High Def on 720 Plasmas

jeffc · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

"1080me.com" wrote in message @y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 11:36 pm, "jeffc" wrote:

>Viewing distance is certainly a big part of the "720" vs. 1080 HDTV
>decision. I 2nd the Calton Bale link. If you are considering a
>"720" (actually 1366 x 768 or 1024 x 768 resolution typically) flat
>screen, I assume you are in the market for a 42"-50" screen (since
>most manufacturers finally got in line with 1920 x 1080 resolution as
>screens over 50" became mass produced.) If you view a 50" HDTV from 9'
>or more, 20/20 vision wouldn't discern as any difference between a 720
>& 1080 image (all else being equal).

>"All else being equal" is the hitch. Regardless of specs (often
>exaggerated) & the opinion of others (often biased), the picture
>quality is subjective...which means it's up to your eyes. One critical
>challenge for all digital TV's is display of black levels. I recommend
>you bring a copy of The Matrix to demo on the TV's you are
>considering. The bar scene where Trinity meets Neo is particularly
>challenging because it is so dark, shadowy, not to mention her jet-
>black leather catsuit. Older plasmas would be riddled with "creeping
>moss" since it lacked the proper amount of shades of gray to resolve
>the image properly. Thankfully 10-bit digital video processing has
>gone a long way in solving this issue. Panasonic & Pioneer "720"
>plasmas have received many glowing reviews.

I see the Kuro line is getting good reviews for blackness. I'm looking for
a TV in the 47 - 52" range by the way, and sitting 8-10 feet away watching
Blu-Ray (or at least expecting that to look its best.) Seems like I'm in
kind of a irritating gray area.

Archived from group: alt>home-theater>misc

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:20:01 -0500, jeffc wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:36:39 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>>Are the 720 plasmas much behind the 1080p LCDs when it comes to crisp
>>>picture in High Def? I'm thinking of Blu Ray as well as HD cable TV.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you look at some? If you can't see the difference then it
>> doesn't matter.

>There are lots of reasons this isn't very good advice. For one thing, it's
>very difficult to compare apples to apples in any of the stores where I've
>seen TVs on display. For another, doing a controlled comparison in my own
>home is outrageously time consuming, inconvenient and expensive.

Oh, bullshit. Walk up to a 1080 screen, look at some hidef materials.
Go to a 768 screen and do the same. Repeat.

I guess if you live in alaska and have to fire up an airplane to fly to the
next town then it might be a problem, but most people have the ability to
drive to a store with hidef tv's in a matter of minutes.

jeffc · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:20:01 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>
>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:36:39 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>>>Are the 720 plasmas much behind the 1080p LCDs when it comes to crisp
>>>>picture in High Def? I'm thinking of Blu Ray as well as HD cable TV.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you look at some? If you can't see the difference then it
>>> doesn't matter.
>
>>There are lots of reasons this isn't very good advice. For one thing,
>>it's
>>very difficult to compare apples to apples in any of the stores where I've
>>seen TVs on display. For another, doing a controlled comparison in my own
>>home is outrageously time consuming, inconvenient and expensive.
>
> Oh, bullshit. Walk up to a 1080 screen, look at some hidef materials.
> Go to a 768 screen and do the same. Repeat.

Just as wrong as the first time, for the same reasons.

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:06:28 -0500, jeffc wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:20:01 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>
>>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:36:39 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>>>>Are the 720 plasmas much behind the 1080p LCDs when it comes to crisp
>>>>>picture in High Def? I'm thinking of Blu Ray as well as HD cable TV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you look at some? If you can't see the difference then it
>>>> doesn't matter.
>>
>>>There are lots of reasons this isn't very good advice. For one thing,
>>>it's
>>>very difficult to compare apples to apples in any of the stores where I've
>>>seen TVs on display. For another, doing a controlled comparison in my own
>>>home is outrageously time consuming, inconvenient and expensive.
>>
>> Oh, bullshit. Walk up to a 1080 screen, look at some hidef materials.
>> Go to a 768 screen and do the same. Repeat.

>Just as wrong as the first time, for the same reasons.

Then refute it, you blithering idiot. Just saying "NO! You're wrong!"
over and over is pointless.

Explain exactly how one can't do a comparison. Point out some pitfalls.

So far, your arguments have been completely empty.

jeffc · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:06:28 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>
>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:20:01 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>>>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:36:39 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>>>>>Are the 720 plasmas much behind the 1080p LCDs when it comes to crisp
>>>>>>picture in High Def? I'm thinking of Blu Ray as well as HD cable TV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you look at some? If you can't see the difference then it
>>>>> doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>>There are lots of reasons this isn't very good advice. For one thing,
>>>>it's
>>>>very difficult to compare apples to apples in any of the stores where
>>>>I've
>>>>seen TVs on display. For another, doing a controlled comparison in my
>>>>own
>>>>home is outrageously time consuming, inconvenient and expensive.
>>>
>>> Oh, bullshit. Walk up to a 1080 screen, look at some hidef materials.
>>> Go to a 768 screen and do the same. Repeat.
>
>>Just as wrong as the first time, for the same reasons.
>
>
> Then refute it, you blithering idiot. Just saying "NO! You're wrong!"
> over and over is pointless.
>
> Explain exactly how one can't do a comparison. Point out some pitfalls.
>
> So far, your arguments have been completely empty.

For crissakes man, use your head. I'll assume you can figure out why doing
comparisons of multiple models at home is outrageously time consuming,
inconvenient and expensive so I won't elaborate. It should be intuitively
obvious why it's hard to compare apples to apples in a store, shouldn't it?
Different store personnel using the equipment each day, problems with TVs,
source, cabling etc that aren't addressed correctly or consistently, source
material that differs for different TVs, TVs that are adjusted differently
or have their settings changed for customer demos and not changed back,
source program changes as you are moving from TV to TV, even if each TV is
receiving the exact same signal, different input types being used on
different TVs, different lighting in different parts of the store or
different showrooms, different heights or angles of mounting, the list is
practically endless - do I really need to go on?

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:49:47 -0500, jeffc wrote:

>For crissakes man, use your head. I'll assume you can figure out why doing
>comparisons of multiple models at home is outrageously time consuming,
No it isn't. Look at one screen playing a given material. Look at the
othe screen on the same material. Repeat. Total time: about 5 minutes
to compare two screens.

>inconvenient and expensive so I won't elaborate. It should be intuitively
You shouldn't. It doesn't cost a damn thing to visit a store. Or, do you
not live within driving distance of a city?

>obvious why it's hard to compare apples to apples in a store, shouldn't it?
>Different store personnel using the equipment each day, problems with TVs,
irrelevent.

>source, cabling etc that aren't addressed correctly or consistently, source
irrelevent.

>material that differs for different TVs, TVs that are adjusted differently
Use a BR player. Watch the same show. Not a problem if you're not
a complete moron.

>or have their settings changed for customer demos and not changed back,
Use the defaults.

>source program changes as you are moving from TV to TV, even if each TV is
>receiving the exact same signal, different input types being used on
>different TVs, different lighting in different parts of the store or
>different showrooms, different heights or angles of mounting, the list is
>practically endless - do I really need to go on?
I suggest you stay home, put a bag over your head, and never buy an HDTV
set. You're too stupid to own one.

jeffc · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:49:47 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>
>>For crissakes man, use your head. I'll assume you can figure out why
>>doing
>>comparisons of multiple models at home is outrageously time consuming,
> No it isn't. Look at one screen playing a given material. Look at the
> othe screen on the same material. Repeat. Total time: about 5 minutes
> to compare two screens.

Are you high? Do you have any idea how expensive and time consuming it's
going to be to get these TVs into your house?

>>obvious why it's hard to compare apples to apples in a store, shouldn't
>>it?
>>Different store personnel using the equipment each day, problems with TVs,
> irrelevent.
>
>>source, cabling etc that aren't addressed correctly or consistently,
>>source
> irrelevent.
>
>
>>material that differs for different TVs, TVs that are adjusted differently
> Use a BR player. Watch the same show. Not a problem if you're not
> a complete moron.

It's not my store fool.

>>or have their settings changed for customer demos and not changed back,
> Use the defaults.

It's not my store fool.

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:42:27 -0600, Taj Chakra wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:35:52 -0000, AZ Nomad
> wrote:

>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:49:47 -0500, jeffc wrote:
>>
>>>For crissakes man, use your head. I'll assume you can figure out why doing
>>>comparisons of multiple models at home is outrageously time consuming,
>>No it isn't. Look at one screen playing a given material. Look at the
>>othe screen on the same material. Repeat. Total time: about 5 minutes
>>to compare two screens.
>>
>>
>>>inconvenient and expensive so I won't elaborate. It should be intuitively
>>You shouldn't. It doesn't cost a damn thing to visit a store. Or, do you
>>not live within driving distance of a city?
>>
>>>obvious why it's hard to compare apples to apples in a store, shouldn't it?
>>>Different store personnel using the equipment each day, problems with TVs,
>>irrelevent.
>>
>>>source, cabling etc that aren't addressed correctly or consistently, source
>>irrelevent.
>>
>>
>>>material that differs for different TVs, TVs that are adjusted differently
>>Use a BR player. Watch the same show. Not a problem if you're not
>>a complete moron.
>>
>>
>>>or have their settings changed for customer demos and not changed back,
>>Use the defaults.
>>
>>>source program changes as you are moving from TV to TV, even if each TV is
>>>receiving the exact same signal, different input types being used on
>>>different TVs, different lighting in different parts of the store or
>>>different showrooms, different heights or angles of mounting, the list is
>>>practically endless - do I really need to go on?
>>I suggest you stay home, put a bag over your head, and never buy an HDTV
>>set. You're too stupid to own one.

>Most people who are smart enough to find their way to Usenet will be
>smart enough to know that you can't make valid comparisons in most
>stores for the reasons jeffc cites above. The rest of the buying
>public doesn't know or care either way. It looks like you're in the
>second category, which is fine if that's where you're happy to be.

His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on a
digital signal. Lighting doesn't differ enough to matter. If they are in
the same department, the lighting will be the same. Heights? Give me a
break. How had the fool ever bought a TV previously? Did he have to spend
the better part of a year doing research, quiting his job to devote full
time to the activity? Has he never heard of reading magazine and user
reviews?

This is a relatively easy task. There's no need to make a mountain out of a
molehill.

T Shadow · Joined: 30 Oct 2007 Posts: 21

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>
> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on a
> digital signal.

Common misconception.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html

jeffc · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>
> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on a
> digital signal.

Reviews have stated that sometimes signals are clean through HDMI, grainy
through component, or whatever. You have no way of knowing how the TVs are
hooked up.

> Lighting doesn't differ enough to matter. If they are in
> the same department, the lighting will be the same.

Oh god, how wrong.

> Heights? Give me a break. How had the fool ever bought a TV
> previously?

Was just at Best Buy tonight. TVs were at multiple heights and angles all
over the place.

Basically you have no idea what you're talking about, please don't give any
more advice.

>Has he never heard of reading magazine and user
> reviews?

Good lord you're not smart. That was my entire point. You have to read
reviews because it's too hard to compare apples to apples in a store. Wow.

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:23:27 -0500, T Shadow wrote:
>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>>
>> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on a
>> digital signal.

>Common misconception.

>http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html

irrelevent, it's a comparison of analog versus digital.

Once in the digital realm, there are no differences except in the fanatasies
of snake oil salesmen.

Cabling carrying an ATSC signal to two TVs can not have an effect on picture
quality as long as there aren't serious dropouts occuring and those errors are
not subtle.

T Shadow · Joined: 30 Oct 2007 Posts: 21

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:23:27 -0500, T Shadow
wrote:
> >"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
> >@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> >>>
> >> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on
a
> >> digital signal.
>
>
>
> >Common misconception.
>
> >http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html
>
> irrelevent, it's a comparison of analog versus digital.
>
> Once in the digital realm, there are no differences except in the
fanatasies
> of snake oil salesmen.
>
> Cabling carrying an ATSC signal to two TVs can not have an effect on
picture
> quality as long as there aren't serious dropouts occuring and those errors
are
> not subtle.

Wrong.

Gandalf · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 28

T Shadow wrote:
> "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
> @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:23:27 -0500, T Shadow
> wrote:
>>> "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>> @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>>> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on
> a
>>>> digital signal.
>>
>>
>>> Common misconception.
>>> http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html
>> irrelevent, it's a comparison of analog versus digital.
>>
>> Once in the digital realm, there are no differences except in the
> fanatasies
>> of snake oil salesmen.
>>
>> Cabling carrying an ATSC signal to two TVs can not have an effect on
> picture
>> quality as long as there aren't serious dropouts occuring and those errors
> are
>> not subtle.
>
> Wrong.
>

Ooh, because you said so?

-G

AZ Nomad · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:46:38 GMT, Gandalf wrote:
>T Shadow wrote:
>> "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>> @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:23:27 -0500, T Shadow
>> wrote:
>>>> "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
>>>> @ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>>>> His reasons are mostly invalid. For example, cables have no effect on
>> a
>>>>> digital signal.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Common misconception.
>>>> http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html
>>> irrelevent, it's a comparison of analog versus digital.
>>>
>>> Once in the digital realm, there are no differences except in the
>> fanatasies
>>> of snake oil salesmen.
>>>
>>> Cabling carrying an ATSC signal to two TVs can not have an effect on
>> picture
>>> quality as long as there aren't serious dropouts occuring and those errors
>> are
>>> not subtle.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>

>Ooh, because you said so?

The sales man who sold him $2500 worth of cables told him so.

It's true! I've got a $7500 gold and pregnant iguana spit SATA cable on my hard
drive and you wouldn't believe how much better the colors on my monitor
appear. Games are more dynamic, and bass is far more detailed on the
subwoofer.

Ric Seyler · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Gandalf wrote:

> Ric Seyler wrote:
>
>> Oh yea, your next time around will be much cheaper. Smile

>
>
> 209 lines to say you concur?
>
> just f'n with ya.
>
> -G

LOLOLOL

--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35
ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net
http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson