Wegas vs. HDTVs for gaming.

[Matt]

Originally posted by Kosh_H
Well, of course I'll use component cables for all my GC games, I'm talking about the fact that the DC doesn't have component. Is there an RGB hack I can get that will work on either TVs?

Sadly, there aren't any real RGB options with North American TVs . RGB->component converters are available, but they're made for the professional video industry and cost a fortune!

One good idea might be to follow Shou-sama's advice and get a VGA-compatible HDTV. That way, you could just play your DC games with a VGA box

- Matt

[Schlep]

Yeah, Saint's right. At this point, you have to decide whether progressive is worth $700 more to you or not.

[Santini]

Kosh_H,

Just so I know I read it right: you're trying to decide between buying a 4:3 direct-view versus a 16x9 HDTV projection set, right? They do make 16x9 direct-view HDTVs, as well as 4:3 projection TVs. I think sony even has a 4:3 that they claim is HDTV (it's technically not, as HDTV is primarily 16x9). To keep this long discussion simple, I'll be comparing the merits of 4:3 versus 16x9.

For most, a new television is a huge investment. Unless you can spend tons of dollars at a drop a few years from now to replace a 4:3 set, I'd recommend getting a 16x9 HDTV.

If you're concerned about how big the screen will be for standard 4:3 games or anime DVDs, I'd recommend a look here:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

That's a page that computes the viewing difference between a 16x9 screen and a 4:3 screen. You never specified how large of a display you wanted, but now you'll be able to tell how much space you'll get for your particular entertainment choice.

As a side note, if you're not going to be using component output for any of your entertainment sources, you might want to go with the 4:3 Wega. If you're not going to take advantage of HDTV's features (aside from the 16x9 screen), you might not want to part with the extra cash. HDTVs are a bit more expensive now because they're not considered "standard" yet. If none of your sources will be using component output, go with the Wega. The Wega does support component input, so you'll have it for the future if you decide to use it.

Given that you've stated a preference for DirecTV and DVDs, if most of your DVD viewing will be film-based, I would recommend picking up a 16x9 HDTV.

DirecTV has about 3 HDTV feeds from the service itself (though you'll need to subscribe to both HBO and Showtime), and a few of your local stations should already be airing _some_ of their programs in HD. These would be your local NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc. affiliates. You can head over to http://www.titantv.com to get a (short) list. BTW, you don't need a subscription to DirecTV to get local HD broadcasts. All you need is a HDTV tuner and an antenna.

As you know, if you watch material intended for a 16x9 screen on a standard 4:3 display, you'll get black bars at the top and bottom of your screen. On the other hand, 4:3 material on a 16x9 screen has black bars on the sides. If you're concerned about bars on the side, all 16x9 televisions have an option to let you stretch out the picture on the sides so that the screen is filled. You can also zoom in on 4:3 material, but you'd be cropping off a portion of the top and bottom.

Still, owning a 16x9 doesn't mean you'll be rid of those bars when watching DVDs! Depending on the film's scope, you'll have no bars, or small bars of varying size. The aspect ratio of a 16x9 screen is 1.78:1. Any film shot in this aspect ratio will fit nicely on the screen, with no bars. However, most films are shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio (e.g, Jurrasic Park, Starship Troopers), or 2.35:1 (e.g., Star Wars, Gladiator). Also, not every DVD is released in anamorphic widescreen; some studios' releases don't natively support 16x9 screens, and are released as "letterboxed" versions. Instead of the film taking up the entire DVD image of 720x480, the black bars take up some of that precious real estate. Unless you have a good zoom function or scaler, letterbox movies on a 16x9 screen have bars on all sides! If you're into picture quality, try to stay away from non-anamorphic movies; most studios like to double dip nowadays and will release the film--eventually.

If you decide to get a 4:3, you'll always have bars on the top and bottom. Some 4:3 sets, like the Wega, have a mode that supports anamorphic widescreen DVDs. Instead of using the raster to draw the black bars, all of it is focused on the movie.

For more info, start here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...hic/index.html

For gaming, if a game supports 16x9, you're obviously getting more screen real estate. Of course, not every developer has a 16x9 option for their game. Unless you want to stretch or distort the aspect ratio, you'll be playing the game in 4:3, with black bars on the sides. Depending on the game, you might not be bothered by the stretch. Any game that does not realistically depict humans or realistic settings, e.g., Animal Crossing, Bomberman, Mario, etc. looks fine stretched out to me. On the other hand, games that portray realism look odd to me, e.g., racing games such as Project Gotham, or any of the realistic fighting games with humans (VF, Tekken). Your eyes will be the best judge.

For those games that support 16x9, you'll be in for a treat. From my experience, I wouldn't play GTA3, GT3, DOA3 (lotta 3's), Ace Combat IV, SSX, Madden 2003, NFL2K3, Amped, Eternal Darkness, Tekken 4, or Sega GT 2002, to name a few, any other way. You will _see_ more. In the football games, you get to see your wide outs and more of the field. In racing, you'll get a better view of what's ahead. In fighting games, you get more arena to fight in and plan your attacks. In action/adventure games, like the others, you'll just see more. Playing the above games in 4:3 after experiencing them in 16x9 makes the games feel a bit claustrophobic to me.

Regarding progressive scan: the difference between interlaced and progressive is night and day, particularly on an HDTV. Of course, this is all dependent on the source material. Ever play or see the Dreamcast on a VGA monitor? Ever play the same game on a TV, with S-Video? Did you notice the difference? Most DC games were progressive scan. Those that weren't didn't work on a VGA monitor (or didn't work properly). IIRC, the DC output a progressive signal if attached to a VGA box. If not, it would output an interlaced signal.

For the current generation of consoles, the XBOX leads the way with progressive scan support, followed by the Gamecube. Progressive PS2 games are coming, but as of now, there are only two: Tekken 4 and Socom. In general, progressive scan games do look much, much better than they would if displayed interlaced. The best way to find out is to see it.

To use progressive scan, you're going to need a display that supports component inputs, as well as something that outputs it. All HDTVs have component input, and the current Wegas should have it as well. Currently, no game system comes with the proper cabling out of the box. XBOXes require the purchase of the HD connection "pack". The PS2 requires a separate component cable. The GC also requires a component cable, but that needs to be ordered directly from Nintendo.

Game systems hooked up with normal A/V cables do look nice on the Wega, particularly the PS2. Why the PS2?

Most HDTVs have a built-in line doubler for analog or interlaced sources. A good line doubler will make interlaced source material look good. I don't believe that line doublers built into most HDTVs are that good; there are companies that make line doublers that cost more than a TV! If anything, they don't suck. Again, your eyes will be the best judge. Better definition of line doubler here: http://www.audiovideo101.com/diction...ne-doubler.asp

Since most PS2 games are interlaced, to my eyes, they tend to look better on an interlaced set (such as most Wegas). A line-doubled PS2 display makes jaggies and other graphic anamolies inherent with the system stick out. Virtua Fighter 4 comes to mind. On a Wega, it looked cool. On a line-doubled display, it didn't look that cool. And this is with PS2 Monster component cables. Again, you'll have to see it and judge for yourself.

Regarding burn in: you can have any television and not worry about burn in if you're careful enough with it. Burn in is a primary concern for projection televisions, but direct-views can suffer something similar.

The reason burn in occurs is because most television owners either don't know how to set their televisions properly, or they use the default factory settings. Combine that with static displays or overlays, and you've got some bad stuff left on the screen, if not worse.

When looking at televisions, have you ever walked into a Good Guys or Best Buy and been drawn towards a particular TV that stood out amongst the others? Unless you knew what you were looking for, 9 times out of 10, it's because that television set's brightness and contrast settings were set into what is sometimes referred to as "Torch Mode". The majority of television manufacturers, knowing that they'll be competing against other television manufacturers, have the default brightness, contrast, and color settings of their sets cranked up to extremely high levels, if not the maximum. When put side-by-side with other TV's, it's the brightest one that stands out to most customers.

When most people bring the sets home, they don't bother with changing the settings, and leave it one of the factory presets (i.e., standard, sports, film, etc.). The majority of presets are too high, resulting in burn in with projection televisions when a static display/overlay is left on the screen for large periods of time, or phosphor burn for direct-view televisions (phosphor burn can result in uneven brightness/dark levels for the direct view TV).

Anyway, I hope I've given you more insight into this brave new world.

You might want to vist this forum to look for A/V related topics:

http://www.avsforum.com/

Last thing. Regarding component switch boxes. Currently, they're somewhat expensive. Most are actually powered and use a remote control. If you have your game systems' audio hooked up to a receiver, you might want to consider just using a decent A/V switch box to act as a component switch box. I'm using a Sony box ($30-$50)to switch between the XBOX, PS2, and Gamecube. The XBOX and PS2 are connected to the receiver via optical cable. The Gamecube uses the normal A/V audio cable. There is no picture or signal degradation: it's a decent switchbox and the component cables aren't long.

For the record, I have a 34" 16x9 direct-view HDTV (Panasonic). Unfortunately, I have an earlier model that locks all progressive signals to 16x9. Depending on the game, I will have the particular system output an interlaced signal via component due to the fact that I don't like distortion on certain games (e.g., Genma Onimusha). Newer models should allow for progressive signals to be displayed at 4:3. If it doesn't, don't buy it.

If I were to buy a set today, I would definitely buy a 16x9 set (as long as it supported 4:3 properly). However, I'd be torn between direct-view and projection. Direct-view 16x9 maxes out at about 38", while projection goes up to about 65". That's a whole lotta viewing room. I have lighting issues (can't make the whole place dark during the day), so projection might not work. I also don't like the fact that you need to view the set from particular angles to get a good view. But when it works, it works.

Good luck!

[Josh]

Santini: That was one of the most useful posts I have ever seen. Thank you.

[Schlep]

Originally posted by Santini
For most, a new television is a huge investment. Unless you can spend tons of dollars at a drop a few years from now to replace a 4:3 set, I'd recommend getting a 16x9 HDTV.

It's important to point out that buying an HDTV today is twice as expensive as it will be when the 2006 deadline rolls around. Also, since the standards haven't been set for content delivery, your TV may be obsoleted within 2-4 years, as far as getting true 1080i and 720p content on anything but OTA channels.

Given that you've stated a preference for DirecTV and DVDs, if most of your DVD viewing will be film-based, I would recommend picking up a 16x9 HDTV.

I would absolutely not recommend an HDTV for DirecTV at this point. The signal from DirecTV looks bad enough on a 27" 4:3...imagine blowing that up and stretching it out. Trust me, it's not pretty. My first year with my TV watching DirecTV was horrible. It wasn't until my set was worked over by cheezmo that it became even halfway passable.

DirecTV has about 3 HDTV feeds from the service itself (though you'll need to subscribe to both HBO and Showtime), and a few of your local stations should already be airing _some_ of their programs in HD. All you need is a HDTV tuner and an antenna.

An $800 investment.

As you know, if you watch material intended for a 16x9 screen on a standard 4:3 display, you'll get black bars at the top and bottom of your screen. On the other hand, 4:3 material on a 16x9 screen has black bars on the sides.

Almost all HDTV's use grey bars, which is more than a little distracting. Using even these more than about 15% of the time isn't a good idea if you're going with projection. Direct view is a little different, but using two grey bars 90% of the time is going to burn your TV Pac-Man style.

If you're concerned about bars on the side, all 16x9 televisions have an option to let you stretch out the picture on the sides so that the screen is filled.

The fish eye mode. If activity is static, without any panning, it looks great. When you go to the store, turn it to CNN and look at the bottom of the screen to see a little fun.

Still, owning a 16x9 doesn't mean you'll be rid of those bars when watching DVDs! Depending on the film's scope, you'll have no bars, or small bars of varying size. The aspect ratio of a 16x9 screen is 1.78:1. Any film shot in this aspect ratio will fit nicely on the screen, with no bars. However, most films are shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio (e.g, Jurrasic Park, Starship Troopers)

And most of these shows are anamorphic DVDs, so it's a non-issue.

Regarding progressive scan: the difference between interlaced and progressive is night and day, particularly on an HDTV.

Only HDTV's are capable of progressive scan.

Most HDTVs have a built-in line doubler for analog or interlaced sources. A good line doubler will make interlaced source material look good. I don't believe that line doublers built into most HDTVs are that good; there are companies that make line doublers that cost more than a TV! If anything, they don't suck. Again, your eyes will be the best judge.

Almost all of the internal line doublers are horrid. The Mitsubishi doubler on a properly calibrated set looks fairly good, and the Pioneer Elites look good out of the box. If you're looking for a good line doubler on the cheap, the iScan Pro v2 is the way to go.

You might want to vist this forum to look for A/V related topics:

http://www.avsforum.com/

I would also suggest http://www.hometheaterforum.com

Last thing. Regarding component switch boxes. Currently, they're somewhat expensive.

The JVC switch is $100. Not too pricey for someone considering buying an HDTV.

I have lighting issues (can't make the whole place dark during the day), so projection might not work. I also don't like the fact that you need to view the set from particular angles to get a good view. But when it works, it works.

imo, a properly calibrated projection TV surpasses nearly all local theaters, outside of DLP. Direct views are nice, but they're harder to get the color temperature correct. They do look very nice, but a projection will always win out for sheer quality of video, imo.

I agree with everything else said that I didn't quote here in my text.

My advice is still to go with a 4:3 for $500-600 today and then an HDTV in 2005-2006 when the prices are halved, standards are set, and more programming is available; both TV and games.

[Teddman]

Great post from Santini and Schlep above. I think that the changing of HDTV standards is still a big issue--the powers that be still haven't adopted one standard and the different formats are being fought over right now.

If you decide to get a 4:3, you'll always have bars on the top and bottom. Some 4:3 sets, like the Wega, have a mode that supports anamorphic widescreen DVDs.

I can't speak highly enough of this feature, often referred to as "anamorphic squeeze." 4:3 TV's with this option generate black bars digitally to letterbox widescreen movies and use the full 480 lines of horizontal resolution to display the picture, instead of wasting any on the black borders.

It increases your resolution by about a third when watching anamorphic DVD's and makes a noticeable improvement in detail. On my 32" Wega, this means that I see less "scan lines" and a clearer image. It *almost* makes my regular tube look progressive. I wouldn't buy a non-progressive TV without this feature if you enjoy DVD's.

[1CCOSA]

Took me awhile to get back to this thread. It'll be awhile before I can digest all these options and decide on a TV.

Thanks to Santini, Matt and Schlep for all the great info and advice!

[Green]

I use a HD widescreen projection tv for games and dvds. Sometimes when I play something that is 4:3 (most videogames) in 16:9 full screen mode the image will shake. The weird thing is that it seems the screen only shakes when in progressive scan mode. Take Eternal Darkness for example, while in 16:9 mode interlaced the Poe quote will be solid, but when it goes progressive scan the screen jitters. Sometimes it will stay like that, sometimes it will fix itself after a while and sometimes it will be solid the whole time. I have no idea why it does that.