I'm new here so please be kind . I'm shopping for a new tv and have some specific requirements. My room is very bright, lots of natural light and lamps and I need the tv to fit snugly against a wall. So I've pretty much decided that a 46" lcd will work best for my situation. I've done some browsing around the local stores and the Sonys look best to my untrained eye. I've looked at these 3 models:
KDL46S2000 KDL46V2500 KDL46XBR2
I thought the XBR had the best picture of the three with an HD cable feed, but the difference was not that great. I can afford all of them (if necessary), but I think the V2500 with its 1080p resolution is the one I'm leaning towards. I've read some of the other threads here and the discussion is pretty heated at times over the necessity of 1080p vs. the others and I don't want to start a shouting match. Let's try to keep the discussion civil .
This is all a long intro to my question/concern. I read in another thread that 1080 screens don't display normal DVD's very well. It was stated somewhere that this higher resolution may actually produce a poorer picture due to upscaling issues. Is this true? Should I be concerned about this since I do watch a lot of DVD movies and I don't want to spend more on a tv and degrade the quality of my DVD viewing experience. This would be silly.
I have researched LCD's to death in this last week and what I learned is that LCD's over 40" can have trouble visually. Something to do with the pixels.
Personally, I'm going tonight to pick up the Sony Bravia 40" KDL S402010. Amazing picture and just perfect for LCDs. I only watch DVD's, no television, so I wanted something that makes DVDs look their best. This tv makes VHS tapes look amazing! (With an upconverting DVD Player, that is.)
I'm not the best on the technical side, but I've spoken to so many experts, sales people and read every possible review, professional and consumer. I KNOW I'm not making the wrong decision here.
Here's the great thing: I JUST found out today that Circuit City is having an unadvertised Black Friday sale of this very tv! It's selling now for $1699 but will be on sale on Friday (unadvertised) for only $1199! $500 savings! I called and said I'd be in tonight to pick one up and asked if I can just bring the receipt in "in case it happens to go on sale within the next month." They said I can do that (and she as much admitted that it will be on sale on Friday, but she's "not sure how much.")
Don't forget to get the extended warranty. It's worth it. My 3 year with CC will be $339.39. With the savings I'm getting on the price, it's like getting it free!
Check into the pixilation issue over 40" first, ok? Good Luck!
Thanks Jack for the input, but my question has to do with 1080p screens like the Sony I mentioned above. Does anyone have knowledge or experience with this issue?
1. You may want to check out Sharp and Samsung as LCD screen alternatives as far as brands. I got to see them all at CES in Janaury 2006 which are the displays being sold now. Samsung has made some advances in the LCD bulb area so that uneven backlighting issues are much less then before. Their refresh rates are at or better than other brands, so you have less chance of motion artifact problems.
2. I agree that in a brightly lit room an LCD is a good choice. You will miss shadow detail in dark scenes but in a bright room it doesnt matter becuase you couldnt see it anyway!
3. AS an FYI Panasonic took a full page ad in last weeks Wall Street journal explaining why Plasma is a better display choice than LCDs at larger sizes, stating that they make both ( which they do) but wanted the best information out there. Of course they dominate in Plasma market share as opposed to LCD so no,illusions there-- but they are factually correct in their point by point comparisons.
4. Your question- lets start from the reverse-- you cant make a picture better than its native resolution. Thats a basic concept. In other words if I have one piece of red/orange information that was recorded to display the info across 4 pixels on a screen, taking that same information that is part of a picture whole and upscaling that same info to fit 16 pixels on a higher resolution display will in no way improve the picture quality and certainly can accentuate video signal defects and also can move the final video PQ result away from its original color accuracy intent.
5. Next concept-- technically--upscaling is much more difficult than downscaling. Specifically, taking a 1080i source and downscaling it to a 768 display puts info together-- at 10 feet or more the human eye cannot discern the difference. On the flipside, upscaling a 480i DVD to a 1080i display will cuase a degradation of PQ.
6. Often, one sees technical discussions of outboard video scalers and their quality-- there certainly are differnt caliber video scalers!! But with so many 1080P displays out there, its natural for discussions like these to arise, since video scaling is necessary no matter what. However, writers.reviewers for widescreen review/others in the various online boards/forums, in the local HT group and at CES all pretty much shudder at upscaling becuase it in the end can decrease PQ. For myself, I spent a lot of time over a period of years, and still do, looking at simultaneous screens comparing HD to ED screens with same source material same time. A standard def DVD looks better on a screen without upscaling, although sometimes its pretty close. Even the Panasonic reps, when you ask them, say there is little to no difference in PQ for DVDs HD vs ED screen, and their profit margins are much higher on an HD screen.
7. Beyond that- Specifics of the DVD player have a trmendous impact on PQ as well, and how it handles various video signal cadences (3:2) 5:4:4) Animation vs film vs video so lets not miss the forest for the trees.
8. Lots of consumer complaints when folks buy a 1080P screen thinking they are getting the best only to have their old CRTs at home blow away the 1080P screen when watching standrad cable signal, a low resolution source that a 1080P display is gonna have trouble with.
IMMV
PS- Pixelation has nothing to do with screen size--??
Thanks Marc for taking the time to give such a detailed response. As a newbie to all of this, I really appreciate it!
I'm still confused though about the merits of the various displays in relation to DVD's. You seem to be saying that as far as DVD is concerned, I might as well watch them on a standard screen, if fact, you imply that they actually look better on the old screens. Am I reading you right?
If I buy an HDTV and say a Sony upconverting DVD player, will the result look good or will it actually look worse than my old CRT? As you can see, I'm still very confused by all of this.
Update. I went down to my favourite local store and hooked up a Panasonic upconverting dvd player to a 46in. 1080p display (Samsung). I watched clips from a half-dozen movies including real live people action and animation. I may be inexperienced at this, but it looked fantastic. I guess I'm just not discerning enough to care about the finer points. I also watched standard cable on it just to see what it looked like and it looked fine to my eye.
Standard def DVDs are 480i as far as native resolution- most DVD players worth their salt deinterlace to 480P signal output. ED plasmas allow 1:1 pixel mapping since they are 480 in one of their resolution dimensions.
When using an upconverting DVD player- you are taking a 480P signal and making it fit onto a 1366 x 768 or 1920 x 1080 screen or similar. You are taking video signal information beyond its originally recorded level of detail to fit onto more oixels than the info was made to be displayed on. The picture can be good, espceially for digital movies like finding nemo or monsters inc for instance; peter gabriel Secret world live, a film transfer, will look horrible.
Think of the reverse- a hi def DVD ( 1080i native signal) and a regular DVD ( 480i) upscaled to 1080i. Both displayed om the same 1080p display. Which will look better? The HI def DVD does becuase it was recorded to the level of 1080i detail. The 480i standard DVD of the same movie cant match the PQ on a 1080i screen, becuase it was never recorded to that 1080i level of detail in the first place. If upscaling was really great, there would be no need for Hi Def DVDs nor ANY improvment in PQ; we would just upscale.
But thats not reality; Hi Def DVDs look better on a 1080i display becuase they are a 1080i source. a standard def 480i DVD, even upscaled at its best to 1080i, cant ever match the same movie on a Hi Def 1080i DVD as far as native Picture Quality/resolution.
Nothing wrong with being satisfied with whatever you choose that makes you happy however. My post is information al for discussion but not argumentative.
Thanks Marc for the thoughtful reply. In spite of your very reasonable logic, which I do understand intellectually, my real-world experience today of watching a film on DVD upscaled to a 1080 lcd is that it looked very good. I did not notice any of the defects you refer to. Maybe getting older and having one's vision slowly weaken has its advantages after all :-)
. I'm shopping for a new tv and have some specific requirements. My room is very bright, lots of natural light and lamps and I need the tv to fit snugly against a wall. So I've pretty much decided that a 46" lcd will work best for my situation. I've done some browsing around the local stores and the Sonys look best to my untrained eye. I've looked at these 3 models: 
.