High Definition Media & Technology Thread

[flobo]

An LCD is an LCD, far as I'm concerned.

Neither can plasma sets. Nor most DLPs, even the ones advertized as 1080 sets(for a while they were using offset mirrors to "fake" 1920*1080 display with a good deal less actual pixels)

Yeah, I've got no idea where the 1366*768 LCD comes from.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE someone thought that elongating a 1024*768 panel was a good idea, but it doesn't really make sense to me from a PC OR TV perspective.

'S what happens when anything goes mass-market.

'S pretty embarassing how badly things get mucked up when they move to a market where buzzwords can make up for low quality.

Example: I was looking at mice a while back, and realized while everyone was hyping "high resolution," "2x resolution," and "superior tracking resolution"... no one was printing the actual resolutions except on the highest- and lowest-end products.

And I assume the lowest-end was just to impress with more technical-sounding "high" resolutions, since anyone of competence knows 300dpi sucks for a mouse.

Far cry from ye olde days, when most computer part manufacturers printed their actual product specifications on the packaging, often in absurdly high levels of detail.

About the 768 resolution, that's the correct guess, that's to ensure compatibility with 1024*768.

It's not that much of a problem if the LCD is 1366*768 because its still almost 16/9 and the upscalling from 1280*720 to 1366*768 won't be seen in most case.

The real problem is that a lot of 16:9 tv like my philips chose a native resolution of 1280*768 = 15/9

15/9 resolution on 16/9 tv...

The HD IPTV receiver send (in this case) a HD image of 1280*720. Since the screen resolution is 1280*768, there are black screen (small ones) on top and button of the screen and to conpensate, the tv zoom in the picture.

Result : Loss of something at the right and at the left, and wrong aspect ratio.

If the native is 1366*768 (and the tv is well configured to minimise overscan), you lose almost nothing (even nothing with perfect config) and aspect ratio is 1.7786.

16/9 = 1.7777 So i dont think you can see the difference.

My conclusion. STAY AWAY FROM THOSE CRAPPY 1280*768 SET.

With my philips, i manage to compensate the 15/9 problem by using a computer as a source to play video. I force the aspect ratio of 16/9 material to 15/9, that way, no part of screen lost and no black borders.

Sorry for some mistakes i may have made, i'm french and not fluent in english yet.

Edited August 11, 2007 by flobo

[David Hingtgen]

Quick question: What does it mean when a TV is advertised with 3 HDMI inputs, but two of them are "without audio input"? Doesn't HDMI inherently have audio built-in? My best guess is that 1 of them has additional separate audio inputs nearby for people using a DVI-to-HDMI converter, while the other 2 are purely HDMI and it'll be a bit more work to get audio if your source is DVI.

"1 HDMI, 2 HDMI without audio input" sounds a bit weird/inaccurate. It should be more like "3 HDMI, one with additional audio inputs for DVI sources" or something.

[Uxi]

Your guess is correct (the HDMI with audio is primarily for DVI-HDMI conversions), as 2Ch has been with HDMI since the start (and 5.1-7.1 ch since HDMI 1.1).

[007-vf1]

All this talk really makes me feel more comfortable about buying a VIZIO 36" for under $700 I think I can enjoy the pleasure of "high" definition until every company gets a close even understanding and market output of what HD should look like. I think I have a couple years ahead of me until I can certainly know how much I should expect of visual quality and shed a bit more money for a worth expending amount...same goes for Blue ray/HD disks. Also prices will decline and technology-hopefuly-will make the products durable by then...

[Uxi]

Blu-ray is plenty durable now (thanks to a hard-coat applied to surface of each disc). I have never had a problem with my HDDVDs, but some folks have, and it could benefit from such a hardcoat, as well.

[JsARCLIGHT]

All this talk really makes me feel more comfortable about buying a VIZIO 36" for under $700 I think I can enjoy the pleasure of "high" definition until every company gets a close even understanding and market output of what HD should look like. I think I have a couple years ahead of me until I can certainly know how much I should expect of visual quality and shed a bit more money for a worth expending amount...same goes for Blue ray/HD disks. Also prices will decline and technology-hopefuly-will make the products durable by then...

Well, there IS a spec for what HD "should look like" and that spec is 1080p. The vast catalog of "HD" televisions out there do not meet this spec. That is not a "problem" per se as much as it is an array of "cheaper alternatives", cheaper in both price and spec. I equate the HD market to fast cars. The old adage of "Speed is simply a matter of money, how fast can you afford to go?" applies to HD home theater as well. How good of a spec do you want to see and hear? Well, how good can you afford to own? And to be honest much like fast cars you reach a point where every extra 10 horsepower costs you an inordinate amount of money that pales in comparison to the output gain your are adding. In the end there are three camps of people, those who want the appearance of speed, those who want actual speed and those who want to break the sound barrier. In other words you have people who simply "want HD" and buy based on price reguardless of spec, people who wish to have "very good HD" and shop for the best spec they can afford or justify, and lastly you have those (like me) who will only buy the best of the best regardless of price because everything else is a "compromise" in our eyes.

IMHO all you really truthfully need to have a "near perfect" decent HD home theater right now is a decent HD television that supports at minimum 1080i through component or HDMI (1080i usually guarantees you back compatibility with 720p as well as direct line compatibility with all over the air or transmission based HD sources), a decent surround sound receiver with decent speakers that supports at minimum 5.1 DTS via PCM or HDMI and some form of next gen source like a Blu Ray / HD DVD player or some form of digital signal in HD be it terrestrial antenna, cable or satellite. Anything above and beyond those specs such as a 1080p television, 6.1 or 7.1 True HD receiver et cetera is more or less large dollar expenditures that don't really reap a large scale improvement for their cost... and those "basic" specs can usually be had for under three grand all in the form of "over the counter, out of a box" items. Most people will never really notice or appreciate the difference the higher priced higher spec devices will produce anyway.

[Alpha OTS]

I have a couple of questions and could use a little tutoring too.

I have a 40" Westinghouse LCD 1080p. I bought it refurbished through newegg.com. The price was pretty inexpensive, but I'd probably buy it new if I had to do it all over again. I'll explain.

When I first turned it on, I was horrified. The picture looked like ass as the contrast and brightness were way out of wack among many other way off settings. I did the "reset to factory settings" foolishly thinking that it would reset to a presentable picture. Amazingly, it set it back to the exact asstastic setting I was trying to escape. I've since figured out what settings I needed to fix and the picture is good now. I'm a little dissappointed with the blacks sometimes, but that's probably unavoidable when you have an lcd screen. Any hints on general tweakings to get the best out of your black levels would be appreciated though.

I have, at last count, 3 "dead" pixels. I'm not sure if they're dead dead though. I don't think they are, because they're purple. You can only see them if you're an inch or two away from the screen. I imagine if they were dead they'd be complete black like the liquid crystal behind it was empty. I tried the pencil-eraser-rub-and-turn-on trick, but it hasn't brought them back, and I don't imagine trying to do that over and over again is good for the screen either. Of course they appeared after the limited warranty for a refurb ran out, and even if it didn't, I believe you need 10 before they would have done anything about it anyway. I heard there's a computer program that can cycle your display and bring them back. What are the odds of that working and what else can I do?

What's the difference between running the color temp warm, neutral or cool? I don't see a discernable difference. The manual pretty much only tells me how to turn on the set, and is pretty much worthless. There's a backlight setting from 1 to 100, but I really don't see a difference when I tweak this setting either. I can see a tiny difference when it's on 1 compared to when it's on 100, but that's it. Should it be more obvious? Should I have it at max 100 anyway?

I originally bought this as a videogaming screen. 360 gaming to be precise, and I haven't been dissappointed there(Gears looks fantastic). It wasn't until I put in a regular dvd that I really "got" what this HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing is all about. I was surprised how crappy some of my dvds looked that I guess I never noticed before because my previous cheapy crt tv did a good job of blurring the imperfections. Although it is pretty hysterical when I put in Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts and the picture looks more vibrant and defined than some of the newer dvd releases I have. I never really understood when people would go on about crappy transfers, but now I do. I bought a VGA cable for my 360 so it could do upscaling because I was told that would get me the best picture out of my dvds. Is that as good as it gets? I had read that there is a player(the brand name escapes me at the moment) that's the peak of performance for playing normal dvds on an HD set. Any truth to this, or am I maxxed out here anyway?

Having a refurb, I don't know if some things on the set are really broken or not, so I'd appreciate any advice on tweaking your LCD set. I'm still pretty new to this stuff. But if I were to buy a new set, I'd probably go DLP. There was one at the local bar playing HD ESPN and I was amazed at how vibrant the picture looked.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Alpha OTS

[CoryHolmes]

I've found that the video calibration on Star Wars Episode III to be very good at getting rid of the vile factory settings. There are other "professional" set-up discs, but I'm unwillling to pay money for them because I'm happy with how the Ep III disc did the job .

[Gaijin]

I have a couple of questions and could use a little tutoring too.

I have a 40" Westinghouse LCD 1080p. I bought it refurbished through newegg.com. The price was pretty inexpensive, but I'd probably buy it new if I had to do it all over again. I'll explain.

When I first turned it on, I was horrified. The picture looked like ass as the contrast and brightness were way out of wack among many other way off settings. I did the "reset to factory settings" foolishly thinking that it would reset to a presentable picture. Amazingly, it set it back to the exact asstastic setting I was trying to escape. I've since figured out what settings I needed to fix and the picture is good now. I'm a little dissappointed with the blacks sometimes, but that's probably unavoidable when you have an lcd screen. Any hints on general tweakings to get the best out of your black levels would be appreciated though.

I have, at last count, 3 "dead" pixels. I'm not sure if they're dead dead though. I don't think they are, because they're purple. You can only see them if you're an inch or two away from the screen. I imagine if they were dead they'd be complete black like the liquid crystal behind it was empty. I tried the pencil-eraser-rub-and-turn-on trick, but it hasn't brought them back, and I don't imagine trying to do that over and over again is good for the screen either. Of course they appeared after the limited warranty for a refurb ran out, and even if it didn't, I believe you need 10 before they would have done anything about it anyway. I heard there's a computer program that can cycle your display and bring them back. What are the odds of that working and what else can I do?

What's the difference between running the color temp warm, neutral or cool? I don't see a discernable difference. The manual pretty much only tells me how to turn on the set, and is pretty much worthless. There's a backlight setting from 1 to 100, but I really don't see a difference when I tweak this setting either. I can see a tiny difference when it's on 1 compared to when it's on 100, but that's it. Should it be more obvious? Should I have it at max 100 anyway?

I originally bought this as a videogaming screen. 360 gaming to be precise, and I haven't been dissappointed there(Gears looks fantastic). It wasn't until I put in a regular dvd that I really "got" what this HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing is all about. I was surprised how crappy some of my dvds looked that I guess I never noticed before because my previous cheapy crt tv did a good job of blurring the imperfections. Although it is pretty hysterical when I put in Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts and the picture looks more vibrant and defined than some of the newer dvd releases I have. I never really understood when people would go on about crappy transfers, but now I do. I bought a VGA cable for my 360 so it could do upscaling because I was told that would get me the best picture out of my dvds. Is that as good as it gets? I had read that there is a player(the brand name escapes me at the moment) that's the peak of performance for playing normal dvds on an HD set. Any truth to this, or am I maxxed out here anyway?

Having a refurb, I don't know if some things on the set are really broken or not, so I'd appreciate any advice on tweaking your LCD set. I'm still pretty new to this stuff. But if I were to buy a new set, I'd probably go DLP. There was one at the local bar playing HD ESPN and I was amazed at how vibrant the picture looked.

Adjust your set so it looks good to you. All the correct settings in the world won't help you if you don't like the picture. I know some people who like the brightness cranked up so high black looks gray. But they don't like it any other way. Personally, I like things a bit darker than brighter.

DVD's and SD TV show their limitations on HD sets. Especially at 37" and larger screen sizes. 40+ and you're sure to notice the imperfections. An old tube will hide it (not to mention people watched widescreen movies in like a 4-5" high window on their 4:3 sets so they didn't really notice it. It's like if you needed glasses and suddenly have them and now can "see the world around you", except you now realize that SD looked like crap...you just couldn't tell (nothing wrong with SD on an old tube).

Certain DVD's will look great upscaled...a crappy transfer upscaled will probably look worse. Keep in mind, a crappy transfer is a crappy transfer..upscaling isn't magic. It won't make a crappy DVD look into a great one. The PS3 with HDMI and the Toshiba HD DVD players (along with some Panasonic and Sony upscaling regular DVD players are among the best there is to upscale regular DVD's. The 360's upscaling is...well, it upscales.

ESPN on HD doesn't look fabulous on your set? It should. HD broadcasts and Blu-ray/HD DVD look great on their intended sets. Especially video such as live sports, concerts, and certain TV shows such as sitcoms and certain movies shot on HD video. Film looks like film should look.

You might want to try a calibration disc or with HD Net's test patterns (assuming you have HD feeds). Westinghouse is kind of hit and miss on their sets...most of the low cost LCD panels are kinda washed out, have slower refresh rates, etc. WHen it comes to LCD TV's in particular, I tend to stay with Sony Bravias, Panasonics, Sharp Aquos', certain Samsungs, and surprisingly...Vizio for the price. Not a whole lot you can do with your set if the contrast just doesn't look right no matter what setting it's on, though you may want to turn down the backlight if your blacks look gray...if there's no difference between 1 and 100 something may indeed be wrong. You can use certain DVD's if you don't have a calibration disc, like Star Wars Episode III. It's better than nothing. Some games will have test bars as well, you can use those to adjust your settings. Hopefully, your set keeps individual settings for different inputs. You might want to calibrate separately for games, DVD's, HD TV, SD TV, etc. Some panels don't surprisingly and you're stuck with changing things all the time.

If you can't see the dead pixels unless you're an inch or two away, I really wouldn't worry about it. It's a 40" TV...you probably will be pretty far away from it most of the time. Unless your display looks like swiss cheese with many dead pixels, I say you should be ok.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Gaijin

[eugimon]

Try this wiki article on dead pixels: http://www.wikihow.com/Fix-a-Stuck-Pixel-on-an-LCD-Monitor

As for the warm/cool/neutral... warm means that all whites will be tinted red/orange, cool means whites are tinted blue and neutral means whites are white.

Backlight, I don't know about your screen, but on my samsung, there's a noticable difference in the different levels. You might want to play around with your screens brightness and contrast levels and see how they are affected by the backlight strength. I have my backlight turned down to 70% because I found that it produced an image that was way too bright and distracting as wells over emphisizing greens (pan's labrynth looked particularly bad, the greens were almost neon)

DVD and SD signals on HD screens. A general tip is turn down your sharpening setting. If your sharpening is set high, it increases the appearence of jaggies, pixelation as well making color gradations seems more harsh. As for DVDs, there are players that have a feature called upscaling. Basically it provides a 1080i signal from your DVD... it's not going to look as nice as a native HD source, but it should help give you a cleaner picture.

If you haven't already, try searching sites like cnet to see if they reviewed your screen, often the writer or other users will post tips on setting up the screen.

[Gaijin]

Was at BB again today. They fixed the Samsung's problem, and I got a good look at the Sony S3000. But I can't make comparison judgments on a TV based on "how the people at BB set them up". I need to go on a day when there's few people there, and I can fiddle with the settings myself for a while and get them looking decent. Contrast=100, Temp=cool, is NOT going to sell me a TV... I love it when I mess with the settings on a "poor-looking" TV at BestBuy (every setting at 100 like usual), then someone stops and goes "wow" when they see what a decently-calibrated screen playing HD looks like. Maybe I should go mess with their BluRay demo set...

Annoyingly, my current top two TV's (both Sony), are not available at any store TOGETHER. One or the other. I really want to compare side by side to see if the extra money's worth it.

On that note--so, 120hz. Noticeable? Worth it? Not many 32in sets do it, but the latest Sony XBR and Panny do. And Sony wants a nice chunk of change for that feature. But if it makes the image clarity notably better during rapid panning/object movement (like the 90% of the time mine will be on playing video games) it'd be well worth the money.

Honestly, I'd ask them to let me hook up a system to see if it makes that much of a difference. If they don't let you, then they're missing out on a potential sale. I see people hook up all sorts of stuff to TV's at our local Sears just to "see how" their stuff looks on it.

Personally, I'd go for it but that's me. I tend to go for the better specs even for subtle differences. I haven't seen any of the new sets in person with games so I can't comment on them. Try AVS Forums to see how the new ones are stacking up.

[David Hingtgen]

I was reading some more: That TV has a game mode to help eliminate lag etc, but it turns off the 120hz----as 120hz interpolation probably takes a good chunk of the TV's processing power/time and could induce lag. However, I wonder just how much difference it makes. If 120hz makes the picture smoother and better anyways, and there's minimal lag to start with, maybe games in "normal" mode with 120 hz look better than most other TV's "game" mode?

I'm sure a few people will have tried out 360's with the TV's I'm interested in by the time I'm ready to buy, just have to keep watching the forums.

[Alpha OTS]

ESPN on HD doesn't look fabulous on your set? It should. HD broadcasts and Blu-ray/HD DVD look great on their intended sets. Especially video such as live sports, concerts, and certain TV shows such as sitcoms and certain movies shot on HD video. Film looks like film should look.

I don't have an HD feed. Actually, the only HD things I have to play on my set are the 360 games I have. That's why I've been paying attention to this thread. I know I should purchase an HD player rather than buy any more standard dvds. The thing that caught my eye about the DLP was how vibrant the display was. There was none of that "grayness" you sometimes see on an lcd screen. I even commented to the bartender how nice the display was, and he said you can really tell how good it is when you compare it to the surrounding LCD sets they had, and he was right.

You might want to try a calibration disc or with HD Net's test patterns (assuming you have HD feeds). Westinghouse is kind of hit and miss on their sets...most of the low cost LCD panels are kinda washed out, have slower refresh rates, etc. WHen it comes to LCD TV's in particular, I tend to stay with Sony Bravias, Panasonics, Sharp Aquos', certain Samsungs, and surprisingly...Vizio. Not a whole lot you can do with your set if the contrast just doesn't look right no matter what setting it's on, though you may want to turn down the backlight if your blacks look gray...if there's no difference between 1 and 100 something may indeed be wrong. You can use certain DVD's if you don't have a calibration disc, like Star Wars Episode III. It's better than nothing. Some games will have test bars as well, you can use those to adjust your settings. Hopefully, your set keeps individual settings for different inputs. You might want to calibrate separately for games, DVD's, HD TV, SD TV, etc. Some panels don't surprisingly and you're stuck with changing things all the time.

That's why my friend recommended the westinghouse. It had a ton of inputs and each has its own individual calibration. I'm using the 360 for everything though.

If you can't see the dead pixels unless you're an inch or two away, I really wouldn't worry about it. It's a 40" TV...you probably will be pretty far away from it most of the time. Unless your display looks like swiss cheese with many dead pixels, I say you should be ok.

It just irritates me that this is a new set(to me) and I have dead pixels.

[David Hingtgen]

IMHO, set every possible setting to the middle to start with, then work from there. Most TV's will SUCK BIG TIME in the image category, when set to factory default. Factory default isn't "a resonably good picture". It's "super bright to catch your eye in the store". And usually has the color way red or way blue, again to catch your eye. It is purely to "throw out a noticeable light" your way in the store.

As for temperature---put something with white on. A basketball game with a team wearing white or something along those lines is great. Depending on if the settings are labled normal or backwards (cooler temp means redder, but a cooler color means bluer---TV makers can't agree what to label as) you'll find either a redder or bluer tint to the white. Basically it sets---"how white is white?" on the TV. Things in life are rarely as pure stark white as many TV's are set. Kind of like how something looks "white"---until you compare it to a piece of paper. Lots of people like a super-bright, super-blue white to things. But that usually leads to extreme loss of detail.

The best test for any TV IMHO is sweaters. Try to identify fabric/textures on a pure bright red and a pure bright white sweater. Make them rich and vibrant, but not bleeding out their color, so bright it's blending details together. Get red and white set nicely, and everything else should be pretty good.

[Uxi]

Ah yes, the infamous "torch mode." Fortunately, there are pro/custom modes available on near every HDTV, but especially the Sony XBR's have an amazing (if near bewildering) gigantic array of options and various parameters to choose from.

As far as no HD Feed, at least get an OTA antenna, Alpha OTS. It will make you appreciate your HDTV so much more.

[Alpha OTS]

Ah yes, the infamous "torch mode." Fortunately, there are pro/custom modes available on near every HDTV, but especially the Sony XBR's have an amazing (if near bewildering) gigantic array of options and various parameters to choose from.

As far as no HD Feed, at least get an OTA antenna, Alpha OTS. It will make you appreciate your HDTV so much more.

I need a tuner for that though, don't I? I know that's one thing this tv doesn't have.

[Dangard Ace]

Reason why we still have a HD format war? Universal's president.

http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/blog_detail.php?id=107

[eugimon]

Good for universal! Keep up the good fight till prices on players come down to reasonabl levels.

[Dangard Ace]

Bad for us. As far as I can recall HD player prices are already dropping apace to when DVD players originally came out. VHS was king and DVD was expensive new media. PS2 forced the price down and helped start mainstream adoption of DVD. Microsoft is backing Universal to extend the HD format war so that it confuses or frustrates people enough to instead of buying physical HD media to start using their download HD video service.

So instead of buying a HD disc loaded with features that will play in your HD player from your local store you'll have to pay MS to download the movie, pay for a high-bandwidth line, pay for electricity to leave your computer on to download said video and you'll probably have to pay for the extra features as well.

[yellowlightman]

Yeah, those electricity charges are where they REALLY stick it to ya.

[wm cheng]

Hi all,

Just wanted to add my 2 cents to the HDTV end of things. I went shopping with my father-in-law last week for an HDTV and did a lot of research and comparison viewing. I don't understand why LCD is so popular? - the Plasmas just blows them away in every way.

All this talk of 120hz overscanning to resolve fast moving images... on Plasmas, the fast moving images displays perfectly well, no tearing or anything unlike LCDs which really appears to visually "pixelate" or break up the resolution when objects move fast or even a moderate pan.

The plasmas displayed amazing gradients with no or very little contouring visible to the naked eye. I found the images so much more natural instead of the overly vivid look of LCDs (yes even after fiddling them off of torch mode). Some of the LCDs looked smooth, but then upon closer examination, its like they put a smooth filter over eveyone's faces?!

Funny, my father-in-law is no techie, but he immediately saw the difference between Plasma and LCD, all the while the salepeople were trying to get us to buy LCD? Why is everyone so in love with LCD? I was all set on getting a LCD (thinking that it must be the better technology, everyone is going towards it, Sony doesn't even make Plasmas anymore) HDTV this holiday season until I saw the Plasmas, now I'm totally sold on them - the picture quality is just head and shoulders above the LCD technology (I just don't get the debate?)

Additionally, if you're looking at any SD sources or SD DVD picture, the Plasmas just displays and scales them so much nicer than any LCD we've seen. The Sony XBR2,3,4s were the only LCDs that upscaled SD sources to a somewhat acceptible image quality (most LCDs don't upscale SD images very well), until we saw the plasmas (granted we only looked at the Pioneer and Panasonics) - they made SD DVDs look fantastic (which for the first few years there are going to be a lot of SD sources and I can't give up my huge DVD collection quite yet).

Lastly, I read everywhere that 1080p was a waste for anything less than 50" - that is simply not true. You can definitely see the difference, even from 12-15ft back. Anything that has text like CNN or newscast resolves so much sharper, credit rolls read well, and computer generated movies, and anime with lines read so much sharper. Movement seemed much sharper too (decernable so unlike sets we were told that were 120hz next to 60hz sets, we didn't see any difference there). Also when displaying SD resolution sources, the 1080p seemed to be able to handle that much better too (it may be the processor though) - we compared the 42" Panasonic PX75 (720p) side by side with a PZ700 (1080p) with a Pioneer Elite 4280HD (720p) and the PZ700 won out every time (even with squint test) and was much cheaper than the Pioneer.

Good luck to all shopping in the market, I know I will be looking for deals on the Panasonic PZ700 - it just blew me away.

[Roy Focker]

I went into an upscale electronic store and looked at some HDTVs in sample living rooms. Dang do I want to by a 90 inch TV set and sit infront of it all day. I just don't have several grand. Even the budget models cost too much for their size.

[eugimon]

LCD versus Plasma...

in general, LCD screens have wider viewing areas, their screens are less likely to suffer from burn in (rarely happens to people watching TV but can happen to gamers if the game has a set "console" or user interface, use less power and have a matte finish causing less reflection and glare, generally regarded better in brighter rooms.

Plasma advantages: less likely to have artifacts or distortions due to refresh rate issues, better contrast and color reproduction.

I think there was a recent poll that found average consumers prefered the look of plasma sets to LCD screens... though as you experienced, sales people push LCD technology a LOT more than plasma.

addendum: wider viewing angle on LCDs... while the picture might be visible from a greater angle, the color shift will be pretty noticable, while a plasma will give you a consistant image and color reproduction.

Edited August 17, 2007 by eugimon

[JB0]

Bad for us. As far as I can recall HD player prices are already dropping apace to when DVD players originally came out. VHS was king and DVD was expensive new media. PS2 forced the price down and helped start mainstream adoption of DVD.

IN JAPAN! That was NOT a worldwide phenomenon!

There were $100 DVD players in WalMart a year before the PS2 reached the US.

[mikeszekely]

LCD versus Plasma...

in general, LCD screens have wider viewing areas, their screens are less likely to suffer from burn in (rarely happens to people watching TV but can happen to gamers if the game has a set "console" or user interface, use less power and have a matte finish causing less reflection and glare, generally regarded better in brighter rooms.

Plasma advantages: less likely to have artifacts or distortions due to refresh rate issues, better contrast and color reproduction.

I think there was a recent poll that found average consumers prefered the look of plasma sets to LCD screens... though as you experienced, sales people push LCD technology a LOT more than plasma.

addendum: wider viewing angle on LCDs... while the picture might be visible from a greater angle, the color shift will be pretty noticable, while a plasma will give you a consistant image and color reproduction.

So... DLP for the win?

[Dangard Ace]

IN JAPAN! That was NOT a worldwide phenomenon!

Well...it happened somewhere.

There were $100 DVD players in WalMart a year before the PS2 reached the US.

Were they Walmart brand DVD players or brand name(Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic..etc)?

Can't find links to prices of DVD players in 2000 but according to this Wired article the Apex AD-600 was $179usd in 2000 and the Panasonice DV 525(mid range) was $350usd in 1999.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/04/35365

[JB0]

Well...it happened somewhere.

Were they Walmart brand DVD players or brand name(Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic..etc)?

Apex. Neither WalMart nor major brand. At the time, WalMart didn't have their own electronics brand.

But the Apex players were carried many places, and brand-name player prices in the US were well below the PS2 launch price. By the time the PS2 hit, most retailers were devoting similar amounts of space to VHS and DVD.

The situation was different in Japan, where DVD player prices had stayed high and the 300$ PS2 was the cheapest DVD player available(and I don't doubt that the region unlock cheat code boosted appeal once it was known).

In that specific case, the PS2 was sold primarily as a DVD player. Many early PS2 purchases weren't accompanied by any software sales, just movies.

But again, that was ONLY Japan, and the PS2 was largely irrelevant to the success of DVD in most regions.

[David Hingtgen]

I like plasmas better in almost every way. But they simply don't make them small/cheap enough for what I need. If there was a 26-32in plasma ~$1000 I'd buy it in an instant. But there's not. There are plasma's smaller than 42, but no store around here carries them, and they cost 3x as much as LCD's of equivalent size. Small plasmas are so cutting-edge they actually cost more than larger ones in a lot of cases.

Also--viewing angle means nothing. It's the "GOOD viewing angle" which matters. And it can be less than 40 degrees on a lot of LCD's. Good viewing angle----angle at which brightness and color is consistent across the screen. There's many LCD's where if you stand dead center ahead of it--the brightness is uneven top to bottom, just from the angle change your eye makes to view it all. Plasmas are much better in that category. (I think mainly due to the actual "pixel" glowing/emitting light like a CRT does, whereas LCD's are backlit)

[eugimon]

So... DLP for the win?

DLP has superior resolution and color reproduction.. but they're worthless in rooms have any sort of natural light, imo... these sets need a darkened room to be truly appreciated. A lot of them aren't that great for games due to the slower response time. They can be *very* sensitive to being moved or jarred as well, if the mirrors go out of alignment, you'll have to call in for servicing.

[eugimon]

I like plasmas better in almost every way. But they simply don't make them small/cheap enough for what I need. If there was a 26-32in plasma ~$1000 I'd buy it in an instant. But there's not. There are plasma's smaller than 42, but no store around here carries them, and they cost 3x as much as LCD's of equivalent size. Small plasmas are so cutting-edge they actually cost more than larger ones in a lot of cases.

Also--viewing angle means nothing. It's the "GOOD viewing angle" which matters. And it can be less than 40 degrees on a lot of LCD's. Good viewing angle----angle at which brightness and color is consistent across the screen. There's many LCD's where if you stand dead center ahead of it--the brightness is uneven top to bottom, just from the angle change your eye makes to view it all. Plasmas are much better in that category. (I think mainly due to the actual "pixel" glowing/emitting light like a CRT does, whereas LCD's are backlit)

yeah, that's why i added on to my post that LCDs suffer greatly from color distortion outside their optimum viewing angle. And it is due to the back light, LCDs have a light source emitted from the back, while plasma, the actual pixels are emitting light.

The difference between the two technologies is shrinking though. Newer sets like the Samsung LCDs have much more even back light distribution (hence why they no longer have the matte screen cover) and have contrast ratios that approach even pro grade plasmas. On the other hand, current gen plasmas have better and better anti-glare/reflection coatings that diminish the hated "mirror" affect greatly.

Go with what looks best to your eye and consider the environment as well. As I've said, LCDs handle ambient light better and they're lighter and thus easier to mount. Plasmas generally have better color and contrast but will probably do best in a darkened or light controlled room.

[Gaijin]

IN JAPAN! That was NOT a worldwide phenomenon!

There were $100 DVD players in WalMart a year before the PS2 reached the US.

Are you positive about $100? In 2000, 2001, there were no players at that price yet, not even in Wally World. I believe there were some players in the $200+ range...not $100. The first Apex player was $179-$199 too. It was the cheapest on the market and the first to break the $200 barrier but it was no way $100 at it's introduction. I know because we followed Apex through their history since it later involved the whole DVD licensing issues that China makers are famous for as well as the whole debt thing...and that's all we can say on that.

Edit: To Joe Sixpack, the PS2 was their first living room intro to DVD. I don't believe it had the impact in the US some like to believe, but I also think the people who think it had no real impact are sorely mistaken. It did help, and helped a lot. DVD's even came with stickers that said, "plays/works with Playstation 2!" for awhile.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Gaijin

[David Hingtgen]

BestBuy had "PS2 test drive packs" for like 30 bucks at launch. It included the DVD remote, and "The Matrix". And they sold insanely fast, I'm sure it outsold any game for the first few weeks. It was the first DVD player for a lot of people, at least around here. (Including me)

[JB0]

Are you positive about $100? In 2000, 2001, there were no players at that price yet, not even in Wally World. I believe there were some players in the $200+ range...not $100. The first Apex player was $179-$199 too. It was the cheapest on the market and the first to break the $200 barrier but it was no way $100 at it's introduction. I know because we followed Apex through their history since it later involved the whole DVD licensing issues that China makers are famous for as well as the whole debt thing...and that's all we can say on that.

Reasonably sure.

Dad bought the 3-disk changer, which was ... I believe it was 200$ at the time(it also sucked from day 1, but that's another story). They had a 1-disk model available at the same time for significantly less.

Apex had been on the market for a while by the time they made it to MalWart. I don't deny that their first players cost more than a hundred.

Edit: To Joe Sixpack, the PS2 was their first living room intro to DVD. I don't believe it had the impact in the US some like to believe, but I also think the people who think it had no real impact are sorely mistaken. It did help, and helped a lot. DVD's even came with stickers that said, "plays/works with Playstation 2!" for awhile.

I know it had SOME impact. I know a guy who's first DVD player was the PS2. Launch PS2 even, with all the incompatibilities.

But it wasn't the major deciding force, or even a significant force. DVD had already gained traction.

We were even through qith the "format war" people had claimed DIVX was starting(though it took a while after it imploded for the laughter to die down).

[Dangard Ace]

PS2 was my first DVD player and I was the only person in my group to have one except for one friend who had 3 dvd players(Apex dvd player was one. He's the 6-month must upgrade AV/computer stuff type guy. Just asked him what he paid for his DVD players during that time period and he said $200-$330cdn. (this was when the US:CDN exchange rate was $1:0.66). Seeing how the PS2 was $400 and a dvd player it was a pretty damn good deal....and my launch PS2 still works fine.

[bandit29]

Spider-man blu-ray box due Oct 30. Around 90.00. 4 Disc set. Some places list that Spider-Man 2.1 is included.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=547

yeah I get to see Tobey Maguire cry in HD.. lol