Plasma Screen
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
-
Chupacabra
- Posts: 3783
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:00 am
-
Guest
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
How much *should* I be willing to cough up for a good one. Id say midrange.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:how much are you willing to cough up
$3000?
BTW is this a good resource?
http://www.projectorcentral.com/
Where Do You Find a Dog With No Legs?
>Right Where You Left Him.
>Right Where You Left Him.
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
I've been eyeing this one myself:
Panasonic PT AE700E
Nice, affordable (€ 1600 over here) little LCD-projector.
Advantages:
16:9, very good deinterlacing (almost Faroudja level according to reviews), good picture, very good color adjustment, 720p resolution ('little' HDTV), "Smooth-Screen-Technology" (optical filter that puts a light blur on individual pixels that hides the pixel structure even better than DLP), HDMI interface
Disadvantages:
No DLP (picture isn't as bright)
Panasonic PT AE700E
Nice, affordable (€ 1600 over here) little LCD-projector.
Advantages:
16:9, very good deinterlacing (almost Faroudja level according to reviews), good picture, very good color adjustment, 720p resolution ('little' HDTV), "Smooth-Screen-Technology" (optical filter that puts a light blur on individual pixels that hides the pixel structure even better than DLP), HDMI interface
Disadvantages:
No DLP (picture isn't as bright)
Last edited by SplishSplash on Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
The ANSI lumen rating is also highly subjective.
Don't believe what they say.
resolution is obviously important (try to get one with at least 1280x720 if you wanna watch HD), HDMI interface is a plus/necessary in the future, DLP are generally brighter/better than LCD (but also more expensive)
You might also wanna ask how much the replacement lamps are and how long a lamp will last.
Don't believe what they say.
resolution is obviously important (try to get one with at least 1280x720 if you wanna watch HD), HDMI interface is a plus/necessary in the future, DLP are generally brighter/better than LCD (but also more expensive)
You might also wanna ask how much the replacement lamps are and how long a lamp will last.
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
Hey genius, if you want a DVD TV, then get an EDTV. You'll save money, and guess what? Anything you buy now is trash compared to what will be out in the summer (1080p).+JuggerNaut+ wrote:you're right. no one uses these for proper dvd viewing.rep wrote:OLED, YOU FAGGOTSIt's not like there's anything besides sports in good HD anyways.
Why not buy an EDTV for $800 for your DVDs, and in a few years pick up a snazzy 80 inch OLED for $2000 that'll do 1080p and higher?
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
Hey, chill out juggy.
I'm not being a smart ass, but do you know how HD and ED work? Most consumers don't because they've been tricked by the companies.
First, 90% of what is in the store is HD-Ready, a term coined to confuse consumers into believing that the monitor they're buying will be able to view HD broadcasts out of the box. In fact, you'll need a $300 decoder.
Second, 1080i is not better than 720p. Anyone who tells you they can see the difference is clearly a dipshit. Get 720p or wait for 1080p. Don't trust a 1080i screen capture unless it's resolution is 1920x540. 1080i has around 115k more pixels, but interlacing is bullshit.
Third, EDTV isn't all that scary. It's a 16:9 SDTV; Perfect for watching progressive scan DVDs without the letterbox. Your DVDs cannot possibly look better. DVDs are generally 720x[Aspect Ratio Dependent]. EDTVs are 853x480 and are progressive.
From what I've seen in the world of shitty upconverting, it's a better choice to spend a little cash for the EDTV now than buy an HDTV that you won't be able to watch much on for another decade.
I'm not being a smart ass, but do you know how HD and ED work? Most consumers don't because they've been tricked by the companies.
First, 90% of what is in the store is HD-Ready, a term coined to confuse consumers into believing that the monitor they're buying will be able to view HD broadcasts out of the box. In fact, you'll need a $300 decoder.
Second, 1080i is not better than 720p. Anyone who tells you they can see the difference is clearly a dipshit. Get 720p or wait for 1080p. Don't trust a 1080i screen capture unless it's resolution is 1920x540. 1080i has around 115k more pixels, but interlacing is bullshit.
Third, EDTV isn't all that scary. It's a 16:9 SDTV; Perfect for watching progressive scan DVDs without the letterbox. Your DVDs cannot possibly look better. DVDs are generally 720x[Aspect Ratio Dependent]. EDTVs are 853x480 and are progressive.
From what I've seen in the world of shitty upconverting, it's a better choice to spend a little cash for the EDTV now than buy an HDTV that you won't be able to watch much on for another decade.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
The following is COMPLETE, UTTER nonsense:
I'm pretty sure nobody is surprised.rep wrote: Second, 1080i is not better than 720p. Anyone who tells you they can see the difference is clearly a dipshit. Get 720p or wait for 1080p. Don't trust a 1080i screen capture unless it's resolution is 1920x540. 1080i has around 115k more pixels, but interlacing is bullshit.
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
I'll even tell you why:
A screenshot from an interlaced source only has half the vertical resolution compared to a non-interlaced source.
You know why that is? Because interlaced sources also have twice the framerate. That's the whole point of interlacing!
There is no difference in the amount of visual information between interlaced/progressive.
Back in the day they had to introduce interlacing because 25/30 fps looked like shit on a television. (They didn't have digital framebuffers back then.) So they split the picture in half by transferring only the odd lines in frame one, and the even lines in frame two, thus doubling the framerate.
Again: the amount of picture information is the same.
Conclusion:
1080i is BY FAR better than 720p. If you can't see the difference, you haven't been watching it on a big enough screen. (Quite possible, btw. HDTV is designed for insane screen sizes. Example: The new Star Wars movies are all shot in HDTV. They still look good on a cinema screen!) Or you should see a doctor.
A screenshot from an interlaced source only has half the vertical resolution compared to a non-interlaced source.
You know why that is? Because interlaced sources also have twice the framerate. That's the whole point of interlacing!
There is no difference in the amount of visual information between interlaced/progressive.
Back in the day they had to introduce interlacing because 25/30 fps looked like shit on a television. (They didn't have digital framebuffers back then.) So they split the picture in half by transferring only the odd lines in frame one, and the even lines in frame two, thus doubling the framerate.
Again: the amount of picture information is the same.
Conclusion:
1080i is BY FAR better than 720p. If you can't see the difference, you haven't been watching it on a big enough screen. (Quite possible, btw. HDTV is designed for insane screen sizes. Example: The new Star Wars movies are all shot in HDTV. They still look good on a cinema screen!) Or you should see a doctor.
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am