digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Top 10 HDTV Myths: Fact vs. Fiction

popularmechanics.com — Myth #3 - HD video can ’t be recorded to regular DVDs. Fact: Yes it can. New blue-laser discs such as Blu-ray and HD-DVD have high capacities, up to 50GB, but conventional red-laser DVDs can hold hi-def, too. Recording capacity is about 30 minutes for an HD program with the MPEG-2 digital compression system in widespread use today.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jklyon, on 10/11/2007, -41/+11UGH. Lists that require clicking. T_T.










    /lazy
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/11/2007, -3/+43Easier to read version: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4216631.html?do=print
    • mattmcm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+135This should save you all a crapload of clicking. There's 10 pages of that article...

      ---

      We untangle television invention from reality—manual-free. Get to know your home theater, then read about the future of TV (with Joost), learn how to troubleshoot your hi-def set (with Jack Bauer), get hacking tips to rig your PC for HD (with our DIY nerd) and listen to a podcast on what that all means for you and your living room (with a robotics expert).

      Myth #1
      You need a cable or satellite TV subscription to watch HDTV programs.
      Fact: If you live in or near a city, it’s likely there are several over-the-air local TV stations broadcasting HDTV programs, which you can watch for free. ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS, PBS and CW networks all offer HDTV programming (local HD listings are available at antennaweb.org). You can receive them with the tuner in your HDTV set or an external DTV set-top receiver, but you need an external HD antenna.

      Myth #2
      You can buy a flat-panel HDTV with 1080i resolution.
      Fact: Much of the confusion on this one comes from the difference between broadcast formats and display resolution. Some networks broadcast using a 1080-line “interlaced” (refresh every other line every other frame) signal, while others broadcast a 720-line “progressive” (refresh every line every frame) signal. But all flat-panel TVs display video progressively, regardless of the source signal. The way to assess the resolution of a plasma or LCD set is to check its total pixel count (e.g., 1280 x 768, 1920 x 1080, etc.).

      Myth #3
      HD video can’t be recorded to regular DVDs.
      Fact: Yes it can. New blue-laser discs such as Blu-ray and HD-DVD have high capacities, up to 50GB, but conventional red-laser DVDs can hold hi-def, too. Recording capacity is about 30 minutes for an HD program with the MPEG-2 digital compression system in widespread use today. But efficient codecs such as MPEG-4 and Windows Media can fit entire HD movies onto conventional DVDs that play back on computers and some DVD players.

      Myth #4
      A 1080p TV is always better than a 720p TV.
      Fact: A 1080p set (one with at least 1920 x 1080 pixels) does have higher resolution than a 720p (at least 1920 x 780) set. But the importance of those extra pixels depends on the size of your TV and the distance you are away from it. If you are sitting more than 8 ft. from a 42-in. HDTV or more than 10 ft. from a 50-in. set, you won’t notice the difference. If you mostly watch standard-def TV and DVDs, an expensive 1080p set makes no sense — a 720p set will work fine.

      Myth #5
      An HDTV set automatically converts all programs it receives to HDTV.
      Fact: HDTVs can stretch a standard definition (SDTV) image to fit their screens, but they can’t magically add resolution. Since SDTV has only 720 x 480 pixels, hi-def TVs tend to magnify the fuzziness of standard-def video — sometimes making it look worse than it would on a non-HDTV set.

      Myth #6
      All flat-panel televisions are high-definition.
      Fact: To make sure you get HD resolution, you need to do pixel math. Many 42-in. plasma TVs are sold with 1024 x 768 pixels. But the two high-definition broadcast standards are 1280 x 720 (720p) and 1920 x 1080 (1080i). So 1024 x 768 plasmas give you only 85 percent and 38 percent of the pixels, respectively.

      Myth #7
      To get the best-quality HD, you need expensive cables.
      Fact: Not true. If the cables running from your DVD player or cable box aren’t particularly long, you should be fine with inexpensive video cables. The extra shielding in expensive cables that prevents interference in analog equipment won’t improve the image of digital video through HDMI or DVI cables — the signal either comes through or it doesn’t. And the savings can be huge: 6-ft. HDMI cables range from $20 to $160.

      Myth #8
      HDTV means consistent picture quality.
      Fact: Definitely not true. To transmit HDTV programs, cable system operators, satellite companies and over-the-air broadcasters compress their signals. And some shows are compressed more than others. To fit more programming into existing bandwidth, broadcasters often take a channel designed for one HD program and squeeze multiple SDTV and HDTV programs into it. That can lead to squirmy backgrounds and other compression “artifacts.” Unfortunately, there’s not much that average viewers can do about this — except to complain to their cable or satellite providers.

      Myth #9
      All 1080p HDTVs accept 1080p input signals.
      Fact: There are a few “1080p” HDTVs out there that have 1920 x 1080 pixels and can display 1080i television signals, but can’t accept an external 1080p signal from a scaling DVD player or HD-DVD and Blu-ray players. Always check the manufacturer’s specifications for signal compatibility.

      Myth #10
      Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs always offer the highest possible resolution.
      Fact: That depends on how the discs were mastered from the original movie. Some discs are transferred from an early-generation digital copy, while others are scanned from a later-generation film print of poorer quality. There’s no labeling on the Blu-ray or HD-DVD packaging to give customers a quantitative measure of relative video quality, but it’s worth scanning reviews on enthusiast Web sites such as highdefdigest.com.
    • aywwts4, on 10/11/2007, -1/+47Myth: "but you need an external HD antenna."

      Fact: Actually that 30 year old aerial you have forgotten about since you got cable in the 90s picks up HD just as well as the no doubt overpriced "HD antenna" that this popular mechanics article recommends
    • cbdgr, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Anyone else here hate the 3+ seconds that it takes to switch between digital channels? Could that be added to the list or is it just my TV?

      I think the convention to digital cable by the FCC is a ploy so we can't flip through channels as fast and avoid the ads. Nice old analog TVs you can flip though at least 2 channels a second, I would like to see that on digital.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3@cbdgr,

      "Anyone else here hate the 3+ seconds that it takes to switch between digital channels?"

      I don't have the same problem. I've got Time Warner (yes, they are as bad as everyone says, but are my only choice other than sat) and I can switch between HD channels much faster than 3 seconds.
    • magus_melchior, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1I'm with jklyon. Thanks much, ThatsUnpossible.
    • KayIslandDrunk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I can switch with my cable box quick, but with the tuner built-in to my LG it takes a couple seconds. It is really annoying. Especially since fox, abc, etc. all look better using rabbit ears than the signal I get with mediacom's compression.
    • willynilly, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1Nice going, *****. Your point was valid; the site is a piece of *****, showing NO useful content without scrolling and clicking, scrolling and clicking...

      But then you pollute Digg with your idiotic whitespace stunt.
    • soogy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Myth #3 is kind of false. While you can burn it to a DVD, you can't burn it as a standard DVD Video disc, so most players won't be able to read it -- even if you use MPEG-2. The resolution is completely different.

      Though if you use a HTPC (or a good DVD player), you can just burn them as data. I personally use the former, so I just burn 720p videos onto standard DVDs as data discs, or 1080p onto dual-layer discs. I guess it depends on your means of playing your DVDs. Hell, you can build a PC specifically for this. it's a lot more cost-effective than buying a Blu-ray burner and discs for it. 100 DVDs are what, $20? That's 100 720p films for the cost of two BD-Rs. 100 DVD DLs are about $150, so you could always cut your 1080p videos in half to fit on two single-layer DVDs.
    • Tenoq, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Where's the myth about your standard antenna being fine?

      Most people "downunder" will find that despite having a perfect analog signal, their digital signal leaves a lot to be desired. Hardly any programs are in HD anyway, and most are just upsampled.
    • aywwts4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The "HD Antenna" myth was not dispelled by the article, it was perpetuated by it in Myth #1

      Read this for more information, http://www.hdtvantennalabs.com/hdtv-antenna-hype.php

      "There is no such thing as an HDTV antenna!

      The first thing to know is that there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna. Your antenna has no idea whether your signal is high definition or not, pretty much as it doesn't care whether you are watching Fox News or NBC chanel. Antenna is just a piece of metal resonating at some particular frequency and having desirable electrical properties and radiation pattern. You may have Ultra High Frequency (UHF) antenna or Very High Frequency (VHF) antenna, but Fox News antenna or HDTV antenna is pretty much nonsense. To be fair, there are some antenna properties that are important for HD signal reception. Without going into a technical discussion, the bottom line is that the only reason you see HDTV antennas in the market is 'cause it sells better. HDTV is a fancy buzzword. As a rule of thumb, HDTV optimization is the less important feature to look at when buying an antenna for HDTV. "

      This whole HD Switch is really allowing a lot of people to sell snake oil with the letters HD on it, and people believe it. Because there is so much misinformation out there.
    • venom8599, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@cbdgr
      If you use a DVR (Tivo, your cable/satellite provider's, etc..) that might be the cause, or if you're having to use any other kind of set-top box to change channels with cable. Some satellite receivers seem slower than others in that regard too.

      I've noticed that while at my aunt's house, changing channels with her Tivo seems to cause a very noticeable and annoying delay in channel changes.
  • jackpot, on 10/11/2007, -46/+4"Many 42-in. plasma TVs are sold with 1024 x 768 pixels. But the two high-definition broadcast standards are 1280 x 720 (720p) and 1920 x 1080 (1080i). So 1024 x 768 plasmas give you only 85 percent and 38 percent of the pixels, respectively."

    Yet, my panasonic plasma looks better than 99% of all televisions that are 1280 x 720 res.
    • danielman94, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Want a cookie?
    • jackpot, on 10/11/2007, -18/+2My point is that resolution isn't as important as the article states.
    • macgyber, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Yes, I think he wants a cookie
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Um... You're reading an emphasis on importance into that statement that I don't see. The article clearly states (and common sense dictates) that the importance of resolution depends on the size of the television in question and the distance you sit from it.
    • wtf00, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@danielman94
      "Want a cookie?" ROFL
    • srg13, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2When the author says 1080i, he should really be saying 1080p. 1080i is usually broadcast as 1440x1080 pixels.
    • heinousjay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31080i is 1920x1080 interlaced. 1440x1080 isn't at the 16:9 aspect ratio of 1080i.
    • dmoore764, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11440x1080 could be 16:9 if the pixels are not square. I'm not sure what 1080i is broadcast in, but I do know that at least some codecs store less than the full width of a 1920x1080 image and specify a rectangular shaped pixel. AVCHD does that for one.
  • R0cc0, on 10/11/2007, -34/+509-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    • floridiot2, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9That's the same combination I have on my luggage!
  • gxcdesign, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1Myth 1 is sort of incorrect. I have Comcast Cable and just that alone I get the HDTV broadcasts, they are higher channels and even come with digital music channels as well. You do not need an HDTV ant if you have Comcast cable.
    • h0mi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Your TV needs to have a QAM tuner to use cable without an OTA antenna. My set has one but I wanted the DVR also.

    • cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5No, you just misunderstand the explanation.

      If you are trying to get over-the-air HDTV, then you will need an over-the-air HDTV antenna to bring the feed directly in to your reciever.

      From what you are saying, Comcast Cable in your area is providing some of the over the air HDTV channels in with their standard digital feed, but unless you also have the antenna to pick them up an compare to the cable feed, it is really hard to say you are getting the same thing (either qualitywise, or all the local HD channels that you may have available to pick up).
    • joemc72, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Actually, you just proved Myth 1 correct. It states that you DON'T need to subscribe to cable to get an HD broadcast if you live near a city. Heck, I live in a small town and I can get OTA High-def signals.
    • KayIslandDrunk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, the article is incorrect. You need any TV antenna. I've got a regular amplified antenna I picked up in 2002 that gets all the HD channels. People that get HD antennas are the same people who buy 3 feet of monster cable to hook up their DVD player
  • c2kris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+33Myth #7
    To get the best-quality HD, you need expensive cables.

    But there's always a guy buying a Monster HDMI cable at BestBuy, with extended warranty....
  • h0mi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Great article. Thanks mattmcm for your comment.


  • Chainblade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2good info for the new or misinformed user that has some basic questions about HD.
  • TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Top 10 Ad's on Popular Mechanics website
  • hayseed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21A couple big myths they missed

    MYTH 11
    All movies and shows on hd channels such as HBO HD are actually high definition.

    This is not true - sometimes they just show an upconverted movie - this is from the hbo hd website
    "Approximately 80% of the HBO HD schedule is offered in true HD. This includes such HBO original programming as "The Sopranos" "Six Feet Under" the dramatic series "Carnivàle", and all current HBO films, as well as an average of 92% of all the theatrical films shown on the network. The balance of the schedule is upconverted to improve the quality and appearance of the image on an HDTV set."

    MYTH 12

    widescreen movies will always fill my entire screen on an hdtv.
    Not true - this depends on the OAR or aspect ratio of the film - many films are shot in an extra wide format 2.35 and with these films you will still have small black bars top and bottom. You need to look on back of the package to see if the movie has a stated ratio of 1.78 or 1.85 - in those cases it will fill your screen without letterboxing. More on this here: http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

    • Thundercat1971, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree 100% that #12 should have been included. So many people get upset or think that something is wrong when a picture is still letterboxed in HD
  • CoronaVegas, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Myth #4-
    If you mostly watch standard-def TV and DVDs, an expensive 1080p set makes no sense — a 720p set will work fine.
    Who the hell doesn't watch High Definition programming (or at least through an upconverted DVD player) on their HDTV set?
    • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@coronavegas (#6744962)
      Not everything is broadcast in HDTV. Not everyone who buys a blu-ray/HD-DVD player rushes out and re-buys their entire DVD collection.
      Use some common sense please.
  • MrCodeDude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Nevermind. They should have really not written "Fact" under every Myth. Those who skim articles for the big bold words probably will regard all the Myths as facts.
    • MegaSilver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Agreed! On a few of these, it made me go "What !?!"
  • zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1As far as myth 3 goes, you can create an HD-DVD using a regular DVD using Apple's DVD Studio Pro 4 that will play back in any computer as long as it has the correct codec.
    • pfranz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3and you can burn a DVD using a CD-R but, again, it will only work in computers.
    • molochi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Two of my stand alone DVD players can play Divx shows on CDs. They are made by LiteOn and Phillips. I can even put an entire season of shows on a single DVD using a Divx/MPEG-4 codec and play it on one of these standalones. I would expect a BR/HDDVD stand alone to be able to read a supported encodng regardless of the physical media....
  • 0ceanic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3those aren't myths. they are just what really stupid people might think. dug down cause the digg community knows all these anyways.


    though the one about the 1080p TV wont accept 1080p signals was a new one to me:
    "dumbass. you dont go by the 1080p on the label, you go by the 1080p thats in the design specs in the back of the engineering manual."
    really?

    stupid digital displays that call themselves progressive, but they wont handle progressive signals. you should take the tv back to circuit city then.
  • tensionrev, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm pretty sure #3 is misleading, iirc. Though some hd feeds come via mpeg2 compression, conventional dvd players can only support something like 9 megabits/second, whereas mpeg2 for hd needs something like 17 megabits/second. I think you need mpeg4 to get in to the 9mb/s range, but mpeg4 needs far more processing power than conventional dvd players have. Someone prove me wrong.
  • GeneralKickass, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Nothing a digg veteran wouldn't know.
  • swong7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Isn't this a Fact of Fiction page? Why does each page have Fact bolded? As a beginner, it almost made me thought everything was fact
    • cracker42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I thought the same thing at first. If you're going to make a list of myths, don't follow each one with "Fact:"
  • blaghness, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4The second myth is *****, Hitachi offers 1080i plasma TVs. It nice TVs too. http://www.hitachi.us/TV/browse/plasma/plasma/42hds69.shtml they have a number of them.

    Do your freaking research before you write and make yourself out like you know everything: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=1080i+plasma&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    Also, if you look at a 1080p TV on a 1080p signal next to a 720p or a 1080i TV with the matching signal (yes 1080i TVs exist!!!) the 1080p single will look incredibly different, it is true!

    While a lot of these are true, some are wrong or misleading. Popular mechanics disappoints me.. and you are such a good magazine!
    • DCstewieG, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Ugh...1080i is NOT a resolution. It is a format. A plasma TV can display a 1080i signal...but not in 1080i. Confused yet? All modern HDTVs (DLP, LCD, plasma) display only progressive pictures. It's just how they work. They take that 1080i, interlaced source and convert it into a progressive image at their native resolution, which is most likely lower than 1920x1080.
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The 1080p signal will look different _ONLY_ in relation to size of the screen and distance from the TV itself. The article is correct.

      1080p isn't an all-encompassing "woo!" that the hypesters are wanting you to believe...

    • TheMikey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@ DCStewieG

      Pretty sure that Hitachis are running at a resolution of 1280x1080 (native 1080i) as a resolution.

      http://www.hitachi.ca/Apps/hitachicanada/content.jsp?page=forhome/plasma_tvs/index.html&path=jsp/hcl/hcl/en/

      Also, if you look at the bottom left corner of their new plasmas, there's a little sticker that says "HD 1080" so as to replicate the FULL HD that Sony and Samsung are touting. It's unusually confusing for customers.

      Also, last year they offered Plasma resolutions at 1024 x 1080. Wacky for sure, but it was, actually, 1080i.
  • jetcat13, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3(yes 1080i TVs exist!!!

    I have a 1080i tv. Is it rare or something?
  • kidvicious1973, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I have a 1080i tv about 5-6 years old. So they do exist.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Is it a flat-panel television?

      Let me answer for you. It is not. It's a CRT. LCD and Plasma do not interlace video feeds. An interlaced feed is converted to progressive, usually resulting in the appearance of jagged edges around objects.
    • LowROI, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yea I hear ya man, my Toshiba Cinema Series 51" has to be 5 years old now and I have 1080i.
  • malvado, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Myth #11, everything will be HD in 2009.

    Wrong, only analog ota broadcasts will cease.
    • prockcore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah, that one bugs me as well.. that and the fact that it probably won't happen. The digital switchover was supposed to happen in 97, then again in 04, then again in 07.. now it's 09... it'll probably be pushed back to 2012 next year.
    • fjc8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Digital ATSC broadcasts don't have to be high-definition, either.
  • negativefx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9"If you are sitting more than 8 ft. from a 42-in. HDTV or more than 10 ft. from a 50-in. set, you won’t notice the difference. If you mostly watch standard-def TV and DVDs, an expensive 1080p set makes no sense — a 720p set will work fine."

    That's not a fact, that's completely opinion.
    • attractivetb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The article is likely referring to this chart:

      http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-content/uploads/resolution_chart.png

      Apparently we are unable to distinguish between 1080p and 720p from 8 feet on a 42" set. (According to the chart...I personally have no clue.)
    • marnaq, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Awesome chart. It confirms my feeling there's no difference between low-res and high-res when I watch my 21" computer screen when sitting in the couch.
  • joetrizeo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"HD antenna" = fallacy

    I have an original Nintendo w/ the RF converter box (the familiar gray box everyone knows) hooked up to my xbr2.
    everyone knows those served as antennas, slightly improving analog reception on any TV.
    with it I receive 2 HD channels.
    without it I receive none.

    Does this mean my 1984 Nintendo RF box is an HD antenna?
  • drhouse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why do people keep digging these to the front page? I see a post that has to do with HDTV myths 3 times a month ...
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They're probably submitted by SEOs working for HD DVD and Blu-Ray to boost HD adoption so there's a larger market for potential HD media owners. Then again, doing this on digg is rather pointless. Those who are in the HD camp are likely to not pick one of these formats yet, and those not in the HD camp aren't yet convinced of (or simply don't see any) advantages.
  • lektroluv, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Typo in fact #4: "A 1080p set (one with at least 1920 x 1080 pixels) does have higher resolution than a 720p (at least 1920 x 780)".

    Pretty sure that's supposed to be 1280 x 720. :)
  • shiftless, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Ouch. Are digg readers really this far behind the times? So sad.
  • Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I got a quick grammar question.

    Is it correct to use 'an' before HDTV? Isn't 'an' only suppose to be used before words beginning with a vowel. Last time I checked H wasn't a vowel no matter how you pronounce it. An HDTV just sounds really weird to me. I think its probably because American pronounce H as 'aytch', where as us Australians pronounce it as 'haytch', correct?
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8technically, the use of "an" before something that starts with H is grammatically correct. It's fallen out of favor in recent years... You don't say the "word starts with a H" you say "it starts with _an_ H" so, like the silent "h" in spanish, English used to consider the use of "an" before "h" words to be proper. Now it's just used before saying the letter itself. I'm referring to American English (since I don't know the other variants' nuances)...

      The reason the usage of "an HDTV" is how we say it out loud as individual letters. "An H" instead of "A HDTV", which sounds weirder to me, as an American.

    • dilbertmouse, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3My understanding is that 'an' is to be used before words beginning with a vowel (as you stated) or an acronym. So 'an HDTV' or 'an AGP video card' would be acceptable. Disclaimer: I am not a technical writer.
    • ManOfCube, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The purpose of "an" is to connect with a vowel sound, not just a vowel itself. Its awkward to say two vowel sounds in a row because you have to stop the stream of air completely to make the distinction. Adding a consonant sound between the two vowel sounds solves this problem and allows you say the words in one constant breath.
    • IllBeBack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4>> Is it correct to use 'an' before HDTV? Isn't 'an' only suppose to be used before words beginning with a vowel.

      'An' is correct before 'H' because 'H' is pronounced with a vowel sound (long A).
      Also, it is "supposed", not just "suppose".
      And, you need a question mark at the end of your questions.

      "Is it correct to use 'an' before HDTV? Isn't 'an' only supposed to be used before words beginning with a vowel?"

      So, you definitely need some work on your grammar and syntax.
  • Abomonog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It should be noted that SDTV is not measured in pixels, but in "lines of Definition", AND that the actual resolution is of a standard TV set is 310X254 and not 720X480.

    This is because on a TV set each pixel is only a single color and it actually takes 3 working together to do the same thing a single pixel on a monitor can do. The 3 pixel group also occupies 2 spots on one line and a single spot on the next.

    There are actually 930X762 pixels on a standard TV but because they work in groups of 3, you get a resolution of 310X254.

    Want to argue this? Then take a magnifying glass to your TV set first.
    • heinousjay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dude, I don't want to blow your mind too much, but take that magnifying glass to your computer monitor too.

      Standard TVs of different quality have different resolutions, same as the HD world.
  • bllambert, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2From #6. So 1024 x 768 plasmas give you only 38 percent of the pixels of a 1080i broadcast signal.

    This is acceptable???? I understand that in order to increase HD adoption, we had to lower the standard (flat panels couldn't handle 1080 lines until recently), but come on. I personally own a HD CRT and can easily notice the lack of detail in a 720p broadcast in comparison to a 1080i one.

    A 1024x768 display should not be considered HD anymore. It is misleading for consumers.
    • heinousjay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Why wouldn't it be acceptable? Must every consumer have your taste? There are other TVs out there, you don't have to buy one you don't like.
  • unruled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31024x768 isn't considered HD.... except by maybe the people selling the tv

    Im happy this is finally educating people about HD not fitting on DVD's.

    with H264 you can have dvd5 releases with pretty sweet quality, or else, for longer movies, DVD9 releases do the job.
  • Fifthace, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Actually the quality of the HDMI or DVI cable used does make a difference.

    Tests carried out by ActiveHome (big UK TV magazine) proved that used a higher quality HDMI cable makes a difference.

    This is because the error correction used for digital signals isn't very good. Packets aren't sent via TCP (good error correction) so even digital HDMI signals are prone to interference. UDP (for example, not used by DVI connectors though) has a very high speed but gets data packets wrong sometimes. Any tech website that has tested HDMI cables out has proven this to be the case. This website doesn't know its arse from its elbow.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Umm...yea...okay. Did they have some big advertisements for Monster Cable next to that "article".
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0They skipped the main actual myth:

    Flat panel and HDTV are somehow related. There's plenty of tube based HDTVs out there.

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.