Direct view or RPTV (1 Viewer)

[Richard Paul]

My father has been thinking about replacing an aging 32" direct view with either a new direct view or a HDTV rear projection, and though I would like to recommend the HDTV rear projection, would it be the right choice? Though a rear projection easily beats out direct view sets in size the dreaded burn in along with changing connection standards, and lack of affordable prerecorded HDTV (currently only D-Theater D-VHS) seems to me to weigh against a HDTV rear projection. Though a Sony KP-57WV600 would be a sight to behold, so is its MSRP $3,300 and since your image is only as good as the source a HDTV's true potential can only come from a HDTV source. In other words no matter the scaling or what progressive DVD player you use a DVD movie will never look like a 1080i or 720p HDTV movie. On the other hand a Sony KV-36FV300, which is nowhere near the size of the rear projection, would show a DVD in its full resolution and because of it's 16:9 vertical compression it will even take advantage of anamorphic DVD's. Though its MSRP is $1500 that’s still half what a good HDTV with a DVI-HDCP input currently costs.

Here are 3 simple reasons why I think a NTSC direct view is the better choice.

1. Though 1080i 16:9 may be the future, the majority of what the television would be used for is cable, which is all in 480i 4:3. Many shows, tapes, and DVDs he owns is 4:3 including the first 4 seasons of Star Trek TNG. Also neither he or I finds the idea of stretching 4:3 to 16:9 an appealing option which has been recommended by some who are pro-OAR (how can someone recommend stretching and say there pro-OAR?) because the gray bars can burn in.

2. Burn in are two dreaded words I heard from reading over a hundred posts (all 100+ from about 4 individual topics) and though I see much information on decreasing it I have several siblings as young as 9 that would want to use the TV. Besides guarding the television from any still images such as from games, there's also the dreaded network logo's that are on almost every cable channel I can think of (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, USA, Discover, Cartoon Network, History, etc...). To put it bluntly it seems to be a great hassle to constantly worry over whether the TV has been on to long a channel with a logo or not being able to have the brightness on a good level. I know direct view TVs can burn in but it’s a lot harder to do and the television will mainly be used for 4:3 content.

3. Firewire, DVI-HDCP, HDMI (basically a variant of DVI-HDCP with the addition of audio which they say will be backward compatible with DVI-HDCP), and whatever’s cooked up next shows that the studios want to use a "secured" system to protect their content. To put it bluntly which cable will win? Firewire to me seems the best but the studios are banking on DVI-HDCP this year and HDMI next year.

One last thing is he will buy a HDTV in the future, but from what I've read for what’s needed now a direct view would be better. In 5 or 6 years he could then buy a 1080p HDTV that’s a Organic-LCD or some other technology that’s immune or at least very hard to burn in with all the future HDTV connections and prerecorded formats figured out. Any suggestions are would be appreciated but remember that I'm only asking for the best choice in this situation and I know how great a rear projection HDTV can look.

 

[John Royster]

Sounds like you've convinced yourself.
I have a 32" direct view, a 36" 4x3 HDTV and a 65" 16x9 HDTV. Never watch the 32", seldom watch the 36", 95 percent of my tv viewing, dvd, video games are on the 65".
So how's that for confusing you?
-edit- it does however sound as if you've got the pros and cons of each type of set down pat, congratulations!

 

[BruceSpielbauer]

Actually, some of the issues that seem to be bothering you are not REALLY (in my opinion) necessarily related to the "RPTV versus direct-view" question.

>>>>1. Though 1080i 16:9 may be the future, the majority of what the television would be used for is cable, which is all in 480i 4:3. To put it bluntly it seems to be a great hassle to constantly worry over whether the TV has been on to long a channel with a logo or not being able to have the brightness on a good level.

 

[Richard Paul]

I may have put one to many variables together since I did combine direct vs. projection and 4:3 vs. 16:9. I would like to believe the digital connection debate is moot, but when HD-DVD comes out there is a possibility the studios will not allow a non-secure connection. My greatest concern is burn in, which is purely a direct vs. rear projection debate. Though stretching would mainly be done for a 16:9 set for 4:3 material that would still leave static images such as logos. I find it difficult to recommend a 4:3 HDTV rear projection since true HDTV is 16:9.
The main problem I guess isn't about the aspect ratio but how you can view 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV. There is an element of truth that normal TV shows can't match movie budgets and design but is it not true regardless of budget that it is art. How can one say that to P&S a movie is the destruction of a directors art yet say in the next breath that to distort Star Trek TNG is okay?

 

[BruceSpielbauer]

>>>The main problem I guess isn't about the aspect ratio but how you can view 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Richard,

I think Bruce makes a lot of sense. Some more thoughts.

You don't need a high-def input to benefit from a high-def set. A good HD-RPTV will take a 480i signal and upconvert it to a 480p or 540p signal, eliminating the scan lines. There's no real increase in sharpness (can't create detail that isn't there), but there's a definite improvement in the picture that results from de-interlacing.

There's a psychological advantage to having widescreen movies presented larger than broadcast TV, IMHO. It always kind of niggled at me that Seinfeld was bigger on my 35" direct view set than a widescreen movie.

Personally, I'd get the kids a cheap direct view set to play their games on. YMMV.

Cheers,

Jan


I don't "worry" about burn-in any more than I "worry" about changing the oil in my car or "worry" about looking both ways before I cross a street. It's a concern, one that I've addressed by properly calibrating my set, and that's about it. Network logos bug me so much (pun intended) that I naturally limit my broadcast-TV watching anyway.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I think Bruce makes a lot of sense.

Me too!
And I like your observation as what to worry about, Jan.

 

[Richard Paul]

I wasn't convinced about the direct view TV, but it’s sometimes easier to play devils advocate to see the best and worst of two choices. I probably should have mentioned the fact there's two 27" direct views besides the 32". Bruce you are right in that most television being produced is not necessarily important enough to view it in its proper AR if it increases burn in.

It just seems that this whole issue of burn in might be solved with LCD, OLCD, LCOS or whatever furthest in development. From what I heard a LCD screen never burns in. Though an image that’s been on for a long time can stick on it, if you turn the power off for a day the crystals reset themselves. Currently LCD screens are a bit too expensive with Sharps new 16:9 22" LCD costing $3,500. I've decided that I'll recommend the rear projection and thanks for the suggestions.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Once again I find myself agreeing with Bruce.

His observations on the sanctity of OAR pretty much mirror mine.

I can only take issue with one thing in his post:

Das Boot is 1:85, not 2:35--almost 4 hours of screen-filling burn-in fighting cinematic excellence, but best seen in the original German with English subtitles.