Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Enhanced vs. High Definition TV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:41:39 AM

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

I subscribe to the Dish Network Super Stations. Included in that
package is KTLA from Los Angeles. Their evening news is a hour long
program.

They had a informative segment on HDTV's. It was interesting as the
announcer said, many people are now buying Enhanced Definition Sets
instead of the High Definition models due to the lower price.

He said, the enhanced sets can save a customer up to $1000 or more.
With like a 50" or larger Enhanced and High Def TV placed side by
side. People sitting back 8 to 10 feet from the set could hardly see
any difference.

The way he talked the Enhanced sets were outselling the High Def sets.
I have not read anything on the subject as yet. One thing for sure
with so many sets being sold the prices should come down some by next
Fall.

hdtvfan
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:41:40 AM

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

Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
subject.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178

A snippet from that
story:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
compare.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:17:47 AM

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

"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
> subject.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>
> A snippet from that
> story:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
> were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
> even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
> two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
> compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
> compare.
>
How much did you pay for your HD?
Related resources
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 12:07:18 PM

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

In article <1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
> subject.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178

I couldn't get that link to work. Here is a link to the story at the LA
Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-edtv8jan08,1,5262...

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 7:26:28 PM

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

hdtvfan wrote:
> The way he talked the Enhanced sets were outselling the High Def sets.
> I have not read anything on the subject as yet. One thing for sure
> with so many sets being sold the prices should come down some by next
> Fall.
>
> hdtvfan

The only display type where ED is clearly outselling HD TV is for ED
plasmas. There are some small ED LCD TVs but these are not main TVs for
the living room. The LA Times article is surprisingly balanced - unlike
here - on the subject of ED vs HD. I expect ED plasmas will fade away in
3-4 years as prices for HD plasmas come down. But in the past year, EDs
have been selling for half to 60% as much as the equivalent sized HD
plasma, so no wonder they are selling well. According to a recent
article at www.displaysearch.com, 42" EDs comprise around 54% of the
total world wide share of all plasmas shipped.

You will find many here who knock ED plasmas - that is 852x480p
resolution - versus 1024x768 42" or 1366x768 50" HD plasmas or their
1280x720 RP TV set. That is because they fixate on the resolution issue
over all else and based their opinions on using desktop computer
monitors - viewing spreadsheets or text documents at 2 feet is different
from watching a TV show. ED plasmas on a 37" or 42" widescreen set can
look damn good for SD, DVD, and HD source at viewing distances of 8 feet
or more. If you have a 60" set, then the ED vs HD difference is more
apparent.

However, we are in the middle of a major price drop for HD plasmas. I
saw a Pioneer 4312 43" HD plasma monitor for $2999 USD at Costco
yesterday. The MSRP for the next generation Panasonic 42PX50U and
50PX50U plasmas to be released in April 2005 have already been leaked to
be $1000 and $1500 less than the current consumer models. Still
expensive but a lot cheaper than HD plasma prices at the start of 2004.

Alan F
January 9, 2005 9:20:41 PM

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

Hi,
I've run my HD set on 480P (enhanced def) using T-W Cable's new 8000 HD
receiver, and the picture is unquestionably worse than with the full HD
1080i.
If someone's paying around $3000 for a TV, saving a few hundred dollars is
stupid, if one has to settle for an EDTV. After all, a TV is a once in ten
years purchase.
Roger
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:29:52 PM

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

"Sac D" <SacD@Oaktown.org> wrote in news:34d3pcF49kof4U1@individual.net:

>
> "jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>> subject.
>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>
>> A snippet from that
>> story:----------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------
>>
>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where in
>> November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according
>> to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information
>> company.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>> compare.
>>
> How much did you pay for your HD?
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The LA Times article states that someone bought an edtv foe 3 thousand
dollars because the HD tv was to much money. Give me 3 thousand dollars
and I can get a great HDtV. these people are uneducated in the TV world
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:30:56 PM

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

"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
> subject.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>
> A snippet from that
> story:-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>
> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
> were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
> even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
> two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
> compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
> compare.

The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
from a cheap standard def set to something better. But I had a good look
over Christmas at the good SD set that my brother bought last year. It's
nice--has component input and does handle anamorphic wide-screen DVD's
properly, but I wouldn't buy it for $100, never mind $350. For one
thing, it lacks any kind of internal line doubler, so you can see the
horizontal scan lines all the time.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
January 10, 2005 4:53:13 AM

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

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:29:52 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:

>"Sac D" <SacD@Oaktown.org> wrote in news:34d3pcF49kof4U1@individual.net:
>
>>
>> "jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>>> subject.
>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>
>>> A snippet from that
>>> story:----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------------------
>>>
>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where in
>>> November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according
>>> to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information
>>> company.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>>> compare.
>>>
>> How much did you pay for your HD?
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>The LA Times article states that someone bought an edtv foe 3 thousand
>dollars because the HD tv was to much money. Give me 3 thousand dollars
>and I can get a great HDtV. these people are uneducated in the TV world

Not really. It depends on what type of tv you're talking about. You
can't buy a DLP 65" for anywhere near as little as you would pay for
a crt hdtv 65"
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
January 10, 2005 4:54:18 AM

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

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>> subject.
>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>
>> A snippet from that
>> story:-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>>
>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
>> were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
>> even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
>> two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
>> compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>> compare.
>
>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
>my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
>from a cheap standard def set to something better.
DB? What are you talking about?
Thumper

>But I had a good look
>over Christmas at the good SD set that my brother bought last year. It's
>nice--has component input and does handle anamorphic wide-screen DVD's
>properly, but I wouldn't buy it for $100, never mind $350. For one
>thing, it lacks any kind of internal line doubler, so you can see the
>horizontal scan lines all the time.

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:29:17 AM

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>>> subject.
>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>
>>> A snippet from that
>>> story:-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
>>> were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
>>> even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
>>> two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
>>> compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>>> compare.
>>
>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
>>my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
>>from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>DB? What are you talking about?
>Thumper

I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.

hdtvfan
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:29:19 AM

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:53:13 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:29:52 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sac D" <SacD@Oaktown.org> wrote in news:34d3pcF49kof4U1@individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>>>> subject.
>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>
>>>> A snippet from that
>>>> story:----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------------------
>>>>
>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where in
>>>> November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according
>>>> to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information
>>>> company.
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>>>> compare.
>>>>
>>> How much did you pay for your HD?
>>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The LA Times article states that someone bought an edtv foe 3 thousand
>>dollars because the HD tv was to much money. Give me 3 thousand dollars
>>and I can get a great HDtV. these people are uneducated in the TV world
>
>Not really. It depends on what type of tv you're talking about. You
>can't buy a DLP 65" for anywhere near as little as you would pay for
>a crt hdtv 65"
>Thumper
>To reply drop XYZ in address

I think the TV announcer was talking about the big screen sets. Like
a large 60" screen size. Something like $3000 for the enhanced and
$4000 for the high definition set.

I don't really know the prices for the large screen sizes, i'm only
guessing. I did pay $2100 for the Sony KD-34XBR960. Its a nice
direct view HD set and I got what I paid for.

I'm sure as the HD sets catch on, prices will continue to fall. Like
I have been saying, i'm saving up for a larger screen size when that
lower price time comes. I will stick to the HD sets due to my short
5 to 7 foot viewing distance.

hdtvfan
January 10, 2005 5:03:09 PM

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

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message news:<LXjEd.15292$4h.12277@okepread03>...
> Yes a RPTV 1080i set can be had for even less but it's not a sexy plasma. If
> you are
> not set on a plasma then a RPTV is a good choice, if you have the room. :-).

Hi Mudd

You have just pinpointed the main problem the buying TV public has at
this
moment. That is, they are purchasing TV's on pure emotion that
has nothing to do with what they are viewing on the showroom screens.
As usual, 'All that glitters is not gold'.

This may change in the near future but the sure fire TV buying adage
is 'Thin is in, but fat is where it's at'.

The best HDTV TV's in the world are still the old fashioned Cathode
Ray Tubes.
Even sales people will give the resigned nod and mopey face when you
point this out to them.

(Apparently there has been some musing in the press recently that
thinner
CRT screens might make an emergence later this year).

If you must have a screen
larger than a 34" CRT the next best thing is the 'bulky' 42 inch LCD
rear projection models ( if you can handle the limited viewing angle).
If you do decide to get larger than 42" LCD rear projection, remember
that all LCD rear projection screens share the same limited number of
pixels ( usually 3 million or so ).

The other thin LCD and plasma purchases are just emotional, not
sensible
spending sprees at the moment.

Why on earth would anybody spend over $2000 on a television that does
not have High Definition resolution. Sure a thin EDTV looks 'sexy' ( I
guess )
but it is obsolete even before the ink drys on the cheque. As a
previous
post has said, once you see an NFL game in true 720p or 1080i then
480p
looks pretty sick in comparison.

As I said fat and bulky is still where it's at ( for the time being
anyway ).
January 10, 2005 7:53:41 PM

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:29:17 -0700, corollafan
<corollafan@echolink.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>>>> subject.
>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>
>>>> A snippet from that
>>>> story:-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped worldwide
>>>> were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm Displaysearch. It is
>>>> even more popular in the United States, where in November nearly
>>>> two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according to figures
>>>> compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information company.
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>>>> compare.
>>>
>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
>>>my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
>>>from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>Thumper
>
>I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>
>hdtvfan

I know what DB means but what does it have to do with comparing
Televisions? Upon careful reading I see he was referring to
resolution. A VERY clumsy comparison especially when an increase of
3db is a doubling of volume.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:42:04 PM

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

You can buy not one, but two different 60" DLP sets for about $3300 bucks
around here - the Sammy and Toshiba, the Mits will cost you $4K still.


"corollafan" <corollafan@echolink.com> wrote in message
news:7tn4u01fbkrljo8snb9ek842fgp1npu4ae@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:53:13 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:29:52 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Sac D" <SacD@Oaktown.org> wrote in news:34d3pcF49kof4U1@individual.net:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
> >>>> subject.
> >>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
> >>>>
> >>>> A snippet from that
> >>>>
story:----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
> >>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
> >>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where in
> >>>> November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs, according
> >>>> to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing information
> >>>> company.
>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
> >>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
> >>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
> >>>> compare.
> >>>>
> >>> How much did you pay for your HD?
> >>>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>The LA Times article states that someone bought an edtv foe 3 thousand
> >>dollars because the HD tv was to much money. Give me 3 thousand dollars
> >>and I can get a great HDtV. these people are uneducated in the TV world
> >
> >Not really. It depends on what type of tv you're talking about. You
> >can't buy a DLP 65" for anywhere near as little as you would pay for
> >a crt hdtv 65"
> >Thumper
> >To reply drop XYZ in address
>
> I think the TV announcer was talking about the big screen sets. Like
> a large 60" screen size. Something like $3000 for the enhanced and
> $4000 for the high definition set.
>
> I don't really know the prices for the large screen sizes, i'm only
> guessing. I did pay $2100 for the Sony KD-34XBR960. Its a nice
> direct view HD set and I got what I paid for.
>
> I'm sure as the HD sets catch on, prices will continue to fall. Like
> I have been saying, i'm saving up for a larger screen size when that
> lower price time comes. I will stick to the HD sets due to my short
> 5 to 7 foot viewing distance.
>
> hdtvfan
>
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:43:12 PM

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

Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fj94u0hodg9p1aopoalrabn700tlg25bc1@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about this
>>> subject.
>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>
>>> A snippet from that
>>> story:---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- ------------------
>>>
>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where
>>> in November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs,
>>> according to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing
>>> information company.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
>>> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
>>> compare.
>>
>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV
>>on my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck"
>>going from a cheap standard def set to something better.
> DB? What are you talking about?

If we treat the smallest noticeable difference as 1 decibel, then those
are my estimates of what I'm seeing.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:44:09 PM

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

corollafan <corollafan@echolink.com> wrote in
news:ejn4u094b1tvfsi9m1ko66qq1ajlg1o5ot@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about
>>>> this subject.
>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>
>>>> A snippet from that
>>>> story:--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --- ------------------
>>>>
>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where
>>>> in November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs,
>>>> according to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing
>>>> information company.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --- ----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell
>>>> the difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD
>>>> and compare.
>>>
>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV
>>>on my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck"
>>>going from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>Thumper
>
> I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.

Actually, it's just a ratio. I'm more or less using it here as a kind of
metaphor for just how perceptible the difference is.



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
January 10, 2005 10:44:10 PM

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:44:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

>corollafan <corollafan@echolink.com> wrote in
>news:ejn4u094b1tvfsi9m1ko66qq1ajlg1o5ot@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about
>>>>> this subject.
>>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>>
>>>>> A snippet from that
>>>>> story:--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --- ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where
>>>>> in November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs,
>>>>> according to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing
>>>>> information company.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --- ----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell
>>>>> the difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD
>>>>> and compare.
>>>>
>>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV
>>>>on my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck"
>>>>going from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>>Thumper
>>
>> I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>
>Actually, it's just a ratio. I'm more or less using it here as a kind of
>metaphor for just how perceptible the difference is.

OK
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:52:31 AM

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

johnston@nrcan.gc.ca (Kent) wrote in
news:82ff7499.0501101403.2989a7c6@posting.google.com:

> "Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<LXjEd.15292$4h.12277@okepread03>...
>> Yes a RPTV 1080i set can be had for even less but it's not a sexy
>> plasma. If you are
>> not set on a plasma then a RPTV is a good choice, if you have the
>> room. :-).
>
> Hi Mudd
>
> You have just pinpointed the main problem the buying TV public has at
> this
> moment. That is, they are purchasing TV's on pure emotion that
> has nothing to do with what they are viewing on the showroom screens.
> As usual, 'All that glitters is not gold'.
>
> This may change in the near future but the sure fire TV buying adage
> is 'Thin is in, but fat is where it's at'.
>
> The best HDTV TV's in the world are still the old fashioned Cathode
> Ray Tubes.
> Even sales people will give the resigned nod and mopey face when you
> point this out to them.
>
> (Apparently there has been some musing in the press recently that
> thinner
> CRT screens might make an emergence later this year).
>
> If you must have a screen
> larger than a 34" CRT the next best thing is the 'bulky' 42 inch LCD
> rear projection models ( if you can handle the limited viewing angle).
> If you do decide to get larger than 42" LCD rear projection, remember
> that all LCD rear projection screens share the same limited number of
> pixels ( usually 3 million or so ).
>
> The other thin LCD and plasma purchases are just emotional, not
> sensible
> spending sprees at the moment.
>
> Why on earth would anybody spend over $2000 on a television that does
> not have High Definition resolution. Sure a thin EDTV looks 'sexy' ( I
> guess )
> but it is obsolete even before the ink drys on the cheque. As a
> previous
> post has said, once you see an NFL game in true 720p or 1080i then
> 480p
> looks pretty sick in comparison.
>
> As I said fat and bulky is still where it's at ( for the time being
> anyway ).
>

Thank you exactly what I wanted to say
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 3:42:58 AM

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

Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in
news:57u5u0lt4skc2troedkkdmv46i4shj5vmf@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:29:17 -0700, corollafan
> <corollafan@echolink.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about
>>>>> this subject.
>>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>>
>>>>> A snippet from that
>>>>> story:-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---- ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where
>>>>> in November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs,
>>>>> according to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing
>>>>> information company.
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---- ----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell
>>>>> the difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD
>>>>> and compare.
>>>>
>>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a
>>>>good line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could
>>>>measure resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source
>>>>and HDTV on my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for
>>>>the buck" going from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>>Thumper
>>
>>I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>>
>>hdtvfan
>
> I know what DB means but what does it have to do with comparing
> Televisions? Upon careful reading I see he was referring to
> resolution. A VERY clumsy comparison especially when an increase of
> 3db is a doubling of volume.

Wrong. 3db is not a "doubling of volume." It's a doubling of the power.
But it's just three barely perceptible increases in volume. Volume (as
perceived by the ear and the brain) and power are not in a linear
relationship but in more of a logarithmic one (which is how the decibel
unit arose in the first place). The same thing applies in other areas of
perception, including, I believe, the resolution of pixel-formed images.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
January 11, 2005 3:42:59 AM

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:42:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

>Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:57u5u0lt4skc2troedkkdmv46i4shj5vmf@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:29:17 -0700, corollafan
>> <corollafan@echolink.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:54:18 -0500, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:30:56 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>>><doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"jeff96gt" <Jeff96GT@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a link to a story from the LA Times (January 8th) about
>>>>>> this subject.
>>>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...178#post4949178
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A snippet from that
>>>>>> story:-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ---- ------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the third quarter of 2004, 54% of all plasma sets shipped
>>>>>> worldwide were 42-inch EDTVs, according to research firm
>>>>>> Displaysearch. It is even more popular in the United States, where
>>>>>> in November nearly two-thirds of plasma sets sold were EDTVs,
>>>>>> according to figures compiled by NPD Group, a sales and marketing
>>>>>> information company.
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ---- ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
>>>>>> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell
>>>>>> the difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD
>>>>>> and compare.
>>>>>
>>>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a
>>>>>good line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could
>>>>>measure resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source
>>>>>and HDTV on my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for
>>>>>the buck" going from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>>>Thumper
>>>
>>>I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>>>
>>>hdtvfan
>>
>> I know what DB means but what does it have to do with comparing
>> Televisions? Upon careful reading I see he was referring to
>> resolution. A VERY clumsy comparison especially when an increase of
>> 3db is a doubling of volume.
>
>Wrong. 3db is not a "doubling of volume." It's a doubling of the power.

You're right. I actually meant to say power but had a brain fart.
Thumper
>But it's just three barely perceptible increases in volume. Volume (as
>perceived by the ear and the brain) and power are not in a linear
>relationship but in more of a logarithmic one (which is how the decibel
>unit arose in the first place). The same thing applies in other areas of
>perception, including, I believe, the resolution of pixel-formed images.

To reply drop XYZ in address
January 11, 2005 9:19:48 AM

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

In article <82ff7499.0501101403.2989a7c6@posting.google.com> johnston@nrcan.gc.ca (Kent) writes:

>The other thin LCD and plasma purchases are just emotional, not
>sensible
>spending sprees at the moment.

People spend on nice curtains when an old blanket would block the window.
Sometimes having the room look great matters.


>Why on earth would anybody spend over $2000 on a television that does
>not have High Definition resolution. Sure a thin EDTV looks 'sexy' ( I
>guess )
>but it is obsolete even before the ink drys on the cheque. As a
>previous
>post has said, once you see an NFL game in true 720p or 1080i then
>480p
>looks pretty sick in comparison.

I watched part of a NFL game last year in Costco on a pair of 42/43 inch
plasma screens side by side. One was a HD Pioneer, and the other was a
less known name (perhaps the Vizio) ED panel.

The HD panel had severe problems by comparison. The source was standard
def, and whenever there was a diagonally sloping line across the screen
with a sharp edge, the HD panel would show problems with scaling and
de-interlacing. It would apparently get the order of lines out of order
in the displayed image.

The straight lines were much smoother on the ED set, even though the
basic resolution was coarser. At a distance where the ED set pixels
blended smoothly together, the HD set jaggies were still visible on these
parts of the picture. The on-screen graphics were especially bad.


Similarly, I have more recently seen HD broadcasts of football games on
HD screens. Sad to say, it looks like if the consumers ever get the ability
to freeze frame playback of HD, there will be a lot of disappointment --
motion really seems to be poorly processed, as it looks way over-compressed.

>As I said fat and bulky is still where it's at ( for the time being-
>anyway ).
anyway ).-

And given the non-hd nature of moving HD, the smaller size of the direct-view
CRT sets may well be appropriate.


Alan
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 3:51:25 PM

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

3 dB doubles the power
6 dB doubles the voltage (amplitude)

10 dB is 10 times the power
20 dB is 10 times the voltage
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 5:23:34 PM

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

Alan (nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Similarly, I have more recently seen HD broadcasts of football games on
> HD screens. Sad to say, it looks like if the consumers ever get the ability
> to freeze frame playback of HD,

I do this all the time. I've watched all the NFL playoffs so far using
my HD TiVo, and rewind and freeze is great for seeing if the call really will
be overturned.

> there will be a lot of disappointment --
> motion really seems to be poorly processed, as it looks way over-compressed.

The freeze-frames look exactly the same as the motion...they're just not
moving. I can see compression artifacts on *any* MPEG transmission (live
or paused), but they generally aren't bad...they're more a "this is what
MPEG does" fact of life.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
| doesn't border entirely on the negative."
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
January 11, 2005 9:03:41 PM

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

Somewhere around Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:53:41 -0500, while reading
alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Thumper
<jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>:

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:29:17 -0700, corollafan
><corollafan@echolink.com> wrote:
>>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
>>>>my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
>>>>from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>>Thumper
>>
>>I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>>
>>hdtvfan
>
>I know what DB means but what does it have to do with comparing
>Televisions? Upon careful reading I see he was referring to
>resolution. A VERY clumsy comparison especially when an increase of
>3db is a doubling of volume.

It was clear to me, but then I've done a lot of electronic testing in the
past, do db is an easy analogy for me.

You are limiting your thinking to one single use, by the way. 3 db is a
doubling of power, not just volume. 6 db is a considered a doubling of
voltage, even if no sound is involved at all.

But even though there is no set measure of quality, he was making an analogy
that is easy to follow if you allow your mind to be open to what he was
inferring - he did say "if you could measure resolution in db", implying
that you can't. He's just using it as a ratio.
--
Marty - mjf at leftcoast-usa.com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
January 11, 2005 9:03:42 PM

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:03:41 GMT, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Somewhere around Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:53:41 -0500, while reading
>alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Thumper
><jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:29:17 -0700, corollafan
>><corollafan@echolink.com> wrote:
>>>>>The thing is, the difference between a cheap old color set and a good
>>>>>line-doubled EDTV is phenomenal. At least 8db if you could measure
>>>>>resolution in db. The difference between a good EDTV source and HDTV on
>>>>>my set is about 3db. So you do get a lot of "bang for the buck" going
>>>>>from a cheap standard def set to something better.
>>>>DB? What are you talking about?
>>>>Thumper
>>>
>>>I think DB means decibel, a measurement of sound or audio levels.
>>>
>>>hdtvfan
>>
>>I know what DB means but what does it have to do with comparing
>>Televisions? Upon careful reading I see he was referring to
>>resolution. A VERY clumsy comparison especially when an increase of
>>3db is a doubling of volume.
>
>It was clear to me, but then I've done a lot of electronic testing in the
>past, do db is an easy analogy for me.
>
>You are limiting your thinking to one single use, by the way. 3 db is a
>doubling of power, not just volume. 6 db is a considered a doubling of
>voltage, even if no sound is involved at all.
>
>But even though there is no set measure of quality, he was making an analogy
>that is easy to follow if you allow your mind to be open to what he was
>inferring - he did say "if you could measure resolution in db", implying
>that you can't. He's just using it as a ratio.

I know but I've worked in electronics for 40 years. Someone less
versed would be confused in my opinion especially with db which is not
a linear scale. Percentages or a linear numbering system would have
made more sense to most people. Don't you think it was an awkward way
to explain his position?
thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
January 12, 2005 11:53:05 PM

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

Somewhere around Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:13:48 -0500, while reading
alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Thumper
<jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:03:41 GMT, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
>wrote:
>

>>It was clear to me, but then I've done a lot of electronic testing in the
>>past, do db is an easy analogy for me.
>>

>
>I know but I've worked in electronics for 40 years. Someone less
>versed would be confused in my opinion especially with db which is not
>a linear scale. Percentages or a linear numbering system would have
>made more sense to most people. Don't you think it was an awkward way
>to explain his position?

No, but to people who aren't used to using db, it probably is. It really
did seem to fit to me, but I realize it's has no real meaning to most
people. I happen to be good at math and electronics.


--
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 13, 2005 6:10:26 AM

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

"Kent" <johnston@nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:82ff7499.0501101403.2989a7c6@posting.google.com...
>
> You have just pinpointed the main problem the buying TV public has at
> this
> moment. That is, they are purchasing TV's on pure emotion that
> has nothing to do with what they are viewing on the showroom screens.

This is not true. Their buying decisions are just as rational as yours or
anyone else who buys an HDTV. They just have different priorities than
someone who wants an HD set, as difficult as that may be to believe.

> This may change in the near future but the sure fire TV buying adage
> is 'Thin is in, but fat is where it's at'.

Most people are far more concerned with how much space their TV will take up
than with how good the picture looks (never mind that they also think the ED
picture looks perfectly fine, than you very much). This is why most people
have never bought a projection TV or anything over about 30".

> The other thin LCD and plasma purchases are just emotional, not
> sensible
> spending sprees at the moment.

Not at all. What you are forgetting is that most people simply do not care
about HD, never have and probably never will (but most people DO have very
limited space to work with in their homes, don't have a large room to set
aside as a home theatre, or may not look forward to the idea of moving a
bulky TV if they change residences). This may be a difficult concept to wrap
your mind around, but it helps understand why HD is taking so long to catch
on, and why even now, at least as many people are willing to spend thousands
of dollars on flat non-HD televisions as on bulkier true HD sets.

> Why on earth would anybody spend over $2000 on a television that does
> not have High Definition resolution.

Maybe because they do not care one bit about HD? If the picture on the ED is
fine, and especially if they have a hard time telling the difference from a
typical viewing distance, why on earth would they be rash enough to throw
their money away on something that doesn't benefit them?
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:50:02 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:>
> LCD panels are somewhat unique in that standard-definition sets aren't
> notably cheaper than the high-definition versions. Screen size is the
> more important factor. This is why you don't see ED LCDs.

Not true. Apex (and probably others) makes an "ED" lcd, model avl-2076.
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 7:05:27 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:CElFd.1638$m31.17888@typhoon.sonic.net:

> "Kent" <johnston@nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> news:82ff7499.0501101403.2989a7c6@posting.google.com...
>>
>> You have just pinpointed the main problem the buying TV public has at
>> this
>> moment. That is, they are purchasing TV's on pure emotion that
>> has nothing to do with what they are viewing on the showroom
>> screens.
>
> This is not true. Their buying decisions are just as rational as yours
> or anyone else who buys an HDTV. They just have different priorities
> than someone who wants an HD set, as difficult as that may be to
> believe.
>
>> This may change in the near future but the sure fire TV buying adage
>> is 'Thin is in, but fat is where it's at'.
>
> Most people are far more concerned with how much space their TV will
> take up than with how good the picture looks (never mind that they
> also think the ED picture looks perfectly fine, than you very much).
> This is why most people have never bought a projection TV or anything
> over about 30".
>
>> The other thin LCD and plasma purchases are just emotional, not
>> sensible
>> spending sprees at the moment.
>
> Not at all. What you are forgetting is that most people simply do not
> care about HD, never have and probably never will (but most people DO
> have very limited space to work with in their homes, don't have a
> large room to set aside as a home theatre, or may not look forward to
> the idea of moving a bulky TV if they change residences). This may be
> a difficult concept to wrap your mind around, but it helps understand
> why HD is taking so long to catch on, and why even now, at least as
> many people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on flat non-HD
> televisions as on bulkier true HD sets.
>
>> Why on earth would anybody spend over $2000 on a television that does
>> not have High Definition resolution.
>
> Maybe because they do not care one bit about HD? If the picture on the
> ED is fine, and especially if they have a hard time telling the
> difference from a typical viewing distance, why on earth would they be
> rash enough to throw their money away on something that doesn't
> benefit them?
>
Perhaps they should spend some money on Glasses
January 13, 2005 10:42:12 PM

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

Somewhere around Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:05:27 GMT, while reading
alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Ski
<ski@nospamtoday.com>:

>Perhaps they should spend some money on Glasses

I think Matthew had a point (except I don't really think people generally
make decisions that are completely rational).

In one of my past lives, I was a "semi audiophile"; compared to most, I was
a fanatic with my separate components, 400 watt amp, etc. I worked in
stereo repair, and later at Dolby Labs for 10 years. While at Dolby, I knew
people, including Ray Dolby, that were fanatics to me, people who spent more
for a tonearm than I spent for my whole stereo. There are always degrees of
quality, and we all mostly are constrained by costs, etc.

A perfect system is not the one that sounds best, or looks best. It's the
one that fits our needs the best. What's a perfect car? Is it the fastest
one, the most reliable, the best gas mileage, the sexiest, the cheapest, the
safest, ...? Who can say besides the person buying it?

What's a perfect TV? It might be that hanging on the wall is more important
to someone than how it looks - maybe they have kids, and want it out of
reach. Maybe they want ease of cleaning the floors, or more floor space.
Maybe they thing there's nothing on TV worth HDTV, and as long as their
DVD's look and sound good, that's fine.

Better glasses may matter to you, but saying they need better glasses just
shows a lack of vision on your part. :-) (sorry, couldn't resist it).

--
Marty - mjf at leftcoast-usa.com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
January 19, 2005 4:48:34 AM

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

In article <1105264790.885194.266020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff96GT@hotmail.com says...

> I think these people are nuts. I wouldn't trade my HD for
> anything....and I challenge anyone who says that they can't tell the
> difference between HD and ED to turn on a football game in HD and
> compare.

I know this may be a shock to some, but there's no shortage of people
who don't give two shits about watching football. If they bought the TV
to watch their collection of 1,500 DVDs then the difference between ED
and HD is mostly an intellectual acknowledgement that if they cared
about football the HD would deliver a better picture when watching it...
with no practical improvement to anything they actually watch.
January 19, 2005 10:10:06 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c4df1c2f2751e7e989a7c@news.nabs.net> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
>Alan (nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Similarly, I have more recently seen HD broadcasts of football games on
>> HD screens. Sad to say, it looks like if the consumers ever get the ability
>> to freeze frame playback of HD,
>
>I do this all the time. I've watched all the NFL playoffs so far using
>my HD TiVo, and rewind and freeze is great for seeing if the call really will
>be overturned.
>
>> there will be a lot of disappointment --
>> motion really seems to be poorly processed, as it looks way over-compressed.
>
>The freeze-frames look exactly the same as the motion...they're just not
>moving. I can see compression artifacts on *any* MPEG transmission (live
>or paused), but they generally aren't bad...they're more a "this is what
>MPEG does" fact of life.

We apparently disagree on the "bad" of them. The busy backgrounds get turned
to mush.

In fact, I am amazed that we are worrying about problems with interlace when
this seems so much worse - even on 720p material.

Ideally, I would love to see HD be 1080p, with each frame looking like a
still from a good digital camera - no visible artifacts. However, it often
doesn't look like that when I see it.


Alan
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 2:03:00 PM

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

Alan (nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >The freeze-frames look exactly the same as the motion...they're just not
> >moving. I can see compression artifacts on *any* MPEG transmission (live
> >or paused), but they generally aren't bad...they're more a "this is what
> >MPEG does" fact of life.
>
> We apparently disagree on the "bad" of them. The busy backgrounds get turned
> to mush.

You need to look at a better display, then.

When the background is in focus, the live action and freeze frame look the
same, and both look good.

The problem isn't an HD or MPEG issue, but rather the choice of what depth
of field to use. On "The Tonight Show", they use 1080i with very large
depth of field because they control the lighting completely and are able to
do this. Most football game broadcasts sacrifice the background by
limiting depth of field.

The best shot to look at in football to eliminate this depth of field issue
is a semi-wide one over the field. The players are in focus, but it's
almost impossible to limit the depth of field so that the blades of grass
aren't also in focus. On shots like this on my display when the camera
is HD (not all are at football games), everything is sharp and clear both
live and freeze-framed.

--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
| over in Jersey."
| "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
| that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:16:43 PM

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

Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
the Tonight show
opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when
the motion gets
too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:16:44 PM

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

Frank Provasek wrote:
> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
> the Tonight show
> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when
> the motion gets
> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....

That may well be in your local broadcast. Here in Cleveland, for
example, the NBC affiliate uses their DTV bandwidth to support three
separate channels. The result is that they don't have sufficient
bandwidth to handle fast-motion HD. Every time they present a sequence
in which the image changes to quickly, the result is exactly what you
describe. The problem isn't in the network source, but the local
transmission. We bitched about it widely when they showed the Olympics
last year, but the station refused to make any changes.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:16:44 PM

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

Frank Provasek (frank@frankcoins.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
> the Tonight show
> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when
> the motion gets
> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....

Every once in a while they do de-focus a bit (especially on the fast moves)
and this happens, but it's not really an MPEG or bandwidth issue. The
picture would look bad at any resolution even uncompressed with the 30fps
limit. You'd need at least 120fps before you never really saw this
sort of thing.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:06:16 AM

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

>> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
>> the Tonight show
>> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that
>> when
>> the motion gets
>> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
>
> Every once in a while they do de-focus a bit (especially on the
> fast moves)
> and this happens, but it's not really an MPEG or bandwidth issue.
> The
> picture would look bad at any resolution even uncompressed with
> the 30fps
> limit. You'd need at least 120fps before you never really saw
> this
> sort of thing.
>
>
It's caused ONLY by overcompression or insufficent bandwidth.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:06:17 AM

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

Frank Provasek (frank@frankcoins.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Every once in a while they do de-focus a bit (especially on the
> > fast moves)
> > and this happens, but it's not really an MPEG or bandwidth issue.
> > The
> > picture would look bad at any resolution even uncompressed with
> > the 30fps
> > limit. You'd need at least 120fps before you never really saw
> > this
> > sort of thing.
> >
> >
> It's caused ONLY by overcompression or insufficent bandwidth.

No, it's not. Since you can't freeze it and examine it, you can't see
that the problem is the speed of the pan. You would end up with a
blurry mess even in the viewfinder of the camera that was doing the
panning. This is a limitation of having only 30 frames per second.

That blur doesn't look good when compressed with MPEG-2, but it wouldn't
look good uncompressed, either.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Understaffed.gif
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:10:56 AM

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

Question? WOuld 720P be a better solution with motion like that?

Phil


"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:Z4qdnXtmMekYA3PcRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
> Frank Provasek wrote:
>> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on the
>> Tonight show
>> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when the
>> motion gets
>> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
>
> That may well be in your local broadcast. Here in Cleveland, for example,
> the NBC affiliate uses their DTV bandwidth to support three separate
> channels. The result is that they don't have sufficient bandwidth to
> handle fast-motion HD. Every time they present a sequence in which the
> image changes to quickly, the result is exactly what you describe. The
> problem isn't in the network source, but the local transmission. We
> bitched about it widely when they showed the Olympics last year, but the
> station refused to make any changes.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:16:36 AM

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

Philip B Kirschner wrote:
> Question? WOuld 720P be a better solution with motion like that?
>

Perhaps, but these are separate issues. Insufficient bandwidth can
cause quality problems at any resolution. 720p and 1080i have similar
bandwidth requirements, so I would expect to see similar results in this
situation. However, our 720p stations here use all of their data
capacity for their HD signal, so I've never seen this problem there.
I've only seen it on NBC, which is 1080i. The phenomenon results from
data compression problems, not resolution.

>
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:Z4qdnXtmMekYA3PcRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
>
>>Frank Provasek wrote:
>>
>>>Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on the
>>>Tonight show
>>>opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when the
>>>motion gets
>>>too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
>>
>>That may well be in your local broadcast. Here in Cleveland, for example,
>>the NBC affiliate uses their DTV bandwidth to support three separate
>>channels. The result is that they don't have sufficient bandwidth to
>>handle fast-motion HD. Every time they present a sequence in which the
>>image changes to quickly, the result is exactly what you describe. The
>>problem isn't in the network source, but the local transmission. We
>>bitched about it widely when they showed the Olympics last year, but the
>>station refused to make any changes.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:06:54 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:%BwHd.593$rp1.38@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on the
> Tonight show
> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that when the
> motion gets
> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
===========================================
What are you talkin about?
What type of TV do you see this on.
An LCD will show that for sure.
CRT most likely will not.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:10:38 PM

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

"Philip B Kirschner" <philk02nospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ktFHd.483$HR6.285@fe12.lga...
>
> Question? WOuld 720P be a better solution with motion like that?

From the way the problem is described, I wouldn't think so. It sounds like a
compression problem, rather than anything to do with interlace.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:36:07 PM

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

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:%BwHd.593$rp1.38@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
> the Tonight show
> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that
> when the motion gets
> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....


The picture turns blocky because 30 frames per second can not
resolve the motion.
It has NOTHING to do with the compression. By the way, if you cant
freeze the picture, you really cant see this affect anyway.
January 21, 2005 7:47:56 AM

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

In article <HKTHd.2007$cZ1.719@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> "F M Bentron" <fbenton@mindspring.net> writes:
>"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
>news:%BwHd.593$rp1.38@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Even though I cannot freeze a HDTV picture, surely you can see on
>> the Tonight show
>> opening when the camera moves across the studio audience, that
>> when the motion gets
>> too fast, the picture becomes mushy squares....
>
>
>The picture turns blocky because 30 frames per second can not
>resolve the motion.
>It has NOTHING to do with the compression. By the way, if you cant
>freeze the picture, you really cant see this affect anyway.
>
>


No, it is clearly mpeg compression artifacts -- and I can see it in a
moving image. I just can't capture it for posting on the web as an
example of why digital HDTV really isn't high-definition except on still
or very slowly moving images.

Alan
!