Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

do I *really* need HDTV?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 24 2005 - 04:10 PM

...if 95% of my TV viewing is watching DVDs using a component video input? No video games, no cable or local TV. My DVD player does have progressive scan which supposedly produces a better picture on a HDTV...my question is, just HOW MUCH of a better picture? Is it really noticeable enough to make the extra expense worthwhile, or is it the kind of thing that you sort of have to squint and consciously look for in order to really notice? To give you a good idea of how picky I am, my DVD is currently on RCA cable into a 20" curved tube...and I'm pretty OK with the picture quality, just want to upgrade to a larger screen size because of all this letterboxing on DVDs. I'd guess that this is mostly a subjective value judgement, so I'd just like to hear your personal opinions on it.

#2 of 26 OFFLINE   Scott L

Scott L

    Producer



  • 4,466 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 29 2000

Posted January 24 2005 - 04:24 PM

No! You need HDTV about as much as you need regular TV, but if you're going to be buying a new set why not spend a tad bit more and invest in something more future-proof?

You'll get the most benefit using an HDTV from an HD signal. Comcast and most other cable providers only charges an extra $4-5 a month for the added HD stations.

Another thing to think about is how much you'll be using your new set. It's like buying a new, ergonomic cordless mouse with handy buttons on the side. Some people could really use it since they spend a lot of time on the computer, but other people just check their email and log off, and for them it's not worth the $65. It just depends on the person.

#3 of 26 OFFLINE   ChuckSolo

ChuckSolo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 26 2003

Posted January 24 2005 - 06:53 PM

eddie, on a 20" screen most DVDs are going to look great. Scott was right, no one NEEDS HDTV, but once you start watching it you will be amazed. I am not really that big of a sports fan, and I live near San Diego, but watching the Chargers-Jets game a couple of weeks ago in HD and 5.1 surround was truly an experience. The picture and sound on my 40" RCA HD RPTV was absolutely awesome. The bigger the screen the more you are going to notice improvements in picture quality.....and the flaws. I have to admit that MOST regular standard cable channels could look better on a large widescreen HDTV, but I believe the pros outweigh the cons. I would imagine on your 20" TV the letterboxing can get pretty annoying since the picture is probably quite small. While you don't always get rid of the letterboxing with widescreen TVs, for the most part the black bars are a lot thinner than they would be on your TV. As for the difference between progressive and non-progressive DVD viewing, on a larger TV there is definately a difference. If you were to get a TV that does progressive conversion of a regular interlaced DVD signal (most digital TVs do these days) then you could enjoy a progressive picture without even upgrading your DVD player. I replaced a relatively expensive Panasonic 32" non-digital TV with my RCA and have never regretted doing so.Posted Image

#4 of 26 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer



  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 24 2005 - 11:04 PM

Eddie, it's all in the numbers, really. You can see how clear DVD is, well DVD is only rated for 480 lines of progressive resolution, now HD on the other hand is rated at up to 1080 lines of interlaced resolution. HD starts at 720 lines BTW, which still buries DVD in terms of clearity. Believe me, my man, once you've seen HD in action, you'll never want to give it up, squinting to see the benifits isn't necessary, not by a long shot, it's THAT good. Just go to your local Best Buy or another store like it for a demo on one of their displays, you'll be blown away. Now, do you need it? No. I have a 96" front projection system without HD (can't afford it right now) and am quite happy watching DVD's on it via a componant connection. A tip though, if you choose to buy an HDTV, make sure it has, in addition to componant inputs, either a DVI, HDMI or both input. If you go with HD, using DVI or HDMI is the best way to connect HD. Use the HDMI input for HD and the DVI input for DVD, you'll have to buy a DVD player with a DVI output terminal on it though, but it supposedly upconverts DVD to HD but I haven't seen it in action. I don't believe that most here in the forum put much stock in that though, I never even see it mentioned anywhere here.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#5 of 26 OFFLINE   John S

John S

    Producer



  • 5,460 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2003

Posted January 25 2005 - 02:31 AM

The larger the screen size the more difference 480p will make on your DVD quality. Much over the 40" mark, and 480p is really a nessecity, most sets line double all sources.

#6 of 26 OFFLINE   Evan M.

Evan M.

    Supporting Actor



  • 910 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2002

Posted January 25 2005 - 02:49 AM

I think I am going to go against the grain on this one. I too only watch DVD's and some sports. I will not be getting HD until I have to. I really do not care how nice and clear Dan Rathers head is.....that will not make me watch T.V. more. Believe it or not there are people out there who do not watch a lot of T.V. LOL!! With that said, if I were you I would opt for a decent size tube tv.....GASP!! like a 32" or 36". They are cheap and will get you by when you are forced to get HD. DVD will still look very good on it.

#7 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 25 2005 - 03:09 PM

Thanks for all the feedback guys, you've given me a lot to chew on. But I have still more questions: 1. If DVDs are 480p which is fully visible only on an HDTV set and a prog-scan player, how many pixels are there on a standard TV? 2. What's the difference between EDTV and HDTV when it comes to DVD viewing? Right now there's a 27" EDTV by Samsung that I can get locally for $300, as compared to $500-600 for a 27" HDTV by Toshiba and Panasonic.

#8 of 26 OFFLINE   Jason Charlton

Jason Charlton

    Producer



  • 3,135 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2002
  • Real Name:Jason Charlton
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted January 26 2005 - 01:45 AM

If we're talking about CRT-based sets, then there is likely no difference when watching DVDs - since CRT sets typically adjust their scanrate to display 480p regardless of whether the set is ED or HD. With digital technologies, however, there is a distinct difference. Digital display technologies are "Fixed Pixel" displays that ONLY display content at a set resolution (referred to as the set's "native" resolution). ALL input signals, be they 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i will be scaled to the native resolution of the display. With HDTV sets, that native resolution is higher than the 480 that is output from the DVD player, therefore scaling of some sort is required to display the DVD picture. If you are viewing DVDs on an EDTV set, then you have the advantage of your DVD signal already matching your set's native resolution, and there's no need for any additional image scaling. Many EDTV sets will accept HD signals, but again - they will require image processing to downconvert the HD signals to the non-HD 480p format. Many have said that this still results in a gorgeous picture, even though it's not true HD. As you can see - when it comes to digital display technologies, there will ALWAYS be a compromise of some sort when it comes to the issue of resolution. Hope this helps. -Jason

Are you new to the Home Theater Forum? Stop by the New Member Introductions area and introduce yourself! See you there!


#9 of 26 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 15,162 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted January 26 2005 - 02:02 AM

You don't need HDTV. If your budget is around $400, buy a good analog TV with 16:9 compression for DVDs. But if you're looking to spend $900, it's silly to spend that much on just on an analog TV. Save a bit more and buy an HDTV for around $1200. I've got a HDTV Sony Wega. I don't have any HD material, but regular TV looks great on it, better than on an analog set, and DVDs look superb. And video games are also fantastic.

#10 of 26 OFFLINE   Steve Schaffer

Steve Schaffer

    Producer



  • 3,759 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted January 26 2005 - 09:39 AM

I bought my HD-ready 57" widescreen primarily for progressive scan dvd, it replaced a 53" analog model. I do have HD sources but even if I did not, the improvement in picture quality for dvd was well worth the investment. Once you get into screen sizes over 32" or so the difference between 480i and 480p is overwhelming.
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.

#11 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 06:57 AM

OK, after lots more reading I'm now down to 3 choices: 1. Samsung 26" widescreen HDTV ready, $500 2. Samsung 27" 4:3 HDTV ready, $500 3. Toshiba 27" 4:3 flatscreen, $350 Remember, 90% of my TV watching is DVD and I have *zero* interest in watching broadcast HDTV, so my main question is: At such a small screen size, will I *REALLY* see much of a difference between 480p and 480i during DVD playback using a component video input? Oh, and I sit about 9 feet away from the TV, if that makes any difference.

#12 of 26 OFFLINE   PerryD

PerryD

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 28 2000

Posted January 28 2005 - 07:47 AM

If 90 to 95% of your viewing is DVDs, you _MUST_ get a widescreen high-def set, the bigger the better, although it will still amaze you on a 26/27". Just like someone else mentioned earlier, I bought my 65" HDTV just to watch DVDs in full resolution on as big of a display as I could afford.

#13 of 26 OFFLINE   Dan KW

Dan KW

    Agent



  • 31 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 15 2002

Posted January 28 2005 - 08:26 AM

I say go with the widescreen display too. On the 4:3 set you will be losing a lot of size when you are watching dvd's. And since they are your main viewing habbit, I would say go for the best you can get within your budget.

widescreen goodPosted Image

#14 of 26 OFFLINE   Craig

Craig

    Second Unit



  • 469 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1999

Posted January 28 2005 - 09:25 AM

Best Buy has a JVC 30 inch widescreen model that's not an hdtv, it's on sale for $499 on the BB website. Says it has 3:2 pulldown capability also.

JVC at Best Buy

#15 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:10 AM

Thanks Craig, but I think if I do widescreen I'll stay with the 26" Samsung---same price plus HDTV and more importantly, 64lbs lighter...the JVC looks nice and is a great price but I'd have to buy a new stand for it.

Reminds me, a couple of months I had a chance to get a very nice 32" Toshiba flat screen for just $300 but the bulk and weight of it stopped us! Posted Image

#16 of 26 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:13 AM

>"If 90 to 95% of your viewing is DVDs, you _MUST_ get a widescreen high-def set, the bigger the better, although it will still amaze you on a 26/27". Just like someone else mentioned earlier, I bought my 65" HDTV just to watch DVDs in full resolution on as big of a display as I could afford."

Absolutely. 42 - 45" is the perfect "small" HDTV. Bigger is nice too Posted Image

#17 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:19 AM

Elinor, So would you say that HD doesn't really make much difference at the relatively microscopic 26-27" size if you're watching a prog scan DVD with component hookup, but only at the 42" and up sizes?

#18 of 26 OFFLINE   John S

John S

    Producer



  • 5,460 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2003

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:35 AM

I think your asking is 480p (ED) good enough at smallers sizes? I'd say yes, even in bigger sizes. 480i covers decent up into maybe even the 46" size, beyond that and the scan lines become quite annoying. 480p(ED) will be notice-able on a 27" screen over 480i(SD). I hope that helps some more.

#19 of 26 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:37 AM

Eddie, if you have room for a larger set and no WAF objections, you will absolutely, positively, without any doubt, enjoy the increased size. Even just for DVDs. I doubt there will be any "wow" effect in simply changing from SD interlaced DVD viewing to a SD progressive DVD viewing. In the larger sizes that you really "see" the improved resolution and deinterlacing. Personally, I'd go for a fixed pixel set or, with a non-fixed-pixel set, I'd get a decent upscaling DVD player, to really get a "wow" improvement. Have you had a chance to view the 27" and mid-40" sets in person?

#20 of 26 OFFLINE   eddieZEN

eddieZEN

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2004

Posted January 28 2005 - 10:50 AM

John,

whew, thanks for the sweet, short & straight answer! Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users