Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Recommend to me an HDTV. A good one. One that I would want.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Recommend to me an HDTV. A good one. One that I would want. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Recommend to me an HDTV. A good one. One that I would want.

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 09-03-2004 10:51 PM

Joe, have you ever done a visual shootout between 720p and 1080i? The two formats are supposed to have about the same dynamic resolution when looking at moving images. Look up "Kell Effect" or "Kell Factor" and have at it. Progressive scanning still has other advantages over interlace though. I salute your superior tastes in prefering 'p' over 'i'. [thumbsup]

The Sony model you asked about does not display 720p directly. It converts everything it sees to 1080i.

Presently there are no consumer direct-view TVs or monitors that do 720p natively. Princeton Graphics made monitors and TVs that could do it. Their original 30" monitor was the AF3.0HD, the follow-on TV set with improved connectivity and an improved version of the same CRT was the AS3.0HDW. The monitors were designed to specifications outlined by Joe Kane, then the chair of the SMPTE working group for monitor standards. He insisted on native 720p capability. I've seen the AF3.0HD in action myself (almost bought one back in 2001)--it does make very nice pictures. It's not quite as sharp as its 40MHz bandwidth spec would lead you to think, but on real-world moving images, it looks very good. I imagine the AS3.0HDW looks as good or better. Both are discontinued now, but used ones do show up. Also look at Monivision, CTX, Proton, and JVC pro displays for native 720p capability.

Sampo and Konka both came out with 32" flat CRT TV sets that also did 720p natively. Don't know how they looked, and they too have both been discontinued. Currently, support of native 720p display is rare, since it requires a deflection yoke that can handle a 45KHz H-scanning frequency (1080i yokes can't handle it). But things may be changing. ABC was the only major network using 720p, but now ESPN and FOX have both decided on 720p as well. The rest use 1080i. That well may convince the HD TV set manufacturers to develop product that can do native 720p. This is rapidly shifting ground. Watch your step!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-03-2004 11:44 PM

Maybe someone can answer this question, because I'm a bit unsure about the scenario. Will a computer doing HDTV display both 720p and 1080i natively? Since computer monitors are normally progressive scan devices, it would seem they would have no trouble at all doing 720p natively. But what do they do to imitate an interlaced system like 1080i?

I'm only asking since there is a growing number of add-in cards that allow a PC to display and even record HD signals.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-03-2004 11:46 PM

One the one hand you say you prefer the CRT but on the other hand you say you want progressive scan. It is the CRT faction that has the interlace thing to continue. Why not 1080p? All indicators show that the CRT technology is on the way out.

Personally, I like the look of CRT monitors the best but there is definately size limits there. With digital monitors, there are always the tradeoffs on how they look based on what technology they used.

Then again, I'm not so hung up on the upscale/down scale sort of thing except when it comes to pixel mapping...those have to be one-to-one.

I think DLP has an issue with their whole "field sequential" technology. It is kinda like the CAP codes...a certain percentage notices them right away and others will notice it, once pointed out. Yet others get headaches over the field-sequential technology. Due to cost, you won't see 3-chip DLP machines in the home, at least not in the anywhere near future until costs can be more reasonable. These are certainly interesting times...kinda like when color came to the home TV...they had field sequential options too...and it didn't succeed then...what do they say about not learning from history?

Steve

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 09-03-2004 11:57 PM

CRTs can do interlaced (TV's) and progressive scan (computer monitors). CRT technology is not the limiting factor here. Also, I don't need the screen to be giganto-huge.

Maybe I will get a Canon XL2 instead and wait for HDTV technology to catch up to 1996 technology.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-04-2004 07:05 AM

"have you ever done a visual shootout between 720p and 1080i? The two formats are supposed to have about the same dynamic resolution when looking at moving images."

There IS definately a difference but its not huge, its subtle. There are a tad bit less artifacts and moire effect with 720P than with 1080i. Its easy to see the difference on something like a football game where 1080i(NBC) is full of pixilization and artifacts on a fast moving scene but when watching a football game on a 720P system (ABC), the image is a bit cleaner....though not by a big margin. Typically there is no moire effect on 720p at all. Image dissolves seem to look about the same on either system where one pixilates into the other but that may be more related to video switchers and their inherent problems. Resolution between the two is almost indistinguishable. There is no flicker with eiither...don't know what Joe meant in regards to flicker. When it comes to DLP the three panel are the only ones that pass for me. The spinning color wheel DLP sets suck and have worse artifacts than any other display system. Mitsubishi has/had a 3 chip DLP rear screen system a year ago, perhaps they abandoned it due to lack of interest. It was something like 18K U.S.. Well, I guess Joe is right back to considering my 1946 Emerson TV set with channel 1. Look....Joes favorite program is on........

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-04-2004 08:05 AM

Hmmm...note the "chocolate candies" on top of the set and the Schneider lens box for close visual inspection of the various resolutions and scan rates.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-04-2004 12:09 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Maybe I will get a Canon XL2 instead and wait for HDTV technology to catch up to 1996 technology.

24p and real 16:9 capability makes it tempting to run out and get a $5000 loan for one of those cameras. Make sure you test drive one really well before buying though. I've read some serious complaints about it in some online reviews. Aliasing issues, and Canon's pixel shift method can make for some soft video.

What scares me about the XL2 is the size of the 1/3" CCD sensors. They're no bigger than the 1/3" sensors in Panasonic's AG-DVX100A. What's worse is how 4:3 and 16:9 are treated in the sensor. The 4:3 image is literally window-boxed, using an area significantly smaller than a normal 1/3" sensor. You get the full width of the sensor in 16:9 mode. This is a method very similar to that used in Sony's $2,400 DSR-PX10 DVCAM palmcorder. The difference is the number of pixels in each sensor. Canon's XL2 has 460K total per sensor (350K being used in normal 4:3). Even though the Sony PX10 has smaller 1/4" sensors, each CCD has over 1 million pixels.

| IP: Logged

Robert Harris
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 09-04-2004 06:27 PM

My CRT of choice is the 34XBR960.

Great image quality, and not to be confused with the 910.

RAH

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-04-2004 09:37 PM

Bobby said.....

"Then what is the point of even buying a High Definition Television in the first place? I could just as easily say NTSC/480p has "adequate resolution." It sure costs a hell of a lot less."
_________________________________________________________________

The point of buying one is cause it has alot more to offer you channel wise for free, and cause NTSC is going bye bye in a few years. BElieve me when TV stations get the order to cease NTSC its going to happen overnight... it costs a bundle just in power consumed to have both the Analog and DTV trannys up all the time.

And for Steve G......

The original was at 1080i, now here's that same picture at 525i, or 2/3 less pixels. The chocolates were yummy!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 09-05-2004 02:36 PM

The Canon XL2 does not use the pixel shift technolgy. That was the XL1. The XL2 is supposed to be much sharper. Also, why would I want to shoot anything in 4x3? Who cares? In fact, it has been reported that both the XL2 and the DVX100 look nearly identical in 4x3 mode. Here is some other stuff from an actual XL1s, DVX100, GL2, and now XL2 owner from another forum:

quote:
Image quality.
We were viewing the footage on a 34" sony Wega HD set. The footage I shot was primarily in 16:9, stretched manually by the monitor. Well, all I can say is I've never seen anything like it. Viewed from about 10 feet the image was remarkably detailed...but when I got close to the monitor there was almost no evidence of the sharpening, noise, and aliasing that I expected to see (from viewing a SD-DV source on a HD monitor). Much of the footage was relatively backlit surfer-in-the- water stuff, and so it had very high contrast edges...I thought for sure that this would bring out the aliasing that "the famous cinematographer" spoke of in his "report" from dvexpo. Sorry (ok, happy) to say...I have never seen a cleaner, more HD like image projected on my HD set...not from my dvx, xl1s, gl2 or the compressed streams off of DirecTV. The color seems natural, the contrast about what you'd hope for.

By accident I popped in a 2 week old tape taken from the same vantage points on my xl1s...the difference between the two camera's is, shall we say, huge.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-05-2004 05:29 PM

If you buy an XL2 anytime soon, let me know how you like it. I'm mulling over the choices between a few different three chip cameras, with the Panny DVX-100 and XL2 being the primary models of consideration.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.