Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any screenshots what NTSC looks like on HDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:03:15 AM

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

(If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
conversion of resolution or what?)

TIA

More about : screenshots ntsc hdtv

Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:03:16 AM

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

That varies from television to television depending on vendor. It
depends on what technology is in the box. The thing to look for in the
specs is a upconverter built in. Sony and Hitachi offer this in all
their models. I think Pioneer does now as well, Toshiba offers it on
their HX series. A lot of the lower-end vendors (RCA, JVC, Phillips,
Magnavox, and countless off-brands) offer very little to help scale a
NTSC signal to look good on HDTV. If they do, they only offer it on
select models so be careful. The best thing you can do is get a
salesrep to show you a NTSC singal on one of the sets (not hard since
almost all retailers resale some form of satelllite service).

I have some simulation photos up on my site which will give you a rough
idea of what to expect:

http://hdtv.0catch.com
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:12:08 AM

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

Miles Ahead wrote:
> (If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
> Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
> in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
> channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
> in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
> since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
> a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
> conversion of resolution or what?)
>
> TIA

The quality of the NTSC SD picture depends on the TV, how you get the
signal - cable, OTA, satellite, the Set Top Box (if you use one), the
quality of the source - clean digital channel, clean analog channel,
noisy/fuzzy analog channel? - and how big a screen you get. If you have
cable, the set top box may be the single biggest factor in SD picture
quality, even more so than the TV. But the better brand name TVs and
better technologies - CRT, plasma, LCOS or DLP RP - with their better
quality scalers will provide a better SD picture than the low end sets.

If you have been watching SD TV on a small 27" CRT, it will not look
very good blown up to a 50" or 60" widescreen. The resolution is just
not there. HD and DVDs on the other hand will look very good on the big
screen.

Alan F
Related resources
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:36:00 AM

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

In article <otpm415tar63s7e096fhtht2utpndjiimb@4ax.com>,
Miles Ahead <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> (If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
> Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
> in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
> channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
> in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
> since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
> a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
> conversion of resolution or what?)
>
Generally, the 4x3 NTSC is placed into the 16x9 HDTV image position
on the screen, or perhaps the NTSC is spread across the HDTV image
position, where incorrect aspect ratio makes image look fat, and
many other possible combos. The image is usually fully filled
vertically, so the picture appears to try to fill the screen.
(Don't worry about postage stamp issues.)

The detail of OTA NTSC (4.2MHz of video), looks soft but (IMO)
the worst impairment is usually video noise or ghosting. NTSC
artifacts are often very well removed and/or filtered out.

For DVD-style NTSC (component video), the image quality is still
inferior to reasonably good HDTV, but not nearly as bad as bandwidth
limmited NTSC. The difference between 4.2MHz composite video with
response shaping for transmission vs. component video from a DVD is
significant.

OTA NTSC tends to start being rolled off in the spatial domain
at about 240TVL (horizontal/vertical/diagonal.) DVD can be almost
ruler flat to 500TVL. (That is, OTA NTSC starts rolling off at an
effective 3MHz due to prefiltering/etc, while DVD only needs to
roll-off early so as to avoid compression artifacting.)

The image quality of DVD and OTA HDTV are comparable, where the HDTV
image can be MUCH MUCH better than DVD. The image quality of OTA
NTSC vs. OTA HDTV is very different, where HDTV can be incredibly
better.

One more thing: depending upon the HDTV, NTSC can sometimes look
very different on an HDTV vs. an NTSC TV. In some cases where some
people might think that the NTSC on HDTV would look worse, I tend
to prefer the look of NTSC on an HDTV vs. NTSC on a good NTSC monitor.
Too often, the NTSC monitors have too much peaking and I don't like
that, and also the HDTVs tend to have state of the art NTSC decoders
that remove artifacts. These artifacts can look like detail, but it
is false detail... (Kind of like hiss can trick an individual into
believing that a system might have a better HF audio freq resopnse.)

(I might be rambling, very tired and very late at night!!!)

John

John
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 11:25:30 PM

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

On 30 Mar 2005 19:23:14 -0800, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

>That varies from television to television depending on vendor

Thanks everyone for the replies. The info was very helpful. :) 
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:45:20 PM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 2fr70$g17$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <otpm415tar63s7e096fhtht2utpndjiimb@4ax.com>,
> Miles Ahead <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> (If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
>> Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
>> in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
>> channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
>> in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
>> since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
>> a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
>> conversion of resolution or what?)
>>
> Generally, the 4x3 NTSC is placed into the 16x9 HDTV image position
> on the screen, or perhaps the NTSC is spread across the HDTV image
> position, where incorrect aspect ratio makes image look fat, and
> many other possible combos. The image is usually fully filled
> vertically, so the picture appears to try to fill the screen.
> (Don't worry about postage stamp issues.)
>
> The detail of OTA NTSC (4.2MHz of video), looks soft but (IMO)
> the worst impairment is usually video noise or ghosting. NTSC
> artifacts are often very well removed and/or filtered out.
>
> For DVD-style NTSC (component video), the image quality is still
> inferior to reasonably good HDTV, but not nearly as bad as bandwidth
> limmited NTSC. The difference between 4.2MHz composite video with
> response shaping for transmission vs. component video from a DVD is
> significant.
>
> OTA NTSC tends to start being rolled off in the spatial domain
> at about 240TVL (horizontal/vertical/diagonal.) DVD can be almost
> ruler flat to 500TVL. (That is, OTA NTSC starts rolling off at an
> effective 3MHz due to prefiltering/etc, while DVD only needs to
> roll-off early so as to avoid compression artifacting.)
>
> The image quality of DVD and OTA HDTV are comparable, where the HDTV
> image can be MUCH MUCH better than DVD. The image quality of OTA
> NTSC vs. OTA HDTV is very different, where HDTV can be incredibly
> better.
>
> One more thing: depending upon the HDTV, NTSC can sometimes look
> very different on an HDTV vs. an NTSC TV. In some cases where some
> people might think that the NTSC on HDTV would look worse, I tend
> to prefer the look of NTSC on an HDTV vs. NTSC on a good NTSC monitor.
> Too often, the NTSC monitors have too much peaking and I don't like
> that, and also the HDTVs tend to have state of the art NTSC decoders
> that remove artifacts. These artifacts can look like detail, but it
> is false detail... (Kind of like hiss can trick an individual into
> believing that a system might have a better HF audio freq resopnse.)
>
> (I might be rambling, very tired and very late at night!!!)
>
> John

To sum up the above for the beginner; Make sure that the set you buy has a
line doubler! In addition the video processing that the set performs on the
signal may make a world of difference even if it has a line doubler. I've
seen sets that have incredably bad pictures when displaying NTSC pictures
with soft pictures, noise, ghosting and artifacts ( NTSC artifacts). One
cheaper set, (I purchased) an Akai PT5598HDI has a better picture than most
of the sets I've serviced, except the new Hitachi LCD projection, some of
the upper end MGA, Samsung DLP with Samsung STB (stand alone the picture on
the TV is soft as the set does not have a line doubler) some of the
Panasonic LCD and I'm sure others. You have to know what to look for in new
HDTVs.

As a beginning see: http://hdtv.0catch.com/ I found this site to be very
good.

With a good HD TV, NTSC looks much better on it than it does on an older
NTSC only TV. If you get a less well designed HD TV the only picture that
will look good will be HD 1080I, even 480P won't look good.

What to look for:
1) Good focus
2) Convergance registration
3) Upconversion (line doubler) for 480I to 480P
4) good video processing (NO video ringing, ghosts and artifacts)
all the above give you a picture that is truly superior
5) ATSC tuner with QAM and cablecard support (means it's at least a 4th
generation tuner)
6) service center within 20 miles with good reputation
7) good warranty, 1 year min and on DLP (Light processing) and LCD
projection an extended warr (at least at this time)
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:51:12 PM

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

> To sum up the above for the beginner; Make sure that the set you buy has a
> line doubler! In addition the video processing that the set performs on
the
> signal may make a world of difference even if it has a line doubler. I've
> seen sets that have incredably bad pictures when displaying NTSC pictures
> with soft pictures, noise, ghosting and artifacts ( NTSC artifacts). One
> cheaper set, (I purchased) an Akai PT5598HDI has a better picture than
most
> of the sets I've serviced, except the new Hitachi LCD projection, some of
> the upper end MGA, Samsung DLP with Samsung STB (stand alone the picture
on
> the TV is soft as the set does not have a line doubler) some of the
> Panasonic LCD and I'm sure others. You have to know what to look for in
new
> HDTVs.
>
> As a beginning see: http://hdtv.0catch.com/ I found this site to be very
> good.
>
> With a good HD TV, NTSC looks much better on it than it does on an older
> NTSC only TV. If you get a less well designed HD TV the only picture that
> will look good will be HD 1080I, even 480P won't look good.
>
> What to look for:
> 1) Good focus
> 2) Convergance registration
> 3) Upconversion (line doubler) for 480I to 480P
> 4) good video processing (NO video ringing, ghosts and artifacts)
> all the above give you a picture that is truly superior
> 5) ATSC tuner with QAM and cablecard support (means it's at least a 4th
> generation tuner)
> 6) service center within 20 miles with good reputation
> 7) good warranty, 1 year min and on DLP (Light processing) and LCD
> projection an extended warr (at least at this time)

Jeff, virtually all HD sets have line doublers. Most CRT based sets these
days upconvert everything to 1080i, some still use 480p or 960i, but I know
of none that display 480i as 480i any more. All fixed pixel displays scale
the original signal to the native format. There is a great deal of
difference in the processing that is done in the upconversion process, the
quality of the NTSC stages, and the filtering that is done on the signal
prior to upconversion. All of these affect the results with NTSC on HD or
HD ready sets, and those results may vary considerabley with the noise
present in the source signal.

Leonard
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:29:03 PM

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

Leonard Caillouet (nospam@noway.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> There is a great deal of
> difference in the processing that is done in the upconversion process, the
> quality of the NTSC stages, and the filtering that is done on the signal
> prior to upconversion.

One thing to note is that the quality of the comb filter can make a
huge difference for a display if you use a built-in NTSC tuner or use the
composite inputs. For a while, comb filter quality was way up there because
composite inputs were the most often used. Now that S-Video and component
have taken over, even some "high-end" sets have lower quality comb filters
than they used to.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 10:45:52 PM

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

"Miles Ahead" <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o tpm415tar63s7e096fhtht2utpndjiimb@4ax.com...
>
> (If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
> Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
> in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
> channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
> in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
> since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
> a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
> conversion of resolution or what?)
>
> TIA

It will look better but the more you watch HD programming the less you will
enjoy the quality of SD. That's a brief executive summary reply. :) 

Steve
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:54:39 PM

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

I have found, with our Sony KDF-60XS955, that the quality of an SD picture
is wildly variable, depending on many different factors. With the TV set's
built-in processor at factory setting and a signal via a Time Warner cable
HD cable box, the SD pictures were not very good, I thought, for the most
part. But when we got a cablecard, their quality was much better. So,
apparently, that digital set top box did not do a good job of transmitting
them.

Then, I went in and changed the settings on the TV's SD up-processor and
improved the picture even more. Finally, we ditched the cablecard, and got
a TW SA8300HD DVR/digital box. Now, the SD pictures, transmitted through
that box to the TV set, up-processed by the DVR to 1080i, look the very best
I have seen them on this set -- as good or better, I think, than what I used
to get on my old 48" Sony SD RPTV.

Meanwhile, no matter how the SD picture gets there, always, some channels
have such a good SD picture that you wonder momentarily if it is not HD
while the SD picture from other channels is barely watchable. In fact, I
think the largest factor in SD picture quality is what the particular
channel is sending out.

mack
austin

"Jeff Rigby" <jeffg212@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q4-dnc6UrNsqC9DfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 2fr70$g17$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <otpm415tar63s7e096fhtht2utpndjiimb@4ax.com>,
>> Miles Ahead <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> (If a FAQ available please somebody leave me a pointer)
>>> Hi. Newbie toying with the idea of going HDTV. Since cable
>>> in my area looks like it carries about 1/2 dozen broadcast
>>> channels, ESPN and maybe 3 premium movie channels
>>> in HD, I'm wondering what NTSC looks like on a HDTV
>>> since I'll prolly still get most of my input as NTSC for
>>> a while. (Is it postage stamp or is there an ersatz
>>> conversion of resolution or what?)
>>>
>> Generally, the 4x3 NTSC is placed into the 16x9 HDTV image position
>> on the screen, or perhaps the NTSC is spread across the HDTV image
>> position, where incorrect aspect ratio makes image look fat, and
>> many other possible combos. The image is usually fully filled
>> vertically, so the picture appears to try to fill the screen.
>> (Don't worry about postage stamp issues.)
>>
>> The detail of OTA NTSC (4.2MHz of video), looks soft but (IMO)
>> the worst impairment is usually video noise or ghosting. NTSC
>> artifacts are often very well removed and/or filtered out.
>>
>> For DVD-style NTSC (component video), the image quality is still
>> inferior to reasonably good HDTV, but not nearly as bad as bandwidth
>> limmited NTSC. The difference between 4.2MHz composite video with
>> response shaping for transmission vs. component video from a DVD is
>> significant.
>>
>> OTA NTSC tends to start being rolled off in the spatial domain
>> at about 240TVL (horizontal/vertical/diagonal.) DVD can be almost
>> ruler flat to 500TVL. (That is, OTA NTSC starts rolling off at an
>> effective 3MHz due to prefiltering/etc, while DVD only needs to
>> roll-off early so as to avoid compression artifacting.)
>>
>> The image quality of DVD and OTA HDTV are comparable, where the HDTV
>> image can be MUCH MUCH better than DVD. The image quality of OTA
>> NTSC vs. OTA HDTV is very different, where HDTV can be incredibly
>> better.
>>
>> One more thing: depending upon the HDTV, NTSC can sometimes look
>> very different on an HDTV vs. an NTSC TV. In some cases where some
>> people might think that the NTSC on HDTV would look worse, I tend
>> to prefer the look of NTSC on an HDTV vs. NTSC on a good NTSC monitor.
>> Too often, the NTSC monitors have too much peaking and I don't like
>> that, and also the HDTVs tend to have state of the art NTSC decoders
>> that remove artifacts. These artifacts can look like detail, but it
>> is false detail... (Kind of like hiss can trick an individual into
>> believing that a system might have a better HF audio freq resopnse.)
>>
>> (I might be rambling, very tired and very late at night!!!)
>>
>> John
>
> To sum up the above for the beginner; Make sure that the set you buy has a
> line doubler! In addition the video processing that the set performs on
> the signal may make a world of difference even if it has a line doubler.
> I've seen sets that have incredably bad pictures when displaying NTSC
> pictures with soft pictures, noise, ghosting and artifacts ( NTSC
> artifacts). One cheaper set, (I purchased) an Akai PT5598HDI has a better
> picture than most of the sets I've serviced, except the new Hitachi LCD
> projection, some of the upper end MGA, Samsung DLP with Samsung STB (stand
> alone the picture on the TV is soft as the set does not have a line
> doubler) some of the Panasonic LCD and I'm sure others. You have to know
> what to look for in new HDTVs.
>
> As a beginning see: http://hdtv.0catch.com/ I found this site to be very
> good.
>
> With a good HD TV, NTSC looks much better on it than it does on an older
> NTSC only TV. If you get a less well designed HD TV the only picture that
> will look good will be HD 1080I, even 480P won't look good.
>
> What to look for:
> 1) Good focus
> 2) Convergance registration
> 3) Upconversion (line doubler) for 480I to 480P
> 4) good video processing (NO video ringing, ghosts and artifacts)
> all the above give you a picture that is truly superior
> 5) ATSC tuner with QAM and cablecard support (means it's at least a 4th
> generation tuner)
> 6) service center within 20 miles with good reputation
> 7) good warranty, 1 year min and on DLP (Light processing) and LCD
> projection an extended warr (at least at this time)
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:54:40 PM

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

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:54:39 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>In fact, I
>think the largest factor in SD picture quality is what the particular
>channel is sending out.

I didn't get a chance to see any DVD input but just looking at some
HDTV (crt tube)sets playing NTSC input(some game show or something)
I noticed that the cheap advent 27" (around $400) looked
better than $800 Sony and Philips sets. Being cheap I'm almost
tempted but I'm concerned 'cause it's not 16x9. The other thing
is I'd like to get sound leveling just 'cause channel surfing is such
a pain when the volume level varies wildly and this set doesn't
have it.

Also my first inclination is to get a reletively small set so that
I don't get golf ball size pixels. Anyone have one of these
cheepie Advents or will nobody admit to it? heh heh
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:22:35 AM

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

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:54:39 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>In fact, I
>think the largest factor in SD picture quality is what the particular
>channel is sending out.

I didn't get a chance to see any DVD input but just looking at some
HDTV (crt tube)sets playing NTSC input(some game show or something)
I noticed that the cheap advent 27" (around $400) looked
better than $800 Sony and Philips sets. Being cheap I'm almost
tempted but I'm concerned 'cause it's not 16x9. The other thing
is I'd like to get sound leveling just 'cause channel surfing is such
a pain when the volume level varies wildly and this set doesn't
have it.

Also my first inclination is to get a reletively small set so that
I don't get golf ball size pixels. Anyone have one of these
cheepie Advents or will nobody admit to it? heh heh
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:44:24 AM

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

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:45:52 -0800, "Steven de Mena"
<demenas@comcast.net> wrote:

>It will look better but the more you watch HD programming the less you will
>enjoy the quality of SD. That's a brief executive summary reply. :) 

Yeah, sorta' like tryin' to go back to a slower PC. Not a good
feelin'. :) 

The thing I'm really curious about is DVD. I've had a Philips for
several years and I've never been able to try out the Progressive Scan
button. :( 
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:02:28 AM

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

"Miles Ahead" <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j8s41lhisfc9cl86i3nnv3m9rtp262tgq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:45:52 -0800, "Steven de Mena"
> <demenas@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>It will look better but the more you watch HD programming the less you
>>will
>>enjoy the quality of SD. That's a brief executive summary reply. :) 
>
> Yeah, sorta' like tryin' to go back to a slower PC. Not a good
> feelin'. :) 
>
> The thing I'm really curious about is DVD. I've had a Philips for
> several years and I've never been able to try out the Progressive Scan
> button. :( 
>

It will look very good but not as good as high quality HD.

Steve
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 5:40:32 PM

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

Perhaps the main reason that 27" TV set gave you the best SD picture was
because of the small size of the screen. The smaller the screen, the better
the picture will look, everything else being equal. X number of pixels are
spread over less area. If you were watching a letter-boxed DVD picture on
that 4:3 screen, then it was even smaller.

But the primary reason you are buying an HDTV set is to watch HDTV. And one
of the great things about HDTV is that you can blow the picture up really
big and it is still incredibly sharp and beautiful. I would say don't even
consider anything under 50" and 16:9.

If you plan to watch almost all SD programming -- as, for example, a cable
news junkie might -- then just wait until the programming you like is being
broadcast in HD.

mack
austin


"Miles Ahead" <miles__ahead@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf7s41trod74blrg7f2mks98rbdqdmfcch@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:54:39 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
> <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:
>
>>In fact, I
>>think the largest factor in SD picture quality is what the particular
>>channel is sending out.
>
> I didn't get a chance to see any DVD input but just looking at some
> HDTV (crt tube)sets playing NTSC input(some game show or something)
> I noticed that the cheap advent 27" (around $400) looked
> better than $800 Sony and Philips sets. Being cheap I'm almost
> tempted but I'm concerned 'cause it's not 16x9. The other thing
> is I'd like to get sound leveling just 'cause channel surfing is such
> a pain when the volume level varies wildly and this set doesn't
> have it.
>
> Also my first inclination is to get a reletively small set so that
> I don't get golf ball size pixels. Anyone have one of these
> cheepie Advents or will nobody admit to it? heh heh
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 5:40:33 PM

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

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:40:32 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>Perhaps the main reason that 27" TV set gave you the best SD picture was
>because of the small size of the screen.

Right smaller pixels look better. I don't know who was trying to sell
TVs in this store but they sure didn't pay any attention to how the
pictures looked. I think the Sony was only a 30" and the picture
was horribly smudgy. I mean blurred like somebody hadn't windexed the
screen in a couple of years!! Oh well, looks like I'm gonna' have to
do some research for a while. :) 
!