Consumer Electronics Show: Blue-ray buries HD DVD

[Seabiscuit]

LAS VEGAS -- The International Consumer Electronics Show is turning out to be a celebration party for Blu-ray, the high-definition format that Sony Corp. backed, and a wake for a rival movie disc technology pushed by Toshiba Corp.

Just two months ago, Sony CEO Howard Stringer said the fight between Blu-ray and Toshiba's HD DVD was at a "stalemate," and expressed a wish to travel back in time to avert it.

The impasse was broken Friday by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the last major studio to put out movies in both formats. It announced it was ditching HD DVD, and from May on, would only publish on Blu-ray and traditional DVD.

The decision puts a strong majority of the major studios, five versus two, in the Blu-ray camp....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080107/ces_080107/20080107

In case any of you didn't know, Blue-ray is the only format that delivers full 1080 horizontal line resolution ("1080p"). HD DVD offers what they call "1080i" (the "i" stands for interlaced) which is really just 720p (720 horizontal lines of resolution). As a reference point, standard DVD offers 500 lines of resolution, Laserdisk and S-VHS offer 400 lines, broadcast TV offers 330 lines, and VHS offers 240 lines.

IOW, Blue-ray is the only high-definition format that deserves the appellation "high definition". 1080p is what the industry has been talking about offering for decades. Sadly, HD DVD arrived as a compromise version to make $$$ off of unwary consumers while Blue-ray sales were building to the point that prices on 1080p TV's and Blue-ray disc players came down to a point (the past few months) that were more attractive to consumers.

I've seen both many times, and let me tell you, HD DVD can't hold a candle to Blue-ray technology.

This is GOOD NEWS!

[Deep13]

1. Everyone thinks HDDVD is the new Betamax.

The analogy is not entirely apt, however, since Beta was actually the better medium. It is more like Blue Ray is the new Betamax, but this time Betamax beat out VHS to be the dominant medium.

[awoke_in_2003]

38. Well, if the porn industry adopts blue ray

it will be a perfect analogy. Some claim that their adopting of VHS went a long way to killing beta.

[Deep13]

56. Hmmm. Maybe not EVERYTHING should be in HD.

:shrug:

[EOTE]

60. I for one can't wait for hi-def porn.

Perhaps sometime in the near future, porn producers will spring for some really nice cameras. To be able to see every curve and flaw with eye bleeding detail. Maybe some porn shot in 16: 9, or if we're lucky, 2.35 Cinemascope. The possibilities for shooting porn in such a wide format are limitless. Watch for Ben-Her, coming soon to a living room near you.

edited to get rid of smiley in the "16: 9"

[girl gone mad]

101. every..

pimple, wrinkle, stretch mark and c-section scar plus the caked on makeup, implant ripples and scars, etc.

Somehow I don't see the high def porn market taking off. Most of the actresses won't like it. I used to work with strippers and they complained if the lighting was anywhere above nearly pitch black.

[riverdeep]

124. It's already here.

It's called- a woman. Super hi-def. Very life-like.

[Touchdown]

72. You know you want to see skin pores and shaving stubble

:evilgrin:

[Kat45]

144. At least Sony will be on the winning side this time.. n/t

[Touchdown]

179. Like they lost with the Compact Disc?

Fact of the matter is, that Sony got so spoiled with the CD and the royalites that were paid to them, that they were incensed about paying Toshiba & Warner Bros. royalties for DVD. So they came up with their own Hi-Def disc concept to garner their own royalties.

This isn't about competing technologies, and which is better (the true differences between formats are neglegable), it's about competing royalty revenue.

[Kat45]

181. I was referring to the VHS/Beta fight back in the dark ages.

Someone mentioned beta earlier.

[MADem]

2. I'm so fucking old I can remember being thrilled at seeing black and white tee vee

Got a color set for the Moon Landing!

Anything beyond that is just, well, gravy!

[madokie]

6. I'm so durned old as to remember before we even had electric

some of my earliest memories was watching them dynamite the holes for the electric poles, my brother and I would trudge alone behind the workers gathering up the copper wire they used to set the charges off with, made all kinds of things out of that copper wire too. One of my biggest accomplishments then was a telegraph and we used the top two wires on the fence so we could have communications to our cabin we, my bro and I, built of logs we cut down with an axe and crosscut saw, the saw btw we cut the wood our family cooked and heated with. Mom never learned the morse code but she would rattle the keys on the telegraph to let us know when she wanted us to come home. Yep them was the days, I remember them clearly
peace to all

[MADem]

13. You've got a BOOK in you!! AND a made-for-TV movie, at least!

Great stories, those....

[madokie]

49. if only I could write :-(

[appal_jack]

65. you just did!!!

madokie,

Your words created a vivid and poignant image in my mind... you can write!!!!!

If you find yourself with free time, write more! I'll gladly read it.

:toast: :hi:


-app

[madokie]

73. thank you for the kind words

:toast: :-)

[SoCalDem]

37. Our first tv as a young married couple (1970) was an ancient

Sylvania black & white.. We used a long piece of the flat tv cable, run out the window and attached to our neighbor's chain link fence, for an antenna..:)
We did not have color TV until 1974..

[Greyskye]

81. You had color for the moon landing?

We still had about a 14" B&W. :(

[MADem]

92. Yep...."Hey, Big Spender!!!" but it was the doggone moon landing.

I know that set cost an arm and a leg, too, can't remember how much, but I do remember the "Owch!" But it was worth it, and we'd SAVED UP for it, rather than buying on credit. We had the stupid thing for YEARS, nay, decades. It got shaken to death in the Loma Prieta earthquake!

[fujiyama]

134. Wow that's a pretty amazing story

My folks had a TV bought in the early '80s that lasted almost 20 years.

The new electronics gadgets aren't built to last. They're all throw away junk in 5 years if you're lucky.

[MADem]

139. Yeah--it walked across the room at me. And died. My shitty computer

with the two BIG floppy drives (it was the bee's knees--had an early hard drive in it, too--probably couldn't run a screen saver nowadays) hopped across the desk and miraculously didn't crash.

The last thing I saw on that tee vee was Alex Trebek (I used to enjoy JEOPARDY in the afternoon)! I actually had a technician look at it, but it was the "Pit-cha tube" that had crapped out. If it had been anything else, I would have fixed it. I bought a smaller TV and did the "Redneck" for the duration of my time in California--stuck it on top of the tee vee (which was a nice piece of furniture, actually). Then, when I left to go overseas, I junked the old beaut.

We also have a TV that looks like this, that, after we found and replaced a few tubes, works GREAT. It's a pain in the ass to hook it up to the cable or a DVD player, but we do it every so often just for shits and giggles, and occasionally we'll watch an old film DVD on the thing:


We also have a full sized one stashed in the attic, that one might need a transistor tube. We probably should drag it out and give it a look-see some time...

I listen to the radio often as not on a radio from the mid thirties--it's got great sound and I can get shortwave.

We're pack rats, we don't throw stuff out too easily!

[onehandle]

3. HD DVD is dead! Long live Blu-Ray! nt

[Tesha]

4. Folks interested in the comparison details might enjoy this Wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

[annabanana]

40. This distinction is just with the DVDs, right?

When I click to HD on my TV it says 1080i... Does this mean that the HD signal I'm getting from my cable isn't coming through properly?

[Tesha]

44. The WIki page is just about video discs.

> When I click to HD on my TV it says 1080i.

HD Programs can be formatted many different ways.
"1080i" is an entirely-typical format for a broadcast
HD-TV program.

(To a sort of "first estimate) Essentially, with
broadcast digital TV, if you're seeing a digital
program at all, it's working correctly.

Tesha

[EOTE]

45. What type of TV do you have?

CRT? DLP? LCD? Do you know what the native resolution of your TV is (if it's a CRT, there will be no native resolution)? Cable boxes will typically output at a fixed resolution regardless of what source you're watching. In the Comcast boxes, you have the option of selecting between 480i, 480P, 720P and 1080i. When that is selected, whatever source you're watching will be converted to that resolution. So, if you have a 720P LCD, you'll want to set your box to output 720P. That way, you'll get the best possible picture with 720P sources, and 1080i sources will be converted to 720P which your TV would have done anyway. I'd say if you have a DLP, LCoS or LCD, set it to 720P. If you have a CRT, or a 1080P LCD set, set the output to 1080i.

[moggie]

5. 1080p on HD-DVD

According to wikipedia, HD-DVD does support 1080p, and "1080p-encoded titles have been released on HD DVD and also Blu-ray Disc". On this page, you can see the back of the package for "Million Dollar Baby" on HD-DVD, which claims to be 1080p:

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p5/

[ReverendDeuce]

8. It does support 1080p/24, absolutely!

My Toshiba HD-A20 and my Samsung 1080p plasma display 1080p HD-DVD perfectly. I even set the player to output 1080p/24, so the movies are displayed at the same framerate as the original film: 24 frames per second.

It looks spectacular!

[Seabiscuit]

9. So why does Toshiba offer HD DVD players that only get 720p/1080i?

See:http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/playerdetails.php?id=1

[moggie]

11. You'd have to ask them that

But look at the FAQ on the site you link to: As a reference point, your DVDs are all 480p and all HD DVDs are 1080p.

It's funny how this format war makes some people so partisan. Me, I'm prepared to sit back and wait to see which wins: I'm not emotionally invested in one format or the other.

[Seabiscuit]

17. I guess I'm partial to Blue-ray

Because I'm financially invested in Blue-ray since I bought my wife a Blue-ray player, a couple of dozen discs, and a Samsung 1080p DLP 50" TV for our 10th wedding anniversary last November. Part of the excitement is that the new Texas Instruments DLP technology incorporated in the new Samsung TVs makes the picture sharper, brighter, and gives more brilliant color than any of the other TV tech formats I've seen in the stores from other manufacturers. I think DLP is the wave of the future: our local cinema just converted all its screens to DLP digital technology.

Here's a link to the TV I'm talking about: http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/samsung-hl-t5087s/4505-6484_7-32313066.html?tag=pdtl-img

[Occulus]

24. I have the same TV

Very very nice set. You know, if you have a PC that has DVI out on the video card, you can use your TV as a monitor, too.

The manual says you can't do it, but the cake is a lie. You *can* do it, and if you use the HDMI port instead of the PC port, you can use multiple desktop resolutions, and not just 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

The only drawback is the lamp. My Samsung uses a halogen lamp rated for only 6000 hours. After less than a year of very consistent use, my lamp is starting to show signs of failure. My understanding is that Samsung developed a white LED lamp for their DLP sets that's rated at a much more reasonable 60,000 hours. What I'm wondering is if they have made an LED lamp for my model, to replace the halogen lamp it originally came with.

I'm trying to burn up the lamp before the warranty expires. If I do, I get a free lamp.

As to what you said about the picture, when I got mine, it was by far the best picture in the store, easily better than any of the LCD or plasma 1080p displays. Furthermore, the contrast ratio is something like 10,000:1, which is just spectacular. Black is deep, deep black, white is brilliant (enough so that I can read easily in the dark by the light of the Google start page alone). Now, here's a real shitkicker:

http://product.samsung.com/dlp3d/

Samsung introduces its new line of 3D-Ready DLP® HDTVs. These DLPs are equipped with technologies with inherent speed advantages over the Digital Micro-mirror Device (DMD) to generate the left and right images required for stereoscopic viewing. With the combination of this and recent technical innovations in shutter glasses, the user is able to experience a realistic high quailty, high definition 3-D image on their Samsung DLP® television set.

Now you can enjoy your movies, shows and games in 3D without the annoying drawbacks of 3D viewing in the past. Samsung's line of 3D-Ready DLP® TVs has refresh rates of 120Hz, making the transitions in displaying the left and right images much faster, smoother, and flicker-free. Best of all, this new technology now comes at a very affordable price. Support from movie and game companies expand daily as the technology is accepted more and more by everyday consumers.

Maybe I should have waited to buy my TV. Perhaps I'll sell this one eventually and get the 3D model. I've yet to see 3D DLP in action, but I've heard it is hawt.

[EOTE]

48. With regards to 3d TVs.

That link seems to suggest that Samsung's DLP use something other that a Digital Micro-Mirror Device (DMD) to generate images, but that isn't the case. It seems to be simply the refresh rate that sets it apart, and more and more TVs are allowing a 120hz refresh rate. And 120hz is only necessary to view 3d at a full 60 fps, while most movies are only at 24 fps. I wouldn't imagine most modern HDTVs would have a problem showing polarized 3d content without tears and flickers.

[DS1]

161. There is no cake

Sorry I tried to kill you.

:D

[burrowowl]

131. And who says the US broadcasters wiil broadcast at

a full 1080p. In Europe TV had higher resolution than in America because of the scan rate.
Besides 11 years of sunspots are coming, how much will this mess up things?

[EOTE]

14. Some cheaper HD-DVD players only do 1080i/720P.

These are the players that cost a small fraction of the cheapest Blu-Ray players. Any HD-DVD player within $100 of a Blu-Ray player offers 1080P.

[ReverendDeuce]

15. So there are INEXPENSIVE CHOICES for buyers... duh.

It's all about providing consumers choice. The lower-end units have fewer features for those who don't see their value. Not everybody wants/needs Dolby TrueHD, XvYCC, etc.

[Atman]

63. Agreed. I guarantee my wife wouldn't notice or care about the difference

between 1080i and 1080p...especially if the tv costs a thousand dollars less.

.

[Seabiscuit]

140. My wife absolutely loves her new 1080p TV.

And she notices a big difference between it and her parents' not-as-new 720p/1080i TV.

[Seabiscuit]

67. Yes, I stand corrected. While some HD DVD players only offer 720/1080i, others also offer

1080p and at least the current crop of HD DVD discs are in 1080p.

[ReverendDeuce]

7. HD-DVD is the superior format, but Toshibe were fools...

Toshiba just sat around on their ass while Sony pounded the airwaves with gee-whiz ads.

Blu-Ray format has several shortcomings. Mainly, it's reliance on Java. Secondly, the discs are dramatically more prone to wear and tear than HD-DVD. Third, it's Sony!

Toshiba literally did nothing to insure the format's survival. Sony's marketing campaign was not even brilliant, but they at least HAD ONE.

Sour grapes to me? Not really. I already have both BR and HD players at home. It's ultimately about the movies and not the format. It's just sad to see Sony win.

[Seabiscuit]

10. How can HD DVD be a superior format when

it offers much lower bitrates than Blue-ray for both audio and video?

Hardcoating of Blue-ray discs is mandatory, whereas it's only optional in HD DVD, so how can you say Blue-ray "discs are dramatically more prone to wear and tear than HD DVD"???

See comparison chart at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

[ReverendDeuce]

12. It's superior in the reasons I stated...

I'll agree now that I've read the current info that BR disks are equally as protected as HD-DVD. It was not always this was.

As far as bitrates go, that's fun, but the reality is that 50GB BR disks are still few and far between. The typical mass-produced BR disk is of the 25GB variety. Typical HD-DVD is 30GB.

Capacity wise, BR is 50GB and HD-DVD is now 51GB.

Comparative video analysis by videophiles always gives HD-DVD the nod in terms of superior image quality -- and yes, this is done by comparing the same movies. In the first and second generation, BR disks were barely better than DVD in terms of picture (Google for the reviews of "The Fifth Element" in Blu-Ray format).

[Seabiscuit]

19. I think you're comparing old Blue-ray technology with new HD DVD technology.

I have the Blue-ray version of "The Fifth Element" and it is about as clear and brilliant as any high-definition video on the market. DVD isn't even close to that. You're apparently referring to the earliest release of "The Fifth Element" on Blue-ray quite some time ago. The remastered version which is the one I bought is far superior to the original release.

Also, every one of the dozens of Blue-ray discs I've purchased since November have a 50GB bitrate.

Prior to 2007 there were a lot of 25GB Blue-ray discs on the market. Since January, 2007, virtually all the releases have been at 50GB.

"The Fifth Element" in Blue-ray is indeed 50GB, and here are the reviews, which are rather superlative:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=456&show=comments

[EOTE]

27. Bitrate is not the same as capacity.

50GB is the disc's capacity. Bit rate is the amount of bits per second that the player is capable of processing and is typically measured in kbps or mbps.

[Seabiscuit]

78. That's correct. The discussion got a bit confused.

[557188]

113. WRONG. Seriously everything you said was wrong.

Blu-ray has ALWAYS had the hard coating. Anything you've read has been wrong. Blu-ray has always been the more durable disc.

The Majority of movies are now printed on 50 GB BRD. A problem, when studios were supporting both, was the discs being gimped to 30 gigs for HD DVD. They were optimized for the lesser format than ported over on the superior format so both were identical.

HD DVD doesn't have 51 GB discs. That is vaporware and has NEVER been released. The Triple layer discs probably wouldn't be compatible with the old hardware, hence why they never came out since been announced over a year ago. Bitrate is different than size.

Blu-Ray now blows away HD DVD in video and audio. The bad transfers were from the first few months of Blu-Rays start. Spiderman 3, Pirates 2 & 3, Cars and Ratatouille are the best high def picture transfers you'll see period. HD DVD has to compromise and a lot of times doesn't give lossless sound due to space limitations.

Blu-Ray is the superior technology and thankfully it won.

[Seabiscuit]

114. Nice to hear from someone who agrees with me.

[jayfish]

145. Tripe!

1)The reason Blu has the coating is because the data is so close to the surface of the disk the it HAS TO HAVE THE COATING or the disk would be rendered unreadable from normal handling.

2)Who the fuck cares that movies are being printed on 50GB BRD? No current movie uses the full 50GB. ...none!

3)The 51GB, triple-layer, discs were approved for the HD-DVD spec (Blu-Ray doesn't even have a finalized spec)

4)All current HD-DVD hardware is capable of handling the triple-layer discs. The problem comes in at the firmware of the individual players. The HD-DVD group did not want to proclaim full compatibility without making sure that the players were, you know, compatible via firmware update.

5)#4 is a moot point because, once again, no current movies use the full capacity of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray media.

6)Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use the same encoders and, from an identical master, there is no difference in the quality between the two formats.



Here are some more things you "forgot" to tell potential buyers.


1)Blu-Ray is region encoded. This means if a movie you like isn't available on BRD in the States but it is in France, too bad, no Blu-Ray for you. If you see a movie available on HD-DVD in France that isn't available here, you can order it online and play it just fine on an HD-DVD player.

2)Blu-ray players are more expensive than HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray discs are more expensive to produce than HD-DVD disks. Competition between the two formats forced price decreases at a far faster pace than DVD at the same point in it's life. With the competition out of the way, Sony can go back to selling $900.00 Blu-Ray players and you can say goodbye to all the BOGO and pack-in offers that skewed the disc sales numbers in favor of Blu-Ray

3)The Blu-Ray specification is not finalized and means that any change to the specification could render any movie you purchase from the change forward unplayable on a player produced before the change.

4)The best selling Blu-Ray player is a video game system. The Sony Playstation 3. As a matter of fact because of #3 the PS3 is also the most recommended Blu-Ray player because it is the only unit that is guaranteed to be upgradeable.

5)HD-DVD players can play HD content burned to standard DVD-4 and DVD-9 disks. Things like home movies, demo discs, trailers, downloaded porn, you name it.

6)Blu-Ray extras and disk interactivity pale in comparison to HD-DVD. One of the coolest things I've seen in home video was a feature on the "300" disc where the movie, sans special effects, ran in a window during the main features. Did the Blu-Ray version have that? Ah... nope. Could they have that? Maybe with the a new revision to the Blu spec. Just don't forget #3. Oh and don't forget that with HD-DVD all the special features are upgradeable via the internet.

Yep, Blu-Ray won and you know what? You, Sony and the Playstation 3 can have it. I would have been happy with two formats. You know, like PC's and Macs or Fords and Chevy's.

Jay

[EOTE]

22. Throughput isn't everything.

The compression and CODECs used can dramatically effect picture quality. Having less bandwidth with superior compression and decompression can create superior picture quality. And the previous poster is correct, HD-DVDs are far less prone to scratching that will make them unusable. In a few years, there will be many angry Blu-Ray owners upset with the many unusable titles they own.

[Seabiscuit]

23. How can Blue-ray discs be more prone to scratching when hard coating is mandatory

whereas it's only optional on HD DVD? See earlier posts linking Wikipedia chart on tech comparisons.

[EOTE]

26. The hard coating is mandatory...

Because the layers in Blu-Ray discs are so incredibly close to each other that the slightest scratch leaves that portion of the disc unusable. Yet, even with hard coating, scratches do happen. Not such a big deal on HD-DVDs, but a huge deal on Blu-Ray.

[Touchdown]

52. Blu-Ray uses MPEG 2. HD-DVD uses MPEG 4

A more robust compression ratio, so they can get away with lower bit-rates.

I've seen them side by side, and the HD-DVDs look more natural (fleshtones, standard color). Blu-Ray to me looks over blasted, as if I'm looking at neon movies instead of real ones. The sharpness of picture all depends on the original film prints or digital features like the last 3 Star Wars, Fahrenheit 9/11, MInoirty Report, etc. I see no discernable difference in picture detail, but the color differences are major.

Sony (Columbia/Tri Star) has always over blasted the color on their DVDs. It'll be interesting to see Warner Bros. take their DVD mastering restraint in the wow factor on their BR releases. I always thought WB/New Line made the best DVDs (lifelike picture, not color blasted) of any other studio. Even the green tint of the Matrix movies is done subtelly.

[Rosco T.]

135. Incorrect.

Both use MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 (actually H.264/MPEG-4 AVC).

[Deja Q]

126. Java? Sucks unless you have something like a 3GHz quad core processor installed...

And even then it's molasses-slow shite... :crazy:

And you're right. It's not about the hardware, but the applications.

[I work for workers]

16. The future of TV is direct downloading to a computer.

I couldn't care less about hi def disk formats.

[moggie]

20. It's not just about movies

Personally, I'm far more interested in these formats for data storage. Being able to back up 25 GB to a single-layer Blu-Ray disk: that'll be nice.

[Seabiscuit]

25. My guess is

you like looking at a relatively small screen up close.

[EOTE]

28. Not with HTPCs.

The bulk of people who use their computer for digital distribution and such use their computers as HTPCs and have them hooked up to some other large format display. I've had my computer hooked up to both my LCD display as well as my projector and with the correct source material, I think the quality is as good if not better than any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player out there. Years ago I picked up the Terminator 2 Extreme Edition DVD that included a hi-def transfer on a second DVD. Watching that either on my computer monitor (2560x1600 max resolution) or on my projector produced an absolutely flawless image.

[Seabiscuit]

58. What is the resolution of your projector?

Is it capable of playing Blue-ray (1080p)? Do you have a Blue-ray disc player? Unless you compare a blue-ray disc of, say Terminator 2 played back on a Blue-ray player hooked up to a TV that displays 1080p to the hi-def transfer DVD of Terminator 2 played through your computer hooked up to the same TV, how do you know which one you prefer?

[EOTE]

62. My projector is 720P.

However, I do have a CRT which is capable of displaying resolutions beyond 1080P. And I've compared both formats on other 1080P displays as well. I haven't seen T2 on Blu-Ray (NOT Blue-Ray), I was simply trying to make a point that digital distribution is a very valid method of distributing home entertainment. I've compared both stills as well as live video of HDDVD vs. Blu-Ray and I typically prefer HDDVD. Both are capable of providing a resolution so that artifacting isn't much of a problem. I've just found that HDDVD almost always provides a more accurate and smoother picture.

[Seabiscuit]

97. So what size is your CRT?

I've never heard of a CRT which displays resolutions beyond 1080P. What kind of CRT is that? In fact, I've never heard of any TV regardless of technology which displays resolution beyond 1080P. Are you talking about a computer screen using CRT technology?

If it's not a big screen, You won't notice the full benefit of Blu-ray or HD DVD.

[EOTE]

153. I have both a 24" and 30" CRT.

Both are capable of displaying 2560x1600 (quite a bit more than 1920x1080 or 1080P). Yes, the screens aren't very large, but they're monitors and made for up close viewing. I'm quite aware of what's required to appreciate the full resolution of either format. The fact that these are monitors allow for much more critical viewing.

[jayfish]

173. "If it's not a big screen, You won't notice the full benefit of Blu-ray or HD DVD"

That's simply not true. You may not notice (some say they can)the difference between 720 and 1080 on a smaller set but the jump from 480 to 720 or 1080 is dramatically noticeable. ...CRT or otherwise.

Jay

[EOTE]

68. And with regards to digital distribution vs. Blu-Ray.

I haven't been able to compare the same movie on my CRT simply because I've been unable to find the same movie on different formats in my testing. I can simply say that on that T2 DVD, I noticed less artifacting in general than in the disc formats I've seen, so it seems like a very viable format, especially considering its infancy.

[Occulus]

30. Comcast (!!) is rolling out high speed fiberoptic broadband- VERY high speed

Their new system will allow, according to the Comcast CEO, bitrates of up to 150 megabit/sec. Their claim is the ability to download what looks like a great deal more than a full-length 1080p movie in less than five minutes.

http://www.digitaltvdesignline.com/news/199500613

I know, I know, it's Comcast. Still, that's shockingly fast.

[jayfish]

146. And When You Run Up Against Their Unspecified...

download cap? What then?

Jay

[Skidmore]

18. We haven't even made it to HDTV yet.

[Skittles]

151. I don't do anything that encourages me to watch more TV

nope

[Justice Is Comin]

21. A twenty inch mono Apex graces my tv stand.

Now that's television. Edwards comes in beautifully sharp and clear.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. I've Got A 13" Apex

I use it in the summer out of the deck. Can watch baseball and eat hot dogs all at the same time!

It's a pretty good TV for $49.

The Professor

[Indenturedebtor]

31. Yeah I was at the show

The Blueray booth was always packed whereas the HDDvD booth was practically deserted through the whole show. Felt bad for them really. Felt bad for myself as well as I recently bought a new Toshiba laptop with an HD player :(

[NashVegas]

32. Can I Just Say How Irrelevant This All Is? No, Seriously

The only people who really need to have that clear, crisp a view of moving pictures are .. umm ...

Movie directors?

Film editors?

Doctors?

DVD hardware developers?

Hollywood will make more money, in the long run, by making quality movies that large groups of people can identify with.

I bought a VCR and tapes. Then I bought a DVD player and some discs. Then I bought another DVD (recorder, this time) when the first one died after only two-three years (my VCR had lasted for 12). My first TiVo lasted 5 years.

I'm not buying new hardware.

[EOTE]

57. Or people who simply want to see their movies with a good picture?

Some people really can't stand the artifacting and poor resolution of DVDs. I wasn't very impressed with DVDs when they first came out, as of now, I don't watch many DVDs and try to watch movies at home on cable HD or on HD through my computer. No one is forcing you to upgrade, you're welcome to keep your current hardware as long as you'd like. But to suggest that there's not a large portion of the population who doesn't greatly appreciate the superior picture that HD formats provide is laughable.

[NashVegas]

83. I Never Had That Problem Until I Went to HD

DVDs looked awesome on my old 20-inch Toshiba flat screen CRT, so did satellite cable.

I had to get a new TV last year so figured I may as well get HD, but chose not to pay the accompanying hike in the cable bill and yeah, I see the artifact problem show up from time to time.

Still, I'm off the Habitrail wheel on this one, I'm just not going to be a good consumer anymore.

[EOTE]

85. But the issue is this.

You say you got a larger TV, that alone is going to make artifacting more noticeable. The larger display you have, the more important the extra resolution and fidelity is going to be. Once again, buy or don't buy whatever you'd like.

[NashVegas]

91. It's Not a Choice When Congress Mandates the Technology!

That's the fucked up thing about it.

[EOTE]

93. Congress isn't mandating anything in terms of disc formats.

They simply mandated that analog television broadcasts have to end by February 2009. And no, that doesn't mean you'll need to buy a new TV. The only people who will be required to buy anything are those who solely rely on OTA signals for their television. And those people won't have to buy a new TV either, they'll just need to purchase a very cheap (and government subsidized) converter box.

[Seabiscuit]

59. There are a lot of people out there also who don't give a whit about audio quality either.

People who, regardless of disposable income, will stick with a cheap boombox or rack system from Sears - the kind of people you'll never see attending the hi-end audio show at CES every January in Las Vegas.

Each to his/her own.

[NashVegas]

77. LOL

Ooh, you sure put me in my place!

Say, you don't own anything by Bose, do you?

[EOTE]

79. I used to own a set of series III 201s.

They weren't half bad speakers for the price. I think some of Bose's bad reputation comes from the fact that they market themselves as high end audio. Their speakers certainly can't even stand up to most of the mid-range out there, but they're priced accordingly. Now, those Bose all in one audio systems are utter crap. Mostly because you can build a system a la carte for cheaper and get a much better product, or even buy one of the better HTIB's (even ones that are as discrete as the Bose models) and get much better sound. However, I feel like most of the audio industry is a bit of a racket. Nowadays, I build most of my own audio equipment.

[Seabiscuit]

84. I still have a pair of 301's sitting in my closet for the past 10 years.

One upon a time I used them as surround sound speakers.

One of the long-time problems with Bose speakers is the cheap paper the cones were made of.

I'm partial to electrostatic speakers driven by Audio Research tubed amps.

[EOTE]

87. 301s weren't bad either.

Good amount of bass for a speaker their size. My 201s had the smaller 6.5" driver, so they needed to be accompanied by my DIY sub. Electrostats are great if you can afford them. I'm sticking with DIY cone speakers for the time being, it's a lot of fun and not terribly expensive (so long as I don't go crazy).

[CRF450]

95. Hey if your into good audio, I HIGHLY recommend Elemental Designs!!

They make speakers for cars and home theater setups.

HT subwoofers: http://www.edesignaudio.com/edv2/index.php?cPath=2_41

HT Surround Speakers: http://www.edesignaudio.com/edv2/index.php?cPath=2_42

I have their A3-300 HT sub, which is a 12" sub getting 350 watts. It pounds loud enough for me. The surrounds I have are Klipsch HT surrounds, I dont have ED's. I dont think I'll switch to those because the Klipsches are doing pretty awsome, but most popular brand name HT systems have really weak bass, so I went ED. Check out their A7-900 HT subwoofer, thats overkill for most living rooms LOL!!

And best of all, ED's products are made here in the US! Awsome products.

[Seabiscuit]

98. Most hi-end audio products are made here in the US.

Canada, England, France, Germany and Italy also have some good hi-end stuff, and surprisingly, so does Japan, but since Japan exports mid- fi stuff to the US the Japanese don't trust their own companies to do as good a job with hi-end, so they buy American hi-end stuff.

My electrostatics are Martin Logan Quest II hybrids (they get plenty of tight bass so I don't use a subwoofer). I drive the panels with tubed amps and the bass cones with solid state amps.

[CRF450]

100. Yeah your right, my only gripe with them is the high price.

JL Audio I think is based here in the US too, if you know about their lineup, they are almost twice as expensive as Elemental Designs when your comparing subwoofers of similar performance.

How many watts is your setup pushing? (RMS watts, not peak/max)

[Seabiscuit]

103. Watts

The tubed amps are Audio Research monoblocks putting out 110 watts RMS each to the electrostatic panels through 4-ohm taps.

The stereo Aragon (designed by Dan D'Agustino of Krell) solid state amp puts out between 200-400 watts each to the bass cones through 4-ohm taps.

The setup is known as bi-amping and works especially well with hybrid electrostatics. The panels respond best to well-designed tubed amps, while the base cones require more power and respond best to solid state designs.

I've heard of JL Audio. I was pretty active in my hi-end audio hobby from 1989-2001 (during those years I attended the CES shows in Las Vegas almost every year and subscribed to magazines like Stereophile) but family matters have pushed it to the side since then, so I've lost track of the newer lines. By now much of my equipment might be considered "old", as it was all purchased during the 1990's.

[CRF450]

106. Can you provide me a link to what you have?

I'm sorry, my knowledge of this stuff only covers the basics of todays popular audio systems:blush:

[Seabiscuit]

107. I can provide a link to some of the manufacturers but I'm sure the

particular models I have have long gone out of production.

Since you're up, if you can be patient with me for awhile, I'll edit this post to provide links to Audio Research and Martin Logan and Aragon (if it's still in business, I don't know).

Here's the Martin Logan website (the Quest II models were 1992 models - long out of production): http://www.martinlogan.com/

Here's the Audio Research website (my tubed amps were 1995 models - long out of production): http://www.audioresearch.com/products.html

Here's an article about the long-out of production 1992 Aragon 4004 Mark II stereo amp (I mis-spelled Dan D'Agostino's last name earlier) (n.b.: I met Dan at a CES show and he personally confirmed to me that the 4004 was indeed his design for Mondial): http://www.klipschcorner.com/Articles.aspx?guid=87c96067-892b-4723-8502-48d1e5f615bd

[CRF450]

109. Thanks, I'll come back here tomorrow err, this afternoon and look.

Gotta go to bed now.

[Seabiscuit]

110. OK - g'night.

[EOTE]

154. Frankensub owner here.

I've got a Velodyne CHT-10 that puts out a very ample amount of clean bass, but for my last sub, I decided to build my own. I used another 10" driver because I find for my purposes, they sound the cleanest, so I picked up a pristine Klipsch driver on eBay. I mated that to a 350 WRMS plate amp in an MDF enclosure I made (now piano black) with a 1.5 cu ft internal volume. I still love my Velodyne (375 watts max, I believe around 200 RMS), but my frankensub trounces all over it. Most speakers are a PITA to make, but subs are fairly easy. You can get a lot more sub for your buck if you build it yourself.

[jayfish]

159. Nice.

Anyone interested in rolling their own should order up a copy of the latest Parts Express catalog. They offer good parts at good prices and their catalogs have some very sound advice on speaker building.

http://www.partexpress.com

Jay

[EOTE]

160. That's where I get the bulk of my parts, great site.

That, and monoprice.com. The best site on the internet for obtaining cables.

[jayfish]

162. My Next Setup Will Be Home Grown.

I love to thumb through their catalog and build them in my head. Barring disaster though, I'll have my current stuff for the foreseeable future.

Jay

[EOTE]

166. Building enclosures is the biggest PITA.

I have no problem tuning crossovers, matching drivers or even determining the exact dimensions of the enclosure. It's just working with MDF can be a real pain at times. I typically do it outside, but even then I have to deal with that godawful MDF dust. If you're good with wood working, it's not much of a trouble though.

[jayfish]

171. That's About What I Figured...

and I'm not very good at it (woodworking). I do have access to all the tools I need and a decent space to do it in though. I'm pretty happy with what I have right now so unless something blows-up it's all just a dream.

Jay

[EOTE]

172. When you're up for it, try a small bookshelf pair.

If you already have the router, bits, templates and MDF, you're half way there, now you just need time and work. If you go slow and aren't impatient, chance are you'll have a good result. I'm sure you've seen the pre-made enclosures from Parts Express, they're a bit pricey, but of damn good quality. They make building a speaker pair far easier, but also more expensive. Since MDF is cheap, you can try your hand at making a bookshelf speaker enclosure just to see how well you do at it. Once you've made your enclosure, you can go about driver selection next (or ideally the other way around, choosing the drivers for a future project). It's a lot of fun and very rewarding. I'm a big fan of the Dayton Series of drivers made at the Parts Express factory, btw.

[jayfish]

174. The Dayton Enclosures Do Look Nice...

but it would feel like cheating and they also seem a bit pricey for a DIY project. I have thje patients of a gnat though so as a last resort they would be perfect. Another thing I'm considering is refurbishing some existing enclosures I have with new drivers, crossovers and insulation. I've got some blown Paradigm Atoms that I've been itching to play around with. I've also got a couple floor-standing pairs I could tinker with but they are pretty large and large is so 80's :headbang:.

Jay

[EOTE]

176. That's another good way to do it.

Just be sure to get a good measure of the interior measurements and volume (and be sure to subtract any braces from the overall volume). Then use some sort of speaker box program to determine what drivers and crossover points would be best to use. Keep in mind that you'll kind of need to work backwards because you typically choose the drivers and then build your enclosure around it instead of the other way around. I did this exact same thing with a cheapy pair of Acoustic Research speakers from the early 90s. The enclosure was made of real wood, so I thought it would be a shame to throw them away just because of the rotten surrounds. Used speakerbox to find a new 8" woofer, 3" silk dome midrange and a 1" tweeter and they sounded great even with the stock crossover. A few months later I picked up a few inductors, caps and such to create custom crossovers and they sounded extremely sweet afterwards. Don't be too hesitant to play around with your floor-standing pairs. You can find some large and efficient drivers pretty cheap to make some great party speakers.

[girl gone mad]

102. Racket?

You mean $500 wooden knobs and multi-thousand dollar wires aren't worth it?

[EOTE]

168. I guess it depends on how many diamonds are encrusted in the wires.

The more esoteric aspects of the audiophile market are beyond ridiculous. I've spent good money making my speakers, but I use speaker wire that costs around 50 cents a foot. But hey, if someone has a ludicrous amount of money and they'd be happy spending it on things that will provide no real benefit to them, let them at it.

[XOKCowboy]

89. No highs, no lows....

must be Bose. Sorry couldn't help myself. :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

33. WooHoo! Another marginal increase in quality that corporations will use to force consumers

To buy another piece of electronic junk and once again re-buy their libraries in another medium:banghead:

I couldn't give a rat's ass about Blu-ray are what have you. Time and again the electronics industry pulls this crap, heralding a new medium that gives marginal improvements, but still forcing the consumer to buy more shit simply in order to stay current. This is the CD-LP battle taken to the umpteenth degree(and ironically enough, most audiophiles find that LPs actually have better sound than CDs).

Just like the computer update model, forcing you to buy more software and hardware every couple of years. When are people going to say enough is enough?

[CRF450]

41. BS

Have you taken a close look in the difference between regular DVD resolution and blu-ray/HD DVD resolution? Theirs a huge difference in picture quality, to say its only marginal is absurd.

[MadHound]

42. Yes, I have

And frankly I had to look closely to see much of a difference at all. About the biggest difference between DVD and BluRay is the storage capacity. Big whoop, I can now have one disc with all of the goodies instead of needing two.

But yes, I've compared the two, and was really quite unimpressed. Video is getting as bad as audio is, touting all of these hyped numbers that supposedly show vast improvements, but in reality the normal person, with a normal range of vision and hearing notice little difference. But there's always that certain group of people who go nuts about these "huge differences" when the vast majority of the difference is purely psychological.

VHS to DVD, yeah, that was a big jump. DVD to BluRay, eh not much at all.

But hey, if you want to go waste your money, who am I to stop you?

[CRF450]

47. And what size HD tv have you tried seing the difference by?

On 37" or smaller tv's, yes the difference is marginal, but when you look at bigger ones like my 50" Samsung DLP tv, the difference is huge.

[MadHound]

50. I've viewed it on both the larger and smaller screens

Since I have a 33" at home. I also viewed it on a 70" Sony LCD. Sorry, but I have to reiterate, the difference is marginal.

Like I said, much as with audio, it is getting to the point where the differences are more on paper than in actual reality. Of course people start reading about higher bitrates and such, and then the difference becomes psychological rather than real:shrug:

Again, if you want to waste your money, fine. But perhaps you really should take a look at what you're getting into.

[EOTE]

54. And for some of us, it's not psychological at all.

I've got a few different HD sets. When I watch DVDs on my 32" LCD, I find it to be watchable, but I definitely miss the extra resolution hi-def provides. It even annoys the hell out of me when I watch HD channels that show some of their programming in 480P. When I watch on my projector, I try to avoid DVDs at all costs because of the eye sore they provide. The bulk of my collection are DVDs, and I still watch them somewhat frequently. But if I have the chance to watch something on HD through cable, I'll definitely wait if possible. Not only is the difference on my projector between DVD and HD incredible, but I can decipher through the various HD resolutions being fed to my projector. When I watch source material of the native resolution of my projector, I notice a superior picture than if the image is being scaled.

[riverdeep]

121. Ha, ha, what must you think of my set-up?

I watch a CRT regular ol' TV with a VCR! I also have a DVD player, but rarely use it. And, damn, I like it fine. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

I can't wait to see Rocky MXVII or another Adam Sandler turdbomb in Blu-ray, that's going to be so awesome.

[Seabiscuit]

66. Blue-ray offers 10 times the number of pixels produced by DVD.

A far greater increase in video quality than moving from VHS to DVD. You'd notice a huge difference if you saw the real thing.

I think you're just angry at the manufacturers for coming out with new formats over the years.

[EOTE]

70. Only a 10x increase if you compare 480i to 1080P.

The more fair comparison is 480P to 1080P, in which case 1080P offers 5x the resolution. And 1080P is the max resolution of both formats, not just Blu-Ray.

[Seabiscuit]

74. I never heard of 480i. Where does one find it?

[EOTE]

75. Standard analog television sets.

If you watch a DVD on a non ED or HD set, you're watching it in 480i.

[Seabiscuit]

80. Actually, we're both off. The factor is 6X, not 10X or 5X.

A. The number of pixels in Blue ray is 1080X1920 = 2,073,600 pixels.

B. The number of pixels in DVD is 480X720 = 345,600 pixels.

A divided by B = 6.0

[EOTE]

82. 480P resolution is 480 x 854.

Or 409K pixels. 480x720 is a 1.5 : 1 aspect ratio which almost nothing is in. 480 x 854 ix 16 : 9 which is the typical theatrical aspect ratio.

[Seabiscuit]

86. 480X 720 is the NTSC standard for DVD.

Which may correspond to the 4 : 3 aspect ratio as opposed to the 16 : 9 letterbox type of ratio.

[EOTE]

90. Well, 480x720 is 1.5:1, 4:3 is 1.33:1.

That is correct that the 1.5:1 resolution (480x720)of DVDs is what is outputted. However, a progressive scan DVD player outputs at 480x854 as a result of the anamorphic process. Because to display a resolution like 480x720 on any fixed panel display like DLP or LCD and full screen (or letterboxed on a 1.33:1 television) would require rectangular pixels.

[Seabiscuit]

96. Gotcha. Thanks.

[Seabiscuit]

61. I also have a 50" Samsung DLP TV. It is astounding when playing Blue-ray.

And the difference between Blue-ray and DVD on that TV is like a bright, sunny day vs. a sky full of locusts.

OK, the locust thing was a bit of hyperbole.

[CRF450]

94. Is yours one of the new models with the LED lights?

Mine is, atleast I know I dont have to replace any $300+ lamps every year or two:) I could have gone with an LCD but there high price turned me away. They do have a better picture but the DLP is pretty much right up their with them.

[Seabiscuit]

99. Yes, it's the HL-T5087S

See:http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/samsung-hl-t5087s/4505-6484_7-32313066.html?tag=pdtl-img

[EOTE]

51. Actually, the jump from DVD to Hi-Def is bigger than the jump from VHS to DVD.

With VHS, you're basically looking at an interlaced VGA image or 640x480 every two frames. Interlaced DVD resolution is 854x480 every two fields, or every one field if you're using a progressive scan DVD player. So, comparing progressive DVD to VHS resolution, DVD is about 2.5x greater. However, comparing 480P (top DVD resolution) to 1080P (top HD resolution), we're talking about 400K pixels vs. about 2 million pixels in 1080P. That's a greater than 5x increase in resolution. Granted, the size of your set (and it's native resolution) determine how much of that extra resolution you'll see. But I find even the jump between 480P and 720P to be extremely noticeable even on sets as small as 30". The jump from 720P to 1080P requires a larger set to notice, but it's definitely there though.

[MadHound]

53. Another who is using numbers as justification,

Rather than believing what their eyes tell them. Sure, those are mighty fine numbers, but guess what, much like the numbers batted around in the world of high end audio, our sense simply can't register their differences. You can put up all the damn numbers you want, and sure, a computer would notice. But our eyes simply don't register those sorts of details:shrug:

[EOTE]

55. You said that VHS to DVD was a big jump.

I was using objective numbers to tell you that the jump from DVD to HD is bigger. I then went on to tell you that SUBJECTIVELY, I notice a big difference as well. I can't tell you that subjectively the jump is bigger for me, but I'd say it's as least as big. VHS was definitely an eye sore and I'm glad it's gone. I'll probably be content with 1080P for quite some time, even on my 100" projector screen, and won't feel the need to adopt a future standard like 1440P or perhaps a consumer version of Sony's 4k. But the difference by my eyes from DVD to HD is very large indeed. Both in close viewings (I have a 24" CRT which supports resolutions up to 2560x1600) and for casual movie watching (my 720P LCD projector and 100" screen). Either way, with DVDs I notice SDE, artifacting and simple lack of resolution far more than with any HD source. Once again, the leap to 1080P is nowhere near as noticeable other than in very large format displays, but 1080i on a CRT or 720P on a LCD looks vastly superior to 480P on any of those formats.

[dysfunctional press]

175. i see the difference as marginal at best as well.

i've got a 60" LG 1080p plasma tv, and i borrowed my buddy's blu-ray player and some discs to decide if i wanted to make the investment...

i don't.

i've got an upscaling sony dvd player that gives me EXCELLENT picture quality with standard dvd's, and see no reason to spend the money for blu-ray at this point.

[EOTE]

177. Really?

I understand that some people don't really appreciate the extra resolution once a certain pixel density is reached, but I wonder why you sprang the extra money for a 1080P set if you don't notice the jump from 480P to 720P or 1080i, much less the jump from 720P/1080i to 1080P. Try hooking up any decent progressive scan DVD player that outputs at 480P and I'm guessing you'll notice almost no difference between it and the upscaling DVD player you use. All the upscaling DVD players do is do scaling internally that your TV would end up doing anyway.

[dysfunctional press]

180. it was our first flat panel television...our previous set being a 37-inch sony crt...

we got a decent price on a new set, and figured that it would be best to start with the highest resolution we could. and i do really like the picture- the graphics on the blu-ray discs were incredibly sharp, as was the regular picture- but it just wasn't a WOW! type of difference i might have expected. my wife, and the friend whose blu-ray player i borrowed are both of the same opinion as well- they just don't see it as that drastic of a difference either.

i imagine that i will eventually get a blu-ray player, but not until the prices come down- and hopefully they'll come out with blu-ray burners at some point as well...a BIG part of my current dvd "library" are discs i burned- and yes, i know that they don't last forever.

[rucky]

123. I'm still a VHS guy, myself.

not missing out on much.

[AlCzervik]

34. dumb question--does blue ray have backward compatibility? I need a new dvd

player and blue ray interests me but if i can't play my old dvds on it then i don't want to buy one. Please and thank you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Yeah, no problem.

I play old DVDs on mine all the time.

[AlCzervik]

36. thanks.

[Tesha]

46. Sony Blu-Ray players play DVDs and even audio CDs just fine. (NT)

[Seabiscuit]

64. Yes, Blue-ray does have backward compatibility, plus

it upgrades your standard DVD to 720p/1080i. You'll notice a big improvement in your picture playing a DVD on a Blue-ray player vs. a regular DVD player. Of course, you will need a TV capable of at least 720p-1080i to see the improvement, and as long as you're going that far, you might as well get a full 1080p TV, because someday you may be tempted to rent or buy a Blue-ray disc.

[LanternWaste]

39. Crap...

Crap. So now the industry is going to pressure me into buying yet another media format. Every ten years or so they pull this crap.

Upgrade from 8-track to LP, 'cause we won't be making anymore 8-tracks.

Then upgrade from LP to CD.

From CD to Mp3.

Or...

From 8MM to beta.

Then to DVD.

Then to Blue ray

Then some other marketing, gadget.

And while we're spending money on useless gadgets to further define who we are, there's millions of people who are hungry, abused, imprisoned and homeless. But hey-- at least we get to watch our favorite classic movie with seventeen hours of extras... in High Definition!!!!-- so it's all good.

[EOTE]

43. DVD has several more years left in it.

It wasn't until very recently that they stopped manufacturing VHS. I'm guessing DVD has close to another 10 years left in it before they no longer sell them anymore. One great thing that HD-DVD has going for it is that they offer combo discs. This allows you to buy HD-DVDs now and use them with your standard DVD player (at standard DVD resolution of course). Then, when you upgrade to HD-DVD, you won't need to buy those titles again.

[NashVegas]

76. Yes, But Now We'll Also Have 108-inch, 150 inch Screens!!!!

So all that high-definition is needed!!!

[Seabiscuit]

111. LOL! There's always the movie theaters. :)

[Catchawave]

69. Very informative thread, I printed it out for my husband

since he's shopping now for a new t.v. system. This answered a lot of the questions :hi:

[Seabiscuit]

112. Good luck - some of my mis-statements have been corrected by others here who are more

knowledgeable about the new hi-def technology than I am. So this thread's been a learning process for me.

[EOTE]

71. And BTW, 1080i is nothing like 720P.

Not only does 1080i offer more on screen pixels at a time (a bit more than a million compared to a bit more than 900k in terms of 720P), unless you're watching fast motion, the 1080i image (assuming you're watching a display capable of displaying interlaced content) appears to be progressive in your mind. A 1080P display simply takes two 1080i fields and combines them into a single 1080P frame. Or displays it natively with native 1080P source material. 1080i = 1080(i)x1920 720P = 720x1280. How you could say those two resolutions are the same is beyond me. The bulk of the information you present on the superiority of Blu-Ray is simply wrong.

[Seabiscuit]

104. Well, I'm learning...

I only recently picked up info (and mis-info) about all this hi-def stuff from one of my wife's cousins - in time to get a new Samsung TV and Sony Blu-ray player last November for a wedding anniversary present for my wife. I haven't been into video for years, since well before any of the hi-def stuff hit the market. You seem to have the tech stuff down pretty well, so thanks for providing such information.

My last foray into video concerned digital cameras (2004) and digital video (1999, 2000) and DVDs (?). Prior to that, in the 1990's it was S-VHS, Hi-8mm tape and Laserdiscs. Even back then I was more of an audiophile than a videophile. My previous TV purchase was a 45" Pioneer Elite rear projection model (1991) which still works fine thanks to replacing circuit boards over the past few years (but it won't handle hi-def).

Never been much into computers. Last May I finally graduated from PC to iMac.

Much of this has to do with my age (62 last May) and the fact that 10 years ago in November I married a much younger wife, and we now have a 3.3 year old son. I'm now retired and play the stock market (Jim Carey from "Fun With Dick And Jane: "it's kind of like stealing"). At my age you begin to get things confused easily and forget stuff. :)

[CRF450]

108. Ahhh, the good'ol rear-projection tv

My dad hated working on those things. He used to be a tv repair-man for about 10 years and finally retired from that line of work about 5 years ago (well, totally retired from any work). The electronics in modern tv's now are getting too complex for him to fix them. Before he quit, regular CRT tv's were getting pretty cheap, and the cost of fixing was getting to a point were it just wasent really worth it, like there becoming more or less just disposable. Rather than having one fixed, a new one could be bought for not much more. Its certainly apparent cause the little shop he worked in is hardly staying in bussiness. He even quit working on tv's for people around our neighborhood.

[Seabiscuit]

117. Sad but true. New technology and market forces have been conspiring to

put TV repairmen out of business.

Especially now with the hi-def TVs. Even the old rear-projection TVs like Pioneer Elite had all the components on circuit boards. Rather than repair damaged components on old circuit boards (no one does that any more for either TVs or computers) repair people simply replace the old ones with new boards. If enough time has elapsed so that the manufacturer no longer makes the circuit boards, it's sadly time to junk the rear projection. I had to have 2 of 3 circuit boards replaced on my 1991 Pioneer Elite in 2001. I had to replace the 3rd last summer. The repairmen advised me that if I wait until they die they probably won't be available from Pioneer any more. So I don't know whether to order a new set of the first 2 now (along with a new set of lamps - the old ones are working at about 85%-90% of original condition) and save them until needed or just junk the whole thing when the next circuit board goes out, and replace it with a hi-def TV.

Meanwhile, by the time rear-projection TVs swamped the market, CRT TV prices dropped. They've continued to drop since, especially now with hi-def models all over the showroom floors, to the point that (1) it's cheaper to replace them than to repair them, and (2) it's getting nigh impossible to find a TV repairmen able or willing to fix them at any price.

The motherboard on my 1999 HP PC died last May, just 7.5 years after I purchased the unit. I was informed that HP doesn't make that motherboard any more, and that nobody repairs motherboards. So I had to junk it. As a result, I got my first iMac and am glad that I did.

The electronic industry is like that. My father-in-law (now 80) did some pioneering work on early fax machines. The engineering technology he learned back then is now obsolete.

[CRF450]

136. I wouldn't say that they're *conspiring* to put repairman out of work

The electronics are just getting too small and complex for an average joe tv repairman like my dad to fix. Notice how curcuit boards have these teeny tiny little chips that are like 1mm in size? If one of those go bad, it can cause major problems with the whole electronic device. Trying to use a soldering iron on those is pretty much impossible. Bigger chips and transistors are easlier to deal with.

[Seabiscuit]

138. I understand...

My remark about market forces + technology was directed more at the fact that as sales of CRT TVs have gone down while non-CRT designs have gone up, prices on CRT TVs have gone down to the point that as you mentioned earlier, it can be cheaper to purchase a new TV than to have a CRT TV repaired, thus taking business away from TV repairmen.

[geomon666]

88. Difference between DVD and HDDVD/BLURAY....

I am amazed at the difference. Check out the whole thread on the AVSForums. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102

[Seabiscuit]

105. Thanks for the link...

yes, my wife and I have found the differences to be stunning, and worth the price tags.

[557188]

115. BLU-RAY not BLUE

It's Blu-Ray and not BluE-Ray.

Those who follow the format war knew this was going to happen.

Blu-Ray has won every single week in software sales in 2007. It already won the format war in Japan and is currently in a huge lead in Europe. America was the only place that HD DVD was even putting up a fight and it was losing that. Thankfully the war is coming to an end.

[Seabiscuit]

118. Sorry about my continuous mis-spelling of Blu-Ray.

Someone else pointed that out earlier - I've tried to avoid typing "b-l-u-e" since.

[Seabiscuit]

149. Just checked: It's actualy Blu-ray. No capital R.

[sendero]

116. I'm no video expert...

.. but after having Sony equipment fail time and time again, I will never buy another Sony product, ever.

I assume of course, that one will be able to buy a blu-ray player that is made by anyone other than Sony :)

[Seabiscuit]

119. The blu-ray players are available from several manufacturers, including

Samsung. They're all virtually identical.

I personally haven't had problems with Sony equipment, but I suppose it depends on what you buy- their cheaper product lines are definitely more prone to failure, but that's true of all manufactured electronics.

[Tesha]

127. Your experience is different than ours.

Essentially every piece of Sony equipment that we've
ever bought (including at least three receivers, three
VCRs, one CRT TV, two DVD players, one CD player, a
car cassette head, three car CD heads, one Vaio laptop)
is still working for us, although mechanical damage to
our Sony Vaio laptop is starting to take its toll,
and we did have to clean the jelly out of the "case
closed" switch and replace the CMOS battery once.
And the two oldest car CD heads (fifteen years?) now
really need to have their CD players re-tuned (adjusted),
but they've been retired to the shelf because our cars
now have factory-installed players.

I'd have to say that, based on all that, I've found
Sony equipment to be very reliable; I'm sorry your
experience has been different.

Tesha

[Pachamama]

120. I agree - Blu Ray technology is best - but the HD DVD name is better...

Wonder if they can work out a deal? :shrug:

[rucky]

122. I'm still holding out for Beta to make a comeback. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

150. I'm waiting for 8-tracks to make a comeback. n/t

[Deja Q]

125. Think of it this way: James Bond vs Serenity.

Bond wins every time. :evilfrown:

Mind you, Betamax offered higher resolution than VHS. Didn't stop VHS from winning. So, what's Blu-ray's shortcoming when compared to HD-DVD?

[dommyluc]

128. My own opinion

I cannot say that I am an expert on the subject of hi-def video, but I would like to set a few things straight:
1.) Every audio/video expert in every magazine says the same thing: there is NO difference between an image that is upconverted from a 1080i signal to a 1080P signal by your TV set or your A/V receiver's video processor and a pure 1080P signal. NONE! So saying that a disc player that can pass pure 1080P signals results in a better picture is a fantasy at best. Besides, nearly all of the latest versions of both blu-ray and HD_DVD players can pass 1080P signals, and all do a very good job of upconverting a conventional DVD from 480i to 1080i/P.
2.) I believe this is the STUPIDEST choice I have ever seen by the electronics companies and the studios, mainly because of the manufacturing issue. HD-DVD can be manufactured in existing DVD mastering/pressing plants with minor retrofitting while blu-ray is a wholly different technology that requires new manufacturing techniques. If you don't think this is not going to result in higher prices for discs, then i have a tax cut that GWB wants to sell you.
3.) Blu-ray, as pointed out by many reviews and articles, always seems to be twelve months behing what Sony says it is able to do, while nearly all of the features of HD-DVD have been available from the start. Also, Sony is involved, and I think many on this forum are familiar with Sony's track record. Remember how they infected PCs worldwide with their copyguard software on their CDs? I have this strange feeling that there is going to be some issue waiting in the wings about blu-ray, too, because Sony cannot be trusted.
4.) What upsets me, and many others, is the fact that none of the studios or consumer electronics manufacturers agreed on a unified format. That is what happened with DVD: they were told if they didn't come up with one format then they wouldn't get any support, so the two different sides of the DVD aisle got together to avoid a Beta/VHS-type financial fiasco. I don't know about anyone else, but this REALLY angers me. It is pure greed on the part of everyone involved, especially the aforementioned Sony. If they had agreed on a unified HD disc format, conventional DVD would be going out the door already, since the explosive sales of hi-def TVs makes a market for a single HD disc extremely attractive to the consumer. Now, many are just confused. And the press releases that contain lies and fabrications from both sides don't help.
5.) I have always believed the best solution to this problem would be dual format disc players, players that can play every type of disc - blu-ray, HD-DVD, DVD, CD, DVD-Audio, SuperAudio CD - EVERYTHING. LG and Samsung make combo players now, but they are outrageously expensive and still don't handle all formats. But we are just consumers, and we end up getting fucked again. Personally, I wish both formats would bomb. There are other outside companies that are developing disc formats that can hold 500GB-1TB of info, so this format war may not last as long as either side thinks. An upstart system might finish them both off, although Sony, with it's past record of mindless support of both Beta and the Mini-Disc, will probably hang on until just 12 people in the world still support blu-ray.

[Seabiscuit]

129. Before getting to the rest of your post, I must pose a question:

You said "all (blu-ray and HD DVD players) do a very good job of upconverting a conventional DVD from 480i to 1080i/P."

That's a new one on me. Where did you get that information?

I know that when I play a regular DVD back on my Sony Blu-ray player through the Samsung 1080p TV, I'm not getting 1080i or P. Perhaps 720i/P, but not 1080. The picture may be better than 480, but it's definitely not 1080. In fact, I got my wife's parents a Toshiba uploading DVD for Christmas which uploads a DVD up to 720 (because their hi-def TV only reproduces 720P/1080i), but I' haven't seen anything on the market that uploads a DVD to 1080 anything. And if there were no difference between 1080i and 1080P, and DVDs played on Blue-ray players displayed 1080i/P that would render Blue-ray discs superlative and worthless. In fact, the store salesman mentioned that the player would improve the DVD to 720 lines, but not to 1080 lines.

I tested this using Harry Potter discs. I already had volumes 1-4 on DVD, and this Christmas I got my wife the new 5-volume set on Blu-Ray. I used Disc 4 on both DVD and Blu-Ray (because it was the most recent disc in common) and there is a remarkable difference in resolution between the two played through the Sony Blu-Ray player and the Samsung 1080P TV (which also plays 480, 720 and 1080i).

Another poster has already pointed out the difference between 1080i and 1080P.

[dommyluc]

130. Sorry

I should have made myself clearer. The discs are upconverted to the native resolution of the TV set. They cannot be upconverted to true HD (720P, 1080i or 1080P). That is impossible, since the picture can only have as much resolution as originally mastered on the disc, but upconverting to the native resolution of the TV set can result in a smoother and more pleasing picture. And I stand by my original statement: a true 1080P signal output to a Tv will be indistinguishable from a 1080i signal upconverted to 1080P by the set (if, of course, the set or video processor does its job well. If not the case, then no picture is going to look good). Also, a badly mastered HD disc can look worse than a regular DVD (House of Flying Daggers is an example of a beautiful film getting a bad HD treatment - it really should be redone).
What interests me even more, though, is the potential of the hi-def audio formats, DolbyTrueHD and DTSAudioMaster, which have the ability to make an EXACT high-bit resolution copy of the original masters. I would LOVE to hear Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon or Katy Lied in these versions, wouldn't you?

[Seabiscuit]

132. Still wondering:

What source provides a 1080i signal that can be upconverted to 1080P by the TV set? I'm personally not aware of any. That's a bit different from your original statement that there's no difference between 1080i and 1080P (1080i generally being an upconversion already, and still inferior to 1080P, which begins at 1080P and stays at 1080P). I also thought it was the Blu-Ray or HD DVD player that did upconverting, not the TV - the TV just displays the signal it's fed by the player. And any upconversion by the player to 1080 would be 1080i by definition, not full 1080P. I've never heard of any TV upconverting any signal from the player. I would assume that any signal that is upconverted to 1080i by the player starts out at 720P, and I'm not sure what kind of source that would be other than possibly cable/broadcast "High Definition" signals, which don't pass through the player anyway. For instance, if a cable channel in "HD" is feeding a 720P/1080i signal to your TV, the best the TV is going to display is 1080, which is going to be inferior to Blu-Ray. At least that's my understanding so far. Maybe I'm completely lost and confused. It seems to me the manufacturers could have gotten together and just given us one high defnition format, 1080P, and skipped all this gobbledygook about progressive scan vs. interlacing, and 720P, 720i, and 1080i. It's the latter three numbers that still give me fits.

Tell me more about DolbyTrueHD and DTSAudioMaster. I've never heard of them. I'm still new to all this (as some of my earlier posts reflect, I just began learning about it from my wife's cousin last October, in time to get my wife a 10th wedding anniversary present in November of a Sony Blu-Ray player, a Samsung 1080P TV and some Blu-Ray discs). Exact copies of original masters of music video *does* sound like something I'd be interested in.

My OP contained some of my early misconceptions, as discussed elsewhere in the thread. And I still may be suffering from some misconceptions, as I still have questions about a number of things. Maybe I need to find some websites that explain it all in detail but in a way a layman like myself can understand.

[EOTE]

155. Any 1080i source can be upgraded to 1080P on a 1080P set.

I think you're a bit confused about how signals are handled. You say that you assume that any upconverted 1080i signal starts out at 720P. If your original source is 720P and your TV can display 720P, it's best to leave the signal as is, if you have a 1080P TV, you can allow it to convert the image to 1080P (much easier converting from 720P to 1080i than 720P to 1080P because you simply repeat every other line, no interlacing required). The previous poster was talking about the differences between a 1080P source and a 1080i source on a 1080P TV. In order to convert a 1080i image to 1080P on a 1080P set, a frame buffer simply captures two successive frames and deinterlaces them to become a single image. A 1080P source does the same exact thing, it just does it in the source's hardware rather than the TV's. That's why there's so little difference between 1080i and 1080P sources when displayed on a 1080P device.

[Seabiscuit]

158. OK, I've got some questions:

1. Can you identify one or more 720i sources for me?

2. Can you identify one or more 720P sources for me?

3. Can you identify one or more 1080i sources for me?

So far, the technical talk in this thread mentions things like "when a 1080i signal..." or "when a 720P signal..." without ever identifying what produces such signals/where they come from and how/why.

I haven't the foggiest idea yet what produces such signals, or how they end up that way and why.

All I know is

1. A Blue-ray disc played on a Blue-ray player connected to a TV capable of 1080P will produce a 1080P picture.

2. I'm thoroughly confused now about regular DVDs: (a) When a DVD is played on a regular DVD player on a TV capable of no more than, say 500 to 700 lines of horizontal resolution, what is displayed? 480i? 480P? Why? (b) When a DVD is played on an "upconversion DVD player ("upconversion to 720P or 1080i) into a TV capable of reproducing 480i, 480P, 720i, 720P or 1080i, what is one viewing? 480i? 480P? 720i? 720P? 1080i? Why? (c) When a DVD is played on a Blu-ray player connected to a TV capable of 480i, 480P, 720i, 720P, 1080i and 1080P, all I know is it isn't displayed in 1080P because that would render Blue-ray discs superfluous. So what does one see in that case? 480P? 720i? 720P, or 1080i? And why? (d) What about cable HDTV boxes? What signal do they produce, and will a TV capable of all resolutions up to 1080P "upconvert" it to something else? If so what, and how?

And this is the first time I've ever heard of TVs "upconverting" signals of any type. When I bought my 1080P TV this fall no salesman ever told me that the TV itself does any "upconverting". This whole "upconversion" thing is truly bizarre to me - something that apparently began with the advent of the "high definition" medium - and I still don't understand how or why, especially when there are dedicated DVD players out there that purport to "upconvert" DVD discs to something or other, and advertise "720P" and "1080i" right on the box. Blue-ray players also purportedly "upconvert" DVD signals in some manner. The posts I've read thus far in this thread haven't clarified a thing for me.

I could go on, but this is all beginning to get really, really confusing.

Does anyone here really understand it? The posters here all seem to have different versions of everything.

[EOTE]

163. I'll try to answer.

1) There's no such thing as a 720i broadcast standard.

2) 720P sources? Well, the original XBox could output in 720P, the 360 does in all games, so does the PS3. All Hi-def players and most modern cable boxes output in 1080i.

3) Refer to #2. All those sources with the exception of the original XBox can output in 1080i as well. Most have selectable outputs so you can output the native resolution of your TV (if it has one).

*Now, if you're referring to actual source material, each TV station determines what standard they want to broadcast on. For a while, Fox was still using 480P, but the other stations have chosen either 720P or 1080i.

1) When a Blu-ray player is hooked to a 1080P display, the player should be set to natively output 1080P, so that's correct.

2) Regular DVDs will never be able to provide more than 480 progressive lines of resolution. So on most modern players, you're getting a 480P image. However, on upconverting players, you can have them outputted at 480P, 720, 1080i and some even do 1080P. What does that mean exactly? Not very much. You can have a player upconvert a DVD to 1080P, but it's still not going to look much better (if at all) than at 480P. Why is that? Because you can't get something from nothing. If you have a 1080P television, they'll take that 480P signal and upconvert it to 1080P before you actually view the picture. They have to do that because if they didn't, you'd be viewing an image that takes up less than a quarter of your screen. So in an unconverting DVD player, it does the upconverting instead of your TV. Chances are, your TV would do a better job of it anyway. So you can't get something from nothing. To give you a simple method of how this is done, let's do a rudimentary upconverting of 480P to 720P. 720P has 1.5x the lines of 480P. So, take that 480P image and duplicate every other line. Bam, you've got a 720P signal. Now, there's no more actual picture information in that 720P signal as the 480P signal, but it will scale to the 720P TV better than the 480P signal, assuming the TV's scaler doesn't do a better job. In terms of cable HDTV boxes, as I mentioned earlier, they typically have selectable outputs. In your case, you'd want to use 1080i because your TV will take that 1080i signal and easily convert it to 1080P. To sum up, you could be watching VHS on your 1080P TV and it will still display at 1080P. Anytime you watch something full screen, your TV is displaying about 2 million pixels, because otherwise, it wouldn't be full screen. That's the way that fixed pixel display devices work.

[Seabiscuit]

164. Before reading your whole post:

Just for starters:

I suspected xBoxes and Playstations might have something to do with this gobbledygook. So are those the only things that send out a 720P signal?

I have a regular cable box. It produces 330 lines for broadcast TV and the standard cable channels into *any* TV. No more. Ever. It produces 400 lines on cable movie channels. No more. Ever. Its signal never approaches that of a regular DVD. I don't know what Fox did or is doing, but I'm sure that through a regular cable box (as opposed to an HDTV version) it's not producing any more than 330 or 400 lines of horizontal resolution. I was told that if I wanted to get HDTV signals I'd have to not only pay more, but I'd need a new HDTV cable box.

So I assume you must be talking about digital high-definition (HDTV) cable boxes when you say "most modern cable boxes output in 1080i". Am I correct? And is that what cable HDTV is? 1080i? What about Fox? What stations broadcast in 480P or 720P through an HDTV cable box?

I'll stop there for now and get to the rest of your post later.

[EOTE]

165. Well, game systems aren't really the cause of this.

Modern game systems have those resolutions simply because those are the highest resolutions available. There are plenty of other 720P sources as I mentioned before. Upconverting DVD players, both HD disc players, game systems, cable boxes. It sounds to me that you don't have an HD cable box, that's why you aren't getting anything close to regular DVD quality. Get an HD cable box (for Comcast, they're silver and made by Motorola), and you'll be good to go. Yes, you'll pay a little more and require a new box (that has both component as well as HDMI/DVI outputs). Yes, I'm referring to HD cable boxes when I talk about the 1080i output. If a cable box can output in 1080i, by definition it's a HD cable box. Once again, cable HD can be 1080i or 720P, it decides on what the station decides. Fox for a while was broadcasting in what they called "Digital Widescreen", but I think they're doing 720P now. However, cable boxes won't change outputs on the fly, if you select the output to be 720P, EVERYTHING will output in that resolution, whether it's 720P or not. As a result, 720P sources will look fantastic, but the more picky might notice some issues with 1080i sources. If you have a 720P LCD or plasma, set the cable box to output 720P. If you have a 1080P LCD, set the box to output 1080i. If you have a HD CRT, set the output to 1080i.

Here's a thread that includes various channels and the HD standard they output in:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5856157

[fujiyama]

133. Blu-Ray definitely has the better specs

but I don't view this as an automatic "win", though I think the format war was stupid.

The main problem I see here is the pricing. HD DVDs were cheaper to produce and the players had fallen below $200. I haven't seen Blu-Ray players under $300 yet. And I think the media is more expensive as well. I'm also not big on all the DRM crap Blu-Ray has.

Oh well, I'm glad I didn't buy an HD-DVD player. I had ordered one, because they were pretty cheap, but I canceled it. I am glad a format has more or less been settled on though.

[rndmprsn]

137. i just got back from CES

...many many cool products in the pipeline....samsung interactive TV stole the show IMHO

[jsamuel]

141. the 120hz samsungs in the stores are shockingly good

[high density]

142. 1080i is not 720p

Just like 480i is not 480p and 1080i is not 1080p.

[Seabiscuit]

143. Please read the entire thread. This has been cleared up already.

[Leopolds Ghost]

147. All of which was brought to you by the powers that be who insist competition is what we're all about

These "formats" were not competed on in some kind of fictitious open marketplace. They were engineered and tested upon a passive consumer populace that is totally driven and dominated by media and manufacturer cartels seeking to reduce, through market manipulation, insider trade deals, and industrial espionage and logrolling, the number of formats information is channeled into our brains and the number of people with proprietary access to independent technologies until, as the hippies like Steve Jobs so enthusiastically wanted, everyone has a single machine in their house, produced to a single standard by a single interlocking internet of commercialized interests, that they use for computer, TV, shopping, entertainment and public life.

Well I say... FUCK THAT.

[Seabiscuit]

148. Wow. Just wow.

That's quite a rant you put together there.

Move over, Mr. Olberman!

[LiberalHeart]

152. May I please ask a stupid question?

This thread is written in a language that's foreign to me. Could someone please tell me in grade school level English the following things:

1. HD DVDs can be played on Blu-ray players, but can Blu-ray movies be played on an older DVD player?

2. I recently dumped cable and am watching digital channels via an indoor antenna. The picture comes and goes. I do not want an outdoor antenna. Can anyone suggest an indoor antenna that does a good job of grabbing signals, or is this just the way it goes when one gives up cable? Sometimes the broadcasts are fine; other times I get a "weak or no signal" message; other times I get a mosaic of digital artifacts. I think reception is the lousiest when it's windy outside.

3. My DVD recorder does not recognize the digital channels and won't auto scan them into its innards, so I can't record anything. When the digital converter boxes become available, do they convert just analog TVs, or can they also be used to convert old DVD player/recorders?

4. If the answer to #3 is no, is there a DVD recorder on the market that will let me record over the air digital broadcasts without my having to pay several hundred dollars to do so?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

[Seabiscuit]

156. I'll try...

1. No.

2. Who, me? Not I, said the pig.

3. See #2.

3. See #3.

Not much help but at least it's in "grade school level English".

:)

[EOTE]

157. Sure thing.

1. HD DVDs can NOT be played on Blu-ray players, or vice versa. There are combo players that do both, but they're expensive. With HD-DVD, however, you can purchase combo discs that include layers with both DVD and HD-DVD, so you can purchase it now even if you don't have an HD-DVD player and upgrade later.

2. I don't know too much about indoor antennas, but Terk makes a few good ones.

3. The converter boxes will only be able to decode NTSC/ATSC terrestrial signals, nothing pertaining to disc media.

4. There are two types of DVD recorders that I know of, those with internal tuners that change the channel automatically according to the time, and those that use an IR transmitter to change the channels, a la the Tivo. If you purchase the latter, and you're currently able to change your OTA channels via a remote, you should be in good shape.

[LiberalHeart]

167. Thanks.

My antenna is made by Terk. Maybe they make a better one.

I do use a remote to change channels on my DVD player/recorder, but it doesn't go high enough in channel numbers ... Oh wait, maybe there's a 100+ button on it and I just haven't noticed it...

[EOTE]

169. If your recorder can tune the channel, it should be able to record it as well.

If it's unable to tune the channel, you might look into an external tuner.

[LiberalHeart]

182. It can't turn anything over a 2-digit channel number ....

...and all the digital channels here are three digits.

[davepdx]

170. The type of antenna needed can vary

LiberalHeart:

Other readers, please pardon if I get off topic here a moment.

In regard to #2, the type of antenna you need depends on where you are (flat land versus hilly) and the locations of the local TV station's broadcast towers relative to your home. If the broadcasting towers are all in one area like they are here in Portland, OR, you can possibly use a small directional indoor antenna like the Zenith Silver Sensor. I don't know if they are still available but they are inexpensive, highly rated and work quite well.

If the broadcast towers are placed in different directions around your home they you will need an omni-directional antenna. Even though antennaweb.org is not geared toward indoor antennas, it will help you determine what type of antenna you need. The location tool used there can take into account elevation issues as it can be address specific (your choice). Check out their FAQ's.

Another place that might assist you in finding out what type of antenna you need is here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=45
where you can (hopefully) find the location where you live and then find out what kind of equipment is working well for others in your location.

You may want to check out the indoor antenna options at Antennas Direct. I have no connection there, I am just a customer. Check out their FAQ's as well.

With the older analog TV signals you would get fading when the signal was weak. Multipath caused ghosting. With digital reception it is all or none proposition. If the signal is not strong enough or if multipath is a significant issue you will not get any reception. Trees blowing in the wind (as you mention) close to your home directly between your antenna and the broadcast tower can cause the artifacts and loss of signal. TV signals bouncing off buildings can cause multipath as well. I hope this info is helpful.

[LiberalHeart]

183. Very helpful. Thank you.

[spanone]

178. they have the cool name....they will win...blu-ray

[Seabiscuit]

184. Kick for later use.

[Seabiscuit]

185. Kick for later use.

[Seabiscuit]

186. Kick for later use.

I'll be in Vegas until Monday.