Are Panasonic EDTV'S Good And Is EDTV HD?

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sl7vk

Hey Tech, read the title of this thread! I don't push ED on anyone and I don't say it is superior to HD. I HAVE said that a quality ED set will display a picture better then some of the crappy Chinese or Korean manufacturers are putting out right now. Now, for those with such disdain for the Panny ED, there is no need to contribute to this thread is there? When someone asks should I get an LCD, I don't feel like wasting my time "pontificating" (as Ward put it and as he does so well) about the problems LCD's suffer. So why do you people feel it's worth your time to come and bash this particular product?

I can only assume it stems from some greater inadequacy.

The only reason we chime in on your "ed" rants is because you continuosly compare your "ed" set to "HD" sets. To say that you have never chimed in on LCD posts is quite untrue. I have seen many posts by you concerning LCD vs. plasma. You need to take the log out of your own eye before picking at the splinter in sombody elses. Do us all a favor and organize a forum where you are welcome and can input subject matter surrounding "ed" topics. As far as your inadequacy crack(which is no shocker coming from you) the only people that have those feelings here are owners of the "almost" HD technology. Find a different forum to post in, please!

John C · 02-16-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

I've repeated myself because there were a few unknowledgeable people out here who were incorrectly arguing that a 1024 x 768 plasma was an HDTV, such as yourself...

Comments like these displays ignorance on the subject and a lack of understanding, so I am forced to repeat myself.

Listen closely...there is no such thing as a 42" plasma HDTV.

No plasma panel under 50" is capable of displaying true HDTV.

That is a fact. You can complain about it, whine about it or argue about it...but, that does not alter the fact that 1024 x 768 is not HDTV, while 1280 x 720 is HDTV.

Stop trying to beat a dead horse. Accept my correction, learn from it and move on.

Unlike you I am not an expert on all of this but it was my understanding that the United States had legislatively adopted the ATSC Digital Television Standard (a/53), which is currently in Revision D with 1 Amendment. (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53c_amend-1_corr-1.pdf). That standard specifically recognizes ITU-R Recommendation 1125, as published by the International Telecommunication Union, as the distinction of what constitutes HDTV versus SDTV within the DTV standard. That recommendation in turn does not even formally recognize 720P as a high def signal but it establishes the definition of "HDTV Quality" as "the delivery of a television picture, which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard" which I understand has been interpreted to mean that 720P is, in fact, HDTV. But the 1280 vertical resolution, while included within the ATSC broadcast DTV standard, has never been a requirement for meeting the HDTV definition to the best of my knowledge.

Since you seem to be quite adamant on this subject and on your superior expertise on the matter, I was wondering if you could please provide a reference to whatever clarification was made to Recommendation 1125 or to where the ATSC has taken it upon themselves to abandon the international definition and declare their own standards as the sole governing policy in defining HD? Thanks.

sl7vk · 02-16-2006, 10:05 AM

Absolutly classic John C......

sl7vk · 02-16-2006, 10:06 AM

Oh and for the record, here was my first post before all the ED haters showed up.... Tell me this is false or misleading, or propaganda in any way.

Quote:

Well I have to disagree with you here. I bought the Panny ED 42 from Costco and love it. In fact I was in there today and it was sitting next to the HD Philips and was blowing it away.

Yes, it does have less resolution, and no it isn't HD. But to say there is no point watching HD on an ED set is ridiculous. I spend the majority of my time watching HD programing, and it looks wonderful on this set.

Oh and your point about HDMI, I use it and prefer it to component. I wasn't sold at all on HDMI, bought a cable and tried them side by side. HDMI looked much better, so I don't really know what you're getting at.

Bottom line is, if you like the picture, who cares. Less pixels to go dead....

Allin4greeN · 02-16-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John C

Unlike you I am not an expert on all of this but it was my understanding that the United States had legislatively adopted the ATSC Digital Television Standard (a/53), which is currently in Revision D with 1 Amendment. (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53c_amend-1_corr-1.pdf). That standard specifically recognizes ITU-R Recommendation 1125, as published by the International Telecommunication Union, as the distinction of what constitutes HDTV versus SDTV within the DTV standard. That recommendation in turn does not even formally recognize 720P as a high def signal but it establishes the definition of "HDTV Quality" as "the delivery of a television picture, which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard" which I understand has been interpreted to mean that 720P is, in fact, HDTV. But the 1280 vertical resolution, while included within the ATSC broadcast DTV standard, has never been a requirement for meeting the HDTV definition to the best of my knowledge.

Since you seem to be quite adamant on this subject and on your superior expertise on the matter, I was wondering if you could please provide a reference to whatever clarification was made to Recommendation 1125 or to where the ATSC has taken it upon themselves to abandon the international definition and declare their own standards as the sole governing policy in defining HD? Thanks.

In related news, an FCC Q&A... I found the Q&A regarding bitrates particularly interesting. Could it be that based on the "generally accepted" standards, very few broadcasters are actually providing "true" high definition signals? I'm really curious as I'm no expert, either.

Edit: Actually, after re-reading that Q&A, posted below...

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/dtvfaqs.html

Question: At what rate (Mbps) is HDTV delivered and how much bandwidth would a single TV channel require for any one of the 18 formats of HDTV?
Answer: 19.3 Mbps which can be transmitted in a 6 MHz channel in any HDTV format.

It appears that all 18 formats identified in post#96 may be interpreted as HDTV?

P.S. I think that anytime one bases an argument on semantics... it is potentially a very slippery slope.

rickbbb · 02-16-2006, 10:25 AM

Do you notice that techjunkie has'nt answered so quickly to these recent statements? Hmmm ,makes me

wonder

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sl7vk

Oh and for the record, here was my first post before all the ED haters showed up.... Tell me this is false or misleading, or propaganda in any way.

Here is another members opinion of your endless "ed" rants.

How many threads must there be regarding ED vs HD where SL7VK gets all heated up. Just go back to his previous posts and its the same thing every time. We get that you like your TV. We get that to you, ED is as good as HD. Many of us may not agree, but if you're happy with your purchase..GREAT. All I know is ED reminds me of a condition I would rather not have. If you must continue to talk about your awesome panny ED maybe you should start:

myawesomepannyedtvisbetterthanyourhdtvforum.com

If you really need me to go back through the threads and find all of the "Ed" promotion you have done (oh and LCD bashing). I've got all day.

John C · 02-16-2006, 11:03 AM

Techjunky is absolutely right. HD is "better" than ED. That's one reason why people buy it even though it costs more.

But in that same way, a Porsche is "better" than a Mazda. Yet not everyone buys a Porsche because not everyone needs one, wants one, or can afford one. Some may even argue that not EVERY Porsche is better than EVERY Mazda. If someone has a family and decides a Mazda better meets their needs, I do not feel compelled to tell them their car sucks because I happen to drive a Porsche. If they are happy with their Mazda, great! But when people come here and ask if they should buy a Porsche or a Mazda, I see nothing wrong with explaining the differences and helping them understand what that extra money buys them so that they can decide if paying the difference is worth it to them.

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John C

Techjunky is absolutely right. HD is "better" than ED. That's one reason why people buy it even though it costs more.

But in that same way, a Porsche is "better" than a Mazda. Yet not everyone buys a Porsche because not everyone needs one, wants one, or can afford one. Some may even argue that not EVERY Porsche is better than EVERY Mazda. If someone has a family and decides a Mazda better meets their needs, I do not feel compelled to tell them their car sucks because I happen to drive a Porsche. If they are happy with their Mazda, great! But when people come here and ask if they should buy a Porsche or a Mazda, I see nothing wrong with explaining the differences and helping them understand what that extra money buys them so that they can decide if paying the difference is worth it to them.

Now go and view the poll I started. If sombody wants info on the EDTV format, they could go to the EDTV forum. A very simple solution to this problem.

sl7vk · 02-16-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techjunky

Now go and view the poll I started. If sombody wants info on the EDTV format, they could go to the EDTV forum. A very simple solution to this problem.

If you are so angry, and clearly you are... Then just avoid this thread, that has the dreaded "ED" in the title! Simple solution for your simple mind!

rickbbb · 02-16-2006, 11:54 AM

Good Point !

lcdsucks · 02-16-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techjunky

Now go and view the poll I started. If sombody wants info on the EDTV format, they could go to the EDTV forum. A very simple solution to this problem.

The problem is that tiny LCD you've got for a primary set! No wonder you're so damned agree. I would be too!

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sl7vk

If you are so angry, and clearly you are... Then just avoid this thread, that has the dreaded "ED" in the title! Simple solution for your simple mind!

As noted by another user, I am one smooth operator. Like I said, for the last time, get your own forum (where you belong) and all problems solved.

techjunky · 02-16-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcdsucks

The problem is that tiny LCD you've got for a primary set! No wonder you're so damned agree. I would be too!

Oh look fstfugger has yet another user name, how clever.

rickbbb · 02-16-2006, 11:59 AM

Maybe you're just a bit Bitter then.

02-16-2006, 10:05 AM	#123
sl7vk Panasonic Plasma Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 603	Absolutly classic John C...... __________________ "Their LCD tv's are also assembled in the Netherlands...Belgium to be exact." -Ward Cleaver

02-16-2006, 10:25 AM	#126
rickbbb Phillips 47 Inch LCD HDTV Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Southern California Age: 51 Posts: 2,108	No Answer Yet From techjunkie Do you notice that techjunkie has'nt answered so quickly to these recent statements? Hmmm ,makes me wonder __________________ \

02-16-2006, 11:54 AM	#131
rickbbb Phillips 47 Inch LCD HDTV Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Southern California Age: 51 Posts: 2,108	s17vK Good Point ! __________________ \

02-16-2006, 11:59 AM	#135
rickbbb Phillips 47 Inch LCD HDTV Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Southern California Age: 51 Posts: 2,108	techjunkie Maybe you're just a bit Bitter then. __________________ \

Similar Threads to Are Panasonic EDTV'S Good And Is EDTV HD?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
panasonic edtv question	wassim17	Flat-Panel TVs	9	01-10-2005 07:09 PM

02-16-2006, 11:03 AM	#128
John C High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 111	Techjunky is absolutely right. HD is "better" than ED. That's one reason why people buy it even though it costs more. But in that same way, a Porsche is "better" than a Mazda. Yet not everyone buys a Porsche because not everyone needs one, wants one, or can afford one. Some may even argue that not EVERY Porsche is better than EVERY Mazda. If someone has a family and decides a Mazda better meets their needs, I do not feel compelled to tell them their car sucks because I happen to drive a Porsche. If they are happy with their Mazda, great! But when people come here and ask if they should buy a Porsche or a Mazda, I see nothing wrong with explaining the differences and helping them understand what that extra money buys them so that they can decide if paying the difference is worth it to them.