LED or LCD

[The Mystery Machine]

What games are you playing? Fighters, FPS, the occasionaly slow RPG? Are you planning on getting a PS4? The PS4 is in 1080 now, while the xbox one is still 720. Do you have a blu ray collections with a good player?

Most gamers will still say Panasonic's Plasma is best for video games, but these are also people that play games a lot. It really depends on what you do with your tv. If you just like watching over the air channels for a couple prime time shows and the news, then it doesn't really matter. If you have a large blu ray collection (especially if you like the Criterion collection), plan to get a PS4, play graphic intense games, watch sports then it's a good idea to invest in a TV that will serve you well for the next several years.

The plan will be to get a PS4 eventually and a WiiU.

No movie collections on blu ray.

RPGs are my gaming of choice, followed by FPS. I can certainly see a Plasma + PS4 as a nice combo but not sure that is going to happen quite yet.

At least now I know what to look for when buying a TV thanks to the DISers here. It is daunting looking at all the selections these days.

 

[bcla]

I wasn't trying to insult you, I figured you understood what you were talking about, but I wanted to educate others who are reading this thread.

What I was trying to point out was what I bolded in your response. What is Comcast doing to the signal received from the local broadcaster? What's the local broadcaster doing to the signal received from the network? Does the local have subchannels? Each subchannel takes away from the bandwidth originally provided. Every cable/satco compresses the signals even further.

I have seen compression artifacts (on local and national feeds) and have also see the 'pure' 1080i or 720p signals right out of the camera (before any compression is done).

I took no insult. I was just getting that I do understand some of this from a more technical level of understanding.

I don't believe that there was any bandwidth limitation or compression relative to the source from CBS or NBC. What happens with 1080i deinterlacing is inherent because of bandwidth limitations in any practical system meant for any actual broadcast. I never see these artifacts watching ESPN or ABC. Those are very smooth. I do understand that 1080i can look really good if there's little motion and everything needed to properly display it is available in a bandwidth limited delivery.

My understanding is that most of the big broadcasters use full 1080p capable cameras for both sports and recorded programming, but then convert to 1080i for broadcast. CBS has some full 1080p programs available for downloading.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/14/cbs-com-up-the-hd-streaming-ante-offers-1080p-hd-gallery-of-ful/

 

[Dan Murphy]

We have one large Sony, two smaller Sharp and Vizio LCD's. Comcast cable. I have never seen any blurring to any degree on any of the three sets. And we watch a lot of sports and a variety of content. All three sets are great.

 

[sam_gordon]

I took no insult. I was just getting that I do understand some of this from a more technical level of understanding.

I don't believe that there was any bandwidth limitation or compression relative to the source from CBS or NBC. What happens with 1080i deinterlacing is inherent because of bandwidth limitations in any practical system meant for any actual broadcast. I never see these artifacts watching ESPN or ABC. Those are very smooth. I do understand that 1080i can look really good if there's little motion and everything needed to properly display it is available in a bandwidth limited delivery.

My understanding is that most of the big broadcasters use full 1080p capable cameras for both sports and recorded programming, but then convert to 1080i for broadcast. CBS has some full 1080p programs available for downloading.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/14/cbs-com-up-the-hd-streaming-ante-offers-1080p-hd-gallery-of-ful/

The amount of bandwidth restrictions will vary based on a lot of factors. The signal coming out of the camera is ~1.5Gb. It's gets sent back to the "home office" at ~40Mb (or less). So there's compression there.

It hopefully makes it out to affiliates still around 30-40Mb. Each local broadcaster has 19mb (a little more, but close enough) of bandwidth to use. If the local offers a subchannel (.2, .3, .4, etc), everything still needs to fit into that 19mb "pipe". HD signals take more bandwidth than SD. There is equipment now that allows locals to put two HD signals into that 19mb pipe. Regardless whether a subchannel is HD or SD, it cuts into the bandwidth. That requires compression.

The satellite/cable companies compress even more, although they have a bigger "pipe", they're providing more programming.

So yes, there's plenty of bandwidth limitation & compression happening.

I will readily agree 1080p is better than 1080i. I'm not convinced that 720p is better than 1080i, nor the reverse. They both have pluses and minuses.

I've gone way off topic, but again, if I was shopping for a TV right now, I'd look for 1080p and 120+hz for "future proofing".

 

[bcla]

The amount of bandwidth restrictions will vary based on a lot of factors. The signal coming out of the camera is ~1.5Gb. It's gets sent back to the "home office" at ~40Mb (or less). So there's compression there.

It hopefully makes it out to affiliates still around 30-40Mb. Each local broadcaster has 19mb (a little more, but close enough) of bandwidth to use. If the local offers a subchannel (.2, .3, .4, etc), everything still needs to fit into that 19mb "pipe". HD signals take more bandwidth than SD. There is equipment now that allows locals to put two HD signals into that 19mb pipe. Regardless whether a subchannel is HD or SD, it cuts into the bandwidth. That requires compression.

The satellite/cable companies compress even more, although they have a bigger "pipe", they're providing more programming.

So yes, there's plenty of bandwidth limitation & compression happening.

I will readily agree 1080p is better than 1080i. I'm not convinced that 720p is better than 1080i, nor the reverse. They both have pluses and minuses.

I've gone way off topic, but again, if I was shopping for a TV right now, I'd look for 1080p and 120+hz for "future proofing".

I would too. I got a 720p plasma TV as a present. If I were in the market for a new TV I'd probably get a 1080p. It would look better for standard programming if it's not motion intensive.

As it stands now, I have several Blu-Ray movies where I can notice clear aliasing artifacts as it downconverts from the 1080 source to 720.

 

[Terry H]

Led