AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looking for subjective impressions of 4:3 direct view tv's. I don't care about numbers or specs, just which tv looks sharpest for DVD, based on your experience. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,027 Posts
The best picture you can get for DVD is an HTPC to a monitor. A 4x3 TV without the squeeze is going to have 30% less resolution than displaying anamorphic. If you care about sharpness, you need this feature or a 16x9 set.




------------------


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Do you want it to just look sharp, or do you want to see detail in the image? If you just want apparent sharpness, go for a good 19" direct view - it will look sharper than a 32" direct view.


But if you really want to see what is on the DVD, as much detail as possible, and if you want it to look like you are watching a screen in a movie theater then you should forget small, direct view sets entirely (unless you go with a special HD monitor like the Princeton Graphics display and sit really close). Only a 50+ inch front or rear projection setup will get you there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
My 34" direct view Sampo 16:9 DEFINITELY looks sharper than my Sony GDM-F500 21" monitor.


Watching anamorphic DVDs on the F500 looks way soft compared to the Sampo (using a Radeon HTPC @ 1920x1080i).


Of course, the monitor (0.22 grille pitch) can display more resolution than my Sampo any day, but it does not seem anywhere near as sharp as the Sampo, since the tight grille pitch lowers its contrast ratio and brightness (dull image).


I also have a 1600SW SGI digital flat panel that upconverts DVDs to its native resolution of 1600x1024, and watching DVDs on that is like combining the good qualities of the Sampo and Sony w/o the bad -> excellent resolution, high contrast ratio/brightness = very very crisp, clear, detailed images.


My Sony RPTV out in the living room gives me the 'big screen' theater experience, but when I want high quality, I sneak back into my bedroom and play with the Sampo / SGI 1600SW.


MMAfia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
No Sony Wega can display HD resolution. There is no such thing as an HD-ready Wega - Sony never uses that term or says that Wegas are HD sets. They use the term Hi-Scan instead because they know that the Wegas are not HD but can only accept an HD signal - they can't display it with HD resolution. What the XBR400s do is like taking a 1080x1920 digital image in a photo editor and downsizing it to 600x800.


Why do people have such a hard time understanding that a set that can only display a total of 600 horizontal lines cannot display the minimum 1000-1200 lines that is necessary for real HDTV? Regular old NTSC TV has a limiting resolution of 640 horizontal lines (480x640) and the Wegas do no better than this, displaying a high definition image at approximately standard definition.


I could understand the appeal of these sets if they cost $1,000, but since they are close to $2,000 and only offer a small screen and half the resolution of real HD-ready sets that cost the same or less, its difficult to see why they should be considered competitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Actually, in the Sony press releases, Sony did specify that the 400's were HD-ready, and their web site used to say that, although I see that has been removed. A little bit of creative liberty perhaps??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


NTSC TV's reached their zenith http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif in the 80's when consumer level sets were finally able to display the full 340 horizontal lines of resolution of the format as broadcast OTA.


This does not mean that all the TV's in the previous 40+ years were not NTSC sets. Of course they were. They just could not deliver the full potential of the format until 40 years later.


The Sony XBR tube set is just as much a HD ready set as a Toshiba RPTV or a $30000 Runco FPTV. While the latter can display more of the HDTV signal information ... it does not diminish the Sony's status as HD ready.


It is still HD ... just that you are not seeing the full potential of the HD signal.


Obviously HDTV signals still look great on Sony sets at that size, they just don't provide that "being there" feeling that the better HDTVs can.


Currently, I have found that only the RCA/Proscan tube sets deliver anywhere close to 1 million pixels of the 2 million pixels in the HDTV 1080i format.


The Wegas deliver 700,000+ pixels. Pretty much twice that of DVD at 350,000 pixels.


REgards


------------------

Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael TLV:


Currently, I have found that only the RCA/Proscan tube sets deliver anywhere close to 1 million pixels of the 2 million pixels in the HDTV 1080i format.
Which RCA/Proscan tube sets deliver close to 1 million pixels? The 38" 16x9? Some of the 4x3's?



Joe

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jvos:


Here is the URL to the Wega 1080i, which is listed as "HD Capable (1080i, 480p, 480i)".
Since I'm new to this, please disregard any of my HO's as "fact". But here goes:

I think people here are confusing "horizontal resolution" with "number of horizontal lines".

If the Wega says it's capable of 1080i, then it must resolve 1080 horizontal lines, or has a vertical resolution of 1080. The HDTV spec does not require a "horizontal resolution" spec, or minimum number of vertical lines. Heck, the Wega could display 1 vertical line (made up of 1080 pixels) and still be in the HDTV spec.





------------------

Christian Vye


-------------------------

e-mail is forever
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


The 4:3 RCA and Proscan HD Monitors have a horizontal resolution in the range of 950 lines per picture width.


Verified with a HD resolution pattern. (Close enough)


So 950 x 1080 = 1,026,000 pixels. Of course there will be scan line overlapping like on most sets so ... bring that number down a bit.


Something like the TOshiba 34" 16:9 set only does 800 or so TVL/PH. (864,000 pixels)


Sony XBR 36" ... 780,000 or so.


Of note though ... at a certain point additional pixels no longer matter.


Regards


------------------

Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
It bugs me when people state incorrect facts based on opinion. Below are my facts and if you can provide equivalent documentation that the Wega maxes out at 600 lines, please do.


Here is the URL to the Wega 1080i, which is listed as "HD Capable (1080i, 480p, 480i)".
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer...on/index.shtml


BTW,there are panasonics RPTVs and probably others that have less than 1200 horizontal lines and are titled "HD Ready", so why bash Wega?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
jvos,


The low horizontal resolution of the XBR400s is a fact, not an opinion. You can verify it yourself if you don't believe me. The aperture grill (or dot pitch in non Trinitron tubes) is the ultimate limit on resolution. The XBR400s have only a little more than 600 horizontal "slits" for the image to be displayed. Several reviewers have commented on this limitation in the XBR400s.


Get close to the screen and you will see the image composed of little red, green, and blue, slits. Count the number of slits of one color across the horizontal width of the tube. Or count the number in one inch and multiply by the number of inches in the width of the tube. You will see that the XBR400s only have about 600 slits in the aperture grille per color. Therefore the XBR400 can never display more than about 600 lines horizontal resolution.


Don't confuse this with 1080 lines of vertical resolution. Actually NO interlaced 1080 display can show 1080 lines of vertical resolution. For one thing, the lines usually overlap in consumer displays, but more importantly, an interlaced signal has to be filtered to avoid an annoying interlaced flicker called "twitter". In essence, part of each line is added to the next to reduce twitter, also reducing the vertical resolution from 1080 to about 700 lines. This is well known in video engineering circles and is one of the reasons Joe Kane is supporting 720p as the preferred format. Only a very good 1080p display would actually display 1080 lines vertical resolution.


I have the greatest respect for Michael's opinions, but I have to disagree with him on this one. First, the XBRs display about 700 pixels vertically (1080 interlaced) x 600 pixels horizontally, which is about 420,000 pixels or just a little better than DVD resolution.


I don't think a set that cannot display about 900 or 1000 horizontally can seriously be called HDTV. I have a little Casio pocket TV with an LCD screen of about 200x300 pixels. I can connect it to an RCA DTC-100 and it will recieve and display the Tonight Show in HDTV. Just because it can display an HDTV signal doesn't make it an HDTV. The Sony web page for the XBR400 only says that the INPUTS are HD capable. So are the inputs to my DTC-100/Casio pocket TV combo. Sony doesn't say anything about the XBR400 being able to display HD resolution because it can't. They don't specify the horizontal resolution as most RPTV makers do because 600 lines would be embarassing compared to the 1200 or so lines of the HD-ready RPTVs.


There have to be some requirements on the resolution of the actual displayed image, even though the CEA has not defined any. Since almost any HD-ready RPTV can display 1100 to 1200 horizontal lines, I would say 900-1000 horizontal lines is the minimum display resolution for real HDTV. Many would think that is way too low.


The XBR400s at 600 horizontal lines are not even close to that. I think it is a good, small set for DVDs, but at $2,000 it is way overpriced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
While I wholeheartedly agree 100% with Yeringto, let's not forget, resolution is not the most important factor when measuring overall image quality.


Too many people have fallen into that trap. Please read the following thread to avoid that pitfall:

Resolution Pitfalls


MMAfia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings Yeringto


Agree to disagree on this one. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


I would still be in the camp of saying that it is all HDTV if the set can actually handle the 1080i signal as opposed to downconverting it to S-video or Composite.


If your DTC-100 can actually feed the Casio a real 1080i signal from the RGB output, then the Casio would be an HDTV in my book.


Now of course there is a difference between good HDTV and bad HDTV. I think the line is probably drawn at that magical 1 million pixel point.


It's kind of like saying that Yugos are not really cars because they don't measure up to BMW's or even Neons. (Gulp)


It might be a poor example of a car, but it is still a car.


Or something to the effect that Stupid People should not be considered to be people at all. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


We know the XBR400 can do more than 600 lines because the HD signal shows that it has no problem showing 640 lines via the multiburst pattern on the 3 pixel section.


Regards


------------------

Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Princeton's specs for their much acclaimed monitor indicate 800 x 600 resolution, or 480,000 pixels. I think almost everyone would agree that the Princeton is definitely an HDTV capable monitor. Maximum pixel count is a bit like horsepower on a car. More is generally better but there are a whole heap of other issues of equal or greater importance.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top