Has anyone resisted HDTV?

[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...

[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

[jds1911a1]

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

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

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?

[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!!!!

[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. 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.