Well, I just pulled the trigger on the Samsung 46" LN-S4692D. It arrives the day after Christmas! Best Buy lowered the price and had a two-day sale for an additional 10 percent off, which dropped it below the top end of my budget.
@Razor - Having just taken the plunge on a 720p set I'd say go for it if the set is under 50". The only content that currently takes advantage of 1080p are Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Broadcast content is still at least five years away due to bandwidth issues. Most of all just go down and eyeball the sets every now and then before buying. I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on sets under 50"
I went 720p.
I don't see broadcast networks and cable/satellite companies *ever* switching over to 1080p. The federal mandate requires that for a signal to be considered "HD," it must be at least 720p or 1080i. The average consumer, when told a show is broadcast in HD, won't care what the signal spec actually is. Broadcasting at 1080p costs more (due to increased bandwidth required) and as a result won't ever become commonplace. Hell, my cable company compresses my 720p signal so much as it is, it should barely be considered HD.
Seeing as how both new High-def DVD specs include 1080p, I think you'll only see movies and video games in 1080p for the foreseeable future. It will be considered the benchmark for "high-end" setups and will be used as a marketing term in the aficionado segment.
Hell, my cable company compresses my 720p signal so much as it is, it should barely be considered HD.
Is there a tool for measuring this?
The federal mandate requires that for a signal to be considered "HD," it must be at least 720p or 1080i.
I'm getting the impression that 720p and 1080i are more or less the same thing...?
Here's the setup: we're eyeballing a great 42" plasma at Optimal Purchase, and I'm drawn to it because it's 1080i. As we all know, 1080 is a bigger number than 720, which means it's more gooderer. Are they functionally different? As I said earlier, I am somehow of the opinion that interlaced resolutions are "bad" and/or should be avoided in preference to progressive resolutions, even if the progressive res is lower. Am I as dumb as I fear I might be?
It's personal preference. I went with 720p as it is the native res of my set and I think progressive looks better. Also more content is available in 720p but I just pulled that out of my ass.
baggachipz wrote:Hell, my cable company compresses my 720p signal so much as it is, it should barely be considered HD.
Is there a tool for measuring this?
I wish. I complain and complain, and all I get in response from the tech is "it looks fine to me" and "your signal is strong, it's coming in in HD." As if the whole process was boolean. So frustrating.
I'm getting the impression that 720p and 1080i are more or less the same thing...?
Here's the setup: we're eyeballing a great 42" plasma at Optimal Purchase, and I'm drawn to it because it's 1080i. As we all know, 1080 is a bigger number than 720, which means it's more gooderer. Are they functionally different? As I said earlier, I am somehow of the opinion that interlaced resolutions are "bad" and/or should be avoided in preference to progressive resolutions, even if the progressive res is lower. Am I as dumb as I fear I might be?
I'm guessing that the reason both resolutions exist as equivalents in the "HD standard" is due to the fact that different display technologies tend to excel at different methods of display. That is, CRT-based sets tend to be better at interlaced images than progressive, while plasma/LCD tends to be better at progressive images, do to the nature of their construction. As a result, both specs were adopted as "HD." No data to back that up, it's just my impression.
As you may or may not know, the number in the name of the signal is the number of horizontal lines. Hence, higher number equals more horizontal lines equals better resolution. BUT... progressive is twice as good as interlaced when it comes to things that move quickly -- video games and action movies being a prime example. Therefore, for my uses, I prefer a 720p signal and display. Either way, though, it should look good... unless the source of your content sucks. In case you can't tell, I hate my cable company.
Yeah but the Westy picture did not impress at all in comparison to the other sets, It was just not crisp, kinda of soft focused.
Do not judge a display (especially an inexpensive one) by how it looks at a store like Best Buy.
I've seen some great TVs look like absolute shit at Best Buy. That's done intentionally.
TVs are not properly calibrated before they're stuck up on the wall at Best Buy.
Read reviews from CNet, Consumer Reports, etc. The Westinghouse displays are beautiful.
I don't see broadcast networks and cable/satellite companies *ever* switching over to 1080p.
"Ever" is a long time. I think it will be much sooner than you seem to.
1) Bandwidth will continue to increase, compression will continue to improve
2) Someone will want to jump on the "we have 1080p, it's so much better than our competitors!" marketing angle as soon as it's technically possible
baggachipz wrote:I don't see broadcast networks and cable/satellite companies *ever* switching over to 1080p.
"Ever" is a long time. I think it will be much sooner than you seem to.
1) Bandwidth will continue to increase, compression will continue to improve
2) Someone will want to jump on the "we have 1080p, it's so much better than our competitors!" marketing angle as soon as it's technically possible
I still think that until either the government or the consumer demands it, we won't see it. HDTVs have been widely available for what, 5 years now? As best as I could find, households with HDTV will number about 20 million by the end of this year. There are roughly 110 million households in the US (probably a few more since 2002). Therefore, HDTV is in fewer than 20% of US homes. It's taken 5 years for 20% of the population to adopt the current standard. Currently, very few HDTVs are available with 1080p. In order to make yet another format switch, people will have to buy new TVs. This takes a -long- time. Yes, some channels (most likely HDNET, etc) may adopt 1080p as a "we're premium" strategy but it will still be a fringe market for a long while. It will be a while still until an entirely new format is adopted by the masses; hell, they still haven't adopted 720p/1080i yet. The reason I don't ever see a mass switch to 1080p happening is because it's not the baseline standard; it's not the lowest common denominator. By the time a switch could occur, something better will most likely be on the horizon and actually warrant a true format switch.
Here are most of the known HD channels.
ABC (720p)
CBS (1080i)
NBC (1080i)
Fox (720p)
CW (1080i)
MYNTV (1080:)
Discovery-HD (1080i)
TNT-HD (1080i)
ESPN-HD (720p)
ESPN2-HD (720p)
INHD (1080i)
INHD2 (1080i)
HDNet (1080i)
HDNet Movies (1080i)
Universal HD (1080i)
HBO-HD (1080i)
Showtime-HD (1080i)
MAX-HD (1080i)
STZ HD (1080i)
Here are most of the known HD channels.
It should be noted, for those unaware, that the resolution of your hdtv does not prevent you from watching shows not in your native resolution. That is, if you have a tv that's 1080i, you can still watch ABC HD. Almost all new TV's are capable of displaying both resolutions (via a built-in scaler), and failing that the converter box (cable, OTA, DirecTV, etc) is capable of scaling the signal as well.
I still think that until either the government or the consumer demands it, we won't see it.
Well the government isn't going to demand it. They're not demanding HD either. They're just demanding digital TV to free up the "analog spectrum" for other uses (like broadband).
It should be noted, for those unaware, that the resolution of your hdtv does not prevent you from watching shows not in your native resolution.
Which is exactly what is going to help make 1080p broadcasting happen. Broadcasters can push 1080p signals and they'll be downscaled to fit everyone else's available resolutions. Right now broadcasters have to choose between 1080i and 720p, and neither scales all that well to the other (720p lacks the resolution to scale to a full 1080i picture, 1080i/30 lacks the extra frames for 720p/60, scaling between the two means filling in "missing" data). 1080p/60 can be scaled "perfectly" to 720p/60 or 1080i/30, nothing missing. 1080p broadcasts will benefit everyone, not just those with 1080p displays.
But this doesn't happen until the bandwidth and compression situations improve. DirecTV is struggling to push enough data for their HD service - many markets lack HD versions of their local stations because their satellites can only push so many different versions of ABC, NBC, etc. It's not like cable services where they have the wire on the ground and can limit things by small geographical locations. They have a few satellites and a large number of markets.
Well the government isn't going to demand it. They're not demanding HD either. They're just demanding digital TV to free up the "analog spectrum" for other uses (like broadband).
Touche'. It's just a switch to "digital" TV that's mandated, not HD. When applied to my hypothesis that the broadcast companies will stick to the lowest common denominator, it looks even more bleak for a 1080p change-over.
baggachipz wrote:It should be noted, for those unaware, that the resolution of your hdtv does not prevent you from watching shows not in your native resolution.
Which is exactly what is going to help make 1080p broadcasting happen. Broadcasters can push 1080p signals and they'll be downscaled to fit everyone else's available resolutions. Right now broadcasters have to choose between 1080i and 720p, and neither scales all that well to the other (720p lacks the resolution to scale to a full 1080i picture, 1080i/30 lacks the extra frames for 720p/60, scaling between the two means filling in "missing" data). 1080p/60 can be scaled "perfectly" to 720p/60 or 1080i/30, nothing missing. 1080p broadcasts will benefit everyone, not just those with 1080p displays.
A very good point, and while it would make for a technically exquisite solution, I don't see the reality falling into place that nicely. Unfortunately, I think scaling will continue even though it results in a shoddier picture. Why? Because the paradigm shift has already happened -- people want "HD" now. Resolutions lower (and much cheaper) than 1080p fit this definition and will satisfy the average consumer for many years to come, until the next major paradigm shift happens.
But this doesn't happen until the bandwidth and compression situations improve. DirecTV is struggling to push enough data for their HD service - many markets lack HD versions of their local stations because their satellites can only push so many different versions of ABC, NBC, etc. It's not like cable services where they have the wire on the ground and can limit things by small geographical locations. They have a few satellites and a large number of markets.
Exactly. What sounds better in the marketing sense, "100 channels in HD!" or "50 channels in fancy HD"? The point is, the threshold for what *is* HD and what isn't has been set. There's not much to gain in going far above that threshold, compared to the relative cost. Unless some method of delivery is found that renders the bandwidth problem obsolete, I still wouldn't count on 1080p being the baseline standard for a long time.
At this point, it's predictive conjecture on both our parts. I understand your argument, but I'm generally pessimistic while you are optimistic. I just think that if you follow the dollar signs, you'll see what direction it's headed.
Basically the only thing I'm really disagreeing with is a general timeline as to when bandwidth gets to the point where pushing 1080p over cable/satellite starts to make sense. I think it will grow very rapidly (partly due to trends in all communications service industries and the growing push to make everything IP-based) and get to the point where it's no longer necessary to make a "100 channels in HD vs. 50 channels in fancy HD" choice.
The European Broadcast Union has put forth a recommendation for an expedient move to 1080p, stating that "only a 1080 lines progressive format at either 50 or 60 Hz could provide a world-wide basis for programme production and exchange." They also cite the advantage of "easier high quality conversions to all delivery formats and to formats used in different regions of the world."
DirecTV is moving to MPEG-4/AVC, which will be significant in bringing down bandwidth needs. Many other providers are still using MPEG-2. In a few years, we may very well be looking at a new compression system that's as radical of an improvement as MPEG-4/AVC is over MPEG-2.
Can anyone actually see teh difference between 1080i and 720p? I can't. At least not in DVDs coming from a PS DVD player. Maybe I should try when watching a HD football game.
Can anyone actually see teh difference between 1080i and 720p? I can't. At least not in DVDs coming from a PS DVD player. Maybe I should try when watching a HD football game.
I guess 720p it is, then. I'm okay with that.
Can anyone actually see teh difference between 1080i and 720p? I can't. At least not in DVDs coming from a PS DVD player.
That's because DVDs are 480p. And if by "PS" you're referring to PlayStation, well, they don't upscale DVDs. Your TV may be scaling them (assuming it's not just dropping down to 480p) but, yeah, it's not an HD source material so you're not going to see much difference.
With games and live TV broadcasts, like sports, you'll see a difference.
"PS" was my shorthand for progressive scan (DVD player).
So going by what you said, when I finally get the HD DVD player attachment for the 360, I should see a difference between 1080i and 720p when watching an HD DVD. That should be interesting. Now, I just need a "must have" HD DVD movie release. Perhaps for flags of our fathers.
So going by what you said, when I finally get the HD DVD player attachment for the 360, I should see a difference between 1080i and 720p when watching an HD DVD.
I think it depends on what's happening on screen. Wiki says:
The main tradeoff between the two is that 1080i may show more detail than 720p for a stationary shot of a subject at the expense of a lower effective refresh rate and the introduction of interlace artifacts during motion. 720p is used by ABC and ESPN because the smoother image is desirable for fast-action sports telecasts.
Since you are most likely to be watching a lot of money shots, 720p should look better to you because it captures fast moving objects better than 1080i.
"PS" was my shorthand for progressive scan (DVD player).
OK. Well, if it's not an upscaling progressive scan player, then the same comments still stand.
So going by what you said, when I finally get the HD DVD player attachment for the 360, I should see a difference between 1080i and 720p when watching an HD DVD. That should be interesting. Now, I just need a "must have" HD DVD movie release. Perhaps for flags of our fathers.
Keep in mind that movies are shot at 24 fps. Part of the benefit of 720p is the fact that you get 60 full frames per second, rather than 60 interlaced fields (30 full frames).
This is why I said games and live TV broadcasts (like sports), where you'll actually see more frames of animation per second in 720p. That doesn't really benefit movies (though progressive scan is nice in that it avoids any interlaced flicker)
With HD-DVD you will, at least, get a high resolution source image, where you can compare the difference between 1080 lines of resolution vs 720.
But to truly see the difference between 1080i and 720p, you need to compare it using a source that actually benefits from having 60 fps to work with. Play a Burnout game and compare.
Of course, there's one other important question to ask: does your TV actually render all 1080 lines of a 1080i picture? If it's a plasma or LCD with a resolution like 1024x768 or 1366x768, then it's actually downsampling 1080 to a lower resolution.
Keep in mind that movies are shot at 24 fps. Part of the benefit of 720p is the fact that you get 60 full frames per second, rather than 60 interlaced fields (30 full frames).
As a side note, Discovery HD is broadcast in 1080i, but most of the shows are shot on film at 24fps. Hence, why their shows look great. One of the complaints about the Olympics on NBC HD was that they broadcast in 1080i and the sporting events did not look that good.
As a side note, Discovery HD is broadcast in 1080i, but most of the shows are shot on film at 24fps. Hence, why their shows look great. One of the complaints about the Olympics on NBC HD was that they broadcast in 1080i and the sporting events did not look that good.
People have complained about Football Night in America (aka Sunday Night Football) for the same reason.
TV personalities don't like HDTV. Not that I ever gave a damn what they thought but it mentions BSG. *shrug*
Funny how the prevailing concern in that article is about how women will look.
You mean women on TV will look as real life women look? Unthinkable!
Maybe actual *cute* women will become the "in" thing again.
I just found out that I won't have ABC in HD at my new residence, at least not right away.
Monterey's old ABC station merged with San Francisco's a while back, and now Monterey just gets a copy of the SF one, but it cuts out when playing SF-only programming. As of right now, this bastardized ABC affiliate is not available in HD. 
Oh well. NBC, FOX, CBS, Universal HD, INHD, and HBO HD will have to do.
What is INHD seems to be the only one I don't have. I have the majority of other HD channels.
So far I get ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPNHD, CW (UPN), WB, Telemundo, Univision, Dicovery, HBO, PBS, Universal HD, TNTHD, HDNetwork, and HDNetwork Movies.
INHD plays movies, classic sports, and some current sports (NBA mostly).
Nothing thrilling.
What IS great, I just found out, is that Comcast is launching an HD sports channel in January that mixes Versus (formerly OLN) and the Golf Channel.
Don't care about the golf, but Versus in HD means hockey in HD, and Versus is trying to add more sports to compete with ESPN.
OK, the total HD package from Comcast where I will be is FOX, CBS, NBC, PBS, INHD, Universal HD, TNT HD, HBO HD, Showtime HD, Discovery HD, FOX Sports Net Bay Area HD, ESPN & ESPN2 HD, NFL Network HD (missed that one!), Cinemax HD, Starz HD, and MHD.
So compared to what you've listed, I'm missing ABC, UPN (CW), the HDNet stations, and the Spanish stations (which don't do me any good anyway). I definitely want ABC and would like CW. I get a message when logging in to Comcast's channel lineup that says they're updating the channel selections in Monterey/Salinas, so with luck that will include some additions to the HD lineup (please add ABC!)
Being a Kings fan, I wish I could get LA's Fox Sports Net instead of the Bay Area's, but oh well (I get Bay Area here too, damn those Sharks!)
Just pulled the trigger on a Panasonic PX60U 50" Plasma. I was waiting until March to make a move, but there have been some insane Boxing Day sales. Went to go pick it up tonight but the guys in the warehouse laughed at me and my hatchback and told me to come back with a van.
We've been squinting at our 24" Dell in the living room for the past year, so I'm kind of stoked 
You need a big van or truck. I couldn't fit my 50" rear projection in our '06 Trail Blazer.
Pages