Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why not EDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 4:50:57 PM

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

Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the 32-42"
range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of stepping all the
way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)

What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?

What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...

!

More about : edtv

Anonymous
January 18, 2005 4:50:58 PM

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

bb2004 wrote:
> Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the 32-42"
> range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of stepping all the
> way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
>
> What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>
> What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>
> !
>
>

It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
ultimate picture quality, then go for it.

Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
"normal" tv.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 4:50:59 PM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> bb2004 wrote:
>
>> Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the
>> 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of
>> stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
>>
>> What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>>
>> What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>
> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>
> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
> "normal" tv.

No, it may not be true HDTV, but a good ED plasma (read Panasonic) is
a heck of a lot better than SD TV. And at 8' and 10' for a 37" or 42"
set, the difference between ED and HD for true HD material is not that
big. Work out the apparent size of the TV in angular arc minutes height
and width for the viewer, use the rule of thumb that the angular
resolution of the human eye is nominally 1 arc minute and see what you
get for pixels. I got a commercial 42" HD plasma because I could afford
it, but for someone on a tighter budget, the ED plasma can be an
excellent buy. Looks better for SD channels and DVDs too.

ED vs HD has been discussed to death on the plasma/LCD forum at
www.avsforum.com for anyone who wants to read up on it.

Alan F
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 18, 2005 5:52:15 PM

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

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:00 -0500, Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

>Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>> bb2004 wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the
>>> 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of
>>> stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
>>>
>>> What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>>>
>>> What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>>
>> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
>> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
>> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>>
>> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
>> "normal" tv.
>
> No, it may not be true HDTV, but a good ED plasma (read Panasonic) is
>a heck of a lot better than SD TV. And at 8' and 10' for a 37" or 42"
>set, the difference between ED and HD for true HD material is not that
>big.

You have to be kidding! Have you ever seen HD?
Thumper




>Work out the apparent size of the TV in angular arc minutes height
>and width for the viewer, use the rule of thumb that the angular
>resolution of the human eye is nominally 1 arc minute and see what you
>get for pixels. I got a commercial 42" HD plasma because I could afford
>it, but for someone on a tighter budget, the ED plasma can be an
>excellent buy. Looks better for SD channels and DVDs too.
>
> ED vs HD has been discussed to death on the plasma/LCD forum at
>www.avsforum.com for anyone who wants to read up on it.
>
> Alan F
>
>
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 5:55:21 PM

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

"bb2004" <beebeFOUR@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:5v8Hd.600$rU5.425@news02.roc.ny...
> Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in
> the 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead
> of stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for
> a minute)
>
> What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>
> What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>
> !

When you are bored, you can count pixels from 2 feet away.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 6:05:12 PM

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

I would first ask you how far you're sitting from the display. Most people have
trouble discerning the difference between a 42" ED and 42" HD set from
distances beyond 8'. You should try that experiment yourself. Go to a retailer
that has both the Panasonic ED & HD 42" plasmas and stand at your expected
viewing distance. If you can't see much, if any, difference, than go with the
ED model. Many many people have and are exceedingly happy with them. The ED
model is the best seller by far. I've got both a 50" HD and 42" ED model and
I'll tell you that I've never had 1 person that's seen the 42" ED model believe
me when I've told them it's not true HD. It looks that good. I'm about 9 1/2'
from the ED set.
January 19, 2005 12:22:04 AM

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

I'd say you're thinking about buying a non-existant product. Ain't so such
thing as EDtv....just SDTV and HDTV. Anyway you slice it you're buying a
standard def tv that can do 480p.
"bb2004" <beebeFOUR@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:5v8Hd.600$rU5.425@news02.roc.ny...
> Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the
> 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of stepping
> all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
>
> What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>
> What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>
> !
>
January 19, 2005 4:43:54 AM

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

In article <v8nvb2-v75.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>, msherman@dsbox.com
says...
> bb2004 wrote:
> > Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the 32-42"
> > range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of stepping all the
> > way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
> >
> > What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
> >
> > What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
> >
> > !
> >
> >
>
> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>
> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
> "normal" tv.
>

Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.

As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV programming
out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via satellite right now,
or 5 channels on cable right now... which often aren't even broadcasting
HD, and more often than not are broadcasting something I wouldn't watch
anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd never tune into, ever)... so
much for the glut of HDTV programming.

That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a TV
for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will probably
do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and HD-DVDs are
readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be better
featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the EDTV you
buy today.

I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
where fanatics hang out.

If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of sense.

If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or you
happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being broadcast in
true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 4:43:55 AM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c575b3f8de916969899b2@shawnews...
> In article <v8nvb2-v75.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>, msherman@dsbox.com
> says...
>> bb2004 wrote:
>> > Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in the
>> > 32-42"
>> > range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of stepping all
>> > the
>> > way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a minute)
>> >
>> > What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>> >
>> > What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>> >
>> > !
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
>> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
>> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>>
>> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
>> "normal" tv.
>>
>
> Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.
>
> As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV programming
> out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via satellite right now,
> or 5 channels on cable right now... which often aren't even broadcasting
> HD, and more often than not are broadcasting something I wouldn't watch
> anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd never tune into, ever)... so
> much for the glut of HDTV programming.
>
> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a TV
> for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will probably
> do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and HD-DVDs are
> readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be better
> featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the EDTV you
> buy today.
>
> I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
> saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
> where fanatics hang out.
>
> If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
> budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of sense.
>
> If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or you
> happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being broadcast in
> true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.

Nice analysis. It's good to see that there are still a few objective folks
out there. Thanks
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:17:58 AM

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

This is a troll
>> > Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in
>> > the 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of
>> > stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a
>> > minute)
>> >
>> > What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>> >
>> > What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>> >
>> > !
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
>> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
>> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>>
>> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
>> "normal" tv.
>>
>
> Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.
>
> As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV
> programming out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via
> satellite right now, or 5 channels on cable right now... which often
> aren't even broadcasting HD, and more often than not are broadcasting
> something I wouldn't watch anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd
> never tune into, ever)... so much for the glut of HDTV programming.
>
> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a
> TV for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will
> probably do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and
> HD-DVDs are readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be
> better featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the
> EDTV you buy today.
>
> I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
> saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
> where fanatics hang out.
>
> If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
> budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of
> sense.
>
> If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or
> you happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being
> broadcast in true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.
>
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:17:59 AM

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

Yeah, but he did bring out all the haters, didn't he?

"Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E2BA22C1E56Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
> This is a troll
>>> > Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in
>>> > the 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead of
>>> > stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a
>>> > minute)
>>> >
>>> > What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>>> >
>>> > What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>>> >
>>> > !
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for a
>>> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
>>> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>>>
>>> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back to
>>> "normal" tv.
>>>
>>
>> Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.
>>
>> As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV
>> programming out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via
>> satellite right now, or 5 channels on cable right now... which often
>> aren't even broadcasting HD, and more often than not are broadcasting
>> something I wouldn't watch anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd
>> never tune into, ever)... so much for the glut of HDTV programming.
>>
>> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a
>> TV for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will
>> probably do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and
>> HD-DVDs are readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be
>> better featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the
>> EDTV you buy today.
>>
>> I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
>> saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
>> where fanatics hang out.
>>
>> If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
>> budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of
>> sense.
>>
>> If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or
>> you happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being
>> broadcast in true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.
>>
>
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 2:07:20 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine.

True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
resolution will result in a better picture.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoWorkInternet.gif
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 3:33:03 PM

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

Yeah, I probably should have thought of that, too. Thanks!

>
> ED vs HD has been discussed to death on the plasma/LCD forum at
> www.avsforum.com for anyone who wants to read up on it.
>
> Alan F
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 3:35:36 PM

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

great reply, thanks.

3 +/- years sounds like a good target to be able justifying another TV
purchase, so maybe "ED" will be the way to go as a "stop gap"



> Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.
>
> As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV programming
> out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via satellite right now,
> or 5 channels on cable right now... which often aren't even broadcasting
> HD, and more often than not are broadcasting something I wouldn't watch
> anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd never tune into, ever)... so
> much for the glut of HDTV programming.
>
> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a TV
> for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will probably
> do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and HD-DVDs are
> readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be better
> featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the EDTV you
> buy today.
>
> I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
> saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
> where fanatics hang out.
>
> If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
> budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of sense.
>
> If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or you
> happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being broadcast in
> true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 4:59:00 PM

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

that was his intention

> Yeah, but he did bring out all the haters, didn't he?
>
> "Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95E2BA22C1E56Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
>> This is a troll
>>>> > Let's say a person was considering buying a new EDTV set (say in
>>>> > the 32-42" range; widescreen (16:9) if he can find one), instead
of
>>>> > stepping all the way up to HDTV. (Let's pretend it's not me for a
>>>> > minute)
>>>> >
>>>> > What would you say to talk me, er...him out of it?
>>>> >
>>>> > What about good points for a typical EDTV set? If any...
>>>> >
>>>> > !
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It's not HDTV. So, if you can justify spending that much money for
a
>>>> brand new set that actually isn't HDTV, and you don't care about
>>>> ultimate picture quality, then go for it.
>>>>
>>>> Once you experience true HDTV (720p or 1080i) it's hard to go back
to
>>>> "normal" tv.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good thing EDTV isn't normal TV then.
>>>
>>> As far as true HDTV vs EDTV... given that huge glut of HDTV
>>> programming out there... lets see... I can get 6 channels via
>>> satellite right now, or 5 channels on cable right now... which often
>>> aren't even broadcasting HD, and more often than not are broadcasting
>>> something I wouldn't watch anyways (at least 2 of them on each I'd
>>> never tune into, ever)... so much for the glut of HDTV programming.
>>>
>>> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine. If you are buying a
>>> TV for the short to mid term, (next 3-5 years) then an EDTV will
>>> probably do you just fine for the money. When HDTV programming and
>>> HD-DVDs are readily available then buy an HDTV which will probably be
>>> better featured than todays HDTV, and will likely be cheaper than the
>>> EDTV you buy today.
>>>
>>> I'd bet most people here can count all the true HDTV programming they
>>> saw in the last week on one hand... and that's here on an hdtv forum
>>> where fanatics hang out.
>>>
>>> If you are mostly buying it to watch movies and regular TV, are on a
>>> budget, and plan to replace it in 3-5 years, EDTV makes a lot of
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> If your a sports fanatic, and can get all your games in true HD, or
>>> you happen to know that many of your favorite shows are being
>>> broadcast in true HD then an EDTV might be a let down.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 6:07:27 PM

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

actually, no.

Heaven forbid someone ask for an opinion.

Thanks for your input though. Truly insightful.


"Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E33CD9550A4Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
> that was his intention
>
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:59:25 PM

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

Thumper wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:00 -0500, Alan Figgatt
> <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
>> No, it may not be true HDTV, but a good ED plasma (read Panasonic) is
>>a heck of a lot better than SD TV. And at 8' and 10' for a 37" or 42"
>>set, the difference between ED and HD for true HD material is not that
>>big.
>
> You have to be kidding! Have you ever seen HD?
> Thumper

Yes, I see HD every night when I turn on the Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY
plasma monitor and flip my Comcast set top box to one of the HD channels
(out of 13 HD channels). Well, when the channel has true HD on it. I
spent a lot of time comparing ED vs HD plasmas at numerous stores over
the course of a year. Many claim they can't see the difference beyond 8
feet, I could when the source was true HD in that the HD set had a
slightly sharper picture with a better 3D effect, for the lack of a
better term. But the difference between an 42" ED (852x480p) and HD
(1024x768) and heck even against the 50" HD (1366x768) at the proper
distance was never that obvious or overwhelming.

For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 9:48:33 PM

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

In article <6N2dnd2wILMYe3PcRVn-qA@comcast.com> Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> writes:


> For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
>or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.

This is bound to become a hotly debated topic. However, having recently
seen firsthand an assortment of both HD and ED displays side by side in a
high-end showroom, I would have to agree. On any 42" plasma viewed at a
distance of 8 feet or more, watching HDNet via satellite (DirecTV) I
personally could not tell the difference until the salesman pointed out
the differences. Even then I felt he was seeing things I couldn't.

Based on this I certainly cannot blame anyone for taking the less
expensive route.
January 19, 2005 11:12:32 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c584fc445cdd74a989ab0@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine.
>
> True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
> anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
> resolution will result in a better picture.

I think that's fairly subjective.

Its hard to objectively say that taking a photo, doubling its
resolution, and then blurring it necessarily makes it a better photo.

Its the same as FSAA on the PC. Some people swear by it, some people
hate it. Its a subjective improvement. 'Jaggies' are softened, fine
detail is lost. Its a tradeoff.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:12:33 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
> > anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
> > resolution will result in a better picture.
>
> I think that's fairly subjective.

Not for the majority of viewers who have actually *seen* it.

> Its hard to objectively say that taking a photo, doubling its
> resolution, and then blurring it necessarily makes it a better photo.

No one said anything about "blurring".

> Its the same as FSAA on the PC.

Actually, it's very different, because anti-aliasing comparisons are
usually done at the same resolution and are working with vector-based
sources that are rasterized (which is what make the AA useful). Since
DVDs are already rasterized (i.e., fixed at a particular resolution),
just applying AA to one *will* result in lower resolution and "blurring",
but that's not what I'm talking about.

> Some people swear by it, some people
> hate it. Its a subjective improvement. 'Jaggies' are softened, fine
> detail is lost.

When you scale up, you gain pixels that weren't in the original image that
can be manipulated to approximate what the original image would have
looked like if it had started at a higher resolution. There aren't many
good scalers out there, but the ones that do it well lose no detail and
improve the overall picture quality.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/BigDogs.g...
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:24:40 PM

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

Mr Fixit wrote:
> In article <6N2dnd2wILMYe3PcRVn-qA@comcast.com> Alan Figgatt
> <afiggatt@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
>>or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.
>
> This is bound to become a hotly debated topic. However, having recently
> seen firsthand an assortment of both HD and ED displays side by side in a
> high-end showroom, I would have to agree. On any 42" plasma viewed at a
> distance of 8 feet or more, watching HDNet via satellite (DirecTV) I
> personally could not tell the difference until the salesman pointed out
> the differences. Even then I felt he was seeing things I couldn't.
>
> Based on this I certainly cannot blame anyone for taking the less
> expensive route.

I find that rather amazing, but then I'm often amazed at how some people
can't see or hear obvious differences in audio/video quality. I don't
doubt your word, but I do think that most people will easily see the
difference. One of the people I work with, for example, can't even
notice when one side of a pair of headphones is dead. I find that
amazing, but he simply doesn't notice that sort of thing. By the same
token, some people won't notice the difference between ED and HD.

More important, though, is the fact that HD simply isn't that much more
expensive. Among the sets that I've seen, HD is typically only about
50% more than a comparable (in size and technology) ED set. I can't
imagine anyone not being willing to pay that premium. If an ED set came
in at half the price, or less, than an HD set, I might accept it that
some people wouldn't want to spend double the money. But the price
premium is half that at most, and I just can't imagine recommending that
anyone spend that much money on an ED set when they could have an HD set
for only 50% more.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:54:22 AM

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

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:NsjHd.16565$SK6.4862@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> I'd say you're thinking about buying a non-existant product. Ain't so
> such thing as EDtv....just SDTV and HDTV. Anyway you slice it you're
> buying a standard def tv that can do 480p.

Pedantics, and essentially incorrect. There is a huge difference between a
4:3 480i television and a 16:9 480p set. And while there is no 480p signal
with better-than-720 horizontal resolution, 480p/ED sets generally have
something around 850 horizontal resolution and are often used to show HD
signals, so they are roughly capable of showing at least the color portion
of HD signals at or near their full resolution. They have the widescreen
aspect ratio, so can use their full resolution for showing widescreen
sources, including 16:9 formatted DVDs. They are also capable of showing
480p signals, DVDs with film/cinema-mode de-interlacing, and 720p signals as
true progressive-scan.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:54:22 AM

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

"Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E2BA22C1E56Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
> This is a troll

Wow, this the first time I have seen a post the entire contents of which
amounted to accurately depicting itself as a troll. Well done! (It's almost
like "This is a test. Ignore.")

The post you responded to, by the way, was very accurate and sensible, and
contained good information. :) 
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:28:09 AM

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

Mr Fixit (MrFixit@msn.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
> >or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.
>
> This is bound to become a hotly debated topic. However, having recently
> seen firsthand an assortment of both HD and ED displays side by side in a
> high-end showroom, I would have to agree. On any 42" plasma viewed at a
> distance of 8 feet or more, watching HDNet via satellite (DirecTV) I
> personally could not tell the difference until the salesman pointed out
> the differences.

For a 1280x1080 source (which is what DirecTV sends out HDNet as), the
difference between 852x480, 1024x768, and 1366x768 displays really isn't
that much.

But, get a 1920x1080 source like "The Tonight Show" over an affiliate
that doesn't skimp on the bitrate, and even 1366x768 doesn't come close
to doing justice to it. You need at least 1440x1080, and preferably the
full 1920x1080.

--
Jeff Rife | "As we sit here and idly chat, women--female
| human beings--are rolling around in strange
| beds with strange men, and *we* are making money
| from that."
| "Is this a great country, or what?"
| -- "Night Shift"
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 2:44:44 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:iGAHd.2822$m31.35428@typhoon.sonic.net:

> "Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95E2BA22C1E56Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
>> This is a troll
>
> Wow, this the first time I have seen a post the entire contents of
> which amounted to accurately depicting itself as a troll. Well done!
> (It's almost like "This is a test. Ignore.")
>
> The post you responded to, by the way, was very accurate and sensible,
> and contained good information. :) 
>
>

I said this was a troll because no matter what you say or what figures you
give EDTV iss always better
January 20, 2005 4:19:41 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c5891cab7225386989aba@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
> > > anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
> > > resolution will result in a better picture.
> >
> > I think that's fairly subjective.
>
> Not for the majority of viewers who have actually *seen* it.
>
> > Its hard to objectively say that taking a photo, doubling its
> > resolution, and then blurring it necessarily makes it a better photo.
>
> No one said anything about "blurring".

Antialiasing is a blurring technique. Even you actually want hard jagged
edges for an effect, AA processing will soften them.

> > Its the same as FSAA on the PC.
>
> Actually, it's very different, because anti-aliasing comparisons are
> usually done at the same resolution and are working with vector-based
> sources that are rasterized (which is what make the AA useful). Since
> DVDs are already rasterized (i.e., fixed at a particular resolution),
> just applying AA to one *will* result in lower resolution and "blurring",
> but that's not what I'm talking about.

Actually PC video games are fully rasterized before antialiasing takes
places as well. Your comment about the resolution is a good point
though.

>
> > Some people swear by it, some people
> > hate it. Its a subjective improvement. 'Jaggies' are softened, fine
> > detail is lost.
>
> When you scale up, you gain pixels that weren't in the original image that
> can be manipulated to approximate what the original image would have
> looked like if it had started at a higher resolution.

> There aren't many
> good scalers out there, but the ones that do it well lose no detail and
> improve the overall picture quality.

A trivial example would be a perfect square some 300 pixels wide and
high, with a border of 2 pixels. You take that simple image from a 480i
source, upscale to some non-multiplicative resolution (like 720p or
1080i) and antialias it, and you will not have a perfect simple square
anymore. The corners might be blurred, one of the side borders might be
2 pixels wide while others might be 3, etc. PQ will have been degraded.

Granted, a human face may turn out very well, even subjectively better
than the original, as most scalers are optimized for scense like this,
but regardless: accurate detail reproduction will be lost, and there
will always be scenes where its painfully obvious.

I'm willing to concede that a good scaler will make a subjective
improvement most of the time, but its no gaurantee... and by your own
admission... there aren't many good scalers out there... and the bad
ones... well it would have been better to just leave the picture at the
original resolution.

From a purely objective standpoint, a scaler with antialiasing is a
lossy conversion process; even when it subjectively improves the
picture.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:19:42 AM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > No one said anything about "blurring".
>
> Antialiasing is a blurring technique.

....at the same resolution. If you increase resolution, you *must*
introduce stairstepping in the scaling. Reducing that stairstepping to
more accurately depict what the original *would* have looked like does
not "blur" the image.

> > Actually, it's very different, because anti-aliasing comparisons are
> > usually done at the same resolution and are working with vector-based
> > sources that are rasterized (which is what make the AA useful). Since
> > DVDs are already rasterized (i.e., fixed at a particular resolution),
> > just applying AA to one *will* result in lower resolution and "blurring",
> > but that's not what I'm talking about.
>
> Actually PC video games are fully rasterized before antialiasing takes
> places as well.

That's not the point. The point is that the source is a mathematically
perfect line (or plane) which cannot be mapped into a finite pixel space
without errors. That mapping must be done at the final display resolution,
and if you want to make the line more closely fit the mathematical model,
AA is a way to do that, but it does reduce resolution ("blurring", as you
call it). By first increasing the resolution, you avoid this problem.

> A trivial example would be a perfect square some 300 pixels wide and
> high, with a border of 2 pixels. You take that simple image from a 480i
> source, upscale to some non-multiplicative resolution (like 720p or
> 1080i) and antialias it, and you will not have a perfect simple square
> anymore. The corners might be blurred, one of the side borders might be
> 2 pixels wide while others might be 3, etc. PQ will have been degraded.

Not in practice, when viewed from the same distance. The larger gaps
between pixels in the original image tend to be far more of a problem than
the slight "errors" introduced.

> I'm willing to concede that a good scaler will make a subjective
> improvement most of the time, but its no gaurantee... and by your own
> admission... there aren't many good scalers out there... and the bad
> ones... well it would have been better to just leave the picture at the
> original resolution.

Correct, and this is why most people don't see the benefit of a HD display.

But, if you have one (and I have a CRT display that accurately resolves
1440x1080), the benefit is obvious. Raw 480i looks bad...de-interlaced
to 480p looks OK, but upscaled to 1080i looks best.

> From a purely objective standpoint, a scaler with antialiasing is a
> lossy conversion process

Although there is technically loss of accuracy, this is one of those "a
difference which makes no difference is no difference" cases. Even at
several inches from the screen, it's hard to spot any, yet the picture
looks better.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoWorkInternet.gif
January 20, 2005 5:11:51 AM

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

In article <41ef0998$0$30531$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
usemylastname@cheerful.com says...
> Mr Fixit wrote:
> > In article <6N2dnd2wILMYe3PcRVn-qA@comcast.com> Alan Figgatt
> > <afiggatt@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
> >>or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.
> >
> > This is bound to become a hotly debated topic. However, having recently
> > seen firsthand an assortment of both HD and ED displays side by side in a
> > high-end showroom, I would have to agree. On any 42" plasma viewed at a
> > distance of 8 feet or more, watching HDNet via satellite (DirecTV) I
> > personally could not tell the difference until the salesman pointed out
> > the differences. Even then I felt he was seeing things I couldn't.
> >
> > Based on this I certainly cannot blame anyone for taking the less
> > expensive route.
>
> I find that rather amazing, but then I'm often amazed at how some people
> can't see or hear obvious differences in audio/video quality. I don't
> doubt your word, but I do think that most people will easily see the
> difference. One of the people I work with, for example, can't even
> notice when one side of a pair of headphones is dead. I find that
> amazing, but he simply doesn't notice that sort of thing. By the same
> token, some people won't notice the difference between ED and HD.
>
> More important, though, is the fact that HD simply isn't that much more
> expensive. Among the sets that I've seen, HD is typically only about
> 50% more than a comparable (in size and technology) ED set. I can't
> imagine anyone not being willing to pay that premium. If an ED set came
> in at half the price, or less, than an HD set, I might accept it that
> some people wouldn't want to spend double the money. But the price
> premium is half that at most, and I just can't imagine recommending that
> anyone spend that much money on an ED set when they could have an HD set
> for only 50% more.

50% is a lot of money, and in many cases doesn't buy you that much.

"I don't know how Porsche sells any 911 Carrera's, the 911 Turbos are
only 50% more."

If you are trying to get a TV for less than forty nine hundred you
aren't going to buy the TV that costs seventy five hundred. Especially
if you can't see the difference, or can see it, but don't think its
worth an extra $2500 bucks, particularly for your viewing habits.
January 20, 2005 6:16:17 AM

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:07:20 -0500, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine.
>
>True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
>anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
>resolution will result in a better picture.


Which one, and what's it COST ?

I've heard some pretty funny prices on ones that actually work well.

It's the same issue, cost. You want ED set buyers to buy a $1000+ DVD
player that'll be obsolete in 18 months ?
January 20, 2005 6:27:14 AM

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:44:44 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:

>"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:iGAHd.2822$m31.35428@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> "Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95E2BA22C1E56Meeenospamtodaycom@207.217.125.201...
>>> This is a troll
>>
>> Wow, this the first time I have seen a post the entire contents of
>> which amounted to accurately depicting itself as a troll. Well done!
>> (It's almost like "This is a test. Ignore.")
>>
>> The post you responded to, by the way, was very accurate and sensible,
>> and contained good information. :) 
>>
>>
>
>I said this was a troll because no matter what you say or what figures you
>give EDTV iss always better

Not better, cheaper. More bang for the buck if you're interested in
SD and DVD. Heck you can even have a nice HDTV > 480i feed to your
NTSC set and get an improvement over sd cable tv.

There's millions of people out there who couldn't care less about
broadcast programming or the NFL.
January 20, 2005 1:18:29 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c58ef562d29fff9989ac0@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> Mr Fixit (MrFixit@msn.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > For someone on a tighter budget who sits 8 feet or more away from his
> > >or her TV, the better brand name ED plasmas may be the better buy, $ wise.
> >
> > This is bound to become a hotly debated topic. However, having recently
> > seen firsthand an assortment of both HD and ED displays side by side in a
> > high-end showroom, I would have to agree. On any 42" plasma viewed at a
> > distance of 8 feet or more, watching HDNet via satellite (DirecTV) I
> > personally could not tell the difference until the salesman pointed out
> > the differences.
>
> For a 1280x1080 source (which is what DirecTV sends out HDNet as), the
> difference between 852x480, 1024x768, and 1366x768 displays really isn't
> that much.
>
> But, get a 1920x1080 source like "The Tonight Show" over an affiliate
> that doesn't skimp on the bitrate, and even 1366x768 doesn't come close
> to doing justice to it. You need at least 1440x1080, and preferably the
> full 1920x1080.

But then I'd have to watch The Tonight Show! Hehehe.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:18:30 PM

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:18:29 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:


>> But, get a 1920x1080 source like "The Tonight Show" over an affiliate
>> that doesn't skimp on the bitrate, and even 1366x768 doesn't come close
>> to doing justice to it. You need at least 1440x1080, and preferably the
>> full 1920x1080.
>
>But then I'd have to watch The Tonight Show! Hehehe.

LOL. yes.

That's the funny thing about HDTV. It's like "looking out your
window"....

Reminds me of the old pictures of a room full of people listening to
the big new radio set.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:09:57 PM

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

gerry (gerry_m@spam_this.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:07:20 -0500, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> >42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> That leaves DVDs... which EDTV handles just fine.
> >
> >True, but upscaling a DVD to 720p or 1080i with a *good* scaler (one that
> >anti-aliases well) and then viewing on a display that can handle the full
> >resolution will result in a better picture.
>
>
> Which one, and what's it COST ?

I use the scaler in the MIT MDP-100 card, which costs about $300. It
performs better than anything under $2000. DVDs are played directly on
the computer and scaled in the digital domain. Other sources use S-Video
as input to be scaled.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/StarWars1.gif
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:19:43 PM

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

Yes, clearly the EDTV is dramatically better than my 10 year old Magnavox.

This post leads me to believe then that a HD source can be used by a ED set?
Is that correct? Obviously the resolution would be bumped down or something,
but still better than standard def, no?





"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iGAHd.2823$m31.35381@typhoon.sonic.net...

> Pedantics, and essentially incorrect. There is a huge difference between a
> 4:3 480i television and a 16:9 480p set. And while there is no 480p signal
> with better-than-720 horizontal resolution, 480p/ED sets generally have
> something around 850 horizontal resolution and are often used to show HD
> signals, so they are roughly capable of showing at least the color portion
> of HD signals at or near their full resolution. They have the widescreen
> aspect ratio, so can use their full resolution for showing widescreen
> sources, including 16:9 formatted DVDs. They are also capable of showing
> 480p signals, DVDs with film/cinema-mode de-interlacing, and 720p signals
> as true progressive-scan.
>
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:19:44 PM

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

bb2004 wrote:

> Yes, clearly the EDTV is dramatically better than my 10 year old Magnavox.
>
> This post leads me to believe then that a HD source can be used by a ED set?
> Is that correct?

Yes.

> Obviously the resolution would be bumped down or something,
> but still better than standard def, no?

If by "standard def" you mean NTSC 480i, yes. If you mean by ATSC
standards, no, EDTV is "standard def" under the ATSC standard.

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Matthew
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:10:38 PM

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

"bb2004" <beebeFOUR@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:p dOHd.969$ee.621@news02.roc.ny...
>
> Yes, clearly the EDTV is dramatically better than my 10 year old Magnavox.
>
> This post leads me to believe then that a HD source can be used by a ED
> set? Is that correct?

Certainly. Technically, an HD source can be used on a standard 480i 4:3 TV
as well (using the appropriate output form the tuner), and some people
report they are very happy with the improvement over normal SD television,
even if they aren't seeing anything close to true HD. (This might work
especially well on those TVs that can vertically squish the electron beam
scanning pattern into a 16:9 AR while still using the full 480 lines.)

> Obviously the resolution would be bumped down or something, but still
> better than standard def, no?

Yes, quite a bit better. Compared to a 720p (or 768 or whatever) display
using the same technology, an ED plasma should suffer mainly in the
resolution at which it displays the greyscale portion of the image. (The
color portion of an HD signal, like DVD, is 1/2 the resolution in each
direction of the greyscale or luma portion, so 850x480 is enough to display
the HD color signals at or near full resolution.) While this can be a very
substantial difference from HD, ED sets can still look pretty darn good.
They're not as smooth or detailed up close, but otherwise similar.
January 20, 2005 9:26:40 PM

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

To be honest, I could easily have bought a plasma, but elected to avoid
it. Why? Well, "sometimes" it has a remarkably better PQ. But,
sometimes it's absolutely no better than a good DLP, LCD projection.
Further, it's fragile, has a relatively short lifespan, is
realistically not repairable, is more vulnerable to environmentals,
etc. Don't get me wrong - they can REALLY look great, and take up very
little space. That being said, I chose to go another route. Having
replaced far too many plasma displays aready in my business, I don't
want one at home. So, for a lesser cost, avoid the Plasma ED and get a
really good LCD or DLP HD set.

BTW: I certainly noticed the difference between ED Plasmas and HD
DLPs. That doesn't even take in consideration the new generation of
DLPs that will be native 1080i instead of native 720p.


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
!