Has anyone resisted HDTV?

[Sideshow Spock]

Regular (non HD) channels often look lousy on a HDTV. Some channels have bars on either side, some don't. The aspect ratio also seems to change channel to channel. I often have to adjust it manually.

I still have a mid-90s RCA console 27" TV, and I find myself appreciating it more and more. The picture is sharp and consistent on all the channels.

I still love the HDTV for watching movies, but I'd give the TV experience a big meh. :muh:

[Mikey]

I don't have it because I can't afford it.

I just have regular cable and an old TV that weighs about 300 pounds (because of the picture tube)

[garagesale]

Got a 42 inch Sony analog: state-of-the-art... 15 years ago.

JamesD

[VintageMike]

Have a 29 inch 10 year old TV with no room for a flatscreen in sight right now.

[Doc]

I don't have it because I can't afford it.

I just have regular cable and an old TV that weighs about 300 pounds (because of the picture tube)

Same boat as Mike and could care less about it. TV is TV. Grew up with small black and white screen and 4 channels. This all seems like a waste of money. Just a new toy to brag about that will be obsolete in a year or two when something else comes along.

Coming from someone who learned his lesson replacing his records for 8 track for cassets for cds and Videos for DVDs...

[enyawd72]

Same boat as Mike and could care less about it. TV is TV. Grew up with small black and white screen and 4 channels. This all seems like a waste of money. Just a new toy to brag about that will be obsolete in a year or two when something else comes along.

Coming from someone who learned his lesson replacing his records for 8 track for cassets for cds and Videos for DVDs...

Well, I don't know about all that...I bought a 52" Phillips and a Blu-ray player, and all I gotta say is, I almost prefer watching the original Star Trek TV series on Blu-ray to sex. Almost. :smiley1:

[Zemo]

Well, I don't know about all that...I bought a 52" Phillips and a Blu-ray player, and all I gotta say is, I almost prefer watching the original Star Trek TV series on Blu-ray to sex. Almost. :smiley1:

I agree, HD is pretty much all I watch. :smile:

[Blue Meanie]

Obviously, some have never seen a Sports event in HD. If you aren't a Sports person...then yeah, don't even bother with getting an HDTV. I watch Baseball and Football...so for me, I had to get one. Live events are basically the best part of HD in my opinion.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I have a 42" TV and no HD. My picture is fine for what I watch on TV. I am a non-sports guy.

I think it has a lot to do with your TV model. I have a Sony, and my mother-in-law has some off-brand. It looks like crud, and we both have the same Direct TV package.

Chris

[megoapesnut]

Right now I am watching Gladiator blu-ray on a Pioneer 60" Elite Plasma and it's stunning. Picture quality is far better then the movie theater. I'd find it hard to watch a football game on anything else. HD all the way.

[mego73]

As a watching movies at home fan, I guess you can say I've been waiting for HD all my life.

But I love the retro CRT look too.

If you have the settings right, you shouldn't have to manually switch aspect ratios from HS to SD. On my cable box, side bars are generated for SD channels and the (most) SD channels look okay.

[johnmiic]

I have no interest in it. In 15-20 years I may buy it or they may have a new format by then. I own DVD's and that's it. I'm not buying a Blu-ray player.

[Rallygirl]

I have a photosensitive seizure disorder and CANNOT watch HD television without serious consequences. I currently have five big old CRT sets stashed in my basement so I can keep replacing my TVs when they die. My neurologist says that as many as 1 in 100 people cannot watch high def.

On a related note, I also cannot spend any length of time watching LED Christmas lights for the same reason. As cars evolve, new headlight technology may keep me from ever driving again.

IT SUCKS!

[HardyGirl]

I hate the flatscreen things. The have no personality, and when you watch older shows and they whip pan, it gets all wavery. It makes me dizzy. Both of my TVs are "normal" box TVs, and one day, I hope to get a restored console set!

[mego73]

I have a photosensitive seizure disorder and CANNOT watch HD television without serious consequences. I currently have five big old CRT sets stashed in my basement so I can keep replacing my TVs when they die. My neurologist says that as many as 1 in 100 people cannot watch high def.

On a related note, I also cannot spend any length of time watching LED Christmas lights for the same reason. As cars evolve, new headlight technology may keep me from ever driving again.

IT SUCKS!

Man, that stinks. You might like to know though that I've still seen old tube style TV's as recently as a few months ago at Walmart (they were outfitted with digital tuners). I believe small quantities of tube TV's will continue to be made.

[cjefferys]

If you aren't a Sports person...then yeah, don't even bother with getting an HDTV.

I'm not a sports person at all, but I still love HDTV. Movies can look fantastic in hi def, as a film nut, that's what I mostly watch on mine.

It's true that standard def TV signals can look like crap on an HDTV, but over the air network TV signals in HD look fantastic on my television (any regular TV antenna can receive HD OTA signals).

[kennermike]

HDTV vs picture Tube TV is like comparing Blu Ray to a VHS no contest! come on peeps!:smiley1:

[UnderdogDJLSW]

I have a photosensitive seizure disorder and CANNOT watch HD television without serious consequences.

Sorry to see this. I will be sad when incandescent bulbs go away all together. There is a visual warmth that you just cannot get any other way.

We've a small flat screen in our kitchen because our 13" set there died a couple of years ago, but I don't plan on buying any new sets until the tube ones we have go out. To me, I personally would feel wasteful to buying a new TV when the old ones work.

[Mikey]

I'm not sure if it's from the flatscreen or the HD or both but whenever I see stuff on HD TV (at Walmart) the panning sometimes looks funny.

It's like slightly wavy or fisheye ... hard to explain.

Almost enough to sometimes make me feel queezy if it lasts a while.

[Duncan]

I'm not sure if it's from the flatscreen or the HD or both but whenever I see stuff on HD TV (at Walmart) the panning sometimes looks funny.

It's like slightly wavy or fisheye ... hard to explain.

Almost enough to sometimes make me feel queezy if it lasts a while.

There are different settings on wide TVs that can be used to stretch regular pictures to fit wide screens. Several of those settings keep the center of the picture intact (so everybody doesn't look fat), but then they stretch the picture as you get closer to the edges. That's where you get the wavy/seasick effect; it's much easier to see when the shot moves to the side. I don't use those settings. Period. If I can't find a setting that expands the picture without distorting it, I'll just watch with bars on the sides.

If you're going to have a hi-def TV, you need to have a hi-def signal going into it. Otherwise, you're better off with a standard TV. My standard TVs look fine with regular signals going into them, but my hi-def TV puts them to shame on sports & movies with a hi-def signal.

[Duncan]

I have a photosensitive seizure disorder and CANNOT watch HD television without serious consequences. I currently have five big old CRT sets stashed in my basement so I can keep replacing my TVs when they die. My neurologist says that as many as 1 in 100 people cannot watch high def.

On a related note, I also cannot spend any length of time watching LED Christmas lights for the same reason. As cars evolve, new headlight technology may keep me from ever driving again.

IT SUCKS!

Hi. Just curious - would projection TVs also be a problem for you?

[Hector]

Oh enough with all this old TV nostalgia stuff...the fact of the matter is that the old television SUCKS arse...lol.

I watch nothing but HD...it's awesome...sports, movies...everything on HD and on a giant flatscreen rules...oh yes...and with surround sound, baby... :yes:

I'd rather stare at a wall than watch that horrid boxy analog crap of yesteryear...

:smiley1:

[Corellian Corvette]

Good golly. If you're judging HDTV quality by looking at the multi-feed crap down at your local Wal-Mart then you have no idea what you're missing.

There is no comparison here folks. And I'm a guy who LOVES nostalgia. I mean, I can understand and appreciate the "records vs. CD's" debate with audiophiles, but there is absolutely no advantage to a CRT vs. an HD screen of nearly any modern build. Analog TV was broadcast in 640x480 interlaced format, (meaning that the screen is drawing every other line). HD is a progressive format (meaning HD screens draw the entire screen at once) – and the lowest HD resolution is 1280x720. Analog broadcast TV is like watching scaled up crappy You-Tube video. Except most You-Tube videos are in HD now, too.

Remember – up until the FCC mandated all-digital broadcasting switch last year, the NTSC standard, the technical foundation of which CRT technology was established, was set back in 1941. Basically, the technology of CRT TV’s is a relic of the 1940’s!

As for HD - in the first place - The problem with Analog SD (interlaced) being put on HD (progressive) screens was called “combing”. Today, very little programming is even done in SD anymore so the issue with watching "SD on HD" is basically gone. Even older non-HD movies are now broadcast digitally and look great. I agree about 4 years ago this was an issue but it's basically gone now. And by basically I mean totally. Unless you like watching old VHS tapes…

In the second place - any decent up-converting DVD player (or respectable video game console) can now convert a DVD to HD and look fantastic. An Xbox or PS3 can natively scale a DVD to 1080p, and if it's a well-mastered DVD (e.g. anything modern) it's going to look quite nice, especially if the DVD mastered from a HD source. At sub-42 inches, actually a very nicely mastered DVD can look nearly as good as a Blu-Ray. At 50" + is where you can really tell the difference. There is no reason to “swap” your DVD collection to Blu-Ray, since DVD’s play fine in Blu-Ray players – and Blu-Ray players also upconvert DVD’s. Bottom line – if you’re watching an DVD on a CRT you’re going to be in for a big upgrade when you move to an HD screen.

In the third place – HD is easier on your eyes (again, exception for DLP). See above about Interlaced vs. Progressive. It’s actually more relaxing on your brain to watch an HD signal simply because every frame of the image is drawn at once vs. the 30hz flicker of a CRT. Trust me – if you spend more than an hour a day watching TV your brain will thank you when you make the switch.

As for the blur - that's a crappy feed, a mis-adjusted TV, or *sometimes* an artifact of DLP’s. It’s not inherent to HD sets or HD broadcasting.

Notwithstanding those who either cannot afford it, or have a medical problem with it (which I can respect) – CRT is simply inferior to native HD.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

My old CRT still works, so I haven't bothered replacing it. When it dies I'll get whatever's available at the time. I'm not real fussy on super-chocolatey wonderful picture quality; I just want to watch my shows.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

Regular (non HD) channels often look lousy on a HDTV. Some channels have bars on either side, some don't. The aspect ratio also seems to change channel to channel. I often have to adjust it manually.

I know a couple of people who hate when formats of shows and movies are pillar-boxed - but it doesn't bother me at all.

Adjusting it means cutting off the top and bottom of the screen and zooming in or stretching the image - so I personally don't get why people do that, but I know a lot of people who do. Maybe it's just a matter of getting use to it?

I don't even have cable, I get a few stations on my antenna, the HD ones look great, the non-HD ones don't look great, but on my old screen everything looked equally terrible compared to my new screen.

My TV has a processor in it, and plays almost any video file format - it's really incredible - I have a 2 terabyte drive hooked up to it with TONS of crazy TV shows and rare movies - I just navigate through the drive with my regular TV remote - it's WAY better than cable to me. With wifi my TV can stream internet, Netflix...

I'm a Luddite in tons of other ways - but personally, I think HDTVs rule.

[Brazoo]

Oh enough with all this old TV nostalgia stuff...the fact of the matter is that the old television SUCKS arse...lol.

I watch nothing but HD...it's awesome...sports, movies...everything on HD and on a giant flatscreen rules...oh yes...and with surround sound, baby... :yes:

I'd rather stare at a wall than watch that horrid boxy analog crap of yesteryear...

:smiley1:

If I get nostalgic I can always blur my eyes a little!

[Hector]

:smiley1:

[garagesale]

HD is awesome, but my old analog big screen is good enough for the likes of me... I'd rather spend my money on the wife and kids. HD, tho gettin' cheaper, is still too expensive.

JamesD

[jds1911a1]

Oh enough with all this old TV nostalgia stuff...the fact of the matter is that the old television SUCKS arse...lol.

I watch nothing but HD...it's awesome...sports, movies...everything on HD and on a giant flatscreen rules...oh yes...and with surround sound, baby... :yes:

I'd rather stare at a wall than watch that horrid boxy analog crap of yesteryear...

:smiley1:

You must miss anything filmed before 1990 I know I would

I have not got HD for 2 reasons
1 - my son is special needs and has a tendancy to poke the screen and modern hd tv's don't react well to poking
2 - HD doesn't help if the broadcast you watch isn't HD and since the majority of my TV watching is dvd or vhs of tv series that were shot before 1985 often on 2 inch video tape, so it has no impact at all (kind of like Blu ray)

[megoapesnut]

my son is special needs and has a tendancy to poke the screen and modern hd tv's don't react well to poking


One solution to that would be a plasma HDTV. They are glass fronted so your son could poke at it all he wanted and not hurt it. Now, you will be cleaning the fingerprints often...

[megoapesnut]

One solution I found for the crappy looking SD stuff on my HDTV was to mount a projector on my back wall and a pull down screen. I have all of my signals going into a receiver/switcher before it hits my TV so I just ran a feed to the projector and I watch any SD from that. Works for me

[Gorn Captain]

I have a 10 year old DVD player, a TV set that's about a foot and half deep, and no desire to part with them.
I also play my old vinyl LPs. And some of my VHS tapes.

And it all goes well with my collection of 1970s action figures....

In these days of hi-tech drowning our way of life, the people cry out for a hero.
I am that hero. Call me....Retro-Man!!!!!!

[Doc]

I have a 10 year old DVD player, a TV set that's about a foot and half deep, and no desire to part with them.
I also play my old vinyl LPs. And some of my VHS tapes.

And it all goes well with my collection of 1970s action figures....

In these days of hi-tech drowning our way of life, the people cry out for a hero.
I am that hero. Call me....Retro-Man!!!!!!

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Mikey]

And it all goes well with my collection of 1970s action figures....

!!!!!!

I agree,

I don't understand people liking Mego figures because they're quaint and not perfect .... but those same people wanna see all the pock marks on Kate Jackson's face while they're watching Charlie's Angels in HD

[megoapesnut]

Kate Jackson had pock marks on her face????

[Mikey]

Kate Jackson had pock marks on her face????

Nahhh, I just made it up as an example :)

[Brazoo]

My DVDs look fantastic on my screen. Just a nice big clean image. No need to re-buy blu-rays AND my movies aren't shrunk down by letter-boxing now.

I can totally understand if it's a cash thing - or there's other practical reasons - but sometimes new stuff is a genuine improvement over old stuff.

I love records, typewriters, old toys, old comics, most of my movies are pre-1980 and I've never owned a cell phone - CRT screens are more like 8-tracks or video tapes to me. Some stuff deserves to die because it's been improved on.

Just the fact that my new TV is mounted on the wall and takes up less living space is a huge bonus over my old clunker.

[Brazoo]

In the third place – HD is easier on your eyes (again, exception for DLP). See above about Interlaced vs. Progressive. It’s actually more relaxing on your brain to watch an HD signal simply because every frame of the image is drawn at once vs. the 30hz flicker of a CRT. Trust me – if you spend more than an hour a day watching TV your brain will thank you when you make the switch.


I think I've done some permanent eye and brain damage staring at CRT computer monitors for years - LCD screens are the greatest thing that's happened as far as I'm concerned.

[ctc]

>LCD screens are the greatest thing that's happened as far as I'm concerned.

....until we find out they emit Shizuma waves, which kill birds and fish....

Don C.

[Donkey Hoatie]

If I wasn't such a big sports fan, I'm pretty sure I would have resisted the HDTV movement much longer than I did. With that being said, I'm not sure I've seen anything more gorgeous on television than Wrigley Field in the middle of summer.

[Adam West]

I am definitely a late technology adopter. I held out what seemed like forever on HDTV due to price. I finally bought an HDTV when the Summer Olympics were held a couple of years ago. It was jawdropping to say the least. I moved our nice CRT to the basement mostly if me and/or my wife wanted to watch a program or DVD that wouldn't be appropriate for my kids to watch....like the Sopranos, The Tudors, etc. I finally have had a chance to watch the entire Sopranos series on DVD (even though I have had them for years). The picture quality is adequate but doesn't even compare to HD or if I were to play the same non blu-ray Sopranos DVD in our blu-ray player. My cable company (Comcast) has just recently converted almost every channel with an option to watch in HD. As an example, if I turn our non HD local NBC station, there is now an option that pops up for a few seconds that says "Watch in HD"....if I hit ok on my DVR, the channel jumps up into the 800 range and all of a sudden it is in HD. I agree that watching non-HD channels on an HDTV is not great (even though you can fiddle with the settings to make it look as good as a CRT). But, it is now at the point that for me at least almost every channel has the option to be watched in HD or non-HD mode...my choice.

[Adam West]

As a side note, we still own the first CRT tv we bought which is a 19 inch Zenith purchased around 1990 for $400 on sale!!! That was considered a great deal at the time. Now for $400, you can purchase a 36-40 inch 1080p HDTV. It won't be a Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic but still much better than the 19 inch CRT purchased in 1990. For those of you that don't want to convert, there will always be CRT's around. I see them all the time at Goodwill for about $25. It looks like the next gen of TV's is 3-D HD but it isn't for me. Watching movies in 3-D is a fun experience but not something I'd want all the time. I suspect if and when the need arises, The newer TV's will have an option to switch to a non-HD mode giving it the CRT look. I would think there will be a need for it at least from people who still enjoy playing older gaming systems that were made for CRTs.

[Brazoo]

>LCD screens are the greatest thing that's happened as far as I'm concerned.

....until we find out they emit Shizuma waves, which kill birds and fish....

Don C.

I might be willing to put those animals on the trash heap, if it came down to that!

[HardyGirl]

I have a 10 year old DVD player, a TV set that's about a foot and half deep, and no desire to part with them.
I also play my old vinyl LPs. And some of my VHS tapes.

And it all goes well with my collection of 1970s action figures....

In these days of hi-tech drowning our way of life, the people cry out for a hero.
I am that hero. Call me....Retro-Man!!!!!!

*trumpets blaring* Retro-Man to the rescue! And I'm his trusty side-kick, RETRO WOMAN!!

[mego73]

I'm not sure if it's from the flatscreen or the HD or both but whenever I see stuff on HD TV (at Walmart) the panning sometimes looks funny.

It's like slightly wavy or fisheye ... hard to explain.

Almost enough to sometimes make me feel queezy if it lasts a while.

That would be the settings to view 4:3 (Square) picture material on the 16:9 display. Many select the "fill" option that stretches the sides out but leaves the middle unstretched. I hate that option with a passion and any 4:3 material on my HDTV is views with black bars at the sides.

[mego73]

Since you seem to have some expertise on this I wonder if I can run this by you and get a solid answer.

I currently have a 32" 1080p screen with a 60hz refresh rate. I will probably be replacing it soon.

On scenes with a lot of "striped" material, I notice fairly prominent flicker as it pans.

A prime example would be "The Nightmare Before Christmas" blu ray. On Jack Skelington's coat and the hills that have a bunch of ridges it almost looks like the detail is strobing as it pans.

I wonder if it has something to do with the blu ray being encoded in 24 frame and my TV's inability to play 24 frame although I do notice this flicker to a certain extent with cable HD (i.e. a scene showing the grille of a car) which I assume is 30 frame.

Does 60hz cause this flicker or is it the way the TV converts 24 frame video or something else.






Good golly. If you're judging HDTV quality by looking at the multi-feed crap down at your local Wal-Mart then you have no idea what you're missing.

There is no comparison here folks. And I'm a guy who LOVES nostalgia. I mean, I can understand and appreciate the "records vs. CD's" debate with audiophiles, but there is absolutely no advantage to a CRT vs. an HD screen of nearly any modern build. Analog TV was broadcast in 640x480 interlaced format, (meaning that the screen is drawing every other line). HD is a progressive format (meaning HD screens draw the entire screen at once) – and the lowest HD resolution is 1280x720. Analog broadcast TV is like watching scaled up crappy You-Tube video. Except most You-Tube videos are in HD now, too.

Remember – up until the FCC mandated all-digital broadcasting switch last year, the NTSC standard, the technical foundation of which CRT technology was established, was set back in 1941. Basically, the technology of CRT TV’s is a relic of the 1940’s!

As for HD - in the first place - The problem with Analog SD (interlaced) being put on HD (progressive) screens was called “combing”. Today, very little programming is even done in SD anymore so the issue with watching "SD on HD" is basically gone. Even older non-HD movies are now broadcast digitally and look great. I agree about 4 years ago this was an issue but it's basically gone now. And by basically I mean totally. Unless you like watching old VHS tapes…

In the second place - any decent up-converting DVD player (or respectable video game console) can now convert a DVD to HD and look fantastic. An Xbox or PS3 can natively scale a DVD to 1080p, and if it's a well-mastered DVD (e.g. anything modern) it's going to look quite nice, especially if the DVD mastered from a HD source. At sub-42 inches, actually a very nicely mastered DVD can look nearly as good as a Blu-Ray. At 50" + is where you can really tell the difference. There is no reason to “swap” your DVD collection to Blu-Ray, since DVD’s play fine in Blu-Ray players – and Blu-Ray players also upconvert DVD’s. Bottom line – if you’re watching an DVD on a CRT you’re going to be in for a big upgrade when you move to an HD screen.

In the third place – HD is easier on your eyes (again, exception for DLP). See above about Interlaced vs. Progressive. It’s actually more relaxing on your brain to watch an HD signal simply because every frame of the image is drawn at once vs. the 30hz flicker of a CRT. Trust me – if you spend more than an hour a day watching TV your brain will thank you when you make the switch.

As for the blur - that's a crappy feed, a mis-adjusted TV, or *sometimes* an artifact of DLP’s. It’s not inherent to HD sets or HD broadcasting.

Notwithstanding those who either cannot afford it, or have a medical problem with it (which I can respect) – CRT is simply inferior to native HD.

[Brazoo]

Since you seem to have some expertise on this I wonder if I can run this by you and get a solid answer.

I currently have a 32" 1080p screen with a 60hz refresh rate. I will probably be replacing it soon.

On scenes with a lot of "striped" material, I notice fairly prominent flicker as it pans.

A prime example would be "The Nightmare Before Christmas" blu ray. On Jack Skelington's coat and the hills that have a bunch of ridges it almost looks like the detail is strobing as it pans.

I wonder if it has something to do with the blu ray being encoded in 24 frame and my TV's inability to play 24 frame although I do notice this flicker to a certain extent with cable HD (i.e. a scene showing the grille of a car) which I assume is 30 frame.

Does 60hz cause this flicker or is it the way the TV converts 24 frame video or something else.

I'm wondering if another factor to consider might be the frame rate that the movie was animated in. A lot of animation is 12 frames per second - usually if an action is being followed with the camera, or the camera is movie it's animated in full 24 frames though.

[Hector]

You must miss anything filmed before 1990 I know I would

I have not got HD for 2 reasons
1 - my son is special needs and has a tendancy to poke the screen and modern hd tv's don't react well to poking
2 - HD doesn't help if the broadcast you watch isn't HD and since the majority of my TV watching is dvd or vhs of tv series that were shot before 1985 often on 2 inch video tape, so it has no impact at all (kind of like Blu ray)

That's why you mount the flatscreen to a wall well out of his reach...

:wink_y:

[Corellian Corvette]

Since you seem to have some expertise on this I wonder if I can run this by you and get a solid answer.

I currently have a 32" 1080p screen with a 60hz refresh rate. I will probably be replacing it soon.

On scenes with a lot of "striped" material, I notice fairly prominent flicker as it pans.

A prime example would be "The Nightmare Before Christmas" blu ray. On Jack Skelington's coat and the hills that have a bunch of ridges it almost looks like the detail is strobing as it pans.

I wonder if it has something to do with the blu ray being encoded in 24 frame and my TV's inability to play 24 frame although I do notice this flicker to a certain extent with cable HD (i.e. a scene showing the grille of a car) which I assume is 30 frame.

Does 60hz cause this flicker or is it the way the TV converts 24 frame video or something else.

You have a good understanding of the problem.

The problem you're encountering is called "judder" and it happens because either your TV, your Blu-Ray player, or the mastering of the video combined with your display is not doing a good job with 3:2 pulldown.

Obviously, the best TV for viewing film content is 120hz - these allow the 5 encoded video frames to play in their native 24hz, essentially eliminating the 3:2 pulldown judder. This is why there is such a big deal people are making about 120hz TV’s.

Now VIDEO is recorded at 30 fps, (60hz interlaced) which is why you don’t see the problem as much on HD video content – particularly TV shows since they are not recorded on “film”

Now it can be minimized. The most likely problem, in cases like this, is that sometimes you have multiple decoders (one in the blu-ray player, one in the TV) and what could be a gigantic variety of anti-artifact post processing happening between the different players.

The first thing is to make sure your TV is well calibrated – and make sure your sharpness is ALL THE WAY OFF. This is a note to ANYONE who owns a Television of any sort including a CRT – go to your menu, select “sharpness” and turn it all the way down. Like OFF. This will, initially appear as if the picture is softer, but in reality you will get more actual detail out of the picture. Sharpness creates artificial artifacts which make edges appear sharper but introduce unnatural artifacting. This will make the judder you described worse.

Secondly – turn off all the processing on your TV and your Blu Ray player – anything that looks like “blur control” “motion enhancement” etc – shut that crap off. It’s going to make the problem worse.

If you want to understand more about 3:2 pulldown and framerate transfers between Film and Video, wikipedia has a good article

Telecine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown#23pulldown)

[jds1911a1]

That's why you mount the flatscreen to a wall well out of his reach...

:wink_y:

Kinda depends on how tall the kid is imagine a 9 year old and a house with 8 foot cealings there is only so high a tv can be mounted

[megoapesnut]

Get a plasma, you can touch those all you want without hurting them.

[mego73]

You have a good understanding of the problem.

The problem you're encountering is called "judder" and it happens because either your TV, your Blu-Ray player, or the mastering of the video combined with your display is not doing a good job with 3:2 pulldown.

Obviously, the best TV for viewing film content is 120hz - these allow the 5 encoded video frames to play in their native 24hz, essentially eliminating the 3:2 pulldown judder. This is why there is such a big deal people are making about 120hz TV’s.

Now VIDEO is recorded at 30 fps, (60hz interlaced) which is why you don’t see the problem as much on HD video content – particularly TV shows since they are not recorded on “film”

Now it can be minimized. The most likely problem, in cases like this, is that sometimes you have multiple decoders (one in the blu-ray player, one in the TV) and what could be a gigantic variety of anti-artifact post processing happening between the different players.

The first thing is to make sure your TV is well calibrated – and make sure your sharpness is ALL THE WAY OFF. This is a note to ANYONE who owns a Television of any sort including a CRT – go to your menu, select “sharpness” and turn it all the way down. Like OFF. This will, initially appear as if the picture is softer, but in reality you will get more actual detail out of the picture. Sharpness creates artificial artifacts which make edges appear sharper but introduce unnatural artifacting. This will make the judder you described worse.

Secondly – turn off all the processing on your TV and your Blu Ray player – anything that looks like “blur control” “motion enhancement” etc – shut that crap off. It’s going to make the problem worse.

If you want to understand more about 3:2 pulldown and framerate transfers between Film and Video, wikipedia has a good article

Telecine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown#23pulldown)

I hear it is possible for 60hz TV's to utilize 24p by reducing the hz to 48.

[MegoScott]

I resisted until last year, now it's all HD for me. BluRay player came at christmas. Gorgeous.

[Corellian Corvette]

You've exceeded the capacity of my knowlege on the subject. All I know is that 60hz is optimized for video (e.g. TV) which is recorded at 29.9 fps (Give or take)

Film is recorded at 24 fps - the telecine process of converting 24 fps into "video" means that you have to translate 4 film frames into 5 video frames - this is what's known as 3:2 pulldown. And this doesn't just take 1 frame and play it twice, it actually COMBINES frames.

Again, the wiki article has a good illustration of this.

To my understanding - there is no way around 3:2 pulldown judder of SOME sort unless you have a 120hz TV capable of natively displaying all 5 frames, so it's not as simple as going "down" to 48 hz.

Also - and more confusing, "Hz" and "Frames" are not the same thing. One has to do with refresh rate, the other has to do with actual 'frames' or images, and that gets more complicated then I understand.

[cjefferys]

To my understanding - there is no way around 3:2 pulldown judder of SOME sort unless you have a 120hz TV capable of natively displaying all 5 frames, so it's not as simple as going "down" to 48 hz.




I'm not going to pretend to understand how all the business works, but I was under the impression that 120hz is good because it is evenly divisible by 24 (ie. the number of FPS in film) so that's why there are no problems dealing with 3:2 pulldown, etc. My HDTV is 60hz (120hz TVs weren't available back when I bought it) and can notice a judder sometimes, especially in horizontal pans. But how could I reduce the hz to 48? :huh:

[Gorn Captain]

*trumpets blaring* Retro-Man to the rescue! And I'm his trusty side-kick, RETRO WOMAN!!

And everyone we rescue, will magically get flared pants and a huge Afro!

Meet you back at the Retro-Van!!!!

[HardyGirl]

And everyone we rescue, will magically get flared pants and a huge Afro!

Meet you back at the Retro-Van!!!!


:costumed-smiley-063 :costumed-smiley-026

[MIB41]

I've got a Sony 47 inch LCD HDTV 1080P. The picture is gorgeous. I like the LCD too because you don't get room reflections and you don't lose the picture at side angles. All angles are good. And it's allowed me to rediscover some of my old favorites that had grown tired under regular viewing. One thing some may forget though, is you NEED an HDMI cable when your hooking up your blu ray or standard DVD player. Without that, you can't get a true HD signal. As far as getting a bad picture on "regular" TV, I would check your local cable channels. Most areas these days have HD and digital broadcasts. The days of analogue are going away. As a matter of fact, in Louisville, the analogue channels are all gone. You can't pick anything up on a traditional TV antenna anymore.

I love the blu ray player. With those movies being just as cheap or even cheaper than regular DVD movies, it only makes sense to go that direction. You can find scores of blu rays on Ebay for pennies compared to the shelf price. And the picture and sound are without comparison. I love the football season because you can SEE the actual blades of grass on the football field. And my wife can now see the color of Tom Brady's eyes...so she can claw them out. :smiley1: Frustrated Colt fan.

[Adam West]

I think the issue with the CRT is there really is no difference (at least that I can tell) with a digital signal or analog signal on a CRT. Like I said, our local cable company has the ability to convert almost every channel that is non-HD to HD (it just changes to the equivalent HD channel). This works great since we still have some non-hd tvs. I presume that the cable and satellite companies will eventually discontinue non-HD signals leaving a CRT owner with no choice but to switch or watch everything on non-blu ray DVD or VHS.

[ODBJBG]

I love the football season because you can SEE the actual blades of grass on the football field.

For so many years, I've said that Football just isn't enjoyable unless you can see the blades of grass on the field. It really changes the dynamic of the whole game. I remember in the 98 Superbowl... Actually I don't remember, because I didn't watch it then because I couldn't see the blades of grass. Instead I spent most the evening staring at my lawn, because that's what makes football enjoyable.

:grin:

[MIB41]

For so many years, I've said that Football just isn't enjoyable unless you can see the blades of grass on the field. It really changes the dynamic of the whole game. I remember in the 98 Superbowl... Actually I don't remember, because I didn't watch it then because I couldn't see the blades of grass. Instead I spent most the evening staring at my lawn, because that's what makes football enjoyable.

:grin:

:smiley1: It does help when they have instant replay with sideline shots. We can rewind and see it before the studio gets to it. Oh. Gotta go. A see a blade of grass sprouting up. :googly:

[YANOULI]

Me.

I also refuse to spend money changing to blue ray when dvd's are fine for me.