10 months to choose a HDTV? Need help on what to look for? (1 Viewer)

[Michael St. Clair]

NTSC is history, as are all the sets (well, not all, if you get one of those cheapie ATSC converters), as of December 26, 2006 (if all goes as planned).

Things are not going as planned. I have a friend at the FCC.
Regardless, nomenclature pushed on us by regulatory and consortium collectives should not be embraced as reality.
The truth of the matter is, the shape of a giant piece of fresnel plastic does not define what is HDTV and what is not. No matter what anybody tells us, we should know better.
ShortVision is ShortVision. How is that higher definition?

 

[Abdul Jalib]

Correct, for a front projector or rear projector, the screen is just passive. Your local movie theater uses 4:3 screens. They show 2.35:1 movies just fine.
4:3 versus 16:9 is just one of your choices. You also have to choose front projector versus rear projector versus direct view versus a number of new technlogies. HTPC vs. DVDO iScan Pro vs. internal line doubler is another choice. With 10 months to plan, I suggest looking into a HTPC and possibly a used front projector. And when you go that route, you will soon realize how foolish the 16:9 screen fanatics are.
-Abdul

 

[Richard Driskill]

Michael,
(OK, obligatory disclaimer here about how I will not bite, kick, scratch, etc.)

I am as calm as a melted patty of butter.
I thought it was funny. (such as "short vision") I still think it's funny. Very cute. I bet it would go over as a big hit with all the people doing "pan and scan" production work. (Shhh, they'll get offended. They like to be referred to as the "anti-cropping coalition" [they hate their jobs])
CRT's: Never said you were "wrong". I said ".commonly used to describe..". "Wrong" is a term that should be used when someone has been proven to be incorrect and refuses to acknowledge the error. I rarely use the word. Come to think of it, I rarely use the acronym CRT.
Opps!, you left out the part about how I said there was "Magic" in a 16 X 9 display. Abracadabra, it's gone.
Wider, shorter, whatever; ideal stereoscopic aspect ratios is what the point was really about. 16 X 9 wins (or if you prefer: 1.7777778:1).
Historical NTSC: I had several friends at the FCC in Washington, before I retired 6 years ago. Maybe we should all have some type of reunion? Unfortunately, this is not governed by the FCC, just overseen. It was made a Congressional mandate. That means it was made law, and short of some really big problems, the law will be carried out. Did your friend tell you of any really big problems?
Nomenclature rules: I follow them; you elude that you don't. Enough said.
Fresnel plastic: Never said a passive window was the driving force behind the ATSC format. But it is a component, facet, or integral part. What a nice guy Mr. Fresnel was.
Shortvision: You got me, maybe if we squint everything will be as we perceive it to be in our minds.
I guess accuracy is in the mind of the beholder.
Abdul,
The local movie theaters project film, not television, which is of course two totally different media. Additionally, talking about resolution, or more accurately, clarity, nothing beats good film stock.
Oh-Oh! I've been labeled a fanatic while talking about 16 X 9 aspect ratios in a forum called "HDTV Area". Time to pull up the stakes and head for the hills.
See you guys soon.

 

[Curt Jett]

I have a question. Where does all that heat from them 9" guns go in a sealed cabinet? Just curious.

 

[Richard Driskill]

Curt,
[I'm assuming your being funny]
Uhhh...... Up?
No, no, I've got it... out the big "window" (Well, at least that's what my mom used to say.)
The convection of heat is a complicated matter. NOT!
[Serious answer, if needed]
The sets are engineered to operate within certain parameters, including heat build up. In my particular set (IQB64W10W), there aren't even any discernible venitlation openings, and I don't believe there are any at all. The set has a very large "clam shell" like cover on the back, and I believe it is sealed so as not to allow any dust into the set (which is important).

 

[Curt Jett]

Richard,
Not trying to be funny whatsoever. I have a 65" Mits that has 7" guns and some vents that put out a fair amount of heat. Are you saying that it is contained in the cabinet or is it vented in some fashion?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Wider, shorter, whatever; ideal stereoscopic aspect ratios is what the point was really about. 16 X 9 wins (or if you prefer: 1.7777778:1).

I'm a huge believer in Original Aspect Ratio (have been since I started watching letterboxed laserdiscs back in the mid 1980s). But this ideal image you are talking about has nothing to do with unused screen real estate. It has to do with the image you watch. 'Definition' is about resolution, not unused real estate.
If I sit and watch a 16:9 window on a 65" 4:3 screen with full 1920 x 1080i resolution, and somebody else watches a 40" 16:9 screen with a much smaller image (and smaller guns that can only resolve around 1000 x 1080i resolution), which is high definition? I know the answer, and no amount of doublespeak will fool me. As long as source material is shown in the proper ratio without stretching or cropping, all 720p/1080i sets are high-definition, regardless of the shape of the front screen. And hopefully within 3 years, most sets will render more and more of the lines of horizontal resolution that the format provides.
As far as 2006, it is a forgone conclusion that it is not going to happen. Consumer adoption is not going to hit 85% in 5 more years.