So I looked at 6 HDTV sets today... DHTV sucks

Okay, one screen looked rather nice indeed (this is a semi-bait'n'switch, so please forgive me!). Smooth, delightful images being played from Spy Kids 2 DVD (the one with Ricardo Montalban and probably worth seeing just because he's in it :loveya: ). No sign of MPEG2 compression artifacting... just loveliness.

Actually, I'd be tempted by HDTV if it wasn't for what I'd seen next:

The other 5 sets? The edges of the images (people, places, things) were pixelated very badly. That drove me nuts. Isn't HDTV supposed to have BETTER resolution?

Also, on the 1.33/1 or 1.85/1 sets (including the sole set that produced a smooth, delightful image that lacked the block-like effects), the image also looked vertically skewed (the movie was obviously at 2.35/1 ratio and stretched to compensate because the weenies can't stand a puny black border :eyes: and I know that because the 2.35/1 set had displayed the whole picture normally - that or HDTV does this monstrous stretching, God I hope not!!!).

Now I'm not up to snuff on HDTV, but seeing that it looked extraordinarily spectacular on one set, why did it look like an Atari 2600 video game on the other five?! What sort of setting would cause it to look so blocky/jagged around the edges?

I sure as New Jersey wouldn't spend $1500 for a set if it looked like that. CompUSA ought to get in some experts and fix those problems.

(I also wonder how a VHS tape would look on a perfectly calibrated HDTV... :scared: )

You were watching DVDs. DVDs have a maximum resolution of 480 lines of verticle resolution. DVD is also NTSC format. NTSC (National Standards Television Standards Commitee) is 75 years old.

HDTV is ATSC (Advanced Television standards Commitee), and as of yet, only Digital VHS (The D-Theater brand from JVC) is capable of provideing true HD signals from software. Most higher end stores (not CompUSA) will have either a hard drive from Mitsubishi, or Panasonic to display HD images. Those images are either 720 lines (fed progressively) or 1080 lines, vertical (fed interlaced).

The pixelization has to do with the signal, not the TV itself. It has to do with bit rate. Most DVDs (especially the older, two sided ones) run at a bitrate of 2-4 kbps (kilobits per second). even the "Superbit" DVDs from Columbia Studios run only about 6-8 kbps. Most HD signals from broadcasting, and D-VHS run the rates in the neighborhood of 16-28 kbps.

Sony is finalizing their new format, "Blue Ray Disc" which is a true HD software counterpoint to DVD, and should be launched with a handful of movie titles sometime in the next year or so. DVD, as it's capability now stands, is incapable of showing any more than 10 minutes of decent HD material, even for a double layered disc. Before you ask, no it's not compatible with DVD.

Keep in mind, DVD was only meant to be a transitional format, not the holy grail. HDTV is the future, and sad to say, you'll have to re-buy all your favorite movies again.

Like my refusal to purchase mp3s of music I already own - in some cases, bought twice, thanks to the CD revolution, ain't no way I'm going to turn around and throw away the fruits of my DVD purchases, only to blow the same wad over again and again everytime the entertainment industry decides to make its inventory obsolete for yet another round of cash.

JVC announced yesterday it's ready to manufacture a combo drive to play both traditional and next-generation DVDs. I would consider that. And when someone wants to develop a television that's capable of producing the images of both with good quality, I'll think about HDTV.

Until then, the industry can blow me.

not as full or robust sounding as a CD. Mp3 goes backwards in quality, since it's essentially a compression codec. This is aples and oranges when comparing DVD with Blue Ray.

Blue Ray is not a "Next Generation DVD". It will be a 12cm disc, but that's where the similarities end. BR uses a lavender/blue laser that's much finer and more accurate than the red ones used in reading DVDs or CDs. BRs also come in cartridges or "caddies" much like Mini-Discs, so the transport mechanism to hold DVDs aren't in the slot anymore.

I haven't seen this JVC player yet, but I might be inclined to believe that it will be a 2 slot combo player like those DVD/VCR combos...or they might be banking on Toshiba's design of a purple laser HD-DVD that the consortium is not looking at favorably. Hollywood does not want a format war. Just as they did with DVD 7 years ago, they will accept the best format, and agree to produce only that. Blue Ray, as of now is the best, and it's the one that stands the most chance of being finalized.

"And when someone wants to develop a television that's capable of producing the images of both with good quality, I'll think about HDTV. "

You'll be waiting forever. A Television is only as capable as the source it's given. Remember garbage in-garbage out. If a DVD is not up to snuff, then the TV is going to display a bad signal, because that's all it's recieving from the DVD. There are thousands of good DVDs out there, but none of them are High Definition, and none will be. You can't make a DVD look better than it really is by any TV technology.

Most people are inclined to agree with you on the re-purchase thing. I am pushing 400 titles on DVD now...only a fraction of which will I repurchase on Blue Ray.

regarding the mp3s.

As for the other, I was off - NEC, not JVC. From yesterday's Reuters:

NEC Develops Combo Drive for Next and Current DVDs
Thu December 18, 2003 03:07 AM ET

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese electronics conglomerate NEC Corp. said on Thursday it had developed an optical disc drive capable of playing back and recording both next-generation and existing DVDs.

The recorder comes with the world's first single optical head that combines both a red laser -- which reads and writes the current generation of DVDs -- and a blue laser, which does so for next-generation discs.

...
The proliferation of high-definition television is expected to spur demand for video recorders using blue lasers, since recording capacity of next-generation DVDs is almost four times that of existing discs. Sony is part of a consortium that includes some of the world's biggest consumer electronics makers, such as Philips and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., maker of the Panasonic brand, to back a technology called Blu-ray.

NEC and Toshiba, on the other hand, support a rival standard called HD-DVD, which last month won the backing of the DVD Forum, an industry association of some 220 electronics and media companies.

As for the TV, then I guess it's just tough and I will indeed wait forever - which equals not at all. I'd rather do some digging and join a class action suit against the government for demanding such costly upgrades on consumer product whose sole purpose is being a passtime.

Damn, I need to keep up on my home theater news. I'm just glad they finally came to a decision.

Some interesting political trivia. AOL/Time Warner and Toshiba own the term "DVD". Every maker of hardware, and every studio that uses the DVD symbol and term, have to pay a royalty to those two companies. Sony, being the self apointed leader of consumer electronics, always hated this, since they've been cashing in on "CD" royalties for 20 years. As a consequence, they decided to name their format "Blu-Ray" as they can copywrite the term, and demand royalties from their rivals they've been having to pay since DVD was launched in 1997. Sony was keen on making sure that the DVD term would not be used in the next generation video software format. I guess now they lost that battle.

Thanks for the info.

If DVDs only supported 480 lines of resolution, why don't they look "pixelly" on my 19 inch computer monitor? The NTSC standard is 525 lines interlaced, btw.

Thing is, there's hdtv and there's HDTV, depending on how much you want to spend. You can get a really nice plasma system for five grand on up that displays a truly AWESOME picture, or you can get a bargain system for around a grand that's really just a good big screen projection TV that can handle digital signals.

At any rate, I'll be hanging on to my trusty old NTSC television until I'm forced to switch. Remember, color TV has been around since 1954 (the first one had a 13 inch screen and cost $1000 - about as much as a Chevy), but hardly anyone had a color set until the mid-1960's.

Edit: Early adopters are suckers. They pay big $$$ for an imperfect product, like the original 1954 color TV.

It's 480 lines verticle. All resolution from sources is measured in verticle. as a sales gimmick, TV manufacturers use the larger horizontal number. You'll always notice "horizontal" in the small print.

And, you're right. Not all DTVs are equal. Some are HDTVs, while others are merely digital sets, but offer no HD capabilities.

Also, I am one of those early adopters. Without us paving the way, you would never have an upgrade affordable in your life...for anything. Single blade "safety" razor anyone?

Ignore what you've seen. I've been to several stores since they started carrying HDTVs, and I've yet to see even one single display unit set up properly.

If you want to know what HDTV can do, go to a high-end home theater store. Granted, the prices will be ridiculous, but the sets will be properly calibrated. You can then use what you saw there as a reference for looking at sets in your price range. (I would still stay away from CompUSA for anything other than computers, though.)

over and over again with a lot of signal quality loss. I looked at a unit in Best Buy and was NOT impressed. Then later on, I saw a hockey game broadcast in Tweeter and was blown away by the clarity. It's all in the setup.