HDTV

[dpac 0]

I can get the RCA for 1739.99, and the JVC for 1999.99 with a stand included.

[Guest StylesMark]

I'd go with the JVC, based on my personal experiences with JVC and RCA, non HD, prouducts.

[Mole 0]

So, when the switch from NTSC analog finally happens, what about the peoplw with "rabbit ears" (no cable)? Will they be able to get anything?

When is the switch going to happen?

 

I remember reading a few years ago it was going down in 2006, but it obviously got pushed back. Or I just read that wrong.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Oh, and as bad as things went tonight at the sports bar, I was pissed that they had all these nice Plasma TVs and were using the stretched Standard version of ESPN for the Duke/UNC game. Im kind of ashamed to say I noticed that given everything else that happened.

 

WTF are you going to put up 20 or so plasma TVs and not run HD to them (unless they were Enhanced Definition (ED) sets, which if they were then they blew good money on crappy TVs)?

[dpac 0]

I was also told to purchase these Ultra 800 HDMI Monster Cables and a $160 Surge Protector. Are these things highly needed, or was the sales rep just trying to get me to spend more?

[MrRant 0]

Monster cables are a sham in most cases.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Monster Cables are good but overpriced...there are cables and products that are just as good for less. Wire is wire...don't go for the cheapest stuff, but don't blow your load on Monster stuff.

 

Btw, I know for a fact that Best Buy and Circuit City people make a lot of commission off those Monster Cables, so that's why they push them.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, that'd be true if only Best Buy employees got paid commission...

[dpac 0]

What about getting a new surge protector, is that needed?

[MrRant 0]

That isn't a bad idea, but you may want to look at a UPS if the quoted price of the surge protector was $160 as that is ridiculous and you can get a very good UPS for that price. A decent surge protector is usually no more that $50/70 depending on the amount of plugs + how much it can absorb.

[Mole 0]

Anyone?

 

So, when the switch from NTSC analog finally happens, what about the peoplw with "rabbit ears" (no cable)? Will they be able to get anything?

When is the switch going to happen?

 

I remember reading a few years ago it was going down in 2006, but it obviously got pushed back. Or I just read that wrong.

[GeneMean 0]

Feb 17, 2009

[Mole 0]

I'd like to spend less than $1000 on an HD set, what would be good to buy?

 

My cable provider doesn't charge anything extra for HD boxes, just the $5.00 for a digital cable box.

[Guest Vitamin X]

HD sets are pretty inexpensive now, but beware of what you get. I got a component HD set at Wal-Mart for about $500, and it doesn't have the DVI/HDMI digital inputs that I guess will eventually become the standard.

 

This pissed me off, but hey, I'll probably just give it to my mom and buy myself a better one later on.

 

And your cable provider will probably charge a monthly fee for HD channels. Mine (Comcast) does, and it's about $5 a month.

[Mole 0]

Nope, I called and it is free.

 

And thanks.

 

DVI/HDMI digital inputs

What is this?

[Guest Vitamin X]

On the back of your TV set, where you'd be plugging in whatever uses the HD, whether it's a cable box, DVD player, etc. etc.

 

The HD component cables look similar to the RGB setup, except there's five inputs instead of three. Refer to the image below:

Got that off google images, by the way. RGB inputs to the left, HD component to the right in the square that apparently the guy needs.

 

A DVI/HDMI input will look like this (sorry for the smaller image):

 

And is what you should probably try to look for in the back of a TV. I think some TVs feature both inputs, you should probably try to go for that. The analog component inputs were what the standard was when it first came out, but now everyone's trying to move over to DVI/HDMI because it's fully digital and I believe it's what's needed to reach the mythical plateau of 1080p (progressive) as opposed to the current HD standard of 1080i (interlaced).

[Mole 0]

Ahh, thanks.

 

How long before they come up with something BETTER than HD?

[Mole 0]

One of the TVs I am looking at has the HDMI input but not the DV input.Is that okay?

[GeneMean 0]

Yes it's totally fine to have an HDMI imput over DVI. HDMI is nice in that it carries both audio and video signal while DVI does not.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I'd like to spend less than $1000 on an HD set, what would be good to buy?

 

My cable provider doesn't charge anything extra for HD boxes, just the $5.00 for a digital cable box.

 

 

I got an RCA 52'' HDTV from Wal-Mart for $999.99 I love it

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Ahh, thanks.

 

How long before they come up with something BETTER than HD?

 

I made a post in a thread in General Discussion about Japan developing ULTRA HD..

 

From Broadcast Television HD Technology Update

 

The queue stretched around the specially assembled theater where Japan’s NHK demonstrated its 4320-line Ultra High Definition TV system last week in the Central Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center during NAB2006.

 

Inside, visitors got an eyeful of what one-day may be the replacement system for today’s high definition television system. Developed by NHK Science & Technical Research Laboratories, Ultra High Definition TV is intended to present images so real that they make viewers feel as if they are in the scene. The Ultra High Definition TV system relies on 32 million pixels — 7680 x 4320 — in a 16:9 aspect ratio to achieve that effect. The Ultra HDTV system relies on 22.2 multichannel sound consisting of three vertical layers of speakers to produce a 3-D soundscape to help pull viewers into the scene.

 

Before this technology ever makes it to the home — if in fact it ever does — it is likely to find applications in medicine, security, museums and exhibitions.

 

Perhaps Nigel Spratling, who ran the NAB-HD demonstration station during the convention, had the best perspective on Ultra HDTV. “I think it’s awesome,” he said. “I actually saw HD for the first time here at NAB in 1985, and then it was analog, of course, and at that time all of us who have an interest in the business saw it; loved it; everybody wanted it. We all knew we could do it, couldn’t afford it, it was going to be way too difficult, and then thankfully found out how to digitize stuff, and we can have HD at really low data rates.”

 

“At the moment, we can't afford their system for the Ultra High Def. We haven’t got the bandwidth for it, all of those kinds of things. But we will. So that’s cool. It’s the next thing to come along.”

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No need to panic. That's a good couple decades down the road before it ever makes it into our homes.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

No need to panic. That's a good couple decades down the road before it ever makes it into our homes.

 

Ive started an Ultra HD fund for myself so that I can buy one the day they come out.

[Mole 0]

I bought a "30 Samsung HD an hour ago for $699 and it's pretty sick. I don't have HD cable yet (I'm calling my cable company tomorrow to get a digital cable box) but I have my Xbox 360 and it looks reallly good on that. Plus it plays DVD's better too (I think or maybe it's just because it's bigger and I've always had a smaller TV).

 

Does the 360 make it that much better because it is hooked up through the HD components? Or is it in my head?

 

The regular cable REALLY sucks right now without the digital cable. Very fuzzy and what not.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Question re: Resolution.

 

The RCA in my room is 600 lines of resolution.

 

Why is the Sanyo HD Ready that I've got my eye on so much better looking at 480p(and subsequently, 720 and 1080)

 

I've deduced that because the RCA runs on NTSC broadcasts, as opposed to the different broadcasts of HD programming? Can anyone confirm/deny this?

 

Incredibly, in the two years and change we've sold HD's at my Walmart, no ones asked me this question.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well..uh..

 

NTSC resolution (480i) = 640 x 480 interlaced = 307,000 pixels

 

ATSC resolutions 720p = 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels or 1080i = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

 

480p is EDTV and it has the same resolution and same amount of pixels, but its progressive which means that the screen draws every line for each frame instead of odd lines one fram and even lines the next frame for interlaced, which makes a big difference in picture quality. Plus 480i is 30 total complete frames per second (60 1/2 complete frames) where as 480p is 60 frames per second.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Ahh, thanks.

 

How long before they come up with something BETTER than HD?

 

I made a post in a thread in General Discussion about Japan developing ULTRA HD..

 

From Broadcast Television HD Technology Update

 

The queue stretched around the specially assembled theater where Japan’s NHK demonstrated its 4320-line Ultra High Definition TV system last week in the Central Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center during NAB2006.

 

Inside, visitors got an eyeful of what one-day may be the replacement system for today’s high definition television system. Developed by NHK Science & Technical Research Laboratories, Ultra High Definition TV is intended to present images so real that they make viewers feel as if they are in the scene. The Ultra High Definition TV system relies on 32 million pixels — 7680 x 4320 — in a 16:9 aspect ratio to achieve that effect. The Ultra HDTV system relies on 22.2 multichannel sound consisting of three vertical layers of speakers to produce a 3-D soundscape to help pull viewers into the scene.

 

Before this technology ever makes it to the home — if in fact it ever does — it is likely to find applications in medicine, security, museums and exhibitions.

 

Perhaps Nigel Spratling, who ran the NAB-HD demonstration station during the convention, had the best perspective on Ultra HDTV. “I think it’s awesome,” he said. “I actually saw HD for the first time here at NAB in 1985, and then it was analog, of course, and at that time all of us who have an interest in the business saw it; loved it; everybody wanted it. We all knew we could do it, couldn’t afford it, it was going to be way too difficult, and then thankfully found out how to digitize stuff, and we can have HD at really low data rates.”

 

“At the moment, we can't afford their system for the Ultra High Def. We haven’t got the bandwidth for it, all of those kinds of things. But we will. So that’s cool. It’s the next thing to come along.”

 

Holy shit. I want one now.

 

The thing that makes that so great is that, many people may not know this and may not realize the big deal about HD-DVDs making every movie out there better looking, but film, in its natural state, has over 4000 lines of texture, and even with current HD technology, it's still being scanned at only 1/4th of what it's capable of. And sadly enough, because of this, many "film"makers are moving to digital video for production because it';s more cost effective, it scans at a similar quality, easier to distribute, yadda yadda yadda, which leaves the current celluloid manufacturars (Kodak and Fuji) wanting to cut their costs and well, some people say one day actual film will be all but a memory.

 

But if such a technology like the one you just mentioned came along sooner rather than later, that would prevent such a thing from ever happening. Which could only be a good thing.

[I like Forums 0]

Isn't this UHD getting a bit rediculous. How many more scanlines can we fit in until it doesn't even make a tangible difference to our limited human eyesight?

 

The next wave of HD technology is gonna be putting surgical implants of hawk's eyes in your own so you can finally see the difference between 720p and 1080i.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Isn't this UHD getting a bit rediculous. How many more scanlines can we fit in until it doesn't even make a tangible difference to our limited human eyesight?

 

The next wave of HD technology is gonna be putting surgical implants of hawk's eyes in your own so you can finally see the difference between 720p and 1080i.

 

The difference between 720p and 1080i is visible when you try to watch sports in HD..it doesn't look as good on 1080i as on 720p because 1080i doesn't handle fast motion that well.

[I like Forums 0]

Yeah that's understandible with sports, more so due to one being interlaced and the other progressive. But for the most part you would end up seeing compression artifacts before actual differences in scanlines at that level in your average television material.