Big screen tv (RPTV)

[melbertbloosfan]

Wifey says I can have one!!  I will be getting a Toshiba 50" HD ready tv - if I get anything.  Best Buy has 18 mos no interest on this tv.  Plus free chair & ottoman.  Plus free delivery.  Have to act this week, though.  Does anybody have a newer, "HD", projection tv?  I wonder how my dish network will look on it.  I know DVD's will look outstanding, but 85% of my veiwing is dish tv.  Just wanting "real-life" stories on how good (or bad) the dish picture will be.  Of course any other insights into "Big" tv ownership would be appreciated.  Thanks.

[GreenRado]

2 comments:

 

1)  COOL!!  :thumb:

 

2)  Make sure you get the HDTV 16:9 format, ie widescreen, rather than the 4:3.  (You're probably already aware of this, but thought I'd mention it anyway)

 

Ultimately, I'd like about a 60" Widescreen plasma panel that hangs on the wall and Home theater sound 5.1.  Gotta save my pennies!!

 

Congrats man!

[rrsob]

Congrats Dude!!

I'd love to have one. What times the party??  

The HDTV format will be 16:9, so as GreenRado said make sure

you get the 16:9.

Happy viewing. :thumb:

[RyanbabZ71]

anybody have a newer, "HD", projection tv

 

Yep 43" Sony.  Dont have a dish we have digital cable and everything is great.  DVDS are awesome (latest i watchd on it was black hawk down)

[melbertbloosfan]

Thanks for the replies and encouragement, guys.  I am a little bit nervous dropping 2 BIG bills on a TV!!  Maybe I should use it as a down on a new 03 4X4 in arrival blue , eh rado :thumb:   I actually have yet to decide on the 4:3 vs 16:9 issue.  I know 16:9 is the future and I know DVDs look kick a** on them, but for the next 5 years or so I see most programming being in 4:3 format.  I am torn!!!  I will probably end up going with the 16:9 because the WAF (wife acceptance factor) is much higher due the fact it looks soooo much cooler when off.  I guess I will decide thurs or friday.  217lbs!! anybody live in SW MO

[melbertbloosfan]

anybody have a newer, "HD", projection tv

 

Yep 43" Sony.  Dont have a dish we have digital cable and everything is great.  DVDS are awesome (latest i watchd on it was black hawk down)

Ryan, did you go with the 4:3 or 16:9 (widescreen) format?  If widescreen, do you use a "stretch" or "just" mode to watch 4:3 material?  Sony makes great sets - probably the best picture out there (with the Toshiba a close second ).

[GreenRado]

Thanks for the replies and encouragement, guys.  I am a little bit nervous dropping 2 BIG bills on a TV!!  Maybe I should use it as a down on a new 03 4X4 in arrival blue , eh rado :thumb:   I actually have yet to decide on the 4:3 vs 16:9 issue.  I know 16:9 is the future and I know DVDs look kick a** on them, but for the next 5 years or so I see most programming being in 4:3 format.  I am torn!!!  I will probably end up going with the 16:9 because the WAF (wife acceptance factor) is much higher due the fact it looks soooo much cooler when off.  I guess I will decide thurs or friday.  217lbs!! anybody live in SW MO

Yeah, it's a tough decision in some ways now because the industry can't exactly decide on formats (progressive vs interlaced HDTV) and especially as it's a major chunk o change!  

 

Maybe rrsob can elaborate on standards and where he thinks we're headed.  There will always be convertor boxes in case you don't end up w/ the exact variation on formats, screen ratio, etc in the future, so go ahead and enjoy!!

 

Yeah, blew my money on the '03 for now!!  

[AU Chevy]

My dad bought a 53" Hatachie Ultravision.  He got the 4:3 ratio since he has regular cable, besides I told him if he wants to get 16:9 later he can give me his "old" one.  

 

Wish I could fit one in my apartment.

[rrsob]

I still think your best off with a 16:9. As far as the industry their decision is not to decide. This is bad for the consumer because they will have to decide what tv to buy.

My Boss (our Chief Eng.) believes 1080 interlaced is the best bet to buy. Networks as well as Dish Net. will B'Cast in 1080i.

Most local stations will take the 1080i and "squeeze" it down to 480i wich is what you have now (they don't want to spend the cash to B'Cast 1080i).

In my opinion I would rather have a set with 1080 scan lines than 480. You'll be able to buy both. Whatever the tv manf. wants to make.

Most  tv's will most likely have a converter built in to decode the local 480i anyway.

I think most shows worth watching will be 16:9/1080i.

It's confusing. It confuses me.

I hope I helped a bit. Maybe I made it worse

Our Station is in the process of being sold as soon as the new owners get FCC approval. But the old owners said "no spending any money" So we are paying alot of cash for HDTV extensions and still using a 1950's transmitter.    

[GreenRado]

Agree.  Even interlaced, 1080 lines is A LOT more than 480.  Maybe I'm biased cause we use a lot of progressive scan in my field for machine vision, but that would be my preference.  I know that raises the bandwidth issue, however, so I expect eventually we'll get 1080i (interlaced) @ 16:9 as a compromise.

 

It's funny, after watching 16:9 on a TV, the old 4:3 boxes seem funny!!  

[melbertbloosfan]

I still think your best off with a 16:9. As far as the industry their decision is not to decide. This is bad for the consumer because they will have to decide what tv to buy.

My Boss (our Chief Eng.) believes 1080 interlaced is the best bet to buy. Networks as well as Dish Net. will B'Cast in 1080i.

Most local stations will take the 1080i and "squeeze" it down to 480i wich is what you have now (they don't want to spend the cash to B'Cast 1080i).

In my opinion I would rather have a set with 1080 scan lines than 480. You'll be able to buy both. Whatever the tv manf. wants to make.

Most  tv's will most likely have a converter built in to decode the local 480i anyway.

I think most shows worth watching will be 16:9/1080i.

It's confusing. It confuses me.

I hope I helped a bit. Maybe I made it worse

Our Station is in the process of being sold as soon as the new owners get FCC approval. But the old owners said "no spending any money" So we are paying alot of cash for HDTV extensions and still using a 1950's transmitter.    

#amn, I need an tylenol now.  I beleive this Tosh 50H72 does what they call an "upconversion" or something to all signals (expect prog DVD - i think).   I can't receive over-the-air broadcasts where I live unless I payout for a very high antenae, so "network" high def is closed to me.  

It is a 4:3 that I have my eye on.  I really don't mind the black (or gray) bars on my letterbox or widescreen movies, especially if they are on a 50" screen.  Doing the math, a "letterboxed" movie on a 50" screen is only 5% smaller than a "letterboxed" (or full screen) movie on a 47" 16:9 TV.  I can live with the 5% smaller picture and the black bars for 5-6 years when I will probably go to Plasma Widescreen (to much $$$ now) and relegate this RPTV to the family room.

Yes, the 4:3 TV's look fugly compared to the widescreen, but with an eye to a upgrade 5-6 years from now, I think I can live with the ugliness.  Plus 4:3 TV's are cheaper (ya, I know why.)  

A little off the topic, but I have wondered this for a while:  If i have coax cable from the dish to the receiver, does it really matter if I use the s-video out from the receiver to the tv (or would coax give you the same quality).  This is based on the age-old GIGO principle.  Just curious.

[GreenRado]

Coax is used because it has high bandwidth (how much you can cram down the pipeline, if you will).  But the quality of the signal displayed on the TV, if it is, say, analog SDTV, for example, is a function of how it's coded and transported.

 

So, NTSC, which has everything coded into a single signal (color, luminance, sync, and color burst) has the least quality, s-video (aka Y/C), which has color and color burst on one wire, and luminance on the other, will be better, and finally component video, where you have 3 colors, (R,G,B), each having its own luminance and color on its own wire, will have the best quality.  So, it doesn't matter which type of medium, but what type of signal you're sending, to a point.

 

Start w/ component inputs, if you have them, then go to S-video if not, then NTSC, if no S-video.  If you have both connections, I'd try both to see which is better.  I'd expect S-video be cleaner, and better color definition than what's comin in directly on coax.  

 

Bear in mind what I got long-winded about here is in the analog world, so digital is different, especially if it's not compressed w/ a lossy technique, such ad MJPEG or MPEG.  So, if you're able to get a digital stream directly into your set via coax, and if it's not compressed too much, if any, it may be better quality than converting the digital to S-video (in your receiver) and then sending it as analog via S-video to the TV.  

 

Gawd, like rrsob said, it's confusing!!!  I'd definitely try all your possible connections to see what's best suited to your situation.

 

My 2 cents!    

[melbertbloosfan]

Coax is used because it has high bandwidth (how much you can cram down the pipeline, if you will).  But the quality of the signal displayed on the TV, if it is, say, analog SDTV, for example, is a function of how it's coded and transported.

 

So, NTSC, which has everything coded into a single signal (color, luminance, sync, and color burst) has the least quality, s-video (aka Y/C), which has color and color burst on one wire, and luminance on the other, will be better, and finally component video, where you have 3 colors, (R,G,B), each having its own luminance and color on its own wire, will have the best quality.  So, it doesn't matter which type of medium, but what type of signal you're sending, to a point.

 

Start w/ component inputs, if you have them, then go to S-video if not, then NTSC, if no S-video.  If you have both connections, I'd try both to see which is better.  I'd expect S-video be cleaner, and better color definition than what's comin in directly on coax.  

 

Bear in mind what I got long-winded about here is in the analog world, so digital is different, especially if it's not compressed w/ a lossy technique, such ad MJPEG or MPEG.  I'd definitely try all your possible connections to see what's best suited to your situation.

 

My 2 cents!    

Rado, thanks for the reply, it makes sense to me.  My dish receiver has "MPEG 2" printed right on the front - very proud of it they seem to be.  You said it was a lousy technigue - is it defeatable, I wonder?  It seems weird that the sat box wants to compress signal, while this new TV wants to "upconvert" (uncompress) signal!  So, this reciever is accepting signals from the dish (via coax cable), compressing them, and when I output to the TV (also via coax - for now) - do I lose "quality" (for lack of a better word)?  As far as I know the only INPUT on the receiver is coax, but it has all three flavors of OUTPUTS.  My current analog TV (8 yrs old) does not have composite (component? I get confused - the "DVD" ones) so I am using the only s-video input for my DVD player.  The new tv would have 2 s-videos and 2 composite (DVD) inputs outback so it would probably behoove me to use one s-video for my sat receiver - regardless of how the signal is routed INTO the receiver?  Do i have that right?  This stuff really confuses regular Joe six-packs like myself.

[GreenRado]

I'm not up to sped w/ satellite transmission, but I suspect that it is encoded as MPEG2 when your dish gets it, and probably decoded at the receiver (I could be wrong here, so anyone, please correct me if this is so).  Actually MPEG2 is better than std MPEG, and what I meant was MPEG is a compression technique where you lose some quality when compressing, hence the term "lossy".  Actually your paraphrasing is in many ways accurate!!  It can be "lousy" if compressed too much.

 

Also, composite, in the analog video world is the worst quality, relatively, component is the best.  Composite is what I was referring to as NTSC (aka never the same color).

 

Actually, I think you got a pretty good handle on it!!  :thumb:

 

Sound like you're hooking it up correctly to me; I'd try the coax and the s-video into your TV to see which is better. If the receiver company included a manual, they might have included a primer on it's outputs, in particular the coax, which might shed some light on the matter.  Also, a general rule of thumb, at least with audio, non-compressed (meaning never compressed w/ a lossy technique) digital is better than analog outputs, such as those from your DVD/CD to the TV, and supposedly the optical digital is better yet.  

[melbertbloosfan]

Greenrado, thanks for your patience and sharing your expertise, you put it better than any of the yutz's at Best Buy has yet.  I mean that as a compliment, by the way   I think I will get the TV tonite and buy an extra s-cable for the #### of it.  I hope this thing has wheels!!!

 

rrsob, thanks for the help, I love your avatar.  Big Marty F fan here.  "Werewolf!"  "Werewolf?" "There wolf, There castle"