Fully Equipped

Hz so good: The marketing of 240Hz TVs may rely heavily on test patterns.

(Credit: Akihabara News)

Every year it seems there's a new catchy spec in the HDTV realm everybody likes to talk about. A few years back it was 1080p resolution. Then we heard about 120Hz, which is supposed to reduce motion blur in fast-moving images on LCD TVs. Well, this year, the latest and greatest spec is 240Hz, which is supposed to do what 120Hz does, but better.

Not too long ago, our video guru David Katzmaier gave his initial impressions on 240Hz in a post titled "Is 240Hz worth waiting for?" When he wrote that piece, he'd just seen his first 240Hz TV in action and wasn't sold on the new technology. Now that he's reviewed four 240Hz HDTVs and has a fifth review (the LG 47LH55) in the works, he's still not sold, but he admits the verdict isn't totally clear-cut.

Part of the problem is that there's a difference between what your eye sees in everyday material you watch and objective testing done with test patterns. As Katzmaier notes in his post, "Standard LCD and plasma TVs refresh the screen 60 times per second, or 60Hz, which is plenty fast enough to eliminate flicker and create the illusion of motion from a series of still images. In fact, most sources sent to your display arrive at the nominal rate of 30 frames per second, and each frame is repeated once by the television to achieve 60 total fps."

240Hz LCD HDTVs compared

For most people, including me and Mr. Katzmaier, it's very difficult to see the impact that "faster" LCD sets have on picture quality. We spent some time in our AV lab watching various source material from 120Hz TVs and 240Hz models and it's really hard to detect any difference (it's hard to detect any difference between 120Hz and 60Hz models, too). To be clear, I'm referring here to motion-blur reduction because of faster refresh rates, not to dejudder processing, which smooths out motion and makes film-based material shot at 24fps look more video-like. When dejudder is engaged, you can easily spot its impact on the picture. (It's also worth mentioning that the dejudder processing on the 240Hz TVs we tested so far wasn't any better--or worse--than than the dejudder on 120Hz TVs).

Eventually, of course, manufacturers will completely phase out 720p TVs. But it may take a few years. While the number of new 720p models is dwindling, several manufacturers, including Sony, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic, are putting out entry-level lines in 2009 that feature 720p TVs and we're getting a lot of readers asking whether they should save some dough and buy them. With that in mind, here's the word on 720p vs. 1080p, updated for this year.

1. What's so great about 1080p?

1080p resolution--which equates to 1,920x1080 pixels--is the current Holy Grail of HDTV resolution. That's because most 1080p HDTVs are capable of displaying every pixel of the highest-resolution HD broadcasts. They offer more than twice the resolution of step-down models, which are typically 1,366x768, 1,280x720, or 1,024x768. These days, HDTVs with any of those three of lower resolutions are typically called "720p." Nobody wants to remember all those numbers, and "768p" doesn't really roll off the tongue.

2. How much extra does a 1080p TV cost?

When I wrote my original article a few years ago, you had to pay a premium of about $1,000 to get a 1080p model at the same screen size as a "720p" set. While the gap has certainly narrowed, there's still a notable difference. In the case of a 32-inch LCD, for instance, you're looking at around a $200-$250 price bump. For example, the Samsung LN32B360 goes for $549.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the LN32B530, goes for $799.99. Sony has a similar price delta when it comes to its 32-inch LCDs.

As you move up the LCD-size chain, your 720p options basically disappear. Samsung and Sony, the two biggest names in LCD, don't even produce 720p LCDs larger than 32 inches anymore. You can still find older big-screen 720p models, like the 40-inch Samsung LN40A450, but they're becoming a rare breed.

This Panasonic 50-inch 720 plasma costs much less than the 1080p step-up model.

(Credit: Panasonic)

When it comes to plasma, Panasonic's entry-level 42-inch TC-P42X1 720p carries a price of around $899.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the TC-P42S1, come in at $1,199.99 (street prices will vary, of course). Move up to Panasonic's 50-inch models and you're looking at more like a $700 delta, with the 720p TC-P50X1 coming in around $1,000 and the TC-P50S1 selling for $1,700--though Panasonic's S1 series does feature more-efficient, higher-contrast NEO-PDP panels. (Note: We do expect prices to drop slightly on all these models as the year progresses).

3. Why is 1080p theoretically better than 1080i?

1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution, but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.

... Read more

If the picture doesn't pop, it's not HD.

(Credit: CNET Australia)

"Dude, what do you think? Pretty good, huh? I got the one you guys [CNET] recommended."

I look at the TV and there seems to be something a little off about it. I move closer and say:

"You have HD?"

"Yeah," he replies, pointing to the cable box sitting underneath the TV.

I tell him to turn it to an HD channel. Something in the 700s (the HD channels for Time Warner Cable in New York are all in the 700s).

"I have it on an HD channel."

For good measure, I have him turn to 702, CBS HD. (Now that we're owned by CBS, I always tell people to go to CBS HD first. Naturally.)

"Dude," I say, "You're not watching HDTV."

"I'm not?"

"No, you are not."

On New Year's Eve, I was dealing with a Sony Bravia. About 3 years old. Cosmetically, really good looking. It wasn't displaying HD, however, even though there was an HD box sitting right next to the TV.

I took a quick look at the box's rear and lo and behold, there was a yellow composite video cable running from the back of the cable box to the back of the TV. Sound was carried by the standard red/white composite cables.

"I hate to break it to you," I said to my host (I didn't say dude because he was a buttoned-up dude who you don't call dude), "but you're running video to your expensive TV through the worst possible video connection."

This was actually the fourth time I'd encountered just such a scenario in the last couple of years. Three times the owner had screwed up and in the fourth instance, a "professional" installer had--remarkably--hooked my friend's system up with a composite video cable. (Shame on my friend; double shame on the installer).

In this case, part of the problem was that the cable box was fairly old and had a DVI connection but no HDMI. That meant the owner would have had to purchase a DVI-to-HDMI cable, then run the sound to the TV with the red/white composite cables (he didn't have an AV receiver in the mix). For a lot of people, that's just too complicated. Of course, today all new satellite and cable HD boxes feature HDMI connections, which makes things much simpler if all you're looking to do is hook your set-top box up to the TV and get HD video and stereo sound through your TV's speakers. But somehow people occasionally manage to screw that up, too. (Watch our "How to connect high-def to your HDTV" explanation here).

Anyway, to make a long story short, in the middle of the party I magically turned the composite cable into component cables (no, the colors don't match up, but in a pinch you can always convert the yellow/white/red composite cable into a red/blue/green component cable) and pumped the HD into the set that way. The sound had to be passed through a separate red/white composite cable, but people always tend to have an extra set of those lying around, so we were cool there.

I then fiddled around with the cable box's video-output settings and the Sony's settings until everything was how it was supposed to be (at least in terms of getting the pictured displayed at the proper aspect ratio and resolution). Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is still too complicated for the average person to deal with (and sound is a whole other matter entirely).

When I finally got the HD working, the small crowd erupted in applause and the owner of the TV stood back and looked at the set, stunned. I was briefly Moses parting the Red Sea.

Alas, I think this situation is more prevalent than I initially thought. I had guessed that around 10 percent of HDTV owners weren't actually watching HD. But it may very well be closer to the 20 percent the LRG survey cites.

What do you guys think? Anybody willing to admit to being an embarrassing victim of the think-you-have-HD-but-you-really-don't syndrome? (Or maybe you're just worried you have it and need advice). And has anyone helped save a friend with an HDTV afflicted with non-HD syndrome?

We've been keeping an eye on prices for Blu-ray players and it appears that a handful of budget-brand models are starting to crack the $150 barrier. The other day Woot.com had the Memorex MVBD2510 player at $139.99 for a one-day sale and now TheNerds.net is selling it for $146.99 (shipping included) and Buy.com has it at $149.99. That's on top of both the Samsung BD-P1500 and the Sony BDP-S300 slipping in and out of sub-$200 territory at Amazon and other outlets.

The Wall-E Blu-ray costs $10 more than the DVD: Is that too big a premium in a tight economy?

(Credit: Amazon)

While $150 isn't bad, I think we're going to see $99 fairly soon, with a couple of stops at $129.99. As we found out with HD-DVD players, $99 really is a magic price point, though it is worth pointing out that these budget Blu-ray players are only profile 1.1, while the $99 HD DVD players were fully up to spec and allowed for firmware upgrades via Ethernet (the cheap Blu-ray players can't be updated and sometimes simply can't play certain movies). Profile 1.1 players aren't BD-Live enabled, which means you won't be able to access certain interactive features--for better or worse.

BD-Live issues aside, I'm betting we'll see $99 for a Blu-ray player inside of four months, if not sooner, the way the economy is going. We can debate exactly when it will happen (feel free to comment), but in the near future the initiation fee for entering Club Blu-ray will be relatively negligible--or at least not a serious stumbling block.

That said, the bigger problem is prices for Blu-ray movies compared to DVDs. For example, if you take a look at Wall-E, which currently sits atop Amazon's Blu-ray bestseller list, it costs $24.95 versus $14.99 for the DVD. Granted, the Blu-ray version comes with three discs (there's a two-disc version for 50 cents less, but why bother?) and the DVD is only a single disc. The fact is the majority of blue-chip Blu-ray titles cost around $25, with some, like Iron Man, coming in at $20. (It's also worth noting that you don't get the free shipping on Amazon on anything less than $25, which makes you understand the price has been set where it is for a reason).

I realize that manufacturers, retail outlets, and studios want to preserve margins as long as they can and they've made an effort to present Blu-ray as a premium format that deserves to be marked up. But asking people to pay 50-75 percent extra when everybody's cutting back already is going to crimp sales of both Discs and players.

The smart people are opting to rent rather than buy (Netflix charges an extra buck for Blu-ray rentals, but it's still a good deal, especially when you consider you get its free movie streaming service thrown in). That said, I know folks who say they'll only consider switching to Blu-ray when players are $99 and the price gap between DVD and Blu-ray movies is minimal. Of course, others will never switch, preferring instead to download zero-cost illegal pirated flicks or stream legal free content from Hulu, Netflix, and others.

What do you guys think? At what point is Blu-ray really going to take off (if ever)? Is one of these stripped-down, cheap players worth buying? And are Discs too expensive?