Foo - HDTV observations

HDTV: I was an early adopter back in 2001 or so. Purchased an excellent Hitachi 57" CRT rear projection set, 16:9 screen, capable of 720p and 1020i pictures. Really does have an outstanding picture, still happy with it 6 years later, but ready to consider upgrading soon. I've had HDTV that whole time, we started with DirecTV and now have Cablevision optical cable, about 40 HD channels. Since then I've purchased a few LCD flat panels in succession:

23" Sony for our kitchen 3-4 years ago, $1400.

27" Walmart no-name brand (Ilo) for the kitchen a year ago, $500. Great TV.

32" Toshiba Rezga 32" for the bedroom a year ago, $900.

40" Samsung for the bedroom last week, $1700, it arrives this week + Blu Ray DVD player.

I picked up that last TV when shopping for a replacement for the family room 57": 52" LCD flat panels can be had for <3K, but step up to 57" and the price goes to $5K+. Too rich for my blood today, but I wanted a larger TV to watch HD discs on (they're unbelievable), so I upgraded the bedroom TV, which is where the Tivo is anyway.

I shopped pretty hard here's what I paid for on the new Samsung: 120 Mhz refresh rate, mitigates pixelization on fast moving images, wide ranging backlight, TV has a stunning picture. The only feature upgrade from that is an LED backlight, those add another few hundred $. I was blown away by the Samsung's picture in the store:

http://www.crutchfield.com/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?g=146350&i=305LNT4071&tp=161

(I bought it from another vendor with a cheaper price)

Then I was in a Sony store in VA this weekend and got a load of Sony's SXRD Lcos 60" rear projection set (newer model that just came out a few months back):

http://www.crutchfield.com/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?g=147350&i=15860A3000&tp=162

This 60" Lcos set had one of the best pictures I've seen, better than the DLP sets that are popular now. But I'll wait on the big family room TV another year or two and see how it goes. It would appear flat panels will displace rear projectors (and possibly plasmas too) over the next couple of years, and I fully expect LCD TVs to be available in that 55-60" size for more reasonable prices. In the meantime I have a mini home theater in the bedroom.

What I learned in my video adventures since 2001: there are no bad LCD-TVs. The cheapest off-brand doesn't suck. You do get what you pay for, premium brands offer superior pictures in some cases, but do your homework and learn what features you're getting. Watch out for cheaper large screen LCD TVs if you like sports, action movies and video games, try to get 120Mhz screen refresh, that pixelization @ 60Mhz can get annoying. Also, plasmas and some rear projection TVs (like that Sony Lcos set I viewed this weekend) can arguably have more naturalistic pictures with more dynamic range (detail in shadows, etc.) than LCD TVs, although the newer LCDs (like the one I just ordered) appear to be overcoming that with improved wide range flourescent and LED backlights.

One last word on pricing: the big box stores generally suck, and won't match Internet pricing. I do a NextTag or other shopping site price search on the model I want, then choose a price from the vendor with good customer feedback that may not be the lowest, but close enough - don't buy from an Internet vendor with too many customer feedback horror stories. This is how I bought my last two TVs, on the latest one the price I paid was a whopping $700 cheaper than Best Buy, who wouldn't budge on the price.

I bought my 50" Vizio plasma at Sams Club 18 months ago and i couldnt be happier. The picture quality is outstanding. And the price has gone down about 600 dollars since i bought it.

I hear they now have a 60" plasma too. I fear if I move the 50 to the bedroom, i'd never get out of bed.

We bought our first new TV in almost 15 years earlier this year. It was a Sharp 26" LCD. The difference was amazing.

Last month purchased a 42" Magnavox. Incredible.

Merry Christmas. hahaha

We bought our first new TV in almost 15 years earlier this year. It was a Sharp 26" LCD. The difference was amazing.

Last month purchased a 42" Magnavox. Incredible.

Merry Christmas. hahaha

Keep in mind that what makes an HDTV stunning is a high definition signal, such as Blu-Ray or via cable/satellite. Short of that, the TV is pretty much the same as your old 4:3 CRT, possibly even worse in some cases.

oh, I know. We did have to get the obligatory HD boxes...

When I moved across country I figured it wasn't worth the bother to bring my 25" Walmart tube TV. I was thinking of a new TV anyway, so with a bit of the relocation extra money I had left over, I picked up a refurbed 37" Vizio LCD HDTV. I got from Newegg for just under $500. :)

CRT (HD) still has the best picture available today.
The hype to "save space" (and the sleek look) with a flat panel TV is the only reason they outsell CRT.
By the way, where do you keep your components? Under the TV? in a cabinet? Sticking out into the room?
Where is the room you are saving now?
The market is driven by the consumer.
I have seen all the high end LCD screens on display. The "still picture" is amazing, but as soon as there is motion, all I see is pixels trying to keep up.

I have a 20" flatscreen SD CRT. It has a great picture, especially when fed from a relatively high-end DVD player.

HD? Not impressed or interested.

HD-DVD/Blue-Ray? Really not interested. Blech.

Bought a Toshiba Regza 46" LCD TV last year and the HD PVR box. I will never go back to watching standard (non-HD) broadcast again. Also bought an HD DVD player around the same time, that does excellent upconversion of standard DVDs. Fortunately, there was a Blockbusters in town that rented out HD DVD discs, so I was happy. Recently a competing video store chain has also started to offer HD DVD rentals.

For my 46" TV with HD signals, I usually sit 6' away to get the full-effect of the mind-blowing picture quality. It's better than going to the movie theatres.

HD? Not impressed or interested.

HD-DVD/Blue-Ray? Really not interested. Blech.

I don't totally disagree with you. I don't care much about them either...but have both because it won't be long before that's all there is going to be. You won't be able to watch TV (even from antenna) or DVD without an HD capable device.

when I drank the hdtv cool aid in 2003? 2004? I ended up buying a 34" Sony CRT. At 210 lbs, my tv's a clyde, but the picture is stunning. I'm now starting to look again, and the 2nd generation DLPs are calling my name. pcad, thanks for the lcd update; it's nice that they've come a long way in 5, 6 years....

CRT (HD) still has the best picture available today.
The hype to "save space" (and the sleek look) with a flat panel TV is the only reason they outsell CRT.
By the way, where do you keep your components? Under the TV? in a cabinet? Sticking out into the room?
Where is the room you are saving now?
The market is driven by the consumer.
I have seen all the high end LCD screens on display. The "still picture" is amazing, but as soon as there is motion, all I see is pixels trying to keep up.

That depends on how you define best... If you want big, CRT is not an option.
They are trying to develop a screen that is a honeycomb like plasma, but has thousands of tiny crt tubes instead of plasma cells. I am eager to see it.

I have nothing against CRT, Sony produced an early hi def TV, it was small but
fully met NTSC specs as well as being hi def. It had a stunning picture. Few people have any idea what NTSC is capable of because it is so expensive to build.

Anyway, I only replied to agree with you (hard to believe, isn't it :)

Motion artifacts are a real problem. Speed has remained unchanged, and digital displays seem to have problems when they get near their limits. TV and movies
should be running at roughly twice the frames per second they are now... anything over 40 fps would do, although 50 would be even better.

But if you followed me this far, you prob already know bandwidth issues will
keep them overlooking a glaring weakness of ALL projection technologies; but it's especially bad with digital.

HD is sooo much better than standard definition no one should complain too much. Once people start watching they start getting picky, but bandwidth can be an issue with networks trying to cram too much into a single channel. My bigger complaint is all of the channels who advertise HD like SciFi, History, TBS etc who show practically nothing in HD and worse stretch the content from 4:3 to 16:9.

I don't totally disagree with you. I don't care much about them either...but have both because it won't be long before that's all there is going to be. You won't be able to watch TV (even from antenna) or DVD without an HD capable device.You're partially correct. The big switchover which will come eventually (it's been pushed back to 2009 now, I think) is from an analogue signal to a digital one, not necessarily SD to HD. A lot of the new digital signal will probably end up being HD, though, since everyone has to buy a new TV anyway, or at least a tuner. The only reason the analogue band is going away is so that the government can make some money auctioning it off for someone else to monopolize.

In any case, that's all a bit of a moot point to me, since I don't watch TV anymore anyway. The television set is for DVDs and the occasional video game only. If DVD is anything like VHS, it's not going anywhere any time soon, so I'm not worried. When the supply of new DVDs does eventually dry up, I guess I'll have to do some backfilling with old titles or find something else to do. :) (And honestly, I'm still rooting for one or both of the current consumer-hostile HD formats to fail miserably and be replaced either by something saner, or the continued success of regular DVD.)

HD is sooo much better than standard definition no one should complain too much. Once people start watching they start getting picky, but bandwidth can be an issue with networks trying to cram too much into a single channel. My bigger complaint is all of the channels who advertise HD like SciFi, History, TBS etc who show practically nothing in HD and worse stretch the content from 4:3 to 16:9.
I love HD. I'm part of that exclusive sector of society that only watches over the airwaves. We live more than 60 miles from the transmitters. With a rooftop antenna, analog signals are watchable, but not great. With HD, it is all perfect. Technically, we are outside the service area of the stations we receive, but it is fabulous. We use a CRT HD set. LCDs have improved, but CRT has great contrast, viewing angle, and cost. They weigh a ton though. Our 26" set weighs 90 lbs.

In any case, that's all a bit of a moot point to me, since I don't watch TV anymore anyway. The television set is for DVDs and the occasional video game only.Good. You're better off that way. I'm getting there myself. I've recently started a few new shows, but now watching more shows than I have in YEARS, I'm still only up to about 3 shows per week that I regularly watch.

CRT (HD) still has the best picture available today.

My father has one of those 34" Sony Vega CRT HD tvs. They are indeed the reference standard for picture quality. It also weighs 300lbs and takes up considerable floor space. I watched the Packers/Detroit game at his house on Thanksgiving and while its a great picture, its hard to beat game day on an HD big screen. Except when your team is getting their butts kicked. Farking Ravens! :mad:

I can also hook a computer CPU to my plasma (and do-I watched the GIRO coverage from Cycling TV on the plasma hooked to my laptop). He cant.

I love HD T.V. I am kinda disappointed with COX communitcations relative lack of HD channels. However I can honestly say I will sit inches from the T.V. to watch BUGS! on discovery HD, other than that My Blu-Ray collection is steadily expanding here and there, my only other complaint is when they broadcast non HD programing on HD channels I expect to see 16:9 nirvana not some 4:3 Bullsh*t

That doenst bug me as much as Discovery doing every show in HD, but not showing them all on Discovery HD. Like Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs for instance. F' the Tutels. Show the good stuff Disco!

They are trying to develop a screen that is a honeycomb like plasma, but has thousands of tiny crt tubes instead of plasma cells.


FED (field emission device) or SED (surface emission device). Really cool technology, just an array of solid-state devices that spit out electrons, then the electrons excite a phosphor just like plasma or old-school CRT. Should be lower power and better reliability than plasma with the same high contrast ratios, but will have the same burn-in and glare issues. Since you're not relying on a plasma microchamber they may be able to make them smaller (notice how small plasmas dont exist?) I think FED/SED will obsolete plasma completely, but will not replace LCD...

I agree, the only limit to CRT is size
my 32" sony is 200lbs+

I agree, the only limit to CRT is size
my 32" sony is 200lbs+

The "only" limit? That's a pretty big one. Screen size/viewing distance is very important in HD viewing. You won't find a lot of rooms where a 30" CRT is adequate.

I have a 20" flatscreen SD CRT. It has a great picture, especially when fed from a relatively high-end DVD player.

HD? Not impressed or interested.

HD-DVD/Blue-Ray? Really not interested. Blech.

Uh huh. Thank you for your informed image quality input. Back to your 20" TV now you video gavone. Leave this thread to those with normal visual perception.

CRTs will be history shortly. You can keep yours as a nostalgia piece. Good throw weight on that baby though.

checking local listings here on titantv.com only maybe 1 or 2 shows per day are in actual higher than the usual old analog standard resolution for open air broadcasts so other than the benefit of better picture quality from digital modulation you get very little as of yet anyway, so a nice HDTV isn't gonna give you much most of the time

having both crt's and lcd's the overall quality of picture on my high end crt is far better, the lcds get pixelated with rapid motion video and have issues with colors/angles of the camera shot like reddish flesh tones at an angle cause some reflection/shining which is kinda weird first time you see it, but on the otherhand true and high quality 1080 video looks pretty good compared to standard ntsc video from what I've seen so far

We have sharp aquos (sp?) I believe 42inch. We got it online and saved a tone, plus the tax.

Since then we've dropped cable, bought an antenna, and made a pvr system. We get about 15 HD channels ABC, NBC and I believe CBS over the air. Anything else we don't get locally we stream over the net. Many of the shows off the web are now 'hd' or so close to it we can't tell half the time.

On top of TV watching, we now use netflix streaming dvd service which is moving in the HD direction.

Since this move to a new tv/media set up we don't watch commercials nor sit down in front of the tv at regular times. We watch when we want. And best of all the almost $80/month we paid for cable is gone. Now it's just netflix ($30) and internet ($30). Both we had prior to cable.

So we're actually seeing this expenditure paying for itself in about 2-3 years.

I might go as far as to say the HD/bluray format will both be surpassed by online content. So we haven't bothered to by a hd/bluray dvd player.

CRT (HD) still has the best picture available today.
The hype to "save space" (and the sleek look) with a flat panel TV is the only reason they outsell CRT.
By the way, where do you keep your components? Under the TV? in a cabinet? Sticking out into the room?
Where is the room you are saving now?
The market is driven by the consumer.
I have seen all the high end LCD screens on display. The "still picture" is amazing, but as soon as there is motion, all I see is pixels trying to keep up.I don't know how you form your opinions, but I watch a ton of fast-action HD hockey and basketball games on my LCD TV, and there is absolutely no "lag". And mine is already 1 year old with 8ms response time (from spec). I would imagine that the newer ones out today with the much faster rates are more impressive.

With HD signals (either broadcast, HD DVD or Blu-Ray) fed to a 1080p display, a person can sit so much closer to the TV than with standard signal (analogue or digital) fed to lower resolution. That's how good the picture quality of HD is. I don't think CRT HD approaches the resolution that today's 1080p display sets have.

The benefit CRT has is that no other technology can match it for black level. They are getting close but direct screen CRT still wins. They will disappear though as most of the masses could care less and think stretched SD material in 16:9 is HD. No one is going to buy a 200lb Tv anymore.

Uh huh. Thank you for your informed image quality input. Back to your 20" TV now you video gavone. Leave this thread to those with normal visual perception.

CRTs will be history shortly. You can keep yours as a nostalgia piece. Good throw weight on that baby though.*pats patentcad on the head*

That's nice, dear. I'm sorry people with opinions different than your own frighten and confuse you so.

Don't worry, tiger, as long as you make sure to point out their obvious inferiority to yourself, I'm sure you'll be okay!

I have a 20" flatscreen SD CRT. It has a great picture, especially when fed from a relatively high-end DVD player.

HD? Not impressed or interested.

HD-DVD/Blue-Ray? Really not interested. Blech.Your post is good for a laugh, at least. No really, I'm still chuckling. I have a 20" JVC TV for about 18 years now. Absolutely durable, never broke down. But that's all that's going for it. Even at 8 feet away, I could see graininess all over. OTOH, I could sit from my 1080p LCD from 6' away and watch an HD DVD movie in all its glory without discerning a single pixel (or even as little as 3' away but my 46" would be too wide at that distance, it's be like watching a tennis match, my head swinging side to side...)

High-end DVD player fed to standard CRT TV? A 480p source and display vs. a 1080p source and display? I have both. Sorry, no contest.

We have sharp aquos (sp?) I believe 42inch. We got it online and saved a tone, plus the tax.

Since then we've dropped cable, bought an antenna, and made a pvr system. We get about 15 HD channels ABC, NBC and I believe CBS over the air. Anything else we don't get locally we stream over the net. Many of the shows off the web are now 'hd' or so close to it we can't tell half the time.

On top of TV watching, we now use netflix streaming dvd service which is moving in the HD direction.

Since this move to a new tv/media set up we don't watch commercials nor sit down in front of the tv at regular times. We watch when we want. And best of all the almost $80/month we paid for cable is gone. Now it's just netflix ($30) and internet ($30). Both we had prior to cable.

So we're actually seeing this expenditure paying for itself in about 2-3 years.

I might go as far as to say the HD/bluray format will both be surpassed by online content. So we haven't bothered to by a hd/bluray dvd player.


Im actually considering ditching HBO, Showtime & Starz. Now that Netflix has all the TV shows from HBO and Showtime on DVDs pretty quick after they've been shown over the air, there is no need to keep paying for the premium channels. My cable bill (which includes broadband) is 190 a month.

as long as you make sure to point out their obvious inferiority to yourself, I'm sure you'll be okay!

My actions are redundant in this regard. Their insipid posts do it for me. But far be it from me to be classy and not pile on.

By the way, if I were the Patriots, I'd be trying to beat every team in the NFL 100-0.

"The "only" limit? That's a pretty big one. Screen size/viewing distance is very important in HD viewing. You won't find a lot of rooms where a 30" CRT is adequate."

years ago 32" was a huge TV, you are now buying a bigger TV to beat the Jones’s and the market has you pegged


"I don't know how you form your opinions, but I watch a ton of fast-action HD hockey and basketball games on my LCD TV, and there is absolutely no "lag". And mine is already 1 year old with 8ms response time (from spec). I would imagine that the newer ones out today with the much faster rates are more impressive.

With HD signals (either broadcast, HD DVD or Blu-Ray) fed to a 1080p display, a person can sit so much closer to the TV than with standard signal (analogue or digital) fed to lower resolution. That's how good the picture quality of HD is. I don't think CRT HD approaches the resolution that today's 1080p display sets have."

You are biased because you spent a lot of money on a TV.


(Sorry, as I do not know how to do multiple "reply with quote" replies.)

My actions are redundant in this regard. Their insipid posts do it for me. But far be it from me to be classy and not pile on.

By the way, if I were the Patriots, I'd be trying to beat every team in the NFL 100-0.

Im not really rooting for anyone this season, but it will be fun to watch the Pats go 17-0 and lose to the Packers in the Superbowl.

I might go as far as to say the HD/bluray format will both be surpassed by online content. So we haven't bothered to by a hd/bluray dvd player.

Long before this ever happens bluray players will be $89.99 @ Walmart, and you'll have 2. As far as online content, I can't disagree with the move to digital media distribution, but first they have to figure out how to deal with the increasing bandwidth demands of standard video and audio, which threatens to bottleneck the entire Web within 3-5 years. That's the tech-stumbling block that may keep the DVD around for another decade. If somebody invents a way to compress data 10-100x smaller anytime soon, hard media will fade rather quickly as you imply.

You are biased because you spent a lot of money on a TV.I am biased because I see the difference. I spent the money because I SAW the difference. But I am NOT biased because I spent the money. Hell, I've spent more money on bikes and photography equipment. Sooner or later, you will find out for yourself and agree with me.

Im not really rooting for anyone this season, but it will be fun to watch the Pats go 17-0 and lose to the Packers in the Superbowl.

That would ROCK. What a way for Brett to go out.

I am biased because I see the difference. I spent the money because I SAW the difference. But I am NOT biased because I spent the money. Hell, I've spent more money on bikes and photography equipment. Sooner or later, you will find out for yourself and agree with me.

You must have some sort of prototype that is not in the stores yet.

I can't wait to see it.

Could you let me know when it will be available?

What's TV?

checking local listings here on titantv.com only maybe 1 or 2 shows per day are in actual higher than the usual old analog standard resolution for open air broadcasts

I guess we must live in opposite parts of the world, but I haven't relied on "open air" broadcasts for 25 years. Neither has a majority of American TV viewers. It's like saying you aren't going to buy a car because there aren't many full service gas stations any more.

My cable bill is over $200 a month. Why?? Cause I am an idiot.

My cable bill is over $200 a month. Why?? Cause I am an idiot.

With a damned good picture.

"The "only" limit? That's a pretty big one. Screen size/viewing distance is very important in HD viewing. You won't find a lot of rooms where a 30" CRT is adequate."

years ago 32" was a huge TV, you are now buying a bigger TV to beat the Jones’s and the market has you pegged


"I don't know how you form your opinions, but I watch a ton of fast-action HD hockey and basketball games on my LCD TV, and there is absolutely no "lag". And mine is already 1 year old with 8ms response time (from spec). I would imagine that the newer ones out today with the much faster rates are more impressive.

With HD signals (either broadcast, HD DVD or Blu-Ray) fed to a 1080p display, a person can sit so much closer to the TV than with standard signal (analogue or digital) fed to lower resolution. That's how good the picture quality of HD is. I don't think CRT HD approaches the resolution that today's 1080p display sets have."

You are biased because you spent a lot of money on a TV.


(Sorry, as I do not know how to do multiple "reply with quote" replies.)

You need to learn to use the
quotehttp://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07481/54548787.jpg
feature. I haven't a clue what you just typed. :rolleyes:

Here's a link you might want to read on viewing distances: http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

"The "only" limit? That's a pretty big one. Screen size/viewing distance is very important in HD viewing. You won't find a lot of rooms where a 30" CRT is adequate."

years ago 32" was a huge TV, you are now buying a bigger TV to beat the Jones’s and the market has you pegged



"I don't know how you form your opinions, but I watch a ton of fast-action HD hockey and basketball games on my LCD TV, and there is absolutely no "lag". And mine is already 1 year old with 8ms response time (from spec). I would imagine that the newer ones out today with the much faster rates are more impressive.

With HD signals (either broadcast, HD DVD or Blu-Ray) fed to a 1080p display, a person can sit so much closer to the TV than with standard signal (analogue or digital) fed to lower resolution. That's how good the picture quality of HD is. I don't think CRT HD approaches the resolution that today's 1080p display sets have."

You are biased because you spent a lot of money on a TV.


(Sorry, as I do not know how to do multiple "reply with quote" replies.)

I think I learned how

You must have some sort of prototype that is not in the stores yet.

I can't wait to see it.

Could you let me know when it will be available?I'm so sorry you must live in the sticks to think that your 32" CRT TV is the latest and the greatest. You should really go out more and ride your horse-drawn buggy and travel to the city. Fresh air will do you good.

tv??? what's that!?!?!?!?

It's incredible how much time and money people will put into watching a whole bunch of pictures in order. :rolleyes:

although I do enjoy the Superbowl. PERFECT time to go skiing. you can ski ALL DAY LONG on a SUNDAY and there is nobody there.

ok, ok.
I like HDTV.
I like the looks of LCD sets.
The next monitor I buy will most likely be LCD.
Only because I like the way the actual "part" looks
not because it saves space or the picture is better.

I'm so sorry you must live in the sticks to think that your 32" CRT TV is the latest and the greatest. You should really go out more and ride your horse-drawn buggy and travel to the city. Fresh air will do you good.

yes I do live in the sticks.
proud of it.
I did live in the city, many of them, I may even live in one again, but my heart is in the sticks.

yes I do live in the sticks.
proud of it.
I did live in the city, many of them, I may even live in one again, but my heart is in the sticks.

And your head. Just keep watching NASCAR and WWF on that 32" CRT. Don't waste your money on any of this new fangled video gear. We'll keep you posted.

My cable bill is over $200 a month. Why?? Cause I am an idiot.

I am in the same boat with you. But at least it gets used. Im paying 50 a month for a land line phone that i never use. Heck i dont even come remotely close to using my 500 anytime minutes I have on my cell plan. At least My wife and I watch the TV and use the broadband Internet access.

I really dont care if TV rots your brain. I love it. :love:


And your head. Just keep watching NASCAR and WWF on that 32" CRT. Don't waste your money on any of this new fangled video gear. We'll keep you posted.

I could care less about wrassling, but Speed is going HD next year. Maybe, just maybe they start broadcasting the F1 races and MotoGP in HD. (provided of course that F1 and MotoGP buy HD cameras!)

I guess we must live in opposite parts of the world, but I haven't relied on "open air" broadcasts for 25 years. Neither has a majority of American TV viewers. It's like saying you aren't going to buy a car because there aren't many full service gas stations any more.

no, what I'm saying is only couple of shows per day are in actual hi res HDTV resolution here locally while the rest are still in the old format, in other words not all programming is in the higher resolutions available under HDTV and it doesn't matter how the signal is acquired cause most of the time your getting the old ntsc standard whether you like it or not