam's club. in looking at best buy today, we weren't as impressed with the phillips, and we liked the picture of the westinghouse, sharp, HP, and toshiba. westinghouse looks like he best for the price. not many have 2 HDMI ports, which does seem dumb.
it's all about compromises! it's like buying a car!
stay tuned! (ha ha ha)
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thanks best12bars!#21
Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:01amWell best12... thanks to you I'm now the proud owner of a progressive scan DVD player with a built-in HD up-converter; that, and a HDMI Switcher and two additional HDMI cables. The whole enchilada cost me around $350.00 including tax. (Not too bad.) Can you believe that the HDMI Switcher cost more than the DVD player?!? Anyway... everything you said is true. My standard DVDs never looked better! Well... the more current ones, anyway. You were right on about older movies (DVDs), as well as lower budget films. They don't look as good, and you can see every flaw. I guess you can't have it all. But, I'm ecstatic about how much better many of my DVDs look. Some of the ones we tested that looked phenomenal were Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Sin City, Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, Moulin Rouge, King Kong (2005); and we watched Matrix: Revolutions from start to finish. All a huge improvement in picture and sound! I'm very impressed and very happy! Can't thank you enough for the info! You made my weekend! It wasn’t even on my radar before coming home from work and reading your post Friday night. I now feel that I'm getting the most out of my new HD TV.
Thanks best12bars!#22
Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:43am
Luscious, so glad to hear it! And thanks for the kind words.
I think this "quality" issue is going to be a point of contention with a lot of consumers even when they do buy HD discs (either HD-DVD or Blu-ray) and HD players. They're going to look at some of these older films and wonder what is wrong with their equipment, instead of taking into consideration that it might be the best the studios can do from certain source material.
They are REALLY going to push the restoration business (including scratch removal, color correction and negative alignment, etc.) to the limits now that HD product is coming out. The new discs are going to magnify every single flaw, and consumers and critics are going to complain loudly that certain releases still look crappy.
I, too, vote for sticking with the DVD collection you already have, at least until the technology improves a little further both with compression and restoration (which I'm sure it will).
By the way... I'm not surprised Star Wars III looks good, since that was shot entirely digitally, and was also a digital-to-digital transfer. In other words, it never was on film first, and then put through digital scanning and the normal telecine processes to get it to video afterwards. It stayed "in the computer box" from start to finish. This will always produce the best possible image quality on a standard def DVD. Hey, and I worked on those menus too!
And cturtle---best of luck with your quest for the perfect hi-def monitor! I would make sure to check out consumer reports and critiques of any HDTVs you're thinking of buying. Don't just go by how it looks in the store, though. That SHOULD play into it to a certain degree of course, but sometimes it's not always hooked up right in those stores. Keep that in mind too.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/04
Thanks best12bars!#23
Posted: 7/16/06 at 3:46pmbest12, may I ask what you know/think about the Protron LCD TVs?
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thanks best12bars!#24
Posted: 7/16/06 at 6:15pm
"I think this "quality" issue is going to be a point of contention with a lot of consumers even when they do buy HD discs (either HD-DVD or Blu-ray) and HD players. They're going to look at some of these older films and wonder what is wrong with their equipment, instead of taking into consideration that it might be the best the studios can do from certain source material."
In addition, it's now very apparent to me why so many DVD reviewers and collectors have always stressed the importance of Anamorphic wide-screen. I now see that if a DVD is merely released in Letter-Box/Wide-Screen, and not ANAMORPHIC Letter-Box or Wide-Screen (Enhanced for 16:9 Televisions), then the picture appears stretched out and distorted on a wide-screen monitor. I discovered today that what I need to do to view these films the way they were intended to be seen is adjust the 4:3 Output setting on the DVD player to Normal (rather than Full). This allows you to watch the movie in Non-Anamorphic letter-box as you would on a square (4:3) set. However, it not only produces black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, but on the left and right sides as well. So it's like viewing the movie inside a box. From what I understand, it's not all that costly for the studios to encode their DVDs Anamorphically (best12bars... you would know more about this than me.), and I believe just about every studio is doing it at this point. But that wasn't true until fairly recently. (And from what I hear, won't be true of the original Star Wars trilogy Lucas is finally planning to release later this year.) So, I have a bunch of older DVDs that I'll have to watch this way in order for them to not appear distorted. (I know... woe is me.)
You know... I love this stuff, but I wonder how the average consumer and viewer is going to decipher and adjust to all this.
Videos
