astroglide's home theater: what i own, what i would buy today

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Modern TVs handle it all. As you probably know, the primary formats are 480i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Any digital TV you buy today will be able to automatically convert signals in any of those formats into the native format of the TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so next question is, is native resolution important? I see TVs that list native resolution, then list resolutions supported. Here's an example I saw when comparing 2 TVs.

TV A) resolution: 1024 x 768
"compatibility":
1080p: direct input
1080i: yes
720p: yes

TV B) resolution: 1920 x 1080
"compatibility":
1080p: conversion, direct input
1080i: yes
720p: yes

So, does "resolution" mean "native resolution"? If so, is there any degradation in picture quality if you "convert" from a resolution that is not native?

For example, I understand Blu-Ray is 1080p. If I play Blu-Ray on TV A, will there be any degradation in picture quality compared to TV B? If I play a standard 720p DVD on TV B, will there be any degradation in picture quality compared to TV A, due to converting from native resolution?

Why does TV B say "conversion" as well as "direct input" for 1080p?

The 2 TVs are Panasonic TH-42PX75U and Panasonic TH-42PZ700U, both 42" plasmas, at $1,300 and $1,800 respectively. The $500 price difference is essentially what I described. Is it worth it?

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so next question is, is native resolution important?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends how far away you're sitting. You won't tell much of a difference after about 8' away (if you have good eyesight).

[ QUOTE ]
So, does "resolution" mean "native resolution"? If so, is there any degradation in picture quality if you "convert" from a resolution that is not native?

[/ QUOTE ]

We all know what resolution means, and the word can be ambiguous; it can either be describing the resolution of a signal or the display device. When you see "native resolution," you know they're talking about pixels on the display device.

Converting has to be done with a video processor. Good video processors do a fine job of scaling down images, and you would be hard pressed to actually notice any degradation. Upscaling is different. When the amount of information provided by the original signal is less than the native resolution of your TV, the video processor has to guess how to enlarge each frame.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I understand Blu-Ray is 1080p. If I play Blu-Ray on TV A, will there be any degradation in picture quality compared to TV B? If I play a standard 720p DVD on TV B, will there be any degradation in picture quality compared to TV A, due to converting from native resolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say you would notice any degradation on the 720p television (TV A). In other words, the downscaling of the 1080p to 720p would basically look the same as if you were simply playing a 720p signal on the TV. That said, the picture would probably look (slightly) better on the 1080p TV just because it has the capability of displaying the entire 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Also, standard DVDs are not 720p. They are 480p. So, both televisions would have to upscale the standard DVD signal (or if you have an upscaling DVD player, the player use a built in processor to do this). Either way, you're still upscaling and you will notice the ill effects of this procedure. It should be noted, however, that usually the DVD's 480p signal will look quite a bit better upscaled than a standard definition television signal, which is 480i.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does TV B say "conversion" as well as "direct input" for 1080p?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure. Maybe it's just saying it accepts signals from an upscaling DVD player or a stand alone video processor, which some people have.

[ QUOTE ]
The 2 TVs are Panasonic TH-42PX75U and Panasonic TH-42PZ700U, both 42" plasmas, at $1,300 and $1,800 respectively. The $500 price difference is essentially what I described. Is it worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said earlier, it depends. How far are you going to be sitting from the screen? Also, I said 8' is my cut off point where I can't tell a difference. Well, that was for a 50 inch plasma. Honestly, you would have to sit very close to the TV to notice much of a difference between 42' plasmas. Generally, I would say it is not worth it to jump up to 1080p on anything smaller than 50'. Most importantly, however, is which looks better to you.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be glad to buy a 42" plasma, but my girlfriend really wants to stick to something smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it fits and looks OK on a wall or stand 42 inches isn't too big from the length of a typical bed plus a few feet. Plus 42 to 50 inches seems to be the sweet spot on price of a flat screen.

Cliff notes: Bigger really is better.

~ Rick

[asofel]

I snapped off a nice lil tourney win last night, and am thinking about getting that 42in panny. Any recommendations on where to get it? Seems that Costco's still a good choice even without the super return policy...

[KLJ]

costco's version is the slightly upgraded 42pc77u, which has slightly different speakers and anti-glare screen (which, depending on your setup and viewing area, will either be noticiable or not)

I got my 42px75u from BestBuy on a pricematch against Fry's ($1099) about 2 months ago. Haven't seen it cheaper in any B&M since.

[gusmahler]

Try Amazon.com. Great price, no tax, free delivery. Why go with anyone else?

[asofel]

So i've looked at amazon and agree they usually have great deals, especially with the shipping, etc.

Then I saw this ad:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/...CCODE=WEM1461BY

pretty big tv...panasonic...pretty reasonable price....and yet the guy in the video does not instill confidence in me....

thoughts?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be glad to buy a 42" plasma, but my girlfriend really wants to stick to something smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it fits and looks OK on a wall or stand 42 inches isn't too big from the length of a typical bed plus a few feet. Plus 42 to 50 inches seems to be the sweet spot on price of a flat screen.

Cliff notes: Bigger really is better.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I did a little measuring... 42 inches is simply too big for the room (we're in a tiny apartment).

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
* DirecTV has only 9 national HD channels as of the time of this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

DirecTV now has 30 national HD channels (they it up the first 21 of their new HD channels today).

In case you're curious, here are the 21 new channels:

A&E (Channel 265)
Animal Planet (Channel 282)
Big Ten Network (Channel 220)
CNN (Channel 202)
The Discovery Channel (Channel 278)
The History Channel (Channel 269)
The Movie Channel East (Channel 544)
NFL Network (Channel 212)
Showtime West (Channel 540)
Showtime too (Channel 538)
The Smithsonian Channel (Channel 267)
The Science Channel (Channel 284)
Starz Comedy (Channel 519)
Starz East (Channel 522)
Starz West (Channel 540)
Starz Edge (Channel 520)
Starz Kids and Family (Channel 518)
TBS (Channel 247)
TLC (Channel 280)
Versus / The Golf Channel (Channel 604)
The Weather Channel (Channel 362)

The only completely new channel is Smithsonian. Aside from Versus/Golf, all the other channels are simulcasts of previously existing SD channels. As you can guess, Versus/Golf is some kind of amalgamation of the Versus channel and the Golf channel.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* DirecTV has only 9 national HD channels as of the time of this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

DirecTV now has 30 national HD channels (they it up the first 21 of their new HD channels today).


[/ QUOTE ]I miscounted. They had 10 channels before so they have 31 now (I forgot to add Showtime because I don't subscribe to it)

And here are the 17 HD channels scheduled for launch in October:
Bravo
Cartoon Network
Cinemax East
Cinemax West
CNBC Food
Fox Business
Fuel TV
FX
HBO West
HGTV
MGM
MHD
NBA TV
National Geographic
Sci Fi
Speed
USA Network