What Gamers Need To Know About Buying an HD TV

The excellent games coverage at the San Jose Mercury News site offers up a gamers buying guide for HD TVs. Dean Takahashi discusses the basics every HD purchaser should know, some technical issues with recent plasma and LCD advances in mind, and addresses the specific problems that gamers will face with their new purchases. From the article: "If you accidentally set your PS 3 for 1080p resolution, when the TV can only support 720p, you get a black screen. The Westinghouse TV I used displayed a message that said 'invalid format.' To reset the PS3 to the standard AV format, you shut the PS3 off. Then you hold the PS3's power button down for about 10 seconds. It will reset to standard video. If you have the Nintendo Wii, you won't have to upgrade your standard/enhanced definition TV as the Wii's best resolution is 480p. It's thankfully simple, but you get a sixth of the pixels on screen as you do with a full HDTV with a PS3."

Comments

No mention of HDTV lag

[Galaga88]

This article totally neglects to mention any of the issues with HDTV lag. From my understanding, it occurs when the TV has to convert a signal to its native resolution, resulting in a several millisecond delay.

This can be frustrating in action or rhythm games (Which is why Guitar Hero 2 has an option to compensate for it). I don't have an HDTV, so I'm not sure how bad it is but some google-fu should find plenty more on the subject.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[theskipper]

On the plus side though, it gives those of us who are sub-par CS players an alternate excuse to blaming ping.

"lucky shot n00b cuz if my tv wasnt lagging..."

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[ColaMan]

My advice is to watch a wall full of different brands of TV's with content that rapidly changes scenes.
You'll soon be able to pick the ones with the slow image processors - they're the ones that are perceptibly behind the rest.

Of course, this doesn't show the fact that they're *all* behind a little bit, but it does help weed out the crap ones.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[gt_mattex]

For the most part, though not always, if you have a HDTV you probably have a receiver (as in audio). Most receivers from personal experience have an option to delay sound, in second/millisecond increments.

If you don't have a receiver, or don't have the money for a receiver, then you have, in my experience, a 50/50 chance for your TV to have this as a native function for its onboard speakers.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[Jeffrey Baker]

I don't think audio/video sync was the point of the post. The point is that the action lags the input.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[|/|/|||]

Yeah but audio lag is the least of a gamer's problems -- control lag is the killer.

I'd have expected this issue to be the main focus of the article, since your average gamer is not going to have trouble figuring out the different resolution and connection options. How to determine which TVs have the least lag is not so trivial.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[nxtw]

my 1080p HDTV LCD has no problem with lag on Guitar Hero (either that, or I've played Guitar Hero so much on that TV that I anticipate the lag...)

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[brunes69]

A 1080p TV doesn't have to do any conversion though. A 1080p TV displays 1080i/60 transmitted content at it's native 1080p/30 resolution with 0 loss.

You need to remember that video games only use 1080i as a transmission mechanism. It's not encoded at 1080i (it's not encoded at anything - it's generated progressive content).

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[nxtw]

Guitar Hero II is 480i.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read up on AVSforum.com about that issue.

I believe this issue only occurred with games/systems that output interlaced video. This was the case with the PS2, which output 480i. Games with 480p/720p/1080p output should not lag. But it comes down to the signal processing done in the set.

I read the most complaints with Samsung's DLP sets.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[twistedsymphony]

action doesn't lag the input... low resolutions lag the output. If your TV is 1080p native and you feed it a 480p (or worse 480i) signal from something like a Wii. there is a chip somewhere in that TV that has to scale that 480i/p all the way up to 1080p, and it has to do it FAST. The problem is that while these scaler chips are fast, when they're faced with a large task 480i -> 1080p they start to lag by a few milliseconds. De-interlacing, doubling the frame rate, multiplying the resolution, and adjusting the aspect ratio in real time doesn't come cheap, not to mention most TVs are doing other things like color correction, and other image processing that can add to the lag. Display types like LCD and Plasma have slower response times as well which can further add to the lag. Meanwhile your audio signal is going straight to your surround sound receiver and playing at the appropriate time. Some lag so minimally that most people will never notice. Some TVs lag so bad they actually have an audio pass through to delay the audio so that it matches the lagging video. Obviously this doesn't effect movies and TV because there is no user interaction, but it definitely effects video games or any other interactive use you'd have for that display. This is where the audio/video seems to be getting out of sync. Some of most lagy HDTVs can delay the signal as much as .64 seconds.

This is where gamers come in. When you push a button on your controller and the Game doesn't visually respond until a split second later, there's a serious problem, couple that with the feedback of having pushed the button in reaction to something on screen and you essentially double the perceived lag. With the twitch gameplay of some of today's popular games you could be dead literally before you even see it coming.

In addition to making sure the TV's have good, lag-free scaling, it's a good idea to choose a display that matches the resolution you'll be using it most for. As the GP said, if you're buying a Wii then you might want to look into EDTVs... if the Wii is 480p then buying a 480p EDTV would not only be a whole lot cheaper, but it will look better (no abnormal stretching of the image to fit a larger resolution) and play better (less work fro the scaler means less lag) too.

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[jpardey]

Yeah, if someone said that, I'd have to admit it to be a bit more creative than OMG LAG. I must suck at CS, all I ever say is "Nice Shot!"

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[Beefysworld]

I recently picked up an LG 60" Plasma HDTV. Hooked up my PS2 via component and everything seemed to be fine. However, when I did start playing Guitar Hero II (including setting it to widescreen and enabling progressive scan), on hard / expert I was really out of time. Kept missing a lot of the notes, even they should have registered.

After running through the lag calibration thing, my screen was apparently about 30ms out of whack. In normal games, this wouldn't really make that much of a difference, but in a fast moving rhythm game, it makes a big difference. You can try compensate and play notes a little earlier, but it's still not the same. Congrats to Red Octane / Harmonix for adding in the lag calibration tool..

Re:No mention of HDTV lag

[Anonymous Coward]

HDTV lag makes first person shooters unplayabe - a big factor if you have an XBox360

Resolution

[mrchaotica]

From the article:

I'd agree with the hype that says once you have played games in HD, it's painful to go back to standard TV.

Wow, this guy finally figured out what us PC gamers have known for about a decade now! Who'da thunk it?

Re:Resolution

[HappySqurriel]

Personally, as a long time PC gamer I can honestly say that "resolution" has never been that much of a consern for me; the thing that bothers me is the artifacts that typically come from low-resolution images. As a result of this I tend to play most of my games at a resolution between 800x600 and 1280x1024 with 8xAA and 8xAF ...

I know this goes against what some people will say but I would rather run a game at 800x600 with 8xAA and 8xAF then have the same game at 1280x1024 with no AA and AF.

Re:Resolution

[mrchaotica]

See, you've just proven my point: you consider 800x600 to be low resolution! For console gamers, this would be high resolution -- standard for them is 484 interlaced lines. When you start getting that low, it becomes really bad no matter how much anti-aliasing you use. For example, try playing Half-Life on the PS2 sometime. It sucks horribly, mostly due to the low resolution (the remainder of the sucking is due to the horrible controls).

Re:Resolution

[Sancho]

But he was talking about artifacts in low resolution PC games, not complaining about the resolution in general.

Until now, console games were designed for SD, so textures and images wouldn't have those artifacts unless you had a bad artist.

Re:Resolution

[Total_Wimp]

Wow, this guy finally figured out what us PC gamers have known for about a decade now! Who'da thunk it?

Still, there's a lot more PC gamers could learn about HDTV, including proper cables for converting DVI to HDMI, which brands support DVI standard and what resolutions just wont look good on HDTV. Heck, even some info on setting it to native res, much like standard LCD monitors, would have been handy.

All in all, I'd prefer an article like this be called "A Console Gamer's Guide to Buying an HDTV" since it clearly covers only that material. It's not that I don't like consoles, but I think the word "gaming" without a qualifier should be used to represent the whole industry.

TW

Re:Resolution

[gknoy]

Exactly.

This is why I feel like I am peering into a bucket of mud whenever I play console games like Need for Speed Underground (please don't laugh ;)), or even resident evil.

Hell, even when I play them on my monitor, it's bad... but not as bad as on the TV. *shudder*.

Re:Resolution

[Guppy06]

"For example, try playing Half-Life on the PS2 sometime. It sucks horribly, mostly due to the low resolution"

The problem isn't the raw resolution per se but rather the resolution the game was designed to play at. I find it telling that you point to a port of a PC game as an example of poor quality of gaming on a television.

However, if it were all about nothing but raw resolution power, then there would be no discernable difference between playing the PS2 version of Half-Life on a television and playing the PC version of Half-Life on the same television. But lo and behold, despite most people's best efforts and dealing with frustrating graphics card tweaking, playing the PC version on a television will look far worse than playing the PS2 version (and that's before we start talking about games designed with NTSC in mind from the beginning). It would seem that PC gaming does 800x600 as a minimum because they just don't know how to handle anything less (Windows itself will balk at you if you have your resolution set below 800x600, even if you're using Media Center Edition).

Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Johnso]

After researching dozens of websites, a dozen stores, and going back and forth between different models, I finally bought an LCD HDTV last month. I decided on the LVM-42W2 from Westinghouse. It has 1080p resolution, tons of inputs (including two DVIs and HDMI for hooking up your laptop) and works flawlessly. I couldn't be happier with the picture and it's by far the best price for a 40"+ 1080p screen.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[bockelboy]

Can I hear an "Amen" to that.

Our office bought the LVM-42W2 for video conferencing over the summer. Since then, 4 of us have bought the exact same model. It's got tons of inputs (all the various analog ones, 1 VGA, 2 DVI, 1 HDMI). It can do 1080p. It is cheap - finding it for $1500 is not hard, I think. I haven't run into any quirks.

The difference between the Westinghouse and the $3000 Samsung is that the Samsung has lots of nice filters on it, whereas the Westinghouse only has the standard brightness/contrast/etc. Three points:
1) Your 1080p/1080i source doesn't need any expensive upconverting filter technologies.
2) You'll want a nicer up-converting image for DVD sources. This can be remedied by buying a nice $100 DVD player which does the up-conversion, instead of having the TV do it.
3) Unless you have lots of nice TVs at home already, you won't be able to tell the difference between the Westinghouse and a $3000 set once you get it in your living room. The only way to see that the $3000 set has a marginally better picture is to put them next to each other.
So, the extra $1500 in cost goes away once you take the set home, and in the worst case can be remedied by buying a nice DVD player (cost: $100).

I friggin' love my TV and, at $1500, my wife even let my buy it.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[rapett0]

Not that I can add too much to what the parent said, but I agree. I have had mine now I am guessing 4-6 months and I love it. I have seen it around for even cheaper then what I gave (which was 1700), like around 1500 (US). To be honest, I can not think of any thing bad about this TV so far. Great picture, and um, great picture. I guess I should make a note that it is a monitor, so no built in tuner for HDTV (not that really bothers me), and the remote is *weak*. But otherwise, I love it actually have since recommended it to several other people. I never even watch TV on it as I am too busy with XBOX 360 in 1080 *p*. (Thought to be honest, I did not really notice any difference in 1080i vs p).

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Sporkinum]

It is cheap - finding it for $1500 is not hard, I think.

What frame of existence do you live in that says $1500 for a TV is cheap?
When my current TV (27") dies and I can replace it for $300 I'll do it.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[MBraynard]

What do you make of the contrast ratio, particularly in regards to games? Sony has a 7000:1 contrast ratio for a similar model.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Peter La Casse]

Some people say "cheap" when they mean "bargain" or "value". $1500 is not necessarily cheap in absolute terms, but $1500 for a 42" LCD HDTV is a bargain compared to what other 42" LCD HDTVs cost.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[RasputinAXP]

I just bought the 42W2 a month ago. The contrast ratio is more than acceptable, and Gears of War looks gorgeous.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Jack9]

Well said. 1500 is cheap for a car, not an idiotbox. What on earth do you need an HDTV for, really? Years ago I'd occasionally endure a seies of bad jokes about laymen buying hyper-expensive TVs that didn't provide any value (HDTV). Now we have a /. article endorsing it. Ugh.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[mrchaotica]

If you're trying to evaluate contrast ratio, play Doom 3 instead.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Danny Rathjens]

I never even watch TV on it as I am too busy with XBOX 360 in 1080 *p*. (Thought to be honest, I did not really notice any difference in 1080i vs p).

The article mentions that there are no 1080p games for xbox 360 at all, currently. That's probably why you don't notice any difference. :)

Almost all programming is in 720p, and some experts say that when you're watching video, your (or maybe just my) eyes can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially on smaller screens. In fact, games may be the only reason you care about this difference, as there is no 1080p video content yet on cable TV or satellite. Games for the Xbox 360 have been created in 720p. They can be displayed on a 1080P TV, but won't look much better. This fall, Microsoft upgraded the console so that it can display games at 1080P, but current games don't exploit it yet.

The PlayStation 3, by contrast, is capable of "natively'' displaying games in 1080p. But, again, only about half the games now support 1080p. If you pay extra for 1080p, you're making a bet that you're going to notice the difference in games in the future.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[kalirion]

It's all about the graphics. Why do people spend $1500+ on gaming PCs when a $500 PC will play virtually all of the newest games at playable speeds (>15fps) once you turn the graphics down to bare minimum?

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Jack9]

It's all about the graphics.

That's just plain false. There's a human-noticeable loss of fidelity when you're at 15fps or when there's missing textures (blood spattering, etc). There's a signifigant amount of information loss that's pertinent to the game (FPS, RTS, not so much RPG). HDTV doesn't address anything remotely practical. I cannot ignore the fact that there's an improvement visually, but not an improvement that serves any specific need or gap. The difference in fidelity is not even noticeable to me (when compared to no HDTV plasma), which means that there's a portion of the population that cannot benefit from it. Might as well be buying a TV with an extra Infrared visual component IMO. I'm going to assume that anyone who misguidedly wants to buy one has access to an HDTV signal (for some programs on some stations), but that's not typical either. HDTV is truly a suckers' product.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Babbster]

The reason you don't notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p in an Xbox 360 game is because all you're changing isthe point in the signal path where the conversion is taking place from 1080i to 1080p. Your 1080p display takes every 1080i source and converts it to 1080p, so if you set your Xbox to output 1080i you're still seeing 1080p. Frankly, the difference will end up being marginal at best even with "native" 1080p games on both the 360 and the PS3 because the likelihood is that 1080p games will be output at 1080p/30 (frames per second) which is equivalent in the amount of data transmitted to 1080i/60 (fields per second, which translates to 30 "full" frames per second).

Now, that doesn't meant that there isn't an advantage to having the 1080p display because at the very least you're getting the full display of all the 1080i resolution instead of downconverting to 720p (or, more properly, "768p") for display on a 1366x768 LCD (the most common LCD HDTV resolution). Also, once the players mature, the 1080p movies encoded on HD-DVD and Blu-ray could be transferred at their original film frame rate (24 fps) without having to go through the extra 3:2 conversion that has to happen to get to the standard TV refresh rates (30/60).

The proper way to test whether you're enjoying better detail with your 1080p display would be to hook your 360 up to both the 1080p display and a 768p display (ideally, displays of the same size), set the output to 1080i and look at some games that way. Some games will show little difference due to being rendered internally at a lower resolution, but you're still probably eliminating scaling artifacts by going 1080i->1080p instead of 1080i-720p.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[mgblst]

The thing about HD tv that always get me is, sure you notice the graphics quality, when you are looking for it. About 30 seconds after that, when you are actually watching a movie or playing a game, you completely forget about it. So what is the point, for 30 seconds - this is why I hate HD tv. Do you really sit there, through a 2 hour movie, thinking all the time how good it looks? No way.

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[strikethree]

$1,500 for a 42 inch computer monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080 is an outstanding bargain. Who cares about the TV aspects to it?

strike

Re:Westinghouse LVM-42W2 is great

[Jack9]

I can get a 25 inch viewable CRT for $70. I still dont see the point of paying 1500 for 42.

One silver lining for PC people

[Wilson_6500]

Skipping commentary on the Death Of PC Gaming etc., it's interesting to watch as consoles become more like computers as far as the gaming experience goes: compatability problems (never really had those with the NES), online content, weird crashes and errors. The bright side of all this for PC gamers is that we should start seeing fewer games being hobbled because people try to design them for PCs and consoles simultaneously (Deus Ex 2 for the canonical example).

Talking 'bout my generation

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody know when Atari is going to finally distribute the firmware upgrade to make my 2600 output at 1080p?

Re:Talking 'bout my generation

[kalirion]

Actually it could probably be managed with the right filter (hq10x? hq5x?)

He left out something important

[J. T. MacLeod]

Many panels these days used non-HD resolutions (stretched 1024x768 for plasma displays, for instance) or, almost as bad, an "in between" resolution. That's commonly 1366x768.

That ensures that EVERYTHING you watch will be scaled, so you couldn't even have the clarity of watching 720p on a 1280x720 set.

Yet the 1280x720 sets, with lower resolutions, cost more.

Welcome to The Market.

Re:He left out something important

[Gizzmonic]

I have had varying results with 1366x768 machines...720p on my Xbox connected via component seems to run in the correct native resolution.

But 720p with my Mac Mini looks horrible, and is clearly NOT running in native resolution. This is a very important issue with any fixed-pixel display, and the writer of this article should be ashamed for not mentioning it.

Re:He left out something important

[bmwm3nut]

That's odd, I have a 1366x768 LCD Flat Panel and the Mac Mini Looks great on it. When I turn off the the overscan, I get a small black border around the edge of the screen so that the signal coming from the Mac Mini actually uses 1280x720 of the pixels on the monitor. Granted, I'm not using all the pixels on the TV, but it's a 1:1 mapping so it's as clear as can be. Are you going DVI from the Mac Mini to HDMI on the TV or are you going from VGA on the Mac Mini to Component on the TV?

Re:He left out something important

[Gizzmonic]

It depends on the display, I think. And yes, I am using DVI to HDMI on the Mac mini, running to a brand new Sharp 720p display.

Re:He left out something important

[bmwm3nut]

I'm also going to a Sharp (32D40U) TV but I'm going DVI -> HDMI on my receiver and the HDMI on the receiver -> HDMI on the TV. I don't know if it matters or not, but the Mac Mini reports the name of my reveiver as the display name and not the name of the TV.

Re:He left out something important

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad. I have a Samsung LNR238W 23" LCD TV having a native resolution of 1366x768 pixels. I was expecting that a Mac Mini would output 1366x768 pixels through a DVI-to-HDMI cable, not 1280x720. I attached to the TV an old Sony Vaio GRX notebook using a VGA cable, it gave me 1024x768 pixels (the notebook's ATI card can't do any better).

Anyone has tried a Mac Mini on this TV set?

Re:He left out something important

[thatguywhoiam]

That ensures that EVERYTHING you watch will be scaled, so you couldn't even have the clarity of watching 720p on a 1280x720 set.

It makes absolutely no difference either way to picture quality.

Really. I looked into this and its a nonstarter. Go look at a 720p panel next to a '768p' panel (like the Samsung, there are a few out there) with same source. They look pretty much identical.

Almost everything you watch for the next while will be upconverted in some manner. All DVDs, for example.

Anything but plasma

[The-Bus]

As the article off-handedly suggests, plasma still has some burn-in issues. If you play a lot of FPS games, you suddenly might see a movie one day and notice items from your HUD as ghostly images still appearing on the screen. Some newer plasma TVs have "burn-in reduction" or "protection" but it's not very good. Basically, what the TV does is burn every single element/pixel on the screen. Now the entire image is less bright. You won't see a difference but if you ever plug in another TV next to yours, you might notice how much it has faded.

From what I understand, if your source is 1080P (a PS3, an Xbox 360 playing 1080P WMV content, an HD DVD player) and your display is 1080i, the image still retains all its details and it looks exactly as it would on a 1080P set. If your display is 720P, it won't display all that information and downconvert it. For PC geeks, it's pretty easy to figure out. With full HD being 1920 x 1080 pixels, a 1080P set is like a PC running on a massively powerful graphics card. A 720P set has a slightly smaller resolution, and a 1080i set has two graphics cards that are half the power of the 1080P one. Honestly, on any TV in the sub-$2000 category, it's going to be extremely difficult to tell the difference.

If you're in the market, my suggestion is to go cheap as whatever is over $2000 nowadays is going to be half that price in a year or so. For the money, a properly configured rear-projection CRT HDTV is still going to give you the best display as it can deliver real blacks: i.e., no light and the nice bright whites of an LCD -- and at half the price of a comparable LCD/DLP/Plasma set. But of course, CRT HDTVs aren't flat so you don't look like that rapper on TV, so many people don't consider them. Their loss.

Re:Anything but plasma

[MBraynard]

I have a CRT HDTV that is about 32. I somewhat regret not getting the 36. Got it a few years ago - nice TOshiba though it's not a widescreen. But it is HELL to move.

I also suspect that is can only display 480p, and nothing higher. When I try to play to it from my Xbox in 720p, it doesn't work -though my comcast HD box says that it is sending the signal in 1080i and it seems to be able to display that.

Re:Anything but plasma

[0rbit4l]

Several early CRT HDTVs cannot display 720p at all, but *can* display 1080i just fine... I recall seeing several Philips CRT owners complaining about this during the early adoption of the 360. Can you set the 360 to output 1080i? (I have no idea, I've never used a 360...). Is there some firmware update to the 360 that will permit 1080i output now?

Re:Anything but plasma

[MBraynard]

In TFA, it says there was an Xbox upgrade that allows it to send 1080p signals. I _think_ the original Xbox could do this too, but there was maybe just one game that did this (Jet Set Radio Future)

Re:Anything but plasma

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Comcast box isn't lying. Even the Toshiba 4:3 CRT HDTVs from a few years ago that don't offer 720p resampling can do both 480p and 1080i. Toshiba CRTs from that time period are excellent, BTW.

Re:Anything but plasma

[The-Bus]

The 360 outputs 720p and 1080i, and now with the recent patch, 1080P. The 1080P depends on the game and as far as I know, no game supports 1080P yet.

I think the original Xbox may have been able to output 1080i with some games, but I am not sure.

Re:Anything but plasma

[MBraynard]

Jet Set Radio Future was one original Xbox game that could output to that.

Too bad I didn't realize I could turn on 1080i until now - the only game I think that supports it is Arcade Poker! which will look so much better now!

more like computers in price too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably be getting a new computer in the next six months and I've also been eyeing an xbox 360 setup.

If I go to Dell and spend $1000 I can get computer with a good processor, hefty video card, 19 in LCD monitor, and 2 gig of ram.

An xbox 360 setup plus a modest HDTV would also approach $1000.

Computer wins.

Re:more like computers in price too

[amuro98]

$1000 for a Dell? I don't think so - not if you plan on actually getting anything decent gaming-wise.

Last time I priced out a machine like the one you're talking about, it was closer to $2k - and that was without a monitor. Dell charges at least 50% more than what the parts would cost if you built the system yourself. For instance, you can save yourself a chunk of change right from the start by only putting in the minimum amount of RAM you can buy into your Dell, then going to Kingston or Crucial's website and order the memory you really want. They're the same chips that Dell uses, only you pay twice as much if you buy the memory from Dell!

About the only thing you'd be missing out on would be the case. Dell does make good cases. But at the same time, you also save yourself the agony of trying to uninstall all the extra garbage that every pre-built system comes with nowadays. You're going to do a fresh install anyways, so you might as well just build the system yourself and do it right the first time, rather than having to correct Dell's mistakes.

Dell's are great machines if you're running an office, or need a worry-free PC for a family member living far away, but as a gamer, you can (and should) do better.

Re:more like computers in price too

[ShadowsHawk]

Some of us deal with computer issues all day long. It's the absolute last thing I want to do when I get home. Having said that, I bought a Dell two years ago.

2.66 GHz P4
1 Gig ram
Radeon 9800 Pro 128 Mb
80 Gig HD
15" Digital FP monitor
2.1 sound

$1050

People greatly exagerate the costs involved with a new dell.

Re:more like computers in price too

[Anonymous Coward]

I just priced a Dell XPS system - 1.86 Core 2 duo, 1GB RAM, 250GB HD, nVidia 7900-256MB with free 19" LCD - $1199
Not the 1337 machine, but is nice enough to game... and a hell of a lot better than what you would get with an XBox 360

Re:more like computers in price too

[Anonymous Coward]

They very fact that you refer to a computer as a "rig" means your opinion is hopelessly biased and generally worthless to someone who isn't part of the same subculture. You're the ricers of the computer world.

Re:more like computers in price too

[WuphonsReach]

For $1050, you could get a custom-built box that would do a lot better then that unit.

Athlon64 X2 or Core 2 Duo - $200
2GB RAM - $250 (RAM is pricey right now)
Asus motherboard ($80)
Some video card ($150)
120-200GB HD (hell, buy 2, $120)
Quality Antec or Lian Li case w/ PSU ($100)
WinXP OEM ($100-$130)
17" flat screen ($200)
Okay... $1200... but that's only if you don't already have a display.

If you're concerned about compatibility issues, go to some place like MWave or Monarch and order a motherboard bundle. They'll even put it together and test the CPU / RAM / MB for you. No muss, no fuss.

Unless you absolutely need Dell's hand-holding... do it yourself. You'll get a screamer that is as upgradeable as you desire without any proprietary parts. (Hell, I've got an ATX mid-tower case here that is 10 years old this month and it's still being used. I think it's on its 3rd innards.)

Re:more like computers in price too

[sholden]

An Athlon 64 X2 or a Core duo for $200, in 2004? Where do you shop?

Re:more like computers in price too

[Manmademan]

[blockquote]For $1050, you could get a custom-built box that would do a lot better then that unit.[/blockquote] To be fair, the grandparent post DID say that Dell was purchased around 2 years ago. I don't think Core 2 Duo's were even around back then, much less at $200. Whatever Dell offered him today would likely be closer to the specs you quoted.

Re:more like computers in price too

[WuphonsReach]

Aye, I did miss the 2004 information.

Two years ago, though and you could've gotten a 2GHz Athlon64 single-core and still outfitted it with 2GB of RAM. Maybe only 80GB drives (although I think the sweet spot was 120-160GB back then). Prices and performance have been pretty static for the past 2 years.

I still stand by my statement that if you don't need Dell's hand-holding you're better off doing it yourself with quality non-proprietary components. Especially for a game box that you might want to upgrade every so often (CPU/MB/RAM in 2006, better video card in 2007, more RAM in 2008, bigger HD in 2009, rinse-repeat).

When I buy a low-end Dell, I might end up with a case, MB and PSU that are proprietary. (Have they gotten better at this?) I'd much rather spend the extra $50 on a quality case and PSU that I can use across 2-3 motherboard swaps over the next 10-15 years. Cases like the Antec (p160, p180b, Overture II, Sonata II) or Lian-Li (PC-6077, PC-7077, PC-6070, PC-73SL) models that are flexible and sturdy. Some of the newer cases are even designed to be used for both BTX and ATX, but it's mostly a gimmick (BTX seems to be a non-starter).

PSUs are a bit more of a crap-shoot for re-use, although things might settle down now that PSUs have dual PCIe power connectors on them and are shipping standard with 24+8 connectors. I won't say that there's not something around the corner that will make modern PSU supplies out-of-date, but (3) 12V rails and lots of connectors should cover the foreseeable future. (I have perfectly good ATX PSUs that just don't supply enough 12V amperage to drive modern systems.) So a good PSU *should* last 6-8 years, through 2+ MB swaps.

And... now we're completely off-topic.

I can make it even simpler

[My name is Bucket]

Step One: Get a 5.1 system and an LCD TV that is NATIVE 1080p. If you can't afford that, save up and deal with your crappy 20" for now.

There is no Step Two.

Re:I can make it even simpler

[amuro98]

Do you *really* need 1080p?

Considering that the market is still evolving, and 1080p sources are scarce (and just as screwed up), why not save yourself a chunk of change and just get a true 720p set now?

In 5-6 years, once the whole market has figured this HD thing out, you'll probably be ready to buy another set anyways and THEN you can get yourself a better 1080p set for less!

Re:I can make it even simpler

[mrchaotica]

In 5-6 years, once the whole market has figured this HD thing out, you'll probably be ready to buy another set anyways

I don't know what planet you're from, but around here TVs are not replaced every 5-6 years! In fact, our TVs are all at least 10 years old, and we're only considering replacing one any time soon.

When we get a new TV, I'll make sure it's 1080p because we're still going to have it in a decade or so.

HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[Kadin2048]

And what's more, given the borderline advertising practices of many companies, a 1024x768 display will probably be advertised as "720p!" too, even though it's really not. But because most people don't know the corresponding horizontal resolution that's supposed to go with 720p, they'll never notice.

I wonder if you have a 1366x768 display, if you could bypass the internal scaler by feeding it a DVI signal from an HTPC, and then use the HTPC to position the 1280x720p frame in the center of the 1366x768 one, thus giving you an unscaled image?

Any TV designer who automatically scales 1280x768 up to 1366x768 without an option to turn it off and just display it with black bars ought to be shot.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[Purity Of Essence]

If you want quality HDTV stick to analog tubes.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[amuro98]

Great idea! Now, if you can just tell me where I can get a 40-50" tube that won't require structural reinforcing, and the use of a crane to get the thing into my house then we can talk.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[Kadin2048]

Agreed, which is why I've decided for the moment to stick with my aging NEC 3-tube CRT projector until it finally gives up the ghost. At that point, I'll take another look at HDTV panels.

Aligning CRT PJ tubes is a royal PITA, but it gives me less of a headache than trying to figure out some of the asinine design decisions that seem to be inherent in moderately-priced HDTVs today.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[Purity Of Essence]

Concrete floors, double doors, neighborly chores, and a case of Coors.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[sinisterDei]

I wonder if you have a 1366x768 display, if you could bypass the internal scaler by feeding it a DVI signal from an HTPC, and then use the HTPC to position the 1280x720p frame in the center of the 1366x768 one, thus giving you an unscaled image?

Why would you do that?

I own a HTPC and a Syntax Olevia 37" LCD HDTV. The panel's native resolution is, you guessed it, 1366x768. I simply connected my HTPC via a standard VGA cable and added the custom resolution 1366x768 using my ATI driver / powerstrip. Voila, native resolution display.

I'm only ever concerned for scaling artifacts when its the LCD doing the scaling for me - I play most my movies and videos using Media Player Classic, and its ability to upscale / downscale video is superb. In addition, since I have an X1650 video card in the HTPC, and a pair of PS2 controllers plugged in via USB converters, I can play Need for Speed, HL2, World of Warcraft, and other various games on the HTPC in exactly 1366x768 resolution.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[tepples]

Concrete floors, double doors, neighborly chores, and a case of Coors.

Which put together might require more cash than it costs to buy both a 1080p TV and a 720p/768p TV.

Re:HDTV is a clusterfuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any TV designer who automatically scales 1280x720 up to 1366x768 without an option to turn it off and just display it with black bars ought to be shot.

If that is your opinion, most of the designers who build 1280x720 or 1920x1080 panels into their TVs must be shot as well, because many of them scale up their "native" signals to something at least 3-5% higher to cut away any artefacts that may have creep into the borders of the video signal. I had hoped overscan would go away with the introduction of HDTV, but no such luck. Have a look at this article on anandtech about "Overscan compensation" for ATI and NVIDIA cards to get an idea of the scale of this problem. If you're lucky, this does not happen on "computer" inputs (e.g. VGA or DVI) as opposed to "Video" inputs like component or HDMI.

DLP

[NetJunkie]

The sweet spot on pricing right now is DLP. The latest sets (7th Generation?) are really mature. Very few people see the rainbow effect on these. They take 1080p signals and have good doublers and scalers for other content. They give you true blacks and great color reproduction.

The only downside is you can't hang them on a wall. To me that isn't a problem. I still have a component rack with my receiver, DVD player, etc in it and my front floor standing speakers. A TV on the wall would be out of place. I just upgrade to the Mitsubishi 65732 Medallion series 65" DLP for $2500. That's a steal for a set like this.

True 1080p LCDs are also dropping fast. My stepdad just got a 40" Samsung for $2K. Not cheap, but a whole lot less than they were before and it's a much nicer set.

Now Microsoft needs to get their HDMI cable out for the 360. It's my last component connected device. I want simpler cabling.

Re:DLP

[r_benchley]

DLP sets are prety nifty, but they're not that great for gaming. There's up to a half second lag on DLP sets that you won't have on LCD or CRT TVs. I've heard some of the newer Samsungs have a decent game mode that helps compensate for this, but if you're playing games that have fast, intensive action, you're going to better off staying away from DLP.

Re:DLP

[NetJunkie]

I don't know of any modern DLP with close to half a second lag. That would show up immediately with a de-sync'd audio/video. Now, if you do a lot of scaling or other conversion then yes, it could show up but so far I'm not seeing that on anything. My Mitsu scales everything to 1080p and I see no lag at all on the video. Audio coming out of my receiver is perfectly in sync.

Re:DLP

[Darkfred]

I use a mitsubishi 54" DLP for gaming and there is absolutely no lag. This is true for every input, device, and game system I have tried with it. In some of the first generation TVs you had change the settings for the inputs that required lagless operation, but this hasn't been a problem in any modern HDTV that I have seen. And by modern I mean the last 3 years.
Don't let fud like this scare you out of getting a great looking and much cheaper DLP screen. If it has lag, which is very unlikely then take it back and get a different model.

Regards.

Re:DLP

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of those newer Samsungs (HL-S5688W), and I've never used game mode. I did test both modes with a timing game (Guitar Hero), and about the only thing it does is make the image quality worse. There may have been a refresh time decrease, but it wasn't enough to be noticable. I'm probably compensating for whatever miniscule shift there is already.

Most people I've seen have reported that newer DLP sets may have the game mode, but most of them don't *need* it. So it seems that problem has been mostly licked by now.

Re:DLP

[Is0m0rph]

That was the first few generations of DLP TVs. Any recent 5th gen or up doesn't have any problems. My 5th Gen RCA 50" DLP has no noticeable lag with either the Xbox or the Xbox 360. The 360 looks awesome on it.

My HDTV experience

[HTH NE1]

I bought an HDTV a few years ago. RCA 32" CRT, 4:3 aspect, component and VGA inputs for HD. (Apparently the XBOX 360 supports HD VGA output; they sell the cables at least.) $1300 plus a free progressive DVD player by rebate.

Apparently this set is a rarity in features found today: it can do 1080i but can't do 720p. However, it does not letterbox 1080i content to preserve the HD aspect ratio. Only recently have I been able to instruct my cable box to correct for this (except that it overcorrects).

If the article is correct that most HD programming is 720p, then the cable box must be upconverting 720p to 1080i for my set. But then I rarely watch HD content on my HDTV, instead using the cable boxes to downconvert to SD for recording on my TiVos.

Just because NTSC broadcasting will end doesn't mean SD television is going away. Most cable channels will still be sending 480i signals for years to come, and SD DVDs won't suddenly vanish. However, your TV's NTSC tuner will only be useful for tuning channels 2, 3, or 4 for RF-out-only devices.

Except, they could also be used to listen in to whatever signals they end up putting on that bandwidth. Since the 1990s I've been able to listen to the occasional voice-pager message around cable channels 18-20 due to signal leakage, so depending on what they put on those VHF frequencies, NTSC tuners may be useful for harvesting, depending on whether the content they put on those frequencies will become illegal to receive (see cell phone frequencies).

Also, you don't want your HDTV to be showing SD content smaller than your old SD set. As I'm upgrading from a 32" 4:3 display, I'd want a 40" or larger 16:9 display.

Re:My HDTV experience

[Jeffrey Baker]

I have a 34" 1080i/480p/480i CRT, and I really love it. The thing you really appreciate with this kind of monitor is the total lack of scaling artifacts. There are a lot of panels out there with nice displays and terrible scalers, and they look bad with any input other than their exact native format. Sony is particularly guilty of this: every LCD panel they sell -- from $1000 to $15,000 -- looks terrible. But a CRT lacks a "native" format and can look good with any kind of input. Also, a CRT need not do an analog-to-digital conversion to handle regular composite, component, and s-video signals.

The downside is that CRTs are hard to find these days, and there will probably never be one that handles 720p or 1080p. Alas! But if you snag one today, you can ride out the early panel wars and buy a really nice panel in 5-10 years.

Re:My HDTV experience

[zippthorne]

The downside is that CRTs are hard to find these days, and there will probably never be one that handles 720p or 1080p. Alas! But if you snag one today, you can ride out the early panel wars and buy a really nice panel in 5-10 years.

Yeah I'm a little confused about that since I'm typing this message using a 19" CRT which matches 1080p (and has a much greater framerate...)* which I purchased over five years ago for less than $250 at Best Buy.

*I never put it up that high though because for some reason UI and web page designers still expect lower resolution fonts...

Why does "but it's for TV" suddenly make everything five times more expensive?

Re:My HDTV experience

[MBraynard]

I, too, am perplexed by the lack of 720p. I also have a similar model by Toshiba (same dimensions and restrictions). The cablebox's 1080i works, but the Xbox 360s 720p does not.

Any idea on how we might fix this?

Re:My HDTV experience

[Anonymous Coward]

because people don't pay for their "free" 17inch flat panel that came with the computer, but will pay for an expensive tv.

Re:My HDTV experience

[mrchaotica]

Why does "but it's for TV" suddenly make everything five times more expensive?

I don't know, but I agree it's ridiculous. I'm looking into getting a small (~20") LCD HDTV, and you know what? It's cheaper to buy a 20" widescreen computer monitor and add a tuner to one of my computers than it is to buy a 20" HDTV! If I want to just tune analog TV (but keep the high-res display for forward compatibility), I could build a whole MythTV box for that price, too!

Re:My HDTV experience

[HTH NE1]

I, too, am perplexed by the lack of 720p. I also have a similar model by Toshiba (same dimensions and restrictions).

As I had heard it explained before, at 1080i the CRT's electron gun only has to light up 540 lines per pass. To do 720p it has to do, well, 720, and that was more difficult and made the sets more expensive.

Any idea on how we might fix this?

Maybe an upconverter that can bring video up from 720p to 1080i. I don't know if such things even exist for that resolution pair.

Stores don't help.

[Kadin2048]

Except that shopping for HDTVs is difficult, because most stores I've been to this season have them set up displaying non-HD content. At one Best Buy I visited, the guy admitted that their antenna didn't pick up any HD channels very well, so the only thing he could show us was 480p.

At another one, everyone was crowded around the one "good looking" TV, because it was the only one displaying an HD image. All the other TVs had been tuned to an analog channel, and looked like crap by comparison.

Until the major-market stores get their act together, it's going to be very difficult to shop for or compare HDTVs in any meaningful way. I went out to look at them in person because I thought it was ridiculous to shop for a TV without going and judging the PQ of various models in person, but I left feeling that it would just be better to shop from specs -- any subjective evaluation would have been rendered meaningless by the poor setup and conditions in stores. (The solution would have been to go to a "real" home theater store, but since I'm probably not going to pay their prices (as much as I'd like to support an independent/local, and feel guilty about it) I've hesitated to visit any.)

Everything about HD is screwy right now. Manufacturers don't know what people want, so there are products out there that are either flat-out crappy or just mis-designed; stores aren't bothering to train their employees about how to explain or sell the new technology, making the job of a potential buyer even harder; not to mention that average people range seem to be ambivalent about the whole upgrade business. HDTV isn't like color, where once you saw it, you understood the change and could go out and buy one; it's an obvious upgrade when it's done right, but it can be a morass if it's not.

Re:Stores don't help.

[bigpat]

I had a similar disappointing experience both at Circuit City and Best Buy. One problem that the Circuit City sales person explained was that they didn't have a 1080p source for putting on all the 1080p HDTVs, because of the stupid copy restrictions which downgrade a signal to 720p when it is not hooked up through a unsplittable HDMI connection. So, they would have had to have each tv hooked up to a seperate 1080p video source and couldn't just split the signal from one player. He also said that some manufacturers provided individual 1080p capable DVRs with preloaded content, which looked pretty nice, but that the contract for the demo equipment stipulated that it would not be used on any other manufacturers TVs. So, for example they couldn't show me what a 1080p picture would look like on any of the Sharp 1080p HDTVs because they contractually couldn't just switch over a demo device from another manufacturer and the biggest problem was that the store was too cheap and the sales people too lazy to make one demo 1080p player available that could have been moved to each TV that you wanted to see in 1080p. Seemed pretty stupid to me, if you are going to sell these tvs for a lot of money, then you should at least be able to demo them. Ideally, there would be a box connected to each one that allowed you to see how each different input 1080p, 1080i, 720p and 480p all looked on the TV.

It does suck that they couldn't just run a 1080p signal to all of the 1080p TVs from one source. Really makes me worried that the new 1080p TVs are just too wrapped up in HDCP to be worth the extra expense. I'd rather have analog back if it means that we will actually be allowed to see a better picture, instead of being stuck with some unrealized capability of doing so.

Re:Stores don't help.

[thatguywhoiam]

At another one, everyone was crowded around the one "good looking" TV, because it was the only one displaying an HD image. All the other TVs had been tuned to an analog channel, and looked like crap by comparison.

I ran into this very same dilemma (Future Shop in Canada, akin to Best Buy - and I believe owned by them). Here' s what I did - I took a Powerbook to the store with a DVD in it, along with the various video cables.

I knew that any HDTV I bought would have to hook up thru at least VGA and preferably DVI (the right DVI, not 'analog' DVI - still shake my head at that), and I also knew that their in-store video system would not show me a damn thing other than how crappy their distribution amplifier is.

Most sales drones won't throw a fit when you say you want to hook up the laptop, and you have a consistent source reference that is better for direct comparisons. Only problem with this is, you can't do side-by-side, but its still a lot better than the alternative.

If I were to offer advice, having just bought the Samsung model mentioned in the article (LCD) for exactly this primary purpose (gaming), here's what I would say:

make damn sure there isn't a sync issue
1080p is nice but hardly necessary; that rez is basically science fiction (content wise) for the next 4 years
viewing angle is key
make sure your inputs don't screw you; DVI is great, VGA is great, HDMI is nice in theory but a little ahead of the curve (mine has 2 HDMI and 1 component. Of course everything I have right now wants to talk component)
forget the speakers, they make no difference
the signal processor quality in the unit (upconverting, noise reduction) is VERY important. Samsung's DNIe is pretty impressive in this regard

If you are buying a flatscreen just for a Wii - and only that - you could go for a much cheaper EDTV. Its only 480p but thats all you're ever going to get out of the Nintendo anyhow. Probably make a nice bedroom wall tv later on. I wouldn't buy a 1080p TV right now unless the money really meant nothing to me. 720p basically IS 'HD' for the foreseeable future (for a lot of reasons).

Re:Stores don't help.

[Mr2001]

Really makes me worried that the new 1080p TVs are just too wrapped up in HDCP to be worth the extra expense.

It's not 1080p, it's HDTV in general. That's why I'm planning to hold off for another three years - if they aren't affordable by then, or if HDCP still isn't cracked, then they never will be.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Invictus42]

any subjective evaluation would have been rendered meaningless by the poor setup and conditions in stores. (The solution would have been to go to a "real" home theater store, but since I'm probably not going to pay their prices (as much as I'd like to support an independent/local, and feel guilty about it) I've hesitated to visit any.) Go to a "real" home theater store, look at the TVs, find one that looks nice, go back to Best Buy and get that one.

Re:Stores don't help.

[smchris]

At another one, everyone was crowded around the one "good looking" TV, because it was the only one displaying an HD image. All the other TVs had been tuned to an analog channel, and looked like crap by comparison.

It can lead to unfortunate misunderstandings when two linked technologies are rolled out simultaneously (and badly). Over thanksgiving I was trying to describe our broadcast HD MythTV setup with an LCD to a country uncle and part of it was explaining why LCDs don't _have_ to suck. Because all he'd seen were analog models at WalMart, right? Not the smartest marketing roll-out.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Babbster]

1080p is nice but hardly necessary; that rez is basically science fiction (content wise) for the next 4 years

One might think that you don't know what you're talking about from that statement. Let me debunk this a bit:

1. 1080i even at 60 fields/30 frames per second, IS a higher resolution than 720p at 60 frames per second. One can make arguments about the visual quality depending on content (e.g., the "sports is better in 720p" contention), but the data transferred via 1080i is still greater than that transferred via 720p.
2. Thanks to #1, that means that a 1080p monitor displays all 1920x1080 pixels of the interlaced 1080 signal, simply putting the two fields together and displaying them as a single frame.
3. Most HDTV signals via OTA broadcast, satellite and cable are 1080i.
4. Add 1, 2 and 3 together, and you've got the result that a 1080p monitor has a significant display advantage for most HDTV sources today, over that of "720p" displays (which are most commonly 1366x768p displays). It's relatively simple to deinterlace a 1080i signal compared to scaling said signal to 720p.
5. All HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies released so far are stored in 1080p on the discs. Except for the first Toshiba and RCA HD-DVD players, the other high-def optical players (the Samsung and PS3 Blu-ray players and the Xbox 360 HD-DVD add-on) can output 1080p.
6. Even if a game console today isn't sending out 1080p signals (both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can, though only select games truly support such resolutions), it's virtually guaranteed that the next generation in 5 years will do so easily. Of course, as noted above, even 1080i output benefits from a 1080p display.
7. Satellite and cable TV providers can, in theory, add true 1080p content to their systems since they aren't under the same broadcast bandwidth restrictions as terrestrial OTA providers.
8. Putting 5, 6 and 7 together means that 1080p content is not only the future, but that it's also here right now. While it's undoubtedly still in large part an early-adopter situation, you can still walk into a Best Buy and walk out with hardware and software that will provide you 1080p content.

Considering all of the above, how is 1080p "science fiction?" The answer, of course, is that it's not. That's not to say that people shouldn't buy a 720p HDTV. Right now, they're probably the sweet spot in terms of price and picture quality (the "cheap" 1080p units tend to slack a bit when it comes to the quality of their internals, particularly in terms of their contrast ratio and general usability) when it comes to digital TVs. But, this situation is probably very temporary and 1080p TVs will be competitive in terms of price and visual quality within the next two years. I expect the market to stabilize on that resolution for the foreseeable future since the likelihood of going beyond 1080i/p in terms of general TV standards is slim at best (the FCC is having a hard enough time trying to shove the current HDTV standards down the market's collective throat).

Re:Stores don't help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those small stores are locally owned, have very knowledgeable staff and will service the HELL out of you. Try having a problem a month down the road and calling BB oe CC for help...good luck.

So, when the small store charges you an extra $100, it's money well spent. People who just go in to look, gain some knowledge and then buy somewhere else to save a few lousy bucks are cheap assholes who get what they deserve.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Das Modell]

I'm so sorry that not all of us are rolling in cash like you. I'll now go and cut my wrists to repent for the horrible sin of being a cheap asshole.

I may hopefully afford a new television in the next few years, and the absolute maximum price is 1,000 euros (anything higher is fucking stupid anyway). I've never had anything better than a 14" CRT.

Re:Stores don't help.

[TeraCo]

Not having a lot of cash isn't a sin. Compensating for not having a lot of cash by screwing over the your local small business is pathetic. Either pay the 100 dollars extra, or put your own time into doing the research.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Das Modell]

The point is that the OP accused people of simply being cheap by saving $100, as if $100 is small money (or "a few lousy bucks") to everyone.

Re:Stores don't help.

[thatguywhoiam]

Considering all of the above, how is 1080p "science fiction?" The answer, of course, is that it's not.

*blinks*

Classic kneejerk reaction. You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I know what 1080p is (but gosh, thanks for the lesson.)

I didn't say it didn't exist. What I meant was, there is practically no content for that signal, and probably won't be very much for some time. Thats it. And your 2-year estimate is pretty funny. Its taken a decade just to get the paltry HD adoption that is happening now.

One might think that you don't know what you're talking about from that statement.

One might be a flaming idiot. Go read my post again.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Low2000]

Go check out the TVs on display at a "real" home theater store, find one you like, and if their price is unacceptable, write down the model number and buy it on line or at another store.

Re:Stores don't help.

[Builder]

I was watching a stunning Samsung HD demo the other day. It was only after about 30 seconds that I realised that I was watching it on an LG TV.

Re:Stores don't help.

[apoc06]

youre right in that HDTV adoption has taken years to reach this point. however, since the release of this new generation of video games, HDTV sales have skyrocketed. now is the first time crappy HDTVs have been available below the magical $500US mark. the magical line that heralds widespread consumer adoption. the future is now.

within the next year or two, game consoles alone are going to drive HDTV sales more. there will be [guesstimating here] probably 40 million next generation consoles sold in the next year, even if only half of those owners have hdtvs, youre still looking at ~20 million hdtv owners.

video games are that magical content everyone has been waiting for, just as trueHD blu-ray/hddvd movies are. digital cable wasnt and still really isnt a catalyst because of the anemic amount of hd content. as of today, the xbox360 can kinda sorta upscale to 1080p [only via vga if your TV accepts vga, and the content isnt 1080p native so there will obviously be issues], about half of the launch ps3 games support 1080p resolutions. as developers gain more confidence in the ps3 and learn its secrets, do you think the number of titles supporting 1080p will decrease? will the library of bluray/HDDVD titles decrease? of course not. 1080p will eventually be the de facto standard at least for a foreseeable while; its the resolution most new content is being released.

if you want proof that video game sales are driving hdtv sales, take a look at how many 1080p sets are available. just over a year ago there were only two on the market. hd-dvd movies and players only supported up to 720p/1080i movies. the xbox360 folks claimed that "1080p games were impossible". last week i went to best buy and 30-40% of the tvs on display were 1080p. why the 1080p explosion? every store i visit, at least two hdtv showroom displays have a console connected. a year ago, there were no game consoles in /any/ showroom.

Re:Stores don't help.

[thatguywhoiam]

youre right in that HDTV adoption has taken years to reach this point. however, since the release of this new generation of video games, HDTV sales have skyrocketed. now is the first time crappy HDTVs have been available below the magical $500US mark. the magical line that heralds widespread consumer adoption. the future is now.

This is a good point and I am optimistic as well - the only thing I might add is that the most popular new console is 480p only (the Wii), but who knows how that horse race will end up.

within the next year or two, game consoles alone are going to drive HDTV sales more. there will be [guesstimating here] probably 40 million next generation consoles sold in the next year, even if only half of those owners have hdtvs, youre still looking at ~20 million hdtv owners.

That strikes me as very hopeful; I doubt that half of people buying a game console will buy a 1080-capable HDTV. I do agree that they (consoles) are better drivers for sales of these things than the wasteland of heavily-compressed digital cable or satellite. But you could say the same thing about HD optical video players (blu-ray and hd-dvd).

as of today, the xbox360 can kinda sorta upscale to 1080p [only via vga if your TV accepts vga, and the content isnt 1080p native so there will obviously be issues],

... oh is that how they did it. That's lame. I guess they had no choice...

about half of the launch ps3 games support 1080p resolutions. as developers gain more confidence in the ps3 and learn its secrets, do you think the number of titles supporting 1080p will decrease?

Yes, I do.

First off - are you sure that half the games are 1080p? Have you got a reference? Please correct me if I am wrong. I can't find a good list.

720p is the sweet spot for the next while. Resistance on the PS3 is a good example of this; they started with a 1080 spec and ended up shipping a 720p game, because it just wasn't worth the processing cost relative to the game. In other words, when given a choice between 30 soldiers on-screen at 720p and 15 in 1080p, the developer will pretty much always go for the 720p. It just makes sense. EVERY user will see the 30 soldiers, whether SD, ED or HD; if you went the other way you'd be offering crystal clear graphics to the lucky ones who have 1080p (very, very small %, but growing) and everyone (including the lucky ones) only get 15 men on-screen. If the game can easily handle the signal without degrading the game itself then they will support the highest rez. This will change in 2-3 years but thats a long way away and I doubt 1080p penetration will be anything really significant... of course I could be wrong. Its just taken so long to get where we are.

will the library of bluray/HDDVD titles decrease? of course not. 1080p will eventually be the de facto standard at least for a foreseeable while; its the resolution most new content is being released.

Well, sure; but thats only because everything is already out on DVD. 1080p is just not there until these players ship. And they cost quite a bit. A year from now, maybe. Believe me, I'm hopeful; I have an HDTV myself.

last week i went to best buy and 30-40% of the tvs on display were 1080p. why the 1080p explosion? every store i visit, at least two hdtv showroom displays have a console connected. a year ago, there were no game consoles in /any/ showroom.

Well like I said in the original response, that is a huge difference from what I've experienced. I see the vast majority of new $3000+ sets supporting 1080p, but practically everything under that price point (Canadian) is 1080i at most, and there are a hell of a lot of EDTVs and 720p-only sets out there as well for much cheaper. And the only HD consoles I see are Xbox and PS3 kiosks with dedicated sets built into them.

Monitor, not TV

[Palshife]

I just bought one of these too, and I'm totally loving it. I've got MythTV piping directly to it over DVI, my Mac Mini in over DVI, and everything else piped in through my video switching receiver via component.

My subject is meant to inform folks that this is a monitor, not a TV, becuase it lacks tuners. Makes for a great price (I got mine on sale at Best Buy for $1500) if you don't need em, and I don't.

Re:Monitor, not TV

[mrchaotica]

What are the various options for external tuners, by the way? My parents are looking to replace their bedroom TV with an LCD panel, and it's ridiculous to pay either $270 for a crappy standard-def 20" panel or $800 for an HD one, when I could get an HD-resolution 20" computer monitor (with no tuner) for $300.

Re:Monitor, not TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Three options as far as external tuners are concerned:

1. Set top box
Provided by your cable or sattelite tv provider, decodes HD and SD signals.
Pros: Very easy to hook up, available with DVR, can be "free" if you sign a contract
Cons: takes up space and adds another component to your system (although most come with a [simple] programmable remote)

2. Cablecard
Provided by some (not all) cable and sattelite tv providers, decodes HD and SD signals
Pros: fits inside your HD tv, you can use your TV remote to change channels, can be "free" if you sign a contract
Cons: you need a TV that has a cablecard slot, no DVR, not available from all signal providers

3. External HDTV tuner
Available at many electronics stores, decodes over-the-air (local) HD signals, might do SD signals, too.
Pros: No need to pay a provider for HD content
Cons: Limited HD selection (local channels only), adds component to your setup, probably requries antenna, costs around $150 to $200

If your parents watch a lot of television, option 1 is probably their best bet. The remote for my primitive digital cable box can be programmed to turn on the TV at the same as the decoder, so there's no need for multiple remotes.

Re:Monitor, not TV

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Set top box
Provided by your cable or sattelite tv provider, decodes HD and SD signals.
Pros: Very easy to hook up, available with DVR, can be "free" if you sign a contract
Cons: takes up space and adds another component to your system (although most come with a [simple] programmable remote)

2. Cablecard
Provided by some (not all) cable and sattelite tv providers, decodes HD and SD signals
Pros: fits inside your HD tv, you can use your TV remote to change channels, can be "free" if you sign a contract
Cons: you need a TV that has a cablecard slot, no DVR, not available from all signal providers

Well, you can also get a Series 3 Tivo -- it takes CableCards (it also has a QAM tuner for unencrypted digital channels -- but unfortunately currently you NEED the CableCards to do the 'mapping' to channels for the Tivo software.. This might be fixed in a future software update).

That way you own the DVR. It's very expensive, but most people who have tried it and cable DVRs like the Tivo better.

I like the fact that you can transfer (for $200) lifetime subscription until the end of the year, so you don't have to pay monthly, like you would for a cable DVR.. (except for the CableCards, unfortunately.. and as I said, that restriction hopefully will eventually go away.)

Of course you can also just use it for OTA HDTV, so the cablecards aren't necessary.

Best Widescreen Gaming Monitor?

[grumpygrodyguy]

The Westinghouse LVM-37W3 is hands down the best widescreen gaming monitor for less than $1000 available today. I have owned the previous model, a Westinghouse LVM-37w1, for a year now and it's fantastic for gaming. No pixel-lag or ghosting at all, vibrant colors, quick response time while playing shooters, lots and lots of screenspace for extra chat/UI windows while playing MMOGs, etc.

I use this monitor with my PC and it's the ideal screen-size for my viewing distance of 6'. I lean back on a reclining chair and put my feet up on my desk displacing my eyes about 6' from the center of the screen. Here's a good view distance calculator to determine the ideal screen size for your use case.

Notable Specs:

Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Response Time 8 ms

2 years ago specs like that were unheard of for a large LCD. When I bought mine last year the price was roughly $1,700...now you can get a superior model for $800! Amazing.

If you want HDTV, buy a separate and easily replaceable tuner. That way when the mafia...errr MPAA and FCC...finally implement HDCP it will be easier to circumvent.

More information here

Hear Hear!

[kentyman]

Got it for $1300 plus $100 shipping from Amazon about a month back and I couldn't be happier. Great picture for a great price. OK, the remote is lame, but that's not that big of a deal.

Negotiate a license with the movie studio

[tepples]

One problem that the Circuit City sales person explained was that they didn't have a 1080p source for putting on all the 1080p HDTVs, because of the stupid copy restrictions which downgrade a signal to 720p when it is not hooked up through a unsplittable HDMI connection. So, they would have had to have each tv hooked up to a seperate 1080p video source and couldn't just split the signal from one player.

Either that or negotiate a license with the work's copyright owner to press splittable copies to be rented to each Circuit City store. The work displayed on the huge wall of TVs is being performed publicly anyway.

Interlaced rendering

[tepples]

You need to remember that video games only use 1080i as a transmission mechanism.

O RLY? If a game can render at 90 fps (meaning it can push a steady 60 fps), can't the game render at 540p and tilt the camera down by a half pixel every other frame? I seem to remember that Tobal No. 1 and Ehrgeiz for the original PlayStation did exactly this, to achieve the equivalent of 480i in the frame buffer normally used for the PlayStation's more common 240p mode.

Are there more Xbox 360 or HTPC systems?

[tepples]

All in all, I'd prefer an article like this be called "A Console Gamer's Guide to Buying an HDTV" since it clearly covers only that material.

True, but in practice, it appears that the vast majority of HDTV gaming is done on a closed console. The three notable HDTV gaming platforms are PLAYSTATION 3, Xbox 360, and Home Theater PC. PS3 is still in public beta, so are there more Xbox 360 systems or HTPC systems in use?

Re:Are there more Xbox 360 or HTPC systems?

[Total_Wimp]

That's a good question. I wonder if anyone has decent numbers on HTPC usage. I'm betting both Microsoft and Apple have at least tried to figure it out, seeing as they're selling into the market, but I've never seen the numbers publicised.

Even if there are good numbers on HTPCs, I wonder how many of them are used for gaming. Personally, I've enjoyed gaming on my 36" non-HDTV Mitsubishi for several years now, but I know a lot of other people just use their PCs to record TV, play DVDs or run movies off their hard drive. I've always believed the number of PC gamers using large-screen TVs would increase with HDTV penetration (easier to use and higher quality/resolution), but I have no idea if that is actually panning out.

TW

Re:Are there more Xbox 360 or HTPC systems?

[tepples]

I've always believed the number of PC gamers using large-screen TVs would increase with HDTV penetration (easier to use and higher quality/resolution)

The problem is that publishers of A-list PC games still seem to be stuck in the mindset of first person shooters, real-time war sims, and online role playing games. All these genres seem to work better with a keyboard and mouse, which become awkward in a living room and are limited to one player per machine. There aren't too many HTPC games that can use multiple USB gamepads plugged into the front hub.

Re:Are there more Xbox 360 or HTPC systems?

[Fallingcow]

Notably, the Serious Sam games support splitscreen play for up to (IIRC) 4 players.

Those are the only PC shooters that I know of that do.

"Hunter, Hunted" is a great older game for two-player versus or coop platform action, on one machine.

Re:Are there more Xbox 360 or HTPC systems?

[Total_Wimp]

A TV tray with a shorty keyboard actually works pretty well. I just grab a chair from the dining room or the home office. It's not ideal, but neither is doing these kinds of games with a gamepad. I have high hopes for the Phantom Lapboard.

The lack of split screen mutiplayer games is a bigger problem, but, hey, I never said the PC should replace consoles. It's just a heck of a lot of fun playing Doom3 on a big screen with 5.1 and no lights :-) I was kind of hoping more people would catch on so we could get more cool stuff like the Phantom.

TW

NES lockout

[tepples]

compatability problems (never really had those with the NES)

You must not have tried to play a game published by Color Dreams, Wisdom Tree, or Camerica on a late-model NES. You must also not have tried to play a game published in one part of Europe on a console sold in another part of Europe.

The bright side of all this for PC gamers is that we should start seeing fewer games being hobbled because people try to design them for PCs and consoles simultaneously

Isn't the home theater PC gaming environment similar to that of a game console, minus the lockout?

Paying for the "HD" label?

[HTH NE1]

Why does "but it's for TV" suddenly make everything five times more expensive?

Even when it lacks internal NTSC or ATSC tuners or even CableCard slots! I can only think it's to cover the licensing costs for the mandatory DRM compatibility.

The matching Apple 21" Studio Display (19.8" viewable) for my old Blue & White G3 does 2048x1536 @ 60Hz (with SwitchResX, would like freeware alternative) which is what I drive it at. Originally released it had a max advertised resolution of 1600x1200, but today without using SwitchResX Mac OS X offers (IIRC) 1848x1386 as an option, as well as some 16:10 options. It came out in 1999 and originally sold for $1499. I see one sold on eBay four days ago for only $90.00 (pick-up only, no delivery).

Lone voice in the wilderness

[Guppy06]

I've had enough problems with LCD displays on laptops and handheld devices that I simply will not buy an LCD television until the manufacturer's dead pixel policy is something other than "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" I'm not going to spend upwards of $1000 for the device's manual to include a note in the Troubleshooting section telling me not to worry about little dots that won't go away.

With that said, personally, I just want an old-fashioned CRT, and I've been tempted by the likes of these. No rear projects or having to rethink A/V furniture, no young technologies that have new and interesting problems that have yet to be acceptably solved (be it dead pixels or greater susceptibility to burn-in), not even a rear projection, just good old-fashioned ions-on-phosphorous, and for a reasonable price. However, I'm relutctant to purchase even these because I've yet to see a direct view CRT that supports 1080p, and I see no point in getting a television that doesn't support features that will probably be worth having in the next ten years.

And speaking of "ten years," I want an appliance, not yet another piece of technology that gets thrown out after 3-4 years. If I cannot be reasonably assured that the television I'm considering buying will neither be obsolete in three years nor outright non-functioning, my NTSC set continues to work (from back when the most complicated question I had while shopping was "What kind of inputs does it have?")

Re:Lone voice in the wilderness

[kinglink]

CRTs can't handle progressive scan to my knowledge, don't know why, don't care. However you're buying into those idiots who tell you buy 1080p. BUY IT BUY IT!!!

Personally I spent 500 dollars, I got a 52 inch CRT. Guess what? That's my tv for the next 5-10 years. When I buy my next tv, I'll probably have it in the same room as my 52 inch still. When I buy a third, that 52 will be my bedroom tv. I still have a 300 dollar tv that I bought almost 10 years ago that works perfectly and I still use to watch dvds in my bedroom. True it's got a DVI-D connector, not a HDMI, it works the same. I don't have HDCP... boohoo, I didn't buy into the Media/MPAAs hype about blu-ray and HD-DVD requiring it

You don't NEED 1080p, you don't NEED all these crazy formats, you can enjoy yourself with something that does just 1080i. You'll save yourself anywhere from 1/10 to 1/4th the price if you realize what you need to be happy. Guess what, when that 1080p drop to around the same price, you can buy it. You just saved paid 1/5 the price to 1/2 the price. Major savings.

After you get your tv, don't run out and buy an HD player, that's the idiots way. Go buy a DVD player that upscales your dvds. Now they might not look amazingly perfect, but exactly how is a movie filmed more then 10 years ago going to look perfect? We didn't have HD cameras back the you can remaster it all you want, but you can't get what they have promised, from now on HD DVD and Bluray will work, but do you really want to pay 500 bucks for a dvd player, and have to rebuy all your dvds? I sure as hell don't. For 70 bucks I got something I'm extremely happy with. When these HD dvds drop to a reasonable price (which even new DVDs really haven't reach yet) Then we can talk about that.

Cable? You're going to pay more for this, face it, and not every station is in digital, and old tv shows look like shit. But this is one of the few areas you should invest in. Scrubs might not be funnier in HD, but 24 sure as hell is. And Sports in HD? Nothing compares. But the price? Well nothing we can do about this. I don't want to lose my analog signal though because that tv in the bedroom shouldn't require a HD tuner just so it can pick up the news and a football game.

CRTs arn't bad for the price currently and should be considered as an entry level investment. They are becoming "dirt cheap" and will only drop in price. They might weigh a little more but you're not going to move them more then once or twice. But if you're so pent up on getting 1080p go ahead, waste money just because people tell you it's so important. Of course in 10 years realize we'll have 2160p or some other bullshit format that the successor to HD-DVD has that they tell you is required because it just improves the picture so much. And at that time I'll pick up my 1080p tv for 300 bucks or so. Personally I'm just happy to enjoy a nice big screen picture and I can live with it.

Re:Lone voice in the wilderness

[Boogaroo]

CRTs can't handle progressive scan to my knowledge, don't know why, don't care.

Uhhh, I'm working on a CRT right now that does 1600x1200 progressive. There's nothing magical about it. Had it for years.

Now, if someone wants to buy something and they don't NEED it, why whine about someone buying something you don't value?
I don't value sporty cars. They burn lots of gas and cost more $. That doesn't mean the people who buy them are necessarily "falling" for the marketing.

Re:Lone voice in the wilderness

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable? You're going to pay more for this, face it, and not every station is in digital

Apparently many/most cable stations do have the analog channels 'duplicated' in the digital tier. I personally don't have digital cable, but from various people talking about getting cablecards for PVRs or TVs, the cable company can throw a switch so that you now tune the digital channels instead of the analog ones.

(Of course the analog channels are still on your line for the analog tuners.)

Re:Lone voice in the wilderness

[kinglink]

This is true, the point I was making is you're going to get nothing better than analog signal. If you're doing a big screen tv you'll want HD signal. CBS for instance doesn't offer it on my cable package (or anywhere really to my knowledge.) Which I personally hate especially because they broadcast a ton of NFL games (true I could go get the sunday ticket from a satilite company).

I probably should have said "not every station is in High Def" even though a high def station doesn't broadcast everything in high def, some of the more recent shows should be bigger/better. And I could have added "not every rectn show is in High def" I believe smallville just started HD, but if you watch a Smallville from 2004, it's not in HD (and you'll hate them for that after the first 24 hours).

10 million, 27 million and 62 million

[Anonymous Coward]

The article states:

"Here's some interesting numbers. There are only 10 million pixels per second on a screen with standard TV. You get about 27 million pixels per second with 720p, and 62 million with 1080p."

How is this possible?

Which platform?

[tepples]

but, hey, I never said the PC should replace consoles

Then which open platform, available to amateur developers looking to get hired and new studios looking to publish a first title, should replace consoles?

Re:Which platform?

[Total_Wimp]

Consoles shouldn't replace PCs either. If I had to make a choice between removing all games forever from my PCs or through all my consoles out the window, it would be a fairly straight forward goodbye to the ol' PS2. There is a reason why I wanted the PC to be included in this article after all.

BTW, check out Treadmarks at LDAgames.com. It's a great small-publisher game, though a little dated by this point. It's been one of my favorite for years.

TW

A better non rambling URL

[donaldm]

If you are looking at buying a HDTV then the following URL is essential first reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_telev ision

For those who don't RTFA you really need to look at screen resolution before you buy. The best resolution is 1920x1080 (1080i and/or 1080p) with 1280x720 (720i and/or 720p) at the lower end, however there are variants. For standard definition you have 768×576 or 720x540 (PAL) or 640×480 and 852×480 (NTSC) but there are variants.

The bottom line is if you have a 720 HDTV then you can only downscale 1080i or 1080p (if progressive scan is supported) you cannot upscale, however if the HDTV supports it you can upscale SDTV video. If you brought a plasma saying it is HD ready then you may have been ripped off, because unless you have the HDTV resolution you most likely brought a SDTV.

If you are going to buy a HDTV (IMHO LCD is better than plasma especially if you want the TV for gaming) you need to decide what size screen you want and it's resolution. A so-called sweet spot is around 40in (101cm) in that it is much harder to pick the difference between a 1080p and 720p HDTV so 720p is adequate for smaller HDTV's. Unfortunately once you go beyond 50in (127cm) then 1080p is appropriate since you will be able to pick the difference. Of course costs do play an important part in picking a HDTV but please look at the screen resolution don't get caught with a SDTV just because it is a $100 or so cheaper.

One SIXTH?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the math flunky who posted this story?

the Wii's best resolution is 480p. It's thankfully simple, but you get a sixth of the pixels on screen as you do with a full HDTV with a PS3."

One sixth of 1080 is 180.

Re:One SIXTH?

[meringuoid]

the Wii's best resolution is 480p. It's thankfully simple, but you get a sixth of the pixels on screen as you do with a full HDTV with a PS3."

One sixth of 1080 is 180.

And while we're at it, I was once told that a 28" screen was four times the size of a 14" screen, and eight times the volume and weight! Rubbish, of course, it's twice the size and don't let anyone tell you differently!

Re:One SIXTH?

[Makarakalax]

480p also has significantly fewer vertical lines too. So it is actually about a sixth. You can verify this with wikipedia or whatever you like.

Re:One SIXTH?

[BattleTroll]

It's actually 1/5 the resolution:

1080p: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
480p: 852 x 480 - 408,960 pixels

1080p / 480p = 5.0704

Re:One SIXTH?

[drwiii]

720 * 480p = 345600

1920 * 1080p = 2073600

2073600 / 345600 = 6

Doesn't matter

[brunes69]

It doesn't matter if your game is capable outputting 90 fps or 120fps of 300 fps. Unless you're connecting it via DVI or VGA, and your TV supports refresh rates outside the HDTV standard, you are ONLY GOING TO SEE either 1080i@60/1080p@30/720p@30,480i@60,480p@30. That is all the HDTV standard specs for, and it's all that 90+% of the TV's on the market display.

And IF you have an LCD or Plasma TV (again, 90_% of HDTV owners), then it *ALWAYS* displays content progressively. Before it gets to the panel, it's going to stitch those 1080i@60 frames together to show you 1080p@30.

You're never going to see > 30fps with your HDTV, unless you have a 1080p TV, and your console supports 1080p@60.

Headroom

[tepples]

It doesn't matter if your game is capable outputting 90 fps or 120fps of 300 fps.

Yes it does. If a game can draw 90 frames per second, then it has the headroom to draw a steady 60 frames per second, which is required for a game doing interlaced rendering.

And IF you have an LCD or Plasma TV (again, 90_% of HDTV owners)

I disagree. A lot of people who have complained publicly about the lack of upscaling from 720p to 1080i seem to have early adopter CRTs, not panels, and a lot of these CRTs are capable of only 480i, 480p, and 1080i. Rendering 60 frames per second at 540p and tilting the camera halfway down is a way to make a 1080i signal for these TVs. Even for panels:

Before it gets to the panel, it's going to stitch those 1080i@60 frames together to show you 1080p@30.

If the stitching is good, it will recognize the 1080i signal and do something meaningful with it. This may or may not be better than 720p.

DLP

[Is0m0rph]

The older DLPs had lag problems but not the 5th and 6th gen sets. I have a 5th gen RCA 50" DLP and I don't perceive any delays in games including Tony Hawk Project 8. The picture is great, extremely bright and great contrast. It's cheap too, Walmart sells it for $1300 with a stand and another $70 for an extended 2 year warranty after the 1 year manufacture's warranty ends. OTA HD content in 720p and 1080i look great on this TV. DirecTV is not bad after running it through a upconverting DVD player. Looks a lot more pixelated without the upconvert. I've had it afew months now and don't have any complaints so far. Can't hang it on the wall though and it doesn't do 1080p which I could really care less about.

I paid $1200 for my 36-inch CRT.

[ClioCJS]

Is a 42-inch HDTV the same standard-TV picture size as a 36-inch CRT? I wonder....

If it's only $300 more than what I paid for a NON-hdtv in 1999 (just broke 35,000 hours used -- do the math on that one), that might actually be worth it *IF* (and that's a big if) there are NO ISSUES.

High Definition LED Front Projector

[Anonymous Coward]

Prism, Inc. is planning on unveiling a secret research and development project at CES 2007. A source inside the company says the project is a high definition (1080p) front projector that uses light emitting diodes (LEDs). In contrast to the LED pocket projectors currently on the market (example), this device will produce hundreds of lumens at cinema quality resolution and contrast. The best part, however, is the use of LEDs as the lamp because the lifetime of the projector is years of continuous use, it produces brilliant and lifelike colors, and it's whisper quiet. Check out Prism's projector if you're a hardcore gamer, a movie buff, or someone who wants the biggest screen on the block.