HD TV vs. Projector

  • Thread starter Thread starter fideles1986
  • 91 comments
  • 11,402 views
fideles1986
?question? Can i watch the basic channels (not digital) on the plasma TV with just an antena? or do i need cable or satelite?
Click to expand...


Over-the-air-standard channels are no different than any other set. If you've got an antenna, you can get them. If you want cable, the same cable goes into the set.

To get HD channels, you need either digital cable (or satellite) with HD channels, or and HD tuner (maybe builtin to the set) and an HD antenna.
 
well finally got the TV (42" Samsung)last week and its awesome! Too bad i dont have component cables for my PS2 :( but i'll have some soon. I thought I just needed the normal AV cables, but then I realized i needed component to deliver the 1080i GT4 can produce.

pics soon...
 
1080p is more stable than 1080i -no flickering on the screen(i am not a res wiz). some say 720p is better than 1080i. so just picture 1080p :)
 
does anyone know what is the max res. that can be produced via VGA (from my PC to the Plasma)?

Also, why does my screen look like it's displaying a bunch of visible dots (screen looks like a pastel picture or a GIF image with alot of noise)

Is it because it's 42", so it has to resize the original image, or because its not receiving a digital signal? when i play a DVD via AV cables, it looks horrible!!!

thanx in advanced 👍

edit: also when i plug my PC to the TV is looks bad. when i say bad i dont mean horrible, but nothing even close to my 19" monitor
 
GT4_Rule
What exactly is the difference between 1080i and 1080p?
Click to expand...
1080i is a video signal that is made up of 1920x540 fields which are sent at 60Hz (1/60 of a second). When properly deinterlaced and 3:2 pulldown is applied, these fields are perfectly weaved together and produce a proper 1920x1080p signal for display.

1080p is a video signal that is made up of 1920x1080 frames, and requires no deinterlacing.

If the 1920x1080 display does everything right, then there is no difference between viewing a 1080i and 1080p signal.

Unfortunately most 1920x1080 displays DO NOT do this properly. What many of them do is they take the 1920x540 fields and simply scale the resolution up to 1920x1080 which is much easier and less expansive to do as it avoids having to use a deinterlacer. Unfortuntely though, this causes a noticeable drop in the quality of the image, and why many see "motion blur" when watching 1080i material on those displays that don't deinterlace.

Making the situation even more frustrating is that most 1920x1080 displays that have been manufactuered up until recently do not even accept a 1080p singal, and even those that do, many will not pass that 1080p singal directily to the processors for display, but will actually convert it to an interlaced signal, and then process it... which usually results is a loss of picture quality.

This can be quite frustrating, as manufacturers do not go out of their way to reveal whether there 1920x1080 displays even accept a 1080p singal, and they rarely ever reveal whether they do proper deinterlacing and 3:2 pulldown.

Even if you have a 1280x720 display, having one that properly deinterlaces a 1080i signal will result in a superior piture, especially with fast moving images, like sports... without it, you'll get the dreaded motion blur from upscaled 540i fields.

There was some magazine that recently tested several (over 50 I think) HD displays and identified how each handles 1080i singals. I'll try and find out who that was if anyone is interested.
 
fideles1986
does anyone know what is the max res. that can be produced via VGA (from my PC to the Plasma)?

Also, why does my screen look like it's displaying a bunch of visible dots (screen looks like a pastel picture or a GIF image with alot of noise)

Is it because it's 42", so it has to resize the original image, or because its not receiving a digital signal? when i play a DVD via AV cables, it looks horrible!!!

thanx in advanced 👍

edit: also when i plug my PC to the TV is looks bad. when i say bad i dont mean horrible, but nothing even close to my 19" monitor
Click to expand...

Most HD sets digitize a standard analog signal and upconvert it to their native resolution, but many do a much poorer job than others. I've seen sets that made no artifact at all, and I've seen others that were unwatchable in standard analog. Same problem with converting VGA. You might try different resolutions and scan frequencies on the PC, maybe one setting will click better.
 
Here are the results from the tests on 61 different 2006 model HDTVs from plasmas, flat panel LCDs and LCoS, to RP LCDs, DLPs, and LCoS, as well as a FP LCD and a FP DLP:

DeinterlaceTest_01.jpg



More than half failed to properly deinterlace a 1080i signal, and 80% failed the 3:2 pulldown conversion tests. The effect of failing these tests is a drop in native source resolution by as much s 50%, or about 1 million pixels of data every frame.

This helps explain why many consumers who have looked at 1920x1080 sets, or compared 1080i to 720p sources didn't see much of a difference.

If you are in the market for a HDTV whether it be a 1280x720 or 1920x1080 set.... be sure you know what you are buying and that it not only does proper deinterlacing, but that it also does proper 3:2 pulldown conversion! Otherwise, you are going to lose a great deal of detail from all 1080i signals.
 
fideles1986
Do blue ray movies downscale to 720p if a TV doesn't do 1080p?(PS3)
Click to expand...
Yes. It is part of the specifications for ALL Blu-ray players, including the one in the PS3.

All HD DVD and Blu-ray titles are encoded in 1080p but can be output at different resolutions as well as interlaced. One of the problems with the HD DVD players is that they could not output the original 1080p signal, and had to interlace the signal, leaving it to the display to properly deinterlace it back to 1080p... which as we now know, very few displays actually do this.

Keep in mind, if or when studios begin to use the ICT (Image Constraint Tolken) for future HD video releases, and your display does not have an input with HDCP (all HDMI inputs do, some DVI inputs do as well), then the image will be scaled down to 540p.

This will be a problem for XB360 owners who bought the HD DVD add-on, as it does not offer an HDCP compliant output... assuming the studios use the ICT flag, which many don't expect them to any time soon.
 
thanx 👍

edit: when i use my TV as a PC monitor, what is the res. i get? The image quality seems the same as a standard DVD player (480i) via A/V connection.

(TV accepts 1024X768 max res. from PC)
 
fideles1986
thanx 👍
edit: when i use my TV as a PC monitor, what is the res. i get? The image quality seems the same as a standard DVD player (480i) via A/V connection.
(TV accepts 1024X768 max res. from PC)
Click to expand...

Resolution is what you select your pc to output. Actual displayed resolution is the native resolutuion of your tv.So tv scales input to match native resolution. Quality of conversion depends on tv.

For Best picture choose 1024X768 from your pc and use DVI ,HDMI ,VGA-cable
or component video to transmit the signal.
 
got my component cables today and with the 42" display @ 1080i , GT4 doesn't look as great as i thought it would, hopefully the PS3 will deliver better results.
 
Raitziger
in long run lcd or plasma is cheaper,usually projector lamp has to be replaced every 3000-5000 hours or so(same for most rear projection tvs). For games lcd has edge over some plasma ,because some plasmas suffer from "burn-in"(permanent ghost image caused by continuos static objects on screen).
Drowbacks of lcds have been poor contrast ratio and responce time.
In upcoming months we will see new bread of 1080p lcd´s that have as low as 4ms responce time and contrast ratio up to 1:10000 dynamic and 1:2000 static.
Im waiting for those.
Click to expand...

This guy doesn't know what he's takling about. Projector lamps are about $300 and so over the course of a 40-60,000 hour lifespan of an LCD or Plasma, it isn't cheaper. Also, it takes thousands of continuous hours to burn in an image on newer plasmas. Unless you don't plan to stop playing your game to work or sleep or get a used one, this won't be a problem. LCD is TERRIBLE for fast gaming because if its "responce" time. (ResponSe.) Old plasma tvs still have a 1ms response time, so the new "4ms" LCDs are still quite crappy to someone who is even slightly detail oriented. They are even worse for sports. A quick pass of the ball or puck and it literally disappears. I'm waiting for the LCDs he spoke about made out of "bread" because they will be tasty, in addition to displaying quality images. AMAZING!
 
OFF TOPIC: My PC monitor has a BNC Connector input.exactly as follows:

R
G(/SYNC)
B
HS/CS
VS

If I set on my PS2 config Component output to RGB, and plug in those three in, will it work on my PC monitor?
 
ugly_duckling
This guy doesn't know what he's takling about. Projector lamps are about $300 and so over the course of a 40-60,000 hour lifespan of an LCD or Plasma, it isn't cheaper. Also, it takes thousands of continuous hours to burn in an image on newer plasmas. Unless you don't plan to stop playing your game to work or sleep or get a used one, this won't be a problem. LCD is TERRIBLE for fast gaming because if its "responce" time. (ResponSe.) Old plasma tvs still have a 1ms response time, so the new "4ms" LCDs are still quite crappy to someone who is even slightly detail oriented. They are even worse for sports. A quick pass of the ball or puck and it literally disappears. I'm waiting for the LCDs he spoke about made out of "bread" because they will be tasty, in addition to displaying quality images. AMAZING!
Click to expand...
Actually, Raitziger's very generalized analysis on these display technologies was quite good. Unfortunately, the same can not be said about Ugly Duckling's hyperbolic comments on the virtues of Plasma.

While it is true that plasma technology has improved somewhat in the area of phospher burn-in... the idea that it takes thousands of continous hours to burn-in an image on newer plasmas is not only preposterous, but malicious!

He also fails to account for the excessive power demands that plasmas require when compared to similar sized displays of LCD or DLPs. With todays high cost of electricity, this can end up costing far more per hour than any other display technology, even those that require lamp replacements like projection displays.

It is also important to point out some of the other flaws in plasma technology.

Currently plasma has the most notiecable pixel grid (aka screen door) of all display technologies.

Plasma screens are the most reflective of all display technologies, thus you will often see reflections of people and objects in the viewing room while watching what is on the screen.

Plasmas are also impossible to properly calibrate grayscale to D65K among all IRE levels. The result of this is a compromise in color acuity. Relating to this problem is the green push inheriant in plasma technology which often results in cartoonish looking greens among many plasma TVs.

His understanding of "response time" is equally marred. Anything below 8ms will be almost entrirely unpercievable by the human eye.


Bottom line, no current display technology is with out its own set of disadvantages.



fideles1986
OFF TOPIC: My PC monitor has a BNC Connector input.exactly as follows:

R
G(/SYNC)
B
HS/CS
VS

If I set on my PS2 config Component output to RGB, and plug in those three in, will it work on my PC monitor?
Click to expand...
BNC is a type of interconnector, and is used with many different types of cable. If your PC has RGB inputs, then yes, it should be able to receive signals from the PS2 via component cables.
 
I never understood the benefits of plasma. It has burn in (while it is improved, LCD's don't have it at all), its expensive and it will wear off relatively quickly. LCD's just seem so much better.
 
i noticed something yesterday on my TV: it doesn't say HD Ready :(? what is the difference? the one thing i noticed was that the pixels on tvs that say HD ready are way smaller than mine :( that sux!!! i spent all that $$$ on a none HD ready tv. not that it looks bad, but i am sure it would look much better if it was. guess i'll have to save up for another one, dump this one in my living room. (it's currently on my TV/office room). saw a sony bravia 40" on Discovery HD the other day :drool: here = R$7,000 = US$3,263 👎
 
fideles1986
i noticed something yesterday on my TV: it doesn't say HD Ready :(? what is the difference? the one thing i noticed was that the pixels on tvs that say HD ready are way smaller than mine :( that sux!!! i spent all that $$$ on a none HD ready tv. not that it looks bad, but i am sure it would look much better if it was. guess i'll have to save up for another one, dump this one in my living room. (it's currently on my TV/office room). saw a sony bravia 40" on Discovery HD the other day :drool: here = R$7,000 = US$3,263 👎
Click to expand...

What is your current TV then?
 
fideles1986
my MONITOR has the BNC inputs not the PC.
Click to expand...
That was understood as we are discussing displays... it was simply a typo, sorry if that threw you for a loop.


fideles1986
i noticed something yesterday on my TV: it doesn't say HD Ready :(? what is the difference?
Click to expand...
"HD Ready" in North America is an agreed upon label within the consumer display industry for displays (specifically televisions) that have at least 1280x720 or greater resolution, that have either, or both component and DVI/HDMI inputs - but does not include a built-in HD capable tuner.

In Europe, the EICTA (European Information Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations) has its own rules on the terms of labeling a TV as "HD Ready". I am not familiar with South American consumer electronic regulations, but I'm sure you can find these out on your own.

the one thing i noticed was that the pixels on tvs that say HD ready are way smaller than mine :(
Click to expand...
The size of the pixels is not solely dependent on the resolution of the display, but if you are comparing displays of equal size, then smaller pixels usually are indicative of having higher resolution (as the display is using more pixels in the same size area).

that sux!!! i spent all that $$$ on a none HD ready tv. not that it looks bad, but i am sure it would look much better if it was. guess i'll have to save up for another one, dump this one in my living room. (it's currently on my TV/office room).
Click to expand...
Before jumping to any conclusions, it would help immensely if you knew even the basic specifications of your display. These would tell you exactly what type of display you have, its native resolution, as well as the types of signals it can accept.

If you can't find this info, just list the make and model here, and I'm sure someone will be able to tell you what the specs are for your TV.

saw a sony bravia 40" on Discovery HD the other day :drool: here = R$7,000 = US$3,263 👎
Click to expand...
Of the current crop of flat panel displays (Plasmas & LCDs), the Bravia LCDs from Sony and some of the AQUOS LCD displays from Sharp are by far the best performing.

I've seen a few places that sell the 46" Bravia 1080p and 52" AQUOS 1080p LCD displays for under $3,000 - which is astonishing considering lesser performing 1080p displays were selling for over $10,000 just two years ago!

If you are on a tighter budget, you can get some excellent 720p displays for less than $1,500.
 
well just went to the site and took a look at the specs and it is a HD TV ready display :dunce: here]

specs:
42" plasma (16:9)
progressive scan
HDTV Ready
549.7 billion colors
Contrast 10.000:1
signals via component 480i,480p,720p,1080i and HDMI 480p,720p,1080i
Samsung DNIe™ video enhancer
number of pixels 852 X 480 = 408,960


couldn't find the "ms" i don't even know what that is, responce time or something.:dunce: well i am not as :grumpy: as i was , but i still want one of those:bowdown:BRAVIAS
 
fideles1986
well just went to the site and took a look at the specs and it is a HD TV ready display :dunce: here]

specs:
42" plasma (16:9)
progressive scan
HDTV Ready
549.7 billion colors
Contrast 10.000:1
signals via component 480i,480p,720p,1080i and HDMI 480p,720p,1080i
Samsung DNIe™ video enhancer
number of pixels 852 X 480 = 408,960


couldn't find the "ms" i don't even know what that is, responce time or something.:dunce: well i am not as :grumpy: as i was , but i still want one of those:bowdown:BRAVIAS
Click to expand...

Where did it list the resolution (number of pixels) as being 852 X 480 (408,960)?

If that is truly the resolution, then it is definitely NOT HD ready, in fact it would not even be 1/4 HD which is 960x540 (518,400).

The good news, sort of, is that I suspect that model (PL-42S5S) Samsung has similar specs as the PS-42S5S which has a resolution of 1024x768 (XGA). It is still widescreen because each pixel is wider than it is taller. The bad news is that while it may be advertised as HD it really isn't. It must use a scaler to drop the resolution of a 1280x720 HD signal down to 1024x768, thus losing about 20% of the resolution. When given a 1920x1080 HD signal, the scaler would remove over 60% of the resolution!

These 1024x768 plasmas were commonly made in the early days of plasma as they were less expensive to manufacture than 1280x720. Unfortunately though they seriously compromise PQ, not only due to the lower resolution, but also because of the pixel size (which is why you noticed they were larger), as they have to be stretched to form a 16:9 aspect ratio.

At least here in the states, 1024x768 plasma displays are rarely ever sold any more.
 
yea thats what it says, i got the manual (PDF) in english so i am sure of it. 852X480 damn! lol oh well, it's all good, next time i'll look better at the specs before i buy something that expensive.

thanx Digital-Nitrate 👍

edit: i bought the BNC connectors and it didnt work.👎
 
Here is some specs of one "new" lcd tv that i was talking about earlier:
Sharp 46" AQUOS LCD Flat Panel HDTV In Piano Black, Model LC46D92U

The AQUOS D92U series, in 52" and 46" screen sizes, sets a new standard for large-screen flat-panel TVs.With Full HD 1080p resolution, dramatically enhanced black level and an elegant new design, it produces a breathtaking picture quality that is second to none. The D92U Series utilizes the next generation of Sharp’s proprietary Advanced Super View/Black TFT Panel with multi-pixel technology†, providing 15,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio, 4ms response time and wide viewing angles (176°H x 176°V). In addition, the D92U models include 120Hz frame rate conversion for the ultimate in fast-motion image processing. Both models are HDTVs with built-in ATSC / QAM / NTSC tuners and include 3 HDMI™, compatible with 1080p signals, and 2 HD 1080p component video inputs as well as RS-232C for control. The D92U Series features a sleek piano black cabinet, with detachable, recessed bottom-mounted speakers and the included table stand easily removes for wall mounting applications.

source: Sharp brochure

So thats the USA model of ucoming sharp lcd tv. EU-models(pal support) what im waiting for are named something like XDE or HD1.
Though specs are impresive only proper tests will tell if its worth it.
 

Latest Posts

Back