Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Aphasia wrote:But there is one point to it all. Viewing distance. You might be able to tell a 36" 720p from a 1080p on a close distance. But back off, to about 3-4 meters. And you wouldnt see jack, Unless the scaler does a piss pore job. But start out with two equal sources with different res.
I mean, unless you actually do have a comparison handy, even DVD will look nice on a 92" screen at the THX-recommended distance.
His reason was that there is no refresh rate (to speak of) on a plasma TV.
BobbinThreadbare wrote:I'm pretty sure your friend is full of it. Resolution is resolution, an image with less pixels is going to look worse. Unless the pixels are already so small the eye can't tell the difference. TV technology is not yet there. I mean I can even tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on my mom's smallish 36" TV, although it's hard. I would bet you can easily spot the difference on a 58" tv. Response time has nothing to do with it.
skallas wrote:I've not seen that with the "HDready" thing. If that's true, it's a damn shame.I did *not* refer to "HD ready" as a term referring to TV-s with 1280x720. I have so far seen the (marketing) term being used for this 1360x768 "bastard". IMHO TV manufacturers use this term for TV-s that have higher resolution than standard TV-s, but lower resolution than 1920x1080 (in which case they use a marketing term Full HD instead).
skallas wrote:Oh, it's definitely worse. Especially with 720p content, like sports.Yes, it's a bastard, but I don't agree it's worse than having a 1280x720.
skallas wrote:False. Fixed pixel displays like plasma, LCD, LCOS, and DLP support 1:1, and there's an option just about every one of those TVs menus to display 1:1.The reason is, that TV-s don't show you a non-scaled, every image pixel equals one screen pixel anyway.
skallas wrote:Nope, you can have overscan with 1:1 pixel mapping. My SXRD set is a prime example: it's a RPTV, it's displaying 1:1, but some of the pixels are hidden by the framing of the TV.And that is because of overscanning. All TV-s I have seen, cut off about 5% of screen area on all sides when they think source material is "video".
skallas wrote:Yeah, it's a setting in the menu. You know why it's there? To prevent seeing garbage with NTSC sources that would be visible if you did 1:1. And watching NTSC on a fixed pixel, HDTV is not a good idea anyway, because it's ugly.In effect, they "enlarge" the image so that about 5% of all sides is "left behind a plastic border" of a TV set. Yes, it can generally be turned off, but by default it's usually there.
skallas wrote:Only if you let the TV do it. And if you do, you're wrong.So, even if a TV would have 1280x720 pixels, the 1280x720 material is often scaled anyway.
skallas wrote:Yes, the Pioneer Kuros aren't cheap sets, and they do the scaling properly. I know, I used to own one.But I am certain of one thing: at least Pioneer Kuro does *NOT* scale down a 1920x1080 image to a 1280x720 and then upscale that again to 1360x768. My TV is connected with a HDMI/DVI cable to an ATI video card, which fortunately can do a 1920x1080 24Hz, 25Hz and 60Hz output besides 1280x720 at 50Hz and 60Hz and I can see how desktop fonts and graphics look on TV. 1920x1080 looks far sharper than 1280x720 does.
Vrock wrote:Yep, it is, but marketing people like to come up with all sorts of weird names and then use them in all sorts of weird ways. "Netburst architecture" for example.skallas wrote:I've not seen that with the "HDready" thing. If that's true, it's a damn shame.I did *not* refer to "HD ready" as a term referring to TV-s with 1280x720. I have so far seen the (marketing) term being used for this 1360x768 "bastard". IMHO TV manufacturers use this term for TV-s that have higher resolution than standard TV-s, but lower resolution than 1920x1080 (in which case they use a marketing term Full HD instead).
Vrock wrote:Ok, have to admit, I don't watch sports. I am a movie person all the way (don't even have a broadcast TV AT ALL, I despise broadcast TV, my antenna cable lays on the floor, safe distance (=2m) away from TV). The only 50/60Hz stuff I watch is art and music videos. Everything else is 24/25Hz. And I have had a pleasure of having a decent deinterlacing/scaling engine in my TV.skallas wrote:Oh, it's definitely worse. Especially with 720p content, like sports.Yes, it's a bastard, but I don't agree it's worse than having a 1280x720.
Vrock wrote:Yes, an option. How big a percentage of users actually use it? Home cinema people who buy expensive projectors, yes, they would. But an average plasma or LCD TV buyer? Hardly.skallas wrote:False. Fixed pixel displays like plasma, LCD, LCOS, and DLP support 1:1, and there's an option just about every one of those TVs menus to display 1:1.The reason is, that TV-s don't show you a non-scaled, every image pixel equals one screen pixel anyway.
Vrock wrote:I think you wanted to say "stupid", instead on wrong, but yes, I probably agree. The only argument against that is probably that, most buyers actually are stupid and that most of the new material where quality really counts (BluRay, HDDVD) will come in 1920x1080 anyway and for a long time to come. I basically view 1280x720 as an interim format that will not stay with us for long. The only use for it that I see is H.264 HD movie rips floating around the net. 4.37G 1280x720 movies actually look real good. Surprisingly good actually. And I don't see scaling to 1360x768 hurt it at all, even when I view it at close distance. I can, after all watch them at 1:1 if I want to (when I tried it I set DVI out resolution to 1360x768 and turned off all scaling in MPlayerC (Video Frame -> Normal)), and I have compared the result to an image where this 1280x720 has been scaled to fit the screen (I set DVI out to 1280x720 and let the TV do the scaling)... And well, I don't see the scaled version being any worse than the original. Only slightly bigger.skallas wrote:Only if you let the TV do it. And if you do, you're wrong.So, even if a TV would have 1280x720 pixels, the 1280x720 material is often scaled anyway.
Vrock wrote:You used to own a Kuro, sold it and got a rear projection set? Can you tell what didn't you like about a Kuro and why did you opt for a rear projection set? As much as I have seen them, I have not really liked the colours and contrast of rear projection tellies. I think it would take a really big room that requires a really big screen to even consider such a change. Especially considering that Kuros have only been on the market for what? 3 quarters? 2 sets in three quarters? I have changed tellies once in 10 years. The last one was early, high quality Sony Super Trinitron 50Hz, before the quality and price started to drop dramatically. I hated 100Hz TV-s and I have hated almost all the flat panels built to date. All have had bleak colours and if you'd turn saturation up they have got uglier still. Compared to beautiful skin colours of the early Super Trinitrons. Only the latest projectors (some better LCD-s and especially the only LCOS I have seen - Canon) and a few select plasmas have I really liked. I can't stand DLP rainbows though.Yes, the Pioneer Kuros aren't cheap sets, and they do the scaling properly. I know, I used to own one.
skallas wrote:It was actually the 5070HD, last year's model before Pioneer started calling them Kuros. Essentially the same set as the 5080HD, which is in the new Kuro branding. Anyway, my main beef with it was that it turned out my eyes were susceptible to seeing phosphor decay on plasmas. This manifests itself as a blue and yellow smear in high contrast scenes. It gave me headaches and was pretty much intolerable for viewing in the dark. So it had to go. The other problem with the set (one that plagues Kuros today) was innaccurate color of green. Greens were so overpronounced I had to dial back the color quite a bit to get a normal looking image, and of course that desaturated red and blue in the process.You used to own a Kuro, sold it and got a rear projection set? Can you tell what didn't you like about a Kuro and why did you opt for a rear projection set?
skallas wrote:I purchased a Sony 50A3000 SXRD set. While it can't match the blacks of the the Pioneer plasma, its colors are spot on accurate, and the contrast is quite good for my needs. Cnet rated it just a hair under the 5080HD, and it costs about $1000 less. 120hz, motion enhancer, and 12 bit color capabilities were bonuses. http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/ ... prod.txt.1As much as I have seen them, I have not really liked the colours and contrast of rear projection tellies.
skallas wrote:My SXRD rear projection set is a 50 inch set and is only 14 inches deep. It's not any larger than the Pioneer it replaced. It actually weighs about 15 pounds less than the Pioneer w/ integrated stand did.I think it would take a really big room that requires a really big screen to even consider such a change.
skallas wrote:As far as color accuracy goes, I'd stack my 50A3000 up against any recent CRT, the colors are that good. I'm still waiting for a modern display that can match the black level of a good old CRT, though. Plasmas come close, but since the phosphor decay bothers me, they aren't an option. Oh well.Especially considering that Kuros have only been on the market for what? 3 quarters? 2 sets in three quarters? I have changed tellies once in 10 years. The last one was early, high quality Sony Super Trinitron 50Hz, before the quality and price started to drop dramatically. I hated 100Hz TV-s and I have hated almost all the flat panels built to date. All have had bleak colours and if you'd turn saturation up they have got uglier still. Compared to beautiful skin colours of the early Super Trinitrons. Only the latest projectors (some better LCD-s and especially the only LCOS I have seen - Canon) and a few select plasmas have I really liked. I can't stand DLP rainbows though.
dolemitecomputers wrote:What about rear projection televisions? I was looking at this Sony unit and it seems decent. I do not see that it supports DLP but is DLP worth getting?
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productD ... oid=184834
Vrock wrote:That is not true. 8. generation Pioneer plasma is a completely new panel. It looks very different too. In a normally lit room, with power off, a 8. gen screen looks black, 7. gen screen looks grey. Even turned on, 8. gen screen contrast is way higher than 7. gen contrast. In specs, the numbers are 1:4000 for 7. gen and 1:20000 for 8. gen 1920x1080, 1:16000 for 8. gen 1360x768. I have 8. gen 1360x768 50" and with all the contrast enhancing software gimmicks turned off and brightness and contrast set so that a grayscale gradient 0..255 from a computer looks so that *all* patches are different when you look closely (even RGB 0,0,0 and RGB 1,1,1 are distinct) - something that not even the best computer monitors can usually match - then, measured using a digital SLR exposure meter, I measured the contrast range to be 1:8000. I am pretty sure that in the similar taxing situation, the 7.gen screen would have produced around 1:2000. Measured basically the same way (but without calibrating for perfect grayscale gradient) Canon XEED LCOS gave me 1:900 contrast. And a baby Sanyo PLC-XU73 with its tiny 0.6" LCDs gave 1:200 (so far one of the few "cheap" projectors I have liked - a lot of allowances made of course considering the price). And Sanyo PLV-Z4 with auto-iris turned off gave 1:400. I once measured an image on my CRT TV the same way, and got around 1:3000.It was actually the 5070HD, last year's model before Pioneer started calling them Kuros. Essentially the same set as the 5080HD, which is in the new Kuro branding.
Vrock wrote:I know what you mean. I have seen them only when I specifically look for them, and even then mostly on B/W scenes only. And I watch movies exclusively in the dark. Then again, by far the most of my movies are NOT action. I have not really noticed them when I have not looked for them - unlike with single-DLP projectors, but I certainly do see them when I look for them. And as I know people who don't see them even if I tell them how to look, then it is sounds reasonable that some people might be more sensitive to it than me.Anyway, my main beef with it was that it turned out my eyes were susceptible to seeing phosphor decay on plasmas.
Vrock wrote:And you know why that is? It's because the phosphors Pioneer uses basically represent the AdobeRGB colourspace, which is has MUCH wider gamut toward greens than the usual sRGB colourspace DVD-s are targeted for. You should have checked out the ColourSpace option in the ProCinema -> ColourDetail menu, which can be set to 1 or 2. 1 (the default) is the one that represents the AdobeRGB colourspace (with oversaturated colours, especially greens and purplish skincolours). The colourspace "2" represents the classic sRGB though. Pioneer has the default setting as ColourSpace1 and negative colour saturation dialed in to counteract the otherwise oversaturated colours. But it all ends up looking quite wrong, I agree. Much better solution is to select ColourSpace2, and dial in an increased colour saturation (my default is +5). That way the problem you talk about isn't there and I couldn't be happier.The other problem with the set (one that plagues Kuros today) was innaccurate color of green. Greens were so overpronounced I had to dial back the color quite a bit to get a normal looking image, and of course that desaturated red and blue in the process.
Vrock wrote:No, I actually thought that you replaced a smaller plasma with a bigger rear projection set, a move which would have made sense to me only with a really big room.skallas wrote:My SXRD rear projection set is a 50 inch set and is only 14 inches deep. It's not any larger than the Pioneer it replaced. It actually weighs about 15 pounds less than the Pioneer w/ integrated stand did.I think it would take a really big room that requires a really big screen to even consider such a change.
Vrock wrote:Have to check it out then. I am no way going to switch, but it would still be interesting to see what the other options are. If not for anything else, then just in case somebody asks my opinion. And that happens quite often, actually.As far as color accuracy goes, I'd stack my 50A3000 up against any recent CRT, the colors are that good. I'm still waiting for a modern display that can match the black level of a good old CRT, though. Plasmas come close, but since the phosphor decay bothers me, they aren't an option. Oh well.
skallas wrote:Contrast ratios aside, the 5080HD and the 5070HD rated virtually identical on CNET. They both have the same problems with the color green, at any rate.That is not true. 8. generation Pioneer plasma is a completely new panel. It looks very different too. In a normally lit room, with power off, a 8. gen screen looks black, 7. gen screen looks grey. Even turned on, 8. gen screen contrast is way higher than 7. gen contrast. In specs, the numbers are 1:4000 for 7. gen and 1:20000 for 8. gen 1920x1080, 1:16000 for 8. gen 1360x768. I have 8. gen 1360x768 50" and with all the contrast enhancing software gimmicks turned off and brightness and contrast set so that a grayscale gradient 0..255 from a computer looks so that *all* patches are different when you look closely (even RGB 0,0,0 and RGB 1,1,1 are distinct) - something that not even the best computer monitors can usually match - then, measured using a digital SLR exposure meter, I measured the contrast range to be 1:8000. I am pretty sure that in the similar taxing situation, the 7.gen screen would have produced around 1:2000. Measured basically the same way (but without calibrating for perfect grayscale gradient) Canon XEED LCOS gave me 1:900 contrast. And a baby Sanyo PLC-XU73 with its tiny 0.6" LCDs gave 1:200 (so far one of the few "cheap" projectors I have liked - a lot of allowances made of course considering the price). And Sanyo PLV-Z4 with auto-iris turned off gave 1:400. I once measured an image on my CRT TV the same way, and got around 1:3000.
skallas wrote:Interesting. Those options are not present on the 5070HD, and Cnet wasn't able to dial in the green any better with their review of the 5080HD. Why Pioneer uses that color space is beyond me, it looks like crap to my eyes. Anything that's green screams at you, it's like the trees are all yelling "LOOK I'M A TREE!!!".And you know why that is? It's because the phosphors Pioneer uses basically represent the AdobeRGB colourspace, which is has MUCH wider gamut toward greens than the usual sRGB colourspace DVD-s are targeted for. You should have checked out the ColourSpace option in the ProCinema -> ColourDetail menu, which can be set to 1 or 2. 1 (the default) is the one that represents the AdobeRGB colourspace (with oversaturated colours, especially greens and purplish skincolours). The colourspace "2" represents the classic sRGB though. Pioneer has the default setting as ColourSpace1 and negative colour saturation dialed in to counteract the otherwise oversaturated colours. But it all ends up looking quite wrong, I agree. Much better solution is to select ColourSpace2, and dial in an increased colour saturation (my default is +5). That way the problem you talk about isn't there and I couldn't be happier.
skallas wrote:The older SXRD sets can't match the 3000 series. It's a shame Sony isn't going to make any more. My only dislike with the set is occasional SSE, but I find that less objectionable than the blue/yellow smears I see with plasmas. Watching Casablanca in HD-DVD on my old 5070HD was painful.I haven't seen the particular rear projection set you have, but one of my workmates has a slightly older Sony rear projection set that I had learned to dislike.
skallas wrote:I demoed a Sony 46XBR4 in my house for 30 days and wound up returning it. The colors were nice and the contrast decent, but sitting one seat out of the sweet spot resulted in a washed out picture. Also, the set has issues with backlight bleeding and banding. I expect more out of a $3000 TV.And I passionately dislike the look of current Sony LCD screens.
VRock wrote:And it has to... as long as it is in colourspace1. I don't know about menus on american models, but in European models, the most important item is in: [Home Menu] -> Picture -> Pro Adjust -> Colour Detail -> Colour Space. And it was there, basically in the same place on 7. gen screens too, only the menu name in Pro Adjust was different if my memory serves (a friend has 60" 7. gen Pioneer). And no, I have absolutely no respect for Cnet type reviews.Interesting. Those options are not present on the 5070HD, and Cnet wasn't able to dial in the green any better with their review of the 5080HD. Why Pioneer uses that color space is beyond me, it looks like crap to my eyes. Anything that's green screams at you, it's like the trees are all yelling "LOOK I'M A TREE!!!".
Taddeusz wrote:Westys are cheap LCDs. As such, you should expect to encounter all the issues you'd see with cheap LCDs, the most noticeable of which are poor blacks, backlight bleeding, and uniformity issues. They're probably fine for non-picky types who'll watch full screen stuff in daylight, but I wouldn't want to watch a 'scope aspect ratio movie in the dark with one. Here's Cnet's review of the 47" model in that line for reference: http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/ ... ml?tag=txtHow would you guys rate the Westinghouse TX-42F430S? I just noticed that the price dropped to just $1000. With 4 HDMI ports I think it's a really good deal. I have a friend who has the previous model 42" Westinghouse and am quite impressed by it for the price.
Taddeusz wrote:My 50A3000 can be had for $1500 if you look. Of course, it's a projection TV, and it comes with its own tradeoffs. What are you going to use the TV for?Well, my financial situation isn't as such that I could afford the caliber of TV you guys have been discussing. Is there a TV that you could recommend in that price range that would have a better picture?