Hd Gear A Waste Of Money!

[Owen]

I think your very confused yourself jsut reading yoru very contradictory comments

at one point you say no one would argue the value of a 42" screen at 2.5 meters and recommend a HD model for distances under 3.5m

and then you say HD is wasted on a 50" screen at 3m ?

and I dont knwo about PJs not being good enough in the PQ department. The few I've seen dLP & CRT are about the pinacle of PQ that I've come across certainly better than any RPTV or any other screen display I've come across.

some of the very best systems out there use PJs owen if PQ & picure size is what your chasing I hardly think that theyre second to what can achived with a rptv sorry.

An SD plasma is no good at 2.5 meters because the pixel structure is visible. Even at 3.5 meters the pixel grain (SDE) is still just visible, but at 4 meters plus they are fine, and will look just as good as an HD model of the same size.

A 42” HD is the way to go for distances under about 3.5 meters, what’s confusing about that?

You will be struggling to resolve 768p on a 50” HD Plasma at 3 meters.

To resolve 1080, (assuming you had a 50” 1080p Pioneer Plasma), you would need to view from not much more then 2 meters for it to look any better then the 768p model.

People who have seen the 50” Pioneer 768p Plasma next to the new high end 50” 1080p model, using HDDVD as source for both, recon that can only just see a difference in visible detail at 6 feet, but by 7” no difference at all.

[betty boop]

I'll sidestep the Alebonau v Owen sidehow, and offer my opinion on this: if you are going to watch a 50" at 3m, then in my humble opinion, a 1 Megapixel screen (whether it be 1280 x 720 or 1366 x 768 or whatever) will be sufficient. Whether people accept the science or not, your eyes simply won't be able to resolve all of the detail offered by a 46" 1920 x 1080 (2 megapixel) LCD at a distance of 3m. Check this:

http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-content/uplo...ution_chart.png

A 50" 1 Megapixel plasma will still offer you a quality HD viewing experience and, IMO, is a better (and cheaper) option than a 46" 2 Megapixel LCD, at least for your circumstances. Furthermore, in my experience, SD looks pretty lousy on the Bravia X LCDs.

That all said, I think the amount of HD content is going to grow very quickly from here. If you can wait another year, you might not be too worried about buying a screen that does a good job on SD. And your 3m viewing distance is, IMO, perfect for getting rid of the dual proj/plasma setup and going for a single 1920 x 1080 70" screen or thereabouts. At least once HD content becomes more common.

good chart that mero, reading it for a 50" screen its only at 17 feet or 5.18m veiwing distance does 480p, 720p and 1080p becomes equivalent !

anyways rather than just reading graphs using who knows what basis. why not head in store when some HD tV si broadcast. let your eyes decide. I've seen stores with both SD and HD screens. As I posted a long time ago in this thread do the comparison for your self. wont take long to work out which model to get.

In my opinion HD is there to enjoy both from FTA and also from the hi-def disc formats these days. And I've owned a 1024 line 37" and now a 42" and can say from personal experience there is much benefit to be had with these screens even at the 2.5-3.2m viewing distance. And certainly enjoyign HD is not the preserve of those with enormous RPTVs and the like as being suggested by some on here.

[betty boop]

An SD plasma is no good at 2.5 meters because the pixel structure is visible. Even at 3.5 meters the pixel grain (SDE) is still just visible, but at 4 meters plus they are fine, and will look just as good as an HD model of the same size.

A 42” HD is the way to go for distances under about 3.5 meters, what’s confusing about that?

You will be struggling to resolve 768p on a 50” HD Plasma at 3 meters.

To resolve 1080, (assuming you had a 50” 1080p Pioneer Plasma), you would need to view from not much more then 2 meters for it to look any better then the 768p model.

People who have seen the 50” Pioneer 768p Plasma next to the new high end 50” 1080p model, using HDDVD as source for both, recon that can only just see a difference in visible detail at 6 feet, but by 7” no difference at all.

This whole discussion is about whether hD gear is a waste of money. By even what you say here for even 42" screen if viewing for under 4m the HD version would be worth going for. The few 480p screens we get here are cast offs from the american market and have no place here.

even from the chart posted by mero the benfit of even 720p starts becoming noticeable at 12-13 ft or 4meters.

and the benift of good 720p and 1080i HD at my viewing distance 2.5-3.25m I saw with my own 37" 1024 screen via fta and the xbox 360 and its very visible on my current 1024 line 42" screen via fta and with the tosh hd-dvd, so I have no reason for it to be even more evident on a 50" 1080 line screen.

anyways as I mentioned people can go do their own comparisons and make up their own minds up.

[merovingian]

good chart that mero, reading it for a 50" screen its only at 17 feet or 5.18m veiwing distance does 480p, 720p and 1080p becomes equivalent !

It also shows that 1080p and 720p become indiscernable at 10 feet (3m).

anyways rather than just reading graphs using who knows what basis. why not head in store when some HD tV si broadcast. let your eyes decide. I've seen stores with both SD and HD screens. As I posted a long time ago in this thread do the comparison for your self. wont take long to work out which model to get.

I'm not sure if that bee in your bonnet is messing with your brain , but the point in dispute (in recent posts anyway, and the subject of malewis' question) is not SD v HD, but what flavour of HD is appropriate for a screen size of 46"/50" at circa 3m. Yes HD does look better than SD. As a general rule.

I've got to say though that reading the exchanges between Owen and yourself, I long for the day when 1920 x 1080 screens are the only screens (above 40 inches anyway) on the market. Hopefully these arguments will die along with the 720/768p screens.

[betty boop]

It also shows that 1080p and 720p become indiscernable at 10 feet (3m).

~

it doesnt actually say that it says the "full benfit of 720p becomes discernable" at 10 feet on a 50" screen.

~

I'm not sure if that bee in your bonnet is messing with your brain , but the point in dispute (in recent posts anyway, and the subject of malewis' question) is not SD v HD, but what flavour of HD is appropriate for a screen size of 46"/50" at circa 3m. Yes HD does look better than SD. As a general rule.

I've got to say though that reading the exchanges between Owen and yourself, I long for the day when 1920 x 1080 screens are the only screens (above 40 inches anyway) on the market. Hopefully these arguments will die along with the 720/768p screens.

perhaps you missed the point of this thread. Theres plenty on here saying that SD is not worth it over HD. I dont agree. Even your graph says you'd have to be out at 4.5m before it makes no difference on a 42" screen.malewis post is just one in amongst the mix. In regards malewis all I suggested was to go check out the options, theres mroe differences between the different brands and models and technology types in the screens out there than pure size and screen resolution.

I agree re 1920x1080 42" and bigger screens being common place. sooner the better !

[ozcal]

it doesnt actually say that it says the "full benfit of 720p becomes discernable" at 10 feet on a 50" screen.

perhaps you missed the point of this thread. Theres plenty on here saying that SD is not worth it over HD. I dont agree. Even your graph says you'd have to be out at 4.5m before it makes no difference on a 42" screen.malewis post is just one in amongst the mix. In regards malewis all I suggested was to go check out the options, theres mroe differences between the different brands and models and technology types in the screens out there than pure size and screen resolution.

I agree re 1920x1080 42" and bigger screens being common place. sooner the better !

I agree with AL , while correct viewing distance is a usefull guide when choosing screen size for the best picture there is a whole lot more to the quality of the reproduced image than the number of pixels.Even with different brands using the same panel picture quality will vary according to the quality of the rest of the internal electronics.

While an approach based on a scientific understanding of whats going on is likely to be beneficial my oppinion is that the whole matter is now just so far beyond the average consumers ability to make sense of the complexities that Al's suggestion to just go and look for yourself is likely to be the best option.I would go a bit futher and suggest that you try to see your prefered choice in as many shops as is practical given the poor lighting and setup in most shops.I've seen some highly regarded panels looking awful in one shop and excellent in others.

Gordon

[Omega1503559526]

I agree with AL , while correct viewing distance is a usefull guide when choosing screen size for the best picture there is a whole lot more to the quality of the reproduced image than the number of pixels.Even with different brands using the same panel picture quality will vary according to the quality of the rest of the internal electronics.

While an approach based on a scientific understanding of whats going on is likely to be beneficial my oppinion is that the whole matter is now just so far beyond the average consumers ability to make sense of the complexities that Al's suggestion to just go and look for yourself is likely to be the best option.I would go a bit futher and suggest that you try to see your prefered choice in as many shops as is practical given the poor lighting and setup in most shops.I've seen some highly regarded panels looking awful in one shop and excellent in others.

Gordon

I think the last point is the best....view your short-list of sets in as many shops as possible.

And more importantly, for gods sake, don't just go off how they look in a showroom environment.

Unless you have a HT room or lounge room full of bright, oddly positioned lights, then a show room is pretty much the last environment you want to demo a set in...and yet, its the major method available to everyone.

Try and get whatever set you are looking demoed in a room matches (as close as possible) your home environment.

If you have a proper HT room, cutting out as much light to the demo display as possible is the order of the day.

On the other hand, if you have a sunlit, open-plan loungeroom, demoing something like a PJ (or even a rearpro) in a nice dark room is only going to mislead you and result in disappointment when you get home.

While on paper, and in a properly adjusted viewing environment, certain sets and certain technologies will produce a better picture than is even possible to obtain from others...that won't make any difference if an environment variable (be it seating distance, ambient light, or whatever) is handled so poorly by that particular set that you would be better of going for a technically 'worse' set, which handles those conditions better.

[Nevyn72]

Yeah thats what im doing as well with the 70". Building a false wall to sit the TV, amp, HTPC etc.

When done it will look exactly like a 70" plasma without the stupid price tag or cables running down the wall.

I can't wait to see some pics of the final result as this is exactly what I am considering doing!

[Owen]

and I dont knwo about PJs not being good enough in the PQ department. The few I've seen dLP & CRT are about the pinacle of PQ that I've come across certainly better than any RPTV or any other screen display I've come across.

some of the very best systems out there use PJs owen if PQ & picure size is what your chasing I hardly think that theyre second to what can achived with a rptv sorry.

I wish I could find a front projector that looked as good as a good RPTV or Plasma.

All the ones I have seen look very flat and two dimensional. They just can’t seem to produce the “looking through a window” image quality that I find appealing.

I also don’t watch in total darken all the time.

I have seen the Sony VLP50 1080 SXRD projector, and it was a big disappointment after a 70” SXRD RPTV.

I cant use an image larger then about 70” at 2.8 meters viewing distance, as a larger image (greater viewing angle) is pushing 1080 video a little too far for maximum quality.

I know it sounds like I am anti HD, but you should know that is not the case. I have long been an advocate of 1080 displays, even when 720 and 768 digital displays where the only option.

I purchased a 57” 1080 display 2 years ago, simple because similar sized 768 digital displays looked ugly at my 2.8 meter viewing distance, and they still do.

The few 480p screens we get here are cast offs from the american market and have no place here.

While I agree with you in principal, in practice I cant agree with that statement.

I know 2 people with 42” Plasma’s, one SD and one HD. Both are viewed from over 4 meters, making the HD a waste of money on resolution grounds. It simple does not look more detailed then the SD 42” at that distance.

Resolution should really be low on the priority scale in this usage situation. Other aspects of picture performance are far more important, as I’m sure you would agree.

480P Plasma’s do have their place with people who sit more then 4 meters from the screen, and there are many of them.

[betty boop]

I wish I could find a front projector that looked as good as a good RPTV or Plasma.

All the ones I have seen look very flat and two dimensional. They just can’t seem to produce the “looking through a window” image quality that I find appealing.

I also don’t watch in total darken all the time.

I have seen the Sony VLP50 1080 SXRD projector, and it was a big disappointment after a 70” SXRD RPTV.

I cant use an image larger then about 70” at 2.8 meters viewing distance, as a larger image (greater viewing angle) is pushing 1080 video a little too far for maximum quality.

I know it sounds like I am anti HD, but you should know that is not the case. I have long been an advocate of 1080 displays, even when 720 and 768 digital displays where the only option.

I purchased a 57” 1080 display 2 years ago, simple because similar sized 768 digital displays looked ugly at my 2.8 meter viewing distance, and they still do.

~

I know you are not anti HD owen, and I knwo you have been lookign for a fair old while now to improve on your RPTV.

And hence I mentioned PJ, I have seen three quality PJ setups now, norpus benq DLP, nobby's CRT and my cousins high end sharp DLP albiet now few years old. All literally sh!t all over every RPTV or plasmas I've seen not only in pure detail, PQ but also in picture size there is jsut no contest. Tommyjnr took his sony pearl over to norpus' and it was apparently a notch up on the benq so can jsut imagine how much better it is again. Best I can suggest is maybe check out some quality properly calibrated PJ setups to get some ideas via some of the guys with these on the ofrum or via aaron of avical.

perhaps for your split viewing habits possible to continue using your rptv for not fully darkened room viewing and a serious pj for critcal viewing ?

anyways your best placed to decide whats best for you given your particlaur circumstances.

~

While I agree with you in principal, in practice I cant agree with that statement.

I know 2 people with 42” Plasma’s, one SD and one HD. Both are viewed from over 4 meters, making the HD a waste of money on resolution grounds. It simple does not look more detailed then the SD 42” at that distance.

Resolution should really be low on the priority scale in this usage situation. Other aspects of picture performance are far more important, as I’m sure you would agree.

480P Plasma’s do have their place with people who sit more then 4 meters from the screen, and there are many of them.

and I'm sure theyre very happy with what they have owen, not for me to suggest anyother wise.

My point re SD plasmas is theyre literally a dying breed in this country owen given just how cheaply the HD ones are going for with street pricing. And the price difference for the brands that do have them are close to bugger all. Its going to be a mute argument soon anyways I imagine. It was more a point few years ago where a SD plasma from say panasonic was a $4k affair and the HD one a lot costlier at $6k. these days you can get a quality HD plasma for $2.5-$3k ! with the SD one only about 10% cheaper unless your goign for one of the cheap nastie no name brands well in that casee I doubt any thing but price si probably of concern to the purchaser buyign one of those.

That said yes I'll be the first to agree a lot more to a plasma than just size and resolution plenty more other factors to consider as well.

[merovingian]

it doesnt actually say that it says the "full benfit of 720p becomes discernable" at 10 feet on a 50" screen.

Yes it shows that ~10 feet is the distance (for a 50" screen) at which the "full benefit of 720p becomes discernable", but it ALSO shows that the benefits of 1080p (over 720p) are not apparent at that distance. You have to move closer for 1080p to look better than 720p. So it is indeed showing that 1080p and 720p are indiscernable for a 50" screen viewed at ~10 feet. This is no trickery on my part. This is what the graph is claiming. Whether the graph is correct is perhaps a different discussion.

perhaps you missed the point of this thread. Theres plenty on here saying that SD is not worth it over HD. I dont agree. Even your graph says you'd have to be out at 4.5m before it makes no difference on a 42" screen.malewis post is just one in amongst the mix.

His was indeed just one post, but it was the one post that I was replying to. My reply compared two flavours of HD (ie. 1 Megapixel to 2 Megapixel), not HD to SD. But you took my response to his question as a cue to tell me to go check out SD versus HD with my own eyes. And now you're on at me again about SD versus HD. Quite strange.

[betty boop]

Yes it shows that ~10 feet is the distance (for a 50" screen) at which the "full benefit of 720p becomes discernable", but it ALSO shows that the benefits of 1080p (over 720p) are not apparent at that distance. You have to move closer for 1080p to look better than 720p. So it is indeed showing that 1080p and 720p are indiscernable for a 50" screen viewed at ~10 feet. This is no trickery on my part. This is what the graph is claiming. Whether the graph is correct is perhaps a different discussion.

His was indeed just one post, but it was the one post that I was replying to. My reply compared two flavours of HD (ie. 1 Megapixel to 2 Megapixel), not HD to SD. But you took my response to his question as a cue to tell me to go check out SD versus HD with my own eyes. And now you're on at me again about SD versus HD. Quite strange.

actually at the 10 foot mark the full benfits of 720p beniftis are visible according to the graph and the other item it shows is that the benfits of 1080p start to become noticeable - that according to the exact words on your graph.

and yes theres nothing as far as to the graphs origins or even what basis it was derived from. that said I know what I can see with my own eyes with a 42" 1024 line display which I have hooked upto a tosh hd-ax1 hd-dvd source and veiwing HD FTA which is 1440x1080 line at best or 720p when broadcast on the ABC or via the xbox 360 on gaming..and yes even according to your graph there is a benfit to having a HD screen upto 4.5m viewing distance.

did I tell you to go check out SD versus HD ?. No just telling you what my response to mallewis was which is what you questioned, is that so hard to understand, not sure whats so strange about that. and yes indeed the topic of this thread is "HD gear being a waste fo money". unless ofcourse you want to take it off topic on some other tangent of yours ? in that case you might be better off starting anothe thread on the topic

[AndrewWilliams]

I find that beyond 3m I really struggle to pick the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 60" display so I'm sitting at a comfortable 2.5m. To think that at one stage I was going to buy a 46" 1080 display....what a complete waste of money that would have been!

I agree that the only reason to go HD on small (42") displays is to help avoid seeing the pixel structure (screen door effect)

[Anton-P.]

I find that beyond 3m I really struggle to pick the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 60" display

I'd like to agree with your observation, however it would be more convincing if you were able to compare 720 on a 720 native screen against 1080 on a 1080 native screen. In your case I think the 720 would've been upscaled to 1080 and that contributed to your struggling to pick the difference.

[AndrewWilliams]

SDE aside, wouldn't 720p native look better than 720p upscaled? ..or are you one of the many folk around here who believe that upscaling is magic?

[Anton-P.]

SDE aside, wouldn't 720p native look better than 720p upscaled? ..or are you one of the many folk around here who believe that upscaling is magic?

Nope I don't think upscaling is magic, but a good upscaler does improve pq. Proof: many people pay extra money to buy upscaling dvd players obviously for better pq.

So what I meant was the upscaling 720 to 1080 somewhat bridged the gap between the two, thus contributed to your not seeing the difference (apart from being due to the viewing distance).

[AndrewWilliams]

Yeah, actually you're correct there. The interpolation of upscaling would make the picture a little smoother.

[betty boop]

I find that beyond 3m I really struggle to pick the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 60" display so I'm sitting at a comfortable 2.5m. To think that at one stage I was going to buy a 46" 1080 display....what a complete waste of money that would have been!

I agree that the only reason to go HD on small (42") displays is to help avoid seeing the pixel structure (screen door effect)

what source did use to do that comparison andrew. I find it pretty hard to believe that you cant see the benefit of 1080i at or around 3m on your 60" screen. Only thing can imagine is your not feedign it true 1080i HD material. Or not comparing using true 720p and 1080i versions of the same and just making comments based on an upscaling comparison as suggested by anton.

~

I agree that the only reason to go HD on small (42") displays is to help avoid seeing the pixel structure (screen door effect)

now that is a very ignorant statement.

no "the only reason to go HD on small (42") displays is" not to help avoid pixel structure screen door effect. Infact makes me wonder if you have even seen true HD 1080i source marterial on a 42" HD screen.

[cummo]

I know 2 people with 42” Plasma’s, one SD and one HD. Both are viewed from over 4 meters, making the HD a waste of money on resolution grounds. It simple does not look more detailed then the SD 42” at that distance.

Resolution should really be low on the priority scale in this usage situation. Other aspects of picture performance are far more important, as I’m sure you would agree.

480P Plasma’s do have their place with people who sit more then 4 meters from the screen, and there are many of them.

I've argued this point for years now on this forum. Over the last 4 to 5 years, I've owned both SD and HD 42" plasmas of the same manufacture and its the SD panel that displays a slightly better picture with a SD signal.

Once the viewing distance removes the SDE, the sharpness of picture is similar. Where the SD panel wins is with its better contrast and colour depth. Its 480 lines of resolution contains original information and it has full horizontal resolution with minimal interpolation of information compared to a HD panel. The amount of scaling of a SD signal on a HD panel delivers a softer picture when compared to the SD panel.

The only advantage the HD panel has is with its better processing that tends to have less posterisation with low bitrate signals

The flood of 'yum cha' brands of 480 line plasmas onto our market over the last couple of years has given the SD panel a bad reputation. Poor black levels and poor processing and deinterlacing are inherent in many of these panels with some not being able to display a pal signal at 50hz. People see this and believe the lack of good picture quality is due to the fact that it is a 480 line display.

[betty boop]

~

The flood of 'yum cha' brands of 480 line plasmas onto our market over the last couple of years has given the SD panel a bad reputation. Poor black levels and poor processing and deinterlacing are inherent in many of these panels with some not being able to display a pal signal at 50hz. People see this and believe the lack of good picture quality is due to the fact that it is a 480 line display.

and HD panels have come a long way too. I went from a 2year old HD plasma to same brand current model HD plasma just recently and can tell you the difference is considerable. The new panel is far and away better in every way possible. technology with plasmas hasnt stood still which is good for us consumers and whats even better is the price has dropped considerably with my newer panel despite being one size up still less than half actually nearly a third the price of what I paid for 2 year old it replaced.

the 'yum cha' brands is what are market could do without. but then again there's probably plenty that jsut want a plasma for plasma sake, never mind the picture quality. My brother in law has one of these up in his loungeroomroom, digital or something is its brand name I cringe everytime I go over with the god awfull picture quality and thats from when you walk in the house let alone at any closer distances.

[ozusaoz]

Trolling aside, this topic has been very informative for someone who is looking to buy a 42 inch plasma (my father-in-law).

Would anyone be willing to help me with some buying advice?

(Sorry to add to this long topic, but I can't make my own topic yet, as I need 10 posts to do so!)

Following the ABCD's outlined here to help me decide what model to get for my father-in-law, I've determined:

Aesthetics: If we're talking looks of the set, that's not important to my father-in-law. If we're talking picture quality, that's super important.

Budget: This doesn't seem to be a huge issue, but I don't want him to waste money. He's only got a crappy DVD player, so I think he's looking to get a hard disc recorder/DVD burner to replace it when he gets the new plasma.

Content: He watches TV all the time, including quite a bit of Foxtel and Indonesian DVD's. As this is SD material, I didn't think an HD set would be reasonable. The information in this post has me reconsidering, though.

Distance: His chair is 3 meters from his current set. He could go a bit closer or a bit further as necessary.

I'd love a couple of brand/model suggestions from someone who's done the research. There seem to be quite a few knowledgeable posters here!

P.S. If someone with posting powers would like to move this post to a new topic, I'd appeciate it. Thanks...

[BribieG]

Yum cha brands:

A fair comparison from a somewhat related field would be to go back to the mid 90's when computer stores were full of 'yum cha' computers: 486 sx with 4 mb RAM, 400 mb HDD, floppy drive and a 14 inch monitor (.35 dot pitch) for the amazing price of $1400. Despite being useful only as a boat anchor they sold in their tens of thousands.

What they had in common with SD plasmas is that it was one of the biggest dumping exercises in tech history to clear huge stocks of old components prior to the pentium, and almost certainly 99% are resting in landfills. Just like the old 486s there will soon be a time when owning a SD plasma from GOLO or Crazy Clarks will be an embarassment.

[Omega1503559526]

Trolling aside, this topic has been very informative for someone who is looking to buy a 42 inch plasma (my father-in-law).

Would anyone be willing to help me with some buying advice?

(Sorry to add to this long topic, but I can't make my own topic yet, as I need 10 posts to do so!)

Following the ABCD's outlined here to help me decide what model to get for my father-in-law, I've determined:

Aesthetics: If we're talking looks of the set, that's not important to my father-in-law. If we're talking picture quality, that's super important.

Budget: This doesn't seem to be a huge issue, but I don't want him to waste money. He's only got a crappy DVD player, so I think he's looking to get a hard disc recorder/DVD burner to replace it when he gets the new plasma.

Content: He watches TV all the time, including quite a bit of Foxtel and Indonesian DVD's. As this is SD material, I didn't think an HD set would be reasonable. The information in this post has me reconsidering, though.

Distance: His chair is 3 meters from his current set. He could go a bit closer or a bit further as necessary.

I'd love a couple of brand/model suggestions from someone who's done the research. There seem to be quite a few knowledgeable posters here!

P.S. If someone with posting powers would like to move this post to a new topic, I'd appeciate it. Thanks...

On the basis of the statements that suggest looks are unimportant, PQ is very important and that cost isnt a great issue, I wouldnt hesitate to reccommend one of the Sony SXRD rearpros. 60" goes for about $5k and 70" for $6.5.

However the statements that follow about an almost exclusive diet of SD content make this less worthwile as its very much a HD set. (dont get me wrong it can handle SD very well too...but SD is just not the reason most people buy one of these).

EDIT: Oh sorry, i just realised you said you were looking at a 42" Plasma. Didn't see that at first...i guess you can disregard the above as the SXRD is neither a plasma, nor anywhere near 42".

[AndrewWilliams]

Infact makes me wonder if you have even seen true HD 1080i source marterial on a 42" HD screen.

Does King Kong on HD-DVD count? That's mainly what I used as my test material when evaluating displays. Was it better on a HD 42" than an SD 42"? Yes. From 3m? Barely. Honestly a 70" display is what's needed from 3m to do any sort of justice at all to 1080 content. Actually, THX says 2.8m is the maximum disatnce to resolve 1920x1080 on a 70" display. That's very much in line with my experience. You might think Owen tends to harp on about display size but he's generally on the money with what he says in my opinion.

[betty boop]

Does King Kong on HD-DVD count? That's mainly what I used as my test material when evaluating displays. Was it better on a HD 42" than an SD 42"? Yes. From 3m? Barely. Honestly a 70" display is what's needed from 3m to do any sort of justice at all to 1080 content. Actually, THX says 2.8m is the maximum disatnce to resolve 1920x1080 on a 70" display. That's very much in line with my experience. You might think Owen tends to harp on about display size but he's generally on the money with what he says in my opinion.

Well I actually own king kong on hd-dvd and own a hd-dvd player and havign watched it at 3.25m on my 1024 line HD 42" HD plasma would have to say you must need to get your eyes tested or surely blind to not see the benefit 1080i HD can bring.

so this chart posted by merovingian

http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-content/uplo...ution_chart.png

must be bolderdash then given it says the benfits of hd becomes evident at around 12 foot or 3.65m on a 70" screen, and the differnece between SD and HD is equivalent on a 42" screen only when out past 15 feet or over 4.5m.

now ok perhaps your trying to justify your 60" screen and why your sitting where you are to view it. not necessary, but also not necessary is to say a 42" HD is useless for HD at 3m becaused sorry I own one and on fta, the xbox 360 and with the tosh hd-dvd putting out 1080i just not the case.

ps I see you dont infact actually own a hi-def disc player fo any sort, jsut looking at your sig ? so jsut a plain dvd player upsampling as source is all you have ?

Yum cha brands:

A fair comparison from a somewhat related field would be to go back to the mid 90's when computer stores were full of 'yum cha' computers: 486 sx with 4 mb RAM, 400 mb HDD, floppy drive and a 14 inch monitor (.35 dot pitch) for the amazing price of $1400. Despite being useful only as a boat anchor they sold in their tens of thousands.

What they had in common with SD plasmas is that it was one of the biggest dumping exercises in tech history to clear huge stocks of old components prior to the pentium, and almost certainly 99% are resting in landfills. Just like the old 486s there will soon be a time when owning a SD plasma from GOLO or Crazy Clarks will be an embarassment.

agree totally. the us market is huge and any surplusses are beign jsut dumped over here, including flooding as price leaders. if the makers were serious about SD plasmas theyd actually make them for our SD resolutions that we have over here not the us format.