Better monitor/projector = more obvious "defects"? (1 Viewer)

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Reading the various posts about "16x9's" vs. top-of-the-line "4x3's that properly compress 16x9 signals", such as Sony WEGA's, I am now under the impression that the better the monitor/projector, the more likely you will be able to see defects in video sources, such as artifacts, pixellation (if this is considered different than artifacts), etc. I suppose this is akin to the old saying that you never realized what you were missing until you actually saw what you were missing Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I correct, and if so, how are you all striking a "balance" between wanting/having a monitor/projector that delivers the best DVD viewing for the price (which is something that I personally want) vs. having 5 other family members who enjoy movies, but do not necessarily put a premium on DVD viewing as they do on watching quite a bit of non-HDTV programming via satelitte feed from DirecTV (where picture quality is sporadic - and I think I am being generous with this characterization)?

In other words, has the technology used in current 16x9 sets that are priced within reach of a "reasoanble" budget (defined by me, at least for this thread, as $2,000-$4,000) been "realized" so as to satisfy those who live in both the 16x9 and 4x3 worlds? As best as I can understand the posts and specs on TV's, it seems to me that Sony has attempted to handle the problem with their "3:2 Cinemotion" (sp?) technology, but I see posts that indicate the technology is not quite there yet . . .

I am NOT (necessarily) asking for TV recommendations. But I suppose my ultimate question is do I wait for a year or two before moving up from my current 36XBR250 (4 year old, non-progressive, non-HDTV technology; yet still delivers an absolute stunning picture, especially when displaying compressed 16x9 DVDs), or do I take the the plunge now, only to be dazzled in just a year or two by something that is lurking and that will be within the price-point range I mentioned above?

And I realize that within 8-12 months, ALL things become outdated - sort of like computer speed doubling every 18 months.

As always, thanks for any responses.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Take the plunge now. The better the display the more it will expose the flaws in the programming source. That has always been the case. It's up to the content providers to meet the display standards being set by the manufacturers.

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

And with all due (I mean this sincerely) respect, Jack, how do we get the content providers to provide video sources that will be optimized by current monitors/projectors?

As I alluded to earlier, the VAST majority of posters regarding 16x9 displays voice NUMEROUS complaints of how 4x3 is being portrayed. I don't like 4x3 dimensions any more than you do (unless that was what was originally filmed), but it is a fact of life that we have to live with that format for (in my estimation) at least another 3-5 years (minimum).

So when you say "take the plunge", what do you mean (and this gets back to the TYPE of TV to purchase)? CRT tubes produce outstanding startingly clear pictures that suffer very little from ambient light and have excellent color reproduction. Yet, they cannot seem to handle the "pulldown" problems with non-HDTV/non-16x9 material to a satifactory level. And I simply don't have the room to set up a projector and screen or other large screen device to handle movies, and then turn it off and watch a second TV that is better adept to showing 4x3 satellite feed material.

Is there NOTHING out there within the budget I set forth above that gives us pretty close to the best of both worlds at this point?

Thanks for responding,

Sam