Check out the Dell Store on CNET
Community weekly poll: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player?
- 5/23/07 2:23 PM
Cool -- thanks for the report!
by Cadillac84 - 5/24/07 10:32 AM In reply to: Purchased Toshiba HD-XA2 by harveybronxI just saw that Amazon had the XA2 for less than six including shipping. I must say I'm tempted. My new 57" Mitsubishi DLP is 1080p and that would be a nice way to watch the Planet Earth series which I never can seem to coordinate with my !busy schedule.
Glad you like the XA2 and thanks for your comments!
C
Toshiba's rule !
by WMJZ - 6/1/07 5:10 PM In reply to: Cool -- thanks for the report! by Cadillac84I totally agree with the Gentleman that bought the x-a2 I purchased the A-2 and like he described the picture is unbelieveable I purchased a few HD-DVD's one of them being Goodfellows the sound was incredible through my yamaha surround , and also regular DVD's look as close to High Def as You can get. all my videos taken with a sony dvd camcorder with 5.1 surround built in take on that high def look with the 5.1 to boot I think You would really appreciate how it performs on Your Mitsubishi, Also regular audio CD's come alive
only when i have no choice
by knelson276 - 5/24/07 12:24 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
my eye sight not being perfect at a distance of more than 5 feet they both look the same to me and since my couch is about 10-12 feet from the tv i see no point in spending money on something with out any benefit. and frankly i've been to circuit city and i wasnt impressed. Only thing i did notice was encodeing errors and artifacts seemed more noticeable. My TV is a 9 year old 32" JVC and far as i'm concerned it still has a perfect picture and plenty of life left in it.
Blu-ray
by TheSampsonite - 5/24/07 1:18 AM In reply to: only when i have no choice by knelson276I already own one a player. The greatest HD Console... the PS3.
Just for the sake of it, i do also have an Xbox360... but its rubbish for High Definition. (No HDMI cable)
Only worth it for projector systems
by PROlenick - 5/24/07 1:22 AM In reply to: only when i have no choice by knelson276I have a 27" Trinitron in my living room and a Dell XGA DLP portable projector in my basement. The difference between VHS and standard - interlaced - DVD is clear on the Trinitron, but VHS and standard TV are still viewable (actually, NSTC is sharper than 480i - it's 525i).
In the basement theater, with the projector throwing an image seven feet wide on the wall, VHS is blurry and NSTC a little better, but progressive-scan DVD (480p) is very good and Comcast's HD feeds are better - but that really depends on the quality of the DVD mastering.
Some DVDs come from NSTC and look it. Most come from film and look considerably better, but those that come from HD masters - like Lucas' long-delayed Star Wars disks - look as good as HD.
I have a large collection of DVDs at this point, and don't look forward to replacing all of them for a marginal gain in resolution. I suspect that the same variability of mastering quality will occur in HD disks. My present player can up-sample DVDs, but my projector doesn't do HDMI - and the last time I looked, HDMI-licensed projectors (which are required to swap encryption keys with the players to help the studios deter copying of the digital stream) cost 2 to 3 times those that take only component inputs, so I can't use that feature.
Until that price differential for projectors goes away - or they allow the use of component cables - I'm staying with DVD even if they agree on a disk standard for HD!
NTSC is not 525 -- it is 480.
by Cadillac84 - 5/24/07 8:44 AM In reply to: Only worth it for projector systems by PROlenickYou said: "actually, NSTC is sharper than 480i - it's 525i" and I tell you about this because I recently struggled with that myself.
The answer is that there are, indeed, 525 lines in an NTSC signal. But the keyword is "signal." The first few "lines" are used to get the beam back to the top of the screen and establish synch with horizontal sweep. The remaining lines are "thrown away" or contain information which is not displayed on the screen. The result is 240 lines of video followed by more thrown-away lines followed by the other 240 lines interlaced to make the 30 "frames" per second 480i picture.
While Wikipedia is not THE authoritative source, this article is well documented and easy to read.
[quote](with html removed)
Vertical Interval Reference
The standard NTSC video image contains some lines (lines 1-21 of each field) which are not visible; all are beyond the edge of the viewable image, but only lines 1-9 are used for the vertical-sync and equalizing pulses. The remaining lines were deliberately blanked in the original NTSC specification to provide time for the electron beam in CRT-based screens to return to the top of the display.
VIR (or Vertical interval reference), widely adopted in the 1980s, attempts to correct some of the color problems with NTSC video by adding studio-inserted reference data for luminance and chrominance levels on line 19. Suitably-equipped television sets could then employ this data in order to adjust the display to a closer match of the original studio image. The actual VIR signal contains three sections, the first having 70 percent luminance and the same chrominance as the color burst signal, and the other two having 50 percent and 7.5 percent luminance respectively.
A less-used successor to VIR, GCR, also added ghost (multipath interference) removal capabilities.
The remaining vertical blanking interval lines are typically used for datacasting or ancillary data such as video editing timestamps (vertical interval timecodes or SMPTE timecodes on lines 12-14, test data on lines 17-18, a network source code on line 20 and closed captioning, XDS and V-chip data on line 21. Early teletext applications also used vertical blanking interval lines 14-18 and 20, but teletext over NTSC was never widely adopted by viewers.
[/quote]
DOING THE MATH:
525 / 2 = 262.5
262.5 - 21 = 241.5
The "frame rate" is not really 30 fps; rather, it is 29.94 fps. The extra line is lost or otherwise used, but the net result for us is there are 240 lines of picture presented each sixtieth of a second for a total of 480 (interlaced).
I commend to you the entire article which includes historical background, comparisons of PAL, NTSC and SECAM and the reference links which I removed (because they are html and wouldn't display correctly here).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntsc
Not Interested Yet
by 2dogday - 5/24/07 2:28 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
My son has a gorgeous HD TV and it's really great. However, I'm not into watching much TV. I go weeks without even turning it on, in fact. It's probably because I'm on my computer so much, and also most of the shows are so innane. I'm a writer and that takes up a lot of time as I do a great deal of research online.
Own both, HD-DVD better
by Sam54 - 5/24/07 2:44 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I own 2 of each, blu-ray and HD-DVD players. Without a doubt the HD-DVD's are authored better are dynamically sharper. (Both are just as clear when the menu, "static image" is presented; but when the motion starts the blu-ray has many more artifacts and is just plain worse). Sony has shot itself in the foot again just like the ATRAC format, mini-disk, DAT, etc. They're a good company when they don't try to foist their proprietary formats on the public, (I've had several SONY projectors, the latest the VW100 and VW50, and they product a superlative picture). But the blu-ray software is clearly inferior. Many people who rent both formats through Netflix are finding that the thinner protective coating (1/6th of DVD or HD-DVD, though purportedly "tougher" is affecting playback). Try playing 2 of the better titles in each format (ie Serenity for HD-DVD and Underworld for blu-ray), you'll see the difference. It also seems that every review of HD-DVD's show better sonic qualities. (Read Widescreen Review, Home Theater, etc.) I like the fact that there is a consumer "war". It's been bringing prices down much more rapidly than if Sony or Toshiba had a monopoly on HD.
That's just Sony shooting their foot again...
by hazydave - 5/28/07 10:38 PM In reply to: Own both, HD-DVD better by Sam54It's very clear that, particularly last fall, the HD-DVD titles looked better than Blu-Ray... and this was nothing more or less than Sony being Sony again. Here's the thing... then, they only had single-layer Blu-Ray (25GB) working, while all the HD-DVD releases were dual-layer (30GB). More to the point, the HD-DVD folks were primarily using the VC-1 CODEC (the CODEC formerly known as Windows Media 9), while Sony stuck to MPEG-2, and apparently, only a fairly crappy MPEG-2 encoder from Sony had been approved for Blu-Ray use. Blu-Ray fully supports VC-1 as a primary format (along with MPEG-2 and H.264), but Sony's ego apparently couldn't allow VC-1 encoding, and the H.264 stuff wasn't production ready yet.
The coding efficiency of VC-1 isn't as good as H.264, but it's still 2x-3x better than MPEG-2. So weirdly, HD-DVD has had the space advantage all along, and that thanks to Sony. Current releases are dual-layer (50GB), but last I heard they're still using MPEG-2 (though I'd be surprised if that lasts long). Eventually, Blu-Ray ought to be technically better than HD-DVD, but who know when and if.
This caught me by surprise... I was shopping for a new HDTV last fall, and everywhere I looked, the limiting factor was the video... full of the usual MPEG-2/MPEG-4 artifacts... I was comparing Plasmas, LCoS, and DLP (eventually went with Samsung 5-color DLP, IMHO pretty much a push against Pioneer Plasmas and Sony LCoS, but a bit cheaper and they also had Firewire, which is useful since I shoot HDV). Then I found a Blu-Ray rig, but it was virtually as bad. Now, sure, these all look decent across the room, but up close, you see the noise.
HD-DVD
by fliersrr - 5/24/07 3:29 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I already own HD-DVD.
No HD here
by kzelez - 5/24/07 3:47 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I am pleased to see there are a number of people who realize that HD is not a requirement. It is too expensive for the limited amount of television that I watch, and I do not like being told that the government will require it. That seems like yet another example of being out of touch with the reality of poverty. If the television is the only way to let people know about important events, then it is morally wrong to make HD the only way to communicate.
Unfortunately, I also show my ignorance here. I do not know enough about the HD future, laws, and broadcasting.
DIGITAL TV v. Hi-Def (much misunderstanding - not just you!)
by Cadillac84 - 5/24/07 9:34 AM In reply to: No HD here by kzelezThe misunderstanding of the DIGITAL TV mandate from the FCC and Congress is being exploited by the TV manufacturers and even more so by the stores that sell the television receivers. The consumer is given plenty of HYPE about HIGH DEFINITION TV but it NOT told that DIGITAL TV is NOT NECESSARILY Hi-Def.
The purpose is to get people to buy Hi-Def. I bought Hi-Def on purpose having been properly informed and I am very pleased with my decision. I needed a new TV and decided to take the plunge even though I know prices will fall dramatically in the coming months and years.
You are wise to wait if you are able to keep on with what you now have. If you must buy a new TV (your present set dies or your eyes will no longer allow you to see the small and not-so-clear screen), I would advise buying Hi-Def. If you can't afford Hi-Def but you MUST buy a new TV, buy the cheapest thing you can live with and plan to replace it when prices reach your personal "sweet spot."
NOW, ABOUT HI-DEF AND DIGITAL TV:
Congress has not mandated High Definition TV. Congress and the FCC have mandated DIGITAL BROADCAST TV to replace Analog broadcast TV by 2009(?). High Definition TV is MADE POSSIBLE by digital TV. The analog signals did not have sufficient bandwidth to carry the high definition picture and sound data.
You may keep what you have for as long as it lives. When analog broadcasts cease in 2009(?), you will be provided a means for receiving the digital signal. Don't forget that the folks who made that law need for you to see their re-election ads on TV, so they will make sure you can receive the signal. Current plans are to provide you with a voucher to receive a digital converter if you need it. If you use a cable-tv service, you won't need it because your cable company will furnish you the signal you need.
You are correct when you say HD is not a requirement and nobody is going to make you get or use HD. You will benefit from the switch to digital TV even if you don't realize it.
The many broadcast television frequency bands has become an unmitigated nightmare -- a hodgepodge of years of assuming each addition would last unto the end of time. Take a look at this Wikipedia page to get an idea of the mess!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_broadcast_television_frequencies
So the government (Congress) responded to the FCC request that the whole television broadcast allotment be cancelled and that all broadcast licenses would be for DIGITAL TV broadcast ONLY after a transition period which ends in 2009 (I think the date is right).
Once the analog broadcasts end, the FCC will be able to take all of those frequency bands now used by broadcast TV and use them for other things. I happen to think the benefit of doing this far, far outweighs any cost to consumers.
In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, television has never been a better value. You mentioned the limited amount of television you watch. Go to a friend's house and watch Discovery HD or, if you're a night-owl, take a look at Jay Leno on NBC-HD. I'm not touting Jay or his jokes (although I do enjoy the show); but just have a look at the "set." Discovery HD has many superb offerings and you owe it to yourself to watch Planet Earth on HD -- not the same thing as buying the DVD set.
Remember that DVDs have ONLY 480 lines of video on them. Many currently available DVD players will "up-convert" the image to 480p (progressive scan) or 720p or 1280i (interlaced). But there is only 480 lines to get that from, and that means all the other lines are "made up" by the converter.
The Discovery HD broadcast is 1080i and it is breathtaking! If, as someone has stated, you don't believe in evolution or if you think the program has political agenda (aka "global warming") then turn off the sound and just look at the screen. You will see places on earth that you can never go and see animals that you will never see otherwise.
That program series, Planet Earth, is now available on both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well as traditional DVD format. For me, I'm not buying any of the series on DVD and I'll get either the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD set as soon as I have a player for one or the other.
Bottom line about your post -- you have been misled by advertising about television sets and it is not at all your fault. Neither are you in any way alone! The advertising emphasizes the HD which is not part of the FCC mandate. So don't think that you have to do anything about this -- you don't! But you may just want to if you check it out.
I'd suggest going to a real store that sells electronics equipment and has a good showroom. I do NOT suggest going to the "big box" stores for several reasons including the shortage of knowledgeable sales people, the shortage of program content and the noise.
I avoided the big box stores and went to a store in my town that has been selling TV since it was invented. (Prior to that, they sold and serviced "juke boxes" in the same town.) Now they have a fine state of the art facility and when I ask about HD broadcast, my salesman calls the guy in the front and says, "Put Discovery HD on for me, please." and all the sets in the showroom switch at once to Discovery HD for me to compare them. If I want to see what channel 12 looks like, he gets them to put channle 12 on for me. (After Discovery HD, it looks pretty sick!) I was very much impressed to watch a football flying through the air on one of the ESPN channels and I promise you could count the dimples in the leather as the ball was spinning through the air. (and the guy caught it, too!).
It is great stuff and there's a lot to make me, a non-TV person, start watching again.
C
I OWN BOTH FORMATS
by HeatherJenae - 5/24/07 4:58 AM In reply to: Are you planning to buy a high definition DVD player? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I currently own both players. I can say from a gaming stand point that the BluRay is better because it will hold more information. As games become more and more complex they will begin to take up more space and games may end up on several discs like computer gaming.
From the movie perspective, I agree with a couple others in saying I think HD-DVD has better movies.... depends on what you like. HD-DVD will be able to have HD on one side and standard DVD on the other side, but quite frankly I don't see the point unless you currently have a regular dvd player and are planning to buy HD in the future.
In conclusion, I think the war will go on. I think it may be to early in the game to tell who will win.
From a gaming standpoint...
by Alan Carey - 5/24/07 6:31 AM In reply to: I OWN BOTH FORMATS by HeatherJenae"I can say from a gaming stand point that the BluRay is better because it will hold more information. As games become more and more complex they will begin to take up more space and games may end up on several discs like computer gaming."
I think you are confused. Are you thinking about PC games or console games or both? No console games come on HDDVDs and none are planned. As far as PC games what does it matter if it's multiple discs (not that any PC games would fill a HDDVD anyway) you install the game on your HDD. Console wise, sticking with DVD could well be the better choice because of the faster read speeds. This is why sony was forced to include a HDD in their platform, bluray doesn't have fast enough read times to stream textures so they cache them on the HDD. In either case the media the game comes on will not impact its final quality.
Format wars mean nothing to the gamer.
Good explanation. Thanks!
by Cadillac84 - 5/24/07 9:36 AM In reply to: From a gaming standpoint... by Alan CareyI didn't know any of that. Thanks for your contribution.
C
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
