New WS HDTV?

[Flash Gordon]

Hi Guys,

I would like some serious advice on the following two TV's please.

Panasonic TX-86PW300A

and

Sony KVHR36M31

I am trying to decide between them which to buy...and based on picture
quality in the stores cannot really tell the difference - but in a home
environment and maybe through a home theatre system you may be able to
expand on the properties of these TV - for and against.

Any input/help would be appreciated

Regards

FG

[Mike]

Flash Gordon wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I would like some serious advice on the following two TV's please.
>
> Panasonic TX-86PW300A
>
> Sony KVHR36M31

Neither. I'm serious. Both claim to be "HD" but provide no
specifications beyond "definition: high" and "fine pitch".
Why are they afraid to tell you the real capabilities?
It is an inult to buyers.
The target market is idiots. Do not be one. Seriously.
If you don't think TV buyers are idiots, just look in any shop.
You may see the HD sets demoing channel 7 HD.
And if you can't see what's wrong with that, you are wasting money on
anything HD. Just get a nice SD set, and wait for the tech, and
broadcasts, to improve.

> I am trying to decide between them which to buy...and based on picture
> quality in the stores cannot really tell the difference -

Can you tell the difference between SD and HD broadcasts on these sets?
Get a $999 TV and save your money for something better. You may not have
to wait long for a good LCD TV.

[David Z]

"Mike" <mike.n@nospam-westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42114f6a@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> I would like some serious advice on the following two TV's please.
>>
>> Panasonic TX-86PW300A
>>
>> Sony KVHR36M31
>
> Neither. I'm serious. Both claim to be "HD" but provide no specifications
> beyond "definition: high" and "fine pitch".
> Why are they afraid to tell you the real capabilities?
> It is an inult to buyers.
> The target market is idiots. Do not be one. Seriously.
> If you don't think TV buyers are idiots, just look in any shop.
> You may see the HD sets demoing channel 7 HD.
> And if you can't see what's wrong with that, you are wasting money on
> anything HD. Just get a nice SD set, and wait for the tech, and
> broadcasts, to improve.
>
>> I am trying to decide between them which to buy...and based on picture
>> quality in the stores cannot really tell the difference -
>
> Can you tell the difference between SD and HD broadcasts on these sets?

LOL, I can easily tell the diff. on my 86cm Sony, and I have the superceded
(non fine pitch) previous model. It is definitely worth it.

[Michael]

Yes, it is very annoying CRT manufacturers don't publish their tubes' specs.
From reading places like AVSforum the latest Sony one has approximately 1300
horizontal lines. 80cm is small compared to a projector displaying HD, but
you should still see a big difference between SD & HD on such a set.

"Mike" <mike.n@nospam-westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42114f6a@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> I would like some serious advice on the following two TV's please.
>>
>> Panasonic TX-86PW300A
>>
>> Sony KVHR36M31
>
> Neither. I'm serious. Both claim to be "HD" but provide no specifications
> beyond "definition: high" and "fine pitch".
> Why are they afraid to tell you the real capabilities?
> It is an inult to buyers.

[GB]

I measured my Sony HD 86cm CRT at about 1000 pixels horizontal, but there is
no set vertical limitation as the displays have the potential to display a
continuous colour from top to bottom of the screen. On grey, where there
was an amount of separation of vertical pixels, each pixel measured about
1mm.

Please note however, this was not while using a HD source. When I have one
I hope to retest to see if there is any difference in the way the display
works (I'm thinking the phosphors locations can't suddenly get smaller so no
change would occur).

"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42115a13$0$1256$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Yes, it is very annoying CRT manufacturers don't publish their tubes'
> specs. From reading places like AVSforum the latest Sony one has
> approximately 1300 horizontal lines. 80cm is small compared to a
> projector displaying HD, but you should still see a big difference between
> SD & HD on such a set.
>
> "Mike" <mike.n@nospam-westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42114f6a@quokka.wn.com.au...
>> Flash Gordon wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> I would like some serious advice on the following two TV's please.
>>>
>>> Panasonic TX-86PW300A
>>>
>>> Sony KVHR36M31
>>
>> Neither. I'm serious. Both claim to be "HD" but provide no specifications
>> beyond "definition: high" and "fine pitch".
>> Why are they afraid to tell you the real capabilities?
>> It is an inult to buyers.
>
>

[Ozdude]

"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42115a13$0$1256$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Yes, it is very annoying CRT manufacturers don't publish their tubes'
> specs. From reading places like AVSforum the latest Sony one has
> approximately 1300 horizontal lines. 80cm is small compared to a
> projector displaying HD, but you should still see a big difference between
> SD & HD on such a set.

I have my doubts, personally, about Sony claims.

Their "HD" CRT seems to be some interscanning/upscanning trick, as I believe
the top resolution is something like 890 lines from a 625 line source. For
HD at 1080 it would have to scale it down. As far as I am concerned until
they can come clean with a proper 1080 capable screen I'll stick with my
100Hz 625 line Loewe and SD. The same goes for plasma and LCD that has
anything less than a native 1280X1080 display. i.e. those less than $5000
models that are out now and make wonderous claims about 864 pixel
resolution, or what ever it is.

I don't consider 576p to be Hi-Def, so $even and SBS don't figure when I'm
talking HD capable.

Oz

[Ozdude]

"Ozdude" <ivsmith11@hote-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4211dfa0$0$13527$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> The same goes for plasma and LCD that has anything less than a native
> 1280X1080 display. i.e. those less than $5000 models that are out now and
> make wonderous claims about 864 pixel resolution, or what ever it is.

That should be 1920X1080 - sorry I was thinking 1280X720 (720p) for some
reason ;)

Oz

[Winston [ausWY]]

The stations here in Sydney only broadcast at most 1440x1080, so unless
you're intending on getting some sort of HD DVD or using the display as a
monitor, those extra pixels won't really have that much use.

"Ozdude" <ivsmith11@hote-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4211e2c3$0$2625$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Ozdude" <ivsmith11@hote-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4211dfa0$0$13527$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> > The same goes for plasma and LCD that has anything less than a native
> > 1280X1080 display. i.e. those less than $5000 models that are out now
and
> > make wonderous claims about 864 pixel resolution, or what ever it is.
>
> That should be 1920X1080 - sorry I was thinking 1280X720 (720p) for some
> reason ;)
>
> Oz
>
>

[Michael]

Same in Brisbane.

"Winston [ausWY]" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:37gjn6F5bgnruU1@individual.net...
> The stations here in Sydney only broadcast at most 1440x1080, so unless
> you're intending on getting some sort of HD DVD or using the display as a
> monitor, those extra pixels won't really have that much use.

[Mike]

Winston [ausWY] wrote:
> The stations here in Sydney only broadcast at most 1440x1080, so unless

That is the honest thing to do, because they don't have the bandwidth
for more. Really, you want the whole 20Mbit channel for one proper 1080i
program, but currently it only has around 12M. Its not worth the cost
of an extra broadcast channel, with so few people watching HD, and next
to none of them having a real 1080i display.

SD get 6Mb/s, and HD has 5x the pixels. So some scenes could use a
lot more than 20Mbps.

[GB]

1440x1080 is the normal storage and transmission standard for 1920x1080. It
is an anamorphic format. Even broadcast HD cameras such as Sony's F900
capture and store 1440x1080.

At best a camera has a 1920x1080 square pixel CCD which is down-sampled to
1440x1080 rectangular pixel format for recording, which is them upscaled
again to 1920x1080 for display, but most 1080 broadcast cameras actually
have 1440x1080 CCDs to start with.

Some of the reasons this isn't such a bad way to work, is:

1440x1080 compress's better than 1920x1080 so while there is less
resolution, there are less compression artefacts for the limited
transmission HD standard

1440x1080 CCDs allow for larger pixels in the CCD block which provide better
low light capabilities for the cameras (Sony FX1/Z1 HD camcorders are only
960x1080).

1920x1080 for a display is square pixel format, which match's 1280x720 in
pixel format so one screen supports both formats as best possible.

I'd bet, even when HD-DVD or Blu-Ray DVDs come out, if they are 1080, then
the video stream will be 1440x1080 anamorphic.

Just some food for thought.


"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4213eb4d$0$30457$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Same in Brisbane.
>
> "Winston [ausWY]" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:37gjn6F5bgnruU1@individual.net...
>> The stations here in Sydney only broadcast at most 1440x1080, so unless
>> you're intending on getting some sort of HD DVD or using the display as a
>> monitor, those extra pixels won't really have that much use.
>
>

[Robert Atkins]

In article <37gjn6F5bgnruU1@individual.net>, Winston [ausWY] wrote:
> The stations here in Sydney only broadcast at most 1440x1080, so unless
> you're intending on getting some sort of HD DVD or using the display as a
> monitor, those extra pixels won't really have that much use.

Actually, I was just about to ask what the go is here.

Apple advertise their 23" Cinema HD display as 1920 x 1200 resolution
and claim that is HD. But HDTV seems to max out at 1440x1080. Is there a
difference in resolution between "terrestrial broadcast HD" and "theatre
projection HD"?

When you look at the Apple offering at 23" it's a *tad* small, but all
the LCD TVs I have seen around that size are almost if not more
expensive ($2899) and are only 1280x768 or something resolution! What's
going on?

Cheers, Robert.?

[Mike]

Robert Atkins wrote:

> Apple advertise their 23" Cinema HD display as 1920 x 1200 resolution
> and claim that is HD. But HDTV seems to max out at 1440x1080.

Not at all. Full 1920x1080 would look very nice with a whole broadcast
channel, ie not sharing it with SD, EPG, etc.

HD-DVD and blu-ray both do a full 1920. The latter will fit a 2.5 hour
movie on a single layer at a good bitrate. (25GB, 22Mb/s)
But hd-dvd might struggle to fit a whole HD movie with mpeg2 in 1 layer.

http://www.somacon.com/blog/page16.php

> When you look at the Apple offering at 23" it's a *tad* small, but all
> the LCD TVs I have seen around that size are almost if not more
> expensive ($2899) and are only 1280x768 or something resolution! What's
> going on?

Different markets. LCD displays can be much cheaper than equivalent TVs.
Also, widescreen displays cost more than a 4:3 or 5:4 of the same width.
Supply and demand. Maybe computer buyers are smarter.

[Robert Atkins]

In article <4216f949$1@quokka.wn.com.au>, Mike wrote:
> Robert Atkins wrote:

> Not at all. Full 1920x1080 would look very nice with a whole broadcast
> channel, ie not sharing it with SD, EPG, etc.

Well, I'm sure it would, but is there a broadcast TV standard which is
1920x1080 anywhere in the world, or will there be?

> HD-DVD and blu-ray both do a full 1920. The latter will fit a 2.5 hour
> movie on a single layer at a good bitrate. (25GB, 22Mb/s)
> But hd-dvd might struggle to fit a whole HD movie with mpeg2 in 1 layer.

MPEG-2 is dead (again, according to Apple). H.264 -- four times the
resolution in half the bandwidth at better quality. Sounds like it
r0x0rs. And it's a mandated codec for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

>> When you look at the Apple offering at 23" it's a *tad* small, but all
>> the LCD TVs I have seen around that size are almost if not more
>> expensive ($2899) and are only 1280x768 or something resolution! What's
>> going on?
>
> Different markets. LCD displays can be much cheaper than equivalent TVs.

Um, why? I guess in an LCD TV you've got the extra expense of a tuner
and a couple of speakers and an amplifier but I would hazard that most
people who were prepared to drop $4k on a TV would already have a
surround sound system to go with it.

> Also, widescreen displays cost more than a 4:3 or 5:4 of the same width.
> Supply and demand. Maybe computer buyers are smarter.

Eh? 1920x1080 is full-on Cinema aspect ratio 16:9 isn't it?

I think computer buyers are smarter. I'm just surprised becuase Apple
have an alleged reputation for expensive gear. And here they're selling a
high quality product which is better specced and in many cases cheaper
than the consumer electronics guys.

Cheers, Robert.

[Michael]

"Robert Atkins" <ratkins_usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4219d0f0$0$27629$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Well, I'm sure it would, but is there a broadcast TV standard which is
> 1920x1080 anywhere in the world, or will there be?

Yup, some States in Australia get it already. I'm sure the U.S. pay TV HD
channels are in 1080i too.

> Eh? 1920x1080 is full-on Cinema aspect ratio 16:9 isn't it?

Depends on the shape of the pixels.

> I think computer buyers are smarter. I'm just surprised becuase Apple
> have an alleged reputation for expensive gear. And here they're selling a
> high quality product which is better specced and in many cases cheaper
> than the consumer electronics guys.

23" is pretty small though, the consumer electronic ones are bigger I hope.

[Nicholas Buenk]

> Eh? 1920x1080 is full-on Cinema aspect ratio 16:9 isn't it?

Computer widescreen uses 16:10, hence 1920:1200 but software will usually
put tiny letterboxes for 16:9 content.
The apple CinemaHD 30inch LCD is even better at a massive resolution of 2560
x 1600! And a screen size about the same as 66cm widescreens.


> I think computer buyers are smarter. I'm just surprised becuase Apple
> have an alleged reputation for expensive gear. And here they're selling a
> high quality product which is better specced and in many cases cheaper
> than the consumer electronics guys.

Yeah well Dell sells a 24inch 1920x1200 LCD for $1800, vs apple's 23inch one
at $2899. There is really no good justification for such a massive price
difference, apple tends to use the same panel manufactures as dell, however
apple typically has backlighting of better quality. Apple's gear is indeed
very expensive compared to people like Dell and Benq, even though it's
cheaper for what you get than LCD tv's.
Supply and demand, there is more demand for higher resolution in computer
monitors because they more easily make use of it. Hence you find higher
resolutions for cheaper prices than TV's. I mean, resolution on computer
monitor is very obvious, any idiot can clearly see small text and much
larger screen space. It's more subtle on tv's.