a Techsponential Company
My long tradition of getting behind with work covering new product launches ahead of the holiday season — and therefore not finishing my holiday gift guide until the last possible moment — continues. The guide is up over at techpinions.com.
The problem with 3DTV – aside from the glasses and the nausea and the total lack of content – is that you need to buy an entirely new equipment chain. It is not enough to replace your TV with a 3D capable set, you will also need a 3D-capable Blu-ray player, and – much to the delight of Monster Cable – you may actually need to upgrade your HDMI cables to handle the increased signal bandwidth. The typical HDMI connection in most devices today is 1.3b, but you'll need to upgrade to HDMI 1.4a for 3D.
This has implications for audio as well. If you want to get the best audio out of your 3D content, you'll need an A/V receiver (or processor and separate amplifier) to process the compressed digital signal, amplify it, and pass it along to your speakers. If your receiver – like nearly all on the market today – does not have HDMI 1.4a inputs, you will need to run a second digital audio cable from your Blu-ray player to the receiver – assuming that your Blu-ray player can simultaneously output video over HDMI and audio over coaxial or Toslink outputs. It probably can. Probably.
There are also an increasing number of 2D devices that connect to your television via HDMI, and most TVs and receivers have a paucity of HDMI inputs of any kind. I have 15 devices with HDMI outputs, including game consoles, digital set top boxes, digital camcorders and several smartphones.
With that background it is entirely unsurprising that electronics manufacturers are rushing to update their lines with new A/V receivers that have multiple HDMI 1.4a inputs. For example, Onkyo just announced three new receivers with 7 HDMI 1.4a inputs a piece, including the 9.2 channel TX-NR1008. Of course, this comes literally three days after I bought Onkyo's current generation receiver with 7 HDMI 1.3 inputs, the TX-NR3007 (pictured). Now, I knew that updated versions were bound to be introduced shortly, and, having sent back all my review units, I needed a new receiver now, not in June …but I still feel a twinge of regret.
Note: the TX-NR1008 is technically a replacement for the TX-NR1007, not the NR3007 which I purchased. I'm sure the TX-NR3008 will be along shortly, along with a new TX-NR5008 flagship, which is bound to have 8 HDMI 1.4a inputs.
New Onkyo Receivers Come with HDMI 1.4 and Buyer’s Remorse Read More
On Tuesday, I, along with a handful of tech journalists, was invited to attend a briefing by Panasonic in New York to show off their latest line of plasma televisions. The emphasis was on the technical capabilities of Panasonic's plasma technology relative to the latest LCD with LED backlighting. Some things I learned:
All in all, I came away with a better understanding of why I still prefer plasma over LCD for most uses, and why most consumers are buying LCD anyway – and are unlikely to change any time soon.
Lessons From Panasonic’s Plasma Day Read More I'm in charge of Consumer Devices at Current Analysis, which is actually composed of two separate groups: Mobile Devices and Digital Home. I've been in charge of the devices portion of our Digital Home service since the beginning of this year, and while I intend to continue posting here about home theater, I thought I'd plug noteworthy Digital Home reports on this blog as well. This year's E3 (the electronic gaming show) crossed over both of my coverage areas. I stayed home this year – I'm on the road a lot as it is – but Bruce McGregor, our Senior Analyst, Digital Home was there live. This isn't a new console year, but there were multiple announcements around new services, and Bruce wrote up announcements from Microsoft and Sony, while I covered the PSPgo.
(The report links require paid access to Current Analysis' syndicated research service; journalists who need free access should contact me and we'll get an account set up for you.)
E3 Wrap-Up Read More
Here's one from the mailbag:
Avi, We want to buy a 37" LCD TV. Is there a significant
difference between 720P and 1080P?
Yes, there is a significant difference between 720p and 1080p –
though it depends on what you’re watching on it, and even then you may not be
able to see the difference. The bottom line is that you can almost always
get away with buying a 720p set and saving the money, but nobody seems to
believe this answer, so here’s a slightly more involved one:
First, two quick definitions:
1. the
“p” in 1080P or 720P = progressive, where the signal has information in every
horizontal line, just like a computer monitor.
2. the
“i” in 1080i = interlaced, where the signal alternates horizontal lines
similar to the way an analog TV works – the information alternates fast enough
that you usually can’t tell the difference.
Now you need to answer two questions:
What are you watching? (You want to be able to display all the
information that your signal contains, but how much information is actually in
that signal?)
·
If you’re watching a DVD, it’s 480p. So even a 720p TV is
overkill – either the TV or the DVD player will do some magic to “fill in” the
extra pixels it has to make up the picture.* A 1080p set has to fill in even
more pixels with guesswork.
·
If you’re watching HDTV, it’s either 720p or 1080i. Some channels
use one resolution (for example, NBC uses 1080i) and some use the other (for
example, Fox uses 720p) – this happens behind the scenes when you change
channels; you don’t have to do anything. 720p and 1080i both have about the
same amount of picture information (720p tends to look better for fast motion
like sports, while 1080i tends to look better for scenes without much motion,
like dramas), both count as real HDTV, and both look spectacular when displayed
properly on an HDTV.
o
When you watch a 720p channel on a 720p TV, you’re seeing
everything that’s there.
o
When you watch a 1080i channel on a 720p TV, first it fills in
the interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be, and then drops a
bit of the resolution.
o
When you watch a 720p channel on a 1080p TV, it does some magic
to “fill in” the extra pixels.
o
When you watch a 1080i channel on a 1080p TV, it fills in the
interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be.
·
If you’re watching a Blu-ray disc, congratulations, you’re
watching the only consumer format capable of displaying full 1080p.
o
A 720p set throws out some of that resolution; it usually still
looks better than a DVD.
o
A 1080p set displays all the information on there without any
changes.
Now, let’s assume you are going to watch Blu-ray discs 100% of
the time. Question two: can you actually see the difference between 720p and
1080p?
This will depend on several factors:
·
How good is your eyesight? Seriously.
·
How big is the TV, and how far away are you sitting? In smaller screen
sizes it usually doesn’t matter if you’re cramming one or two million pixels
into the set; unless you’re sitting two feet away you won’t be able to see the
difference. Higher resolution allows you to sit closer to the set and does
nothing for you if you’re farther back. For example, if you’re sitting ten to
twelve feet back from a 50” TV you literally cannot see the difference between
720p and 1080p. Some people want to get the higher resolution anyway. I am not
one of those people. My couch is about 12 feet away from my displays, and my
50” plasma is a 720p model. My projector, on the other hand, projects onto an
8’ screen that comes down in front of the plasma; the projector is a 1080p
model because when the images are projected that large, the difference between
720p and 1080p is quite obvious.
Conclusion: unless you plan to sit awfully close to that 37” set
and watch a lot of Blu-ray discs, there’s no reason to spend more on a 1080p
version. If you insist on spending money for something you can’t see, I won’t
stop you. But you’ll be much happier if you put the extra money into a good
surround sound system.
Does the upcoming change in broadcasting frequency have any
impact on the reception?
It depends. If you’re getting your TV shows from cable or
satellite, the analog/digital switchover will make no difference whatsoever.
None. You do not need to do anything at all.
If you’re getting your TV shows from an antenna, then you’ll
need either a new HDTV with a digital tuner built in, or a new tuner/converter
box. Your reception will either get much better or much worse, and it will vary
by channel, how far away you are from the station, and (in some cases) your
physical location (i.e., if you’re at the bottom of a hill or sandwiched
between big buildings). Digital channels do not degrade gradually. A rough rule
of thumb is that if you get a reasonably clear channel today, you’ll probably
get an even better looking version of it on digital. On the other hand, if you
have a snowy channel that’s just sort of watchable today, once it goes digital
you probably won’t get it at all.
Hope this helps,
-avi
*720×480 progressive, or about 350,000 pixels of actual
information per frame. This is a gross oversimplification, but it provides a good
basis for comparison. 1280 x 720 = around 900,000 pixels. Incidentally, this is
why watching analog TV channels or VHS video on an HDTV usually looks much,
much worse than it did on your old analog TV; the new TV is trying to take very
little information (VHS is roughly 240i, or 480×240 every other frame, or the
equivalent of about 60,000 pixels) and displaying it on something expecting
more than ten times that information to create the picture. Without much to go
on, the TV fudges, which, instead of looking soft and fuzzy like an analog set,
looks blocky and horrible.
