75 replies to this topic

[uscboy]

I wish I could have picked up that Westinghouse 26" LCD HDTV on special this year... or the Syntax at CC maybe... would have made a better tailgating setup TV than my 17" Dell LCD HDTV. Maybe next year...

[Bestbuy7]

I wish I could have picked up that Westinghouse 26" LCD HDTV on special
this year... or the Syntax at CC maybe... would have made a better
tailgating setup TV than my 17" Dell LCD HDTV.

Maybe next year...

your refering to the dell monitor?

[TvBob]

"uldn't take any one person's word for it with
something this expensive, then just visit some A/V message boards like
AVSForum and read and learn. The minority of people there will recommend
EDTV versus HDTV and most of them do so while defending their own
purchase of an EDTV."

That's just false. Look at any of the edtv vs hdtv debate threads. There is strong support for both. Some of the most respected posters (tv addicts but good people) there who own many expensive tvs, hd and not, praise high end edtvs like the panny. They believe edtvs are is the best compromise for combining today's technology and tomorrow's. In the end, you can't really go wrong with either type of set, so I don't feel that strongly about it.

I just don't see this "huge" difference in picture quality with hd sources you keep talking about between edtv and hdtv plasma, assuming the models themselves are similiar quality. I encourage everyone to go to a store that has a decent display so you can see for yourself what you are may or may not be missing. There is definitely a wow factor for hd on an edtv, and on an hdtv, yes you can see a difference up close, but I really wouldn't call it huge.

I am hardly the only one who thinks this:

"So once you accept our word that burn-in really isn't an issue with the latest plasmas--whatever their resolution--the question becomes: how much better does HDTV look on a high-resolution plasma than on an EDTV plasma? The answer: not much, especially if you sit far enough away from your TV. Apparent resolution has a lot to do with seating distance, and unless you sit quite close to the set--say, seven feet or less--you probably won't be able to tell the difference in sharpness between a 42-inch EDTV and a 42-inch HDTV side by side. It's also worth noting that because black levels, or the TV's ability to display an inky black, may be superior on some EDTVs, their images may look slightly better with darker scenes. And remember, regular or standard definition TV and progressive-scan DVD look essentially the same on both sets.

For many people, the slight compromise in sharpness isn't worth the extra $1,000 or more that it costs to upgrade to the HDTV or high-resolution version of the same set. "

http://reviews.cnet....-5683218-1.html

Good article on the subject.

"Two terms have evolved regarding HDTV compatibility. "HDTV" plasmas are models with higher resolution, usually 1024x1024 or 1024x768. "EDTV" models have lower resolution, usually 852x480. The term "EDTV" is unfortunate because it sounds like an EDTV screen will not display HDTV properly. This simply is not the case.

It is true that the higher resolution 42" plasmas have a slightly better picture than their lower resolution counterparts. But to put a subjective number on the difference in picture quality, we would say it's around a 10% difference. The one exception to that rule is in the cheapest 852x480 models, which definitely can have substantially less picture quality on HDTV. But a top quality EDTV plasma screen is usually within a couple hundred bucks or so compared to the price of the lowest quality models."

Another good one: http://www.plasmatv.com/hdtv-edtv.php

These are not minority opinions. 10 percent is a good estimate.

[WAHCHING]

not a bad price for tha plasma but most people are picky about brands.

[uscboy]

your refering to the dell monitor?

Yeah, it's a PC monitor too.... nice set, sharp HD picture too, but only 17"...
kind of loses it's wow factor, plus viewing outside it's kind of small for football
games.

Now mounted up in the corner of my gameroom it works just fine. It'd be
nice to just leave it up there and get a 26" for tailgating instead.

[uscboy]

These are not minority opinions. 10 percent is a good estimate.

I've also read articles and seen links that say 50%... I suppose someone
could always do the math and figure out how many pixels more there are in
1080 lines of resolution than in 480 lines, but that's not the point.

If you're lucky enough to be blind and not be able to tell the difference
between 1080i and 480p easily with your own eyes, then you'll be really
happy with EDTV. In fact, I've read those exact sentiments on AVS....
apparently some people can't tell. I can see the difference pretty clearly. I
suggest people look at both before deciding for themselves, then.

[BobbyDouglas]

uscboy, what's your username over at AVS?

[TvBob]

I've also read articles and seen links that say 50%... I suppose someone
could always do the math and figure out how many pixels more there are in
1080 lines of resolution than in 480 lines, but that's not the point.

If you're lucky enough to be blind and not be able to tell the difference
between 1080i and 480p easily with your own eyes, then you'll be really
happy with EDTV. In fact, I've read those exact sentiments on AVS....
apparently some people can't tell. I can see the difference pretty clearly. I
suggest people look at both before deciding for themselves, then.

I'd like you to show me one article written by someone with a decent reputation that claims there is a 50 percent difference. The point is the difference is not as great as you continue to claim. I have 20/20 vision, the only way I see any sort of significant difference is if I stay within 6 ft of the tv the entire time. For all practical purposes, edtvs will serve not only the average consumer well, but even many with high standards as far as picture quality, for many years.

[blackdaniel]

I'm not a math major by any means but it seems to me that 1920x1080 is equal to 2,073,600 pixels, 1024x1024 would be 1,048,576 pixels, 1024x768 would be 786,432 pixels and 852x480 would be 408,960 pixels. So besides the enormous pixel count of the full hd plasma the other two more common hd panels have roughly twice the amount of pixels that an ed panel has. You know the thing that jumps out at me is that for years I loved my Volkswagon. It handled great, has plenty of pep, is comfortable for long drives and gets me through ice and snow to go snowboarding. Its probably the finest car I've ever had the pleasure to own. But then a friend of mine let me drive his Audi S4. All of a sudden my Volkswagon drives like a brick, doesn't have heated seats, loses traction when it's wet, and that s4 hauls ass.... You know that Volkswagon looked great until I saw something better. The vast majority of consumers will think that ed looks amazing because they have been watching their tired old crt for the last however many years. And don't get me wrong, ed panels do look great. But once you've seen a 50" Pioneer Elite or Fujitsu you just don't see the same thing when you look at an ed plasma.

[Spooot]

It's great you got your plasma...however and this is no slam on plasma's or your decision to purchase one by any stretch especially for casual viewing. We bought a 55" Phillips wide screen High def about 2 years ago, it was my Christmas present (and yes we paid dearly for it, but it is sooo worth it, IMO). I love NASCAR and there is nothing better than watching those cars go round and round in circles on this thing!!! Not to mention the sound is awesome. Anyway onto my point. I myself would not buy a plasma just because of the burnout issue, I've known too many that have done so and later regretted purchasing a plasma (again however if it's for casual viewing no big deal). But I'm now in the market for a couple of Wide Screen LCD's one for the den (at least a 32") and one for our bedroom (at least 26"). The issue here is what is best for you. I have a 100 year old house with a lot of sq footage but small rooms so anything off of the floor is a good thing, plus I can hang a picture over it to hide it when it isn't in use. The interesting thing about LCD's is that there are only 5 manufacturers in the world that manufacture LCD's so to get hung up on a name brand is probably a little silly? There may be a few upgraded tweaks here and there depending on branding, but I figure do your research and get the best at the most affordable price. Same is true with any TV, whether is is EDTV, LCD, or DLP. DLP is still a little pricey for my taste so I'll stick with the LCD's for a while.

[TvBob]

I'm not a math major by any means but it seems to me that 1920x1080 is equal to 2,073,600 pixels, 1024x1024 would be 1,048,576 pixels, 1024x768 would be 786,432 pixels and 852x480 would be 408,960 pixels. So besides the enormous pixel count of the full hd plasma the other two more common hd panels have roughly twice the amount of pixels that an ed panel has.

You know the thing that jumps out at me is that for years I loved my Volkswagon. It handled great, has plenty of pep, is comfortable for long drives and gets me through ice and snow to go snowboarding. Its probably the finest car I've ever had the pleasure to own. But then a friend of mine let me drive his Audi S4. All of a sudden my Volkswagon drives like a brick, doesn't have heated seats, loses traction when it's wet, and that s4 hauls ass.... You know that Volkswagon looked great until I saw something better.

The vast majority of consumers will think that ed looks amazing because they have been watching their tired old crt for the last however many years. And don't get me wrong, ed panels do look great. But once you've seen a 50" Pioneer Elite or Fujitsu you just don't see the same thing when you look at an ed plasma.

You can't look at it that way because edtvs have technology to accept those higher resolution signals and emulate them to a degree. No, not as well as true hdtvs, but when hdtvs do 720 at 1080, edtvs look better than 480 when they do those resolutions, which is why most experts claim there is not more than a 10 to 20 percent difference in overall picture quality.

50 inch is not really the debate at hand, you need a 50 inch to actually experience true hd actually, which is another reason why some go with 42 inch edtvs. But the comparison is between 42 inch plasmas.

And I wouldn't say the difference between an edtv and hdtv plasma is close to the difference in performance in a vw and audi lol.

[blackdaniel]

Yeah I know, the car comparison was a little over the top. Besides my "German" car was actually assembled in Mexico!

[mom2twoblessings]

I sure can tell the difference between EDTV and HDTV....and I'm not a trained TV Guru at all!

[BobbyDouglas]

I sure can tell the difference between EDTV and HDTV....and I'm not a trained TV Guru at all!

- You will always be able to tell the difference between an HDTV using a 1080i signal, and an EDTV using a 480p signal.

[captkorea]

If you pay close attention you see the difference between EDTV and HDTV. The lines are more separated and visible on EDTV (because of less resolution) than HDTV. Yes your dvd's will look fine on an EDTV but with the new upconvert DVD players using HDMI or DVI cables you see better contrast on an HDTV plasma then you would on an EDTV plasma. The images are more solid because of the higher lines of resolution on an HDTV plasma as well. However, I do agree that a high end ED Plasma (like a Panasonic) will look better than a low end HD Plasma (like Magnavox or Maxent) because it would have better contrast and better connections available. Right cables are neccessary ofcourse. For people justifying that these are temporary sets to provide a temporary upgrade? How much money do you have lying around that 1000 bucks (997) is a temporary upgrade. If you have SD cable you are better off getting a HD tube for half the price and still have your tv looking great. You will probably argue and say I wanted a bigger size....well it's just a temporary solution isn't it? Also HDTV subscription is not an arm and a leg. If you just wanted regular cable/satellite channels with HD your looking at 50 to 60 a month. If you wanted all the premium channels as well, you already are paying close to 100 a month and its only 5 dollars extra. You are paying for a service to use higher capacity cables (HDMI, DVI). Go to any retail store and observe the HDTVs with EDTVs. Images, letters, overall pictures will have a screen door effect that is more visible on EDTVs. Most HDTV plasmas (the good ones) will also have a built in ATSC tuner which gives you off the air broadcast HDTV. This justifies you not having to pay for HDTV until you deem it worth your price (when more channels are in HD). Also, Many of the new DLP's are in 1080P but no TV broadcast will be in 1080P. Blu - Ray disc players will also cost you in the thousands when first introduced.

[BobbyDouglas]

Right cables are neccessary ofcourse.

- What cables are the "right cables" ?

Yes your dvd's will look fine on an EDTV but with the new upconvert DVD players using HDMI or DVI cables you see better contrast on an HDTV plasma then you would on an EDTV plasma.

- Stretching the image wouldn't give a better picture...

If you have SD cable you are better off getting a HD tube for half the price and still have your tv looking great.

- Uhh... HD is more expensive than ED.

Can you edit your paragraph above so it is a little easier to understand? None of it makes much sense to me.