EDTV Better Than HDTV? I Don't Buy It.
Friday August 11, 2006 | Permalink
I read this article just now over at Home Theater Resources.com on the merits of televisions supporting EDTV vs. HDTV. This is twice now where I'm told that EDTV is a "huge advance" over HDTV. Frankly I find that very hard to swallow. Here's why.
EDTV, or Enhanced Definition TV, supports fewer scan lines than the HDTV standard, but the image is non-interlaced. I admit this is a big plus in favor of EDTV. Fewer scan lines means less vertical resolution so an image will be less defined on EDTV vs HDTV if you compare the pixel count only. EDTV also forces you to sit further back from the screen or you'll start to discern the individual pixels that make up the image. This is called the screen-door effect.
On the other hand, the screen ratio of EDTV is such that you don't need any scaling to be done when viewing standard television broadcasts or DVD movies. On an HDTV, more processing is needed to scale to the native pixel count of 1024x768. And the interlacing introduces a very slight flicker into the displayed image.
If you compare two sets of the same screen size, you'll notice the EDTV's individual pixels will standout more than they will on the HDTV. Now this is where opinion really takes over.
My beef is why people are saying EDTV is better than HDTV. Despite different formats (1080i, 1080p) and the fact that not all HDTV manufacturers use the full number of pixels to display an image, HD is clearly the future of television broadcasts. Cable and satellite providers are adding more HDTV content each year and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs are about to come around the corner. Once that format war shakes it self out, I would imagine EDTV definitely becoming a thing of the past. Already, EDTV's are unable to display HD broadcasts to the full resolution they were meant to.
Now all this is mostly for tomorrow. But for today, the majority of broadcasts are still in Standard Definition and very few people own next generation DVD players, so saving a $1,000 on a flat-screen EDTV may certainly be a good idea. But its by no means a "huge advance".
EDTV, or Enhanced Definition TV, supports fewer scan lines than the HDTV standard, but the image is non-interlaced. I admit this is a big plus in favor of EDTV. Fewer scan lines means less vertical resolution so an image will be less defined on EDTV vs HDTV if you compare the pixel count only. EDTV also forces you to sit further back from the screen or you'll start to discern the individual pixels that make up the image. This is called the screen-door effect.
On the other hand, the screen ratio of EDTV is such that you don't need any scaling to be done when viewing standard television broadcasts or DVD movies. On an HDTV, more processing is needed to scale to the native pixel count of 1024x768. And the interlacing introduces a very slight flicker into the displayed image.
If you compare two sets of the same screen size, you'll notice the EDTV's individual pixels will standout more than they will on the HDTV. Now this is where opinion really takes over.
My beef is why people are saying EDTV is better than HDTV. Despite different formats (1080i, 1080p) and the fact that not all HDTV manufacturers use the full number of pixels to display an image, HD is clearly the future of television broadcasts. Cable and satellite providers are adding more HDTV content each year and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs are about to come around the corner. Once that format war shakes it self out, I would imagine EDTV definitely becoming a thing of the past. Already, EDTV's are unable to display HD broadcasts to the full resolution they were meant to.
Now all this is mostly for tomorrow. But for today, the majority of broadcasts are still in Standard Definition and very few people own next generation DVD players, so saving a $1,000 on a flat-screen EDTV may certainly be a good idea. But its by no means a "huge advance".
|
Satellite HDTV
Friday July 28, 2006 | Permalink
So no, I don't yet have an HDTV in my new home theater yet. Why? Money, thats why. Oh and two kids aren't helping the pocket book either. Though my cable provider isn't bad, they don't offer any high-def channels, so right after I purchase a widescreen TV (or projector I think), I'll be swinging by the Bell store and signing up for Expressvu.
I think I'll be renting the receiver though because I want the HD PVR model with dual tuners. The whole hard drive thing tells me I don't want to be on the hook to deal with a warranty plan if it fails so renting is the only option for me. I like how it has two remotes, one is infared while the other is RF. I'll be able to use the RF remote and its tuner in a different room while the HD tuner stay in the family/theater room. I can't wait for that, but first I have to go buy some formula.
I think I'll be renting the receiver though because I want the HD PVR model with dual tuners. The whole hard drive thing tells me I don't want to be on the hook to deal with a warranty plan if it fails so renting is the only option for me. I like how it has two remotes, one is infared while the other is RF. I'll be able to use the RF remote and its tuner in a different room while the HD tuner stay in the family/theater room. I can't wait for that, but first I have to go buy some formula.