Print

[Caldor]

Dexter, respectfully I think you mistake consumer demand for compaint, when it is demand, and secondly I think it's wrong to see HDTV's as commodity items.

Many people, including myself would not pay for a LCD TV. This is due to the image quality problems LCD displays have.

It is possible to use objective tools to measure display quality. And more experienced people can subjectively compare as well. In general, for the latest generation examples of each technology the list is like this:

1. CRT No HDMI as far as I know, and not available in large screen sizes. Most limited to component 1080i. No doubt best image quality of all types though/

2. Plasma. The true 1920 x 1080P panels are way out of my budget - in country good ones are around $US10 000. If you have ten grand US, which models actually have a vga 1080P input? I dont know of any....

3. LCos. Sony are lead the way with this technology and for, it represents the best picture quality at a good price I can afford. Though, the VGA Input does not support 1920x1080P input.

http://reviews.cnet....32.html?tag=lst

4. LCD

5. DLP

SED is vapourware and has been since 1998. Maybe it will come in 2008 and dominate, but who knows.


When you start considering narrowing down the TV choices by technology and affordability, the actualy number of true 1920x1080P *NATIVE* displays that actually support a VGA native of 1920x1080P are thin on the ground.

HDMI is the standard video connection method now and anyone who thinks otherwise is not being fair to themselves and reason.

[Dexter Harvey]

QUOTE(Caldor @ Sep 29 2006, 05:23 PM)  

Dexter, respectfully I think you mistake consumer demand for compaint, when it is demand, and secondly I think it's wrong to see HDTV's as commodity items.

Many people, including myself would not pay for a LCD TV. This is due to the image quality problems LCD displays have.

It is possible to use objective tools to measure display quality. And more experienced people can subjectively compare as well. In general, for the latest generation examples of each technology the list is like this:

1. CRT No HDMI as far as I know, and not available in large screen sizes. Most limited to component 1080i. No doubt best image quality of all types though/

2. Plasma. The true 1920 x 1080P panels are way out of my budget - in country good ones are around $US10 000. If you have ten grand US, which models actually have a vga 1080P input? I dont know of any....

3. LCos. Sony are lead the way with this technology and for, it represents the best picture quality at a good price I can afford. Though, the VGA Input does not support 1920x1080P input.

http://reviews.cnet....32.html?tag=lst

4. LCD

5. DLP

SED is vapourware and has been since 1998. Maybe it will come in 2008 and dominate, but who knows.
When you start considering narrowing down the TV choices by technology and affordability, the actualy number of true 1920x1080P *NATIVE* displays that actually support a VGA native of 1920x1080P are thin on the ground.

HDMI is the standard video connection method now and anyone who thinks otherwise is not being fair to themselves and reason.

Thats old thinking lcds have come along way in the last couple of years.
Response times are now good enough for gaming on good lcds.

[awake33]

QUOTE(Caldor @ Sep 28 2006, 01:22 PM)  

DD+ and TrueHD is designed to be sent to an AV receiver to be amplified, not to the display. In fact many higher end displays have no speakers or audio capability.

The legacy sony phillips digital interface does not have the bandwith required for lossless audio and video. HDMI v1.3 has over 10Gbps of bandwidth....Yes there are fibreoptic technologies in WAN solutions like OC-256 that have over 13 Gbps that I see at work. The point is these types of fibreoptic technologies are not used for consumer audio applications and the ones that are, are now legacy solutions next to HDMI v1.3.

As for the debate about resolution well there was a good study done by the British broadcasting mob who concluded that depending on viewing distance from the display 720 could be intisnguishable from 1080. Distance from display makes a difference.

I totally agree with you that these new formats are meant to be sent to a receiver.  That is the one of my main concerns with HDMI, even if someone plunks down the cash for a display that can do 1080p the majority of them (at least at this point in time) are not going to drop an additional $1k+ on a receiver capable of switching HDMI inputs.

As for the viewing distance points, again, well said.  The average consumer sits far too close to a display device for it's given size, not to mention they generally have the picture settings overdriven.

[epsilon72]

QUOTE(zombie4rave @ Sep 29 2006, 05:33 AM)  

I think everyone needs to relax a little on this 1080p thing.  If you have a 1080p tv you are getting 1080p RIGHT NOW.  Your tv is upscaling it just like the 360 would be doing.  And think about it.  What device would you rather have doing the scaling?  Your Xbox that cost a few hundred or your multi-thousand dollar tv?  What if they make a game in native 1080p down the road? So what?  Send it to your tv at 1080i, your set will deinterlace it to progressive and you end up with the same thing.  As long as your tv has a decent deinterlacer you'll see little to no difference in picture quality. The whole thing is over rated at this point.  If you can take advantage of it over component or VGA now or MS releases an official HDMI cable then great.  If not, you really aren't missing anything.  Now I'm not saying that I don't think they should offer HDMI.  They clearly should.  Most modern displays look their best when they are fed this way.  I'm just saying all the 1080p drama is getting out of hand.

I would rather have 1080p upscaled at the source than by my display.  (it's kindof like the difference between playing Halo 2 on an xbox1 in 480p on a 720p tv then playing it on the 360 on the same tv, with the 360 upscaling it to 720p)

QUOTE(Caldor @ Sep 29 2006, 02:23 PM)  

1. CRT No HDMI as far as I know, and not available in large screen sizes. Most limited to component 1080i. No doubt best image quality of all types though/

Many CRT's have HDMI.  Avoid the budget models that don't, like Sanyo and Insignia.

[kidkinetix]

SED will hit in late 2007, it won't get delayed again! </wishful thinking>

Well... I don't think it will.  Hopefully the price point won't be too similar to a plasma elite 1080p ($8000).  Anyhow, I'm boycotting 1080p until flat panel LCDs are in the 50s with good response time, or plasma 1080p sets (1920 x 1080p, not that 1024x1080p nonsense) are a good price, or SED comes and proves itself.  I'm sitting happy right now with a 42" plasma that was a pretty reasonable price, and can't see any reason to need more picture quality.

[Caldor]

Dexter the picture quality in objective tests is not measured by response times. There is a myriad of factors that go into objectively analysing picture quality between displays.

LCD's suffer from a range of problems :

1. Poor contrast levels in comparison to other technologies

2. Viewing angle not as good as other technologies

3. Problems with dead pixels

5. Screen door effect problems

6. Colour control with deep blacks

People tend to make the mistake that because they own it, its therefore the best. The fact is, using proper measurement tools, it is objectively and conclusively been shown time and again that the best display technology for picture quality is high end CRTs. Next is plasmas, and then down into the other technologies.

SED will rule the future, if they ever come to market. SEDs have been supposed to be coming since the late 1990s.