Community Newsletter: Q&A: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source?
- 9/7/06 4:35 PM
Not Necessarily
by aswnc - 9/8/06 6:53 AM In reply to: This statement is not true by siclmnThis statement has some merit, but isn't accurate. Digital TV's have pixels (dots) like computer monitors. Analog content created for tube TV's used horizontal lines, not pixels. So, as this information is transformed into pixel data, it loses some of the quality. When this is viewed on on a large screen TV, those pixels (and quality defects) are just magnified (depending on resolution - a higher resolution would have smaller pixels and the problems would be less noticeable). So, watching analog video on a large-screen digital TV will result in lower quality. However, as the analog signal will be ending soon; as VHS tapes disappear, and as television signals become digital, this problem will become less of an issue. So, a digital signal that is not HD will not necessarily look worse (unless the TV just has a low resolution which isn't likely).
Also, not to start a cable/satellite war here because it isn't as much an issue now as it was, but in smaller towns with analog cable systems, it is more likely you'll experience this problem than with satellite which is all digital. Even some "digital" cable services only have some digital channels with others being analog.
Inaccurate
by kmchattie - 9/8/06 7:24 AM In reply to: Not Necessarily by aswncI am tired of seeing people say that satellite is all digital. It's a misnomer.
Yes the broadcast signal is digital coming from the satellite, but it's not necessarily a HD signal. And unless you are using an HDTV and the signal is a HD signal, that signal is still being converted from digital to analog so that your composite or s-video input can display it. The same thing happens with those cable channels that are "digital" too.
Well it is 480p (digital satellite)
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/8/06 7:30 AM In reply to: Inaccurate by kmchattieand not 480i and thus has more information for your HDTV to upconvert, thus it looks much better. In the same way that your DVD player looks better than a local station in non-HD. Heck, if you have HD cable, just check out the diff between a non-HD broadcast like your local news which is probably 480p and the analog channel on the basic cable channel which is 480i. Huge difference.
Not Exactly - Not Necessarily
by redzcar - 9/8/06 8:09 PM In reply to: Not Necessarily by aswncTechnically your response is correct. However, I have both a 50'' Mitsubishi RP CRT TV in 4:3 format and a 62'' Mitsubishi RP DLP TV in 16:9 format. Each has a 30'' high picture so vertical resolution is readily comparable, both being 480i when viewing an analog broadcast.
There simply isn't any contest over the picture quality while viewing an analog broadcast - The DLP TV is far, far superior in apparent resolution, i.e., quality.
The reason for this is that the CRT beam isn't consistently bright across the ''thickness'' of the scan line - the middle of the line is brighter than the top and bottom edges.
(I know this might be hard to imagine, think of a single CRT scan line on a ''scope'' - the scan line has a middle and it has a top and bottom edge.)
This effect causes the scanned lines on a CRT picture to result in more noticeable ''lines'' on the screen. On the other hand, the ''pixels'' of a DTV have uniform brightness so there are virtually no horizontal ''lines'' in the picture.
Thus, the apparent verticle resolution of a DTV while viewing an analog broadcast is noticeably superior than that of a CRT (analog) TV.
As for horizontal resolution, the CRT may be theoretically infinite, but the horizontal pixel count on a DTV is sufficient that there is no discernable difference in the two pictures in that regard. The picture, in fact, appears much sharper on the DLP TV than on the CRT TV.
So the conclusion of your statement isn't true. When viewing an analog broadcast, the resolution lost when converting horizontal scan lines to a string of horizontal pixels is way, way overcome by the verticle seamlessness of the pixels in a quality digital TV.
Based on your previous response, logic would conclude that the smaller the TV the higher the quality of an analog picture. While theoretically correct, I don't think many of us would want to return to the days of 17'' TVs in our living rooms, regardless of the display mechanism or the signal domain. This is one time when size has nothing to do with it!
I think the guy who can't see any sense in buying a big screen DTV because he thinks a small screen analog TV has a better analog picture probably just doesn't want to fork over the beans necessary to purchase a quality big screen DTV. I can accept that.
Analog vs. Digital
by Kosingigglephits - 9/10/06 8:10 AM In reply to: Not Necessarily by aswncReal quick, let me clear up one thing about Analog vs. digital. When a cable company says they have "digital" cable or channels, what they are saying is that yes they offer those channels but the difference is only in the way they are transmitted over the line. The picture is not in any way different than that of an analog signal. Digital signals allow the cable provider to transmit more data (cable channels) over the coax line (fiber as well in some areas) than they could normally without to much interupttion or interference. Now if you had a pure fiber line running in from the head end (your local cable provider office) then you definately would see an improvement but it wouldn't be much. Digital cable for the satellite comapnies are the same way. they can transmit more data over the band (or frequency) in a compressed state than if they used analog which would in a sence hog the bandwidth.
I get my answer form 20 years of service in the broadcasting industry including 5+ years at the National Diital Television Center (now owned by Comcast) in Denver, CO. where the NDTC was a major contributor in the development of digital cable as we now know it.
Analog converstion to Digital
by tbweld - 9/11/06 5:16 AM In reply to: Analog vs. Digital by KosingigglephitsSo, can I ask what your thoughts are on why analog looks so bad on HDTVs? You would think that if the signal is being converted to some sort of digital - lines to pixels, that they would use a resolution that would give good viewing on the larger HDTV screens. Where is the signal converted? And, can the TV manufacturers control this resolution? This is the only reason that I won't buy an HDTV yet. I am a stickler for resolution and I can't stand what I see for analog signals on the HDTVS in the stores.
hdtvoice
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/11/06 6:17 AM In reply to: Analog converstion to Digital by tbweldI know you weren't asking me, but here's a good explanation:
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=14280
There's no way to "improve" a low-res image on a high-res TV
by PoupaKG - 9/13/06 10:00 PM In reply to: HDTVs Usually Do Improve the NTSC Image by middlebassI'm not quite sure what you meant by this--if it's true, it's something I've never heard of--but there is no way to make a 640X480 NTSC video look better once it's stretched out to whatever HDTV resolution you're using on a large TV (on a smaller TV you probably won't notice a difference, but what kind of fool would get a small high-def TV?). The picture on the HDTV can be shrunk down to a smaller size so that the image does not look distorted, but unless a high-res video is being supplied to the high-res TV/monitor, it will always be distorted, like when you blow up a small video window on your computer monitor.
That's not true in my experience
by amanetti - 9/14/06 12:29 AM In reply to: There's no way to "improve" a low-res image on a high-res TV by PoupaKGTrue, you can't expect HiDef detail, but on my set the picture is crisper and cleaner throughout and interlace artifacts, such as moire, are much less evident compared to the low-res trinitron I have.
WAITAMINUTE! Even newer tech on the way
by MikeyD215 - 9/8/06 3:06 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I cannot remember the terminology, but there is supposed to be a new technology arriving within the next six months that they claim will blow both plasma and LCD sets away.
I cannot remember which of the big electronics firms has production plans, but it might be Samsung or Philips or both. Maybe Lee or someone else knows what I am referring to. I read about it in The Wall Street Journal some months ago.
It's not a totally new technology .....
by Watzman - 9/8/06 5:02 AM In reply to: WAITAMINUTE! Even newer tech on the way by MikeyD215What you are thinking of, I believe, is the availability of "microprojection" TV sets (DLP, LCD projection and LCOS (including JVC's HD-ILA)) that instead of using a high intensity lamp as the light source use an LED light source.
This is not really an entirely new technology, it's just a new light source for an existing technology.
It does, however, have a number of significant advantages including brighter, whiter light, longer life (a big factor since these lamps cost $200 to $600 and in some cases only last 1 to 2 years) and better color fidelity. Also, certain artifacts present in lamp light sources (those caused by the presence of a mechanical spinning color wheel)are eliminated.
This isn't coming, it's been here since April. Samsung is shipping this in the model HL-S5679W 56" DLP HDTV set. Unfortunately, at $4,200, it's about $2,000 more expensive than lamp-based models, and it's in short supply (although it is shipping). And at this time, Samsung is the only maker of microdisplay based projection TVs that has gotten this far with this technology, although my expectation is that 2 or 3 years from now it may virtually replace the various projection lamps that all of the manufacturers (including Samsung in it's other models) are now using.
Perhaps he is referring to SED or OLED...
by ScarBoro55-tv - 9/8/06 5:38 AM In reply to: It's not a totally new technology ..... by WatzmanSED is already developed and is stunning... well beyond anything today in contrast, color, view angle, pixel fill and speed. Do a Google search. Of course, early adopters will be paying a handsome premium for this new tech, but the 3/4 inch thick screen will look rrreaaaaly cool in your den!
OLED is promising, but a few years off. Imagine a paper thin TV in any size that they make with a giant ink jet printer... yep.
may be he is talking about laser TV
by vadim25 - 9/8/06 7:36 AM In reply to: Perhaps he is referring to SED or OLED... by ScarBoro55-tvmay be he is talking about laser TV
http://www.i4u.com/article5383.html
DLP is everywhere in every size. $600 to $4000
by res09ojz - 9/8/06 10:46 AM In reply to: It's not a totally new technology ..... by WatzmanI have a 50" Pioneer since 1987 and it has a super screen attached to smooth the picture. I think some day it will probably quit, but until then, it stays. I paid $2000 in 1987 and it seems $2000 is about what you need to pay today.
I have spent the last 6 months looking at the TV's on the market, and I have seen hundreds. The DLP is absolutely, without a doubt, the smoothest screen.
There are dots making up the picture on all the other formats. Get up close and you can see them. Not on the DLP. It is smooth as a baby's you know what. Much, much easier on the eyes. Did you know you have to put all those little dots together in your brain to bring the picture together? Migrain time. Get the DLP for ease on the eyes.
Remember how you used to read books without your reading glasses or contacts? Then Computer screens came along and put your reading distance at work at 24" instead of 12". You go home to read your book and olah! You don't focus anymore. All those little dots will do the same to your vision. By 2009, you will need glasses to watch the TV if you dont get DLP. HDTV is better without glasses and the glare.
Used to be Sony Trinitron 24 dot pitch against everyone else. Now it is DLP against all the others, and at a lower price per inch.
not totally new technology
by Ulfire - 9/8/06 2:29 PM In reply to: It's not a totally new technology ..... by WatzmanYou're right it's not new technology,but what he refers to (I think) is SED TV (Toshiba Cannon joint enterprise ) or FED (Samsung).Both of these are CRT based ,except that they are 10mm thick.Though starting with a contrast ratio of 10,000:1 ,they hope to attain a contrast ratio of 100,000:1.Both of these specs will blow Plasma and LCD off the face off the earth
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
