Buying HDTV, what features to look for?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hello,

I'm going to be buying my first hi def tv soon. Any features I need or
don't really need. Like up conversion, something called dvi input, line
doublers, just to name a few catch phrases I've heard but don't know yet.
Thanks,

Jason

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hey Jim,

What inputs do I need. I know need atleast componet, but do I need DVI too?

Jason


"Jim" <oljim@islc.net> wrote in news:c5hrlk02fvv@enews2.newsguy.com:

> make sure it has all the inputs you will need
> "Jason" <xzpqsw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94CABDCD6A8E3xzpqsw@204.127.199.17...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm going to be buying my first hi def tv soon. Any features I need
>> or don't really need. Like up conversion, something called dvi input,
>> line doublers, just to name a few catch phrases I've heard but don't
>> know yet. Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"William J Rafferty" <bandkrafferty@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QP-dndDc4odVBuHdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
>
> Don't buy any screen other than 16:9 since all true HDTV is in that mode.

I think 4:3 is okay if you're getting 27" or smaller. I've seen some
recently that have good enough scaling. upconversion and/or de-interlacing
to make regular TV look quite a bit nicer (smoother, no visible scanlines,
and perhaps even slightly sharper), they only cost around $600 or so, are
roughly the same size and weight as a regular 27" set, and they are also HD
capable, so while the 16:9 picture will be a bit small, it should still look
pretty good. This is to say, if you're looking at a $400 27" standard
definition set, it might be worth the extra few hundred $$ to get a high-def
version, without necessarily going for 16:9 or a larger size (or
significantly higher price) yet, especially because at least 90% of all TV
is still broadcast in 4:3. (It kind of depends on what you watch - if you
watch mostly prime-time network shows and perhaps some movies on HBO or
whatever, 16:9 might make more sense now, and it certainly does if you want
a set larger than 30", but if your viewing habits are anything like mine, it
may be years before most of your viewing is available in widescreen and/or
high definition.)

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Based on those figures you'll definately want to stay clear of all CRT
based rear-projection HDTVs (which accounts for about 75% of the sets
on the market today) the reason is because even at 16:9 you're still
going to get black bars at the top and bottom of most of your DVD
movies (assuming your catalog is mostly widescreen DVDs). If you watch
movies 60% of the time you'll have burn-in within six to nine months.
This damage is not covered by warrenty and it pay a repair shop to
correct the problem will set you back almost the same price as the TV.

This isn't something the retailer is likely to warn you of, it is
something you'll see in the owners manual though (download the owners
manual of the model you intend to buy in PDF format before you buy).

-Jeremy




Jason <xzpqsw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94CE98CF6A9F7xzpqsw@63.240.76.16>...
> I think I've settled on a 16"9 set. My tv use is as follows:
> DVD- 60%
> sports- 25% half of which is in hi def right now.
> primetime network- 15%
>
>
>
>
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:jAegc.6339$Fo4.76374@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
> > "William J Rafferty" <bandkrafferty@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:QP-dndDc4odVBuHdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> Don't buy any screen other than 16:9 since all true HDTV is in that
> >> mode.
> >
> > I think 4:3 is okay if you're getting 27" or smaller. I've seen some
> > recently that have good enough scaling. upconversion and/or
> > de-interlacing to make regular TV look quite a bit nicer (smoother, no
> > visible scanlines, and perhaps even slightly sharper), they only cost
> > around $600 or so, are roughly the same size and weight as a regular
> > 27" set, and they are also HD capable, so while the 16:9 picture will
> > be a bit small, it should still look pretty good. This is to say, if
> > you're looking at a $400 27" standard definition set, it might be
> > worth the extra few hundred $$ to get a high-def version, without
> > necessarily going for 16:9 or a larger size (or significantly higher
> > price) yet, especially because at least 90% of all TV is still
> > broadcast in 4:3. (It kind of depends on what you watch - if you watch
> > mostly prime-time network shows and perhaps some movies on HBO or
> > whatever, 16:9 might make more sense now, and it certainly does if you
> > want a set larger than 30", but if your viewing habits are anything
> > like mine, it may be years before most of your viewing is available in
> > widescreen and/or high definition.)
> >
> >
> >