-
Quote:
Originally Posted by edtyct
First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be.
You're wrong. Visually, this is simply one of the finest HT setups I have ever seen. My friend has a background in television, and connections to the industry, so don't try to tell me he doesn't know what he's doing, he spends as much time tweaking his video system as the rest of us spend on our audio systems. The line-doubler is many years old at this point (ancient by the rate at which technology matures), but was a top-of-the-line jobber in its day -- I think he said it retailed for US$20K when new (that's of course not what he paid for it). Or maybe that was the projector...I forget...but it's really good and very film-like. Stuff like Finding Nemo is just exquisite, and when I was arguing about how badly Blade Runner looked, he pulled out his copy and made me watch the opening sequence, and I have to admit to not being able to see any artifacts. Setup is everything with these systems, and I'd put my friend's system up against any HD system any day.
Let's compare to CD -- CD is only just finally becoming mature as an audio format. Sure SACD and DVD-Audio are better, but most of us haven't heard what CD is capable of, and those of us who have, haven't until the last couple of years. I think the digital mastering technology is only finally hitting the ceiling, and it has yet to propagate to the entire market. And DVD is a less mature technology than CD.
I'm not saying HD isn't better, I'm just saying it's not far better. It'll be a while before I can afford a system (or that technology trickles down to the point where it's widely accessible) of the caliber I describe, and sure, HD will be a big improvement against most people's systems (if one includes laypeople) -- but that's not a fair comparison. Compare well setup against well setup, and I think you'll find that the differences are not as glaring as is being said.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par.
I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.
Quote:
Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD?
No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.
And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.
Quote:
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time.
I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)
Quote:
Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D
Dude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.
And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)Dude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.
Until such a time as I see this system, I'm remaining in disbelief. I've seen far too many examples of the opposite. If nothing else, it's easier to get a better picture for the vast majority using HD formats then. And if we suped up HD with double lines deinterlacing etc, etc, I'm sure it'd still be ahead.
I dunno. If Leno looks better, HD-DVD will make the DVD look broken. Leno and ESPN are not on par with an HD disc. You have me curious now though. What's he got for a system? And why isn't it catching on? Until it does, HD-DVD or BluRay remain more attractive options from my perspective.
-
No disrespect to you or your friend, or your sensibilities, but I'm of a different mind. But I also would never deny that viewing standard definition films under the right conditions can be a hugely rewarding experience--even in the HD era--especially those films rendered well, like Nemo. However, any video expert will tell you that animation has an advantage in its filmlike appearance over more demanding kinds of real-world material, but we'll leave that aside. Notwithstanding ties to the industry, and old line doublers, HD is measurably, and visibly, more of a window on the world than SD, except to those who go out of their way to scuttle it, either perceptually or conceptually. Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing. HD is simply as superior in performance to SD as the particular comparative and personal circumstances allow. I'll say it again: No champion of HD should have a gripe against anyone who is happy with SD in the HD age, however well s/he sets it up. It isn't a moral issue. If you say the gap isn't wide to you, I'm content to leave it at that (eventually, talking about video is a little like dancing about architecture); I, however, find no compelling reason to second the motion. But when the matter enters the realm of rigorous analysis (watching and measuring), apart from financial or other extraneous considerations, SD line-doubled, calibrated, and shown on the best equipment, even at ISF headquarters, is no match for the sharpness of genuine HD on a level playing field. And I'm well aware that SD has seen some absolutely exquisite DVD players (like the Accuphase, which doesn't even bother to offer scaling of its 480p feed). On the right display (not necessarily one costing an arm and a leg), at a proper distance, the eye could well be fooled into thinking that it's viewing HD, but changing the conditions a little could well put a stop to that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by edtyct
Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing.
No it doesn't, it has a very specific meaning. It's meant to contradict those who say things like this:
Quote:
First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be.
...or maybe to reinforce the opinion that yes, high definition isn't much more resolved than line-doubled/upscaled standard definition video. It's a matter of diminishing returns, like the same mastered recording on HDCD vs. redbook CD.
And why isn't it catching on? Because people are stupid.
No, seriously, it is catching on, but in a too-little-too-late fashion. For example, I have heard good things about this upscaler, but CRTs are going out (his projector is a CRT projector).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Until such a time as I see this system, I'm remaining in disbelief.
Well that's fine, but don't tell me that if I can't tell the difference, it's the system or the setup.
-
I had a feeling that your friend had a CRT projector--the kind that would be most apt to make HD seem less valuable. Line doubling was a CRT phenomenon, when scaling was barely blip on the screen. I used to do it, too. I don't know of anything in video that isn't a matter of diminishing returns. What's worth the effort and/or expense of implementing, incorporating, etc., is often in the pocket and in the eye of the beholder. To me, processed SD doesn't get close enough to HD; to you, it does, with a vengeance. I now know what people like me are called.
I remain,
edtyct aka one of the stupid people
-
Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people.
I went with projectors. Can I be stupid?
But I do love them.
-
Let's allow the words that you bring to the table, "stupidity" and "fascism," hang in the air for a while. Truth will out, you know.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I went with projectors. Can I be stupid?
What kind of projector?
And: You can be anything you want to be, if you put your mind to it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by edtyct
Let's allow the words that you bring to the table, "stupidity" and "fascism," hang in the air for a while.
You forgot "crackhead".
Here's another word for you: condescending.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
What kind of projector?
And: You can be anything you want to be, if you put your mind to it.
They are Sanyo Z-4's. They fall into the LCD, 720p/1080i family. I get a nice 106" picture in the living room and a fine 92" in the master bedroom.
Std DVD looks good to me but the films I get at compressed 1080i are better IMO. I let the projectors do the scaling for me. The cable box doesn't seem to do as good a job of it. But Nemo looks d.m good either way.
I can be anything I want? You sound like my mom. Mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter.
-
wow...
This thread has taken and intresting turn...
I began this thread for a topic of discussion and it has caused two wars already...lol well, let the brawling continue... somehow I am out of the battle this time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people.
CRTS are becoming a thing of the past because they are obsolete,
not because the people buying LCDS are "stupid".
CRTS have to have step up voltage, 20,000 to 30,000 volts, a near perfect vaccume, and if a flat screen a HUGE amount of glass in front
to preserve the thing. They take up a lot of space, to some are an eyesore, and last ten years, maybe a little more.
LCDS last 20 years, disapear when you arent watching them (if installed right) and wil soon be so cheap to replace there wont be any point in repairing them.
I loved all of my sony CRTS, the 32 in, etc, and my 60in rear projectors, but after using LCD for just awhile you really notice just how soft the pic is on a crt.
And screen door effect? Which LCDS are you looking at? Old sharp
front projectors?
AND yes, hd will surpass DVD, my point is that the HD wont nessesarily be on a DISC FORMAT
-
Hey Pixel, I have to differ a bit, CRT's are still the standard that all rest others are measured against. Yes they may not be as attractive as a flat screen but the PQ is still unmatched by all other current systems. I see that you have a Vizio just as I do, and all I can say is that my CRT beats the LCD hands down with HD PQ. The LCD handles SD pic a bit better. but with HD broadcast and DVD's the CRT is the champ in my house. The LCD is great with animation, but I don't watch much cartoons anymore.
I just had my CRT tuned up and the first words out of the techs mouth was that CRT are still the best way to go. LCD/plasma are not holding up.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
Hey Pixel, I have to differ a bit, CRT's are still the standard that all rest others are measured against. Yes they may not be as attractive as a flat screen but the PQ is still unmatched by all other current systems. I see that you have a Vizio just as I do, and all I can say is that my CRT beats the LCD hands down with HD PQ. The LCD handles SD pic a bit better. but with HD broadcast and DVD's the CRT is the champ in my house. The LCD is great with animation, but I don't watch much cartoons anymore.
I just had my CRT tuned up and the first words out of the techs mouth was that CRT are still the best way to go. LCD/plasma are not holding up.
I have yet to see a LCD that can go a few rounds with my 30" Toshiba HDTV CRT.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
CRTS are becoming a thing of the past because they are obsolete,
not because the people buying LCDS are "stupid".
CRTS have to have step up voltage, 20,000 to 30,000 volts, a near perfect vaccume, and if a flat screen a HUGE amount of glass in front
to preserve the thing. They take up a lot of space, to some are an eyesore, and last ten years, maybe a little more.
LCDS last 20 years, disapear when you arent watching them (if installed right) and wil soon be so cheap to replace there wont be any point in repairing them.
I loved all of my sony CRTS, the 32 in, etc, and my 60in rear projectors, but after using LCD for just awhile you really notice just how soft the pic is on a crt.
And screen door effect? Which LCDS are you looking at? Old sharp
front projectors?
AND yes, hd will surpass DVD, my point is that the HD wont nessesarily be on a DISC FORMAT
They still look better. Yes, they will seem soft when you've spent all your time looking at LCD, just as LCD looks ridiculously sharp after spending all my time looking at CRT.
But here's the test -- which one looks more wrong after watching a movie? CRT is more film-like, and that's what I care about the most.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
They still look better. Yes, they will seem soft when you've spent all your time looking at LCD, just as LCD looks ridiculously sharp after spending all my time looking at CRT.
But here's the test -- which one looks more wrong after watching a movie? CRT is more film-like, and that's what I care about the most.
Absolutely! I am all about the image looking film-like and not digital-esque. I like a sharp image, but I also like a tiny bit of grain as it gives the film it's very natural quality that makes it...well, film. There are often cases where older films are restored and they get a little too crazy with the filters and end up taking away the films character with the slight bit of grain that it needs. LCD's are just a bit too shiny for my taste. Also, they seem to make skintones look plastic and a bit washy. Does anyone else notice this?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Absolutely! I am all about the image looking film-like and not digital-esque. I like a sharp image, but I also like a tiny bit of grain as it gives the film it's very natural quality that makes it...well, film. There are often cases where older films are restored and they get a little too crazy with the filters and end up taking away the films character with the slight bit of grain that it needs. LCD's are just a bit too shiny for my taste. Also, they seem to make skintones look plastic and a bit washy. Does anyone else notice this?
NOPE.
Hey peru I really like your system (will post pics of mine as soon as its "cleaned up " a little) but I guarentee ya a properly set up LCD
will beat the pants off of any crt.
I had a samsung 30in, basically your 30in, basically the same 30in directview sold by phillips, tosh, sony, etc with a few modifications,
a fine tv, but a tad too small for my taste.
Coulda had a sony demo 34in(always have liked the pic on sony)
but couldnt get one end of it off the stand, it was MASSIVE.
Sure I would have put up with that but just couldnt see enough of a reason to.
AND a final word about crappy compressed hd over cable, my system is fiber optic, dont know if to neighborhood or pole, but I do know that the picture is amazing, my main love is music but I havent listened to much in the past several months(except over MHD):5:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
NOPE.
Hey peru I really like your system (will post pics of mine as soon as its "cleaned up " a little) but I guarentee ya a properly set up LCD
will beat the pants off of any crt.
I had a samsung 30in, basically your 30in, basically the same 30in directview sold by phillips, tosh, sony, etc with a few modifications,
a fine tv, but a tad too small for my taste.
Coulda had a sony demo 34in(always have liked the pic on sony)
but couldnt get one end of it off the stand, it was MASSIVE.
Sure I would have put up with that but just couldnt see enough of a reason to.
AND a final word about crappy compressed hd over cable, my system is fiber optic, dont know if to neighborhood or pole, but I do know that the picture is amazing, my main love is music but I havent listened to much in the past several months(except over MHD):5:
If you prefer LCD then good for you,but it is obvious from previous posters that you are in the minority.The only LCD's that will be in my home are attached to my computer.CRT is still the format of choice for me.Much better black levels,more film like picture and much better for long term viewing.I find that LCD prices are going down many are getting worse,quality wise.I was recently in Walmart and saw a 37 inch LCD that had an awful picture.
bill
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman1999
If you prefer LCD then good for you,but it is obvious from previous posters that you are in the minority.The only LCD's that will be in my home are attached to my computer.CRT is still the format of choice for me.Much better black levels,more film like picture and much better for long term viewing.I find that LCD prices are going down many are getting worse,quality wise.I was recently in Walmart and saw a 37 inch LCD that had an awful picture.
bill
Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:
-
When are the 3D hollodecks coming out? Anything else is just flat.
-
ok so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:
Let's say my CRT needs replaced every 5 years...ok, no big deal. I can buy 4 of them for about the price of a good LCD. So I have no problems replacing the TV every 5 years because I am still saving money over the LCD and getting a better picture as well.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:
Well Pixel we all have said how much you are entitle to your opinion, but you are disreguarding the pro's/experts in the field (not on this board) that still stand by the level of PQ that a CRT gives even after 5+ years. Every display device is subject to setup configuration and source feed into the display. But as the pro's do their testing with the same setup on each display the CRT still is the clear winner. Now I read your post on how your Vizio is connected digitally (HDMI, I guess), question is how was your old CRT connected? If you are trying to compare your LCD vs. your old CRT and they are not connected the same then your talking apples and Oranges. Both of my system are connected the same (so there is no advantage to either) I use the same DVD player on both, same cable box. Both displays where setup with Essential DVD disk, so with that in mind I can say with a complete fairness of both units that my CRT is better in displaying HD content and DVD's than the LCD. And this softness issue I read some of you speak of on CRT's, I have none in HD viewing and that is why I said earlier that the LCD does a better job with SD broadcasting. Now with that all said you can have your own perference, but don't state that the pro's/experts have changed their minds or were wrong in their testing of all of these devices ( and I'm not talking about Consumer Reports). And heres a bit of knowledge for you: The guts of a CRT weighs only about 50lbs, due to the heat of the lenses and other parts is why the cabinet is so big, to keep things cool. And to cover your opinion of longivety, how can you even compare, CRT have been around for over 60 years and LCD's? maybe 8 and they didn't have a good start. T.V.s are like any other machine, if you take care of it, it will take care of you. So if you are losing PQ only after 5 years I can bet that the uit was not setup properly (contrast too high= burn out) which is the way most units come from the factory even LCD's. My old RCA Color Trak 27" console is still going strong at my borther-n-laws going on 16 years of flawless service. I just got rid of my first 19" GE at a yard sale that was 23 years old. So when you say CRT's are wrothless after 5 years please bring some facts.:confused5:
|