Brandon Discusses Some Pitfalls of HD Television

One problem is with the aspect ratio. With more and more HD content being the norm now, its less of a problem now than it was a few years ago, but so many stations stretched their standard 4:3 programming to a 16:9 ratio (infamously coined "stretch-o-vision" ) and it just looked awful. And it was impossible with the settings on most tv sets to restore the original ratio.

Its also amazing to me how many people I know (even today) have a standard definition feed to their big screen tv but have it set to stretched. I seriously don't know how people can watch tv like that.

If I were in charge, I would have set the standard to 14:9 (halfway between 16:9 and 4:3) - stretched programming wouldn't look nearly so bad and at the same time movies could have been cut a little less severely to fit a 14:9 screen compared to a 4:3 screen.

And on a side note, the only thing I hate more than 16:9 tv screens is 16:9 computer monitors.

And on that note, don't get me started on LCD vs. CRT either. Even to this day, a good CRT monitor produces a better all-around picture than even the best LCD monitor. You can't beat the viewing angles, response times, and color accuracy of a high-end (or even mid-level) CRT monitor. Unfortunately my 24" Sony 16:10 CRT monitor died last year - fortunately I found an adequate replacement with a Philips 22" 4:3 CRT monitor. But good CRTs are becoming more scarce by the day.

Related articles

Is HD an Improvement Or Slick Marketing to Hook Us on More Expensive Technology?

HD Radio Does not Stand for "High-Definition Radio"

HTG Explains: Why Screen Savers Are No Longer Necessary

Comments

[Ulysses]

Good replacements for CRTs are available, but you used to have to pay through the nose for them which is something the average consumer is unwilling to do. Thankfully that situation has improved in recent years. In one respect alone CRTs still have a slight edge over LCD and that is contrast. A black screen on an LCD still looks slightly grey.

I held on to my old Mitsubishi/NEC Diamondtron as long as I could before it finally failed. All the research i'd done had led me to realise that the LCDs at the time were mostly crude and gave an awful picture. Consumers had become used to these awful displays due to the increasing popularity of laptops which almost invariably used the cheaper technology (TN-panels). I realised that in order to satisfy my needs as someone who works heavily with graphics and 3D, i'd have to stump up a lot of cash for a professional monitor. I eventually chose the NEC 2690WUXi, which like most pro monitors used the better IPS-based technology. This thing was about $1200 at the time but with a standard 5-year warranty I saw it as an investment. The picture quality was incredible compared to what I was used to with my old Mitsubishi. Six years later it's still going strong. This thing has computer-controls for every imaginable feature and a level of clarity, sharpness and colour accuracy unrivalled by a CRT. Excellent viewing angles too with no colour-shift and certainly none of the dreaded "negative image" effect you still see on most laptops.

As I already mentioned, the only real weakness of LCDs is the poor contrast. This will be banished with the advent of OLED based displays, where each pixel is the source of light rather than a back-light, and can therefore be switched completely off for a true appearance of black.

I remember a few years ago when Apple laptops all featured these lovely IPS-based displays. I guess they wanted to build them cheaper because they totally phased out these high-quality panels and in the last few years have re-introduced them only for their more premium models.

Since the time I purchased mine, the consumer has finally become aware of the fact that displays are not all made equal, and as a result many major manufacturers are using the better technology with varying results (electronics make a difference too) but still vastly superior to the old TN-based models. As a result prices have come down and anyone can own one. The best displays are still produced by the likes of Eizo and NEC but you can have most of the performance for a lot less money now.

[Paul]

You must be kidding about comparing CRT and LCD displays. If you are talking about cheap LCDs (with TN technology), then I understand. But a higher end IPS technology LCD (such as the Apple 27 inch, or other IPS displays) is fantastic in terms of color reproduction, text intelligibilty, "flatness" and correct reproduction of images, ...

See the link on top "Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390" and the discussion:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5040725

[Angelo]

Paul: From a technical sense, there might be truth to what you're saying. In the real world----I think Brandon has a point. I remember back in the 80s, the stereo geek/dweeb army would read "High Fidelity" magazine and muse over the latest consumer stereo equipment costing well into the thousands of dollars. I worked in radio at the time---met manufacturers of professional studio equipment. They told me that to human ears, a decent Technics component system/speakers, that one could put together for around five hundred bucks----would perform nearly as well as the super $5000.00 system. They actually showed equipment that could SHOW the difference with lights----but hearing the difference? Trained ears, not "regular" music listeners. And even when "trained ears" could hear a difference----it was hard to quantify the difference as being better or worse. My point is that with something like high def TV, now that the dust has settled----I don't think we got any bang for the buck. It was a huge waste of money for consumers but certainly, the parties selling all of the newly formatted high def televisions made a load of money from it all.

[brandon]

Paul - I would put the Sony GDM-FW900 24-inch CRT monitor up against any LCD (including IPS models) and bet that in a side-by-side comparison with just the human eye, it would meet or beat them all.

[Paul]

Up until 2005 I had the same exact Sony Trinitron monitor and I agree, it was a fantastic display. I loved it. I was glad that I didn't have to pay for it (work got it for me), as the price was $2300. It was also 93 lbs in weight, and its power consumption was 170 watts.

The Monoprice display I gave the link to is 27 inches (3 inches more than the Sony), sells for $390, has higher resolution, is totally flat, draws 65 watts and weights 14 lbs. It has a gorgeous IPS display (same one used in Apple Cinema displays). Everything has improved - everything!

[Ulysses]

I think my long comment went AWOL somewhere.

[Ulysses]

Oh no, there it is lol.