# High Definition can someone explain?



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

A search turned up fruitless so I'll have to ask.

Can someone explain to me high definition.

Let me start off with an example to explain what I'm trying to ask.

I went to the apple website, I hit up the trailer pages, found something I wanted to watch. I'm given three choices. 480p, 720p, 1080p. 

From what I understand these are all HD formats. I get "p" probably stands for pixels. What I don't get is that each one looks crystal clear when played on full screen... So what is the difference if I get the 480p or the 1080p? Ok I get one will be use a larger window by default, but I could just scale them to the same size... like full screen mode. I feel like there is something I am missing. 

(using my MBP).

(and for the record I was looking at http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/ratatouille/hd/)

(edit: btw is it just me or do PC's seem to display everything a lot uglier than Macs? Watching vids on a PC doesn't ever seem as high quality as it does on a Mac...)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just look at the size of the file and you'll see the difference.

720p 1080i and 1080p are the common HiDef standards.
Bottom line it's how much information is contained in the file/image.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

That's not a very a good explanation.

Here's what all this means.

480p and 480i = 640 x 480 resolution
720p = 1280 x 720 resolution
1080p and 1080i = 1920 x 1080 resolution

The difference between the "i" and "p", the "i" stands for interlaced as where the "p" stands for progressive scan. You monitor/TV are made of many many lines to produce an image. The more lines you see at the same time, the better it looks. Progressive scan shows all lines on the screen at the same time every second, where as interlaced shows every second line every other second.


----------



## WorldIRC (Mar 7, 2004)

VNJ, you were viewing the movies on a non HD monitor anyways so visually, the only difference between each would be the resolution. If you put them onto an HD compatible monitor, which was 1080P, you would definately notice a difference. Also, 15" is too small to really notice pixel degredation on such large files. Blow em up to 30"+ and you'd see what I mean.

Higher rez = more pixels. More pixels = you can blow it up more without noticing as much degredation. Add progressive to it from interlacing, and its even better.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

... if you're watching a 1080p video in full-screen mode on your MBP, then the image is being resized from 1920 pixels wide down to the 1440 pixels on your MBP screen - which is pretty close to the 1280 pixels of 720p. Both 1080p and 720p videos are interpolated to fit your screen so neither will be as pristine as if they were displayed pixel for pixel at their original resolution.

Besides that, apparent differences in image quality between these different formats are dependent on source resolution, quality, and nature (panorama, action, graphics, animation, text, etc) as well as the quality (brightness, contrast, speed, colour accuracy), size, resolution, and viewing distance of the screen displaying the image - and discrimination of the viewer. Sometimes the differences are obvious, sometimes not. Still images and text are effective at revealing differences - especially small text (as in credit rolls): it will look less sharp or even become unreadable at lower resolutions. 

One way of determing for yourself the qualitative differences between HD (and SD) video formats is to go to a video store where they have adjacent screens of the same size from the same manufacturer but with different HD specs displaying the same 1080p source video.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

For a simple guide to new TV technologies, have a look here.

For an depth series of clips on how to actually make an HD TV programme to be streamed online, check MacBreak on iTunes (not sure the podcast is still available, I deleted mine, it was a three part called 'the road to 1080p')


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

and in short if i will be viewing video files and have a choice between 480p, 720p, 1080p. I should stick with the 720 since it is most like the size of my moniter? (MBP)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes VNJ- 720p is the general format for most HD and best for your screen.

••••

phuviano your explanation contains terms that simply adds to his confusion.
Bringing in interlacing etc is immaterial to his request.
You raise more questions than you answer.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Industry confusion seems deliberate*



phuviano said:


> 480p and 480i = 640 x 480 resolution
> 720p = 1280 x 720 resolution
> 1080p and 1080i = 1920 x 1080 resolution
> 
> The difference between the "i" and "p", the "i" stands for interlaced as where the "p" stands for progressive scan. You monitor/TV are made of many many lines to produce an image. The more lines you see at the same time, the better it looks. Progressive scan shows all lines on the screen at the same time every second, where as interlaced shows every second line every other second.


Thanks for bringing up interlaced and progressive.

If this is the case, the different resolutions shouldn't all be called HD. It's blatantly misleading. Also, the large 30"-40" LCD and Plasma sets that I see at walmart always have a slightly weirder resolution of 1280 x 726 or something similar.

Are all LCD's progressive scan? I would have thought so, but specs for Walmart stuff says otherswise. I only mentional Walmart, because that's all our town has for this sort of stuff.

I think at this point industry and standards confusion is a deliberate attempt to scam consumers.


----------



## Another_Paul (Sep 20, 2005)

So are the Intel iMacs or even the G5 iMacs considered HD Displays?


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Also, the large 30"-40" LCD and Plasma sets that I see at walmart always have a slightly weirder resolution of 1280 x 726 or something similar.


They're 720p capable. Since 720p is an HD resolution, they're HD displays.



> Are all LCD's progressive scan? I would have thought so, but specs for Walmart stuff says otherswise. I only mentional Walmart, because that's all our town has for this sort of stuff.


Since each pixel is individually addressable in a digital display like an LCD, plasma, or DLP, there isn't really a concept of 'scan lines'. If you carry forward the analogy, then yes, all LCD (and digital displays) are progressive scan.

The confusion arises where the advertising literature says "1080i" capable, which essentially means the display will accept a 1080i signal and display it. 



> I think at this point industry and standards confusion is a deliberate attempt to scam consumers.


It's definitely confusing, but not a scam. If you want the best, you buy a 1080p capable display, otherwise 720p is still significantly better than NTSC and still HD.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The caveat being there are no 1080p sources yet tho BlueRay cometh.

For computers if it will map 1:1 1920x1080 it's the best you can achieve with current sources.
Because LCDs are relatively slow devices there is an automatic "smoothing" that occurs which is why your's looks good at even the lower resolutions.

1080i has some advantages for action sequences under certain conditions and with some sets and sources.
The thing to be careful with is anything that will not do 720p native. That area gets a bit scammy.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

720p, 1080i and 1080p are all technically HD, but some manufacturers are calling their 1080p displays 'Full HD'. Be wary of cheapo brand screens/TV that only support the so called EDTV, which is 480p and basically useless. A good monitor/TV should have at least 720p native, and anything better is bonus.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Yes VNJ- 720p is the general format for most HD and best for your screen..


David we have had this discussion before 1080i is much more of a broadcast standard than 720p.

http://www.remotecentral.com/hdtv/index.html


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

I guess the next question is..... Any recommendations on TV's that support all of these standards?


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

It depends on your budget and the display technology (ie. plasma, LCD, or DLP). Go to the stores and check out what they have. Also have a look at a good HT forum (like AVS Forum) for extensive reviews/user reports.


----------



## Fredou51 (Oct 29, 2006)

I downloaded the Harry Potter teaser trailer in 1080p and it looks so awesome on my 23" HD Display. When I bought my display, I wasn't sure if I was gonna get the 20" or the 23" and someone pointed out that the 23" was HD but I didn't understand the difference at that time. I am glad that I bought the 23" now because I can watch 1080 at full resolution.
Frederic


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

1080i is a NA HD broadcast standard. All signals from true HD programming comes in 1080i (EG Rogers HD). 1080p is not a significant display improvment right now and truely does not improve picture resolution but rather improves video signal processing and imaging component performance. The premium you pay for 1080p sets is definately not justified.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

As I mentioned above, progressive does not exist with digital displays. The resolution is the only important number.

If you're saying that full 1980x1080 resolution is not worth the premium over 1280x720 displays, I *strongly* disagree.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Another_Paul said:


> So are the Intel iMacs or even the G5 iMacs considered HD Displays?


No - at least not by Apple's definitions - even though they're more than 720p, technically.

The 23" display is pretty much "Full HD" (It supports 1200 lines horizontally, just a bit over 1080p) and 30" display is almost double that - so they both count as "Full HD" or whatever the heck people are calling 1080i/p these days.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Also, Apple displays are 16:10 aspect ratio and HDTVs are 16:9.


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

mikef said:


> As I mentioned above, progressive does not exist with digital displays. The resolution is the only important number.


Huh? Computer displays *are* progressive scan devices!


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

mikef said:


> If you're saying that full 1980x1080 resolution is not worth the premium over 1280x720 displays, I *strongly* disagree.


I'm comparing 1080i and 1080p and the premium you pay for 1080p over 1080i.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If you're saying that full 1980x1080 resolution is not worth the premium over 1280x720 displays, I strongly disagree.


Why?? There is no source material.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

This here eMac screen I'm staring at is 1280 x 960. Is it HD as well?


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Why?? There is no source material.


All Blu-Ray and HD DVD discs store video in 1080p, so if your playback device and display support the resolution, you'll see it.

Also, the PlayStation 3 is capable of playing games at 1080p (though few will ever do this) while the Xbox 360 can optionally upscale games to 1080p regardless of their actual internal resolution.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When a decent body of work is out and the next generation of screens like SED arrive THEN a 1080p set might be worth the extra money.
Right now pffft marginal if any value.

Put the savings towards a better Mac.

All the broadcasting is a 720 and will continue to be - and the quality of the HD movies are yet to be determined in terms of scan quality and translation from theoretically better to visibly ( over 720 not over standard DVD ) better.


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

VNJ85 said:


> A search turned up fruitless so I'll have to ask.
> 
> Can someone explain to me high definition.
> 
> ...


(using my MBP).
You would onley notice the difrence on a large display sutch as the 30" Apple Cinma Display, or a big HD TV. 



VNJ85 said:


> (edit: btw is it just me or do PC's seem to display everything a lot uglier than Macs? Watching vids on a PC doesn't ever seem as high quality as it does on a Mac...)


You hit the nail right on the head. PC are not ment for displaying stuff nicley, they were built for dull tasks like school work or finances (Athough they are not as good as the Mac at that eather:lmao: ), bacicy Macs are ment for both work and play and PCs are ment for getting mad at or paying repare bills, or donating them to youre local Boy Scout Troops yearley tag sale. , we got about 25-30 last year mostley P2 and P3s and ever 4 P4s, Macs on the outher hand will last you years by the time we get them DVDs will be a thing of the past.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> When a decent body of work is out and the next generation of screens like SED arrive THEN a 1080p set might be worth the extra money.
> Right now pffft marginal if any value.


Everything is moving towards 1080p for a number of different reasons. Sony has put the strength of the corporation behind the Playstation 3 and Blu-Ray Technology. As an aside the Playstation 3 costs less than a stand alone Blu-Ray DVD player, although it contains way more technology than the player. You'll see the price of Blu-ray drop like a stone over the next year, the existence of Sony depends on it. All of the major LCD manufacturers are including 1080p resolution in their sets and the price difference is minimal. If you can afford it go for it... who wants to buy a new tv every couple of years. Used tv's are worth nothing.



MacDoc said:


> Put the savings towards a better Mac.


Strange that you should say that! Oh yes, now I remember... you sell Macs!:lmao: Anyone who has used a Mac lately knows that a "better" Mac comes out every six months!

Listen... if you're in the market for a tv buy a name-brand model that's capable of displaying 720p/1080i in it's native resolution and if you can get a 1080p for a few buck more go for it. Yes there are other new technologies "just around the corner" but like everything new they'll be expensive and prone to problems when they hit the store shelves. Do you really want to own the very first SED tv when it arrives? (Whenever that will be.)

I'd make sure that you get a set that has the high-def tuner built-in. I get half a dozen high def stations with a set of rabbit-ears! And by the way the mac-mini can output 1080p and looks great on a 37" monitor.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But it's not a "few dollars more" for a quality 1080p.
There is still a $1000 or more gap and in my mind not worth it at this time in the market.
I'd say a 720p quality set with top notch SD filters and electronics is a better choice than a bare 1080- from a no name.

I'm not in least advocating not buying now - there's good content but I am saying keep the cost down in the $1500-2000 range for a good 40-50" set rather than $3k+ for a 1080p set.

I tend to buy behind the market for value rather than above the market.
Unless you are a movie addict and have a ton to spend on bleeding edge I can't see the justification.

You can always get your 1080p fix on your desktop 30"


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

MACinist said:


> I'm comparing 1080i and 1080p and the premium you pay for 1080p over 1080i.


I don't understand what you're saying. You cannot buy a 1080i LCD display and a 1080p LCD display. Same goes for DLP rear projection, LCD rear projection, plasma, and whatever other digital display technology appears.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

dwp said:


> Listen... if you're in the market for a tv buy a name-brand model that's capable of displaying 720p/1080i in it's native resolution and if you can get a 1080p for a few buck more go for it.


Not including CRT-based front projectors, please tell me what current brand/model of display on the market can display 1080i but not 1080p? I am not talking about downscaling 1080i to 720p, I am talking about natively displaying 1080i.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

cdnbacon said:


> Huh? Computer displays *are* progressive scan devices!


The concept of "scan lines" does not exist on LCD displays.

CRT computer monitors are progressive scan (although not all).


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> But it's not a "few dollars more" for a quality 1080p.
> There is still a $1000 or more gap and in my mind not worth it at this time in the market.
> I'd say a 720p quality set with top notch SD filters and electronics is a better choice than a bare 1080- from a no name.


The gap is narrowing between 1080i/1080p. You'll find the difference less than a $1000 at many independent stores. You can get the new Sharp 42D62 for less than $2500. The 37D90 is an amazing tv for the money and you can pick that up for less than 2k. But wait if you can... the best time to buy a tv is in the summer in my experience.



MacDoc said:


> I'm not in least advocating not buying now - there's good content but I am saying keep the cost down in the $1500-2000 range for a good 40-50" set rather than $3k+ for a 1080p set.


In that price/size range I think you're talking about projection technology (LCD/DLP) which is cheaper than flat panel. As far as the content goes... well to each his own. The majority of people cannot tell the difference between 480p and 720p, same content, same viewing distance on a 42" Name-Brand plasma tv. Nobody I've met has been able to see the difference between 720 and 1080p, again same content, same viewing distance on the same manufacturers 40" LCD tvs. In both cases I've had to explain the differences and only then were they able to see the differences, but only in the case of a 480 and 720p display! 
Many people, myself included, have trouble distinguishing between 720 and 1080p.:yikes:




MacDoc said:


> I tend to buy behind the market for value rather than above the market.
> Unless you are a movie addict and have a ton to spend on bleeding edge I can't see the justification.
> 
> You can always get your 1080p fix on your desktop 30"


As do I... I learned my lesson with the laser disc although I never did venture in the hideous world of 8-Track stereo! 

The Sharp 32D50 is good value for the money as well and would work nicely as a computer monitor with it's DVI input!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think you just made my point perfectly :clap:


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I must say I'm *stunned* by the $amount$ some folks are willing to pay for a television! Yes, there is a definitive difference between top and bottom line models and formats, but is the added expense justifiable? Not in my world. At least, not yet. All these newer technologies are still virgins, in my opinion. And jumping on them is premature. I'll wait 'til I can buy a "wow" TV for less than $1K.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

Mississauga said:


> I must say I'm *stunned* by the $amount$ some folks are willing to pay for a television! Yes, there is a definitive difference between top and bottom line models and formats, but is the added expense justifiable? Not in my world. At least, not yet. All these newer technologies are still virgins, in my opinion. And jumping on them is premature. I'll wait 'til I can buy a "wow" TV for less than $1K.


I must say I'm stunned by the $amount$ some folks willing to pay for a computer, or a vehicle, house, clothes, shoes, portable music players, food... you get my drift.

Welcome to North America and the incredible orgy of consumer spending!

When I stop long enough to look around, I'm embarrassed, but this is a topic for another thread... sorry I mentioned it.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Are you guys referring to 1280x720 (or thereabouts) LCD displays as "1080i" displays? If so, why?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

mikef said:


> The concept of "scan lines" does not exist on LCD displays.
> 
> CRT computer monitors are progressive scan (although not all).


I think you're confused with progressive scan and interlaced scan. Interlace scanning was invented to improve quality of video transmission without increasing bandwidth. It displays every second horizontal line at one time, then the next picture would play the lines that were skipped, therefore theoretically 2x the picture, but same bandwidth. The downside to interlaced scanning is it has the flickering problem.

LCD displays uses progressive scanning natively, because it displays every single horizontal line of the picture at any given moment. The picture doesn't flicker and it's much easier on the eyes. I believe LCD televisions automatically convert all interlaced scanned materials into progressive, though I am not exactly sure about this, but it would only make sense that way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It doesn't "flicker" cuz it's slow.
Yucky technology but it will do on the desktop for now.
Interlaced scanning is grainer but faster - there is less data to deal with.

Progressive looks far better and takes more resources so it can pixelate under some conditions.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I just wanted to reiterate that I think this is a great thread.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It doesn't "flicker" cuz it's slow.


I didn't say it flickers because it's slow, and you're right, that's not the reason it flickers. Speaking of slow, another problem with interlaced scanning is that when play back at slow speed or paused, the picture would appear "combed" like looking through a window with blinds.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It doesn't flicker because LCDs are sloooooowww.
Scan lines are a different issue and yes can be visible.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

I agree Paul, I've found this thread very informative. I love how many members are very helpful.

If we had a rating system to rate users for things they've said within threads (like on the Apple forums) I'd have rated some people nicely.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> It doesn't flicker because LCDs are sloooooowww.
> Scan lines are a different issue and yes can be visible.


The response time of many quality LCD's rival the very best plasma technology. I'm talking only about flat panel technology, not projection.
If "less than 6ms" is visable to you then you are blessed with incredible eyesight. 
Me, I can't see the smugging of less the 6ms, but then again I'm not looking for it. The action usually moves so quickly the the brain cannot register the smugging that the eye sees.

Most people cannot see the difference between a 720 and 1080p signal and the same goes for response times. Yes, there is a big difference between 12ms and 6, as you would expect between 480 and 1080p but 6 and 4ms... nope. 

If you're in the market for a tv try to buy a 720p/1080i set and if you can afford the premium for a 1080p model go for it. (It's usually not that much between $200 and $500 on a Sony LCD.) 
Everything is going to 1080p with the exception of regular HDTV broadcasts which will stay where they are for now. Like it or not Blu-Ray is here and it looks like it might be sticking around for a while. Blu-Ray is an eyepopper... crisp, clean and clear, quite amazing on both LCD and Plasma even if they're not true 1080p.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

mikef said:


> I don't understand what you're saying. You cannot buy a 1080i LCD display and a 1080p LCD display. Same goes for DLP rear projection, LCD rear projection, plasma, and whatever other digital display technology appears.


You're confusing interlaced and progressive. 

A 1080p tv can display 1080i. A 1080i set cannot display 1080p in a progressive resolution because the screen is not 1920x1080. It will down convert it to 1366x768.

Same goes for everything.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not a fan of either plasma or LCD ( can you guess ).
CRT, DLP and soon SED I think offer better value, better blacks and better response and likely a far longer life span.

LCD we're stuck with on the desktop until SED comes to that size in a couple of years.

It's one reason I caution spending on top of the line now when high end content is so sparse.
2008 and with the Olympics will see some real jaw dropping technology and prices.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> But it's not a "few dollars more" for a quality 1080p.
> There is still a $1000 or more gap and in my mind not worth it at this time in the market.
> I'd say a 720p quality set with top notch SD filters and electronics is a better choice than a bare 1080- from a no name.


I am planning to get a new LCD HDTV in the next few weeks. I have done some research but find very little on SD filters.

Most people watch SD most of the time, so the debate over 720p vs 1080p vs 1080i is overplayed. I would rather buy the TV with the best SD filter since we are many years away from having all channels in HD.

Does anybody know what LCDs have good SD filters?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

What I'm trying to understand is how do you get an interlaced signal on a panel that just redraws the pixels as required? Aren't the terms "progressive" and "interlaced" obsolete from the display's point of view? Or are these terms still used because CRT's are still in use?

Is any flat panel monitor with at least 720 horizontal lines (and 16:9 ratio) considered to be a HD monitor? Is the display on my new iMac 20" considered to be a HD monitor?


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

mikef said:


> I don't understand what you're saying. You cannot buy a 1080i LCD display and a 1080p LCD display. Same goes for DLP rear projection, LCD rear projection, plasma, and whatever other digital display technology appears.


You cannot buy LCDTV's with 1080i or 1080p? 

dwp maybe put it more clearly.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

MACinist said:


> You cannot buy LCDTV's with 1080i or 1080p?


There are LCD displays that can display 1920x1080 pixels. Whether the source signal is interlaced or progressive is not an issue.



> dwp maybe put it more clearly.


I am not confused about this. I understand the difference between progressive and interlaced. I guess I'm just not making myself clear, as usual.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

dwp said:


> A 1080p tv can display 1080i. A 1080i set cannot display 1080p in a progressive resolution because the screen is not 1920x1080. It will down convert it to 1366x768..


This is what I don't underdstand. How is 1366x768 pixels a standard for anything? Shouldn't it be either 720 pixels high or 1080 pixels high?


----------



## Kevlar (Sep 22, 2004)

Any thoughts on the Insignia line of LCD's that Future Shop sells?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Insignia - I'd stay with a major like Pannie, Samsung or Toshiba and look for discontinued.

••

1366 is an intermediate between 720 ( 1280x) and 1080p ( 1920x) and will not map 1:1.

Most situations have interpolation in play.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

Kevlar said:


> Any thoughts on the Insignia line of LCD's that Future Shop sells?


Stay away!!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> 1366 is an intermediate between 720 ( 1280x) and 1080p ( 1920x) and will not map 1:1.
> 
> Most situations have interpolation in play.


So any of the systems with this sort of native resolution would not really be a HD native LCD or plasma, is that correct?


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Insignia - I'd stay with a major like Pannie, Samsung or Toshiba and look for discontinued.


For LCD Panels...

Panasonic and Toshiba do not manufacture their own panels at this time although they are building a plant with Hitachi to do so in the not too distant future.

Samsung and Sony use the same panels but with different electronics. Samsung are reasonable, Sony a bit more expensive... I give Sony the edge.

Sharp manufacture their own panels in Japan and the quality/price are reasonable. The 37D90 is a winner and soon to be discontinued so you may be able to get the store demo for a steal, the 32D50 is pretty good. 
Avoid the D40/41 series (although the 32D41 may be an exception) and stay away from the SH series which is non-aquos and built primarily for the big box stores.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Paul - unless you are PRODUCING HD - don't get bogged down.

HD looks fantastic.
Getting the right size for the viewing area and deciding on which technology to buy into ( somewhat dependent on ambient light levels ) I feel are far more important than minor screen variations.

If you are producing HD - then it's a different set of needs.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

The only reason I would be interested in buying an HD LCD television, is to run computer stuff on it at a high enough resolution that you can read clear text well from a typical living room viewing distance of about 8' -10' away. I wanna do all my non-work computer stuff from the couch. I wanna surf the web while hanging ten on the coffee table.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's a different set of issues.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Tell me about it. When Leopard comes out, it's supposed to have a resolution independent GUI. This should help TV viewing tremendously.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If I get around to it I'm going to snag a long DVi cable and see how it works on the DLP off the MacPro.

BTW I have my email pop up on the 30" in 64 point so I can read it from across the room while I'm vegging watching a movie etc.
Convergence cometh.


----------

