Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DLP and non HD sources

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 11:51:58 AM

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

I'm interested in either 46 or 50 inch DLP. I currently use DirecTV
and standard DVD. I am planning to move to DirecTV HD. Since much of
my viewing will still be non HD, I'm trying to understand what to
expect from a DLP. I've tried to get a couple of big chain stores to
show me a dedicated (non split) non HD signal, but no luck. 10 excuses
in 10 seconds.

I'm interested in Samsung HLP4663/HLP5063 or Toshiba 46HM84/52HM84.

Anyone have any experience with these or other similar models with non
HD sources?

Thanks.

Rob

More about : dlp sources

Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:29:36 PM

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

I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
larger screen HDTV displays. I realize that this is highly subjective.
I do worry that I'll be unhappy with the results after spending a
large amount of money. Of course, I'm replacing a 13 year old Sony XBR
which has degraded quite a bit over the last 2 years. The brightness
alone on a new DLP might be enough to make me happy.

Also, in terms of screen size...

My room geometry is skewed. The viewing distances range from 6 to 12
feet, all well within a reasonable viewing angle for DLP. Is a 50 or
52 inch display too big? Would 46 be better? Are these close enough
to make this a matter of personal preference?
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 3:10:10 PM

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

<robenglander@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105203118.841496.53700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm interested in either 46 or 50 inch DLP. I currently use DirecTV
> and standard DVD. I am planning to move to DirecTV HD. Since much of
> my viewing will still be non HD, I'm trying to understand what to
> expect from a DLP. I've tried to get a couple of big chain stores to
> show me a dedicated (non split) non HD signal, but no luck. 10 excuses
> in 10 seconds.
>
> I'm interested in Samsung HLP4663/HLP5063 or Toshiba 46HM84/52HM84.
>
> Anyone have any experience with these or other similar models with non
> HD sources?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob

Reproduction of non-HD sources vs HD sources is more a matter of signal
processing before the display device. It will vary with brands and models.
IMO, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi look better than others on non-HD
signals most of the time, but it varies with the type of noise or artifacts
in the source. Of the two brands mentioned, I would almost always choose
the Toshiba over Samsung for both performance and reliability, regardless of
the technology.

I would also consider the local availability of service, however. You need
to find out which product the best local servicers are factory authorized to
service and which ones they are most familiar with.

Samsung is using Decision One in many areas for service support, which is
fine for board swapping under warranty. Out of warranty service will be
untenable at the rates they charge and without the capability to
troubleshoot effectively. Toshiba MAY have a better service network in many
areas, but one should check it out BEFORE buying.

Leonard
Related resources
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 3:23:01 PM

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

In article <1105203118.841496.53700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
robenglander@hotmail.com wrote:

> I'm interested in Samsung HLP4663/HLP5063 or Toshiba 46HM84/52HM84.

Look at Samsung's 74 series instead of the 63 series.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 3:25:52 PM

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

In article <1105205376.883804.200560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
robenglander@hotmail.com wrote:

> I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> larger screen HDTV displays.

I have been watching standard definition on a 52" 4:3 CRT
rear-projection Panasonic TV for the past three years. It is not
unwatchable at all.

The only reason we're replacing it is that we now want a 16:9 set.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:06:20 PM

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

I have the Mits. WD-62725 DLP and I watch a considerable amount of SD
programming from Dish Network. Is it comparable to HD, absolutely not, is it
watchable, absolutely! With the 50" set the quality will be even better on
SD programming but my advice to you is to find a place where you can watch
the models side by side (or at least in the same room) with the ability to
switch between all the major content sources - HDOTA, HDSAT/Cable, SDOTA,
and SDSAT/Cable. Then YOU can decide if it's acceptable with SD programming
before you spend the money, at the end of the day it only matters if you
like the picture, not what anyone else says. IMO the Mits. models offered a
considerably better picture than the Hitatchi and to a lesser degree the
Sammy.

I also don't think a 52" display is too big for the viewing distances you've
mentioned - keep in mind that a lot of what you'll be watching (at least for
several years) will be 4:3 format and letterboxed anamorphic DVDs, so the
entire display area isn't even filled in those instances unless you stretch
/ zoom it, something that I find generally unwatchable.

Best of luck on your choice!

Bob K.

<robenglander@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105205376.883804.200560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> larger screen HDTV displays. I realize that this is highly subjective.
> I do worry that I'll be unhappy with the results after spending a
> large amount of money. Of course, I'm replacing a 13 year old Sony XBR
> which has degraded quite a bit over the last 2 years. The brightness
> alone on a new DLP might be enough to make me happy.
>
> Also, in terms of screen size...
>
> My room geometry is skewed. The viewing distances range from 6 to 12
> feet, all well within a reasonable viewing angle for DLP. Is a 50 or
> 52 inch display too big? Would 46 be better? Are these close enough
> to make this a matter of personal preference?
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:10:10 PM

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

robenglander@hotmail.com wrote:

> I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> larger screen HDTV displays.
> My room geometry is skewed. The viewing distances range from 6 to 12
> feet, all well within a reasonable viewing angle for DLP. Is a 50 or
> 52 inch display too big?

I have a 42" Sony RPLCD viewed from 9' and am satisfied with my Comcast
standard TV channels after I increase sharpness. Cable channel image
quality does vary from channel to channel, but the better ones are crisp
enough and certainly very watchable. The standard channels look much
cleaner (no raster lines) than on a CRT, though of course not as sharp as a
true HDTV signal.

A larger screen might NOT look as good. Remember that increased size makes
any perceived defect loom larger, unless you sit farther away. You may
want to opt for quality rather than quantity :^)

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:40:49 PM

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

In article <michelle-1297F9.12255208012005@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> > larger screen HDTV displays.
>
> I have been watching standard definition on a 52" 4:3 CRT
> rear-projection Panasonic TV for the past three years.

A HDTV-ready set, I should have said.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:44:38 PM

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

would that be worthwhile considering I use DirecTV? So even my analog
material has been converted to digital at the source...or am I confused?
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 9:16:40 PM

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

You might want to do what I did, I feed my analog content directly to my set
rather than going thru the a/v receiver, for example, thru component/DVI.
Thus, I split my cable feed with a 5-1000GHz, -3.5dB splitter with one feed
going directly to antenna in and the other to the cable box. My old VCR,
DBS, and Tivo also connect through s-video. As a plus, I still have a
PoP(PiP) option.
YMMV
--
"Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
- Anon

<robenglander@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105205376.883804.200560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> larger screen HDTV displays. I realize that this is highly subjective.
> I do worry that I'll be unhappy with the results after spending a
> large amount of money. Of course, I'm replacing a 13 year old Sony XBR
> which has degraded quite a bit over the last 2 years. The brightness
> alone on a new DLP might be enough to make me happy.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:30:47 AM

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

Watching standard tv on any hdtv is awful.
I tend to think plasma looks worse than projector types with lo def signals.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:30:48 AM

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

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:XW_Dd.9563$5R.4946@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Watching standard tv on any hdtv is awful.
> I tend to think plasma looks worse than projector types with lo def
signals.

Simply not a true generalization. Good quality NTSC can look very good on a
good HD display. It depends on the source and the display that you are
using. They vary considerably and the ability to deal with various defects
in the source material varies as well.

Leonard
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:30:49 AM

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

To emphasize this point, I think standard def. DVD's look very close to
high def. when played back thru the DVD players component output. The
composite output looks very good also.

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:2L0Ed.23767$jn.10065@lakeread06...
>
> "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:XW_Dd.9563$5R.4946@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Watching standard tv on any hdtv is awful.
>> I tend to think plasma looks worse than projector types with lo def
> signals.
>
> Simply not a true generalization. Good quality NTSC can look very good on
> a
> good HD display. It depends on the source and the display that you are
> using. They vary considerably and the ability to deal with various
> defects
> in the source material varies as well.
>
> Leonard
>
>
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:48:33 PM

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

Definitely find out how non hd looks before buying!! I have a Panasonic
rptv, and it is terrible! My father in law has a sony, and it's
unbelievable the difference in his digital cable and my digital satellite
picture. I actually watch my 15 year old 27" sony if I'm not watching hd or
dvd cause the blurry, bleedy digitized picture gives me hives. Good luck!


<robenglander@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105205376.883804.200560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have read so many claiming that standard tv is "unwatchable" on
> larger screen HDTV displays. I realize that this is highly subjective.
> I do worry that I'll be unhappy with the results after spending a
> large amount of money. Of course, I'm replacing a 13 year old Sony XBR
> which has degraded quite a bit over the last 2 years. The brightness
> alone on a new DLP might be enough to make me happy.
>
> Also, in terms of screen size...
>
> My room geometry is skewed. The viewing distances range from 6 to 12
> feet, all well within a reasonable viewing angle for DLP. Is a 50 or
> 52 inch display too big? Would 46 be better? Are these close enough
> to make this a matter of personal preference?
>
January 11, 2005 12:31:22 AM

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

robenglander@hotmail.com wrote:

> I'm interested in either 46 or 50 inch DLP. I currently use DirecTV
> and standard DVD. I am planning to move to DirecTV HD. Since much of
> my viewing will still be non HD, I'm trying to understand what to
> expect from a DLP. I've tried to get a couple of big chain stores to
> show me a dedicated (non split) non HD signal, but no luck. 10 excuses
> in 10 seconds.
>
> I'm interested in Samsung HLP4663/HLP5063 or Toshiba 46HM84/52HM84.
>
> Anyone have any experience with these or other similar models with non
> HD sources?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob
>

I just had a Toshiba 62HM94 delivered. The out-of-the-box picture is
surprisingly good on analog channels, very good on DVD and superb on
HDTV channels, and this is without much calibration yet. We are using it
with a Motorola 6208 DVR. A couple of the non HD channels show some
graininess, but some posters in the AVs forums seem to think that is the
fault of the Motorola DVR. However I found that turning down the
brightness, contrast, and sharpness greatly improves the
picture...enough so that it is barely noticeable from a normal viewing
position. Other people have also had success with splitting the coax
and running one to the input on the TV for SD channels.

Sharon
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 5:48:14 PM

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

what's your average viewing distance?
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 6:56:07 PM

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

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:51:58 -0800, robenglander wrote:

> I'm interested in either 46 or 50 inch DLP. I currently use DirecTV
> and standard DVD. I am planning to move to DirecTV HD. Since much of
> my viewing will still be non HD, I'm trying to understand what to
> expect from a DLP. I've tried to get a couple of big chain stores to
> show me a dedicated (non split) non HD signal, but no luck. 10 excuses
> in 10 seconds.
>
> I'm interested in Samsung HLP4663/HLP5063 or Toshiba 46HM84/52HM84.
>
> Anyone have any experience with these or other similar models with non
> HD sources?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob

Since you have DirectTV the non-HD channels will all be digital so they
won't look bad. I have a 50" Sony LCD rear projection TV and Comcast
cable. The HD broadcasts are stunning, the digital non-HD broadcasts are
pretty good, the analog channels can be awful although they are looking
better with the new dual tuner motorola DVR that I just got.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:10:26 AM

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

"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.11.20.56.05.747461@yahoo.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:51:58 -0800, robenglander wrote:
>
> Since you have DirectTV the non-HD channels will all be digital so they
> won't look bad. I have a 50" Sony LCD rear projection TV and Comcast
> cable. The HD broadcasts are stunning, the digital non-HD broadcasts are
> pretty good, the analog channels can be awful although they are looking
> better with the new dual tuner motorola DVR that I just got.

This is odd: since I got satellite, I have been very disappointed with the
overcompression of the (obviously digital) channels. They were MUCH better
on my previous analog cable. I understand that analog can vary in quality,
but so can digital, and it appears that increasingly all the major providers
are packing too many channels in, and the quality is suffering. (The most
obvious problems are poor dark levels and color banding, and this is on a
nice standard-def 27" Sony Trinitron CRT.)
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:10:27 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is odd: since I got satellite, I have been very disappointed with
> the overcompression of the (obviously digital) channels. They were MUCH
> better on my previous analog cable.

My experience also. In 2003 I was tempted to switch my 32" Sony CRT from
Comcast analog cable to a DirecTV dish. As soon as the dish was set up, I
compared its quality in direct A/B fashion with Comcast analog cable (which
I still had connected). Though I had a good dish signal, ALL channels were
nowhere near as sharp as my analog cable. DirecTV smeared all the sharp
detail I enjoyed on cable. I had the dish installer back next day, and he
confirmed even at his home his dish picture couldn't match my cable... he
implied that the miserable picrture I saw was as good as DirecTV could get.

I immediately cancelled DirecTV after 2 days, and later received dunning
letters demanding $137 as an "early cancellation fee." Next I received a
phone call from DirecTV alleging I had made an "oral commitment" to that
effect when I originally subscribed to DirecTV over the phone.

I replied: Hell no, sue me... and that's the last I heard. DirecTV never
even responded to my plea that they come take back their dish and receiver.

Moral: "Digital TV" does not necessarily mean "better TV" :^)

My Comcast analog basic cable continues to do a fine job with my new Sony
RPLCD HDTV, including all the network HD local channels. I'm afraid what
their "digital cable" might look like.

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
January 13, 2005 10:30:29 PM

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

Somewhere around 13 Jan 2005 00:36:32 -0500, while reading alt.tv.tech.hdtv,
I think I thought I saw this post from Charles Gillen
<see-my-sig@below.com>:

>"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is odd: since I got satellite, I have been very disappointed with
>> the overcompression of the (obviously digital) channels. They were MUCH
>> better on my previous analog cable.
>
>My experience also. . .
>
>My Comcast analog basic cable continues to do a fine job with my new Sony
>RPLCD HDTV, including all the network HD local channels. I'm afraid what
>their "digital cable" might look like.

Interesting, I always thought/heard the digital was better.

The analog cable you get now for HD channels isn't HD, though, is it? Is it
the standard 4:3 picture?

I'm amazed at how good the analog cable looks on my new Samsung DLP set; if
it were 16:9, I'd really be happy. :-)

--
Marty - mjf at leftcoast-usa.com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:05:08 AM

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

Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

> The analog cable you get now for HD channels isn't HD, though, is it?
> Is it the standard 4:3 picture?

Though the cable is analog, it also carries unencrypted digital HD signals
which my Sony easily decodes. HD programs in 16:9 format appear in true
widescreen.

The cable merely transmits all signals, both analog and digital. So-called
"digital cable" is still the same old cable, and any digital-format signals
(both SD and HD) must be converted or decrypted for your TV (no matter
whether SD or HD) via a "set-top-box".

Many people in this newsgroup have reported analog cable experiences
identical to mine... this is not rocket science :^)

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
!