OT: TV thoughts

[killerkowalczyk]

I find that the whole flat panel plasma/led craze is a bunch of bull. People are raving about how good the picture quality is, but all Ive ever thought about the picture was that it was either wayyyyy to sharp, or fuzzy/grainy. I feel that in order to find an LCD or plasma screen tv that has a realistic picture you need to find some kind of middle ground between these 2 bad attributes.

The tv that we use most in our house is a 36" flat screen Sony Wega (CRT). The thing weighs about 250 pounds and is huge from front to back but the picture is CLEAR and REALISTIC looking. Im going to miss that tv when it eventually dies.

Hopefully manufacturers will try to resolve how realistic a picture actually looks on a plasma/lcd flat screen rather than increasing resolution.

On a side note my brother and I recently purchased a 46" Sony Bravia rear projection LCD TV. I find that the picture that this TV produces was the best that we could afford and it was the right size ( while it is not a flat panel tv it is only 11" deep)

Just some of my thoughts, feel free to disagree or call me an idiot.

VAS for PRESIDENT!!!

KILLER

[dthomas]

> I find that the whole flat panel plasma/led
> craze is a bunch of bull. People are raving
> about how good the picture quality is, but
> all Ive ever thought about the picture was
> that it was either wayyyyy to sharp, or
> fuzzy/grainy. I feel that in order to find
> an LCD or plasma screen tv that has a
> realistic picture you need to find some kind
> of middle ground between these 2 bad
> attributes.

> The tv that we use most in our house is a
> 36" flat screen Sony Wega (CRT). The
> thing weighs about 250 pounds and is huge
> from front to back but the picture is CLEAR
> and REALISTIC looking. Im going to miss that
> tv when it eventually dies.

> Hopefully manufacturers will try to resolve
> how realistic a picture actually looks on a
> plasma/lcd flat screen rather than
> increasing resolution.

> On a side note my brother and I recently
> purchased a 46" Sony Bravia rear
> projection LCD TV. I find that the picture
> that this TV produces was the best that we
> could afford and it was the right size (
> while it is not a flat panel tv it is only
> 11" deep)

> Just some of my thoughts, feel free to
> disagree or call me an idiot.

> VAS for PRESIDENT!!!

> KILLER

I disagree a bit... I have a 42" plasms 1080P a Sony 52" LCD 1080P and a Sony 110" 1080p projector. With regular definitiion broadcast programming they all bring out the bad quality of lower definition. But with HD broadcast, DVD upconverted and Blu Ray they really shine. The picture is amazing. I prefer the Plasma, my Wife likes the LCD and we love the big projector.

If you have access to HD programming it is great if you don't I would not bother with HD as it does make regular programming look mediocre especailly on the larger screens. But it is pretty easy to acess HD programming these days I rarely watch anything that is not in HD anymore. I realize a lot of folks have not made the step up but once you do there is no going back.

Think Hillary would ask VAS to be her running mate?

Dave

[mikebw]

CRT is definitely more forgiving to whatever signal you throw at it. And as least until recently CRT's still had better color (wider gamut) than any LCD or Plasma.

The newest LCD's with LED backlighting can really achieve true black (as in zero lumens) output, something that has not been done before. This automatically inflates the contrast ratios to "infinity" as you cannot divide by zero, but marketing gimicks aside it really is a good thing.

The most recent development that literally has caught my eye are LCD's with the 120Hz refresh rate. Normal TV's do 60Hz, and watching side by side I can tell the difference, it is quite impressive. Hard to define, but all I know is that the picture is so much more lifelike- if that means anything.

Probably the most important thing to remember is that many of the image presets on new TV's are waaaay off what they should be. Most people crank up the brightness and contrast which can really ruin a good picture. I'm not disagreeing with what you say at all, in fact I am still quite happy with my Samsung CRT HDTV, but some of the latest LCD models from Samsung are looking very attractive now. Their 46" LN-T4671F is really the best LCD I have ever seen (assuming you have a good HD source of course). Nothing beats CRT for scaling a low-res source, IMO.

> I find that the whole flat panel plasma/led
> craze is a bunch of bull. People are raving
> about how good the picture quality is, but
> all Ive ever thought about the picture was
> that it was either wayyyyy to sharp, or
> fuzzy/grainy. I feel that in order to find
> an LCD or plasma screen tv that has a
> realistic picture you need to find some kind
> of middle ground between these 2 bad
> attributes.

> The tv that we use most in our house is a
> 36" flat screen Sony Wega (CRT). The
> thing weighs about 250 pounds and is huge
> from front to back but the picture is CLEAR
> and REALISTIC looking. Im going to miss that
> tv when it eventually dies.

> Hopefully manufacturers will try to resolve
> how realistic a picture actually looks on a
> plasma/lcd flat screen rather than
> increasing resolution.

> On a side note my brother and I recently
> purchased a 46" Sony Bravia rear
> projection LCD TV. I find that the picture
> that this TV produces was the best that we
> could afford and it was the right size (
> while it is not a flat panel tv it is only
> 11" deep)

> Just some of my thoughts, feel free to
> disagree or call me an idiot.

> VAS for PRESIDENT!!!

> KILLER

[philiparcario]

> I disagree a bit... I have a 42" plasms
> 1080P a Sony 52" LCD 1080P and a Sony
> 110" 1080p projector. With regular
> definitiion broadcast programming they all
> bring out the bad quality of lower
> definition. But with HD broadcast, DVD
> upconverted and Blu Ray they really shine.
> The picture is amazing. I prefer the Plasma,
> my Wife likes the LCD and we love the big
> projector.

> If you have access to HD programming it is
> great if you don't I would not bother with
> HD as it does make regular programming look
> mediocre especailly on the larger screens.
> But it is pretty easy to acess HD
> programming these days I rarely watch
> anything that is not in HD anymore. I
> realize a lot of folks have not made the
> step up but once you do there is no going
> back.

> Think Hillary would ask VAS to be her
> running mate?

> Dave
My 32 inch crt is great with HDTV sports and upverted 1080i looks very good. It was a great buy 600 dollars walmart. 1 HDMI 3 component hook ups. The LCD 23 inch philips is 720p but at that size looks very sharp.

[dthomas]

> My 32 inch crt is great with HDTV sports and
> upverted 1080i looks very good. It was a
> great buy 600 dollars walmart. 1 HDMI 3
> component hook ups. The LCD 23 inch philips
> is 720p but at that size looks very sharp.

I agree I had a 27" flat screen CRT that was 720p it had a great picture.

The advantage of flat panels is that you can go bigger and save on space. Bigger 42" and higher really start to benefit from higher resolutions. A 42 or 52" CRT is kind of unreasonable especially with the cost of LCD driving flat panels down. Really exciting how much technology is changing TV.

Dave

[philiparcario]

> I agree I had a 27" flat screen CRT
> that was 720p it had a great picture.

> The advantage of flat panels is that you can
> go bigger and save on space. Bigger 42"
> and higher really start to benefit from
> higher resolutions. A 42 or 52" CRT is
> kind of unreasonable especially with the
> cost of LCD driving flat panels down. Really
> exciting how much technology is changing TV.

> Dave
Do doubt about it. New Hdtv is getting bigger. My wife is talking 50 inch LCD for the HT. Thats why I can't complain too much about selling the subs.

[johnnail]

> I disagree a bit... I have a 42" plasms
> 1080P a Sony 52" LCD 1080P and a Sony
> 110" 1080p projector. With regular
> definitiion broadcast programming they all
> bring out the bad quality of lower
> definition. But with HD broadcast, DVD
> upconverted and Blu Ray they really shine.
> The picture is amazing. I prefer the Plasma,
> my Wife likes the LCD and we love the big
> projector.

> If you have access to HD programming it is
> great if you don't I would not bother with
> HD as it does make regular programming look
> mediocre especailly on the larger screens.
> But it is pretty easy to acess HD
> programming these days I rarely watch
> anything that is not in HD anymore. I
> realize a lot of folks have not made the
> step up but once you do there is no going
> back.

> Think Hillary would ask VAS to be her
> running mate?

> Dave

"I hardly watch anything that isn't in HD anymore".....so that means that you only watch about 25 channels? mostly sports, and TLC or Discovery? History? I have a Dishnetwork 200plus channel package with the HD Ultimate package access....and there are only about 4 channels that have regular TV broadcast type content...the rest are all learing channels, discovery, animal planet, etc...and sports..tons of sports. If you are a total sports junky, then you are set for life....but if you like your USA and SciFi channel stuff, or other regular programming channels you are screwed for HD...at least in my area (Washington State).
On the other hand, while it is spendy, there is a device that could render all this a moot point....whether SD or HD.
The Vp50 DVDO iScan.....it accepts S Video, composite, component, RGB, and HDMI and upconverts them all to your choice of 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. It has adaptive motion software and picture enhancement software/hardware, built in line doublers, etc.....so no need to get an HD anything....it converts it all. Each input has it's own selectable screen in and out aspect ratios, and all features for video sizing etc are individually set for each input. The whole unit also has built in audio synchronization for each input/output. This means that you plug all your sources into the unit, then pipe the video to the tv via an HDMI cable, while the audio output gets piped to the HT receiver as either your choice of PCM digital, S/PDIF, or Analog.
Supposed to have top notch processing and smoothing, enhancements and such......NOT quite the reference Faroudja at $8K+, but no slouch in any area from what I hear.
Buy in price is about $2500. But sounds to me that it is worth it for you out there who don't want to have to rebuy all your formatted DVD, Laserdisc, etc and then replace all your other gear accordingly. One unit....done. I wish I had the $$ laying around for it....it would be mine.

John

[mike1234]

...it's hardly HD. These conversion boxes can never put detail in that was never there to begin with.

> "I hardly watch anything that isn't in
> HD anymore".....so that means that you
> only watch about 25 channels? mostly sports,
> and TLC or Discovery? History? I have a
> Dishnetwork 200plus channel package with the
> HD Ultimate package access....and there are
> only about 4 channels that have regular TV
> broadcast type content...the rest are all
> learing channels, discovery, animal planet,
> etc...and sports..tons of sports. If you are
> a total sports junky, then you are set for
> life....but if you like your USA and SciFi
> channel stuff, or other regular programming
> channels you are screwed for HD...at least
> in my area (Washington State).
> On the other hand, while it is spendy, there
> is a device that could render all this a
> moot point....whether SD or HD.
> The Vp50 DVDO iScan.....it accepts S Video,
> composite, component, RGB, and HDMI and
> upconverts them all to your choice of 480p,
> 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. It has adaptive
> motion software and picture enhancement
> software/hardware, built in line doublers,
> etc.....so no need to get an HD
> anything....it converts it all. Each input
> has it's own selectable screen in and out
> aspect ratios, and all features for video
> sizing etc are individually set for each
> input. The whole unit also has built in
> audio synchronization for each input/output.
> This means that you plug all your sources
> into the unit, then pipe the video to the tv
> via an HDMI cable, while the audio output
> gets piped to the HT receiver as either your
> choice of PCM digital, S/PDIF, or Analog.
> Supposed to have top notch processing and
> smoothing, enhancements and such......NOT
> quite the reference Faroudja at $8K+, but no
> slouch in any area from what I hear.
> Buy in price is about $2500. But sounds to
> me that it is worth it for you out there who
> don't want to have to rebuy all your
> formatted DVD, Laserdisc, etc and then
> replace all your other gear accordingly. One
> unit....done. I wish I had the $$ laying
> around for it....it would be mine.

> John

[anothermarks]

As a few others have mentioned- the signal what you are getting to the screen is very important. I also don't know if there is any difference in the recording of programming in hd vs sd, but I imagine once everything is being broadcast in hd- these hd sets will strut there stuff quite well.

[dthomas]

> "I hardly watch anything that isn't in
> HD anymore".....so that means that you
> only watch about 25 channels? mostly sports,
> and TLC or Discovery? History? I have a
> Dishnetwork 200plus channel package with the
> HD Ultimate package access....and there are
> only about 4 channels that have regular TV
> broadcast type content...the rest are all
> learing channels, discovery, animal planet,
> etc...and sports..tons of sports. If you are
> a total sports junky, then you are set for
> life....but if you like your USA and SciFi
> channel stuff, or other regular programming
> channels you are screwed for HD...at least
> in my area (Washington State).
> On the other hand, while it is spendy, there
> is a device that could render all this a
> moot point....whether SD or HD.
> The Vp50 DVDO iScan.....it accepts S Video,
> composite, component, RGB, and HDMI and
> upconverts them all to your choice of 480p,
> 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. It has adaptive
> motion software and picture enhancement
> software/hardware, built in line doublers,
> etc.....so no need to get an HD
> anything....it converts it all. Each input
> has it's own selectable screen in and out
> aspect ratios, and all features for video
> sizing etc are individually set for each
> input. The whole unit also has built in
> audio synchronization for each input/output.
> This means that you plug all your sources
> into the unit, then pipe the video to the tv
> via an HDMI cable, while the audio output
> gets piped to the HT receiver as either your
> choice of PCM digital, S/PDIF, or Analog.
> Supposed to have top notch processing and
> smoothing, enhancements and such......NOT
> quite the reference Faroudja at $8K+, but no
> slouch in any area from what I hear.
> Buy in price is about $2500. But sounds to
> me that it is worth it for you out there who
> don't want to have to rebuy all your
> formatted DVD, Laserdisc, etc and then
> replace all your other gear accordingly. One
> unit....done. I wish I had the $$ laying
> around for it....it would be mine.

> John

Yeah lets see, the networks, UHD, ESPN Discovery, History channel, A&E, TNT, FX, SciFi, USA, TLC, Science channel. Those about cover all the HD channels I care about or have the time to watch. I do like the DirecTVs the 101, great Brandi Carlisle, Chicago and the Thompson Twins concerts this month in HD and DD stereo audio. Plus I watch mostly Blu Ray DVD now easy to rent at the local video store plus my Wife enjoys collecting them. I upscale regular DVD though I don't notice much if any improvement.

Dave

[Andy_G]

I have an old 36" CRT, and while I like the quality of the picture, I find it annoying that movies and most broadcasts now are too wide for the screen, and you don't get the full picture, (unless you change the settings and get the black bars across the top and bottom and a much smaller veiw, which my old eyes don't like)
For my eyes, big veiwing is best.

I am currently saving for a 50", probably plasma, so I can get the full picture, large.

[cmac]

What is the television broadcast scenario over (down) there. Is the down under land going through a similar changeover to the U.S.? Let me guess you probably got it done years ago.

> I have an old 36" CRT, and while I like
> the quality of the picture, I find it
> annoying that movies and most broadcasts now
> are too wide for the screen, and you don't
> get the full picture, (unless you change the
> settings and get the black bars across the
> top and bottom and a much smaller veiw,
> which my old eyes don't like)
> For my eyes, big veiwing is best.

> I am currently saving for a 50",
> probably plasma, so I can get the full
> picture, large.

[Andy_G]

> What is the television broadcast scenario
> over (down) there. Is the down under land
> going through a similar changeover to the
> U.S.? Let me guess you probably got it done
> years ago.
Free to air nearly all changed to digital now, but can still do analog to cater for those without set top boxes.
Occasional HD broadcasts, but not many, rising slowly.
Our free to air TV channels use a lot of American shows anyway.

[johnnail]

> ...it's hardly HD. These conversion boxes
> can never put detail in that was never there
> to begin with.
Have you test driven one of the top line DVDo i-Scans or the cream of the crop Faroudja Reference video processors? they are NOT by any means anywhere near the same as thing as any of the regular Up-converting DVD players and the similar devices out there. I have seen many "up-converters" out there...some cheap, some not that cheap, and then there is the high-end stuff.
These two mentioned up-converters are not the normal up-converter.. They have a barrage of hardware and software in them to post process the video, enhancing the clarity and detail, smoothing the roughness of 225i out and making each output signal look very natural or film-like. No, they are not HD...but is HD really all that great considering that to get there you have to replace every piece of video gear in your household? If you never spent more than $100 on any DVD player or VCR, then it is no big deal.....but if you spent $1000 or more on a DVD reference player, that was a very sizable investment, and if there is nothing wrong with how it works, other than the format is out-dated, then it is a hard thing to bring yourself to do...getting rid of it at a huge loss....yard-saling it off.

I have a Denon DVD player (not my main player, but one that I got recently to play DVD's through up-conversion...just to get in the door) that has up-conversion in it....not the greatest up-conversion, but decent. Playing a DVD such as "Night at the Museum" and upscaling it to 720p is like seeing it on a good CRT. The picture is amazingly clear and sharp...very film-like. So I know that IF I had this conversion device or one that had a built-in line doubler working as well as top notch enhancement software, I feel that the resulting picture would be even better....now I apply this technology to my already existing EXPENSIVE reference DVD player or older Laserdisc player, etc, etc....then I now have a picture on the screen that I find every bit as satisfying as my older direct view CRT was....and that older one was a Sony Trinitron flat screen CRT....32".
And that would be fine and dandy with me. I loved the picture that the Sony gave.....excellent detail, low noise, smooth and vivid....rich in color and textures.
Don't sell it short, too hastily. Like I said earlier in another post.....1080p is already MORE resolution than what the human eyes can process the detail of. 720p is a good match to the human eye in processing capabilities. Like anything out there, too much of a good thing can be just as bad as not enough of it.

John

[johnnail]

> Yeah lets see, the networks, UHD, ESPN
> Discovery, History channel, A&E, TNT, FX,
> SciFi, USA, TLC, Science channel. Those
> about cover all the HD channels I care about
> or have the time to watch. I do like the
> DirecTVs the 101, great Brandi Carlisle,
> Chicago and the Thompson Twins concerts this
> month in HD and DD stereo audio. Plus I
> watch mostly Blu Ray DVD now easy to rent at
> the local video store plus my Wife enjoys
> collecting them. I upscale regular DVD
> though I don't notice much if any
> improvement.

> Dave
What a gyp.....you get SciFi and TNT in HD.....I don't, in my area. I get all the others you mentioned. TNT and SciFi are some that I would LOVE to have be in HD.....especially the SciFi channel. Maybe they will add it later....don't know.
I can only say that if you saw no real difference upconverting a standard DVD from 480i to 1080p, then the upconverter isn't very good. And that's one thing that I have noticed...not all upconverters are equal. Some do it better than others. If you are using the RGB component video cables, then the upconverting is not happening, in most cases. It only gets upconverted if using an HDMI cable. Not sure why, but even my Denon DVD says in the owners manual that when using the RGB component cables, a 480i video will only be played output as 480i, while when using the HDMI cable, it can be sent out as up to 1080p. Again, not sure why that is.
If I have my older DVD player connected through the RGB's and have the "Night at the Museum" running to the TV directly in 480i, then play the same disc through the Denon with the upconverter using HDMI, then I notice a HUGE difference in the picture quality. Now, if you have a 480 progressive scan DVD and an unconverting to 1080p player side by side running the same movie, you probably shouldn't see that big a difference...they are very close to another in quality...with a slight nod going to the upconversion...IF the upconverter is decent.
However, if you have an HD-DVD or BluRay where the format is already 1080p, then you know full well that is going to be way clearer, sharper....no contest there...but to get there, you have to buy a new player, cables, replace DVD's that you had in your library....wait for other titles to come out retro-output style....since only a limited amount of titles are available at this time.....since the HD BluRay war is pretty much over, this should improve greatly. But what about all those DVD movies in your library that you have been collecting for years? Do you just trash them? Trade them in at the local Hastings for credit to buy other movies? What to do. For me...as I have over 700 titles in my collection (been collecting movies in DVD since they came out with them), that is not an option.....I have over 300 plus titles in older LaserDisc as well. I already trashed a huge collection of VHS that I had....replaced them all, one at a time, with LaserDisc, and then DVD. I didn't mind doing it then, because I knew the new format wouldn't ever wear out like a VHS tape would. But I have a HUGE monetary investment in movies....I can't see just ******* them all away just because of HD. Hence, finding a stellar upconverter. My older DVD player is a Denon DVD-5000. It retailed out at $2500 and was the Reference player of that year. It is 480i..., BUT I also acquired a new Pioneer Elite DV-09 for cheap...or I wouldn't have gotten it. I got both units for their CD audio playback capabilities...either is as good as any of the best dedicated CD players I have ever heard. I wanted a single machine to do both...play video and CD music equally well. Something that most all of the mainstream DVD players these day just don't do at all. They are great for movies, but lack a lot in the CD playback quality. Not much better than Mp3, to me.

John

[johnnyrichards]

[johnnail]

Not really. They have selectable, or self-sensing input. Using the HDMI, if the source of the video signal is 480p, then the picture on the TV is only 480p. There are some of the higher end TV's that may have some kind of up-converter built in....but these are only going to be somewhat marginally decent...unless you go really high end like a top of the line Leow's with Faroudja upscaler/doubler/processing that is built in....but you PAY DEARLY for that kind of premium gear upgrade.

John

[dthomas]

> What a gyp.....you get SciFi and TNT in
> HD.....I don't, in my area. I get all the
> others you mentioned. TNT and SciFi are some
> that I would LOVE to have be in
> HD.....especially the SciFi channel. Maybe
> they will add it later....don't know.
> I can only say that if you saw no real
> difference upconverting a standard DVD from
> 480i to 1080p, then the upconverter isn't
> very good. And that's one thing that I have
> noticed...not all upconverters are equal.
> Some do it better than others. If you are
> using the RGB component video cables, then
> the upconverting is not happening, in most
> cases. It only gets upconverted if using an
> HDMI cable. Not sure why, but even my Denon
> DVD says in the owners manual that when
> using the RGB component cables, a 480i video
> will only be played output as 480i, while
> when using the HDMI cable, it can be sent
> out as up to 1080p. Again, not sure why that
> is.
> If I have my older DVD player connected
> through the RGB's and have the "Night
> at the Museum" running to the TV
> directly in 480i, then play the same disc
> through the Denon with the upconverter using
> HDMI, then I notice a HUGE difference in the
> picture quality. Now, if you have a 480
> progressive scan DVD and an unconverting to
> 1080p player side by side running the same
> movie, you probably shouldn't see that big a
> difference...they are very close to another
> in quality...with a slight nod going to the
> upconversion...IF the upconverter is decent.
> However, if you have an HD-DVD or BluRay
> where the format is already 1080p, then you
> know full well that is going to be way
> clearer, sharper....no contest there...but
> to get there, you have to buy a new player,
> cables, replace DVD's that you had in your
> library....wait for other titles to come out
> retro-output style....since only a limited
> amount of titles are available at this
> time.....since the HD BluRay war is pretty
> much over, this should improve greatly. But
> what about all those DVD movies in your
> library that you have been collecting for
> years? Do you just trash them? Trade them in
> at the local Hastings for credit to buy
> other movies? What to do. For me...as I have
> over 700 titles in my collection (been
> collecting movies in DVD since they came out
> with them), that is not an option.....I have
> over 300 plus titles in older LaserDisc as
> well. I already trashed a huge collection of
> VHS that I had....replaced them all, one at
> a time, with LaserDisc, and then DVD. I
> didn't mind doing it then, because I knew
> the new format wouldn't ever wear out like a
> VHS tape would. But I have a HUGE monetary
> investment in movies....I can't see just
> ******* them all away just because of HD.
> Hence, finding a stellar upconverter. My
> older DVD player is a Denon DVD-5000. It
> retailed out at $2500 and was the Reference
> player of that year. It is 480i..., BUT I
> also acquired a new Pioneer Elite DV-09 for
> cheap...or I wouldn't have gotten it. I got
> both units for their CD audio playback
> capabilities...either is as good as any of
> the best dedicated CD players I have ever
> heard. I wanted a single machine to do
> both...play video and CD music equally well.
> Something that most all of the mainstream
> DVD players these day just don't do at all.
> They are great for movies, but lack a lot in
> the CD playback quality. Not much better
> than Mp3, to me.

> John

I get them through DirecTV. I get about 50 HD channels well 48 if I did not miss anything. Plus we have 10 HD PPV channels. I rarely find anything I care to watch that is not delivered in HD. I really enjoy the MGM HD network lots of older movies in 1080i and dolby digital.

There is a difference in upconversion but it is subtle and definitely not as detailed as Blu Ray on the larger screens. But I think upconversion is worth it especially since it is available on most DVD and Blu Ray players. Once you have a while to live with 1080p blu ray on a 110" screen you understand how much better it is than regular DVD. I took the plunge and I understand why a lot of folks are holding off. There is a bigger difference in 1080p blu ray then there is 480p upconverted especially on the larger screens.

I have found a few dual purpose machines that work well. My Pioneer Elite does CD great amd that is what I use primarily for music. I have a Sony Blu Ray player that is not bad on CD. But I have a seperate system for audio that I use the pioneer elite player on. It will do SACD, CD and DVD. THough i use it for DVD video much these days.

Dave

[mike1234]

...but they still cannot put data in that was never there. It's similar to upsizing a still image in Photoshop or other program. If the data isn't there, it's not there, and there's only so much that can be done to improve the quality. An image that is minimally processed and not resized will ALWAYS look better. That stated, ACCEPTIBLE quality is another issue. If upscaled DVD's are acceptible to the viewer, then no upgrading is necessary.

My PC monitor is set to 1280x1024 and I can see the dots... and my eyes are going bad. So exactly how much resolution can a normal set of human eyes can see? 2000x3000? That's much higher resolution than 1080p.

I empathize with your equipment dilemna. I learned a long time ago to either buy cheap or live with the financial losses. The only reason I spent so much on my SACD player is for the audio quality. In truth, I prefer to break everything down into individual components, i.e. external DAC, so the transport can be replaced relatively cheaply. BUT... the latest new technologies make this difficult/impossible. EVERYTHING becomes outdated. At any rate, I just live with outdated stuff. For one thing, I'm too cheap to buy new movies so buying the best BluRay gear and monitor is a waist for me. I'll wait until used BluRay disks become common and all the prices fall. Yes, I'm cheap, cheap, cheap :-)

> Have you test driven one of the top line
> DVDo i-Scans or the cream of the crop
> Faroudja Reference video processors? they
> are NOT by any means anywhere near the same
> as thing as any of the regular Up-converting
> DVD players and the similar devices out
> there. I have seen many
> "up-converters" out there...some
> cheap, some not that cheap, and then there
> is the high-end stuff.
> These two mentioned up-converters are not
> the normal up-converter.. They have a
> barrage of hardware and software in them to
> post process the video, enhancing the
> clarity and detail, smoothing the roughness
> of 225i out and making each output signal
> look very natural or film-like. No, they are
> not HD...but is HD really all that great
> considering that to get there you have to
> replace every piece of video gear in your
> household? If you never spent more than $100
> on any DVD player or VCR, then it is no big
> deal.....but if you spent $1000 or more on a
> DVD reference player, that was a very
> sizable investment, and if there is nothing
> wrong with how it works, other than the
> format is out-dated, then it is a hard thing
> to bring yourself to do...getting rid of it
> at a huge loss....yard-saling it off.

> I have a Denon DVD player (not my main
> player, but one that I got recently to play
> DVD's through up-conversion...just to get in
> the door) that has up-conversion in
> it....not the greatest up-conversion, but
> decent. Playing a DVD such as "Night at
> the Museum" and upscaling it to 720p is
> like seeing it on a good CRT. The picture is
> amazingly clear and sharp...very film-like.
> So I know that IF I had this conversion
> device or one that had a built-in line
> doubler working as well as top notch
> enhancement software, I feel that the
> resulting picture would be even
> better....now I apply this technology to my
> already existing EXPENSIVE reference DVD
> player or older Laserdisc player, etc,
> etc....then I now have a picture on the
> screen that I find every bit as satisfying
> as my older direct view CRT was....and that
> older one was a Sony Trinitron flat screen
> CRT....32".
> And that would be fine and dandy with me. I
> loved the picture that the Sony
> gave.....excellent detail, low noise, smooth
> and vivid....rich in color and textures.
> Don't sell it short, too hastily. Like I
> said earlier in another post.....1080p is
> already MORE resolution than what the human
> eyes can process the detail of. 720p is a
> good match to the human eye in processing
> capabilities. Like anything out there, too
> much of a good thing can be just as bad as
> not enough of it.

> John

[markk]

What resolution you can perceive has more to do with the angle subtended. That is, the resolution is distance dependent. Sure, if you want to sit 5 feet from a 60" monitor, you will perceive 2160p.

This is the problem with a lot of hdtv's in the average home. Most folks just plunk their new tv where the old one was. Problem is, it's too far to resolve the difference between 1080 and 720 (or even 480, if you sit far enough.)

Having said that, when I look at upscaled 720p on the projector at 105", there is a difference between that and my (now obselete) hd dvd, the difference is not as much as you'd expect. It's there on scenes with a lot of detail. And generally, upscaled dvd's look a little "soft" compared with tru hi def. It really doesn't detract from the movie and you forget about it once you're watching.

I'm looking forward to blu ray. Still, waiting for the hardware to get a little cheaper...