HDTV better for DVD? (complications...)

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Jamie T, Jan 4, 2005.

  1. Jamie T

    Jamie T Auditioning

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I recently bought a Toshiba 32af44 tv (analog flat screen 4:3). It looks good, and fits the space requirements. However, for Christmas, my wife bought me a Denon 1815 DVD changer. (She came here for recommendations on a good one - thanks for helping her!!!) What's the problem you ask? Well, I've got this good DVD player with a good deinterlace chip, but the analog TV will not accept 480p (the output from the 1815). I have just called best buy, and they will exhange the old tv and I pay the difference to get a new one. I would get the Toshiba 32HF73. I have to stay with 4:3 because the wife watches mostly tv. We can't fit anything wider than the width of this tv, so widescreen wouldn't really be an advantage (same size for movies, smaller area for tv).

    My question to you experts is this:
    Is it worth $300-400 to watch DVD on 480p vs. 480i? I have no idea how big the difference is. I am almost ready to go for it so as to take full advantage of the 1815 (best connects are components), but maybe its not good enough to justify spending more $ and time to upgrade the tv.

    Let me know what your experiences are in the shift to HD for DVD viewing.
     
  2. ChuckSolo

    ChuckSolo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, there is a noticeable difference in 480i and 480p on some displays, particularly on the larger displays. I would imagine though that on a TV of those dimensions, the picture probably looks pretty good over component anyway. If it looks good to you now, I doubt you are going to think the picture looks that much more spectacular on a 32" screen. Of course if you are planning to watch HD programming then it is a no-brainer, go for the new TV. BTW-480p is not HD viewing, DVDs or otherwise. If you do plan on watching HDTV be aware that you are going to get black bars top and bottom when you do as HDTV is broadcast in 16x9 aspect ratio. That would be the deal maker or breaker for me. I know from experience that DVDs look pretty good on a non-progressive system since I had an analog Panasonic 32" up until about a year ago when I went with a 40" widescreen HD RPTV. Since you can't go widescreen then you must ask yourself if you are going to be watching HDTV or not. If you are not, now or in the future, then I would stick with the old TV.[​IMG]
     
  3. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610
    I agree with what Chuck says. Staying at the same size TV and with no immediate need for HD, I would not spend the extra 300-400. That size TV is not going to overwhelm you with the difference between 480i and 480p.

    Unless...
    Does the set you have now support anamorphic squeeze? If not, the difference in the resolution of anamorphic vs. downconverted DVD's will be much more than the difference between 480i and 480p and would justify (IMHO) a purchase of the better TV, provided the new one does have anamorphic squeeze.
     
  4. ChuckSolo

    ChuckSolo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the specs on the old Toshiba TV in question, it does indeed support the anamorphic squeeze. I would definately stay with this TV if you are not going to watch HDTV.[​IMG]
     
  5. Jamie T

    Jamie T Auditioning

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since this upgrade would be pretty much to improve the quality of my DVD watching only, and I don't even think we'll get HD cable for a long while, I'm feeling the extra expense won't be worth it. I suppose all these facts and figures are just confusing me a bit. Thanks for your input! (Hell, It'll be good just being able to watch my DVDs - the playstation 2 is MISERABLE, even after tweaking it.)

    But now (as always right?) I have more questions - what is anamorphic squeeze? Is this the "16:9 mode"? According to the manual, I should set both TV and DVD player to 16:9 when I am playing such a movie for better resolution. (Interestingly, the TV manual also says this is misuse of the TV and the resulting burn in from the black bars will not be covered by my warranty. How ridiculous.) Is this what you guys mean? Thanks for helping!
     
  6. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    Yes, they are one and the same. The "squeeze" nickname comes from the circuitry having to "squeeze" all 480 lines of resolution into a 16:9 area for anamorphic titles. Hence the name "anamorphic squeeze". As far as the warning is concerned, as long as the set is calibrated (contrast and brightness turned down to acceptable levels) I would not worry about it. That's for people that run the TV on torch mode and leave static images on it for days.
     
  7. Jamie T

    Jamie T Auditioning

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Ok, I think I get it - instead of using 480 lines for the entire screen height, the tv uses them to paint the height of the widescreen area only, thereby giving a "free" resolution increase (by not wasting lines on the black boxes.) Well, its an easy experiment to see how much better that looks. I assume this works for the "wider than wide" movies (1.85:1), but won't give them any advantage over 16:9.

    I'm not too concerned about burn in because I don't actually get a chance to watch movies as often as I would like, and I figure most of those warnings (honestly 2-3 PAGES of them!) are just CYA bull. I've calibrated, so it should be ok.

    Thanks for the tips! You think you've got everything covered when you learn you're totally not using a great feature! This forum is definitely one of my best net finds.
     
  8. ChuckSolo

    ChuckSolo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welllllll...... you'll find that 1.85:1 is basically 16x9. The wider than wide you are talking about are usually movies in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. On 4:3 set, a 16x9 (1.85:1) picture will still benefit from the anamorphic squeeze. FYI-Even on a wide screen TV you still get black bars top and bottom while viewing movies in 2.35:1 aspect ratio.[​IMG]
     
  9. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As an aside, here's a voice commenting that prog-scan on a 32-inch (and even a 27-inch) set makes a difference and is well worth the extra expense. (Would you, for example, enjoy using an interlaced computer screen? Bear in mind that most computer monitors are smaller than 27 inches.)

    But it's your money.
     
  10. Harold Wazzu

    Harold Wazzu Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just recently bought a 27" Samsung EDTV from Circuit City and I could tell the difference from the 27" analog Samsung tv they had, especially up close.

    I spent an extra $50 to upgrade to 480p and get an extra component input as well. Spent $379+tax in the end and have not looked back.
     
  11. Keith_R

    Keith_R Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    FL
    Real Name:
    Kyle
    I guess I can understand from this thread that upgrading to 32-36 inch HDTV will still allow me to see a noticeable difference in DVD's using progressive scan over viewing on a 20 inchish analog set w/ no progressive scan? am I understanding this right?
     
  12. ChuckSolo

    ChuckSolo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jack, I see your point on this, but the question still stands. Is it worth the extra 300 to 400 bucks on a 32" TV?You have to admit, the picture on a 32" TV from a non-progressive player still looks pretty darn good, at least on my Panny it did. For me anyway, having experience in these things, it wouldn't justify the expense. As far as the computer screen goes, I wouldn't use ANY computer screen to view movies, period. I look at them all day long in my job.[​IMG]
     

Share This Page