Need help buying a 1080p TV/LCD/PLASMA...

[marwan]

it will most probably be an LCD since TV dont come in big sizes like Plasma and LCD, plus im still paranoid with Plasma Burn-in isssues. so that leaves LCD.

my question is, by the time the Playstation 3 comes, i would like to upgrade to a 1080p LCD screen(45 or 50 inch...with HDMI ofcourse). my question, is the higher the native resolution is the better the quality is for HDTVviewing, but worse for standard TV viewing?(480i)

what native resolution should i go for when i purchase my 1080p HDTV LCD? is there something higher than 1920x1080?

thanks for your help!

[shiltz]

There is only one native resolution for 1080p, that's what the number means, 1080p = 1920x1080 progresive scan, either way though I would not buy a 1080p tv right now as currently almost none of them actualy accept a 1080p signal, they only accept 480i/p, 720, and 1080i and upconvert them to 1080p.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by shiltz

There is only one native resolution for 1080p, that's what the number means, 1080p = 1920x1080 progresive scan, either way though I would not buy a 1080p tv right now as currently almost none of them actualy accept a 1080p signal, they only accept 480i/p, 720, and 1080i and upconvert them to 1080p.

yah thats what i heard to. so i'll just wait till the end of the air before buying one. I just thought i start my research from now to get as much info as possible.

btw, i think Hitachi has a true 1080p TV....dont know much about it, but i saw it on either www.engadget.com or www.gizmodo.com

so anyways, how would 480i/p movies games look on a 1920x1080 screen?

Will Blu-Ray movie support 1080p, or is it 720p/1080i only?

and last, is Plasma Burn-in a thing of the past, or is it still an issue? my only drip is that Plasma TVs colors don't look as bright and vibrant as LCD TVs.

thanks!

[shiltz]

how 480i/p movies and games look on a 1080p screen will depend on the quality of the scaler built into the TV, some TV's it could look really bad while others it will look good.

Blu-ray will support 1080p.

I'm pretty sure plasma still has burn-in issues, just no where near as bad as they used to be, personly I would never buy a plasma TV, between the burn-in, the relatively short lifespan of the panels, that they are far to expensive, and the fact that plasma already seems to be on it's way out as i've seen a lot of big names dropping out of the plasma buisness it doesn't seem worth it to go for one, personaly i'd go with an LCoS projection TV instead.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by shiltz

how 480i/p movies and games look on a 1080p screen will depend on the quality of the scaler built into the TV, some TV's it could look really bad while others it will look good.

Blu-ray will support 1080p.

I'm pretty sure plasma still has burn-in issues, just no where near as bad as they used to be, personly I would never buy a plasma TV, between the burn-in, the relatively short lifespan of the panels, that they are far to expensive, and the fact that plasma already seems to be on it's way out as i've seen a lot of big names dropping out of the plasma buisness it doesn't seem worth it to go for one, personaly i'd go with an LCoS projection TV instead.

but ptojection TVs always have that loss in quality image. it's the same as projection TVs right? ....honestly i'd rather go for LCD eventhough it costs more.

im glad manufacturers are dropping the plasma technology, cuz i honestly was never impressed by it, plus the image seemed too dim in comparison to LCD and CRT.

oh and let's not forget Toshiba's SED.....i wonder when will those go on sale.....and im sure when they do, they will cost an arm and a leg.

btw, in the future im thinking of buying a Sharp Aquos 45"/50" 1080p LCD. i hear Sharp has the best LCD screens, even better than Sony's....heck even the Sony PSP has Sharp screen

[thunderhawk]

If SED ever launches, it won't be able to compete with LCD. LCD is far cheaper then SED.

[shiltz]

I've never heard of anything saying projection TV's have worse image quality, just worse viewing angles, everything thing i've seen says LCoS projection TV's produce a more accurate image, specificaly in regards to contrast ratio and black levels.

I still rather CRT over all of them though, best image quality bar none, best viewing angles, depth of the TV is a non issue imo, only downside is CRT's only go up to 40", 34" for widescreens.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by shiltz

I've never heard of anything saying projection TV's have worse image quality, just worse viewing angles, everything thing i've seen says LCoS projection TV's produce a more accurate image, specificaly in regards to contrast ratio and black levels.

I still rather CRT over all of them though, best image quality bar none, best viewing angles, depth of the TV is a non issue imo, only downside is CRT's only go up to 40", 34" for widescreens.

my Sony widescreen is 36". but like you said, that's the biggest evailable unfortunately

oh well, i'll just wait and get a 1080p LCD by the end of the year. How do you guys like the Sharp Aquos line?

[shiltz]

Is it an older one? I didn't know Sony ever made a 36" widescreen CRT, I know currently they stop at 34" for their widescreens and did when I bought mine a little over a year ago.

[Seastrand]

Originally Posted by shiltz

...either way though I would not buy a 1080p tv right now as currently almost none of them actualy accept a 1080p signal, they only accept 480i/p, 720, and 1080i and upconvert them to 1080p.

This is no longer true. There are quite a few models out now that accept 1080P inputs.

[monodc]

Even tho there ARE a few models that can handle true 1080p, it's just not the right time to buy right now. The units will get better and cheaper FAST once the ball gets rolling. My advice would be to hold the purchase off, at least 'til late summer or so. Sorry.

[Seastrand]

No reason to be sorry... I just didn't want people to think any 1080p TVs were not available yet.

[shiltz]

Are you sure about that? i've only seen like 3 or 4 1080p TV's still that actualy accept a 1080p signal, either way even if there are a few more than that now still about 99% of TV's don't accept 1080p.

[Seastrand]

Originally Posted by shiltz

Are you sure about that? i've only seen like 3 or 4 1080p TV's still that actualy accept a 1080p signal, either way even if there are a few more than that now still about 99% of TV's don't accept 1080p.

HP has two models, I've seen several other manufacturers with models out now -- don't have any names off-hand, but since I already bought an HP TV, I don't keep up with it anymore.

[Shadowself]

I like the idea of a true 1080p/60 capable LCD TV/monitor (i.e., one that can take 1080p input at 24/30/60 progressive frame inputs and display them at a true 1080p at 60 progressive frames per second). I want to buy one.

However...
The problem I have with buying any of the LCDs at the moment is the response time of the individual pixels.

All of the vendors, in my opinion, use deceptive tactics when discussing response times of their screens. They give "gray to gray" response times. Thus on a gray scale of 0 to 255 they may be quoting going from level 200 to level 201 and NOT quoting times of going from full white (0) to full black (255) {the twist on the LCD blocks light so a zero twist is full white while a full twist si black}. By quoting "gray to gray" response times the vendors can quote much, much faster response times than if they quote white to black response times.

The vendors give typical "gray to gray" response times of 6 or 8 milliseconds (some even give "gray to gray" response times as good as one millisecond). However, with a bit of research (quite a bit of research when it comes to some vendors), you can find that the very fastest LCDs out there have a response time of 12 milliseconds -- or worse -- when going from full white to full black or the reverse.

Since 60 frames per second means the field is only there for a maximum of 16.7 milliseconds, 12 milliseconds to switch the pixel is almost 3/4 of the time the field is there. So you are not viewing the real image for much over 1/4 of the time.

While it is true that most of the time the TV/monitor won't be switching from black to white (each color will be switching from one intermediate level to another intermediate level) there are examples out there (Sin City, etc.) where there is a great deal of relatively high motion imagery with very stark white on black or black on white.

In very fast moving imagery this causes ghosting and other artifacts.

While I very much want to purchase a LCD display that does true 1080p/60, I will wait until the white to black response time gets under 8 milliseconds, worst case, which puts the transition time at less than half the frame time.

[monodc]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

I like the idea of a true 1080p/60 capable LCD TV/monitor (i.e., one that can take 1080p input at 24/30/60 progressive frame inputs and display them at a true 1080p at 60 progressive frames per second). I want to buy one.

However...
The problem I have with buying any of the LCDs at the moment is the response time of the individual pixels.

All of the vendors, in my opinion, use deceptive tactics when discussing response times of their screens. They give "gray to gray" response times. Thus on a gray scale of 0 to 255 they may be quoting going from level 200 to level 201 and NOT quoting times of going from full white (0) to full black (255) {the twist on the LCD blocks light so a zero twist is full white while a full twist si black}. By quoting "gray to gray" response times the vendors can quote much, much faster response times than if they quote white to black response times.

The vendors give typical "gray to gray" response times of 6 or 8 milliseconds (some even give "gray to gray" response times as good as one millisecond). However, with a bit of research (quite a bit of research when it comes to some vendors), you can find that the very fastest LCDs out there have a response time of 12 milliseconds -- or worse -- when going from full white to full black or the reverse.

Since 60 frames per second means the field is only there for a maximum of 16.7 milliseconds, 12 milliseconds to switch the pixel is almost 3/4 of the time the field is there. So you are not viewing the real image for much over 1/4 of the time.

While it is true that most of the time the TV/monitor won't be switching from black to white (each color will be switching from one intermediate level to another intermediate level) there are examples out there (Sin City, etc.) where there is a great deal of relatively high motion imagery with very stark white on black or black on white.

In very fast moving imagery this causes ghosting and other artifacts.

While I very much want to purchase a LCD display that does true 1080p/60, I will wait until the white to black response time gets under 8 milliseconds, worst case, which puts the transition time at less than half the frame time.

Indeed.
This is exactly why I'm holding off any purchase of a new LCD TV 'til the end of 2006, at least. The response times and contrast ratio on the LCD panels currently available simply are not good enough. How about a plasma then? No way. The problems with burn-in are still present, and for anyone who regularly leaves the telly on 24/7 (often with a static picture) the burn-in would be horrible after just a few weeks.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by shiltz

Is it an older one? I didn't know Sony ever made a 36" widescreen CRT, I know currently they stop at 34" for their widescreens and did when I bought mine a little over a year ago.

it's about a 2 years ago. i think the 36" inch was only available in the middle east as a regional release. in the U.S it's an XBR series, i forgot what it's called here.

no HDMI though

but it's simpley the best in image quality.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

I like the idea of a true 1080p/60 capable LCD TV/monitor (i.e., one that can take 1080p input at 24/30/60 progressive frame inputs and display them at a true 1080p at 60 progressive frames per second). I want to buy one.

However...
The problem I have with buying any of the LCDs at the moment is the response time of the individual pixels.

All of the vendors, in my opinion, use deceptive tactics when discussing response times of their screens. They give "gray to gray" response times. Thus on a gray scale of 0 to 255 they may be quoting going from level 200 to level 201 and NOT quoting times of going from full white (0) to full black (255) {the twist on the LCD blocks light so a zero twist is full white while a full twist si black}. By quoting "gray to gray" response times the vendors can quote much, much faster response times than if they quote white to black response times.

The vendors give typical "gray to gray" response times of 6 or 8 milliseconds (some even give "gray to gray" response times as good as one millisecond). However, with a bit of research (quite a bit of research when it comes to some vendors), you can find that the very fastest LCDs out there have a response time of 12 milliseconds -- or worse -- when going from full white to full black or the reverse.

Since 60 frames per second means the field is only there for a maximum of 16.7 milliseconds, 12 milliseconds to switch the pixel is almost 3/4 of the time the field is there. So you are not viewing the real image for much over 1/4 of the time.

While it is true that most of the time the TV/monitor won't be switching from black to white (each color will be switching from one intermediate level to another intermediate level) there are examples out there (Sin City, etc.) where there is a great deal of relatively high motion imagery with very stark white on black or black on white.

In very fast moving imagery this causes ghosting and other artifacts.

While I very much want to purchase a LCD display that does true 1080p/60, I will wait until the white to black response time gets under 8 milliseconds, worst case, which puts the transition time at less than half the frame time.

Shadowself, the new Sony BRAVIA LCDs and Sharp Aquos have a very fast response rate(ms). While BRAVIA still doesnt support 1080p, im sure soon enough it will. on the other hand, I know the larger sizes Sharp Aquos support 1080p with a high response rate.


EDIT: here is a link...

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/Typ...56,s67,00.html

i'd kill for the 45" one(i wish they had 50)

[scpetit]

Hitachi doesnt have a 1080p Plasma.. they use the term Virtual HD 1080p II Video Processor. But in fact thier panel resolution is 1024x1024. This is not the same as a 1080p panel that can display 1920x1080 lines of resolution.

Also even if it did have the 1920x1080 resolution it would still have to be able to take a 1080p input which right now only th HP sets do.

In conclusion save your money until Christmas and wait to see if 1080p will be worth it.

[marwan]

Originally Posted by scpetit

Hitachi doesnt have a 1080p Plasma.. they use the term Virtual HD 1080p II Video Processor. But in fact thier panel resolution is 1024x1024. This is not the same as a 1080p panel that can display 1920x1080 lines of resolution.

Also even if it did have the 1920x1080 resolution it would still have to be able to take a 1080p input which right now only th HP sets do.

In conclusion save your money until Christmas and wait to see if 1080p will be worth it.

ok thanks. PS3 games will support 1080p....so it should be interesing to see if 1080p is higly supported to warrant a purchase.

off topic, i hope that with the whole HDTV HDMI only thing that it's only for BD movie playback and not PS3 games.