LCD, DLP or Plasma

Interesting thing about 1080i vs 1080p, in the world of LCD, DLP, and plasma. The resolution of both formats is the same, at 1920x1080. The difference, whether it's interlaced or progressive scan, is supposed to be where the difference in picture quality comes from. interlaced, which is typical of TV signals for decades, sends one half a frame of picture at once, then goes back and scans the second half. Each half is called a field, and normal NTSC TV delivers 60 fields per second, giving you 30 frames per second. Progressive scan delivers the entire picture at once, offering up to 60 frames per second. (for comparison, traditional film delivers 24 frames per second).

Why is this interesting? Interlaced is a necessity with tube type TV sets, as the process to deliver a picture in a TV tube is an electron scan that delivers the picture line by line. LCD/DLP/Plasma sets ALWAYS deliver the image progressive (i.e all at once). meaning, they convert all interlaced input to progressive input. So 1080i is always converted to 1080p in the set. What does this mean? Even a 1080i DLP/LCD set is delivering a 1080p picture. And a 1080i signal (the highest current broadcast signal) is delivered to your eyes as 1080p.

Lastly, your source input is the most important part of the process. Even on the older HDTV sets, the input stream makes a huge difference to picture quality. Composite cables are better than a standard connection, and hdmi is the best yet. And if you are watching standard cable/dish/broadcast on a 50" or larger HDTV, be prepared for a really crappy picture. I mean fifth generation VHS tape copy bad. You'll be blowing up a 640x480 image designed to be seen on a CRT to huge digital sizes, where you can see every pixel from across the room as though it has really bad jpeg artifacting. You will not like watching any old VHS tapes, and even older DVDs will lose their luster.

Chris_V wrote: Interesting thing about 1080i vs 1080p, in the world of LCD, DLP, and plasma. The resolution of both formats is the same, at 1920x1080. The difference, whether it's interlaced or progressive scan, is supposed to be where the difference in picture quality comes from. interlaced, which is typical of TV signals for decades, sends one half a frame of picture at once, then goes back and scans the second half. Each half is called a field, and normal NTSC TV delivers 60 fields per second, giving you 30 frames per second. Progressive scan delivers the entire picture at once, offering up to 60 frames per second. (for comparison, traditional film delivers 24 frames per second). Why is this interesting? Interlaced is a necessity with tube type TV sets, as the process to deliver a picture in a TV tube is an electron scan that delivers the picture line by line. LCD/DLP/Plasma sets ALWAYS deliver the image progressive (i.e all at once). meaning, they convert all interlaced input to progressive input. So 1080i is always converted to 1080p in the set. What does this mean? Even a 1080i DLP/LCD set is delivering a 1080p picture. And a 1080i signal (the highest current broadcast signal) is delivered to your eyes as 1080p. Lastly, your source input is the most important part of the process. Even on the older HDTV sets, the input stream makes a huge difference to picture quality. Composite cables are better than a standard connection, and hdmi is the best yet. And if you are watching standard cable/dish/broadcast on a 50" or larger HDTV, be prepared for a really crappy picture. I mean fifth generation VHS tape copy bad. You'll be blowing up a 640x480 image designed to be seen on a CRT to huge digital sizes, where you can see every pixel from across the room as though it has really bad jpeg artifacting. You will not like watching any old VHS tapes, and even older DVDs will lose their luster.

You are right that all the new technologies are progressive scan displays however you will find that most sets that advertise a 1080i resolution are actually only 720p sets, they are scaling down the image to fit 1280x720. Also, the difference between 720p and 1080p is only noticeable above 50 inches or so, depending on what size you are buying it may not be that big of a deal.

If you plan on watching a lot of movies on the set look for one with 120hz scanning. The 24fps of movies evenly fits into this refresh rate where it does not with a 60hz display. It has to display 3 frames then 2 frames then 3 again to keep things in sync and it causes a jerky motion.

As far as DLP vs Plasma vs LCD, I think the best option right now is LCD, 2 years ago when I bought it was DLP, who knows what it will be tomorrow. The fact is they are all very good, they all have their flaws, but overall they are incredible machines that will give you much enjoyment.

Good point about the 1080 issue, I forgot about that one.

One thing I will add: If I remember correctly 1080p is essentially useless today since there is nothing that will provide 1080p input (maybe a computer?). But you have to remember that there are higher standards down the road and having 1080p ability today will make the set a bit more "future proof", which is a consideration with what you may pay and the (supposed) longevity (I calculated the projective life and it came out to something like 25 years with heavy use).

Chris_V wrote: Lastly, your source input is the most important part of the process.

Exactly. No matter how good the TV, tuning it to The Simple Life will make you want to claw your eyes out :)

so question... why is it that about every HD tv i've seen the quality SUCKS vs my 3 y/o 37" standard quality tube when it comes to non HD broadcasting?...

when at friends houses and such i'm amazed with the great quality of HD... and then amazed at how fuzzy/grainy the quality is in standard def.

i REALY like the idea of the projector... the house we're getting into could be perfect for this room... hmm ideas

donalson wrote: so question... why is it that about every HD tv i've seen the quality SUCKS vs my 3 y/o 37" standard quality tube when it comes to non HD broadcasting?...

Standard TV braodcasting is designed around low resolution CRT TVs. Approx 720x480 resolution, and interlaced for multiple scan passes in the CRT itself. Converting the CRT scan "pixels (which are clusters of red/green/blue dots) to digital pixels and enlarging it for the big screen is like making the image a compressed jpeg image then blowing it up. Each original pixel in the image is now made up of a couple pixels in the new version, is then easier to see individually, and you se the compression artifacts that were present in the original image.

Here's an example. Both images started with the same number of pixels. The second is simply enlarged to a higher pixel count, as though it was being scaled up from a 720x480 resolution to a 1280x720 resolution:

Notice the lack of sharpness and the artifacting on key areas of the image? this is essentially what's happening when a non-HD signal is displayed on an HD monitor.

aircooled wrote: One thing I will add: If I remember correctly 1080p is essentially useless today since there is nothing that will provide 1080p input (maybe a computer?).

BluRay on an HDMI cable is 1080p. And even on my set, there is a vast visual difference between a BluRay signal coming over the HDMI cable and 720p and scaled down 1080i programming.

The thing that kept me from buying DLP (I didn't see it mentioned earlier in the thread so forgive me if it was) is that they have a series of moving mirrors which makes them unsuited to house with as many animals as mine. We went with LCD if it matters to you.

I love my 50" Samsung DLP 1080p and with the newer DLP's replacing the bulb is no longer an issue.

The new Samsung's use LED's rated at 100,000 hours of life, using LED's also gets rid of the 14,400 RPM color wheel which is supposed to get rid of the "rainbow effect", which I have never seen.....and I have eagle eyes.

I would only go with a flat panel if I wanted to put it on the wall and didn't have a big surround system to go with it. No point in putting the TV on the wall if you still have a cabinet with all your DVD/Receiver/PS3 stuff on the floor still.

Buy a Denon upconverting DVD player (the cheap ones suck) and buy a PS3 as a Blu-Ray player since it can do double duty.

Blu-Ray movies + Big surround + 50" DLP = why we don't go the movies anymore, just wait for them to come out to rent.

And its nice to be able to pause the movie if you have to go the little boy's room/get a snack/make a drink etc etc

MitchellC wrote: Just know that this is where you should buy your cables: Monoprice They're significantly cheaper than any B & M store.

+1 on Monoprice - They are amazing.

We have a two year old 48 inch Samsung DLP. It's on all the time in the evening and so far has been a trooper. Excellent picture and viewing angles.

jack

Well, made the jump this weekend. 60" Mitsu DLP should be here later this week! Ended up going thru CC where the unit was $100 off + my 10% discount coupon + a free Taylor Made golf club or something + I get to use their money for 24 months interest free while the cash I had intended to pay with sits in my account earning interest.

Anyone want to buy a golf club for cheap? Not my game...

There is one point that I disagre with Z31. I would be weary of using a PS3 as the BR player. The weak point in PS line up is it's extera uses. When you are playing a game, the disk spins up, gets read, and the the disk drive stops and every thing is in memory for the section you are in. The media player function keeps the disk spinning constantly and can burn out the drive sooner.

Also, don't go with the verticle mount, as this uses more power to spin the disk than flat. Take the Wii for example, if you read the manual, it recomends to mount it horizontally if at all posible. Same reason to avoid LCD tv's with built in DVD players verticly mounted in the side.

I haven't heard of the PS3 drive being a problem even in media player use. At least, I haven't seen any problem with mine in that role.

InigoMontoya wrote: Got a Panasonic Plasma 50" 1080P this past christmas, since we have a bank of windows down one side of the room we opted for the model with an antireflective coating.

Very good point! A few months ago we bought a new 42" plasma TV for in the family room. Took it back and got an LCD after 2 days.

Two walls of the family room are all windows and the reflections made it nearly impossible to see the TV.