AVS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A week ago I took the leap from my 36" CRT to a nice new 46" Sony KDL-46W4100 1080p 120Hz LCD. I got a great price on the TV...$1299.


I wish I new SD programs were going to look terrible, and I would also have to buy a new DVD player with upscaling plus 2 120Hz HDMI cables. I was told I'd need 120Hz HDMI cables($104 each) to really get the best picture from the 120Hz TV.


I know; It's my fault. I should have done my homework.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
No question, despite the plummeting prices on these sets they are still a lot more expensive than the old ones. I bought a really very nice 32" Toshiba standard def CRT about 8 years ago, it was $600 I think. My 50" plasma was $1,500 one year ago. Of course today's sets have much larger screens, HD resolutions, and are much thinner and lighter than the old CRTs. But you're right, where people used to expect to spend $500 on a TV, now it's "normal" to spend $1,000+.


Oof, take those $104 HDMI cables back to wherever you got 'em and return them. Go to www.monoprice.com and order up a couple of cables, shouldn't set you back more than $30 or so including shipping.


And yes, SD can look pretty bad on these sets. Some SD is better than others, and some sets display it reasonably well (most consider plasma better with SD), but the reason for big HDTVs is watching HD stuff, so if you haven't already, upgrade your satellite/cable plan to include HD and you'll be set.



jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
That was my greatest fear was watching SD content. But I ended up buying a Panasonic plasma (TH-42PX80) and have been very happy. We had analog cable for a month before we moved and half the channels didn't look great, but not really any worse than our 27" Toshiba CRT. The other half looked pretty good. But now we went with digital cable when we moved and all the channels look very good. Obviously not at HD quality, but not far off. And we don't have an upconverting dvd player either, just a progressive, and the movies look great. If it's not too late, I would return the lcd and try a Panasonic plasma.


Oh, and you don't need $100 hdmi cables. Those are a ripoff. You can find them online and a reputable dealer for a tenth of the cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
I wouldn't say it's still too expensive but it is still expensive to get into the HD game. It's much cheaper than it used to be, I remember when a 42 in cost 10K. So it's still expensive but only cause it's still a luxury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
The thing about SD is the source. If you have cable, then it depends on the cable provider and the equipment. If you have Directv, and an HD receiver; and you let the receiver upscale the SD channels to 1080i; as well as the HD channels native 1080i; then what you see on a newer flat panel television can look great. Even the SD channels. I don't own a flat panel yet; I'm still trying to choose between 2 (Panasonic TH-50PZ800U plasma or Samsung LN-52A650 LCD). But I have seen the difference of a Directv receiver upscaling all the SD channels on a flat panel tv and watching cable where the output was SD and the tv was upscaling it. 2 totally different worlds. Same with a good Blu-Ray player that is set to upscale DVD. Anyway, just my observation. later.... mike....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bighoopla /forum/post/15512137


plus 2 120Hz HDMI cables. I was told I'd need 120Hz HDMI cables($104 each) to really get the best picture from the 120Hz TV.


I know; It's my fault. I should have done my homework.

Yes, because they hosed you on the cables. Never get suckered into cables from a retailer. They probably paid $4 for them and sold them to you for $104. I bought a few HDMI cables from monoprice.com for like $7 each.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
upscaling dvd players are a load of crap all things considered now. Using HDMI is nice, but i get the best picture out of DVDs using an old prog scan dvd player and component cables. I returned my upconverting player when i realized i got the best picture out of the thing by setting it at 480 i or p didn't matter. Modern TVs do a much better job of scaling than most players doo unless you buy something like a $400 oppo, and who's going to pay that much for a dvd player?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Totally up to the equipment you have. All tv's are not alike. Neither are all upscaling dvd players. And if you read my previous comment concerning DVD; I was speaking of a good Blu-ray player that upscales. I have a nice panny 35 blu-ray that upscales DVD to almost as good a quality as the Blu-ray discs themselves. So your comment is too blanket. Looking at your signature at the bottom of your post; you have a 50PX80u television. Very Nice television, but it's a 720p and not 1080p set. Not that your opinions are based solely on this set, but you're dealing with a lot of conversions. Taking from 480i to 1080i/p then back down to 720p. And it also matter which upscaling dvd player you had. If you could upscale to 720p, yours probably would have seen it much nicer because that would have be NATIVE to your set.


Anyway, there are a lot of variables. I was commenting on the post that mentioned SD programming looked like crap. Well, it definitely can. But it also can look really good if you have the right equipment doing the right job. The ultimate goal is to have the signal native to the tv if you can make it so. If not, then like you, it's best to leave the source native and let the tv upscale/convert. But prior to my blu-ray player, I had/have a sony upscaling dvd player 1080i that was incredible. I've seen it on lcd, plasma, and rptv's. They upscale great. It depends on the equipment and the combination you have. later... mike..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bighoopla /forum/post/15512137


Moving from CRT to LCD or Plasma is still too expensive


A week ago I took the leap from my 36" CRT to a nice new 46" Sony KDL-46W4100 1080p 120Hz LCD. I got a great price on the TV...$1299.


I wish I new SD programs were going to look terrible, and I would also have to buy a new DVD player with upscaling plus 2 120Hz HDMI cables. I was told I'd need 120Hz HDMI cables($104 each) to really get the best picture from the 120Hz TV.

Well, I dunno... you didn't have to get a 46", top quality set. If you'd gotten something that was 'good but not great', and in a size equivalent to your CRT (closest in LCD would be 37"), you'd be talking more like $700. Isn't that about what a good 36" CRT would go for? I remember a couple of years ago seeing a Sony 36" CRT for $850.


The prices seem to be (finally) pretty close, unless we're talking small sets, which are certainly dirt-cheap in CRT. LCD TVs seem to have a 'price floor' that's higher than CRT, but, who wants a tiny set anymore? Maybe for the kitchen.


Far as the bad SD goes, I feel your pain, but there's free over-the-air HD, and more coming in about a month with the DTV transition. And the price premium for HD service over analog service isn't that much on satellite (but on cable it can be pretty huge, sadly).


On the HDMI cable thing, as others have mentioned, you got ripped off... you don't need the expensive cables unless it's a long cable run (and maybe not even then). Your salesperson was either misinformed or dishonest.



I guess the thing that's really annoying though is on the disc player front... Blu-ray players are still kind of expensive, like $250-300. But so were DVD players in their early days.


What really sucks is if you've got a big collection of 100s of DVDs, and you're the kind of person who now can't bear to look at 'em anymore because Blu-ray is better, upscaling DVD players aren't good enough for you, and you're actually considering replacing your whole library w/Blu-Ray.


THAT would suck. Buying the same stuff twice just feels awful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemShock2 /forum/post/15518192


Well, I dunno... you didn't have to get a 46", top quality set. If you'd gotten something that was 'good but not great', and in a size equivalent to your CRT (closest in LCD would be 37"), you'd be talking more like $700. Isn't that about what a good 36" CRT would go for? I remember a couple of years ago seeing a Sony 36" CRT for $850.

That's about how much I spent on my 36" Sony wega a few years ago, so I would say high end TV's are priced relatively accurately especially with online vendors more than B&Ms If you're gonna buy a high end product then you gonna pay regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffman13 /forum/post/15517391


upscaling dvd players are a load of crap all things considered now. Using HDMI is nice, but i get the best picture out of DVDs using an old prog scan dvd player and component cables. I returned my upconverting player when i realized i got the best picture out of the thing by setting it at 480 i or p didn't matter. Modern TVs do a much better job of scaling than most players doo unless you buy something like a $400 oppo, and who's going to pay that much for a dvd player?

Probably someone who has a large DVD collection and is either unwilling or unable (blu has a very slim library with virtually zero catalog titles) to buy those movies again.


I'll agree that a lot of cheap upscaling dvd players won't do much to improve the picture on a modern set- but what would you really expect out of a 100 dollar player? It's also pretty clear that "up-conversion" was a way manufacturers could squeeze some more $$$ out of the now commodity dvd player market. Still, to me, dropping 1-2 grand on a tv and then skimping on a cheap dvd deck is a little silly if you care about the quality of your dvd playback...


I have 2 up-converts, a toshiba hd-a3 (to a 37" olevia lcd) and an oppo 980h (to a 46" panasonic plasma). Both were less than 200 and both produce a better picture than either of my old 480i/p players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christcorp /forum/post/15517721


Totally up to the equipment you have. All tv's are not alike. Neither are all upscaling dvd players. And if you read my previous comment concerning DVD; I was speaking of a good Blu-ray player that upscales. I have a nice panny 35 blu-ray that upscales DVD to almost as good a quality as the Blu-ray discs themselves. So your comment is too blanket. Looking at your signature at the bottom of your post; you have a 50PX80u television. Very Nice television, but it's a 720p and not 1080p set. Not that your opinions are based solely on this set, but you're dealing with a lot of conversions. Taking from 480i to 1080i/p then back down to 720p. And it also matter which upscaling dvd player you had. If you could upscale to 720p, yours probably would have seen it much nicer because that would have be NATIVE to your set.


Anyway, there are a lot of variables. I was commenting on the post that mentioned SD programming looked like crap. Well, it definitely can. But it also can look really good if you have the right equipment doing the right job. The ultimate goal is to have the signal native to the tv if you can make it so. If not, then like you, it's best to leave the source native and let the tv upscale/convert. But prior to my blu-ray player, I had/have a sony upscaling dvd player 1080i that was incredible. I've seen it on lcd, plasma, and rptv's. They upscale great. It depends on the equipment and the combination you have. later... mike..

I actually had a pioneer dv-410v-k and could set it at anything from 480i to 1080p, and i got the best picture out of it at 480p, so i figured what' the point? Some research told me that all input signals to my TV get scaled to 1080p first, and then down to 768p for display, so the fewer steps involved the better the results in theory.


inputting at dvd scaled to 720p on a 768p display means it is being scaled 3 times before display 480i->720p->1080p->768p and it is using 2 different scaling algorithms in the upscaling process. In my experimenting I found the best picture came while leaving the player at either 480i or p. At least with the player i was using, it was very apparent that the TV had better algorithms for scaling and deinterlacing. I was of the understanding that the pio 410 was a fairly capable player as well.


480p->1080p->768p from my legacy progressive scan player produces a much better picture than the pio ever did, though i did like the USB functionality it had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x /forum/post/15524915


Probably someone who has a large DVD collection and is either unwilling or unable (blu has a very slim library with virtually zero catalog titles) to buy those movies again.


I'll agree that a lot of cheap upscaling dvd players won't do much to improve the picture on a modern set- but what would you really expect out of a 100 dollar player? It's also pretty clear that "up-conversion" was a way manufacturers could squeeze some more $$$ out of the now commodity dvd player market. Still, to me, dropping 1-2 grand on a tv and then skimping on a cheap dvd deck is a little silly if you care about the quality of your dvd playback...


I have 2 up-converts, a toshiba hd-a3 (to a 37" olevia lcd) and an oppo 980h (to a 46" panasonic plasma). Both were less than 200 and both produce a better picture than either of my old 480i/p players.

If I buy anything to upscale again at this point it'll besides/instead of a BD player it would probably be a toshiba A3 because of the cost and from my experience with friends it is probably the most capable and affordable upscaler out there. Plus HD-DVDs are dirt cheap now, so I can stock a fairly decent library for pennies on the dollar. Dunno about owning 3 formats eventually though, seems too redundant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffman13 /forum/post/15532304


I actually had a pioneer dv-410v-k and could set it at anything from 480i to 1080p, and i got the best picture out of it at 480p, so i figured what' the point? Some research told me that all input signals to my TV get scaled to 1080p first, and then down to 768p for display, so the fewer steps involved the better the results in theory.


inputting at dvd scaled to 720p on a 768p display means it is being scaled 3 times before display 480i->720p->1080p->768p and it is using 2 different scaling algorithms in the upscaling process. In my experimenting I found the best picture came while leaving the player at either 480i or p. At least with the player i was using, it was very apparent that the TV had better algorithms for scaling and deinterlacing. I was of the understanding that the pio 410 was a fairly capable player as well.


480p->1080p->768p from my legacy progressive scan player produces a much better picture than the pio ever did, though i did like the USB functionality it had.




If I buy anything to upscale again at this point it'll besides/instead of a BD player it would probably be a toshiba A3 because of the cost and from my experience with friends it is probably the most capable and affordable upscaler out there. Plus HD-DVDs are dirt cheap now, so I can stock a fairly decent library for pennies on the dollar. Dunno about owning 3 formats eventually though, seems too redundant.

I tried the pioneer and it made little improvement on my 37" olevia vs. my legacy sony 480i dvd player I purchased way back when dvd decks cost as much as most nice blu ray players cost now. The reason was they both use a similar mediatek scaling solution.

The oppo 980 uses mediatek as well but the implementation in that player is much better- especially the deinterlacer, which is one area that most displays can use improvement in.


To be honest, as much as I love the hd dvd player I would never recommend it. At the time it seemed a sound purchase as it was a very cheap way to test the hd disc format and you got a quality upconvert player plus something like 10 free movies thrown in to boot. Now, it's a dead format with a slow and buggy playback device that- if it fails- will be nearly impossible to replace.


In addition, while I prefered the picture (deinterlacing flaws and all) of the hd-a3 over the oppo on the lcd- that preferance changed when using the plasma. The oppo always looked a little "dull" when compared to the toshiba, even after calibration. With the plasma the color on the hd-a3 seems a bit over-saturated, especially red, and I've found it difficult to dial that down without throwing off the rest of the picture.

It seems toshiba "enhances" the reds and greens a bit. While my olevia has always had excellent primary color, the overall lack of contrast hurt the depth of the picture- so this "enhancement" worked pretty well...

As you may know being a fellow panasonic owner, the panny's have great contrast and my panel in particular seems to push red and over-compensate with green, giving it a blue-ish tint. An extreme example was trying to watch Finding Nemo- on the hd-a3 everything had a neon glow to it (even more so than I think pixar intended
) while the oppo just looked right.

For the last couple months I've been eyeing the new panasonic bd35/55 blu ray players. With the reputation these decks are gaining as being above-average upconverters I'd say you'd be better served by saving for one of these...
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top