I agree, it's hard to see those as a mainstream item. Wal*Mart has standard 28" CRT TVs on the shelf and piled up in the aisle for $79.95 Seems like every other shopping cart going out the door has one of these in it. Add to that all the technical difficulties and DRM debacles and one wonders if the HD market is going to get off the ground at all.

Wal*Mart has standard 28" CRT TVs on the shelf and piled up in the aisle for $79.95 Seems like every other shopping cart going out the door has one of these in it.

There's a Brand's Mart just down the road form us and they had the same thing there. There were hundreds and hundreds of people buying low-priced CRT TVs yesterday. So many there was a constant stream of cars going in and out all day--northbound and southbound traffic. It was a mess!

I still can't see the average American spending $2,500, $3,000, $3,500, $4,000 on a television.

Of course not. It is widely understood that HDTV prices have to come down under $1K for a significant market, and under $500 for a real mass market.

This all assumes the HD content is there from the usual cable/satellite providers, which is indeed the current case.

Circuit City sells, through today, the Syntax Olevia LT26HVX 26" HD LCD, with very decent picture, for $499.

Between Syntax and Westinghouse, there will be a LOTof HD TVs sold at well below $1K in America.

The casualty will be the high end manufacturers who can't adapt fast enough, for example Pioneer where the Chairman and President were fired yesterday for insufficient HD sales. (Hopefully they didn't have to fall on their swords...)

Costco has a Philips 30" CRT 16x9 HD TV for around $600. I think Samsung has one for around $500. You don't have to spend $2,000 and up to go true HD.

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't capable of displaying 1920x1080 native then what's the point? To my knowledge, there is NO Plasma TV that is 1920x1080 native and very few LCD's are either. Even the inexpensive CRT's I mentioned above are capable of 1920x1080 native. Plunk down $600, plug in your HD digital cable or satellite box and you are watching real HD television.

By the way, a friend of mine just picked up one of the new 60" Sony SXRD 1080p rear projection TV's and I now have to take back every nasty thing I have ever said about rear projection televisions. This thing looks unbelievable!

John

I am yet to see a budget HD CRT that displays anything remotely like HD.
The shadow mask or equivalent makes it like you're watching your backyard through a screen door. There is absolutely no way that you would be able to display a full 1080 pattern, the screen just doesn't anywhere near that resolution.

Many people think that film has infinite resolution (dealt with in this forum already) and that CRTs have infinite resolution. In practice, CRTs are limited by spot size for monochrome CRTs (used in 3-CRT projection systems) and mask resolution on color CRTs.

The HD LCDs are now same price or less, no reason to buy CRTs anymore in the budget price range.

Requiring 1920x1080 is a fallacy imho. I have seen 720x1280 screens side-by-side with 1920x1080 screens, where the 720p screens looked better on some material.

How is that? Differences in signal processing. If it was just shooting pixel row 1 column 1 and passing that on to the same pixel on the final display screen, that would be one thing. But it usually isn't. Lots of processing inbetween.

Of course you can't accept HDCAM footage (because it's only 1440x1080 anamorphic) or certainly no Varicam footage (720x960 anamorphic).

And no more DVD watching!

Lots more, but for now during this time of fast progress I think it makes sense to buy only the least expensive gear that you think has a pleasing enough picture.

Coursedesign:
I concur fully with your analysis. I have a Sony 34" HDTV (CRT) and a Sony flat panel LCD HDTV (23"-1366 x 768) and have a very difficult time trying to tell which is better.

JJK

>>As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't capable of displaying 1920x1080 native then what's the point? To my knowledge, there is NO Plasma TV that is 1920x1080 native and very few LCD's are either. Even the inexpensive CRT's I mentioned above are capable of 1920x1080 native<<

No CRT out there displays anywhere near to 1920x1080. I've got an XBR960 and put it to the test; I put a 1920x1080 crosshatch-pattern .JPG on a memory stick and displayed it. The set couldn't come anywhere near resolving the detail on it. It also couldn't properly resolve a 1280x720 .jpg.

I think it gives the best-looking picture of any high-def set on the market, but it's not accurate to say that it displays 1920x1080 as it doesn't come close.

When I was in Fry's yesterday marveling at the long lines, I had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison of two Mitsubishi DLP 62" sets, one 720 and one 1080. Up real close, you could see the individual pixels on the 720 set (the "window screen") while the 1080 had no screen effect at all. But back at 10 feet, I really couldn't tell much, if any, difference--I don't think eyes can resolve that much detail. At least my eyes can't, and as far as I know, they're 20/20.

Here's something I posted from an article back on the 12th of this month in these regards...

Bigger isn't better if you are seated so close to the set that you can see every pixel or line of resolution. Generally, you don't want to sit closer to a 720p HDTV than twice the length of the screen diagonal.

According to most industry experts, 3 times the diagonal is optimal distance, so the guy quoted in that article is somewhat different than the industry. Not that it matters much.
I just ordered the new SXRD 50" from Best Buy, looking forward to seeing it in my bedroom. I'm exactly 150" away from the set at the headboard of my bed, and I'd measured that distance in the store to see if it was really a good rule of thumb. Seems to be, but what it looks like in a store with lots of other televisions in the periphery and what it looks like in my room will be two different things. Ironically, the 50" is only 2" different than my bedroom window, so it matches the wall quite well. Or should. :-)

What he said was "generally" person doesn't, shouldn't, wouldn't want to sit any closer than 2 times the diagonal. So it does fit that 3 times the diagonal is "optimal." Anything much further away and you loose the "effect."

Too, he, a representative of "industry experts," also said, "At a distance of 10 feet from the screen, the eye can't detect pixels smaller than 1 millimeter..." That has nothing to do with diagonal times distance insofar as screen size and viewing concerned. It's referring to the human eye's limited ability to resolve a pixel smaller than a millimeter, which really has nothing to do with opinions or preferences.

[EDIT]
FWIT... the Society for Informational Display is "6000 members [who] are professionals in all of the technical and business disciplines that relate to display research, design, manufacturing, applications, marketing, and sales. Each member belongs to the SID chapter of his or her choice. We invite you to join us in developing and manufacturing the displays for the 21st century, and applying them to exciting information, telecommunications, medical, commercial, government, entertainment, and consumer products."

http://www.sid.org/

great discussion ... personally I have zero interest in HD, as I too can't tell a significant difference in picture quality from 6-10 feet away.

Also, I like enjoying my movies using a Toshiba projector on a 6x 9 foot screen (got on ebay new for $200), with Klipsch surround speakers, in my home theater.

Compared to the cost of big tvs, a projector and screen is much much better, and it's definitely lower definition than even regular tv is, but with the huge picture size it's a much better viewing experience.

I'd had a sony projection set for a couple of years (the biggest one they make, 61" I think?) prior to the projector + screen; the sony was a big step up over regular tv, but the projector is much better.

Also I don't like widescreen stuff, though I'm in the minority I guess, I like Fullscreen DVDs so I can watch it full frame. I don't mind missing out on the small bits on the side of the picture.

I think the industry is missing it, eg not having full screen tvs anymore; they're all migrating to widescreen for some reason; that doesn't help w/regular tv, plus I don't like the wide-angle, I prefer the 4x3 size for viewing, huge, compared to wider screen, myself.

anyone else?

Ken

A better viewing experience - yup! That'll do me! Thanks Ken . . I almost forgot there for a moment.

Grazie

Interesting, Ken. Actually, I like both for different reasons. Truth of it is, and I agree with documentary filmmaker Alan Barker, the screen formats have two different functions: "The same thing goes for 16:9 [he's referring to the difference between fiction and non-fiction films.] People are essentially vertical objects [as in documentaries]. If your film is about a day in the life of a lizard, 16:9 might be of value. Unfortunately, 16:9 is being crammed down our throats by the new television standards, which are designed to accommodate dramatic films and sports. 16:9 has a novelty value now in documentaries but 4:3 is a better aspect ratio for conveying social information in my opinion."

Having given this some thought for quite some time (a few years), I can't help but agree with him. Widescreen doesn't fit every situation just like 4:3 doesn't fit every situation. Both are a tool and should be taken into consideration, just like any other tool and/or option we have available to us. For example, as nice as color is, sometimes black & white works better for a given subject.

Unlike you, I do prefer widescreen if that's how the artist (director) design his work to be seen. Sydney Pollack, in the bonus material on his DVD for The Interpreter clearly outlines and illustrates his passionate plea for DVD makers and TV networks to stop showing widescreen movies in the fullscreen mode.

Personally, I think we have, for the most part, allowed the tail to wag the dog in many situations, not the least of which is in video/film production. I think far too many blindly follow, rather than follow as the results of a well throughout decision. Just my opinion.

You forget with increased resolution screens are getting bigger and it is quite acceptable to have superfluous peripheral information.

I prefer the 4x3 size for viewing, huge, compared to wider screen, myself.

I understand your feeling here, but when comparing 4x3 to 16x9, you should compare at the same picture height, not at the same diagonal.

We judge the "hugeness" mostly by height, not by the [diagonal] measurement used by TV and screen manufacturers.

Our eyes take in information in a narrow cone, and with 16x9 there is a bit more excitement because we have to move that cone more to see what is going on (or what might be going on! :O).

In the 4x3 format, our eyes don't have to move as much to see what's going on. Less excitement, for good or bad (depending on what the creator intended).

I think there are several factors driving the widescreen presentation:

(1) Back in the late '40s / early '50s, TV in the USA began to really sell like hotcakes. The movie studio people grew very alarmed, since until then going to the movies was a common form of entertainment. They began to experiment with various kinds of widescreen formats, since they knew TV was 4:3. Widecreen of some form or another became common in the theaters. Today, of course, many people want to watch those widescreen movies at home, so they have a choice: either watch a widescreen movie on a 4:3 TV (but small image and letterboxed), watch a different (crippled) version without the sides, or show it on a 16:9 TV.

(2) Much of the knowledge that went into the new HD standards comes from pioneering research done by NHK in the 1960s and '70s (NHK is the enormous government R&D/public television bureaucracy in Japan). One paper in particular presented various aspect ratio images in front of a Japanese mass audience. The total screen area was held constant, and I think the test points were 9:9, 10:9, .... on up to 18:9. Keep in mind that the 9:9 represented a square format, and 18:9 was a 2:1 format (4:3 TV was, of course, represented as 12:9).

The response curve stayed moderate until shooting up at 14:9 and 15:9, then decreased back down. That's why our HD-NTSC proposal settled on 14:9 (minimum letterbox on 4:3 sets) and NHK chose 15:9 (5:3) for their initial 1125-line standard in the 1980s. Later on, Kerns Powers at the Sarnoff Labs in Princeton NJ proposed 16:9, ostensibly as a better match for widescreen film, but practically as a device for stopping the NHK onslaught on the American and European set manufacturers. The 16:9 proposal was eagerly adopted, and that's why we have it today.

(3) Because of the increased cost of the new HD sets, everyone felt the sets would have to look different in some way even if just for marketability. Chrome tailfins may have done the job for American cars back in the '50s, but not for TVs, so widescreen was chosen.

1.. How many home theatres were constructed to view 4 x 3? I haven't heard of any until today.
2...How many for widescreen? Check the AVS and Klipsch forums. Tons. Zillions.
3...4 x 3 is good for Microfish and data storage.
Don't get excited guys I'm just funnin.

JJK

>>>they're all migrating to widescreen for some reason; <<<

My guess is to go along with the standars that have to be merged in - namely digital and that goes along with HD. We have had like midned topic here in the past and somewhere I had put up the links to the time table for the migration from analog to digital. if the aspect ratio of HD is 16:9 it makes 100% perfect sense the sets would mirror that. The local FOX station just got there HD cam up in their chopper now they are saying they are the first in the NY area to have real live HD going out...as far as I know if you are wathcing the HD feed on an HD 4:3 set you would be getting a squished image because the aspect of the live feed is 16:9, not 4:3.

I like the whole widescreen element - I used to get those special VHS "letterboxed" versions of films. I acepted 4:3 because it was what TV was, but my mind always tried to look for the wider image.

Just last week I got a flyer from a local appliance store touting a "Toshiba Remote 32" Flat Screen HDTV" with 16:9 Aspect Ratio and digital 3-line comb filter for $499!
Good thing they provided the model number (32AF45) which saved me a trip and disappointment as the Tosh website clearly showed that this wasn't an HDTV after all.