Tech Geeks-

[Stro]

Just a quick question for all the tec geeks out there (Im one myself but!) ... There is one thing I cant get the difference in .... Im getting a new HDTV (Plasma 42\") in a couple days ... its going to be a 1080 ... but now here is the question I have ... How much of a visual difference is there between Interlaced and Progressive scan .. The 2 TVs I have narrowed myself down are the same except for the premetioned item (and of course the price) ... I havent had a chance to watch the same program on both sets to see the difference ... so I need your input please ... and if you need the rest of the specs :

both have :
ATSC/NTSC/QAM Tuner
16:9 Aspect ratio
PictureMaster processor
Anti-reflective screen
MTS Stereo audio
3 HDMI conections (plus the regular aray)
15,000:1 Contrast ratio
Anti-burn-in technology

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by Stro
How much of a visual difference is there between Interlaced and Progressive scan ..

Er, umm, that depends on a few things. The first is what you\'re watching - some programming/movies won\'t show up the difference nearly as much as others.

All other things being equal it can come down to how good the TVs are (software as well as hardware) whether P is significantly better. Worth remembering that some people can\'t hear the difference between a consumer hi-fi and a prosumer model, same basic thing applies here to some extent.

Einion

 

[Sand Rat]

If it were me I\'d go progressive - less tendency to ghost or artifact on the screen -

I\'d also look at the hertz of the refresh rate as well -

Oh and check the manufacturers warranty usually available on line - especially if your retailer tells you you\'re gonna void the warranty with the manufacturer if you don\'t buy the $900 UPS or other shyte like that.

 

[Fizl]

P will give you the \'true\' HD, rather than HD ready. Some people say they can only see a difference at 50\" and above, but I think its generally recognised that 42\" and above you will get something out of it.

One thing to note - Its important to think about your viewing distance. If you are sitting 20\' away from your TV - its not going to make a bit of difference to be honest. There is a site that tells you the optimal seating distance for the screen size, but I can\'t remember the URL.

I\'m sure you could google it !

Shaz

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by Stro

(Im one myself but!)

God, another Welshman!

Actually very likely not, but the use of \'but\' could almost be Valley-speak...

 

[Fizl]

A cable comment....

For some cables expensive is worth it, but don\'t get fooled into expensive HDMI cables unless you are trying to go longer than 5 metres or so with the cable. It really wont make a difference on a HDMI cable. If you get sparklies either the cable is phyiscally dodgy or the input is. Its not a sign that it is \'cheap\' requiring a £90 monster cable or anything like that

Shaz

 

[Sukigod]

The basics between progressive (p) and interlaced (i).

Interlaced is the screen draws every other line every other time the sceren is refreshed. In a standard tv this is 60 times a second.

Progressive, or progressive scan, draws every line every time the screen refreshes - this is what a typical computer monitor does.

If there isn\'t a price difference (or it\'s not a factor here) always try to go with a progressive scan, or 1080p.

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by Fizl
For some cables expensive is worth it, but don\'t get fooled into expensive HDMI cables unless you are trying to go longer than 5 metres or so with the cable. It really wont make a difference on a HDMI cable. If you get sparklies either the cable is phyiscally dodgy or the input is. Its not a sign that it is \'cheap\' requiring a £90 monster cable or anything like that

I\'m always impressed by your techie know-how, Sharon. Not quite what one expects from a nurse.

Originally posted by SukigodInterlaced is the screen draws every other line every other time the sceren is refreshed. In a standard tv this is 60 times a second.

Exactly, interlacing was used when electronics weren\'t fast enough to handle the vertical refresh rates required for high resolutions. But these days, it simply shouldn\'t be a question of interlaced vs. progressive. Ostensibly, the interlacing is too fast for the human eye to detect. But when computer monitors used to use interlacing, the effect was noticeable in headaches and eye strain. Whether that\'s true for interlaced TV monitors now, I don\'t know, but I\'d rather get something that my eyes would be happy with.

 

[Equus]

Agreed as above. Lots of it will depend on your source and how picky you are. If possible, I\'d try to see what the two TV\'s look like (or at least read opinions about them) with different sources...like HD, or non-HD (if you\'ll have components that aren\'t HD).

Totally agree with Fizl on the cables. I don\'t mean to say go cheap-cheap-cheap or anything, but most of your cables are only going to be running 2 to 4 feet or so, which means that noise, signal loss, and all that yucky stuff shouldn\'t really come into effect as much.

Other features that I see talked about that may or may not matter to you is whether the set is able to render well off of a PC, and (maybe most importantly) how well and truly it renders olors.

 

[Fizl]

Originally posted by Modderrhu

Originally posted by Fizl
For some cables expensive is worth it, but don\'t get fooled into expensive HDMI cables unless you are trying to go longer than 5 metres or so with the cable. It really wont make a difference on a HDMI cable. If you get sparklies either the cable is phyiscally dodgy or the input is. Its not a sign that it is \'cheap\' requiring a £90 monster cable or anything like that

I\'m always impressed by your techie know-how, Sharon. Not quite what one expects from a nurse.

I\'m a gadget fiend. :twisted:

And these days a product manager of a software company lol

But back to gadgets.....get the big TV with the progressive scan. You know you want to..

Shaz