AHANIX HTPC - Will it play HDTV? (1 Viewer)

[beje]

Hi

I'm about to build myself a new HTPC since my first one doesn't work that well. My biggest mistake with that one was probably that I used an ATI AIW 9800SE for graphics and TV.

I will connect the new HTPC to a 32" LCD TV with the resolution 1366x768. I haven't bought the TV yet but I'm searching for one where I can input the native resolution through DVI and have proper pixel mapping.

I'm thinking about using the following spec:
Chassi: AHANIX MCE601S-A
Motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-VM
CPU: AMD ATHLON 64 3800+
Memory: 2x1GB DIMM DDR2 PC2-5400 667MHZ, KVR
Hard drive: SEAGATE BARRACUDA 7200.10 250GB 7200RPM SATA/300 8MB
DVD: NEC DVD±R/RW DOUBLE LAYER 16X ND-3550
Tuner: FireDTV DVB-T with CA-module for boxer, sweden
Remote: Microsoft MCE Remote
Keyboard: Microsoft Remote Keyboard MCE

The motherboard comes with an on-board Nvidia GF6150 chip so I will try that before I buy a graphics card.

So, what do you think? Will it play HDTV and high-res movies or do I need something more powerfull?

 

[NLS]

Your CPU is enough, your Gfx card choice will be tricky.

Also good luck trying real 1366x768 1:1.

Why don't you buy a nice 1920x1080 panel so that you won't have to upgrade soon?

 

[knutinh]

I think that:
*Available 1080p panels are either too expensive or to bad quality on other parameters
*LCD tvs have quite high resolution anyways, the focus should be contrast and black level
*According to a BBC survey, you need to have more than 53" at a distance of 2.7 meters to be able to see the difference og 1080p vs 720p (true displayed resolution, practical issues like loss of resolution in scaling and coding not considered).

regards
Knut

 

[knutinh]

Hi

I'm about to build myself a new HTPC since my first one doesn't work that well. My biggest mistake with that one was probably that I used an ATI AIW 9800SE for graphics and TV.

I will connect the new HTPC to a 32" LCD TV with the resolution 1366x768. I haven't bought the TV yet but I'm searching for one where I can input the native resolution through DVI and have proper pixel mapping.

I'm thinking about using the following spec:
Chassi: AHANIX MCE601S-A
Motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-VM
CPU: AMD ATHLON 64 3800+
Memory: 2x1GB DIMM DDR2 PC2-5400 667MHZ, KVR
Hard drive: SEAGATE BARRACUDA 7200.10 250GB 7200RPM SATA/300 8MB
DVD: NEC DVD±R/RW DOUBLE LAYER 16X ND-3550
Tuner: FireDTV DVB-T with CA-module for boxer, sweden
Remote: Microsoft MCE Remote
Keyboard: Microsoft Remote Keyboard MCE

The motherboard comes with an on-board Nvidia GF6150 chip so I will try that before I buy a graphics card.

So, what do you think? Will it play HDTV and high-res movies or do I need something more powerfull?

For 1:1 pixel displays, try LG and Dell for instance. Do not try Philips or Samsung or any other Sonys than the brand new ones.

For good picture you want:
*HD-ready
*1:1 pixel without scaling or overscan
*50 and 60Hz (preferreably 24Hz as well)

And of course general good contrast, response time etc.

I dont know ATI, but you could try powerstrip. I am almost certain that the 6150 will do 1:1 pixel, but perhaps not with the most fancy 1080i hardware processing.


-k

 

[NLS]

My panel does exactly that (1920x1080, 1:1, 30/50/60, 8ms), not expensive too. Contrast is ok but black yes, could be better (that will happen now with LED-lit LCD and later OLED).

Don't always believe articles. 720p vs. 1080p is almost double the real pixels. You do see a difference (believe me, I have even seen the same video on 720p and 1080p on the same 1080p panel) - the difference can best be described as "depth". It is not always that extra info is really visible (as distinct pixels) from 2-3 meters. It is that because it IS there, it helps the brain perceive something closer to the real image (that you would see if you were there on scene) than making the brain "think" what is missing. And 1920x1080p is 1,152,000 pixels closer to the truth (if talking about 1280x720) or 1,024,512 if we talking about 1366x768.

Just a reference:

1920x1080= 2073600 pixels
(1280x1024 = 1310720 pixels)
1366x768 = 1049088 pixels
1280x720 = 921600 pixels
...because I am aware that just mentioning the pixel dimensions people cannot realize the vast difference between a 1920x1080 and a 1366x768 panel...

 

[knutinh]

I am aware that 1080p is approx 2 megapixels and 720p is approx 1.

Also, DVD-A delivers a frequency response up to 88.2 kHz, but the real benefit fo humans is questionable.

My point is that there must be som limit to what resolution humans can sense. This resolution should be specified in arc seconds and not pixels. In other words, absolute pixel size as well as distance is what counts. My 1680x1050 PC monitor is needed because I sit at 70cm distance.

The BBC test was very meticulate and I hope you take no offense that I tend to have more confidende in a double-blind testpanel result presented in a paper than a single users experience =)

Actually, I think that pioneer plasmas with only 1024x768 pixels looks better when viewing 1080p material than any lcd monitor I have seen, indicating that resolution is not everything =)

best regards
Knut

 

[NLS]

I think enything "closer" to analog is always better.

Years ago people thought 4096 then 65536 colours are enough. I even heard that since (then widely used) 640x480 is ~307000 pixels, we don't need more color than that number (people failing to understand that it is not the number of pixels but the gradient made that matters)... then we went much further and declared 16MI colors as "true color". Now with big panels we see that actualy 24bit color is NOT enough, a thing rectified by new Gfx cards and HDMI 1.3.

What an eye or an ear percieves differs from person to person. Take that into account.

I am not a "Hi Fi Nut", but I can accept SOME of the arguments we read on hi-fi mags for things we computer people don't really get to notice (sometimes even when we try and even if we know what to notice).

BBC or any BBC test gives me nothing. In fact I am sure mrs. Pioneer or mrs. Hitachi (or I don't know) could have something to do with this (how is their plasma and low-res stock going to sell otherwise???). I'll take my own experience ANY time and I suggest you do the same with your own experience.

A plasma panel give far better black and may a more analog feel. I'll choose an LCD ANY DAY - they are getting better and better every day, while plasmas will probably be a thing of tech history in 2-3 years (and how stupid is to have a 4:3 or even 1:1 pixel resolution - see some 1024x1024 plasmas - on a 16:9 area?... duh!). OF COURSE I WILL NEVER accept that some of those 1024x768 screens look... better with 1920x1080 content (by dumping more than half the data to display, projected on their few and non-square pixels) than a native 1920x1080 (or even a 1366x768).

Of course feel free to believe whatever you want. It is (mostly) a free world.

 

[knutinh]

This is getting off-topic. But very interesting. I guess that this kind of discussion should be very interesting to anyone into buying these things.

When you are dismissing plasmas because of their resolution, you are actually saying "resolution is more important than black-level/contrast and movement". I am not shure that I agree: My personal experience is that pioneer 43" plasmas looked better than any lcd I have seen regardless of content. Do you think that I should disregard my subjective opinion to technical arguements or guru opinions? I think not.

The "black crushing" of lcds may also be seen as a monitor not being able to display the full contents of current video streams. How can you accept owning a display that is "dumping black parts of the data"?

To me it seems that you are buying into the "numbers game". Bigger is always better. 4GHz must be better than 2 GHz. 1080p must be better than 720p. My point of view is that there must logically be limits to what we can percieve. Double-blind listening tests so far cannot prove that 192 kHz audio is any different from 44.1kHz audio. Why should I pay for it then? When you mention "depth" as a difference between 1080p and 720p it reminds me of hifi discusions about cables etc. Either there is a difference or there isnt. If I cant sense any difference at all, then I dont need info about the quality of the difference.

It makes no sense that the human eye should have limitless resolution. Digital photographers are moving away from megapixels as a measure of quality simply because it is irrelevant. Finding relevant parameters to compare two complex situations is always difficult. People like me and you are kind of "dangerous" in that we care enough to read up on stuff, but we havent got the depth of knowledge as those constructing and researching the subject

It is funny that you should mention colors, because when it comes to dynamic range, the human visual system can outdo any man-made system AFAIK. That is why owners of expensive SLR cameras still have to tweak shutter, ISO, exposure time etc. They are trying to "compress" a very high dynamic reality within the limits of electronic capture and presentation devices. I think we will see many cool advances in this field, and HD-DVD/BR allready allows extended h264 profiles with 12bit and more (?) brightness information. If only display tech can improve to allow not only finer granularity but also whiter whites and blacker blacks this could allow immense realism.

Finally, Ill talk about temporal aspects. Practically all LCDs are constant lit. This means that objects in movement will "jump" from point to point. Movie theaters and CRTS and plasmas will instead "flash" each frame, exploiting some feature of our visual system where the brain will "connect the dots". I suspect this is one reason why plasma looks better in many peoples eyes.

In practice I ended up with an inexpensive 40" LCD. I am guessing that even the best lcd/plasmas costing thousands of dollar will be bested by K-mart monitors with full 1080p and HDR(high dynamic range) and HFR (High Frame Rate) in 2-3 years. Then I will change =)

-k

 

[bigj]

When you are dismissing plasmas because of their resolution, you are actually saying "resolution is more important than black-level/contrast and movement". I am not shure that I agree: My personal experience is that pioneer 43" plasmas looked better than any lcd I have seen regardless of content.

I still believe - ignoring menus ie. just considering movies at fullscreen - a CRT beats both LCDs and Plasma. At least this is true for SD content. The analog 'gausian' bluring a CRT provides does a great deal to improve low-res streams that look awful on a pin sharp LCD (especially if they've been digitally compressed). I guess your argument is that Plasmas provide a little of that CRT feel which may be true.

I did see a really nice looking rear projection DLP once that made me think that perhaps projectors are the best bet all round for price-performance(resolution)-size.

 

[beje]

I don't have too much cash to spend so I figured a 32" LCD would be a good idea since they're pretty cheap. Thanks knutinh for pointing me in the right direction regarding brands. It's pretty hard (impossible) finding that info in the specification of the LCD's.

Regarding the graphics, I'll just try it out and if it's not good enough I'll buy myself a graphics card.

BTW interesting discussion about LCD vs. plasma. I know it's sligthly off-topic but I already got some answers so I don't mind

/ b e j e