Why are HDTV's a challenge to buy?

[33klfan]

First of all, the resolution thing is confusing, like 720p/i, 1080i/p. From what i gather 1080p is full HD, but i don't know. My uncle just bought a 720p toshiba lcd, but even though the hdmi input says 1080i, the screen resolution under specs says 720p, so i'm guessing it's not outputting full 1080. The 720's are cheaper but is there a noticeable difference? Can even a dvd player output 1080 for a 1080 tv. Like is regular dvd fine on a upscaling dvd player as composed to bluray/hddvd. I guess for cable you have to get hd channels to see good picture or do regular channels look good too, because my uncles tv looks pixelated with most channels from comcast. I am just asking this to clarify things because i want to know if the next few months are a good time to buy with technology advancing. I would either buy a lcd or dlp rear projection, but lcd because of nice size. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[el jopez]

Taking a stab at it, and I know mas will be in here shortly to tighty up the loose ends []

1080p is the "fullest" HD on the consumer market today, correct. There is a difference in picture quality between 720 and 1080i/p, however on smaller screens its best to go with 720 while the larger screens sizes, 48"+, the higher resolution will have greater impact. I've only messed with 720, and I am more than content on a 42" model (which happens to be for sale, hint hint wink wink anybody)

Current DVD's do not output in full HD. That is why we have HD-DVD discs and Blu-Ray, which depends on the movie on either format, the film should be rendered in 1080p for your viewing pleasure. I would suggest waiting a few more months before purhcasing a new set for a slew of reasons.

Since last fall, many in the industry expected prices on LCD;s, DLP's etc to fall by Christmas 07. What they did not realize was the combined gureilla tactics from Wal-mart massively discounting name brand TV's this past Christmas (06) or Circuit City slashing prices on a generic brand sets. Either way this has had a disastrous effect on the business with the closeouts of CC, Tweeter and other massive employee layoffs. As a consumer, we profit from their loss with cheaper prices. It is safe to say that prices will continue to fall as the vendors attempt to remain competitive with each other. There is a current generation 46" DLP from Samsung at BB for about 1400. Two years ago you would have been paying close to 2 grand if not more. [Y]

As well, if Wal-marts tactics weren't enough for the industry, they plan on releasing this fall a sub 300 dollar HD-DVD player. I have a feeling that the Wal-mart effect will severely undermine the integrity and quality of the high end A/V industry. God help us.

[mas]

Below is a little bit more info that may help explain some of the technology. It is not meant to be comprehensive, but it may help clarify some of the confusion about the various 'formats'...

Interlaced scanning and
progressive scanning.

Interlaced scanning was
useful with CRT displays as the control of an electron beam was not overly
accurate. Thus, control was easier to
achieve by wider spacing per write scan. With the advent of LCD, thin-film transistor
(TFT) and other technologies featuring more precise control of individual
pixels, progressive scan has become more poplar.

Interlaced scanning -based
images use techniques developed for Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)-based TV monitor
displays, made up of 576 visible horizontal lines across a standard TV screen.
Interlacing divides these into odd and even lines and then alternately refreshes
them at 30 frames per second, with each frame consisting of two summed interlaced
fields.

The slight delay between
odd and even line refreshes (characterized by the horizontal interval when the scan
goes to black and returns from the right side of the display to the left side
incremented downward in order to begin the next horizontal scan) creates some
distortion or 'flicker'. This is because only half the frame (one field)
consisting of the previous first interlaced painted full screen scan persists
(due to the eyes lack of rapid acuity) while
the second half of the frame is painted between the first lines, thus
creating one scanned frame from the two scanned fields.

The lag is further
exacerbated by what is called the vertical interval, whereby the scan, when it
had finished scanning one half frame and arrived at the bottom-most right
corner was turned off (goes to black) and then returns to the top left
position to begin the next scan.

BTW, in this vertical timing
interval, additional information such as closed captioning and second language
data is placed. On traditional CRT TVs with a vertical hold adjustment, it is
easy to roll the picture and to observe the vertical interval as the horizontal
bar of black and white, with various colored dots which comprise the various
data placed there.

Sine wave-sync suppression and
baseband encryption are two primary methods employed in scrambling the
interlaced format.

As far as the various
resolutions and displays, here is a listing of the most common:

(Oh, and without going into too great detail,
normally the ration of interlaced to progressive scans to product one frame is
expressed as 2:1 two scans for every one frame. This is not actually true,
and the actual ratio is 10:4, rendering progressive scan formats an even
greater advantage.

Progressive scanning, on the other hand, scans the entire picture line
by line every sixteenth of a second. The frame is not split into separate
fields painted one half of a frame at a time like in interlaced scanning. Rather
each line is scanned in order from top to bottom in one pass, reducing the
degree of "flickering". Computer monitors have traditionally been
progressive scanned devices.

Format
Listed in order from lowest to highest resolution

·
Vertical
Resolution (Scan Lines, Rows from Top to Bottom) x

·
Horizontal
Resolution (Vertical Lines, 'Columns' ('pixels') from Left to Right)

Digital
TV - SDTV:

·
480i - 704x480 interlaced

·
480p - 704x480 progressive

Digital TV - HDTV:

·
1080i -
1920x1080 interlaced

·
720p - 1280x720
progressive

·
1080p - 1920x1080 progressive

Summary
of scan rates, protocol (i or p), and resolution from lowest to highest:

·
480i - The
picture is 704x480 - (60/2 interlaced frames per second) = 30 complete frames
per second.

·
480p - The
picture is 704x480 - 60 complete frames per second.

·
1080i - The
picture is 1920x1080 - (60/2 interlaced frames per second) = 30 complete frames
per second. (Essentially ~590p)

·
720p - The
picture is 1280x720 - 60 complete frames per second.

·
1080p - The
picture is 1920x1080 - 60 complete frames per second.

One BIG note: Digital
does NOT equal High Definition! The mandated move from analog to digital does
not imply that digital is high definition!

An additional note: Many TVs may
list a particular compatibility with a particular scan format, but they may not
display the complete picture. In other words, although they may scan the picture
according to the frequency and protocol specified, the total vertical
and horizontal display may not be sufficient to display the entire picture! Such
TV is typically referred to as EDTV Enhanced Definition Television.

Summary:
Unless you desire a 1080p TV, 720p is the format with the highest resolution.
The 1080i format will support a larger picture, but it will be at a lower
resolution (less detailed) than the 720p display.

iSuppli is an industry analysis
firm, and it projects continued price cuts as the production curve changes from
one where demand has outstripped the capacity to supply the sets to a market
where the production capabilities begin to greatly exceed the market demand.

With this shift, it is
projected that prices for identical sets will drop by at least 30 percent over
the next year.

The message is thus to buy
only that which will satisfy your needs for the foreseeable future and to hold
off investing in your dream TV for the next several years as prices and
technologies, including new interface protocols such as DisplayPort which
updates the still emerging HDMI
interface, are incorporated. It is a rapidly evolving market.

I hope this helps a bit.
There is lots more, and if I can help
with questions of technology, feel free to PM (not email) me. As far as debates
over the various platforms such as DLP, Plasma, OLED, etc., I will let you all
fight this out on the forum. I have my preferences in terms of technology, but
so much is dependent upon the market availability and pricing that it is almost
impossible to make a categorical recommendation; And I will admit to not being up on each and every model that is available especially as various formats
and technologies are still in flux and developing rapidly. But this should
serve as another caveat regarding running out and buying for the future instead
of that which will do what you desire now.

[tenzip]

Here's a site I found helpful in clearing things up. http://www.hdtvprimer.com/

[JJkizak]

I feel sorry for anyone going into a store to purchase a new TV. An electronic engineer would pull his hair out.

JJK

[CECAA850]

Summary: Unless you desire a 1080p TV, 720p is the format with the highest resolution. The 1080i format will support a larger picture, but it will be at a lower resolution (less detailed) than the 720p display.

MAS, I really didn't get this point. 720p has greater resolution than 1080p?

[erickoegle]

I thought that 1080i produced a higher resolution than 720p. Progressive scan will have a sharper and more clear image in fast paced scenes. At least what is what I had got out of the difference in 1080i vs 720p.

[Mikekid]

OK then, I have a 40" LCD. Should I set it at 1080i, or 720p? Signal is through directv at 1080i. (HD channels)

I have test drove both of these aspect ratios and cannot tell the difference. Maybe I dont know what to look for? Current set-up is at 1080i and sure looks great to me.

Thanks!!

Mike

[mas]

Summary: Unless you desire a 1080p TV, 720p is the format with the highest resolution. The 1080i format will support a larger picture, but it will be at a lower resolution (less detailed) than the 720p display.

MAS, I really didn't get this point. 720p has greater resolution than 1080p?

First, it doesn't take an engineer to figure things out! I simply tried to explain the difference between interlaced and progressive scan. A rather simple issue, but if you don't want to think of it, just think progressive scan. Simple.

Also, the 3 HD formats that you have to choose from are 720p, 1080i and 1080p. In order of detail/resolution, from lowest to highest: 1080i, 720p 1080p. Yes, 720p is sharper than 1080i! 720p is just as sharp as 1080p, but the picture is slightly smaller. Here, listed another way in order from lowest resolution to highest resolution (detail):

1080i - The

picture size is 1920x1080 - (60/2 interlaced frames per second) =~ 30 complete frames

per second. (Essentially ~<545p) - Lowest detail of the 3, larger picture

720p - The

picture size is 1280x720 - 60 complete frames per second. 2nd best resolution, best buy

1080p - The

picture size is 1920x1080 - 60 complete frames per second. Highest resolution, larger picture

Unless you are going to stick your neck out and pay the premium price for a 1080p set, 720p offers a higher resolution picture than 1080i! 1080p offers the highest resolution currently, but only HD recorded sources support it natively. If you are investing in HD sources now, it may be worth the money, but for the vast majority of people, it would be wise to wait a bit until prices come down and the technology stabilizes with DisplayPort interface and the newer audio formats.

1080i, due to the interlacing, is essentially equivalent to a <545p set with a larger image (but it is still not as stable as progressive scan in terms of artifacts).

So, Bottomline:

Progressive scan (p) is superior to interlaced(i) in terms of precision and clarity of the picture.

As the number increases, the total size of the displayed screen - the number of pixels supported becomes larger.

Next consideration is the size of the drawn picture: 720 or 1080

1080 displays a slightly larger picture than 720. But you must consider the resolution.

You need to evaluate the method in which the screen is draw as well as if the full format is supported. And here is a common issue with the 1080 format!!!

Many of the larger format monitors may say they are "1080", which requires a 1920 x 1080 pixel screen. But many are actually only capable of displaying a portion of this!!! Many 1080 TVs may not actually display the full number of pixels - they may have, say only 1860 x 920, only a portion of the full image. Thus you will essentially see a cropped image.

And unfortunately YOU have to verify the displayed visible pixel image size. They will not advertise that this is a 1080p TV but that it only displays a portion of the available picture! And this is VERY common!

My advise, which you are free to ignore: Buy a full image size 720p set unless you are eaten up by the early adopter HD craze and have more money then brains and are prepared to have your very expensive set not support quite a few features in 2-3 years time. How's that? Did I step on lots of toes? Good! If not, let me know and I will try again!

So, let's try once more!

Buy 720p unless you absolutely need 1080p and have money to burn.

Make sure the actual displayed image is either 1280 x 720 pixels for 720p, or 1920x1080 pixels for 1080p.

[mas]

And for some of you who want to debate the resolution issue ad nauseum, it is actually pretty simple.

Here is a paper that addresses the issue in more detail (as I am sure that ALL of you want to read it!)

BTW, no one is going to die because they are viewing a 1080i TV! So there is no need for anyone to run about panicking! In fact, a good case can be made that all of this is worrying about very little, and that standard wide aspect TV with a good source is quite OK. Such blasphemy!

2MPixelsRBtrThan1MPixels.c3.pdf

[erickoegle]

So, buying a tv (Plasma) that has a native resolution of 1366x768 would only display native 720p sources in 1280x720? Thus, having some black/grayish boxes around the actual picture? Or would it scale the 720p image to the actual screen size of 1366x768. I've been looking around for a decent 50" plasma and I am about to get one within the next few weeks. 50" is a must, <$2k. I will be using Dish Network with an indoor Terk amplified HDTV antenna for local HD channels.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882145017

Is it worth it to get the HD antenna separate from the 5$ extra/month for adding it to the Dish Network package?

Is there any advantages of Direct TV vs. Dish Network? I do not see any local retailers selling/promoting Dish Network.

[mas]

Each TVs internal circuitry determines which scan protocol it supports. I would assume that it would suport 720p, but you should check with the manual.

You may observe a small amount of letter boxing, but most tuners allow you to adjust the format for the aspect ration and also for 'zoom' to fill the screen (there may be slight overscanning where a bit of he picture is off screen).

If it was advertised as a 1080 (i or p) compatible set, you would be wasting your money, as it a great majority of the picture would be undisplayed (think massive overscan!)

As you have discovered, MANY TVs do not have a pixel ration that matches he scan protocols, and so they are often caught in the middle between them. Here you must decide which of the supported scan protocols suites your needs best. Most likely, 720p is going to be the best. After all, paying the exorbitant price for 1080p compatibility without a screen that will accurately support it is a waste of money in my mind! And 720p sets can be had for a reasonable price that should do just fin until the standards stabilize and the prices drop!

OK, here is an aspect that raises even more of an emotional reaction (If that is indeed possible!)

If at all possible, if you are going to view local HD or digital off-air channels, get an outside antenna! In all cases, even the cheapest are going to vastly outperform the indoor antennas. The next choice would be a small external dish mounted antenna, but still, the standard mast antenna is superior - plus it will provide you will excellent FM response as well!

Whether the continuing $60 a year ($5/month) charge for the small antenna versus a one time $60 charge for a roof mounted antenna is worth it is up to you and your situation. In an apartment without a central antenna distribution center (with properly terminated extensions!!!) where you cannot mount an external antenna, it may be. But I prefer the traditional antenna, despite its being a pain to install and perhaps unsightly view. They simply perform dramatically better. And combined with a rotor, they can't be beat. But each situation varies and you are in the better position to determine what suits your situation. And please be aware, if you already have an antenna, you may need a new antenna addressing the new frequencies used by the HD broadcasts...

As far as Dish versus Direct TV...Aside from programming packages, I would love to read a good technical review of their signals. This is something that I would be very interested in as well.

But then, I like old classic movies and the history, science, nature and perhaps sci fi channels and a few others... And I could care less about the rest. And unfortunately the only way to get those is to subscribe to the absurd $60+ a month package! So, needless to say, I fear the choice is a moot point for me. So, like with radio, I tend to rely on DVD supplemented off air programming as I can invest the money in a more positive manner. With the addressable capabilities, I wish the content providers would let us build our own packages for a fraction of the cost of the 200+ other channels of cr@p that I have no interest in... but that is my baggage to bear...

[]

[IndyKlipschFan]

So, let's try once more!

Buy 720p unless you absolutely need 1080p and have money to burn.

Make sure the actual displayed image is either 1280 x 720 pixels for 720p, or 1920x1080 pixels for 1080p.

Look for "Native Image" as your code word, to what your TV shows naturally...(IOW's... no upscalling... this is it's normal setting.) It is that last number up above.

I have the 1080i capability, but agree with Comcast HD almost everything is in 720 and it is stunning!

Be aware of the in store demos of 1080P especially one by blue ray... It uses a 480i or 480p vs a 1080p signal.. So it should look like a HUGE improvement. If you had a 720P or 1080i signal vs 1080P you "may" see a difference... but not nearly as dramatic if at all. Also be aware most Comcast signals (If you have Comcast) are not at 1080P at all to date.

I have been told... LG will have a very inexpensive DVD player capable of seeing / reading HD and Blue Ray and regular DVD's in the very near future for about 300. (With up conversion too, to 1080P) I agree with most on here.. Unless this is ONLY for movies.. You have the cash to pay for more expensive disc's and a more expensive HDTV 1080P your kinda burning your cash for right now. And they are right.. WalMart Sam's club has OUTSTANDING Samsung DLP TV's for about 1200- 2,000 at 61" 1080i 720P that are just outstanding... (I happen to love Wal Mart.. as a company Look at Penn And Tellers Showtime Network show Bull Shit [bs] for the real story here..) Most customers buy the latest and it is all cool.. trust me.. But there is no 1080P signal from your cable company... and for now, at least very very expensive too.

This is my opinion.. but a killer 1080i 61' for instance set for now... at 1,200 is a great buy at Wal Mart Sam's Club... rather than spending, all your $$ on a 1080P DVD / DVD player/ HD dvd Blue Ray Movies... UNLESS you just have to? LOL. What happens when were at 2160 resolution in say 2 years? Oh Well... Save your money get the best HDTV you can at 720p 1080i and enjoy life... That's my 2 cents.

[JJkizak]

See, just like I said, you have to be real lucky or an engineer to buy a new HDTV.

JJK

[Mikekid]

[][Y] ...JJK

[mas]

You guys, its only complicated because we tried, in 15 minutes, to describe something that takes just a bit longer to completely understand. And you really don't need to.

If you don't want the entire story of the evolution of television, its simple. Forget all of the technobable above and:

Look for a set that displays 720p with a native (not upscaled) screen display of 1280 x 720

(and/or 1080i with a native (not upscaled) screen display of 1920x1080 is fine too, if you want it). If you want to complicate things (what? Here?!?!?!), look for one that does both!

You will be happy with either (although I personally prefer 720p).

And forget 1080p for now.

What is funny is that if we had simply given you this answer initially we would still be arguing for another week as to why this or that isn't as good or why this or that is better! And if you really want to get into a fascinating and utterly confusing discussion, we can always go back and attempt to explain the real story behind the horizontal resolution, as it can actually be expressed in a number of ways!!!! If we do that, you will go back to radio for good and possibly never come out from under the bed.

And to think, all of this grief over a @%#$ TV set!

Have fun!

[]

[33klfan]

WOW, thanks for all the info. I finally understand the resolution part now. Now what dvd player do you have to get to get the best picture besides bluray and hddvd because that technology seems too new. Now if i want the best picture quality like 1080p with full 1080 dvd and cable going through the tv i would have to wait a couple years? Also, i watch cable more than watching movies, so is it possible to get every channel or most, clear with hdtv's like 720p for example. I've always seen channels that look pixelated. I would think the hd channels look fine but what about the non hd channels. MAS, you were saying about using an outdoor antenna for hd channels. Does that pick up a lot of just hd channels or regular channels too? Do you need directv when you have that?

[el jopez]

At one time I had Cox's HD package and loved it. Sports in HD is amazing, especially the super bowl games. If you are capable you must get Discovery HD. That channel alone sold me on the HD package, and at 720p it looked phenomenal. The outdoor sequences looked better than being in the great outdoors; thats how good it is. [Y]

[mas]

OK, the DVD player. Standard DVDs have 540 horizonal lines of resolution. Without getting intop the concept of aspect ratios which will really confuse everyone, suffice it to say that any DVD player that offers:

upscaling through at least 720p, and also offers and HDMI connector (or DisplayPort if you want the latest future oriented standard supplanting HDMI which also offers greater sound fidelity...another topic for later) will do fine.

DVD-Audio and SACD are options that are in addition to the above and are up to your preferences.

If you want HD-DVD or Blu-Ray , that is a separate issue. I recommend holding off...but you are of course free to have a differing opinion if you want to spend the extra money. But please be especially aware of the AACS and HDCP DRM protocols!

And yes, there are reports of multi-format players, the reason being that several OEM chip manufacturers are building laser modules that can read both formats. BUT, there is a BIG issue, and that is that the Blu-Ray licensing terms specifically forbid such co-platform licensing. So...we will all have to wait and see if and when such players are actually available and at a competitive price! As the current co-format players cost more than do 2 separate players...making them a rather lousy deal. But the choice is yours. This is still a mess waiting to be decided...

As far as an antenna, the outdoor antenna is for the off-air local broadcast of the digital content. A good 'HDTV' or 'digital' antenna should generally receive the new off air station broadcasts as well as the traditional legacy TV stations and FM broadcasts. You will want to verify this with the model, as there are many options. But plenty are available that will receive all of the formats.

DirectTV and Dish Network are separate. Both are satellite receivers and utilize a small diameter dish antenna. These dishes are specifically for satellite reception. They typically offer a small add-on antenna for local reception and also for local HD reception, but they are not as effective as the dedicated larger off-air antennas.

At this point you need to make a decision; whether the convenience and aesthetics of a small add on antenna is the most important, or whether you can deal with the aesthetics of a larger more effective off-air antenna much like the traditional roof top antenna for better local channel analog and digital reception.

If you are content with the satellite only reception, you will not need an additional antenna. But please be aware: satellite transmission is subject to 'rain fade', a condition of interference when there is moderate to heavy rain at any site in the satellite transmission path, be it the source, the transmission or reception site, or any microwave link used to relay the signal in the transmission path. In this case the local off air antenna can be used to receive the local stations, via an AB switch or an internal switch in the receiver, perhaps more clearly. (This is equally true if you have cable.)

Also, if you like your local stations, be aware that you may receive them more clearly via off-air reception than you will via cable or satellite. The reason for this is quite simple, The cable companies receive the local signals via an off air antenna as well; and then they transmit them to you. You are simply cutting out the middle man so to speak and avoiding all of the potential issues that may effect them in the course of transmission.

So, if your cable and /or satellite companies offer the rebroadcast of your local channels, you technically do not need a separate antenna. But, if anything fails in the cable or satellite system, you will be without the option of receiving the local channels without a separate off-air antenna. And you may very well have better reception of the channels with your own antenna.

There are a few other wrinkles, but I think this will help most without delving into too much more minutia. And I have tried to explain some of the options available as well. I hope it wasn't too confusing. If you like, PM me and I can call you and I think that you will find that it is really rather simple to ferret out what is best for you depending upon your priorities, the limiting factors you are willing to do without, and what you are willing to spend. (Note: While I understand the specs, I do not pretend to be intimate with specific models of TVs and their performance quality or reliability history. For this you might be best served by checking various HT forums and especially Consumer Reports, etc.)

Please don't let this intimidate you. Its a little convoluted, but its easily straightened out.

Now, if we could just straighten out the herd of cats developing the standards!

[]

[wally flick]

I believe HDTV, in the US, is still shot 29.92 frames per second. Interlaced would give you approx 60 fields per second.

I have a 1080i set that is 2+ years old and couldn't be happier. IIRC, except for Blu-Ray there is no 1080p programing at this point in time.