Digital TV

[PAT.P]

Progressive vs interlaced TV ?Check it out !:ihih: http://alvyray.com/digitaltv/default.htm

[PAT.P]

After reading this article makes me wonder why consumers are being the suckers in buying HDTV in the 1080i when a 480p is as better.:incazzato:

[L.J.]

After reading this article makes me wonder why consumers are being the suckers in buying HDTV in the 1080i when a 480p is as better.:incazzato:

Hey Pat, it's been a while. How's it going?

[PAT.P]

Hey Pat, it's been a while. How's it going? Been renovating for last 6 months ,top to bottom.Mother -in-law is my new tenant in my rental unit:confused5: All my extra $$$$$ is gone ! Did buy a Panasonic 42" plasma EDTV last week and yes 480p .

[PAT.P]

:confused5: No comment , no opinion ?

[L.J.]

:confused5: No comment , no opinion ?

My momma alwayz told me. If ya ain't got nottin' nice ta say, than don't say nottin' at all :ihih: JK

How's the PQ with HD sources? You do have HD don't ya?

Why'd you go with EDTV?

[PAT.P]

My momma alwayz told me. If ya ain't got nottin' nice ta say, than don't say nottin' at all :ihih: JK

How's the PQ with HD sources? You do have HD don't ya?

Why'd you go with EDTV? Picture quality is great and yes I have HD box.I went EDTV because of price and quality of the Panasonic.There only 60 lines dif then the 1080i and you cant tell the dif with your eyes:ihih: This wont be my main system ,this is in living room.I did my research first and this one fits the bill$$$$.Just invested way more$$$$$$$$$ on renovation than I expected:incazzato:

[recoveryone]

I think its more your wife spent more on the renovation.....lol

interesting choice and research, but you know us PQ nuts. If it makes you happy is all that really matters anyway. And when you think about it you may have made the best choice overall. Most broadcast are still 480i or less and your HD signals will be down-converted to 480p, which brings it to a very good DVD level of viewing. For something that's not your main viewing setup could not ask for much more for the $$$.

I was trying to tell my oldest son about a HDTV RCA 35" CRT that wal-mart had for about $300. He didn't have the cash then but when he got is income tax cash back He went out and jump on the flat screen bandwagon. I have yet to see it, and he won't tell me how much he paid for it, but he's young (21) and still learning.

[pixelthis]

This is what you get when the ignorant start leading the unenlightened.
EDTV is a complicated way of saying 480p.
AND its true that when theres movement an interlaced pictures rez collapses into that of one field, which for 1080i means 540 lines
BUT the "color palete" of 1080i is a lot broader than 480p, and most 480p is either "dowmconverted" from hd or "upconverted" from 480i stuff like DVD
and YES DVD HAS 480 LINES, but thats the LINES, the resolution is actually 400
lines or so.
So you get the worst of both worlds.
MY set is 768, with 1,100,000 pixels, more than a 1080i sets 800,000 or so pixels,
and about three times as much as your "edtv"
AND a 1080p (the future) has TWO MILLION PIXELS, and you can not only tell the diff from standard def, you can tell the diff from ANYTHING else.
YES EDTV wasnt much different from early HDTV sets, but an untrained eye could SEE the difference easily, and current HDTVS are blowing the doors off of not only EDTV
but 1080i
BTY you know why EDTV was first started? IT WAS CHEAPER than regular plasmas,
giving people who were cheap but wanting to brag about their "plasma" tv a chance to do so.
It was also seen as a way of selling plasmas, most early models were very expensive.
This is why EDTVS are almost always plasmas.
AND yes if it makes you happy tro buy an inferior product that a 600$ lcd set can beat
than more power to ya but dont EVEN try to say that theres "no difference" between an EDTV and a HDTV when the difference is obvious.
BUT dont worry, most of the people you are trying to impress with that magic word
"plasma" probably wont know or care:1:

[Resident Loser]

This is what you get when the ignorant start leading the unenlightened.
EDTV is a complicated way of saying 480p.
AND its true that when theres movement an interlaced pictures rez collapses into that of one field, which for 1080i means 540 lines
BUT the "color palete" of 1080i is a lot broader than 480p, and most 480p is either "dowmconverted" from hd or "upconverted" from 480i stuff like DVD
and YES DVD HAS 480 LINES, but thats the LINES, the resolution is actually 400
lines or so.
So you get the worst of both worlds.
MY set is 768, with 1,100,000 pixels, more than a 1080i sets 800,000 or so pixels,
and about three times as much as your "edtv"
AND a 1080p (the future) has TWO MILLION PIXELS, and you can not only tell the diff from standard def, you can tell the diff from ANYTHING else.
YES EDTV wasnt much different from early HDTV sets, but an untrained eye could SEE the difference easily, and current HDTVS are blowing the doors off of not only EDTV
but 1080i
BTY you know why EDTV was first started? IT WAS CHEAPER than regular plasmas,
giving people who were cheap but wanting to brag about their "plasma" tv a chance to do so.
It was also seen as a way of selling plasmas, most early models were very expensive.
This is why EDTVS are almost always plasmas.
AND yes if it makes you happy tro buy an inferior product that a 600$ lcd set can beat
than more power to ya but dont EVEN try to say that theres "no difference" between an EDTV and a HDTV when the difference is obvious.
BUT dont worry, most of the people you are trying to impress with that magic word
"plasma" probably wont know or care:1:

...snarky...

jimHJJ(...but nicely done...)

[PAT.P]

This is what you get when the ignorant start leading the unenlightened.
EDTV is a complicated way of saying 480p.
Somebody **** in your cereal this morning?I did'nt start this thread to get insulted.If I wanted to invest in more expensive plasma I could .:incazzato:

[Smokey]

MY set is 768, with 1,100,000 pixels, more than a 1080i sets 800,000 or so pixels.

I thought 1080i set have over 2 milion pixels (1920 × 1080 = about 2.07 million pixels).

The only difference between 720p and 1080i format is that pixels in 720p sets get refreshed twice as much as 1080i sets in a given time frame :)

[Rich-n-Texas]

Somebody **** in your cereal this morning?I did'nt start this thread to get insulted.If I wanted to invest in more expensive plasma I could .:incazzato:
:lol: Join the club Pat P. You'll get used to it over time... *we* did.

Fortunately, with pixelsplease, he posts at un-Godly hours and then heads back to the batcave during daylight hours. If you want to get under HIS skin just talk about how much better plasma PQ is than LCD. (Wind him up and watch him go!) :biggrin5:

[PAT.P]

:lol: Join the club Pat P. You'll get used to it over time... *we* did.

Fortunately, with pixelsplease, he posts at un-Godly hours and then heads back to the batcave during daylight hours. If you want to get under HIS skin just talk about how much better plasma PQ is than LCD. (Wind him up and watch him go!) :biggrin5:Thanks for the warning:ihih: I check the spec of his high end LCD:sleep: contrast ratio 1,000:1 my EDTV up to 10,000:1 .As for the colors 16.77 million for his and for my EDTV displayable colors 29 billion.He might have a true HDTV but the colors sucks big time. Not that great for DVD movies.:17:

[pixelthis]

Thanks for the warning:ihih: I check the spec of his high end LCD:sleep: contrast ratio 1,000:1 my EDTV up to 10,000:1 .As for the colors 16.77 million for his and for my EDTV displayable colors 29 billion.He might have a true HDTV but the colors sucks big time. Not that great for DVD movies.:17:
Who cares about DVD movies?
When I got my first HDTV it was a 47in rear pro for 1700, a "edtv" (42in)ran 1495, it didnt make sense to get an "edtv" then and it doesnt now.
If you want to spout nonsense fine but dont get persinkery when someone calls ya on it!
As for rich on paper hes just ticked because his company builds the 21st century
equalvalent of an edsel, the overengineered DLP that only produces a greyscale picture.
Sorry if I came on a bit strong but DVd that you are planning your gear around is going to become more and more irrelavant, and you will be at a friends house watching a REAL
TELEVISION and wonder just what the frak you were thinking, is all
The opponenets of quality, like all of the computer nerds who wanted the new HDTV standard to be "just" 480p (we would all have "edtvs" if they had had their way) are always
out there, if the people who actually care about this stuff dont care enough to
fight for quality then WHO will?
AS for my late posts, well, thats just when I get through servicing my old lady is all.
BTW your "billions" of colors" is another scam, NTSC sets had great color, that was how they disguised their lousy picture, my 16.7 mill colors is more relevant on a system
that actually has the bandwidth to pass that many colors:1:

[pixelthis]

After reading this article makes me wonder why consumers are being the suckers in buying HDTV in the 1080i when a 480p is as better.:incazzato:
This "article" is about 9 or 10 years old, and NOWHERE does it say that 480p is better than 1080i, just that PROGRESSIVE is better than interlaced, something that has always
been common knowledge, but with digital tv interlace artifacts arent as bad as this article lets on,
Sure progressive is better, but 768 is way better than 480p
And heres one more thing, your precious dvds all have at most 300 lines of resolution, that was about all that the old ntsc system could muster in the real world, and they are ALL 480 INTERLACED, deinterlacing makes the picture look smoother, but you wont exceed the standards of the old ntsc system, and deinterlacing to 480p might just ADD
artifacts, especially if your player doesnt handle 3:2 pulldown very well (and the cheaper players, like the one you probably have usually dont)
A bad hdtv will show 800 lines of rez on a 1080interlaced pic(rez is different than scan lines) but this is more and more irrealvant as CRTS were the main interlaced sources, as progressive displays become more prominent this will become less and less important
Basically you have made the common mistake of confusing scan lines for resolution
and your thinking went downhill from there. progressive sets resolution is closer to their scan lines, but still not the same.
But the most important thing is that you cant make a silk purse outta a sows ear, and DVDS are NTSC, if the source is pristine you might get 420 lines of rez out of one.
But old broadcast nisc was never worth more than 380 lines, at best

[pixelthis]

To translate, you are arguing that a INTERLACED format is better because its "progressive" but its not progressive at all!
And my 768 p set has about twice as much resolution as your "edtv", which probably at most puts out around 380 lines of resolution.
BUT whatever makes you happy...:smilewinkgrin:

[PAT.P]

And my 768 p set has about twice as much resolution as your "edtv", which probably at most puts out around 380 lines of resolution.
BUT whatever makes you happy...:smilewinkgrin: First of all ,the resolution is the least important at the distance Im sitting!What make a greater importance in viewing in order 1) contrast
2)color saturation
3)color accuacy
4)resolution
My EDTV as all of this in order while yours is all backward in order .I dont want to compensate colors for resolution:devil: Like I said before this is not my main tv .Im sitting on the side for the newer Lazer,SED,Carbon Nanotube

[recoveryone]

To translate, you are arguing that a INTERLACED format is better because its "progressive" but its not progressive at all!
And my 768 p set has about twice as much resolution as your "edtv", which probably at most puts out around 380 lines of resolution.
BUT whatever makes you happy...:smilewinkgrin:

After the usually back and forth I see the main issue was missed:

His Money
His Preference
His decision

And I think the bottom line was keeping the cost down.

I didn't see where he was stating that the EDTV was better than any other display, but that it will serve the propose he needed. Some time we need to take a step back and just read what is presented and stop adding our own 2-3 5 cents worth of what is better. So if I only have 5 dollars to buy a t-shirt, don't tell me how much better a 50 dollar dress shirt would be.

It would serve the person more if the comments would have been on which EDTV has a better track record or helping with further decision on the HT setup:

A good DVD to match with the EDTV to get the best picture possible

AVR that could control all function (switching)

What other display's that could been purchased at the same cost.

That just the way I saw the post from the start! maybe I forgot to look between the lines.

[Rich-n-Texas]

This is a statement I find absolutely rediculous:


WHO CARES ABOUT DVD?
Or are you just joking?

Let's talk in the here-and-now dude. Just because you don't care about DVD technology, it's advantages and shortcomings, doesn't mean the 1,000,000's of others who buy and rent them don't. Like it or not pix, DVD is today's technology, but once again, you're injecting your own personal preferences and ignoring Pat P.'s original observations and opinions. I'm willing to bet the people here who've pointed out this characteristic of yours in the past don't post in threads that you participate in anymore for just that reason. Too bad too because there's a lot of wisdom and helpful information to be had.

I don't spend a lot of time analyzing or trying to educate myself on matters such as interlaced vs progressive, 380 lines vs 768 lines, I'm more concerned with the end result. What I have now with my DLP vs what I had on my 27" CRT just blows me away. I'm happy with what I've got. And like recoveryone said, "If it makes you happy is all that really matters anyway." You come on like people don't know what makes them happy and you're here to tell them what does make them happy. I've worked with an engineer for the past five years who's just like you so I have a good idea about what makes people like you tick.

Live and let live dude... JMO.

[PAT.P]

After the usually back and forth I see the main issue was missed:

His Money
His Preference
His decision

And I think the bottom line was keeping the cost down.

I didn't see where he was stating that the EDTV was better than any other display, but better track record or helping with further decision on the HT setup:

A good DVD to match with the EDTV to get the best picture possible

AVR that could control all function (switching)

What other display's that could been purchased at the same cost.

That just the way I saw the post from the start! maybe I forgot to look between the lines. BINGO! Not ready to fork out$$$ at this time of the game (HT receiver with HDMI 1.3,new DVD ) Im always 1 to 2years later for technology and its fine to me.Need to pay down my line of credit from renovation( 6 months no rental income ,building materials,paid labor ) thats my priority.:D

[Rich-n-Texas]

As for rich on paper hes just ticked because his company builds the 21st century
equalvalent of an edsel, the overengineered DLP that only produces a greyscale picture.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n286/rich3fan/Texas%20Instruments/txnchart2.jpg

'Nuf said...

[DEVO]

First of all ,the resolution is the least important at the distance Im sitting!What make a greater importance in viewing in order 1) contrast
2)color saturation
3)color accuacy
4)resolution
My EDTV as all of this in order while yours is all backward in order .I dont want to compensate colors for resolution:devil: Like I said before this is not my main tv .Im sitting on the side for the newer Lazer,SED,Carbon Nanotube

This Post has gotten very out of hand...but rez. is sooooooo overrated! As is other specs, contrast (where is that contrast policeman anyway?) Every manufacture lies like a rug! LCD's have got to fix alot of things before they can really compete w/ plasma's.

1. motion artifacts
2. black level
3. viewing angles

I have an older Panasonic 480p (paid 2,500 new) at my bike shop that is used all day long, and it is showing a Yamaha DVDC750. It looks great, mostly viewing bicycle videos, but everyone who walks into the store loves it! I will post pics later (store is under renovation due to roof damage). But, point is source matches tv. It looks very smooth, with very good black level. And should last a very long time! LCD's can't do that...yet...no matter what rez!

[pixelthis]

This is a statement I find absolutely rediculous:

Or are you just joking?

Let's talk in the here-and-now dude. Just because you don't care about DVD technology, it's advantages and shortcomings, doesn't mean the 1,000,000's of others who buy and rent them don't. Like it or not pix, DVD is today's technology, but once again, you're injecting your own personal preferences and ignoring Pat P.'s original observations and opinions. I'm willing to bet the people here who've pointed out this characteristic of yours in the past don't post in threads that you participate in anymore for just that reason. Too bad too because there's a lot of wisdom and helpful information to be had.

I don't spend a lot of time analyzing or trying to educate myself on matters such as interlaced vs progressive, 380 lines vs 768 lines, I'm more concerned with the end result. What I have now with my DLP vs what I had on my 27" CRT just blows me away. I'm happy with what I've got. And like recoveryone said, "If it makes you happy is all that really matters anyway." You come on like people don't know what makes them happy and you're here to tell them what does make them happy. I've worked with an engineer for the past five years who's just like you so I have a good idea about what makes people like you tick.

Live and let live dude... JMO.

WHERE TO START
1) If it makes you happy to buy an inferiour product at almost (or more) than a superiour
product fine, whatever floats your boat, but like you said people cruise these sites
for info, and the person who started this thread is so far off the mark I had to respond
with a few inconvienent things called facts.
To let stand the total nonsense this guy posted would be the height of irresponsibility.
He is actually saying that a INTERLACED source is better than an INTERLACED
source! DVD is INTERLACED 480 lines!
As for not caring about things like resolution, etc, its easy to see you are in the marketing end of your company, with people like your engineer friend bursting your bubble all of the time with these messy little "facts".
Trutth is, you work for a company that produces a display device that is greyscale, and
charges so much that you cant use three to get color, and have no clue that even as we speak the marketplace is answering back with a resounding NO WAY
But I digress, if the person who started this thread is happy with his inferior way of watching things fine, but get your facts right, okay?
AS for "who cares about dvd" I am talking about the fact that the tech is mature, you wont get any more out of it, not to mention people who get HDTV tell me that they watch DVD less and less, the picture compared to HD just doesnt cut it.
Sure its good compared to NTSC broadcasts but what isnt?
As for contrast, color saturation, etc, I havent found ANYBODY who thinks standard def is better that high def, which is basically what you're saying
Plasmas have the same black level problems that all of the new display formats have,
and have serious burn-in and longetivity issues.
But the most galling thing is the complete misrepresentation of your original post.
You quoted a site that is ten years old, and the people on that site arent advocating 480p, they are advocating 720p! (which is at least twice as good as 480p btw)
I might make mistakes, we all do, and I post off the fly on this site, but am right pretty most of the time.
You wanna impress chicks with your "plasma" fine, more power to ya, but dont EVEN
start with saying its "as good" as any high def source
Just state the truth, its an inferiour display tech thats as expensive (or more so) than a lot of better devices out there, the only reason you want one is to say you have a "PLASMA"
TV, which is fine.
But a good picture is just more important to me, is all:mad:

[PAT.P]

You wanna impress chicks with your "plasma" fine, more power to ya, but dont EVEN
start with saying its "as good" as any high def source
Just state the truth, its an inferiour display tech thats as expensive (or more so) than a lot of better devices out there, the only reason you want one is to say you have a "PLASMA"
TV, which is fine.
But a good picture is just more important to me, is all:mad: What are you talking about?I started this thread for info i vs p and the way it works.I did'nt compare 480p to 720p:nonod: but to a 540 i yes. I have a Sharp lcd hdtv ready and dont want cable box on it.This plasma is in our living room and we dont spend hours watching tv but have a large collection of dvd music concert ,music video and movies.The price was right at this time of the game and it does'nt take much room.

[pixelthis]

What are you talking about?I started this thread for info i vs p and the way it works.I did'nt compare 480p to 720p:nonod: but to a 540 i yes. I have a Sharp lcd hdtv ready and dont want cable box on it.This plasma is in our living room and we dont spend hours watching tv but have a large collection of dvd music concert ,music video and movies.The price was right at this time of the game and it does'nt take much room.
Well, I hope you enjoy it, I really do, I have over 150 dvds myself (inc a lot of concert stuff)
but I get perplexed as to why people buy stuff like "edtv", I just think my DVDS
LOOK BETTER on hdtv, an HDTV just gets more out of this format is all.
AS for rich on paper I hope his company makes plenty of money, so he can keep that nice house of his.
Besides they're gonna need it when all of these class action lawsuits hit from people
getting killed changing the bulbs in their TV in a few years:cornut:

[O'Shag]

Fact: HDTV at 1080i or 1080p produces a better resolved, more detailed picture that 480p DVD. Can 480p look very good on a smaller monitor, such as my Loewe 38" Aconda tube TV? Yes it can. But compared to 1080i, it still comes up short even on that same television. Its easy to see this. If you have a 'smaller' screen HD ready TV, just pick up a Zenith HD SAT420 over the air receiver and silver arrow antenna on ebay. You will see immediately that 1080i HDTV produces a much finer, more detailed picture. A good DVD player at 480p on the same TV - say the Sony DVP-NS9000ES does look very good, but still not as good. If you step up to a much larger screen, the 480p resolution is stretched beyond the measure of its capabilities in terms of scaling. HD is the way of the future and its here now. Lets not destroy the chances of excellent high res formats such as HD DVD or Blu-Ray from developing into standards the way naysayers did with SACD. If people look to this site for direction, lets be honest and tell them that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, while too expensive for the moment, is superior to 480p DVD.

[pixelthis]

Fact: HDTV at 1080i or 1080p produces a better resolved, more detailed picture that 480p DVD. Can 480p look very good on a smaller monitor, such as my Loewe 38" Aconda tube TV? Yes it can. But compared to 1080i, it still comes up short even on that same television. Its easy to see this. If you have a 'smaller' screen HD ready TV, just pick up a Zenith HD SAT420 over the air receiver and silver arrow antenna on ebay. You will see immediately that 1080i HDTV produces a much finer, more detailed picture. A good DVD player at 480p on the same TV - say the Sony DVP-NS9000ES does look very good, but still not as good. If you step up to a much larger screen, the 480p resolution is stretched beyond the measure of its capabilities in terms of scaling. HD is the way of the future and its here now. Lets not destroy the chances of excellent high res formats such as HD DVD or Blu-Ray from developing into standards the way naysayers did with SACD. If people look to this site for direction, lets be honest and tell them that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, while too expensive for the moment, is superior to 480p DVD.
Thank you.
One of the biggest surprizes of HDTV was the way it embrassed DVD, all of a sudden
my pristine DVD images werent quite so nice, it was like when I tried to watch a vhs tape
after watching DVD'S for awhile.
Its like my old electronics teacher, who hade seen studio video, always said, NTSC
is really bad, but the human brain fills in a lot of gaps, and DVD, at the end of the day, is still 480i ntsc, has to be line-doubled to be 480p.
Its good standard def, but STILL standard def
The prettiest street walker is still a street walker:1:

[pixelthis]

Fact: HDTV at 1080i or 1080p produces a better resolved, more detailed picture that 480p DVD. Can 480p look very good on a smaller monitor, such as my Loewe 38" Aconda tube TV? Yes it can. But compared to 1080i, it still comes up short even on that same television. Its easy to see this. If you have a 'smaller' screen HD ready TV, just pick up a Zenith HD SAT420 over the air receiver and silver arrow antenna on ebay. You will see immediately that 1080i HDTV produces a much finer, more detailed picture. A good DVD player at 480p on the same TV - say the Sony DVP-NS9000ES does look very good, but still not as good. If you step up to a much larger screen, the 480p resolution is stretched beyond the measure of its capabilities in terms of scaling. HD is the way of the future and its here now. Lets not destroy the chances of excellent high res formats such as HD DVD or Blu-Ray from developing into standards the way naysayers did with SACD. If people look to this site for direction, lets be honest and tell them that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, while too expensive for the moment, is superior to 480p DVD.
You dont havta tell Mr peabody this, his new HDBLURAY player has convinced him
(check out his new thread)

[Blue Meanie]

Somebody **** in your cereal this morning?I did'nt start this thread to get insulted.If I wanted to invest in more expensive plasma I could .:incazzato:

I wouldn't normally defend pixelthis, but in all fairness, you DID ask for comments/opinions.:biggrin5:

Jeff

[pixelthis]

I wouldn't normally defend pixelthis, but in all fairness, you DID ask for comments/opinions.:biggrin5:

Jeff
Which is always a mistake if you dont want the unpleasant truth:cornut: