|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 10th, 2005, 11:01 PM
|
#31 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 35
|
preview monitor
while I agree with you that you can't beat an HD CRT... You want to lend me the money to buy one?
If consumers are out there watching our HDV footage on a LCD, plasma or whatever, will we eventually move away from CRT alltogether? I'm looking at the dell 24" monitor as a middle solution. Final cut doesn't make it easy to preview HDV. Lewis |
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 01:41 AM
|
#32 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Katoomba NSW Australia
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
And while the promotion of HDMI doesn't directly state (for legal reasons) that it is superior to component or DVI, it's also noteable that HDMI is being promoted as "providing allround superior HD Digital Performance for HDMI enabled devices". Such omissions of proviso's such as - "performance enhancements to audio only" aren't anywhere to be found. So: here and now, for those with the common sense to figure this out - HDMI is no major improvement. DVI is as good a Digital Video signal as you're going to get. As for the audio. I've only got a 5.1 setup, so the 7.1 and greater that HDMI supports is redundant. Why should I buy another two speakers, new amp and all new HDTV just for the privilege. As for the CRT opinion, because it is just that; the fact that early LCD panels couldn't match the dynamic range or the contrast curves demonstrated by CRTs' is ancient news... Things have moved along, and CRT technology is fast being eliminated from the manufacturing lines of the major HDTV manufacturers. The reason CRT is fast becoming extinct as a HD video technology is because the quality, reliability and performance of LCD panels has gone beyond where CRT can be pushed to. Plasma is also facing a difficult future for the same reasons. To try to develop aged or aging technologies that are at the extent of their capabilities is expensive and time consuming. I know the reason many people love CRTs is because the real HD image is quite harsh to their 'accustomed to SD' eyesight - so the softer and less dramatic CRT rendition of the image suits them just fine. I've had a CRT HDTV 100Hz etc, etc.. - it was nice while I had it, and I still watch things on it... I felt sorry for my whingeing mate who didn't have a functioning tele. How altruistic is that eh?!! Maybe not, because he never seems to be able to get it working correctly. Anamorphic stretched stuff, constantly watches SD Foxtel crap and wonders why it doesn't look like the picture on my Aquos LCD HDTV. Everytime I fix the settings... he just has to fiddle - then he can't get them back, so now I just avoid fixing it when I go to his place because it just disheartens me about people's ability with this HD stuff. Hey Lewis!! As for how expensive CRT HDTVs are - you are kiddding... right? You can pick up (well two people can if they're strong enough) a good 76cm to 83cm CRT 100Hz HDTV here in Australia for no more than $900. That's down from the $3,500 I paid for the same set on 2.5 years ago!! If that isn't affordable considering the quality - I don't know what is... |
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 02:39 AM
|
#33 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 42
|
thnx for your reply on my questions steve.
I was very surprised about the enormous gain in quality when i compared last years model 26 inch aquos with the current model. The black levels seem very ok now. They have a model here in europe which has a so called pal panel....meant to deal with sd pal broadcasts. somehow that pal panel should eleiminate the problem that is caused when you look at pal on a hdtv....But I have no idea if this is also active when I check my z1 footage on the component in...... The new models I checked were the LC-26P50E and the LC-26GA6E....can t really figure out if the cheaper one ( lc-26p50E) is sufficient to use with the z1 .... |
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 05:18 AM
|
#34 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
|
I now realized Sony is not the way to go if you want the very best TV money can buy then I would go with the Fujitsu P50HTS40GS this TV has the best colour and contrast you will ever find and iv heard that in a lot of places.
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 06:37 AM
|
#35 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Katoomba NSW Australia
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
My 83cm Aquos has no problems at all with PAL/NTSC, so no fancy things for dealing with SD - it just scales to the selected output, and attempts to give as good an image as it can be fed - regardless of the colour format of the original video. At 26", you might find some of the upper end computer LCD panels are as capable, with much lower price tags. There's a sort of cross-over point; where HDTV screens are less cost effective for screen real-estate than computer monitors are... In my opinion, you should look at the larger computer screens. To be honest, you won't get to experience what the FX-1/Z1 can do until you hit the 32" and bigger mark... Expensive?... Yes. Awesome quality that'll blow you away?!! ABSOLUTELY!! |
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 08:14 AM
|
#36 | |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 02:32 PM
|
#37 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 42
|
okay...i know 1920x1080 is the real thing but at that price level the aquos top models can be compared to pioneer and panasonic hd plasmas....
what is the verdict here ? if you spend 5000 bucks..... what to choose; lcd or plasma? |
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 02:47 PM
|
#38 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Keep in mind that plasma has a "half-life" that is reached in about two years and its downhill from there. I have four large plasmas at work (2 Sony, 2 Pioneer) and between burn-in and lumen degradation I think they are worthless.
http://www.nextgenelectronics.com/plasmaissues.shtml |
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 04:19 PM
|
#39 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
|
2 years is a little short I don’t think that is right, plus you can get the extra warranty with it.
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 07:33 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2005, 07:37 PM
|
#41 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Katoomba NSW Australia
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
Plasma is a fading technology - and unlike some technologies that were superior to those that eclipsed them, plasma is fading because it's at it's maximum capability. LCD technology is constantly being improved with lower development costs involved in doing so. Check the useful life of a plasma panel against that of an LCD and you'll see how throw away plasma is by comparison. The LCD is really limited only by the life of the backlight bulb, where the plasma screen matrix degenerates over a reasonably fixed period of use... I've also not seen plasma screens get anywhere near an LCDs image quality, but that's just due to not enough native resolution... and often there's colour issues at corners or specific zones on screen. I never thought I'd espouse such a bigotted, self centred, egotistical opinion - but: to me, plasmas are OPJ - that's Over Priced Junk... |
|
|
|
|
|
October 12th, 2005, 05:14 AM
|
#42 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
|
What would you recommend as the best LCD screen?
|
|
|
|
|
October 12th, 2005, 11:47 AM
|
#43 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 42
|
ive been told that the lcd s of sharp are one of the best. also.....they have been in lcd technology from day one....(wristwatches!....)
so i asume that why they have the knowhow. That is something to give a thought.... the topmodels are too expensive i think. Maybe I should check them though....I want to get me a monitor that will satisfy my needs for the next 15 yrs....is that possible with a sharp 1366x768 lcd? |
|
|
|
|
October 12th, 2005, 12:41 PM
|
#44 | |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 12th, 2005, 05:29 PM
|
#45 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Katoomba NSW Australia
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
The 1080p sets have been demonstrated... even released - but there's no way they are affordable to all but the most wealthy... and they'll never be as cheap as their lower rez cousins, which will be just as capable of showing the same quality they do now. Why? Because the Broadcast Networks which have already invested in the millions to transmit 1080i (at best!!), aren't about to jump on the 1080p bandwagon just because some rich honcho bought himself a 1080p LCD panel, and he's on the phone to the Station Manager demanding that they deliver 1080p just for him... I reckon 10/15 years is about a reasonable assumption given the current HD capture and delivery situation. Just wondering - for those promoting 1080p; how many 1080p camcorders that are affordable there's likely to be within the next 10yrs? Don't forget to mention that there aren't any yet... |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
