Jump to content


Photo

widescreen tv for gaming & dvd's


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 dr_rod

dr_rod

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 07:01 PM

howdy all

i m on a quest. that quest requires that i find a suitable tv, now that my former toshiba has passed on. i would like a widescreen, for i do like to watch many dvd's and play games. my former tv supported rgb via scart input - which is an absolute minimum for my standards now.

i would assume, from reading many topics on this forum, that a tv that supports some kind of progressive scan function would be a good idea. so far i have fancied the grundig cinaro 70-5410-7 [66cm actual screen size], which does rgb, component & s-video via scart, but it does not support progressive scan. the other tv i have spied was the lg lafinion70w which is 576p which only has component & s-video inputs.

ideally id like to spend around $1k, and it should have enough inputs for a dvd player and games console [currently an xbox & gamecube + next gen. nintendo next year]. i like what i have seen with scart, and i have the cables for my current devices, but it isnt a deal-maker. i would probably invest in a set-top box in the near future, altho its certainly not a priority.

i m not terribly fussed with the whole hi-def debate. in a few years time when the standards and technology are more balanced ill invest then. but any recommendations any of you boys & girls may have will be muchly appreciatedly.

cheers

:blink:

#2 dr_rod

dr_rod

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:59 PM

well no replies from anybody, but i went around and checked out a whole bunch of widescreens today. jb hi-fi offered me the best deal thus far; [Panasonic TX-28F250A] 66cm widescreen, with a teac DVB420 sd stb + 5 year extended warranty for $995. i like the tv, the stb is pretty average, and frankly i m going to ask him to swap it for a new dvd player instead.

does that sound like a decent deal?

#3 dr_rod

dr_rod

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted 23 November 2005 - 08:48 PM

okay i bagged myself a panasonic TX-32F250A 76cm widescreen [supports 576p, 100Hz, 2x component, 1x s-video, 3x rca], a panasonic dvd-s29 dvd player, extended 5yr warranty & some component cables for $1365.

i have lay-by'd it so i have option of change still. does anyone have any additions/subtractions to this setup?

#4 outerspacerace

outerspacerace

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 24 December 2005 - 07:01 AM

Just wanted to add I picked up one of these on Thursday night and it is a seriously fantastic unit.

You will like your gamecube on there - I've been playing F-Zero in widescreen, very nice - and I don't even have component cables for the cube yet!

Mine looks beautiful with only an SD Supernet STB though later I might try adding a HD box to see if the 576p feature looks much better.

I will say it now though - there is ONE annoying feature about this otherwise impeccible tv set:

The user can't change aspect ratios at all when component is hooked up. From what I've seen all sources get strecthed to 16:9.

Called Panasonic and the tech verified that is the case (initially I thought my remote was broken as the aspect button is sunken in comparison to other buttons) and he stated that all the other panasonic widescreen CRT's are the same.

I'm unsure, but don't remember other brands being limited by this feature.

What it essentially means is that while the component input is fine for 16:9 movies and STB input - you can't watch 4:3 sources on there in the correct ratio....which is about half my dvd collection. Things like all my 80's anime become stretched out sideways.

Fair enough, the unit does the best stretch job I've ever seen but still, it's hardly authentic is it.

The only solution I know of (confirmed on phone by tech) is to run the DVD player into S-Video or Composite because the user has full aspect ratio control over those inputs.

I'm amazed I haven't heard about this issue before!

#5 P3SS3SSOd

P3SS3SSOd

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 27 December 2005 - 03:54 PM

I have this tv and can switch aspects on components sources fine as long as they aren't set to progressive.

I just checked my PS2 then which is connected via component, and it allowed me to switch through all the ratios with no issue.

I'd say for you to make sure your equipment running into the tv wasn't set to progressive, but I know for a fact that australian Gamecube's can't do progressive, plus you mentioned you aren't using the Gamecube via component. The only other thing I can think of is that its a newer revision of the firmware in your tv than mine which dosen't allow this function. That said I only bought this tv 3 weeks ago.

I've mainly found this problem to be an issue on PS2 games that offer 480p, but don't offer a 16:9 picture.
I'm also having a similar issue with the new Wizard Of Oz Collectors Edition, as it has a 4:3 picture, and just stretches when run progressively also. I did read on here somewhere that you can set a dvd player to a 4:3 output setting and it will remedy this, but I've not investigated it further. I've found that if you don't have a good quality DVD player hooked up to it that if you set the "scan mode" to progressive you'll get the smoother scan-line free image, but without the extra detail (as the dvd player still outputting interlaced), but I find this picture superior to the regular 100hz mode on non-progressive component inputs.

I'll be picking up a panasonic DVD-S29 player this week as it definitely works correctly on this tv, as opposed to the many other DVD players I've experimented with, as evidenced in this thread:

http://www.dtvforum....533;entry312349


Good luck with the TV and I look forward to discussing it further.

#6 outerspacerace

outerspacerace

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 10:46 PM

P3 You legend!!!

Like you I worked out that having progressive scan switched on in my DVD player was causing jagged and moving lines (just like your toy story pic in another thread) so I'd turned it off.

However, can't believe I didn't even try using the aspect ratio button afterwards! Now I am happily flipping through ratios via component. Thanks a million.

I am not looking to get DVD another player just so I can get the progressive scan working on both units, since this would then mean I'd be back to being unable to flip ratios on component again. Why would Panasonic devise the unit like this from a technical standpoint I wonder?

Though I would be very interested in hearing about any quality improvements you may get from such a setup...surely there must be some advantage in having the actual DVD player doing the scanning work too, rather than the TV alone?

Having said that my eyes didn't notice much improvement when both were scanning anyhow - but it's possible all the jagged lines distracted me lol.

So keep us informed, right now I'm off to disconnect some no longer needed S-Video cables!

#7 P3SS3SSOd

P3SS3SSOd

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 03:12 PM

Glad to be of some help outerspacerace. These things can be a pain to sort out at best.

I picked up my Panasonic DVD-S29 last week and its progressive picture is flawless on this tv. No distortion and the progressive image is beautiful. Also of note for yourself is it has an option in the players aspect options called "4:3 Shrink" which allows progressive playback of 4:3 dvds in the correct aspect ratio. That Wizard Of Oz Collectors Edition can now be watch perfectly in progressive scan, which is marvellous.

Another thing I discovered, which might be of use to you, I bought a secondary player, a Conia M610 due to the DVD-S29 not being able to play DIVX format video. This player can be picked up for as little as AUD$60 cash at places like The Good Guys and although it lacks the detail and vibrancy of the S29's picture it does output progressive without the distortion a lot of players have. The picture is still good, but the remote for it is absoloutely diabolical. But for $60, its a great little player that does DIVX up to version 5.1 very well.

Then again, I managed to get the Panasonic DVD-S29 for 120 cash at Power House and highly recommned this player for the picture, interface and performance. Great value and the perfect companion to the TX32 F250A tv.



P3 You legend!!!

Like you I worked out that having progressive scan switched on in my DVD player was causing jagged and moving lines (just like your toy story pic in another thread) so I'd turned it off.

However, can't believe I didn't even try using the aspect ratio button afterwards! Now I am happily flipping through ratios via component. Thanks a million.

I am not looking to get DVD another player just so I can get the progressive scan working on both units, since this would then mean I'd be back to being unable to flip ratios on component again. Why would Panasonic devise the unit like this from a technical standpoint I wonder?

Though I would be very interested in hearing about any quality improvements you may get from such a setup...surely there must be some advantage in having the actual DVD player doing the scanning work too, rather than the TV alone?

Having said that my eyes didn't notice much improvement when both were scanning anyhow - but it's possible all the jagged lines distracted me lol.

So keep us informed, right now I'm off to disconnect some no longer needed S-Video cables!



#8 AndyM

AndyM

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 821 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:05 PM

Hi P3,

Great to read you got the whole combo working with 4:3/prog/component! Must be a releif :P

BTW, how would you compare the prog scan picture (@50Hz) to the interlaced (@100Hz) for a DVD. My player only supports prog scan on NTSC, not PAL progressive :blink: . Maybe a good excuse to upgrade :P I would be very interested in your opinion as it would be the exact same combo I would be using.

Cheers,
AndyM

#9 P3SS3SSOd

P3SS3SSOd

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 12:52 AM

To my eye the progressive scan picture is much smoother looking and more film-like than 100hz, mainly due to not being able to see the scan lines, and generally less aliasing in a progessive picture. I really notice a difference going from watching a progressive dvd to foxtel digital, not just in the overall picture quality of course, but the prominence of the scan lines in 100hz.

Some people say theres very little difference, and yes, its not a huge obvious difference, but I do think its an improvement worth upgrading to, well, by upgrading I mean spending AUD$120-130 on a Panasonic DVD-S29. I'd say a reasonably big factor in this is viewing distance too, if your more than 8 feet away from the screen you probably won't see any real improvement. I find a viewing distance of around 6 feet is optimum.


On the subject of this tv, does anyone have any idea of the best settings to have in Service Menu settings for the TX 32F250A? Been fooling about with mine but not entirely happy with the adjustments I make and always seem to go back to factory settings.

These are my DVD picture settings too, which I've found give a very nice quality picture that I'm happy with:

cinema
contrast: 44
brightness: 53
colour: 32
sharpness: 3 (2 if the video source looks edge enhanced)


I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions on this tv or discuss it further

good luck.

#10 Heiser202

Heiser202

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 1,006 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 10:08 PM

I use a 42inch panasonic plasma for my xbox360. Wish i had purchased a HD plasma. Back when i got this though plasma's was around $5000+ HD was $9999+ thats just for 42inch.

I have been hooking it up to my pana projector, but ive been using too many hours, so put it back on the plasma today. Xbox360 looks better in HD

Cant beat playing games in widescreen though. Best way to play them.

Also those teac sd boxes work fine. For the price you cant beat them. They work well with panasonic, unlike dgtec.......:blink:

#11 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 09:04 AM

I use a 42inch panasonic plasma for my xbox360. Wish i had purchased a HD plasma. Back when i got this though plasma's was around $5000+ HD was $9999+ thats just for 42inch.

I have been hooking it up to my pana projector, but ive been using too many hours, so put it back on the plasma today. Xbox360 looks better in HD

Cant beat playing games in widescreen though. Best way to play them.

Also those teac sd boxes work fine. For the price you cant beat them. They work well with panasonic, unlike dgtec.......:blink:


You wouldnt of been dissapointed.. Having connected mates X360 to my Pana SD and the HD model i bought then took back, the difference at 3m's was nothing, at all.. could not tell ANY difference...

Mind you, closer you could, but thats inherent in the fact that the human eye can't distingiush the difference in pixels at that distance on a 42" screen.

The x360, playing Kameo at 1080i and 720p was simply fantastic and nothing to be dissapointed at, at all.... Not anything like the night and day some HD fanatics think to defend their purchase... I bought the SD thewn bought he HD for all of two days about 2 weeks ago... After having it side by side, running same picture, there was no difference.. If anything everyone that saw it prefered the SD panel when watching DVD's and TV (common seeing as all content is SD and no scaling involved really)

Basically don't fret and you'll love and enjoy the X360.. Also, those using the VGA have reported the imageto not be as good when using component... So again, no loss.

#12 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 09:42 PM

The thing with playing games at higher resolutions is not just about the sharper image, but it will also eliminate any jaggies that will almost definately be present at 480p on an SD display. Jaggies will be visible regardless of the distance you view your display at (okay, up to a certain point.. as long as you can see the image, you'll still be able to see the jaggies), and is really noticeable on the slower-paced games... It's not as noticeable with darker games (like Doom 3) and I believe the XBox 360 enables Anti-Aliasing by default when running at 480p (though, I think it depends on how visually intense the game is).

Some people don't notice jaggies, or pay any attention to them... others, like myself, avoid it like the plague. I absolutely hate the original XBox and PS2 running at their default resolutions because of this fact.

#13 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:29 PM

The thing with playing games at higher resolutions is not just about the sharper image, but it will also eliminate any jaggies that will almost definately be present at 480p on an SD display. Jaggies will be visible regardless of the distance you view your display at (okay, up to a certain point.. as long as you can see the image, you'll still be able to see the jaggies), and is really noticeable on the slower-paced games... It's not as noticeable with darker games (like Doom 3) and I believe the XBox 360 enables Anti-Aliasing by default when running at 480p (though, I think it depends on how visually intense the game is).

Some people don't notice jaggies, or pay any attention to them... others, like myself, avoid it like the plague. I absolutely hate the original XBox and PS2 running at their default resolutions because of this fact.


WTF?? HD has NOTHING to do with that, at all! thats the scaler on board, nothing to do with HD.

I call BS as i've seen the Xbox running a 720p game on both Panasonic HD and SD side by side. Under 2m you could see a little more definition on the HD. Past that picture's were identical, evevryone (ytalking 8 guys) considered the SD better in terms of PQ.

Then hooked up the X360 and fired up COD2 and Kameo.. Exactly the same results.

Technically the "jaggies" as you put it has nothing to do with a few more pixels... If you compared a native 1080p panel (none in Oz i think yet) and an SD i agree, you'd see a difference. In the barely HD panels here, BS you'd see a difference, AT ALL under 3m. I know from first hand experience.

You don't see ANY jaggies using HD pack and 480p enabled ont he xbox. Your settings are either wrong, using crap cables or your seeing things, as physically the extra pixels do NOTHING for "jaggies"

#14 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:41 PM

:blink: :P :P :P :D :P :P

I'm sorry, I've never laughed so hard in my life!

#15 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:45 PM

Well, now i get to laugh at you for being an idiot.

Read this, then if your humble and can read and learn, i'll accept your apology.

The first images explains that "JAGGIES" as you put it are the result of SCALERS, not HD, NOT PANELS.

Now you've been tought something, next time don't be so cockey.

Frigging try hard amatuers....

Edited by mxlaser, 08 January 2006 - 11:46 PM.


#16 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:48 PM

http://www.dtvforum....&gopid=324846

#17 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:52 PM

http://www.dtvforum....&gopid=324846


So.. You laugh.. I post accurate truth and technical proof.. You laugh....

Its funny trying to explain simple things to such simple people... I'll just ignore you this time.. I've embarrased you enough as you clearly have no idea....

Oh, and wow, what a sense of humour you have... "look mummy i can use smileys on that interweb thing everyone talks about"

Have a good night, i feel good knowing i tried to educate what appears now, as a complete lost cause.

#18 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:27 AM

Do I really have to explain resolution? Well, there's only one way for you to learn...

First, let's start with a white background on a 42" display, running a screen resolution of 852x480, the standard 480p resolution of a plasma display. For future reference, the diagonal length of the display is roughly equal to 106cm. That would give us approximately 74cm for the height and 133cm for the width. Now, with a resolution of 852x480, the size of each pixel would then equal to 1.56mm by 1.54mm. Let's say we want to draw a black diagonal line from the bottom left hand corner to the top right hand corner, at an angle of 45 degrees, but since we won't see the line very well, we will make it 4 pixels wide and 4 pixels high. That would mean each pixel is approximately 6.24mm wide and 6.16mm high, or 38.44mm˛. Let's simulate what that would look like: http://img249.images...228/480p0dq.jpg

Now, let's bump up the resolution. We'll go to 1280x720p. The same 42" sized display, so we'll use the same dimensions as before.. 133cm wide by 74cm high. However, now that we have more pixels to play with, we can now fit more pixels per square inch. So now, the size of each pixel is 1.04mm by 1.03mm. As before, we'll make a diagonal line, where each square is 4 pixels wide and high. Therefore our pixels for our diagonal line will have a dimmension of 4.16mm by 4.12mm, or 17.14mm˛. That is almost half the size. Let's simulate this: http://img249.images...986/720p3yx.jpg

Finally, let's move on to 1920x1080. The same 42" dimensions before, only we have even more pixels to pack in. Each pixel is now 0.69mm by 0.69mm. For our diagonal line, each step will be equal to 2.76mm by 2.76mm, or 7.62mm˛. That is more than half the size. Which brings us to the simulation: http://img249.images...02/1080i2kb.jpg

Still don't get it yet? Let's do an in-game example, using Splinter Cell as an example: http://img249.images...ntercell2mq.jpg

The subsequent images show precisely what running a higher resolution does. The more pixels you have, the less visible jagged lines you'll get.

Of course, when increasing the resolution is not an option, your only other option is to enable Anti-Aliasing. If you look up, I said that they use Anti-Aliasing for the lower resolution modes on the Xbox 360. And if you don't know what Anti-Aliasing is (and seeing how you linked to a site about deinterlacing which has nothing to do with increasing the resolution), I'll give you an example: http://img249.images...tercell14gb.jpg

And now, if you still don't want to believe me, take a look at the following links:

http://www.gamespot....0654/index.html
http://www.gamespot....0621/index.html
http://users.bigpond...gun/xbox/video/

#19 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 06:29 AM

Do I really have to explain resolution? Well, there's only one way for you to learn...

First, let's start with a white background on a 42" display, running a screen resolution of 852x480, the standard 480p resolution of a plasma display. For future reference, the diagonal length of the display is roughly equal to 106cm. That would give us approximately 74cm for the height and 133cm for the width. Now, with a resolution of 852x480, the size of each pixel would then equal to 1.56mm by 1.54mm. Let's say we want to draw a black diagonal line from the bottom left hand corner to the top right hand corner, at an angle of 45 degrees, but since we won't see the line very well, we will make it 4 pixels wide and 4 pixels high. That would mean each pixel is approximately 6.24mm wide and 6.16mm high, or 38.44mm˛. Let's simulate what that would look like: http://img249.images...228/480p0dq.jpg

Now, let's bump up the resolution. We'll go to 1280x720p. The same 42" sized display, so we'll use the same dimensions as before.. 133cm wide by 74cm high. However, now that we have more pixels to play with, we can now fit more pixels per square inch. So now, the size of each pixel is 1.04mm by 1.03mm. As before, we'll make a diagonal line, where each square is 4 pixels wide and high. Therefore our pixels for our diagonal line will have a dimmension of 4.16mm by 4.12mm, or 17.14mm˛. That is almost half the size. Let's simulate this: http://img249.images...986/720p3yx.jpg

Finally, let's move on to 1920x1080. The same 42" dimensions before, only we have even more pixels to pack in. Each pixel is now 0.69mm by 0.69mm. For our diagonal line, each step will be equal to 2.76mm by 2.76mm, or 7.62mm˛. That is more than half the size. Which brings us to the simulation: http://img249.images...02/1080i2kb.jpg

Still don't get it yet? Let's do an in-game example, using Splinter Cell as an example: http://img249.images...ntercell2mq.jpg

The subsequent images show precisely what running a higher resolution does. The more pixels you have, the less visible jagged lines you'll get.

Of course, when increasing the resolution is not an option, your only other option is to enable Anti-Aliasing. If you look up, I said that they use Anti-Aliasing for the lower resolution modes on the Xbox 360. And if you don't know what Anti-Aliasing is (and seeing how you linked to a site about deinterlacing which has nothing to do with increasing the resolution), I'll give you an example: http://img249.images...tercell14gb.jpg

And now, if you still don't want to believe me, take a look at the following links:

http://www.gamespot....0654/index.html
http://www.gamespot....0621/index.html
http://users.bigpond...gun/xbox/video/



LOL... and you've taken into account the viewing distance i mentioned?? And what ANY HUMAN EYS CAN PHYSCALLY DISTINGIUSH at 3m?? I mean, i appreciate you over reacted, love;y little paint shop fun you had, and how it must of took 2 hours to do, but what your comparing with the resolutions, when you take into SCALING, HD will play no part, especially at 3m's!

If you think about the X360 anti aliasing as you mention, thats what a good scaler will do when downscaling the 720p signal to a 480p one... Thus rendering your HD/SD debate and fancy drawings as a pointles exercise, unless under 2m'ish as i said above... so if your sitting damn close, then i agreed (i won't be as petty to link to my own post above... What is it they say, height of arrogance is to quote oneself..)

If you sit at 3m, those lovely diagrams you drew will have no relevance as they human eye CAN NOT see the difference in pixels at that distance.. In fact on a 42" panel at 3.5m, you wouldn't even see the difference in a 1080p PDP... So all this jaggies crap is irrelevant...

But then theres abaolutly NO point in trying to explain it further to you.

#20 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 10:23 AM

There's is no point in trying to explain it any further to me. I know precisely what you are trying to say, and how you think it's all relevant... the problem is, you are trying to explain something completely different to what I'm saying...

I am not talking about the human eye's ability to resolve resolutions at a certain distance. I am not talking about the difference between SD video and HD video. I am not talking about the sharpness of the image, or deinterlacing. I am not talking about scaling the image to fit the screen size. The only thing I'm talking about, the only thing that is relevant to this discussion, is the fact that low resolution gaming produces jaggies. The jaggies I'm talking about are not related in any way to scaling or deinterlacing or screen distance or the human eye's ability to resolve lines. The only thing that affects the jaggies I'm talking about is resolution. More pixels = less jaggies.

Ask any gamer out there how to get rid of jaggies and they'll tell you to either bump up the res or increase the AA settings. In fact, I dare you to go to a gaming site and tell them that jaggies are irrelevant.

I have been gaming since the late years of the 80's.. how long have you been a gamer for?

#21 mxlaser

mxlaser

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • 504 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 10:38 AM

There's is no point in trying to explain it any further to me. I know precisely what you are trying to say, and how you think it's all relevant... the problem is, you are trying to explain something completely different to what I'm saying...

I am not talking about the human eye's ability to resolve resolutions at a certain distance. I am not talking about the difference between SD video and HD video. I am not talking about the sharpness of the image, or deinterlacing. I am not talking about scaling the image to fit the screen size. The only thing I'm talking about, the only thing that is relevant to this discussion, is the fact that low resolution gaming produces jaggies. The jaggies I'm talking about are not related in any way to scaling or deinterlacing or screen distance or the human eye's ability to resolve lines. The only thing that affects the jaggies I'm talking about is resolution. More pixels = less jaggies.

Ask any gamer out there how to get rid of jaggies and they'll tell you to either bump up the res or increase the AA settings. In fact, I dare you to go to a gaming site and tell them that jaggies are irrelevant.

I have been gaming since the late years of the 80's.. how long have you been a gamer for?


Amstrad and C64 days.. I know all about jaggies :blink:

We are crossing over on what we are talking about, i can see that now.. Mine is more in refence to images in general, not soley gaming.

Although if your thinking gaming ie: PC related and LCD like your refernces and links above that would appear a lot differently on a plasma once scaled as the scaler itself will perform a type of AA on the image anyway... I know exactly now what your trying to convey so sorry for trying to argue another point :P Looks like we both had wires crossed, love when thta happens :P

Anyway, having played the X360 on both HD and SD as i said, in HD (720p and 1080i) honestly there was no difference in jagged lines etc. That may of been the result of the 4xAA the x360 has though...

I will say though, that still IMO res isnt that important is anti-aliasing is applied, which a good scaler will do, as you'd know from gaming that a 1024x768 16xAA 8xAF image would be far superior to a 1600x1200 no AA/AF image in regards to jagged lines etc.

But at least i now understand where your coming form :P

#22 DavoNogo

DavoNogo

    DTV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,801 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 10:42 AM

But at least i now understand where your coming form :P

Finally! :blink:

(I guess I should have been more clear on my first post, so sorry about that)

#23 mr poo

mr poo

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 12:23 PM

Finally! :blink:

(I guess I should have been more clear on my first post, so sorry about that)


How sweet! When's the wedding?

#24 AndyM

AndyM

    DTV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 821 posts

Posted 10 January 2006 - 04:27 PM

To my eye the progressive scan picture is much smoother looking and more film-like than 100hz, mainly due to not being able to see the scan lines, and generally less aliasing in a progessive picture. I really notice a difference going from watching a progressive dvd to foxtel digital, not just in the overall picture quality of course, but the prominence of the scan lines in 100hz.

Some people say theres very little difference, and yes, its not a huge obvious difference, but I do think its an improvement worth upgrading to, well, by upgrading I mean spending AUD$120-130 on a Panasonic DVD-S29. I'd say a reasonably big factor in this is viewing distance too, if your more than 8 feet away from the screen you probably won't see any real improvement. I find a viewing distance of around 6 feet is optimum.
On the subject of this tv, does anyone have any idea of the best settings to have in Service Menu settings for the TX 32F250A? Been fooling about with mine but not entirely happy with the adjustments I make and always seem to go back to factory settings.

These are my DVD picture settings too, which I've found give a very nice quality picture that I'm happy with:

cinema
contrast: 44
brightness: 53
colour: 32
sharpness: 3 (2 if the video source looks edge enhanced)
I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions on this tv or discuss it further

good luck.



Hi,

Thanks for the reply, only just saw it. I view from 2.9 metres so may not be worth it to me. My settings are also pretty close to default settings on cinema. I might try and source a DVE (digital video essentials) DVD and calibrate it with that and see what I come back with - I'll let you know if I do. DVE sounds like its a good thing to have in any case for future additions to my setup.

Cheers,
AndyM

#25 outerspacerace

outerspacerace

    DTV Forums Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 26 January 2006 - 04:05 PM

Hi again, forgot to say I still have some niggles with my Panasonic 66cm widescreen.

When viewing digital TV (Supernet SD box set to 16:9 through Lite-on LVW-5045 HDD/DVD recorder set to 16:9) I have the Panasonic set to "Auto" on the aspect ratio control.

Only thing is, it jumps and changes when commercials come on. It can happen on any type of video but mostly those annoying 4:3 letterbox ads trigger it. It's like the TV thinks it should try to fill the screen when there is black at the edges.

How can I fix this? Or can I at all?

If I have the Panasonic set "16:9" instead of "auto" it NEVER happens but for some odd reason the display isn't quite correct. I miss parts of the video on each vertical edge and it just doesn't look as wide as a widescreen should.

Also it happens on some 16:9 dvd's that are letterboxed like The Iron Giant too. However, if I set the TV to 16:9 (like mentioned above) it fixes the problem and I don't lose any of the image on the vertical edges. Weird.

Basically, can I make this TV keep the aspect ratio when set to auto?