NTSC formats and HDTV and DVD player mismatching is such a letdown. (1 Viewer)

[Chris PC]

I can't stand the lack of matching in the industry. Without just complaining, I will explain what I think the industry needs, from my shopping and comparing of DVD players and HDTV's:
1) HDTV's that display NTSC signals at their native scan rates and resolution...or....Some sort of scaling for non-anamorphic widescreen laserdisc/vhs. 16:9 Laserdisc and to a lesser degree, letterbox and VHS. (With the lack of anamorphic, there is the need for scaling there I guess, but the native resolutions should be able to be displayed and scaled to fill the screen? Native display of widescreen LD and VHS would involve stretching or having the 4:3 with not only black bars on top, but also on the sides too. thats a huge waste of screen real-estate.)
2) HDTV's that display DVD player output, both interlaced and progressive in their native scan rates and resolutions. By this I mean they display a DVD at 480 lines interlaced if its an interlaced player or 480p if its progressive. And what will an HDTV do with a 480i signal? Will it line-double it? No. What will it do? Not be able to use it? An HDTV usually takes interlaced signals that, while being interlaced, they can be line-doubled, but 480i line doubled would have to then be downconverted? What a mess.
Why do I ask for these things?
The biggest reason is horrible line-doubling that makes me wonder why anyone would prefer "progressive" over interlaced when the information is brutally stripped on many sets UNLESS you are NOT watching VHS, LD or NTSC CABLE TV. So basically, buy an HDTV and enjoy only progressive DVD and HDTV broadcasts in proper full resolution and detail.
Because when I look at my 32" 4:3 interlaced TV and desire a 16:9 set and I then look at what is out there, I see that:
1) My DVD player is interlaced, and so is my VCR and LD and cable TV.
2) If I bought an HDTV, its going to upconvert or linedouble my NTSC interlaced sources and I have seen Hitachi, Sony and Panasonic line-doubling and it looks like garbage to me. Lots of missing information and ultimately lots of lots detail. I'd take interlaced over that anyday, and in fact, I guess thats what 1080i is, but thats another story.
3) DVD's are even upconverted from 480p to 540p. Whats up with that? Thats ridiculous. Why process an already rich progressive signal?
Does anyone understand what I mean? The only way for me to see awesome bigscreen image is to find an HDTV that does not upconvert DVD. If I want to continue watching interlaced signals, I need seriously good line-doubling.
What TV's do not upconvert DVD and also have the best line doublers for NTSC? I understand Pioneer has great line-doubling, what about the dvd signal, is Pioneer upsonverting to 540?
thanx for any info people

 

[Bob McElfresh]

I feel your pain.
The history of television, and limitations on 1940's technology is why interlace became dominate. They did not have inexpensive technology to broadcast progressive video. So they went with interlace.
And the networks/cable companies have zero financial incentive to broadcast progressive video. It's taking an act of Congress to even get a few to convert some programming.
And lets face it - the standard NTSC television was designed around something like a 12" display tube. Even keeping it interlace, but blowing it up to 40" or more is pushing the limits on the information. Magnify it enough and it looks bad.
I think this is why HDTV sets always mess with the standard signal - it has to up-convert it so it can use the same display electronics designed for HD/Progressive.