1080p TV with only 1080i input?

[hermanv]

I was looking to buy a Toshiba 56MX195 HDTV. This is one of the newer DLP sets with 1080x1920 resolution. Now that the Blu-Ray DVD players are out, the next TV I purchase should have 1080p inputs. I was told the Toshiba only excepted 1080i and internally upconverts to 1080p.

Accordingly I was thinking about the Mitsubishi WD-57731 which does support 1080p inputs. Additionally it has a color wheel that has both the primary red, green, blue and the secondary cyan, magenta, yellow segments (seems like a good idea).

The latest Consumer reports places the picture quality of the Mitsubishi well below the Toshiba sets. A salesman told me the limitation on the Toshiba accepting 1080p has been fixed. Since he works for a tilt up mass marketer, I'm not that sure I believe him or even if he knows the difference between 1080p and 1080i. He was telling customers that there was no point in purchasing a Blu-Ray player if they owned 720p Plasma sets since the picture wouldn't improve. I suspect the picture quality for a 720p output from a Blu-Ray player would still be very good and noticably better than standard DVD.

Anyway, I would appreciate if any one with knowledge on these questions could help me out.

[topspeed]

Ok, with the exception of BR and HD-DVD, there aren't any other sources at 1080p. With the dearth of software in either format, it's practically moot as to whether the Toshiba upconverts or not.

Both sets are DLP so both have spinning wheels. I dunno, the whole idea of spinning color wheels seems like maintenance just waiting to happen, but that could just be me. Both are reputable manufacturers so I would buy whatever looks best to you. Unlike audio where everyone has different tastes, different rooms, and different hearing abilities, in video the darn thing either looks right or it doesn't. Trust your eyes on this one. Personally, I found the Mits too dark for my taste and I absolutely hated the anti-glare shield, which is anything but.

As for the plasma question, there is some validity to his statement. 720p is 720p, regardless of the signal you feed it. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip and you can't make a 720p set magically produce 1080p resolution. 'Course, the irony to all this is that you need to have a really big tv or projector, close viewing distance, and have excellent vision to see the differences between a 1080p and 720p set.

Why are you focused on DLP sets? Have you checked out LCD or, more importantly, LCoS? I hate to be such a fanboy, but honestly every technology except LCoS has some form of shortcoming. From LCD's screen door effect to DLP's rainbows to plasma's limited resolution. Only LCoS marches on without some form of "yeah, but..."

Hope this helps.

[edtyct]

A TV that didn't accept 1080p signals when it appeared won't do so now. The next generation, however, certainly will (or did). So far as Blu-ray is concerned, it makes no difference whether the DVD player outputs 1080p/60fps or the TV takes 1080i and does the job internally itself. If the TV can process the 2:3 cadence of 1080i/30fps reasonably well, the result would effectively be the same. Displays that can accept 1080p/24fps natively are in the best position of all, since they eliminate the judder associated with pullsown, but those are few and far between. The great majority of displays for the foreseeable future will require 2:3 processing.

The general fuss about 1080p is a little misplaced, anyway, since viewers at normal seating distances with typical TV screen sizes are unlikely to see the extra resolutions. Large-screen front projection is most likely to reap the rewards. Hi def DVD will not be lost on 720p displays. On the better ones, it may well be indistinguishable from how it looks on 1080 displays. A fixation on resolution numbers does little justice to the complexity of video display. If you like the Toshiba better, and don't mind not having 1080p bragging rights, you won't be missing much if anything at all.

[hermanv]

The LCOS sets I've seen suffer from the same color issues I don't like on LCD; a sort of oversaturation of colors like the early Technicolor films and the colors don't quite seem to align with the color triangle for TV. It's possible that correctly set up this issue is moot, but I can only go by what I see.

The rainbow effect appears to be mostly gone, most modern DLP sets use 6 or 7 segment color wheels spinning at 10,000 rpm. The color update rate becomes 14uS, it appears some people trained themselves to be able to still see this because early DLP sets had a real problem. You can't find a modern DLP review without the rainbow effect warning closely followed by "but I didn't see it on this set."

I do share some concerns about reliability of mechanical spinning parts and wish the DLP sets with LED light sources were more common and cheaper. Still I don't read any complaints on the internet about pre-mature color wheel failures.

My first HDTV was a 55" CRT set. I sat close enough that warnings about being too close for a given resolution seemed correct. I notice as the overall quality of sources and micro display sets improve, that you can get a lot closer than you used to. The sets keep getting bigger with 72" and I think an 80" set being available. For standard sources, the upconverting DVDs are quite a bit better than even satellite TV, although not up to HDTV yet. The 1080p Blu-Ray demos are almost as startling as the first HDTV signals I saw. The technology is approaching the "like looking though a window" cliche.

The big issue for me between 1080i and 1080p is motion artifacts, I find the stroboscope like motion of 24 frame film quite irritating. 30 FPS is better and 60 FPS much better. Converting 1080i to 1080p internally leaves you with a 30 FPS update rate on things that are moving in the picture. I know that most commercial sources start life as 24 FPS film, but not all, and I suspect alternatives will increase in the future.

If one HDTV technolgy was the clearly superior answer, most everyone would make sets that way. Plasma is just too expensive. Some are getting cheaper, but those employ a very orange looking phospor for where it's supposed to be red.

I am near retirement, it is not impossible that this will the the last TV I ever buy so I am more than usually concerned about early adopter dissapointment. I assume that available signal bit density will continue to increase so I'd like to be at least a little future proof.

Still any and all insights are welcome. For me at least, the price of a TV like this while cheaper by far than they used to be, is still a significant expense.

[edtyct]

[quote=hermanv]The LCOS sets I've seen suffer from the same color issues I don't like on LCD; a sort of oversaturation of colors like the early Technicolor films and the colors don't quite seem to align with the color triangle for TV. It's possible that correctly set up this issue is moot, but I can only go by what I see.

The number of TVs that actually adhere to SMPTE standards for HD and/or SD color points is extremely small. The new Samsung does, as do a few others, but if someone didn't tell you, you wouldn't know. Personally, I find this a minor issue. Unless a TV's color decoder oversaturates colors grossly and incorrigibly--like many early or bottom-shelf ones--the user menu will often allow a more than adequate color and tint. To my mind, color temperature is much more important. In every relevant respect, I have no complaints about the LCoS sets that I've seen. By the way, I would never trust a big-box store to show what a particular display can do.

The rainbow effect appears to be mostly gone, most modern DLP sets use 6 or 7 segment color wheels spinning at 10,000 rpm. The color update rate becomes 14uS, it appears some people trained themselves to be able to still see this because early DLP sets had a real problem. You can't find a modern DLP review without the rainbow effect warning closely followed by "but I didn't see it on this set."

The rainbow effect is much reduced because of the new speeds and the added segments. But DLP sets rely largely on persistence of vision for almost everything--from color rendition, to grayscale, to resolution (wobulation or smooth picture). I much prefer three-chip designs with full native resolution and no dithering, but to a large extent, this is personal preference. Some DLPs are absolutely stunning.

I do share some concerns about reliability of mechanical spinning parts and wish the DLP sets with LED light sources were more common and cheaper. Still I don't read any complaints on the internet about pre-mature color wheel failures.

My first HDTV was a 55" CRT set. I sat close enough that warnings about being too close for a given resolution seemed correct. I notice as the overall quality of sources and micro display sets improve, that you can get a lot closer than you used to. The sets keep getting bigger with 72" and I think an 80" set being available. For standard sources, the upconverting DVDs are quite a bit better than even satellite TV, although not up to HDTV yet. The 1080p Blu-Ray demos are almost as startling as the first HDTV signals I saw. The technology is approaching the "like looking though a window" cliche.

How close you get will depend to some extent on the source resolution/quality, the TV's technology (fill factor), its processing, the size of the screen, how good your eyes are, and how forgiving your sensibility is. Pixel size gets very small at 1080p; it doesn't take much distance for it to lose its edge. For instance, on a 50" screen, 1080p is indistinguishable from 720p for most of us. The nice thing about LCoS and, to a certain extent, DLP with HD resolutions is that you can get closer without seeing the picture elements, but if you get close enough to appreciate 1080p, you still may not like it. And if you have a multichannel audio system, you might ruin the effect of it.

The big issue for me between 1080i and 1080p is motion artifacts, I find the stroboscope like motion of 24 frame film quite irritating. 30 FPS is better and 60 FPS much better. Converting 1080i to 1080p internally leaves you with a 30 FPS update rate on things that are moving in the picture. I know that most commercial sources start life as 24 FPS film, but not all, and I suspect alternatives will increase in the future.

When do you think that you've seen 24fps in a store or in your home? For one thing, 24fps is just about always shown at multiples of two or three, because otherwise it is subject to flicker. In consumer video, however, 99.9% of all displays (probably including all of those that you've seen) convert 24fps to 30 fps (either 481 or 1080i) or 30/60fps (720p or 1080p). The real problem is that this conversion process requires a repeating cadence of 2 fields or frames followed by 3 (ever 4 film frames require 10 video frames) in order to match up with film's rate of 24fps. This cadence is subject to an artifact called judder, a kind of herky-jerkiness that some eyes can pick up. If not performed accurately, other artifacts ensue, such as lines of vision not lining up correctly on screen. Film's native frame rate of 24 fps--or, more accurately, multiples of it--is blissfully free of this judder. There are other frame rates for other video sources, but the interlaced video that we had before progressive DVD players and displays hit the market were of the 30 fps variety, in which two successive fields of skipped lines created a single full frame thanks to persistence of vision (that again).

If one HDTV technolgy was the clearly superior answer, most everyone would make sets that way. Plasma is just too expensive. Some are getting cheaper, but those employ a very orange looking phospor for where it's supposed to be red.

Not so. Some people claim that CRT is the sine qua non of displays, but no major manufacturer these days has any desire to make them any more. I won't go into the reasons. Variety exists because people have different preferences and needs, and no technology can satisfy all of them. Besides, manufacturers who install the means of production of one or two technologies can't just switch to something else at the drop of a hat, but they can continue to refine them until they suffer a natural death (like CRT did). Actually, the colors on good-quality plasmas is, well, very good. In the beginning, producing accurate color wasn't their weakness so much as being able to create a smooth grayscale with contouring and banding. The color on Panasonic, Pioneer, and Hitachi plasmas is beautiful. The reds on many LCDs, however, used to be too orange and the greens too lime, mainly because of the crude subtractive color process. The new ones look a lot better (Sony). Plasmas aren't that expensive any more, since production has become relatively easy and abundant. The difficulty of producing LCoS seemed prohibitive for a long time, but Sony and JVC stuck with it while others dropped out. LCoS is now fully competitive with other technologies, even cheaper than flat LCD or plasma, and its promise as a high-performance professional medium has only begun to be tapped.

I am near retirement, it is not impossible that this will the the last TV I ever buy so I am more than usually concerned about early adopter dissapointment. I assume that available signal bit density will continue to increase so I'd like to be at least a little future proof.

Nothing is future proof. HDMI 1.3 promises higher bit depths, but the 10 bits that many products currently feature have all but eliminated many of the distracting artifacts that plasmas, LCDs, and DLPs once suffered in spades. Buy a TV; enjoy it while it lasts; and reconcile to the fact that in a digital age, it may last only half as long, if not less, than your favorite CRT did.

[hermanv]

Hi edtyct:

I agree with most of your points. Unfortunately, things aren't always that simple.

1. I think CRTs are still best, but to get the detail AND brightness requires a 9" or larger CRT and bigger power supplies driving the cost (and weight and size) up fast. I think consumer TV is a low margin business. I also don't think anyone ever fixed the convergence problem once and for all.

2. Ditto the three chip DLP, they're very nice, but not cheap.

3. I once worked for a video to film transfer equipment manufacturer; I learned how to look at TV pictures in a skeptical manner. Once you learn this it's very hard to unlearn, so I can see color issues, overdone edge enhancement, low frequency tilt in the video etc, quite easily.

4. I don't believe any TV can display 24 FPS directly, but no matter how you up convert it or how often you repeat a frame, the signal edges of moving objects move at 24 updates per second. This is very noticeable to me when the film camera is panning or filming fast motion. I am unaware of any upconverter that can fix this by interpolation, it seems theoretically possible but a staggering number of calculations would be needed per frame.

5. I didn't mean bit depth I suppose I really meant bandwidth; I meant to say that in the future I suspect more of the total pixels will be transmitted per frame, as far as I know current systems can not update every pixel in one frame. I think the TV can accept data at this rate but no transport medium has the bandwidth. I don't know about Blu-Ray, but I think it's MPEG 4 so it can't either.

6. We used to have a high end home theater store in my town, he mostly carried Runco, nice but out of financial reach for me. All I have left is the big box stores and magazine reviews.

6. Only fully functioning crystal balls are future proof, but I would like to climb up near the edge of today’s technology, unfortunately I also need to be balanced about cost.

Thanks for the insights, all that information with no innuendo or name calling, hard to imagine :cornut:

[edtyct]

hermanv,

Interesting points.

1. Yes, the 9" guns cover more of the bases, but precious few of those existed in ordinary contexts during CRT's heyday. They do not constitute the primary reason why CRT is held in such great esteem in the professional or consumer world. Grayscale, gamma, and color are the defining issues. Even while direct-view CRTs were incapable of anything like true HD horizontal resolution (let alone format versatility) or fixed-pixel brightness, they won the day with many critics. After all, horizontal resolution doesn't count as much as vertical, and with CRTs, the lights always have to be at least subdued if not squelched. And by the time of their demise, CRTs were relatively cheap to produce and sell. So, the idea that a supposedly superior technology associated with low costs would be gobbled up by every savvy manufacturer (and consumer) doesn't really fly. Heck, low-cost and merely acceptable performance might seem sufficient to justify popularity in this economy, and it hasn't. The variables are too great. I must admit ironically that I come at this issue no longer a worshipper of CRT on any grounds.

3. Yes, it's very hard not to ignore video blemishes once you've seen them (sometimes for hobbyists, once you've even heard about them). Needless to say, however, most people neither work in the field nor are troubled by common artifacts, and I've yet to see a typical consumer display without compromises. I guess someone in your position would have to pick his/her poison. Displays that get the color right won't necessarily have a deep black, etc. Edge enhancement is a tough cookie. Some TVs don't allow it to be defeated completely, but DVDs themselves are the worst culprits. And they don't allow any recourse. If I were in your shoes (and, to some extent, I am), I'd invest in calibration hardware/software, buy the most satisfying display possible, and adjust it as close to professional standards as possible.

4. Do you see flicker in a movie theater? That would be the place where the effects of 24fps or its multiples would be most evident. I don't see bothersome flicker in the movies, but if I work hard enough at it (and I don't like to), I can see the effects of interlacing and the 2:3 cadence. Ordinarily, I don't see them if I'm paying attention to content. I'm willing to bet that you haven't seen 24fps at home, but that you have seen the limitations of video processing and the drawbacks of certain technologies during motion scenes or camera pans on a consumer display. Maybe I'm wrong, and you are cursed with seeing the defects inherent in film projection. To me, however, the conversion of film or video to progressive frame rates on a consumer TV or projection screen is much more significant. Have you used the HQV test disk?

5. I can't imagine that the tranmission of every pixel that a source has to offer will take place any time soon. In fact, the trend everywhere, in both audio and video, is to create compression schemes to flatter economics and personal convenience, which seem to be far more important to consumers and providers than pristine image or music quality. Except for MP3s, however, I can't complain about compression, so long as it isn't overdone by my cable company to the point of break up or under-utilized by hi def DVD. It's actually a godsend.

6. My vote for the edge of technology right now is LCoS--not that other options don't have their strengths, benefits, and curb appeal. But, as Speedy said, LCoS is capable of getting a lot of things right, even if we haven't seen the best of it yet. And compared to plasma or flat-panel LCD, an RP LCoS set is relatively inexpensive. A front projector will set you back some, but budget is an another matter.

[hermanv]

CRTs still have great strengths, but I'm like you, they are heavy, hot, big and expensive. Alternate technologies, shortcommings and all make the CRT pretty unattractive.

I was enamored of the HP DM5880(?) DLP set. Prices werere dropping, I was nearly ready to pounce when they dissapeared from the market faster than an iceberg in the Sahara. I did wonder what HP was thinking jumping into the cutthroat home display market.

If I had the budget, I give real thought to an outboard scan converter, it appears they still beat all the built in designs hands down. Ditto a dedicated theater room, front projectors are pretty impressive, but seem ill suited for day in day out televsion.

Anyway, based on these discussions I'll give a new hard look at the LCOS sets, thanks again.

[Breezer88888]

Hello all,

I've read through this chain with much interest and would like to hear some LCoS suggestions. Plasma is definitely enticing with their prices dropping from last year. But what of Sony's KDS50A2000? I think that's an SXRD which is LCoS. But I'm only getting started on the research.

Thanks,
Breezer

[Breezer88888]

Hi Ed,

Hope you've been doing well. Just wanted to say thanks for your help about 2 years ago where I bought a Sony RP LCD and their NS975 upconverting dvd player. Seems like you haven't missed a beat keeping up with posts here on AR.

take care,
Breezer

[edtyct]

Hey Breezer,

Long time. Nice to see you back. I guess I stuck around like the guest with his hat in his hand talking in the doorway. Are you in the market again? Search the video section under LCoS for info.

Ed

[hermanv]

I still haven't had time to go to the store for a close personal look, but I did read a number of reviews on the LCOS sets.

The JVC sets are all reported to have greens that lean towards flourescent, this is something I noticed with the few sets I looked at casually a couple of months back. It is a problem that many LCD sets seem to share.

The other big name manufacturer of LCOS is Sony. I'm not a Sony fan, they seem to have some reliability problems right now. Reliability problems are bad enough, but there are consistent reports of refusals to honor waranties. Sony also seems determined to start format wars (most recent; SACD, Blu-Ray and memory stick). When you couple this with the recent Sony CD copy protection fiasco, Sony appears to be an actively anti-consumer company, so I'll just stay away.

I do admit to a certain small joy I get from agonizing over these kinds of decisions, I realize that not everyone else shares this feeling. I paid $2,700 for my first HDTV, what, 7 years ago. The sets I'm looking at now (56" or 57") are selling for a street price of closer to $1,900. This does seem to be a lot of TV for that price and they are smaller and lighter than my first rear projection HDTV.

Although many plasma sets do have a beautiful picture, this is not true for the models that compete with that $1,900 price. Those sets have very orange colored reds and I wonder about their long term life. Plasma sets still suffer from brightness loss over time, scene burn in issues and dead pixels. I have yet to see even one DLP set with a dead pixel.

So the hunt is on, whee.

[edtyct]

AVMASTER, who deals the JVC DiLAs and shows up here from time to time, is keen on them (and not just for the obvious reason). At the risk of heavy flogging, I've had some favorable experience with Sony's SXRDs, which I've cataloged on the video forum here. My obligatory report on Datacolor's SpyderTV Pro calibration system (a version of which is also available on the video board) used a Sony 55" SXRD as the test case. I was impressed with its performance, and its user menu, which is enthusiast-friendly. I think that you and I discussed this matter already, but few sets come with accurate color points. The new Samsung DLP with the LED backlight does, but it appears to suffer from other defects. I find grayscale tracking much more important than "color inaccuracy," in that white balance affects the basic look of everything from color to black/white to contrast/brightness. Color decoding above and beyond color temperature has a little play subjectively, although incorrigibly and excessively oversaturated greens can kill the grass and oversaturated reds can give even shut-in computer geeks a sunburn. Sometimes, however, these infelicities are curable in the user and/or service menus. But, all things being equal or nearly so, I like a set that permits grayscale tweaking--with the proper instruments, that is. The Sonys do, and the accessibility can pay dividends.

[hermanv]

Hi edtyct;

I do not fault Sony on their technology, I just don't like predatory corporations and try and avoid supporting them even when they make good products. I am not perfect in following my own rule and have broken it in the past. It is a guide not an absolute.

I was burned once by MCI and inspite of many mergers and aquisitions see no need to support them, a close friend had a similar experience with VW and will never buy another car from them. I wish more people would remember mistreatment and vote with their wallets, seems like it might make he world a tiny bit better.

As I've posted, I am quite sensitive to color imbalance yet in spite of years of careful looking at displays I don't see rainbows, I suppose I should count my blessings..

I've recently read that after long viewing sessions DLP causes severe headaches in a small minority of viewers, have you heard anything about this?

[edtyct]

Yes, a small percentage of people are susceptible to headaches from DLPs. To the best of my knowledge, the phenomenon has been attributed to the color wheel. I've wondered, however, whether the extent to which DLPs depend on persistence of vision (that is, a brain activity) to simulate simultaneity might not eventually have an effect on viewers. I have no hard evidence that it does, but the rainbows and headaches speak a little bit to my concern.

Edit: As an aside, if I steered clear of every business and corporate entity that done me, or anyone else, wrong in some form or another, I'd be sitting homeless in the cold somewhere in my underwear, hoping never to hear anything bad about Fruit of the Loom. Brrrrr.

[hermanv]

Yes, a small percentage of people are susceptible to headaches from DLPs. To the best of my knowledge, the phenomenon has been attributed to the color wheel. I've wondered, however, whether the extent to which DLPs depend on persistence of vision (that is, a brain activity) to simulate simultaneity might not eventually have an effect on viewers. I have no hard evidence that it does, but the rainbows and headaches speak a little bit to my concern. CRT sets, projection or conventional are depedant on persistance of vision , yet I've not heard of the headache issue with them. I'm not disagreeing, just observing that this seems new. It might be a scan (or color wheel) update rate issue, both being much faster than the old CRT flicker rate of 60 per second. Faster updates should help not hinder this problem, but it remains true that this is not the way the brain expects to receive visual signals.

Perhaps so few people are affected due to the scarcity of working brains:).

[edtyct]

Right, I know what you mean, and it's not an issue that I'm willing to take up arms and die for. But audio and video do harbor phenomena that can create unconscious effects, like the "exhaustion" that some people undergo while listening to speakers with unnatural frequency response. People have received grants to study things more foolish than persistence of vision anomalies. But, as I said, it's idle speculation on my part. without any basis in experience. As for the performance of DLPs, I've seen some in casual situations that were simply breathtaking.

[westcott]

Once again, I agree with almost everything Ed said.

One point about DLP that has not been brought up is other anomolies some people notice like my wife and I. We may be a small group, but we experience more than just rainbow effects. We both experience headaches and I get motion sickness if I move about the room while viewing. NOT a good thing if you have invested thousands of dollars so I suggest you and your loved ones visit a boutique store and plant yourself in front of the model you intend to buy before making a decision on technology.

LCD pixelation is worse on some models than others but for the most part is really only an issue if you sit too close to the display anyway.

I too prefer a three panel display but at the time of my purchase, they were still pretty expensive. They have come down in price and really are the cats meow for better reliability and fewer issues as mentioned above.

1080i or 1080p is a mute point unless you are considering front projection. I challenge anyone to tell the difference on a display smaller than 65" and even I can not tell the difference between 720p and 1080i at 100". Heck, I sometimes can not even tell it from 480p on some high quality DVD material. It is all marketing who hah. The only real advantage is that the newer displays are offering straight conversion of 1080i/24 which could reduce artifacts that would otherwise make your display processing a more critical aspect of your buying decision. Here again, we are talking to small group of us who have taken the jump to HD DVD or BR. It could be years before a winner is declared and by then, 1080p will be much more cost effective. 720p is probably still your best bang for the buck at this juncture.

Lycos is a great technology and should be considered if it fits in your budget, but here again, all the technologies have gotten so good over the last couple of years, I doubt many could tell the difference either.

[Breezer88888]

You guys have been great with your posts - very informative in this mind-boggling marketing frenzied world (or as Westcott meant to say "Hoo-Hah"). I'm distilling my decision down to the Sony KDS-50A2000 for price reasons, picture quality, 1080p future-proofing to some extent, and its speakers (it won't be connected to any HT). The plasmas (Toshiba 50HP66) has been very tempting, but this set will be in a living room with lots of daylight.

Here's a question for you all. While I won't be considering a BR or HD-DVD for some time, should I concern myself with an upconverting DVD player to hold me over? Does anyone know whether the Sony's internal upconversion is enough? Thanks, Breezer

[westcott]

Upconverting players is another grand standing marketing technique.

One should be far more concerned with the qualilty of the mpeg decoding and deinterlacing/scaling processors within the DVD players.

Here is a site that should bring you up to speed and help you find the best performing DVD player for your budget and features you consider necessary.

Good Luck and let us know what you think!!!

Secrets of Home Theater (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=all)

P.S. You will notice on this site that Sony is nowhere to be found. They make some good displays but video processing is not their strong suit.

[edtyct]

I'm pretty familiar with the A2000 series. I've been more impressed with its processing than I expected to be. I've tested its inverse 2:3 pulldown vis a vis a Toshiba HD A1 player and found the performance to be similar. Neither is particularly quick to recognize the cadence on the HQV test disk, but both appear to deal well with it when they do. Although the Sony isn't particularly distinguished with test signals, it looks very good when fed actual film material. I was also impressed with its handling of video material on cable, even the drek that originates in analog form. Nonetheless, unless you have a huge screen, or sit right in front of the set, the margin of difference between the best processors and the mediocre ones isn't always visible. Other factors complicate the perception of performance. If you want to be safe, the Oppo player performs generally better (scaling and deinterlacing) than an inexpensive player should, though it's lacking the wow factor in sheer picture quality that more costly DVD players can deliver (I'm thinking, in various degrees, of the Denons, the Arcams, the Sony ES's, et al.). As often happens in A/V, you don't know what you're missing until you've witnessed it. Just when you think something can't possibly get any better, it does. If you don't intend to buy, say, an Accuphase, you might do well not to test one. In the A2000's favor, it has a plethora of helpful user controls under the custom menu, though some require a meter to be set properly. Personally, I love it for that.

[Breezer88888]

Thanks Westcott,

The "Secrets of HT" was very cool, and I did find my Sony player (NS-975 which Ed has spoken favorably of in the past - I still love this player!). I'll read through that article in greater detail at another time, but it sounds like upconversion may not be necessary. My foreseen strategy is that by the time I pay for the TV and am ready to consider BR or HD-DVD, their prices will soften up a bit in late 2007 (Black Friday). So now comes the fun part - working on the best deal with the least hassle factor. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks again! Breezer