ATTENTION HOME THEATRE GEEKS!

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Moogs,



    Well since Sizzel chest and I live in almost the same area our results should be similar. I have regular cable and this is what I see : the top tier channels are pretty clear ( like the SciFi channel 59 ) but as you descend the picture does become more noisy ( grainy ) until you get to channel 3 ( WB ) and this seems noisy in dark scenes. But, it's perfectly watchable unless you are very critical. I don't expect it to be as good as DVD but, to answer your question I do notice more noise than I did with my old set. I don't notice the picture softening however. There are some really bad channels but, they looked bad on my old set also. I do notice the shopping channels seem to come in real clear ( yuk ). The only source I couldn't stand was reg video tape so I bought an SVHS machine which helped a bit ( mainly since it has a Svideo output .



    One thing I did do is replace everything ( even the coax ) with Monster Cable to reduce any chance of noise or RF interference getting into the signal ( yes it can get into coax ).



    I've set my TV up with the DVD " Video Essentials " going through the component jacks.



    I do know something about audio/ video since I've made it my hobby and I used to sell the stuff about 10 years ago ( it's one of the reasons I was hired for my current job at Willamette U ).



    Sizzel chest,



    I had heard about HD looking better from over the air broadcast. Kind of ironic considering that it was cable that looked better than broadcast back in the good old days.



    [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
  • Reply 22 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

    <strong>

    Sizzel chest,



    I had heard about HD looking better from over the air broadcast. Kind of ironic considering that it was cable that looked better than broadcast back in the good old days.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    HD over the air broadcasts are less compressed than HD satellite programming. I've never seen HD over cable and don't think it's even offered in most markets.



    Cable has the potential to look better than it ever did, but the greed of cable companies (see above rant about sqeezing more and more channels into the same bandwidth) is working against that, so the quality is getting worse and worse.



    Also the reason you'll see dramatically different quality on different cable channels is because the cable companies bring in different channels from different sources.



    My TV engineer buddy swears that the local AT&T cable office takes some of their channel feeds directly off a consumer-level dish (DirecTV type) and re-broadcasts the signal to tens of thousands of homes.



    Analog cable in our neighborhood (close-in NE Portland) has certain channels that look horrible (the NBC affiliate, Court TV, KPTV) and others that look pretty good (TV Land... home of Leave it to Beaver re-runs). Across town, my brother is served by a different AT&T office, and he has the same phenomenon -- certain channels look good and other ones look really, really bad -- but for him it's completely different channels.



    It just tells me that the cable companies have a lack of respect for quality, and don't care about anything except for squeezing more and more channels into the pipeline. There's a bit of this same problem with satellite (overcompression) but not as bad.
  • Reply 23 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    For a home theater, I would go with a rear-projection set or a projector. The only reason to get a tube is if you crave detail (jaggies for most DVDs) and have a room where you cannot control the lighting.



    DVDs are catered to 4:3 or 16:9. Non of your image will be clipped. Set your DVD player to 16:9 and you will get your imag displayed from end-to-end. With a 1.85 conventional widescreen movie, the black bars will be small. With anamorphic scope (panavision ... 2.35:1) you'll obviously get bigger bars.



    I don't really understand why you think anything will be clipped. If you don't have the right settings on your TV and DVD player, you may get incorrectly scaled images, but you won't have any part of your image clipped.



    I wouldn't want to watch a streteched image just the same. If you want to watch stuff that only works at 4:3, you can set your television to display it scaled correctly with vertical bars on either side.



    If you could illustrate an example where your image would get clipped, please share...
  • Reply 24 of 51
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Honestly Eugene, before a couple days ago, I didn't know anything about all the formatting options and how using the a different format on a 16:9 screen would look. Basically, I'm asking more than asserting. My goal is to make sure I don't *get* something - some combination of components - that *will* cause clipping or some other kind of distortion when viewing DVD's....



    Sounds like all of the HDTV sets and most of of the good players have the capability to ensure the original format is displayed properly though, with some letterboxing as you noted. The only DVDs I have that are more than 1.85:1 are American Beauty (2:35:1) and Fight Club (2.4:1). But if the letterboxing effect is small (say an inch or so of the screen on top and bottom...that's no big deal to me.



    I am just trying to get my facts in line so I know what kind of products I should be researching and which I shouldn't consider as part of my system. Frankly Digital Cable is out of the question at this point, as I've experienced their crappy picture quality first hand (without understanding why, because all I got was the marketing hype and not the good stuff being posted here)...so I'm learning as I go.
  • Reply 25 of 51
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    A small point. If you buy a regular 4:3 set of the same dimensions the letter boxed picture will be larger on a 16:9 widescreen set because of the shape. A friend of mine bought a regular set and I've noticed the difference on the same DVD.



    Sizzel Chest,



    I see we are in agreement about the state of the cable industry. I don't find your friends claims about how they distribute signals surprising. It would explain why no matter what I do KOIN comes in with horizontal lines ( and I've tried everything filters etc. ) but, at my friends house across town it comes in clear.

    They are going to have to do something soon however to address HDTV .



    Yes, 60 channels and I think I only watch 3 or 4 them on a regular basis.
  • Reply 26 of 51
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Moogs,



    I was explaining aspect ratios to a friend the other day. He asked me why Jurassic Park 3 would fill the screen but Star Trek TMP Directors Edition would still be letter boxed. Different ratios.
  • Reply 27 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Your HDTV will be 1.77777x1.



    2.35x1 is equivalent to 1.77777x0.7565012



    So what does that mean? That means 75.65% of your viewable image area will be movie and the rest will be black bars...Yes. roughly 1/4 of your screen area will be black bars for 2.35x1 movies.



    [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 28 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>Your HDTV will be 1.77777x1.



    2.35x1 is equivalent to 1.77777x0.7565012



    So what does that mean? That means 75.65% of your viewable image area will be movie and the rest will be black bars...Yes. roughly 1/4 of your screen area will be black bars for 2.35x1 movies.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    That's right, but it's not as bad as it sounds (if you haven't seen how it looks, Moogs). It's 1/8 above and 1/8 below. And the thing is, since you can't get a TV any wider than 16:9, this is still the optimal way to watch 2.35:1 movies. The only alternative is to set your TV to zoom in slightly, thus eliminating the black bars at top & bottom, but cropping off the sides of the image as well. I would not recommend that.



    To change the subject a bit, I mentioned yesterday or the day before that I was having DirecTV installed. The installation happened yesterday. The actual "on the phone with customer service" part, where you're choosing program packages and giving them all your info, took waaaaay longer than it needed to. I mean, it took so long that my cordless phone battery died in mid-conversation and I had to call back and finish up the process with someone else. Probably it took an hour or so.



    But the physical installation of the dish went fairly quickly. I probably could have done it myself in 45 minutes or so, but since Video Only threw in free professional installation, I didn't argue.



    The signal itself is exactly what I hoped for -- not perfect, occasionally showing noticable compression or softness, but vastly better than cable. I mean, every channel on DTV (and there a LOTS of them -- I mean, how many Spanish language channels do we need?) looks better than the best-looking channel on cable. The HDTV channels (HBO-HD and Mark Cuban's HD-Net) look AMAZING.



    So overall I'm happy. It actually costs the same as standard cable (not counting the fact that I added HBO on DirecTV), but we get more channels (my girlfriend is pretty happy about Lifetime Movie Network.... ughhh) and the quality is dramatically different. We only hooked up my big TV, so the other two TVs (my girlfriend is a TV freak, if you haven't guessed) are still cable-only.



    My mission over the next month or two is to convince my girlfriend that we should cancel the cable and install DTV receivers for the other two TVs. I feel that DTV is definitely better than any cable option, and the only drawback is that there are SO MANY channels that surfing through them sequentially is a pain in the ass.
  • Reply 29 of 51
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I think to tailor the system to DVD watching is the best move. HDTV broadcasting will eventually deliver better quality (it already does) with wider availability but we won't see HDTV DVD's untill a few years after HDTV is widely available.



    DVD's can actually come close enough. A progressive scan player playing a SuperBit Anamorphic DVD into a HDTV with a decent quality line doubler will come pretty close to HDTV. Look at VHS and NTSC. However, an HDTV 'ready' set will probably deliver a better performance even on NTSC material (the good ones will up-convert your inputs to 1080i, even though they don't have the tuner for HDTV reception built in)
  • Reply 30 of 51
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I took a look at several HDTV's today as I happened to be in Best Buy for other reasons... I looked over four Toshiba models.



    By far the best picture I saw (thought admittedly it could have to do with lighting or bad setup on some sets) was the 42H81 widescreen projection system. The picture was freaking amazing - even compared to the CRT 34" theatrewide version (which was $500 more expensive!).



    In general though I was just amazed at how much better today's projection systems are then a few years ago. They are so much crisper and have much better contrast too. The 42H81 also had what looked to be a decent built-in speaker system though I couldn't tell if it was L, C, R channels or listen to it. I only looked at it. Again though, standing 15 or 20' back from the sets and looking at them all, the Toshibas clearly stood out. Even the 50" 4:3 projection set had a better picture quality than some of the other manufacturer's 16:9 sets.



    One thing I'd like to know though, that I couldn't figure, is if I needed a decoder box for the 42H81...and also whether the Sales guy was clueless when he said "Not all HDTV signals are currently broadcast at 16:9, some are 4:3 or modified 4:3" Sounded like a load of crap to me based on what I've read here and researched so far but I could be confused....
  • Reply 31 of 51
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Actually that isn't a load of crap at all. HDTV includes a few different resolutions & aspect ratios in the complete spec. There are a few low-bandwidth SDTV specs included. 480 and 540p. These will deliver a standard definition, 4:3, picture, digitally. Broadcasters can use them to deliver up to 4 channels in the space of one HDTV 1080i/p signal. There is also the question of what is the best actuall aspect ratio for HDTV. 16:9 corresponds closely to the human field of view, and it's good for film, but a wealth of broadcast material exists in 4:3 format. Also, Sports might actually be better served by a 4:3 ratio. Remember the wide aspects are great for sensory/cinematic effect, but a 'squarer' picture of the same diagnal has a larger area overall. I seem to recall a few sports casters commenting that action is actually easier to follow on a 4:3 shot, than on a 16:9 shot. Interesting.



    Whatever aspect ratio you go for, you'll be watching as much as half your programming with black bars. You just have to decide whether they'll be vertical or horizontal. Movies? 16:9.

    Sports? 4:3?
  • Reply 32 of 51
    Moogs, remember that often some of the sets in a given store (especially a Best Buy) will be calibrated wrong. I was leaning toward buying one of the smaller Toshibas, because the picture on the 50H81 at Best Buy didn't look as good as the smaller ones. But I really wanted a bigger tube, preferably 50"



    When I went to Video Only, they had all the sets calibrated a lot more closely, so you could see that the 50H81 had the same picture quality as the 42H81.



    Speaking of calibrated wrong, the Toshibas arrive from the factory with sharpness and contrast cranked to the max, so the picture will look absolutely horrible until you turn the sharpness ALL the way down and the contrast more than 1/2 way down.
  • Reply 33 of 51
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    Dude macintosh, clip your link at the beginning, it takes up too much room and kills the formatting of the page for me (im on 1024X768..damn iMac... thanx



    [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: psantora ]</p>
  • Reply 34 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Also, Sports might actually be better served by a 4:3 ratio. Remember the wide aspects are great for sensory/cinematic effect, but a 'squarer' picture of the same diagnal has a larger area overall. I seem to recall a few sports casters commenting that action is actually easier to follow on a 4:3 shot, than on a 16:9 shot. Interesting.<hr></blockquote>



    I think this is more a case of being overly traditional than being logical. Think about widescreen foot ball action. You'd be able to get entire plays in one shot...a QB pass to a wide out without having to switch to another camera.



    Sports broadcasts would merely have to change some things around...new camera angles and stuff. You no longer have to wideangle (zoom out) on many shots.



    Maybe some of the surprise is gone when you have a full field of vision...you can leave that up to the telecasters though.
  • Reply 35 of 51
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah, it kinda makes sense for football where the teams line-up. But for tennis, or baseball, the taller view might be better. For soccer or hockey, where you primarily follow the ball (provided the image was a high def one) I think it would depend. Both look good from a high overhead 3 quarter view. If your screen is wide you might pan less down the field, which is ussually more horizontal on your screen, but pan more for cross ice/field movement, which is ussually more vertical on your screen. Reverse for the traditional 4:3 set. Interesting, I wonder if there are any tests to see which is least distracting to viewers?



    hrrmmmm, you might be right, might just be tradition talking.
  • Reply 36 of 51
    Be sure to check out the Home Theater forums at <a href="http://www.avsforum.com"; target="_blank">AV Science Forums</a>



    The people there know a tremendous amount of information about all of these topics...



    [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Bozo the Clown ]</p>
  • Reply 37 of 51
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Thanks Bozo. I'll check it out. Doing some more research currently...



    Sizzle, after re-reading your comments about the HX line from Toshiba, I think that might be worth the extra dough since it's unlikely we'll be able to build a room in our new house specifically for HT (lighting, acoustics and such). Hopefully the next rev of this line will include a 42" model (42HX91?).



    Now I'm looking at the Toshiba progessive scan DVD players but apparently their web site doesn't even list all the currently available models 5700 for example, which is odd.
  • Reply 38 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Matsu, I was thinking being able to have a behind the plate view which included a view of the entire infield.



    And yes, about the line of scrimmage thing. In the middle of a play, widescreen would be great for getting a continuous shot from QB to WR or whatever.



    I'd love to see what could be done in motorsports too...
  • Reply 39 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

    <strong>Sizzle, after re-reading your comments about the HX line from Toshiba, I think that might be worth the extra dough since it's unlikely we'll be able to build a room in our new house specifically for HT (lighting, acoustics and such). Hopefully the next rev of this line will include a 42" model (42HX91?)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't know how comfortable you are with basic "handyman" type stuff, but removing the front glare screen wasn't really that hard. It seemed like a scary idea but once I had the thing taken apart, I realized it was a perfectly easy project as long as I was careful. So I saved several hundred $$, since I don't need the better speakers in the HX line since I have everything hooked to home theater receiver & speakers.
  • Reply 40 of 51
    kwondokwondo Posts: 217member
    Moog,



    I don't know too much on HDTV but seem you have ample feed so I'll give you my 2 cents in audio which I do know a little.



    You have a decent audio amp and speakers. First off I would advise you to not buy a Surround sound processor pre-amp. It would be a waste in your case since your existing amp does not have enough channels to split your speakers. Surround sound system is either 5 or 5.1 channel. To establish surround sound you need (Fr)ont left channel, (Fr) center, (Fr) right, (Re)ar left, (Re) right and optional sub woofer that makes up the .1 in 5.1 channels. Your audio system is only left and right channels. The surround pre amp can process but your amp still has no way of delivering those signals. Save the money for a nice new audio system even though you don't want to replace.



    As an audiofile may I suggest Arcam AVR100. It is a beautiful integrated audio/video receiver with built in Dolby Digital and "dts" surround processor (almost all home theater receivers have built in surround sound proc and that's why you don't need a separate unit). Arcam is in tradition of older NAD: high grade components for modest price audiofile consumers. I believe the newest model is a 5.1 with pre amp out (for future expansion). Last year's model delivers70 watts/channel x 5 and 90 watts in stereo mode (current model is slightly higher). It is CLEAN power so it is efficient. Since the newest model has pre amp out you could even hook up your Rotel to power a subwoofer for a 5.1 setup. The most important feature about Arcam AVR100 is that it still allow you to experience your regular music closer to it's natural stereo sound. Most AV receivers are good at home theater experience but when it comes to regular music the signals still go though it's processors and it gets distorted. When you look at AVR100 you'll notice that Arcam does not have a lot of different sound "effect" mode like others do. Okay, I gotta stop here cause I'm starting to sound like a salesman for Arcam (which I'm not).



    I'm in the same boat as you are Moog, I have all older NAD components with Magnapan speakers for classical music, small JAMO speakers for rock and electronic and Bose for DVD movies. I don't like Bose (way too expensive for what it's worth but I got it for free). In order to make it a surround sound unit I have to change my amp. I do not want to sell or trade because I'll lose too much in value so I'l rather keep it to listen for my CDs. I'm going to get the Arcam AVR100 soon as I can afford it ($1299 I think for the newest model and $999 for last year's).
Sign In or Register to comment.