Hd Gear A Waste Of Money!

[Owen]

The Hitachi isn’t 1920x1080, but it is potentially better up close then a 768p model. Don’t know, I haven’t looked.

The main problem I see with Hitachi Plasmas is poor black level.

Unfortunately the small 1080p LCD’s which would look good at less then 2 meters also suffer from poor blacks. You can’t win.

[50mxe20]

And if they normally view them from 4 meters or more, they are not seeing the extra detail they paid for, simple as that.

Go have a look at 1080 HD being displayed on a mix of SD and HD 42" Plasmas.

If you can see a resolution difference at 4 meters, then more power too you mate, you have exceptional vision.

At that distance and screen size other aspects of performance will dominate picture quality, not resolution.

So the only people to benefit from Hi De fplayers are those with PJ's? or Plasma's 65 inch and up? IUHO.

[MLXXX]

Another issue is generally to avoid using the built-in speakers of a 42" TV, except for non-critical sound such as sports broadcasts, or old black and white movies, or perhaps news bulletins. The sound from a DVD player, or a set-top box, or the audio outputs of the TV, needs to be run through a good quality audio system, for the sound quality to be properly appreciated.

Open plan kitchens result in refrigerator noise encroaching into the immediately adjacent area. It's desirable for the seating for viewing the TV to be in a quiet part of the house/apartment.

[Anton-P.]

So the only people to benefit from Hi De fplayers are those with PJ's? or Plasma's 65 inch and up? IUHO.

Not necessarily, hi resolution 1920x1080 can be benefited from smaller sets if you view from close enough.

Let's go back to my suggested "rule-of-thumb" table:

42"screen -- (1080)1.6m

50"screen -- (1080)2.0m

55"screen -- (1080)2.2m

65"screen -- (1080)2.6m

As an aside, I watched the Pana 65" with a Bluray movie at the new Rick Hart in the city (Perth). I deliberately stood close enough to appreciate the hi res -- wowww very good at first but after a few minutes I started feeling dizzy from the fast actions on the screen. Which suggests if I owned one I would be watching from a little further back.

[50mxe20]

Not necessarily, hi resolution 1920x1080 can be benefited from smaller sets if you view from close enough.

Let's go back to my suggested "rule-of-thumb" table:

42"screen -- (1080)1.6m

50"screen -- (1080)2.0m

55"screen -- (1080)2.2m

65"screen -- (1080)2.6m

As an aside, I watched the Pana 65" with a Bluray movie at the new Rick Hart in the city (Perth). I deliberately stood close enough to appreciate the hi res -- wowww very good at first but after a few minutes I started feeling dizzy from the fast actions on the screen. Which suggests if I owned one I would be watching from a little further back.

If we sat that close to our displays my wife would be sea sick the whole time. She cannot stand being too close to any screen and does not like large (50") screens (even at 3 metres).

[Owen]

So the only people to benefit from Hi De fplayers are those with PJ's? or Plasma's 65 inch and up? IUHO.

It’s not just the screen size that matters, but the viewing distance.

If you have a 70” screen, you can sit almost 3 meters away and still be able to fully resolve 1080 resolution, but if you have a 50”, viewing distance needs to be reduced to around 2 meters.

With smaller screens, you need to be even closer.

HDDVD and BluRay have other advantages like lower noise, less compression artifacts, better colour etc, that will be able to be appreciated on almost any display at any reasonable viewing distance.

Viewing a 50” from 2.4 meters is the same as sitting in the very back row of a THX certified cinema.

At 3 meters, you are out in the foyer.

[Omega1503559526]

Not necessarily, hi resolution 1920x1080 can be benefited from smaller sets if you view from close enough.

Let's go back to my suggested "rule-of-thumb" table:

42"screen -- (1080)1.6m

50"screen -- (1080)2.0m

55"screen -- (1080)2.2m

65"screen -- (1080)2.6m

As an aside, I watched the Pana 65" with a Bluray movie at the new Rick Hart in the city (Perth). I deliberately stood close enough to appreciate the hi res -- wowww very good at first but after a few minutes I started feeling dizzy from the fast actions on the screen. Which suggests if I owned one I would be watching from a little further back.

You get used to that.

When i first got my 60", i was constantly darting my eyes around the screen to keep up with the action and it was a bit tiresome (albeit cool cos the screen was big enough to require me to do that).

After a while though, you just adapt. Maybe your eyes focus on a point further back so you can 'take in' the whole of the screen at once...much like speed readers do.

Now on my 70", its not an issue from under 3m.

[50mxe20]

It's not just the screen size that matters, but the viewing distance.

Viewing a 50" from 2.4 meters is the same as sitting in the very back row of a THX certified cinema.

At 3 meters, you are out in the foyer.

Yea I know the numbers and I've done the head banger test at the cinema. Somehow it's just not the same in your lounge room. I dan't care what the numbers say. I know for a fact that my wife can stand sitting at the cinema at closer than the 26 degree THX standard but could not sit close to a large t.v. It's just not the same thing and IMHO one cannot equate one with the other. It's only numbers and a guide. But real world is something else.

[betty boop]

And yet there are quite a few people here that have a 42" HD screen and have now bought Hi Def players. I wonder how many of them would agree with you? Alebonau?

youd have to be blind freddy to not notice the difference in my opinion. my wife who never and I mean never comments about these things, one look at batman off the tosh hd-dvd player and she said wow that must be the new high definition discs ?

we are sitting 2.5 to 3.25m from the screen and on a 42" plasma nto only is the better PQ but very noticeably the greater detail is very hard to miss.

Really people liek hte OP can kid themselves and believe whatever they want to believe I couldnt care less.

Yea I know the numbers and I've done the head banger test at the cinema. Somehow it's just not the same in your lounge room. I dan't care what the numbers say. I know for a fact that my wife can stand sitting at the cinema at closer than the 26 degree THX standard but could not sit close to a large t.v. It's just not the same thing and IMHO one cannot equate one with the other. It's only numbers and a guide. But real world is something else.

dont worry about owen and his front of row viewing distances. its been said many times the distance calculator is made for pjs with little relevance to smaller screens.

[AndrewWilliams]

Yea I know the numbers and I've done the head banger test at the cinema. Somehow it's just not the same in your lounge room. I dan't care what the numbers say. I know for a fact that my wife can stand sitting at the cinema at closer than the 26 degree THX standard but could not sit close to a large t.v. It's just not the same thing and IMHO one cannot equate one with the other. It's only numbers and a guide. But real world is something else.

I recently went from a 28" to a 60" and at first it was a major shock to my eyes. I was pushing my lounge chair further and further back for the first few days. Then I started pushing it closer again and finally settled on about 2.7m. If all content was HD I'd probably move to around 2.2m. Trust me, you get used to it after the initial shock and then you start to enjoy it and wonder why you ever bothered with a tiny TV.

[Anton-P.]

Yea I know the numbers and I've done the head banger test at the cinema. Somehow it's just not the same in your lounge room. I dan't care what the numbers say. I know for a fact that my wife can stand sitting at the cinema at closer than the 26 degree THX standard but could not sit close to a large t.v. It's just not the same thing and IMHO one cannot equate one with the other. It's only numbers and a guide. But real world is something else.

This can be simply explained. Pixel resolution vs viewing distance can be calculated linearly, but watching a movie is different. If 3m distance is ok for 70", 2m ok for 50" then linearly it'd mean 1metre is ok for 25". But ask yourself in reality how many people with 28" CRT tv (26" viewable) watched from 1 metre -- almost zilch.

It proves if someone watches a TV 1/10th diagonal a cinema screen one cannot validly suggest s/he should view from equivalent 1/10th distance.

[AndrewWilliams]

It shows if someone watches a TV 1/10th diagonal a cinema screen you cannot validly suggest s/he should view from equivalent 1/10th distance.

Why not? Most people who own 26" TVs own them because traditionally anything bigger has been too expensive and owning a big TV has been seen as extravagant and/or weird. The way that big screen prices are dropping, I predict that that mentality won't be around much longer.

[Anton-P.]

I predict that that mentality won't be around much longer.

Yes I agree it is a mentality thing, but there is a limit how that mentality can change. It's much easier to get used to watching 70" from 3m than 26" from 1m. It's not linearly proportional, that's all I'm saying.

[byron1503559589]

Good points from all.

I'm in the exact position as the original poster in that we are looking at getting a 42" Plasma and we will be sitting 2.7metres away. All the material we currently watch is SD, but I expect more HD over the coming years. Is it really work the extra dollars to buy the HD Pana (PV60) vs the SD Pana (PA60) given the distance?

I really like the idea of the HD screen at least being at little future proof, but given it's not true HD I'm wondering if I should just save my money for now?

This will be our 2nd TV in a fairly bright room for day to day viewing (plus viewing from the kitchen some 5metres away on a 45 degree angle).

????????

Byron

[Anton-P.]

Byron, on the point of HD vs SD alone we've seen in another thread a PV60 now costs merely $300 more than a PA60. Go for HD.

However a bright room suggests you should go LCD, but make sure you can view at 45o.

I think you should downsize to a house without a kitchen, then you won't have the 45o problem

[MLXXX]

But ask yourself in reality how many people with 28" CRT tv (26" viewable) watched from 1 metre -- almost zilch.

The reason people don't get too close to a CRT tv is generally because there's not much detail to see in the first place. The nicer, smoother, and more detailed a picture, the more comfortable you are at a close viewing distance. Until good quality video becomes available in the home, we will only sit close to a video picture when it is shown to us outside the home, at a cinema.

As I'm typing this, I'm looking at the text on a 22" diagonal LCD screen (1680x1050 pixels) from a distance of about 600mm. The pixel structure is visible, but otherwise the picture is ok. If I launch the PC's DTV application, the screen is filled with 16:9 off-air TV (with a narrow black bar at the bottom). Even on a high-definition channel, the picture grain and mpeg artefacts tend to obscure the 1680x1050 pixel structure of the monitor. I find this a comfortable viewing distance. As a rough and ready calculation, 42inches/22inches X 0.6m = 1.15m. That would be a minimum viewing distance for a corresponding 42" 1680 x 1050 tv (if such a set size and pixel count were ever to exist). I don't use a computer monitor as my means of watching tv on a regular basis, but it's an instructive comparison.

Another comparison is to try reading an 11" x 17" tabloid newspaper from a distance. Using a 42" diagonal TV (15.1" height x 26.9" width) at 4 metres as a reference, you'd have to sit 2.9 metres from the newspaper (comparing 11” with 15.1”). I can manage to read or guess article text at 1.5m, but I'm afraid that at 2 metres the print is beyond my visual acuity. At 2.9 metres, short-sighted eagles might do well. Low power binoculars wouldn't go astray for a human reader.

Yes, a 1920 x 1080 Blu-ray or HD-DVD video frame can show a whole page of text from one page of a tabloid newspaper (with the text at a 90 degree angle, with space to spare above or below the page). Admittedly, the text in the body of an article would appear a little blurred; and reading would be inconvenient, unless of course the TV set was rotated 90 degrees so that it displayed the picture in portrait mode.

One of the issues is the medium distance vision capability of the viewer. Some viewers will need to wear spectacles when watching high-definition TV.

[Guest 50inch_Damien]

Byron, on the point of HD vs SD alone we've seen in another thread a PV60 now costs merely $300 more than a PA60. Go for HD.

However a bright room suggests you should go LCD, but make sure you can view at 45o.

I think you should downsize to a house without a kitchen, then you won't have the 45o problem

why would a bright room suggest lcd is better? is it because of the risk of reflections in the glass? is that the only reason?

[Anton-P.]

MLXXX, you overlook an important factor.

With newspaper or computer screen our purpose is to *read* it, hence distance is naturally very close.

Whereas when we watch a movie, people naturally settle for an eye-relaxing position not up as close as for reading.

[MLXXX]

Perhaps we don't need high definition television resolution, at all, for the relaxed group* of movie watchers. These people could make up a sizeable percentage of the general population. They are content.

It isn't really necessary to see the detail in the intricate lacework of a woman's dress in an historical drama. Or the icons on a sci-fi fighter pilots's computer display. Or the age lines in the faces of middle-aged actors and actresses. Or the flawless complexion of a young girl.

But for those who do wish to see these details, a fairly close viewing distance will be required.

* I note that spectacles can be prescribed for people who are uncomfortable focussing at shorter distances for long periods. This is often a problem for people who use computer monitors for long periods, or for avid book readers.

[Felix..]

youd have to be blind freddy to not notice the difference in my opinion. my wife who never and I mean never comments about these things, one look at batman off the tosh hd-dvd player and she said wow that must be the new high definition discs ?

we are sitting 2.5 to 3.25m from the screen and on a 42" plasma nto only is the better PQ but very noticeably the greater detail is very hard to miss.

Really people liek hte OP can kid themselves and believe whatever they want to believe I couldnt care less.

dont worry about owen and his front of row viewing distances. its been said many times the distance calculator is made for pjs with little relevance to smaller screens.

Yep I'm sitting at 2.5m with the same display and the difference in PQ between HD and SD source is night and day to my eyes too. In fact I wouldn't want to sit too much closer as I can start to notice the individual pixels at around 1.5-1.8m.

Are your eyes able to completely resolve the full image detail of 1080 lines of vertical resolution on a 42" plasma at reasonable sitting distances? My answer is who cares! HD is a much better picture than SD to me when viewed on this TV. Actually it's hard for me to imagine the image being any crisper, clearer or having more accurate colours, when viewing top notch 1080i material whether it be DTV or HD-DVD. It's almost like looking through a window on the best quality content. I'm stoked I went for a decent 1024x1024 display and it's been a vast improvement over my previous 853x480 plasma.

[Owen]

The reason people don't get too close to a CRT tv is generally because there's not much detail to see in the first place. The nicer, smoother, and more detailed a picture, the more comfortable you are at a close viewing distance. Until good quality video becomes available in the home, we will only sit close to a video picture when it is shown to us outside the home, at a cinema.

Exactly, a standard CRT TV looks bad at 1 meter.Know one would want to view one that close.

The whole idea of 1080 HD is to make very large images look good up close for a cinema experience.

Yep I'm sitting at 2.5m with the same display and the difference in PQ between HD and SD source is night and day to my eyes too. In fact I wouldn't want to sit too much closer as I can start to notice the individual pixels at around 1.5-1.8m.

Know one is arguing that HD is not of value on a 42” screen at 2.5 meters, it most certainly is, and I would always recommend a HD model for distances less the 3.5 meters, but 4 meters it is a different story all together.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can see more the SD resolution on a 42” at 4 meters plus? I know damn well that I can’t.

I remember looking at a row of 42” Plasmas displaying the 9 HD loop, some SD and some HD models. At 4 meters plus, the resolvable detail looked the same on all.

Some models did look better then others, but this was for reasons other then resolution.

I'm in the exact position as the original poster in that we are looking at getting a 42" Plasma and we will be sitting 2.7metres away. All the material we currently watch is SD, but I expect more HD over the coming years. Is it really work the extra dollars to buy the HD Pana (PV60) vs the SD Pana (PA60) given the distance?

For a 2.7 meters viewing distance don’t even consider an SD Plasma, you will see the pixel structure, and it will not be pretty.

[Felix..]

Are you seriously suggesting that you can see more the SD resolution on a 42” at 4 meters plus? I know damn well that I can’t.

I'm not suggesting anything at 4m, 6m or 10m for that matter. All my comments pertain to my own experience sitting at 2.5m. I quess I was responding to the thread's title being that "HD Gear (is) A Waste Of Money" and some of the other posts contained within. It clearly has not been the case for me with my viewing set-up.

[byron1503559589]

For a 2.7 meters viewing distance don’t even consider an SD Plasma, you will see the pixel structure, and it will not be pretty.

Okay this and Anton.P's reply make me think that HD of some sort is the way to go. I don't need to buy before Mid Feb so I'm hoping some price drops and new models hit the market!!! My budget is $1500 but $2K is probably more realistic.

I'm not adverse to LCD but I gather Plasma is more forgiving to low quality SD signals!

And Anton.P the wife said viewing from kitchen is not that important, so there you go!

Thanks

Byron

[BribieG]

Apart from the horrible things you see in pubs and clubs and the pathetic travesty called Foxtel Kiosks in shopping centres, have never actually watched a TV show on a plasma screen. I've been watching an LCD with HD tuner for a year now and have had no reason to go into a Harvey Norman. Recently on a trip to the Sunshine Coast my mate asked me to go to JB Hi Fi with him to look at some sets. Looking at the SD plasma screens all I could see was flyscreen effect. In fact out the front they had a 42 inch plasma they were dumping for about $1200 and a 40 inch strange-name LCD for about $2000, both playing "Cars".

There was a group of people watching (very busy start of school hols) and being a bit of a stirrer I mentioned the flyscreen effect out loud, and most of the audience said "my God yes I see what you mean, s**t what a rip off - how dare they ......" and variations on the poor picture quality of the SD. Admittedly they way they display even LCD sets in a lot of the stores doesn't show them to their advantage but in this case it was like seeing 2 distinct generations of technology side by side.

[optusman]

Apart from the horrible things you see in pubs and clubs and the pathetic travesty called Foxtel Kiosks in shopping centres, have never actually watched a TV show on a plasma screen. I've been watching an LCD with HD tuner for a year now and have had no reason to go into a Harvey Norman. Recently on a trip to the Sunshine Coast my mate asked me to go to JB Hi Fi with him to look at some sets. Looking at the SD plasma screens all I could see was flyscreen effect. In fact out the front they had a 42 inch plasma they were dumping for about $1200 and a 40 inch strange-name LCD for about $2000, both playing "Cars".

There was a group of people watching (very busy start of school hols) and being a bit of a stirrer I mentioned the flyscreen effect out loud, and most of the audience said "my God yes I see what you mean, s**t what a rip off - how dare they ......" and variations on the poor picture quality of the SD. Admittedly they way they display even LCD sets in a lot of the stores doesn't show them to their advantage but in this case it was like seeing 2 distinct generations of technology side by side.

maybe for animated dvd, wonder the reaction if you were watching afl or other fast motion sport. "How dare they charge $2000, can't even see where the ball went, real drag across the screen' or similar. CRT is still the gold standard but at 100kg and 60cm depth, you'd need a pretty big lounge room