Plasma TV boosts Gateway picture - (42 " HDTV flat-panel display for $3,000)

The San Diego Union Tribune ^ | December 28, 2002 | Bruce V. Bigelow

[bonesmccoy]

Actually, I just went to the Hauppage website. They're selling a HDTV receiver that can handle ATSC standards. The card is called WinHDTV. They are also selling a personal video recorder card with some impressive specs.

MPEG 1 record at 1150 Kbps (video CD rate)
MPEG 2 record at 2MBit/Sec fullD1 and halfD1, 4MBit/sec full D1 CBR or VBR
NTSC format at 29.97 fps with FullD1 at 704x576, HalfD1 at 352x576, MPEG 1 at 352x240
video formats are .mpg
audio sampling is 32,44.1,48khz


looks like the card has solid performance with Pioneer, AIWA, JVC, Yamakawa, and Apex DVD drives. Performance with Sony DVPs ok with DVD-RW

Seems like you the ability to use a PC to digitally record HDTV is present, but kludgey.

Sounds like I just need to go buy the card and try it.
$250 at fry's.
I think you're correct about the Digital Cable cards having specific addressing available. I think that is how the cable company can monitor your pay-per-view requests.

[bonesmccoy]

http://hauppauge.lightpath.net/html/wintv-d.pdf

Looks like this card is an answer to your question.

I'd have to go get one to see.

Basically, the innovation of digital video recording on a PC pushes Sony/Panasonic/etc. on a collison course with Dell/HP/GTW.

Oh well. Tell Sony to make cheaper Vaios and put the right cards in or Dell can make better video systems.

In the end, we're gonna end up with theatre quality projection at 10% of the initial cost :)

[bonesmccoy]

Go ahead...make my day... you're the one posting garbage about "confucius" and "mohammad"... I have enough common sense to NOT post racist diatribe like your completely non germane garbage about Mohammad and Confucius..

this thread is about DV/PC's etc.

Grow up.

[Dan Day]

First question, even if I have a LCD screen with an over-head projector, how do I get a HDTV receiver to display on the LCD screen? Is this something I plug into my computer?

The LCD screen is just a monitor -- it's an alternate form of "TV" technology.

There are various ways to produce an image on a screen for you to see, including CRT (this used to be the only type of TV screen), projection, LCD, and plasma.

If you have a projection system, you don't need an LCD screen, and vice versa (unless you want *two* screens to watch for some reason).

Once you have a screen (of whatever type) to watch, then you hook it up to some video source (DVD player, VCR, cable box, etc.) by just plugging it in to your "video out" cable from your DVD/VCR/etc.

It's really no more complicated than that. Don't let some people (*cough*) make it sound more complex than it is.

Although there are of course further considerations, like how to choose *which* technology to get based on your requirements and wallet, etc., and the wiring can get trickier if you're feeding multiple video sources into the same monitor, and what sort of audio you want, and so on.

And you don't need a computer involved at all unless you're trying to cut corners and use the computer to perform some portion of the activity so that you don't have to buy a dedicated component (like using the computer's DVD tray so you don't need to buy a standalone DVD player).

As for HDTV, if you have a standalone HDTV receiver, you'll need a monitor of some sort which can handle the higher resolution of the HDTV picture, or else it sort of defeats the purpose. Playing an HDTV signal on a monitor that has "regular" TV resolution will result in a picture pretty much like "regular" TV, if you can even get it to work at all.

[Dan Day]

Go ahead...make my day... you're the one posting garbage about "confucius" and "mohammad"... I have enough common sense to NOT post racist diatribe like your completely non germane garbage about Mohammad and Confucius..

You utterly missed the point, but I'm not surprised.

[bonesmccoy]

wow...cool story... did you keep those old CRTs?

It would be fun to see them in the same room with a projector screen unit.

[bonesmccoy]

OK then...what was your point?

I guess you have problems either getting to the point or that you have problems being clear.

Please... do make your point clearly...and it better be germane to the subject of the thread (and not ad hominem attacks on Confucius and Mohammad).

[John Jamieson]

I figure desktop space saved at about $500 a sqft! My whole (3600 sq ft) house cost less than $50 a square ft. I'll wait.

[John Jamieson]

I understood bulb life was hundreds of hours not thousands, and replacement costs were about $300. Figure a $1 an hour. Not good.

[bonesmccoy]

no. the documentation from the company states 1500-2000 hours.

no problem!

[eddie willers]

THX is little more than a standard of quality that a piece of gear must attain to get their "seal of approval"....like Good Housekeeping.

ie. a sub must go down so low and so loud for so long a time at a certain level of distortion....

An amp must be able to generate a certain wattage into a certain load and still be stable etc.

There are electronics that exceed THX standards, but elect not to pay for the licensing of the sticker.

For the most part, THX is noting more than a cash producing machine for George Lucas.

Now THX speakers are another story as they have to conform to a certain dispersion pattern (with waves hitting neither the floor, nor the ceiling). While GREAT for movies, it is detrimental (for the most part) for music. That is one reason that the really serious (and well-heeled) audiophile will have TWO systems in his house. A Home Theater and a dedicated stereo.

With the advent of SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc) and/or DVD Audio with high resolution 5.1 recordings (along with future speakers that will have built-in microphones and high speed digital "equalizers" to "listen" to itself and adjust to room conditions) this will change.

BTW...the room that equipment is in determines 70% of how a system sounds. I can take a properly adjusted $2000 system in a 'good' room and blow away a $40,000 setup in a two story atrium family room.

[bonesmccoy]

"can get trickier if you're feeding multiple video sources into the same monitor, and what sort of audio you want, and so on."

There's nothing tricky about it.

You plug in the S-video connector or the RCA/Composite and select the input you want to display.

I have 3 video sources connected to the projector and several VCRs/video game consoles plugged into the same circuit.

X-Box or Playstation on a wall is fun...unless you get motion sick on the first person shooters.

[bonesmccoy]

"BTW...the room that equipment is in determines 70% of how a system sounds. I can take a properly adjusted $2000 system in a 'good' room and blow away a $40,000 setup in a two story atrium family room."

I've seen commercial enterprises invest $20000 in a sound system and end up sounding worse than the guy down the street with a $4000 system.

Having good sound technicians is crucial if the sound reproduction is a critical element in presentation.

[John Jamieson]

Sounds good, but I can't find it on dell.com. Their cheapest Infocus is $2100, no mention of bulb life and res is only 800x600, not HDTV. Do you have a better link?

[eddie willers]

Having good sound technicians is crucial if the sound reproduction is a critical element in presentation.

That's what I do on the cheap.

I set up my customer's equipment in the best way to interact with their room/seating arrangement, make the proper settings in the various menus (ie. "small" fronts, subwoofer Yes/No etc.) and then pull out my test DVD (Video Essentials...$39.99) with my Radio Shack Sound Pressure Meter (another $39.99) and set all the speakers at 75db from the "cat bird" seat (THX Home standard) and then use the TV controls to match very closely to NTSC (National Television Standards Committee) settings.

A bargain at the $180 I charge IMHO.

[Cacique]

btt

[Dan Day]

OK then...what was your point? I guess you have problems either getting to the point or that you have problems being clear. Please... do make your point clearly...and it better be germane to the subject of the thread (and not ad hominem attacks on Confucius and Mohammad).

"Attacks on Confuscious and Mohammad"?? *sigh* Please, try to *read* what I wrote before attempting to critique it.

The amusing soap label I posted wasn't "attacking" either of those folks, it was actually honoring them (although admittedly pretty incoherently). But even as hard to read as it was, how could you mistake the phrase "Mohammed's wisdom" as an *attack* on Mohammed, especially when it was described as having "united all mankind"? That's no "attack".

Here's a post I was in the middle of composing in response to your post #164, wherein you again accused me of being "racist". I'll post it here instead since it answers your questions:

---

I have enough common sense to NOT post racist diatribe like your completely non germane garbage about Mohammad and Confucius..

Oooookay...

The moderators (correctly) removed your first accusation against me of "racism" when I punched the "abuse" button on you, since it was COMPLETELY unfounded. You're either suffering from extremely poor reading comprehension, or you're a fan of playing the "race card" when your feelings get hurt. Neither option inspires confidence.

However, in trying to keep the peace the moderators also removed my original comment to you since it triggered your temper tantrum -- obviously you're incapable of dealing with a little negative criticism without blowing a gasket.

Normally I'd be glad to end it there. But unfortunately you chose to repeat the disgusting charge of "racism", and now unlike before people are unable to look for themselves to determine whether it's justified, or whether you're being a loon. Since the original post was deleted, it would only make people wonder whether that was the reason it was deleted. It was not.

So to defend my reputation against your repeated slur, here again is my original post which sent you into orbit:

I agree with you. Bonesmcoy's communication skills is daunting. Many here are trying to figure out what he's trying to say.

Don't mistake "hard to read" for "must be over your head".

Bonesmcoy's posts are hard to read not because he's being technical, they're hard to read because he doesn't write properly and clearly. He writes like he's had a few too many gallons of coffee. In fact, his posts often remind me of the labels on Dr. Bronner's soaps:

There's nothing "racist" about that, son. Any "racism" you see there originates solely from your own mind. It's just someone being loopy (or writing while stoned, perhaps). Not only is it not "racist", but it doesn't really say much of *any* sort. It's like the sort of nonsense you get out of those "random rant" computer programs. That's what makes it so funny.

Clue for the clueless: I pointed out that you don't write "properly and clearly", and I stand by that statement. And I'm hardly the only one to comment on the turgidity of your prose this thread. I was moderately polite about it, although I understand that you may not appreciate hearing it -- but it's not like I was accusing you of cannibalism. If you can't deal with it, find a more constructive (and logically coherent) way of venting your rage than just accusing me of racism.

Clue for the clueless #2: I provided a piece (the original is *much* larger) from one of the Dr. Bronner's soap labels for:

1. Amusement. People have been giggling about these things for decades now. They're a pop-culture phenomenon, like "all your base are belong to us", and for much the same reason (e.g. funny incoherence). See, for example, here. Or check out the Dr. Bronner's website, they're pretty proud of their labels.

2. Comparison. Some of your posts really *do* remind me of the (in)famous Dr. Bronner's soap labels. Your choppy sentences, sudden shifts, and verbal shorthand often give the stylistic effect of Bronner's labels. Sorry if that freaks you out so much, but I got a chuckle out of it, I thought other people might too.

Is it Bronner's, or is it bonesmcoy? [excerpts]:

KISS HOLLYWIERDO'S GOOD BYE!

Citizen Vigilante Reporting teams are around the next fiscal year.

God bless MSFT and the GTW guys.

Bottom line is clear.

The display can be big. It's the camera that counts.

DV is the way to go. The Calif. Freepers are on top of it.

Picture image at night time is 14 diagonal projected on a big flat white wall.

Snuggle bunny with loved one (who puts up with your expensive habit) only to discover she converts your home theatre with one VCR input into a giant Home and Garden Channel display (AUUUUGHHHH!)

Alienware looks a little souped up for need.

Dude, here's more.

After the MSFT ad was on, I switched back to Tony Snow (THHHHPTTHHHTT! to the Eisner camp).

"Singin' in the Rain"

Exceptions eternally? Absolutely none!

Look, I'm not saying that you don't provide useful information, only that it's sometimes hard to read because it's written "shorthand", and that it amusingly reminds me of the wild Dr. Bronner's labels.

Grow up.

Get a sense of humor and switch to decaf.

---

[end of in-progress post]

I hope that clears things up.

As for being "germane to the subject of the thread", the subject of the readability of your posts already *was* one of the (several) subjects of the thread when I chimed in. I didn't make an issue of it out of the blue.

[Dan Day]

"can get trickier if you're feeding multiple video sources into the same monitor, and what sort of audio you want, and so on."

There's nothing tricky about it.

You plug in the S-video connector or the RCA/Composite and select the input you want to display.

Well sure, *if* you have a monitor that handles as many video inputs as you have video sources (and of the proper type). If not, you need to acquire and wire up a video-enabled receiver/amp and use it as your video "switchbox".

And then there's the issue of getting the *audio* to go along with the picture from your chosen video source.

I didn't say it was rocket science, I just said that setting things up if you have multiple video sources was "trickier" than just "plug source cable into monitor". And indeed it is.

[July 4th]

Yup, the WinTV-HD is the new card. I have the WinTV-D. They're basically the same card with one difference. My version displays all digital TV in 480i mode, even if it's receiving a 1080i transmission. In other words, it downconverts everything to a single format.

The WinTV-HD is the successor, and will display in 1080i mode. The only reason I got the WinTV-D is that it's $120 bucks cheaper than the other. The HD is the new model, the D is on closeout.