HDTV

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Spent about a half-hour with a customer trying to explain aspect ratio to her. Got me thinking: Is there rhyme or reason as to why HD and most movies are 16:9, and most SD is 4:3?

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Most non HD TV's are 4:3.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Double edit: Yeah, that makes sense. I probably should have come up with that. Yikes.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Most non HD TV's are 4:3.

 

If you go bargain hunting and are lucky you can find 4:3 CRT HD tvs on sale really cheap. You can also get 16x9 CRT tvs with digital tuners that ARENT HD but being passed off as "DIGITAL TVS!!!" at a lot of places for only like $100 less than a HD TV would cost.

 

 

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Most non HD TV's are 4:3.

 

If you go bargain hunting and are lucky you can find 4:3 CRT HD tvs on sale really cheap. You can also get 16x9 CRT tvs with digital tuners that ARENT HD but being passed off as "DIGITAL TVS!!!" at a lot of places for only like $100 less than a HD TV would cost.

 

We actually just got a couple in for the holidays. I was delighted to see them; not only are they a decent buy, especially for those who can't afford/don't want flat panel, it helped me further win an argument about what's going to happen in 2009.

 

And Marvin, the first HD I ever had my eye on was a 27 HD CRT we used to sell. When it was on display new, it was 529. Less than a year later, when we implemented flat panels, they were marked down to 299....and this was two years ago.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Most non HD TV's are 4:3.

 

If you go bargain hunting and are lucky you can find 4:3 CRT HD tvs on sale really cheap. You can also get 16x9 CRT tvs with digital tuners that ARENT HD but being passed off as "DIGITAL TVS!!!" at a lot of places for only like $100 less than a HD TV would cost.

 

We actually just got a couple in for the holidays. I was delighted to see them; not only are they a decent buy, especially for those who can't afford/don't want flat panel, it helped me further win an argument about what's going to happen in 2009.

 

And Marvin, the first HD I ever had my eye on was a 27 HD CRT we used to sell. When it was on display new, it was 529. Less than a year later, when we implemented flat panels, they were marked down to 299....and this was two years ago.

 

Our Wal Mart still has the 4:3 HD sets for around that price.

[NoCalMike 0]

http://www.secondact.com/product/57HM167RB...V__57HM167.html

 

It is refurbished, but still a good price for those specs....

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

It is, but my stepdad and I have been arguing about our tv sizes since September. 57 inches is a hell of a lot of television.

[NoCalMike 0]

This new place opened in my neighborhood called "open-boxed electronics" It was closed for the day when I drove by, but they had flat panel tvs out' the yin-yang in there. I wonder if it is still possible to get any type of warranty when buying from there, because while spending $1000 instead of $3000 or more is a good deal, $1000 is still a lot of money to eat if you buy something and it craps out after a month.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

TV's at work are divvied up into three sections:

 

1) 26"or higher flat-panels. All of these have an HD feed to them (component). Since they're all widescreen (and HD is always 16:9, as I learned).

2) 20-32" CRT's - all running off coax. Since they're all 4:3, there's black bars over the top and bottom of the image.

3) Tv's 19" or less, all running off coax; There's two CRT and four LCD. Every image on these TV's also have the black bars as well. Why is that?

 

I've deduced it's one of two reasons:

* The aspect ratio on both CRT's and one of the LCD are 4:3. Makes sense. The three other LCD's are all 16:10. The extra unit high is causing the black bar.

* Since all all the LCD's are HD or HD-ready, but are running off coax, they're in essence being downgraded, and thus, are 4:3.

 

I assume it's more than likely the first reason, and it's hardly life or death, I'm just intrigued.

 

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Kind of debating my own TV situation at the moment...our living room TV is a 48" Mitsubishi rear projection which is fine (had it for over four years with not one problem), but is almost bigger than we need...I mean, when you're sitting about six feet from the screen, that is almost overkill. We've been thinking about getting a 42" flat panel, which could be set back a little bit more, and not be so dominating in the room. Of course, we would have to move the Mitsubishi somewhere, like maybe to the basement, which will be a huge chore. Our basement does need a new TV, as the literally almost 20 year old 27" Sharp that my parents gave me when they finally upgraded is dying (picture flickers off occasionally...definite mechanical issue).

[NoCalMike 0]

The perfect TV size for my living room kind of changes depending on how we set up the furniture around it. Right now the TV/entertainment center is facing outward from a corner of the room, in front of two windows(that way there is never sunlight glare overkill). The recliner is what you would sit in to get a straight on view, while the couches are on either side of the tv, but are still pretty much a straight on view. Our TV's size is 46" and anything bigger for where the TV is, we would have to scoot the stand out more or it would be hitting the walls(well coming very close to) and then we would have to scoot all the furniture back to not be sucking radiation into our eyeballs. Now if we changed the setup of our room ENTIRELY, there is space to have a bigger TV, but we like feel the way the setup is currently, looks the best and if we re-arranged everything, then it would be merely in order to fit a bigger tv into the room.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I've probably lamented about this more than once, but screen size is pretty overrated. When I was in the market, I had my eye on 32", but wound up getting a 37", and it's often too much TV. Overrated might not be the right term, but I think there are a lot of factors that often go by the wayside instead.

 

Despite sitting about eight feet away from his television, my stepdad sees no harm in watching a 63" screen, because "it was a good price for a screen that big". I told him that basing a price on size alone is like buying a car based entirely on year.

 

I've been told that a good rule of thumb is measure the distance from where you sit to screen, and divide it by three. The result should be roughly the ideal screen size.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I've been told that a good rule of thumb is measure the distance from where you sit to screen, and divide it by three. The result should be roughly the ideal screen size.

 

I think I've seen that...

 

So, 8 (ft) X 12 inches = 96 inches. 96 divided by 3 = 32 inch screen. That seems a little on the low side, but it's a decent ballpark.

[Dandy 0]

Some of the newer TV's recommend dividing by 1.5. I have a 53" TV currently, and I sit anywhere from 10-15 feet away from it depending on where I sit in the room. I can go a lot bigger, and I will be soon. Dividing by 3 would give me a 60" TV from 15 feet, but only a 40" TV from 10 feet. Both of those are smaller than the TV I will be getting (65"). I would say dividing might make sense if you will be the same distance from your TV at all times, but for those of us who have the TV in a corner of the room, it doesn't make sense at all.

 

For the record, I am not saying you should do the 1.5 thing I mentioned, as I was just relating that I saw that recently.

[Guest Smues]

Quick question that I'm sure has been answered already but until I figure out how to get back to 100 posts per page I don't feel like scrolling for it: Is HDMI better quality than Component? I had always heard that it was, even if ever so slightly, but I listened to someone ramble on today about HDMI is just easier to hook up but really component cables are better because he has an x-box 360 and he could see a huge difference! Now I thought he was full of shit, but lacking confidence in my knowledge I figured I'd ask here to see if I'm right.

 

So which is the higher quality, HDMI or component?

[MrRant 0]

HDMI is digital it is the best connection point out there as well as it having the audio encoded in with it as well as most HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/DVD players that upconvert DVDs to near HD resolution require it. If you got it, use it. However, I've not really ever seen a difference between a device that is outputting to a display in it's native output between the two.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I'll agree with the "If you've got it, use it". I really don't notice that much improvement as far as picture quality from my set-top box, but Rant was right about the upconverting DVD's, and I'd also like a few less wires and cables behind my television.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

My tv only has only DVI input, so I had to buy a cable for my upconvert DVD player and I use Component for my D* HD DVR.

 

On the topic of Cables, most stores will hook an HD TV up with Composite (Yellow for video and Red White for audio) and use it to compare to a TV hooked up with really expensive HDMI Cables. Don't be fooled!

[NoCalMike 0]

I've probably lamented about this more than once, but screen size is pretty overrated. When I was in the market, I had my eye on 32", but wound up getting a 37", and it's often too much TV. Overrated might not be the right term, but I think there are a lot of factors that often go by the wayside instead.

 

Despite sitting about eight feet away from his television, my stepdad sees no harm in watching a 63" screen, because "it was a good price for a screen that big". I told him that basing a price on size alone is like buying a car based entirely on year.

 

I've been told that a good rule of thumb is measure the distance from where you sit to screen, and divide it by three. The result should be roughly the ideal screen size.

 

I would agree. I have been to plenty of people's houses where it seemed like they bought their TV simply to say they have a massive-sized TV. Like I said, at 46" my TV fills the room nicely without going overboard. It is big enough to where when I have a lot of guests over, they can be sitting behind the regular setup, with temporary chairs and still have a great view, but it isn't so over-sized that your eyeballs turn radioactive from watching it.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I've probably lamented about this more than once, but screen size is pretty overrated. When I was in the market, I had my eye on 32", but wound up getting a 37", and it's often too much TV. Overrated might not be the right term, but I think there are a lot of factors that often go by the wayside instead.

 

Despite sitting about eight feet away from his television, my stepdad sees no harm in watching a 63" screen, because "it was a good price for a screen that big". I told him that basing a price on size alone is like buying a car based entirely on year.

 

I've been told that a good rule of thumb is measure the distance from where you sit to screen, and divide it by three. The result should be roughly the ideal screen size.

 

Here's the tv for you

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

That's fucking ridiculous.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If I had both A) The room big enough to put it in and B) Enough money to actually purchase it, it would be mine. 12 1/2 feet of HD greatness!

 

 

 

 

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

I've been wondering this for a while.

 

What looks better, 720p on a 720p native LCD TV, or 1080i on a 720p native LCD TV?

 

On my DVR, you can select what you want it to display, and I have both 720p and 1080i selected and wondered if it would be better to just have 720p selected.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Match the tv's native resolution as often as possible. With a native res of 720p, but a broadcast of 1080i, the signal is being stretched out to fill the 1080 lines.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I've been wondering this for a while.

 

What looks better, 720p on a 720p native LCD TV, or 1080i on a 720p native LCD TV?

 

On my DVR, you can select what you want it to display, and I have both 720p and 1080i selected and wondered if it would be better to just have 720p selected.

 

 

720p on 720p is the best, 1080i on 720p means the signal you're getting is being downconverted. Downconverting is never going to give you as good of a signal as 720p on 720p, nor would upconverting a 720p signal on a 1080i tv.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Thanks both of you

 

 

*sets DVR to 720p*

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Thanks both of you

 

 

*sets DVR to 720p*

I should also mention that if the channel your watching broadcasts in 1080i then all of that is moot because its going to get downconverted anyway, which includes a majority of channels with major exceptions being ABC (and the parent channels like ESPNHD) and FOX which use 720p.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Thanks both of you

 

 

*sets DVR to 720p*

I should also mention that if the channel your watching broadcasts in 1080i then all of that is moot because its going to get downconverted anyway, which includes a majority of channels with major exceptions being ABC (and the parent channels like ESPNHD) and FOX which use 720p.

 

 

Ah. I used to have all of them checked. So should I leave 1080i checked so if the channel is available in 1080i it will display it in 1080i, or should i just have 720p checked?

[Craig Th 0]

But at the same time, can YOU really tell the difference?