So, to see the best possible HDTV I need to look for....

"Alpha" wrote in message
...

It's entirely possible that your set is set up correctly for playing a
DVD
and I've just never seen one that was. I can only report what I've seen.

YOU have a problem. I have such an installation and it is incredible.

Again, the problem is YOU.

One more time, who is it?

Or maybe it's the guys at Best Buy/CC etc.?

HiC wrote:
[snip]

Another thing I've noticed, I have yet to see an HDTV of any size or
configuration - plasma, rear projection, etc. that does anything but mangle
a current DVD. They always looks like crap. Jagged edges, weird
pixelation/noise in the picture, again particularly when there's any panning
or movement. From what I've seen so far, they look far better on any POS
pawnshop analog tv. Is it that there just isn't a Best Buy/Circuit
City/WalMart/Radio Shack etc. anywhere who knows or gives a rat's ass about
how to set one up correctly or do they just not handle DVD's very well?

I was in a Best Buy today and looking at theirs, they had them all over the
place, including one showcase room with wood appointments, leather recliner
in the "place of honor", etc. with maybe 3 or 4 sets on display. Not sure
what the source to any of them was, but I wouldn't be able to watch any of
them for more than 3 minutes. I can't fathom that anyone actually buys one
of these things on the basis of such a demonstration, I mean Stevie Wonder
would say "man, that looks like ****..."

Obviously, any half-decent DVD properly connected to any half-decent
HDTV looks better than a $15 PoS analog set from a pawn shop. I don't
think this fact is really in dispute. Working from that basis, we
ultimately have to conclude that either:

a) there's something significantly screwed up with every single tv/dvd
setup you've looked at thus far in your local area
b) there's something wrong with your vision
c) your vision is fine, but there's something wrong with how your brain
is interpreting the images you're seeing (eithery consciously or
subconsciously)

Whatever the reason, it should be relatively straightforward to find
exactly what the issue is i.e. scrutinize in more detail the setup at
the electronic store(s), see an optometrist, etc...

HiC wrote:
"Ray S" wrote in message
.. .
HiC wrote:

I can't fathom that anyone actually buys one
of these things on the basis of such a demonstration, I mean Stevie
Wonder
would say "man, that looks like ****..."
Then you must have some of the most discriminating eyes in the world.
DVD's are not HD, but those I watch on my HDTV are really clear, bright,
without artifacts. I'm sure you'd come over and pronounce it garbage,
but somehow I get a feeling that you also pronounce the what you see out
your front door as being of poor resolution as well.

You're making a number of very large & erroneous assumptions without any
basis. Wish I had some way to show you what I was looking at. Yes, I believe
I have reasonably discriminating eyes, but I assure you I'm not being
persnickity for the sake of being persnickity here. I know you can't squeeze
orange juice out of a turnip, but I would expect a DVD to look at least as
good as it does on an analog tv and not have all this crap in the image.
Nothing esoteric about it, they looked terrible.

It's entirely possible that your set is set up correctly for playing a DVD
and I've just never seen one that was. I can only report what I've seen.





Why would a DVD be expected to look better on an HDTV? A DVD is a DVD is
a DVD and any component feed to a tv is simply going to look like what
the DVD image is capable of. My little Sony analog plays a DVD with
basically the same quality as my 42 inch Plasma. (Actually the Sony is a
little better because it has better black display than a plasma.)

So, no, I don't believe I am making a number of very large erroneous
assumptions. As I recall, you pronounced HDTV as virtually unwatchable.
I just plunked a DVD of The Incredibles into my player, hit play and
watch it on a TV that I have not spent hours tweaking because I simply
can't be bothered and once again thought, 'looks pretty darn good to me.'

The idea of 'crap in the image' is really subjective. Still, you give a
clue when you say you expect it to be 'at least as good as it does on an
analog tv'. Well, for me, general analog Sony 19in Trinitron Vs
Pannasonic Plasma 42 In, little discerable difference. Trintron blacks
are a deeper, but that simply is the nature of Plasmas and LCDs.

"Ray S" wrote in message
.. .

Why would a DVD be expected to look better on an HDTV?
A DVD is a DVD is
a DVD and any component feed to a tv is simply going to look like what
the DVD image is capable of.

You're not following what I said, even though you quote it again later in
your own post. At no point did I say I expect it to look better, I just
expect it not to look worse. Repeating what I said, I know you can't squeeze
orange juice out of a turnip, but I would expect a DVD to look at least as
good as it does on any pedestrian analog tv in good working order. Of
course, given that HDTV is supposed to be a step forward in resolution, if
there's additional resolution on a DVD that an analog tv isn't capable of
exploiting, it seems reasonable that HDTV would be able to show it. To date,
I haven't seen this demonstrated. They've consistenly looked worse.

So, no, I don't believe I am making a number of very large erroneous
assumptions.


Sure you are. You're assuming you know what I saw and apparently assume that
I'm saying I didn't like it purely as the result of some anti-HDTV crusade.
You're wrong on both counts. The whole point of my post was to say - "okay,
the HD I've seen hasn't even come close to living up to the hype I've heard.
How do I go about seeing HD that does?" If it can look great amazing, fine,
I'm all for it.

BTW, the scuttlebut I've heard about Blu-Ray is that it decidedly doesn't
live up to what was claimed. Has anyone reading this seen it and felt
otherwise?

As I recall, you pronounced HDTV as virtually unwatchable.

No, I said the ones I've seen were.

I just plunked a DVD of The Incredibles into my player, hit play and
watch it on a TV that I have not spent hours tweaking because I simply
can't be bothered and once again thought, 'looks pretty darn good to me.'


And maybe it does.


The idea of 'crap in the image' is really subjective.

Again, part of what I'm talking about with any HD I've seen is that when
there's any significant movement, particularly panning, it looks like it's
full of a swarm of gnats. Any detail in the image doesn't survive the
motion, it just becomes a mess. Even when still, there's this snow in the
image that I don't see on analog tv's. They had a Michale Buble' DVD in
one, and the image was just lousy. Even when still, his face was plain
blurry, there was snow in the image, when there was panning movement, the
same swarm of gnats I desribed. Don't blame me if the people who sell these
things don't have them set up right. The salesmen sounded sort of like you -
"well...it's *just* a DVD." as if oblivious to the fact that the image was
for ****.

The only time I've seen "impressive" HD is on video games - an X-box set up
in the store. But that's a video game, which always have an artificial
"clarity" to them being totally digital.

HiC wrote:

You're not following what I said, even though you quote it again later in
your own post. At no point did I say I expect it to look better, I just
expect it not to look worse. Repeating what I said, I know you can't squeeze
orange juice out of a turnip, but I would expect a DVD to look at least as
good as it does on any pedestrian analog tv in good working order. Of
course, given that HDTV is supposed to be a step forward in resolution, if
there's additional resolution on a DVD that an analog tv isn't capable of
exploiting, it seems reasonable that HDTV would be able to show it. To date,
I haven't seen this demonstrated. They've consistenly looked worse.

DVDs have greater resolution than VGA when played in progressive scan on
a proper HDTV projector. Not worth discussing, you have to see it.

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...


HiC wrote:

You're not following what I said, even though you quote it again later in
your own post. At no point did I say I expect it to look better, I just
expect it not to look worse. Repeating what I said, I know you can't
squeeze
orange juice out of a turnip, but I would expect a DVD to look at least
as
good as it does on any pedestrian analog tv in good working order. Of
course, given that HDTV is supposed to be a step forward in resolution,
if
there's additional resolution on a DVD that an analog tv isn't capable of
exploiting, it seems reasonable that HDTV would be able to show it. To
date,
I haven't seen this demonstrated. They've consistenly looked worse.

DVDs have greater resolution than VGA when played in progressive scan on a
proper HDTV projector. Not worth discussing, you have to see it.

Gary Eickmeier

There is another factor that may be overlooked. Your
DVD has a resolution of 720 pixels by 480 pixels your
HD display has at least 1280 pixels by 720 pixels so if
DVD is simply placed on an HD display it would be in a
box that takes up almost a quarter of the screen's pixels.

If you have the DVD play full screen then you have to
spread the data from those fewer pixels across a larger
number of pixels. Now they can scale an image pretty
well now a days, but try displaying a DVD so that it only
covers about 1/4 of the screen, any artifacts you noticed
should be gone.

Luck;
Ken

HiC wrote:
"Ray S" wrote in message
.. .

Why would a DVD be expected to look better on an HDTV?
A DVD is a DVD is
a DVD and any component feed to a tv is simply going to look like what
the DVD image is capable of.

You're not following what I said, even though you quote it again later in
your own post. At no point did I say I expect it to look better, I just
expect it not to look worse. Repeating what I said, I know you can't squeeze
orange juice out of a turnip, but I would expect a DVD to look at least as
good as it does on any pedestrian analog tv in good working order. Of
course, given that HDTV is supposed to be a step forward in resolution, if
there's additional resolution on a DVD that an analog tv isn't capable of
exploiting, it seems reasonable that HDTV would be able to show it. To date,
I haven't seen this demonstrated. They've consistenly looked worse.

Consider the nit picked then. At this point all I can say is 'meh',
cause. You insist it looks worse, I just don't see it. If they looked
better on my non adjusted 19in sony I would not be going downstairs to
watch them on the 42 in Plasma HD.


So, no, I don't believe I am making a number of very large erroneous
assumptions.


Sure you are. You're assuming you know what I saw and apparently assume that
I'm saying I didn't like it purely as the result of some anti-HDTV crusade.
You're wrong on both counts. The whole point of my post was to say - "okay,
the HD I've seen hasn't even come close to living up to the hype I've heard.
How do I go about seeing HD that does?" If it can look great amazing, fine,
I'm all for it.

At this point I'm assuming that you argue just for the sake of arguing.
Ok, big deal, looks like crap to you. Then don't buy one.



BTW, the scuttlebut I've heard about Blu-Ray is that it decidedly doesn't
live up to what was claimed. Has anyone reading this seen it and felt
otherwise?

between the format wars and the DRM folks wanting to cram in dodgy crap
to prevent you from becoming the copyright criminal they just KNOW you
are, its no wonder.


As I recall, you pronounced HDTV as virtually unwatchable.

No, I said the ones I've seen were.

Whats the difference?



I just plunked a DVD of The Incredibles into my player, hit play and
watch it on a TV that I have not spent hours tweaking because I simply
can't be bothered and once again thought, 'looks pretty darn good to me.'


And maybe it does.


The idea of 'crap in the image' is really subjective.

Again, part of what I'm talking about with any HD I've seen is that when
there's any significant movement, particularly panning, it looks like it's
full of a swarm of gnats. Any detail in the image doesn't survive the
motion, it just becomes a mess. Even when still, there's this snow in the
image that I don't see on analog tv's. They had a Michale Buble' DVD in
one, and the image was just lousy. Even when still, his face was plain
blurry, there was snow in the image, when there was panning movement, the
same swarm of gnats I desribed. Don't blame me if the people who sell these
things don't have them set up right. The salesmen sounded sort of like you -
"well...it's *just* a DVD." as if oblivious to the fact that the image was
for ****.


shrug, don't see it, don't care. Perhaps and evil monkey is
pre-scratching all your dvds?




The only time I've seen "impressive" HD is on video games - an X-box set up
in the store. But that's a video game, which always have an artificial
"clarity" to them being totally digital.

Ray S wrote:
....
Why would a DVD be expected to look better on an HDTV? A DVD is a DVD is
a DVD and any component feed to a tv is simply going to look like what
the DVD image is capable of. My little Sony analog plays a DVD with
basically the same quality as my 42 inch Plasma. (Actually the Sony is a
little better because it has better black display than a plasma.)
....
The idea of 'crap in the image' is really subjective. Still, you give a
clue when you say you expect it to be 'at least as good as it does on an
analog tv'. Well, for me, general analog Sony 19in Trinitron Vs
Pannasonic Plasma 42 In, little discerable difference. Trintron blacks
are a deeper, but that simply is the nature of Plasmas and LCDs.

Ray, something must be wrong. DVDs on my EDTV 42inch plasma look much
better than on my 32 inch Tube. Several thoughts:

1. If you are viewing the two sets at the same distance, you will see
less problems (and less details) on the smaller set.
2. Conversely, if you sit quite close to the larger set, you may well
be seeing imperfections that you aren't seeing on the smaller set.
3. A DVD is 480i or 480p. My understanding is that only a really good
analogue set approaches 480i. Your plasma is either 852x480 or
1024x768, so it will be able to display all the information in the DVD
signal. This assumes a component or better connection to the plasma.
Certainly, component and DVI/HDMI provide a better picture than
composite or S-Video. I suppose some people connect their bright, new
plasma to their equipment with composite cables and wonder why things
don't look much better.
4. Many second and third tier plasma sets (non-Sony, non-Panasonic,
non-Pioneer) have very poor scaling algorithms. Though they might
display their native resolution (1024x768 or 13..x7..) just fine, they
produce a lot of artifacts on other resolutions, particularly
SD/480i/480p. Since you have a Panasonic Plasma, I doubt this would be
your problem.
5. Similarly, many second and third tier plasma sets do poor jobs
displaying fast motion scenes. They tend to pixelate and macro-block
quite badly. Again, shouldn't be an issue with a Panasonic set. And
some sets do a pretty poor job of the 3 to 2 pull down, or don't even
do it at all!
6. Let's not forget that many second and third tier plasmas have
significant color problems: crushing blacks, poor black levels,
contouring gradients. The better sets generally don't show these
problems.
7. If you are viewing wide screen DVDs in letter box format on a tube,
you will be seeing an even smaller picture with even less resolution,
so from a distance, more problems will be hidden.
8. I do agree that a *good* tube should still have superior *colors*,
but unless the tube is an HDTV tube, the plasma should easily win on
detail.

Thinking about my sets, the plasma has a much smoother picture. It
doesn't have the obvious 525 (minus some amount) of lines running
across the screen. And the detail is just much better on the plasma.

I also can compare OTA HDTV on both sets. The plasma wins hands down.
Even on my EDTV, OTA HDTV is stunning. Sure, OTA HDTV downconverted
and run over S-Video to the analogue set looks better than any analogue
OTA (or analogue cable), but in no way does the analogue set do justice
to the signal.

If you really don't enjoy DVDs more on the plasma, I'm really sorry,
but my experience says that your experience should be in the minority.

Dan (Woj...)

dmaster wrote:
Ray S wrote:
...
Why would a DVD be expected to look better on an HDTV? A DVD is a DVD is
a DVD and any component feed to a tv is simply going to look like what
the DVD image is capable of. My little Sony analog plays a DVD with
basically the same quality as my 42 inch Plasma. (Actually the Sony is a
little better because it has better black display than a plasma.)
...
The idea of 'crap in the image' is really subjective. Still, you give a
clue when you say you expect it to be 'at least as good as it does on an
analog tv'. Well, for me, general analog Sony 19in Trinitron Vs
Pannasonic Plasma 42 In, little discerable difference. Trintron blacks
are a deeper, but that simply is the nature of Plasmas and LCDs.

Ray, something must be wrong. DVDs on my EDTV 42inch plasma look much
better than on my 32 inch Tube. Several thoughts:

Hey, don't look at me! I'm the guy who says dvd on my 42in plasma look
great! But I'll tell you what. If I take a DVD, lick it, THEN put it
into the DVD player, you'd be surprised at all the skips and pixel
clouds I get!


1. If you are viewing the two sets at the same distance, you will see
less problems (and less details) on the smaller set.
2. Conversely, if you sit quite close to the larger set, you may well
be seeing imperfections that you aren't seeing on the smaller set.

Hey! Don't tell me I can't sit six inches away from my set! You young
whippersnapper!

3. A DVD is 480i or 480p. My understanding is that only a really good
analogue set approaches 480i. Your plasma is either 852x480 or
1024x768, so it will be able to display all the information in the DVD
signal. This assumes a component or better connection to the plasma.
Certainly, component and DVI/HDMI provide a better picture than
composite or S-Video. I suppose some people connect their bright, new
plasma to their equipment with composite cables and wonder why things
don't look much better.

What! Dadgummit, now I gotta go crawling around behind the set and play
with all those wires!

4. Many second and third tier plasma sets (non-Sony, non-Panasonic,
non-Pioneer) have very poor scaling algorithms. Though they might
display their native resolution (1024x768 or 13..x7..) just fine, they
produce a lot of artifacts on other resolutions, particularly
SD/480i/480p. Since you have a Panasonic Plasma, I doubt this would be
your problem.
5. Similarly, many second and third tier plasma sets do poor jobs
displaying fast motion scenes. They tend to pixelate and macro-block
quite badly. Again, shouldn't be an issue with a Panasonic set. And
some sets do a pretty poor job of the 3 to 2 pull down, or don't even
do it at all!
6. Let's not forget that many second and third tier plasmas have
significant color problems: crushing blacks, poor black levels,
contouring gradients. The better sets generally don't show these
problems.
7. If you are viewing wide screen DVDs in letter box format on a tube,
you will be seeing an even smaller picture with even less resolution,
so from a distance, more problems will be hidden.
8. I do agree that a *good* tube should still have superior *colors*,
but unless the tube is an HDTV tube, the plasma should easily win on
detail.

Thinking about my sets, the plasma has a much smoother picture. It
doesn't have the obvious 525 (minus some amount) of lines running
across the screen. And the detail is just much better on the plasma.

I also can compare OTA HDTV on both sets. The plasma wins hands down.
Even on my EDTV, OTA HDTV is stunning. Sure, OTA HDTV downconverted
and run over S-Video to the analogue set looks better than any analogue
OTA (or analogue cable), but in no way does the analogue set do justice
to the signal.

If you really don't enjoy DVDs more on the plasma, I'm really sorry,
but my experience says that your experience should be in the minority.

Dan (Woj...)

"Ray S" wrote in message
news
Consider the nit picked then. At this point all I can say is 'meh',
cause. You insist it looks worse, I just don't see it.

I insist the ones *I've seen* look worse. Are you some kind of telepath that
you know what the ones I saw looked like?


As I recall, you pronounced HDTV as virtually unwatchable.

No, I said the ones I've seen were.

Whats the difference?

The difference is outlined in the title of the thread. If you weren't
looking for an issue that isn't there, you'd catch on that I have a sense
that I haven't yet seen one that was set up correctly. You've spent all this
time making dismissive retorts about something I didn't say to begin with
and haven't made any effort to answer the question I asked - How does it
need to be set up for the "real" HD experience? I.e. - when I go to some
vendor, I need to find out if it's set up in the following manner....