[PJO1966]

I'm in the process of buying a Sony 34" HDTV. Not planning ahead, last year a bought a DVD player that was not progressive scan. Will it really make that much of a difference?

 

[bootz]

depends on the quality of your TV's internal line doubler.


buy a progressive scan player at best buy (like the Panasonic RP56), try it out. if you think there is an improvement, keep it. if not, send it back. nothing to lose.

 

[Savageone79]

On that small of a screen I would say probably not but I agree that it wouldnt hurt to try it out.

 

[PJO1966]

small? suddenly I have screen envy.

 

[Savageone79]

Sorry didnt mean it to sound like that. I assume its 4:3 which means movies will not be shown at 34" but smaller then that. If it's widescreen Progressive scan might make more of a difference becuase the picture will be bigger.

 

[PJO1966]

Actually, it's 16:9. I guess I'll have to test it out...


Thanks.

 

[ciper]

You do realize that you will get a larger 16:9 image with the kv-40xbr700 than you will with the KD-34XBR2.

 

[PJO1966]

Yes, but I would prefer to have the 16:9 aspect ratio television rather than having the 4:3. I understand that I can still watch it in 16:9 mode, but when I'm watching movies I don't want to see the black bars on the top and bottom.

 

[dkeller_NC]

Uh- You're going to see black bars on the top and bottom anyway. At least a third to a half of movies are released in the 2.35:1 apsect ratio, so viola! - black bars.

 

[PJO1966]

Check out the thread in here about 16:9 vs. 4:3. It's a matter of preference.

 

[DBNyack]

Quote:

Originally posted by dkeller_NC Uh- You're going to see black bars on the top and bottom anyway. At least a third to a half of movies are released in the 2.35:1 apsect ratio, so viola! - black bars.

dkeller, this is true but the black bars on a 16:9 display will be much smaller than on a 4:3 display. I agree with PJ, it's a matter of preference.

 

[Antlerman]

Regarding comments on "small screen" and RP56. A salesman at the "Home Theater store had the same sort of comments. He did say that there would be twice the band witdth and therefore the colors would be more vivid. Is this true?


That could be enough of a reason right there to change DVD.


Regards.........

 

[dkeller_NC]

"dkeller, this is true but the black bars on a 16:9 display will be much smaller than on a 4:3 display. I agree with PJ, it's a matter of preference."


Sure - but he did state that he "didn't want to see black bars on movies", which is unavoidable, although they can be minimized. Personally, I can't see why anyone would want a high-end 4:3 projection tv, principally because there isn't much of a price premium on WS HD RPTVs, and beam spot size (among other things) are optimized for the aspect ratio of the screen. Moreover, most 4:3 sources are relatively low-rez compared to 16:9 and 2.35:1, so you would naturally want a smaller display for 4:3 and a larger display for 16:9.


That is, if you primarily watch movies and HDTV. IF you're a sports addict, it makes a lot of sense to buy a 4:3 HD RPTV. With direct-views, however, it's a different story. THe price premium for a 16:9 tube is very large, so economics may out-weigh picture quality considerations.


Regarding bandwidth on progressive DVD players: While it is true that a 480p signal has a higher bandwidth than 480i signals, remember that the 480p signal is generated on the player (all current prog. DVD players start with an interlaced signal). So while it's true that your tv set will see a higher-bandwidth signal, you really can't generate more information than what's on the disc. The principal reason for a progressive player is bettering the line doubler in your tv and avoiding a D/A conversion before the line doubler (the scaling from 480i to 480p inside the player occurs in the digital domain).