backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by gramboh.. on Apr 29 at 12:23 AM


Sports events a driving factor behind HDTV sales  (Source: Vizio)
High-definition console owners makeup 18 percent of HDTV purchases

Most gamers tend to be early adopters of technology. Those who own an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 know full well that a high-definition television is required in order to appreciate the visuals of the latest games to their fullest.

It should surprise few then to learn that of all consumers who purchased an HDTV in the past year, 18 percent of those were gamers buying the set just to connect either an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.

As reported in findings from research firm Frank N. Magid Associates, 25 percent of U.S. households or 28 million now have at least one HDTV set, that up from a penetration of 20 percent in September 2007. 5.5 million homes introduced HDTV during the holiday and Super Bowl season. 3 million homes added  a second HDTV during the same period.

"Consumers who become accustomed to the sleek and contemporary appearance of their first HD set are now looking to bring that benefit into other rooms in their home," says Maryann Baldwin VP of Magid Media Futures.

While a growing number of homes may have televisions capable of displaying at least a 720p picture, some are still feeding their HDTVs standard definition signals. "However owning an HDTV set and actually viewing HD are still two very different pursuits for many," added Baldwin.

70 percent of HDTV owners have some form of access to high-definition content, while the remaining 30 percent cite costs and a limited number of channels available in high definition as reasons for not making the jump.

Three in ten households intends to purchase a new television, many of those HD capable, within the next year. Nearly a quarter of those who do not own an HDTV currently expressed that they feel it is important to be able to watch the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in high-definition.

Magid said that it conducted this online research among 1,235 consumers nationally representative of the U.S. online population, age 21 and over.

"Now that the early majority has joined the ranks of the HD adopters, the demographic makeup of the HD population is looking more like the overall U.S. TV viewing universe," says Jill Rosengard Hill, Magrid VP and managing director.

Product price and mass market adoption of HDTVs are inversely related. Thanks to value-oriented brands such as Vizio, which has overtaken traditional electronics giants such as Sony and Samsung in sales, consumers are finding the jump into high-definition more affordable than expected.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/25/2008 12:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
That I still find a good old CRT best for gaming due to the enigma that is input lag. Perhaps I have really bad luck, but I have come across a grand total of one high def fixed pixel display that did not suffer from a noticeable delay between my pressing a button and seeing the results on the screen. It makes Rock Band impossible.




RE: Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/25/2008 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I'm talking about HDTVs not computer monitors.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Kind of ironic...
By CCRATA on 4/25/2008 1:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
depends on how close you are sitting to the TV. For most setups 1080P will provide no benefit :)


RE: Kind of ironic...
By barjebus on 4/25/2008 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Somewhat true. I think there's quite a large number of people who use their TV's as computer monitor's as well (myself included). I've got a Samsung 50 inch DLP tv, but it's 720p and doesn't look so hot for when I use it for my computer. Don't get me wrong, it looks good, and games especially look spectacular, but you just don't get the detail for things like small text that you see in a desktop environment.

I'm not totally sure why games look so perfect on it while windows doesn't. /shrug. I personally can't wait to get a 1080p one so I can run it at 1920x1080.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Hydrofirex on 4/26/2008 3:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Though I run a 1080p HTPC setup in my living room I don't think this is the norm. I've had every TV in my house networked onto a computer for at least half a decade now and I have to tell you people just don't understand the benefit, let alone that it's as easy as connecting a card you can purchase for under 50 USD. Especially with sites like Hulu.com there is a quickly growing base of content for any connected device.

And yes, your supposition about using a higher resolution display source is correct. SD resolution on a tv does not allow you to productively use it as a desktop. I kept a small LCD next to a recliner with a wireless mouse and keyboard in the past. That separate play window on BSplayer was the best. It was neat having a "hot seat" where you could DJ up music, video, funny internet content, and whatever else you came across.

HD takes the concept to a whole other level. I'm still only using XP Media Center and it's easy to actually use the thing as a computer! Vista is a lot nicer towards scaling up on a display source... I'm definitely looking forward to the Media Center/Home Server (when it doesn't corrupt my backed up data).

You choice:
Spend a few hundred dollars for something that just plays a disc, OR grab a Blue-Ray drive from the Egg and have a whole HTPC instead. And a HTPC upscales EVERYTHING.

HfX


RE: Kind of ironic...
By AlphaVirus on 4/25/2008 1:55:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
90% of the population can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Of course they can, if given the resources.

But considering most people that buy 720p/1080i are coming from a 480i world, I am sure +90% do notice a difference.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Murst on 4/25/2008 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
yep. 25x16 is worlds better than 1080p. legions of fanbois crying "consoles need better graphix, wii is the suxxorS!" need to recalibrate their statements.

thanks. i'll keep my pc for hi-def. remember kiddies, 90% of the population can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

I'm not sure what CRT TV/monitor you're using, but I doubt its "worlds better" than watching and playing on a 50" 1080p Panasonic.

To each his own though.

Also, where do you get the "90% of the population" comment? Do you have some source to back that up, or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?


RE: Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/25/2008 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
That wasn't really what I was getting at. I was just making it clear that my initial comment about input lag on fixed pixel displays did not apply to PC monitors.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By JazzMang on 4/25/2008 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
"68% of all statistics are completely made up"


RE: Kind of ironic...
By omnicronx on 4/26/2008 2:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Heh i guess that flew over someones head...


RE: Kind of ironic...
By omnicronx on 4/26/2008 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you are implying LCD PC monitors are not effected, you would be wrong, they just have a much lower response time when compared to the average of 8ms on HDTVs.

I would also like to note that most expensive TV's these days have a 'gaming mode' which lets the signal bypass the preprocessing that makes the 'input lag' more apparent in the first place. Gaming mode along with a low response time results in a much better gaming experience than any CRT TV.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Etsp on 4/26/2008 2:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, he is talking about a different type of latency. Some HDTV's have a decoding lag which puts the display behind what is actually happening. The individual pixels are quite fast enough, but the signal to update them doesn't get there as fast as a LCD monitor. This of course is limited to only some HDTV's, as there are many that do not have this type of issue. I am told it's at its worst when using HDMI, but I have not experienced this phenomena personally.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Hydrofirex on 4/26/2008 4:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what any of you are talking about. I play Guitar Hero 3 perfectly fine on my HTPC @1080P, and I got the game for 30 bucks (thank you Ebay) to boot. The game plays just fine: pre-processing, post-processing, re-processing, de-processing and all. There is zilch lag.

HfX


RE: Kind of ironic...
By therealnickdanger on 4/28/2008 8:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
If you have a large Best Buy near you, go to the TV area and check out the giant wall of flat panels. Stand back far enough where you can see them all. The BB near me has about 40 LCDs and PDPs on the back wall all playing the same video feed. You'll notice than many displays will lag behind the others or some will be further ahead in the feed than all the rest. It's subtle and nearly impossible to see up close, but stand back and you'll see it.

Every display uses a different form of processing that delays the speed by which content is displayed for you. It's *possible* that the delay at BB could be caused by the splitters and variable cable lengths... but that's not too likely.

This is all meaningless though, since Guitar Hero and Rock Band all have a manual calibration feature to properly synchronize button presses with the on-screen action.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By omnicronx on 4/26/2008 7:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know exactly what kind of latency he is talking about, and it is very common for TV's with a high response time to also have a high input lag. I have a 5ms response time LCD, and when I put it on game mode there is no noticeable lag at all. People who complain about this need to get a life, original LCD's suffered badly from this problem, lips would be out of sync with the audio, games would be unplayable, but thats just no longer the case with most TV's. If this was such a big problem then doing other things such as watching movies would result in lips being very out of sync, if you have the audio routed through an receiver especially with HDMI. You get what you pay for, if you put the money in an LCD can be just as good as a CRT for gaming.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By gramboh on 4/29/2008 12:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm maybe I'm lucky but I don't notice any input lag on my Dell 2407WFP (24in PC LCD) or my Samsung 4665F (46in LCD 1080p TV) when playing FPS like TF2 or CS:Source. I used to play CS 'competitively' so I think I would be able to detect problems in FPS input (e.g. I have to disable mouse acceleration, I can feel it immediately).


RE: Kind of ironic...
By someguy123 on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Kind of ironic...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason I bought 2 HDTVs were for Xbox 360 PS3 gaming. As far as games go, I must have em in HD for the current consoles. Other than that as far as watching tv broadcasts, or movies go, I am fine with standard definition.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 3:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol, not me... I'm totally HD spoiled now!


RE: Kind of ironic...
By i3arracuda on 4/25/2008 1:03:17 PM , Rating: 5
Rock Band has a settings menu that will calibrate the game on your display to compensate for the delay. You need only select the type of panel you have.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Murst on 4/25/2008 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 3
RB also allows for manual calibration if the pre-programmed stuff isn't working.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/25/2008 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, but the image still takes a certain amount of time to be displayed, and no setting in Rock Band will change that. My roommate who can 5 star every song on his 32" CRT cannot even pass some songs on our 47" LCD, no matter how long we spend trying to calibrate it.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Sunrise089 on 4/25/2008 4:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Um...isn't the whole point of calibration to fix this problem? My understanding would be the game displays the image slightly ahead of the audio and then detects the "hit" point at the audio note, therefore syncing the visual on screen, the song, and the scoring to the same point in time. If it does not due this, that what does it do?


RE: Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/25/2008 10:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that is correct as far as I know, but you won't get that visual feedback until the lag has run its course. There is nothing the Xbox can do to change that.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By jRaskell on 4/28/2008 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
That is false. Once you know just how much lag is occurring with the 'visuals', you delay the audio by that amount, and shift the window for fretting/strumming by that amount as well and voila, everything is in sync. This is what the calibration routines do. If the game is properly calibrated, there should be zero perceived lag at all, regardless the display.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By homerdog on 4/28/2008 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Calibration can sync up the video and audio by delaying the audio to match the video processing lag. It can also shift the strumming window to match this delay. It cannot eliminate perceived lag. You will not know whether or not you have successfully hit a note until the TV has had time to process and display the image. That can really throw off your timing in fast songs.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Locutus465 on 4/25/2008 1:30:05 PM , Rating: 4
DLPs are really about as responsive as CRT's, you should give them a look some time... They also generally have better black levels and contrast ratios than most LCD's (though there are higher end LCD's that can approch what DLP's can do).


RE: Kind of ironic...
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2008 8:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. I have no problem playing games, including Guitar Hero, on my Samsung 42" 720p DLP TV. I press a button and see the response. And considering DLPs are far cheaper than LCDs and Plasmas of the same size, they will be my HDTV of choice for as long as they're around. The new LED ones with 120Hz are even better.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By BansheeX on 4/25/2008 1:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
OLED will come eventually. Then we'll have HDTV and no input lag. Plasmas don't have input lag either, but most of them use oddball resolutions like 1024x768 stretched to a physical 16:9 to claim HD.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By Murst on 4/25/2008 2:14:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
OLED will come eventually

right in time for Duke Nuke'em Forever.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By PrinceGaz on 4/26/2008 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be happy with either OLED (with a decent working life) or SED. There hasn't been much news about SED for a while now though.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By mikeyD95125 on 4/26/2008 2:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
My Panasonic 42" 720P plasma doesn't need to be calibrated. It's played right without any adjustments. On the other hand when I go to play on my friends 32" LG the lag is horrible.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 1:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
my friends 32" LG the lag is horrible.
That would be the XD engine.. Turning off this feature results in a much better picture (a simple google search for reviews on LG displays will show this). I calibrated my dads 42 LG display and it looks brilliant, and I notice very little lag while playing, as long as it is calibrated correctly. Remember response time also has a big part in the 'lag' on your display. Personally I can't even fathom playing on anything higher than 8ms.(for those with older displays)


RE: Kind of ironic...
By rupaniii on 4/27/2008 11:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
ONLY old 37inch plasmas and 42inch 'wide pixel' vga 720p class plasmas, and Hitachi's absurd 1080HD plasmas at any size, have resolution correction issues.
Othwerwise, all Plasma 50 inch and above rated at 720p are 1366x768, same as LCD.
There was actually a true 720p Pioneer a couple years ago, but for some reason it didn't catch on.

Gaming looks fantastic on Plasma too, but, LCD at 120fps is the way to go now.


RE: Kind of ironic...
By rupaniii on 4/27/2008 11:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's odd.
Try the Toshiba Regza and the SONY Bravia.
My REGZA is spot on, i couldn't play Resistance without it.
The Bravia my buddy had, V3000, doesn't seem to have any issue. Also, XBR setup at my local best buy doing the PS3 doesn't seem to suffer. I do have a friend whose Visio seems to suffer from that.


Well I don't have one...
By iFX on 4/25/2008 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Back in 2004 I bought a "flat" 32" CRT TV for around $500. At the time LCD and Plasma TVs were still in the thousands. There was no way I was spending that much for a TV. I don't have any intentions of replacing it any time soon. I have a 24" LCD ViewSonic LCD for gaming.




RE: Well I don't have one...
By mmntech on 4/25/2008 1:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, I use my LG Flatron 19'' for gaming on my PS3. Most of the HDTVs in my price range have poor contrast ratios and response times so using my monitor makes sense. I have a 27'' CRT that I still use for PS2 games since I find the upscaling looks blurry. It also doesn't upscale PS2 to full screen on my monitor either, though it does for DVDs. The CRT still provides unrivaled contrast ratio and response time. Too bad the SED TV has fallen into the realm of vapourware.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Locutus465 on 4/25/2008 1:32:28 PM , Rating: 5
You might want to look into DLP's if you can make it up to 1K (not sure what your budget is). You can get some VERY big 1080P screens with VERY HIGH PQ in that price range. DLP's in this price range blow most any (if not all) LCD's in this range out of the water for the best combination of contrast ratio, black levels, realestate (screen size) and resolution.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Noya on 4/25/2008 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but budget for a new bulb every every few years, depending on how much you have it on.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Locutus465 on 4/25/2008 6:32:21 PM , Rating: 3
There are options, LED DLP's for instance... Or if you don't want to pay the premium for that, then a bulb should last you at least 2 or 3 years and costs about $200 to replace.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Spuke on 4/25/2008 7:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'll have to check but it's less than $200 to replace the bulb.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By iFX on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well I don't have one...
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2008 9:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
I've had my DLP for a year and a half. Haven't replaced the bulb. Typically the bulb is good for three years I think. And thats at full brightness. You're usually only running it around 50%. And the service plan I bought on the TV through Best Buy covers the bulb. :)


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Spuke on 4/25/2008 10:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Mine lasted for 3 years and we never noticed it getting dim. We don't have it at fun brightness either. The new bulb is supposed to be a better part than the original so we hope it lasts more than 3 years. If you buy just the bulb and not the housing it's WAY cheaper. We paid $110 for ours.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2008 10:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just set aside the 500-1000 dollars that you'll save over a similar sized LCD to pay for replacement bulbs? That way you can enjoy an arguably better picture for the 5 - 15 years that those replacement bulbs will afford you?

Seriously, the only draw I can see of LCD is the fact that you can hang it on the wall. When I finally get an HDTV in the next few years, I'll be getting a large, cheap DLP that has no ghosting and an extremely high contrast ratio compared to LCDs. There were sales here recently where you could pick up a 65" 1080p native, 3 HDMI input DLP for 1300 bucks. 1300 would get you what, a 46, 42 inch LCD?


RE: Well I don't have one...
By iFX on 4/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Well I don't have one...
By Spuke on 4/26/2008 1:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't cost $150-$200 a year to maintain a DLP TV. You're being foolish.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By steve1014 on 4/26/2008 3:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
If you are buying a $2,000 DLP HDTV then budget is clearly not your concern. A quality 50"-60" 1080p DLP HDTV ranges in price from $1000-1500 if you do a small amount of bargain shopping.

Also the $150-$200 per year in maintenance is really high considering a bulb only costs $100-$300 and lasts 2-4 years depending on the quality of the bulb and the set you have. So really your maintenance cost is $50-$150 a year (quite possibly less). And the first 2 to 3 years come free because it already came with a bulb in the unit.

Using the worst possible numbers. You could buy a 6o" DLP TV($1500) replace a bulb after 2 years($150), replace another one after another 2 years($150), and replace one more bulb two years later($150). You would have a 60" high guality HDTV for 8 years for $1950. Still below your $2000.

And thats not counting the fact that the better TVs usually have better bulb life.

And LCD's don't have bulbs to replace. You're getting your technologies mixed up.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By omnicronx on 4/27/2008 3:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And LCD's don't have bulbs to replace.
Sure they do.. different kind, but still a bulb..LCD displays do not emmit enough light alone, unlike a plasma or crt it utilizes a backlight... one of the reasons higher contrast ratios and true blacks are harder to achieve on LCDs.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By steve1014 on 4/27/2008 6:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
bulbs to replace.


that was the key to the statement that LCD bulbs are not intended to be replaced


RE: Well I don't have one...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Who told you that? Typically on a laptop at least, after around 3-4 years a new backlight is required. If your screen is starting to turn a pinkish colour instead of the brilliant white it used to be, a new backlight may be required. Just because your screen does not go blank, does not mean your LCD is reproducing the colours to the best of its ability.


RE: Well I don't have one...
By Locutus465 on 4/27/2008 2:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't checked pricing on my RPTV's bulb pricing yet though I've been considering picking up a replacement just to have that out of the way. At anyrate, we have a DLP front projector at work with a blown out bulb which cost $200.. Admititngly that's a front projector which will require higher lums than a rear projector to create a good picture than a front projector.


By mles1551 on 4/25/2008 1:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Magid said that it conducted this online research among 1,235 consumers nationally representative of the U.S. online population, age 21 and over.

I do understand the cost of raising your sample size, but isn't 1,235 people a little sparse for an adequate representation of the entire nation?

quote:
Three in ten households intends to purchase a new television, many of those HD capable, within the next year.

Many of those? Is that 1 in 10? less than 1?

Yet another example of stats saying exactly what the person that paid for them wanted to hear. The HD-DVD camp should've hired these guys.




By Murst on 4/25/2008 1:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
A random sample of 1235 households out of 80 million (or however many there are) can get you a pretty good indication (that is, low margin of error) of whatever you're trying to measure.

The key really is that the sample is truly random ( it does not favor one group over another). For example, many studies that are done for voting trends may be significantly off because the pollers do not have access to all potential voters. However, even those studies are in most cases pretty accurate, although certainly not as accurate as they could be.


By Kenenniah on 4/25/2008 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except that it is targeted at one group...the US online population. It completely ignores 29% of the country, and at a guess I would assume that non online households are less likely to have HD also.


By Murst on 4/25/2008 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the fact that the study was not truly random may have a pretty big impact on the findings. I guess another study would be needed to prove that households that are not "online" are less likely to have HD than "online" households. :)

BTW, I actually know of people who don't have a Internet connection but have an HD TV, although it would certainly make sense that more people w/ i-net access would have HD TVs... although who knows, it may be the other way around. You could argue that people who don't spend money on the internet have more dispoasable income to spend on HD TVs :)

One could argue about this all day, but w/o doing a study on it, there's really no finding out.


By lightfoot on 4/25/2008 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many of those? Is that 1 in 10? less than 1?

I suspect the article should have stated "most" not "many."

However without knowing the exact percentage it is difficult to tell. Most would mean more than half. Many is far too subjective and could be fewer than ten people.


By bplewis24 on 4/25/2008 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The HD-DVD camp should've hired these guys.


They did. Where do you think these guys came from? The HD DVD PRG is unemployed, remember?

Brandon


Waiting for OLED.
By teckytech9 on 4/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Waiting for OLED.
By Ananke on 4/26/2008 4:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
A good TV set = $1000, BluRay player /or Playstation3/ = $500, HD cable plan = 70-100 monthly. On the top that electronics projected life is around three years. I agree many people make enough to spend that much, but many not. HD is still not mass market technology in the USA.
And, I don't watch TV. I just don't have time. I enjoy watching movies though. However, for a pleasant experience, I would neeed on the top of those expenses additional ~ 2000 for AV receiver and speakers. So, we are talking for roughly at least $3000 to enjoy basic home theater, not considering the price of BluRay titles /lets optimisticly think we can order Netflix for $15 monthly/.
I do watch 1080p movies now, it cost me $400 for 24" PC monitor, which I needed anyway /it may be 22" for natural 720p/. A computer is a neccessaty nowadays, so I just don't include it in the cost. For merely 50 bucks you can have 5.1 PC speakers, instead of 2.1, which work fine anyway. SONY has BluRay internal disc for $150.
AND, if you really want, oneday you can buy TVset and send signal from your PC to watch on the TV.
Anyway, my point, TV prices are radiculous today, it is just not justifiable for a busy working person to spend that much. Be better off with 24+ monitor


RE: Waiting for OLED.
By teckytech9 on 4/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Waiting for OLED.
By Murst on 4/28/2008 10:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have seen the best breeds of HDTV's (LCD, Plasma, and DLPs) all pixilate and drop frames during fast action sequences which is quite annoying.

Interesting... I have never heard of LCD, Plasma, or DLPs pixilating or dropping frames during fast action sequences. Ghosting is another issue, but that certainly wouldn't be classified as either of the two you mentioned.

Do you have a link to something that supports it? If the best of the best have these issues, that would imply that everyone has these issues, and I'm sure someone else besides you would have noticed it (unless you somehow have the best eyesight in the world, which I suppose is possible).


RE: Waiting for OLED.
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 12:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have never heard of LCD, Plasma, or DLPs pixilating or dropping frames during fast action sequences.
Sure you have, you probably notice it in any fast action scene in which blocking occurs on your screen. What I don't buy is that this is the fault of the HDTV, the source material has just as much if not more do with it than anything. Insufficient bitrate is usually the culprit as both cable and satellite companies usually compress their streams much more than they ever should. While I do notice such effects all the time while watching sports, watching fast action scenes on BD and most quality OTA HD channels do not result in the same issues.

As for the "depth of field" issues, I do not see why HD source material would be any different film or photography, its all in the lens, shooting and post processing techniques . How a still frame image at 1080p resolution differs from HD source material is beyond me.

While I agree with you OLED will be better in the feature, you totally missed the fact that the ATSC spec(used for the transport of DTV signals) and the BD spec are limited to 8 bits of color, which is something that is not going to change anytime soon. It may not be until 15-20 years down the road where the advantages of OLED will be fully utilized. Unless of course you have a xvYCC camcorder ;) So just as consumers right now are having trouble seeing the difference of 720 to 1080p, this will create even more confusion, as only certain sources will see the added benefits of OLED. (well i know yourself or I would notice on just about any source, but the average consumer will not)


RE: Waiting for OLED.
By Murst on 4/28/2008 4:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure you have, you probably notice it in any fast action scene in which blocking occurs on your screen. What I don't buy is that this is the fault of the HDTV

You're correct... I have noticed it, but that same effect would be present if a CRT monitor was at the source... my point was that this is not an issue w/ the TV, but with the source of the content.


RE: Waiting for OLED.
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but with you a specific source mentioned I'm going to have to call BS on what you just posted... It may be that with a weak signal HD OTA might pixalate and drop frames, but the TV it's self will not. As always, good video sources = great experience, poor video sources = ruined experience even with the best TV.

Note, I'm not knocking HD OTA here actually I'm a huge fan of it. But like any OTA signal if you're reception is weak your experience won't be optimal.


RE: Waiting for OLED.
By Ananke on 4/28/2008 8:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pricing of newer HDTV consumer electronics is very similar to do mass marketing Cadillac Escalade :). Yes, you can afford it if you finance, eventually refinance with your house as collateral, and after that lose everything and be left on the street. Just the scale of expence is 4-5 times smalller, but essentially the same.
My point, HD is breathtaking technology, but majority of USA population don't have the discretionary income to buy the HD technology. And time of economic disturbances, i.e. recession, only enbold this issue.
I like the technology, I don't like being enslaved by Comcast or tel-cos to pay hundreds monthly for so-so HD broadcast. And this situation will not change soon, since no perfect competiotion exists in the HD and Broadband USA market. It is up to the governemnt and FCC, and obviously they don't like to guarant competition. That's why Asian electronics markets will keep developing faster than the American.
What I was thinking, it is much smarter way to go with 22-24" monitor on a gaming PC and enjoy HDTV. However enthisiast PC gamers are very small percentage of the consumer market. So, companies are pushing HDTV sales with games, i.e. PlayStation3. Now my question is, are 25% of the Americans going to sched $1500 for TV+PS3+GTA4? Many want /intend :)/, but few can afford. This survey doesn't have fundamentals, it is meaningless.


Vizio
By gigahertz20 on 4/25/2008 12:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
My roommates and I bought a $500 refurbished 720P 37" Vizio from Macmall last August for our apartment and I've been very impressed with the quality of HD channels. I've seen other $1,000 + HDTV sets and though they look a little better, for the price and quality you can't beat some of the Vizio sets. I just wish Comcast had more HD channels, and there were not as many issues like audio skipping and artifacting on the HD channels some of the times.




RE: Vizio
By Mitch101 on 4/25/2008 1:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
I was in Costo the other day and I have to say that the Vizio had the best picture of all the flat panels they had set up. Sony was the second best picture.

Of course this is out of the box uncalibrated in a very well lit building but considering most people will never calibrate their HDTV.

I would have bought it over all the others. Maybe some of the major brand companies should work on a little calibration of their products instead of rushing them out the door with contrast ratios set at the highest levels trying to out bright the set next to it.


RE: Vizio
By sc3252 on 4/25/2008 1:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a 37inch vizio a month or two ago. When I brought it home I found out that the picture quality for hd is great, but the black levels are terrible. I find that I am constantly calibrating the tv when I watch different types of movies, since the black level needs to be adjusted per movie. If you can deal with that it does have a very slight lag(only noticeable when you are moving the mouse, not gaming), but not enough to stop me from playing call of duty 4 from my computer.


RE: Vizio
By Noya on 4/25/2008 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
I also bought a Vizio about 6-months ago. Sears (gasp) had the 42" GV 1080p model on sale for $1k, less 10% with a Sears card, plus another $50 back from fatwallet.com = $850. At the time all the name brands were at $1,400+ for a 40-42" 1080p model.

Sure, the blacks could be better (yes I calibrated it via AVSforums and DVE) but going from a flat 32" 4:3 CRT to this is a huge jump in size for widescreen material like DVD and HD channels. It looks great with a good HD source like "Lost" and the other main channels. I mostly watch Disc/Hist/PBS type HD channels, so the SD quality doesn't really concern me. A friends HD-DVD player looked amazing on it...too bad BD is going to take another year to drop in price to a reasonable level.


RE: Vizio
By therealnickdanger on 4/28/2008 8:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
I bought two Dynex (Best Buy house brand) 32" LCD HDTVs last Black Friday for $450 each. Anyway, I bought them to replace the last of the analog sets in the house, and I couldn't be happier. A buddy of mine with the proper tools calibrated them (the best he could) and they are suprisingly very good with SD and HD content. There are some brightness uniformity problems, but it's only noticeable when it's dark in the room.

Tons of inputs, decent menu options, the specs are here:
http://www.dynexproducts.com/pc-590-23-dynex-32-fl...


Access
By MozeeToby on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Access
By Murst on 4/25/2008 1:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Check this out and you'll see that many people are not as lucky as you: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=10...


RE: Access
By The Irish Patient on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Access
By rs1 on 4/27/2008 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Even if there isn't any OTA HD content, it's not like downloading HD blu-ray rips is all that hard (time-consuming, certainly), so every HDTV owner with an Internet connection has "some form of access to HD content", and I really can't imagine someone who doesn't have an Internet connection splurging on a HDTV.


RE: Access
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 9:50:46 AM , Rating: 2
Access to OTA HD should be a total non-issue, at least if you live in the USA. All the major local networks broadcast ATSC HD, there's no reason for them not to at this point. There might be some newer "less official" networks like Ion that don't, but ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS etc all do. Honestly I have one heck of an HD selection OTA.


Wrong
By Pythias on 4/26/2008 8:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sales drivine by the fact that you can't buy anything else.




By redfirebird15 on 4/27/2008 5:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
I own a samsung 32" 720p tv. I have access to the internet and HD content. So theoretically I fall under their study therefore it may be accurate.
However, I do not have cable (by choice, it is available) and I only receive 3 over the air HD broadcasts (1 of which comes in clearly, the other 2 don't). I don't have a 360/PS3 so HD gaming isn't for me.
So, even though my HDTV only utilizes one HD channel, I still add to that percentage. Thats why I think it's so high.

Also, don't forget about the military. Many HDTVs and gamers among them.




25 percent?
By Screwballl on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: 25 percent?
By FluxCap on 4/25/2008 1:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I would bet my house this is not even close to accurate.


RE: 25 percent?
By darkpaw on 4/25/2008 1:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
I only know three households personally that don't have a 720P+ HDTV. That's obviously not statistically valid, but plenty of people do have them.


RE: 25 percent?
By AlphaVirus on 4/25/2008 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to say the same thing, majority of people I know have HDTV's. They may not be 1080p but they are 1080i and of course flat panels.

With the price of HDTVs going down to the $500-900 range, anyone can pick one up. Some of my college dorm dwelling friends have multiple flat panels in a single dorm (4 rooms, 3 LCD).

Also with the whole digital tv switch, people think they have to purchase an HDTV so that is also driving sales.
And of course we cant forget, you cant purchase CRT's in WalMart, Target, etc anymore. The only options they have are flat panels, of which majority are 720p.


RE: 25 percent?
By Screwballl on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: 25 percent?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2008 10:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
For one, it would help if you say 3 out of how many. How many total are you including? 3? 10?

Off the top of my head I can think of about 14 household that I know personally, and only 3 of them have 720p or higher.


RE: 25 percent?
By tmouse on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki