ED or HD

[909]

Here’s my take so far…

Enhanced Definition (ED): To my knowledge, most channels are standard digital and supposedly those channels and progressive scan DVD players look best on an ED television.

High Definition (HD): On the few HD channels a HD television will look 10 to 15% better than a comparable ED set as will a HD-DVD player. And HDTVs display standard digital somewhat fuzzy (progressive scan too but less) and not as good as an ED set.

Is HD worth the premium considering most channels aren’t in HD yet and needing to upgrade to an HD-DVD? Or is it better to hold off on a HD set until more channels become available? I’ve found a great deal on a 42 Panasonic ED Professional Plasma, which is about $575 to 700 less than the equivalent Panasonic HD model.

suggestions...

 

[Edwood]

Depends on how soon you want to use that TV for before upgrading to another one. Buying an ED Plasma set is a dead end purchase.

For me the bare minimum resolution must be 720p (1280x720). Which is still HD.

And I wouldn't say it's only a 10-15% difference. It's more than that. Of course, it's almost like saying to someone with iBuds, "Yeah, my headphones are a LOOOOOT better than yours."

At a glance the difference may not be huge, but once you're used to HD, it's difficult to look back.

I wouldn't waste my money on an ED Plasma set. It would have to be less than half the cost of the HD set.

-Ed

 

[gevorg]

Its all about what YOU watch. If most of your current favorite shows/channels are in ED, get an ED. Those extra $600-700 are better invested to grow, so in the future when most of your favorite channels will become HD, you can get the latest generation HD at that time using those grown saved money. Cheap brands already selling 42" HDTVs close to $1000, I'm sure in the upcoming years "Name" brands will do so too. Based on the feedback of many users at AVS Forum, its hard to tell a difference between a 42" ED and 42" HD if you're sitting further than 8ft away.
On the other side, if you're a sports fan, or planning to get a HD DVD player / HTPC, get a HD now.

 

[JaGWiRE]

909, EDTV/SDTV/HDTV all represent different resolutions. Like QVGA, VGA, SVGA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

I would say HDTV is most definitley worthwhile, and EDTV should be ignored if your looking at buying a new TV and are spending some dough.

 

[909]

1,024 x 768 HDTV Resolution ($1925) Panasonic TH-42PH9UK

853 x 480 EDTV Resolution ($1125) Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK

(And from what I've read 42 can never be a true HD you need at least a 50)

I think all TVs have a limited life because every year there’s either something better or new and the price keeps dropping on plasmas and LCDs.

When do you think most channels will be in HD?

And what do you think of the picture quality on a HDTV when it’s displaying the standard digital signal?

I'll be sitting about 13 feet away from the set.

 

[JaGWiRE]

909, what do you mean true HD? If true HD is defined by 1080p, then it all depends, I am not following what TV'S offer "true 1080p" yet, but by the end of next year I am sure there will be many more sets that do 1080p.

Standard definition broadcast imo depends on the HDTV'S television size. My uncle's 50" samsung DLP makes regular digital cable SDTV broadcasts look like crap. On the other hand, on the smallest screens like the 23/26" tv's I've seen, it looks decent.

 

[909]

1,366 x 768 HDTV Resolution (50 inch) is what most consider closest to HD, yet the 42 inch HDTVs do not have the resolution capacity to be truly considered HDTVs. At least that’s how I understand it.

I found a great deal on the Panasonic HD TH-42PX60U $1480, but I really don’t like the silver finish and the potential that standard digital would most likely look fuzzy because the HDTV’s resolution is too high for the SD signal.

Does anyone know when most channels will be in HD? That’s the big question…

I called Dish Networks and currently they have about 15 HD channels and only three that I watch regularly. And you need a special antenna to get the occasional local channel program in HD. I’ve heard that satellite company charge pretty ridiculous rates for service calls too. And it seems that HD cable is cheaper than HD satellite.

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Do you guys not have Free To Air HD content in America? Or is it just that EVERYBODY has pay TV already?

 

[909]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff Rymer Do you guys not have Free To Air HD content in America? Or is it just that EVERYBODY has pay TV already?

http://antennasdirect.com/HDTV_station_lists.html

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:E...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

Just found those links thanks to Edwood's pm and your post.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 1,366 x 768 HDTV Resolution (50 inch) is what most consider closest to HD, yet the 42 inch HDTVs do not have the resolution capacity to be truly considered HDTVs. At least that’s how I understand it. I found a great deal on the Panasonic HD TH-42PX60U $1480, but I really don’t like the silver finish and the potential that standard digital would most likely look fuzzy because the HDTV’s resolution is too high for the SD signal. Does anyone know when most channels will be in HD? That’s the big question… I called Dish Networks and currently they have about 15 HD channels and only three that I watch regularly. And you need a special antenna to get the occasional local channel program in HD. I’ve heard that satellite company charge pretty ridiculous rates for service calls too. And it seems that HD cable is cheaper than HD satellite.

i was in the same boat this time last year. the price differences were more egregious then, so it was a bit of an easier decision... i went with the panasonic 42" ED.

if i were buying now, for under $1500 i would definitely spring for that PX60 HD... panny makes top notch sets.

however, i do not regret going ED for the exact reasons you're talking about:

1. i go out of my way to find HD programming, and it's still less than 30% of my viewing.
2. SD undoubtedly looks better on my set than it does on an HD set, which i find aggravatingly distorted.
3. at 42" from 9-10' away, i really can't tell the difference between my ED and true HD.
4. it's the perfect resolution for current DVDs.

of course on the other hand, it's not future proof, and at this point you'd save only a few hundred dollars, versus the $1k i saved last year.

 

[zotjen]

Quote:

1,366 x 768 HDTV Resolution (50 inch) is what most consider closest to HD, yet the 42 inch HDTVs do not have the resolution capacity to be truly considered HDTVs. At least that’s how I understand it.

This only applies to plasma TVs. 42" LCDs are true HD. If you look at the 1024 x768 resolution of 42" plasmas, the 1024 number doesn't quite match up to true HD standards. The FCC though goes by second number of 768 so by their standards, it is true HD. As technology improves, we may see 42" plasmas with greater resolution but that will be down the road a bit and at higher prices.

What also should be noted, and this is a big one, is that the quality of the TV is equally important. A 42" plasma at not quite HD resolution of 1024 x768 can have a much better picture quality than a true 1080p HD set. This why you really need to shop around and see the sets for yourself. Of course the problem is that you can't really rely on the displays in stores since most places set the picture to "torch" mode. I have the Panasonic 42PX60U and imho the picture is excellent.

FWIW, I would get an HD set. Even though standard DVD quality may not be as good on an HD set than an ED set, it is still considerably better than an SD set. You also then have the option to upgrade to HD DVD but resolution might come into play then. For example, to take advantage of HD DVD's resolution you may want a true 1080p set, but of course no HD broadcasts are in 1080p nor will they ever be.

Hopefully this doesn't make you more confused.

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 1,024 x 768 HDTV Resolution ($1925) Panasonic TH-42PH9UK 853 x 480 EDTV Resolution ($1125) Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK (And from what I've read 42 can never be a true HD you need at least a 50) I think all TVs have a limited life because every year there’s either something better or new and the price keeps dropping on plasmas and LCDs. When do you think most channels will be in HD? And what do you think of the picture quality on a HDTV when it’s displaying the standard digital signal? I'll be sitting about 13 feet away from the set.

By law, all TV stations must switch from broadcasting in analog to digital by February 17, 2009. Many stations already broadcast in HDTV.

To learn much more about HDTV, etc., I encourage you to look at this site:

Hi Def Forum

Of course, reading too much here is likely to help empty your wallet too!

 

[zotjen]

Quote:

By law, all TV stations must switch from broadcasting in analog to digital by February 17, 2009

Just because a station broadcasts in digital does not mean it's HD. While HD broadcasts are digital, they are two different things.

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen Just because a station broadcasts in digital does not mean it's HD. While HD broadcasts are digital, they are two different things.

This is true. So, if one is buying soon and expects to keep the TV past the 2009 A to D cut off date, it would be prudent to buy a set that has a digital tuner. The government will subsidize the switch by giving consumers $40 to buying a box that would convert the digital signal back to analog for older TVs, but why lose the benefits of having digital. One could also buy an external digital tuner too, but it makes more sense to me to reduce the number of set top boxes to a minimum.

Also, I would expect most stations to be broadcasting in HDTV by the cut over. We have one local station here in SB and it already broadcasts in HDTV. David lives in the Los Angeles area and I would be surprised if the major stations there are not transferring in HDTV too. A program displayed in HDTV is so much better than one in EDTV, it's like going from an ear bud to an L3000.

 

[dan1son]

The term High Definition or (HD) usually refers to any resolution above the "Standard Definition" 480interlace (480i) broadcasted by NTSC. So the HD standard gives you a multitude of resolution choices 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. In fact 480p also fits into the governments definition for HDTV broadcasts.

480p is simply a progressive scan version of 480i. 480p is what a DVD is capable of displaying (assuming of course your DVD player itself will output that).

EDTV is nothing more than a TV capable of displaying 480p. It is hardly even close to any of the HD options. In fact mathematically speaking 720p is 2.66 times better (266%) and 1080p is 6 times better (600%)... so 1080i is 3 times better.

The difference is significant. One thing you will notice about an EDTV set displaying an HDTV signal is that there is no static like there is on an analog set... don't confuse that with an HD picture. It's not doing anything a DVD can't do.