Do most HDTV screens today have HDCP?

[kylejn]

I want to purchase an HDTV (eventually, been reading up on them for months now), but don't want it to be obsolete in a year because of HDCP. Are the screens out there today largely HDCP-compatible? Does it even matter that much? Thanks!

[Joel]

If you have an HDMI connection, it is HDCP.

Search hdcp in this forum to see some more threads.

[wicker_man]

Firslty, I think you are confusing HDCP (high-bandwidth digital-content protection) and HDMI (high definition multimedia interface). Secondly, yes, all HDTVs must have an HDMI connection. Also, there are some standard definition TVs that have HDMI inputs - those are called 'HD-compatible' - make sure you don't get burned on that.

Also, if you are looking into screens bigger than 32 inches, go for plasma, 32" and smaller - LCD, I will explain why later. Also, I would never spend my money on DLP TV - this is crap of the new generation.

DLP: new technology, stands for Digital Light Processing, developed by Texas Instruments. Do you remember them huge Sony Wega rear-projection TVs a couple of years ago? DLP is kind of like that, except they use thousands of tiny mirrors to reflect the light, making the picture a lot crisper. Now why I would never spend my money on one of those is because of crappy contrast ratio (difference between whitest white and darkest black) - about 1200:1, and absolutely crappy viewing angle of about 70-90 degrees horizontal and 40-50 degrees vertical. That means if you are watching the movie staring in the middle of the screen, the picture is fine, but as soon as you sit on the end of the couch it turns into crap.

LCD: Liquid Crystal Display. You know the basics. Contrast ratios are about 1200:1, about the same as DLP, although the viewing angle is about 150-170 degrees horizontal, which means you will see the same picture with pretty much no loss of contrast and colours. LCDs aren't that responsive (therefor fast action might result in trails).

Plasma: to my mind, the best you can get. The technology is well established, and with 60000 hours of life until half-life (20 yrs of watching TV 8 hrs a day), almost 180 degrees viewing angle, 4000:1 (on the output) or 10000:1 (on the input) contrast ratio your picture would look stunning even in the lit up room.

I will be putting some more onformation about that later on my blog, as there is tons of confusion on the market as what to get.

[ahhell]

Plasma is one of the worst types of HDTV. It's heavy, uses a LOT of power, and has severe issues with burn in.

[Joel]

LCD: Liquid Crystal Display. You know the basics. Contrast ratios are about 1200:1, about the same as DLP, although the viewing angle is about 150-170 degrees horizontal, which means you will see the same picture with pretty much no loss of contrast and colours. LCDs aren't that responsive (therefor fast action might result in trails).

False. I've never seen trails on my Aquos, not even close. They have < 12ms response time (new ones are at 8ms).

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Plasma is one of the worst types of HDTV. It's heavy, uses a LOT of power, and has severe issues with burn in.

Wow.

Plasma is a great technology if you get a good set. I'm not sure what heavy is to you, but they are not that bad. Two people can carry one perfectly fine. As for power consumption, they can burn through energy quickly, but Pioneer sets are actually known for, among other things, their ability to use up to 40% less electricity than other plasma sets. As for burn in, there are no "severe" issues with it. While burn in is possible, studies are showing it's actually usually a case of image retention which is temporary and fades once you change the channel.

[kylejn]

If you have an HDMI connection, it is HDCP.

Search hdcp in this forum to see some more threads.

OK, I always thought that while HDCP had to have HDMI, HDMI didn't necessarily have to support HDCP. The main thing I was curious about was, like, if I were to hook up my computer (I guess via a DVI-HDMI converter?) to my HDTV, would the HDCP content on the computer play back on the HDTV? Or would I have to wait for there to be a video card with HDMI/HDCP support? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

On a side note, I think my brain just melted from all the acronyms. :wacko:

Also, while I'm asking questions that have probably been asked before, other than Pioneer, which is the best of the best, what's a good brand for a plasma? The LG screens I've seen look nice, as do the Phillips, but it's so hard to tell because the sets on display at stores aren't always configured/adjusted to look their best. How's Samsung?

[jamend]

I don't like plasma screens because they have low DPI... that, and they're unsuitable for use as computer displays thanks to the image fade-in problen.

Edit: And slightly more on topic, I don't think HDCP requires HDMI, nor is HDCP excluded from working on DVI. As long as the source and the output support HDCP, the medium could be either HDMI or DVI. A DVI->HDMI adapter won't give you HDCP if the graphics card doesn't support it.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Also, while I'm asking questions that have probably been asked before, other than Pioneer, which is the best of the best, what's a good brand for a plasma? The LG screens I've seen look nice, as do the Phillips, but it's so hard to tell because the sets on display at stores aren't always configured/adjusted to look their best. How's Samsung?

LG seems to be the only other company, besides Pioneer, that's dedicating itself to single panel plasma sets which is nice. However, Instead of looking at Philips, I would suggest Panasonic as a lower cost alternative.

[wicker_man]

Wow, it seems like half of the people in this thread got no idea what they are talking about.

Dispelling plasma myths:

1. They do NOT use a lot of power (unless you are talking 5 years ago). The thing is, LCD power consumption is constant, as the backlight is always on, even when the pixels are black (i.e. closed). Plasma power consumption is variable, as more power needed when displaying white pixels and NO power is used to display dark ones. In the end it more or less evens both out.

2. They do not need regasing. The rare gas mixture (xenon, neon and argon, I believe) is self-contained within the cells and cannot escape anywhere. Otherwise, I would like to see people trying to refill 1000000 pixels :rolleyes: .

LCD vs Plasma:

1. Plasma is way better than LCD in reproducing dark, rich black colours. The reason behind that is a deep black filter and faster response rate than LCD. That means you wouldn't see 'washed-out' grayscale colours where black should be on plasmas in comparison to LCDs.

2. The contrast ratios of plasma is way better than LCD (generally 4000:1 vs. 1200-1400:1). This enhances colour reproduction and makes colours 'stand out' more on the screen.

3. Plasma is able to reproduce a richer colour gamut on the screen than LCD. Say, the latest Panasonic PX60 range (mainstream) is able to reproduce 3072 colours of gradation of each colour. That is 29 BILLION colours. Think about that number.

To sum it all up, I would say if you are going for a big screen TV (over 37 inches in size), go for plasma. LCD just doesn't cut it as compared to plasma on the big screen and the LCD technology isn't obviously that good yet. Example: Panasonic showcased a 103-inch plasma behemoth screen at CES, why aren't LCDs that big? Because their technology isn't up to speed (explained above why) and the manufacturing process isn't refined well enough to make them in this sizes. So the rule of thumb would be:

< 37 inch = LCD, >37 inch = plasma.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

1. They do NOT use a lot of power (unless you are talking 5 years ago). The thing is, LCD power consumption is constant, as the backlight is always on, even when the pixels are black (i.e. closed). Plasma power consumption is variable, as more power needed when displaying white pixels and NO power is used to display dark ones. In the end it more or less evens both out.

LCD backlights are flourescent and use very little power. LCD TV's con use about 30% less electricity than a plasma of the same size. That said, plasma uses about the same amount of "juice" as a CRT display. A quote from this CNET article:

# Microdisplay rear projector: 0.11 to 0.15 watt per square inch

# LCD: 0.16 to 0.41 watt per square inch

# CRT: 0.25 to 0.40 watt per square inch

# Plasma: 0.30 to 0.39 watt per square inch

2. They do not need regasing. The rare gas mixture (xenon, neon and argon, I believe) is self-contained within the cells and cannot escape anywhere. Otherwise, I would like to see people trying to refill 1000000 pixels rolleyes.gif .

No one even mentioned refilling sets in this thread.

[wicker_man]

LCD backlights are flourescent and use very little power. LCD TV's con use about 30% less electricity than a plasma of the same size. That said, plasma uses about the same amount of "juice" as a CRT display. A quote from this CNET article:

No one even mentioned refilling sets in this thread.

From the same article:

Of course, some sets, such as Panasonic's 50-inch TH-50PHD8UK plasma, can be more efficient than others. It's the same size as Maxent's MX-50X3 plasma, but it used a little more than half as much power when we engaged its power-saving mode.

The brand does matter, you know.

As for the regasing myth, there is no need to be a smart ass pointing out that no one mentioned this in the thread, because you have no idea how many people still believe that FUD, and I mentioned it as a general statement. I demo TVs and the technology for a living, so believe me, I know the market better than your average neowinian without googling for CNET articles.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

From the same article:

The brand does matter, you know.

As for the regasing myth, there is no need to be a smart ass pointing out that no one mentioned this in the thread, because you have no idea how many people still believe that FUD, and I mentioned it as a general statement. I demo TVs and the technology for a living, so believe me, I know the market better than your average neowinian without googling for CNET articles.

And I sell these things for a living so I know just as much. I also know that Pioneer models use even less energy than the Panasonics. I simply googled for exact numbers and gave them to you.

[lnmnky]

What do you call a TV that has no HDMI but has 13xx*7xx resolution?

HD-compatible / HD-ready / Huge disappointment?

:s

[XerXis]

What do you call a TV that has no HDMI but has 13xx*7xx resolution?

HD-compatible / HD-ready / Huge disappointment?

:s

pointless?

[bangbang023 Veteran]

What do you call a TV that has no HDMI but has 13xx*7xx resolution?

HD-compatible / HD-ready / Huge disappointment?

:s

Incapable of receiving HDCP content. It's still high definition since component video supports the resolution.

[lnmnky]

Incapable of receiving HDCP content. It's still high definition since component video supports the resolution.

That's the protected content correct? When will this be widestream?

I got this so called HDTV on the cheap, ao might just flog it. I might be aquiring a projector this week or next, so hopefully that's 13*7 capable. At least then I'm in profit so to speak.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

The new HD movie disc formats will require HDCP for full resolution. That's really the first main stream permeation of the home market.

[jamend]

The new HD movie disc formats will require HDCP for full resolution. That's really the first main stream permeation of the home market.

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2314/uni..._follows_sony-s

[bangbang023 Veteran]

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2314/uni..._follows_sony-s

Not all studios are doing this, though. Like I said, it's going to be the first real entry into the home consumer market.

[crazzyyfool]

OK. I'm a tad confused now. I have an Acer 32-inch HDTV, 13xx*7xx screen res various inputs/outputs including DVI that supports HDCP but no HDMI.

I take it this TV is HD because thats what it says in the manual and on the website. Surely I just need a DVI > HDMI converter and a HD source like Sky HD. :unsure:

[lnmnky]

OK. I'm a tad confused now. I have an Acer 32-inch HDTV, 13xx*7xx screen res various inputs/outputs including DVI that supports HDCP but no HDMI.

I take it this TV is HD because thats what it says in the manual and on the website. Surely I just need a DVI > HDMI converter and a HD source like Sky HD. :unsure:

I had the same issue. I have HD resolution, but no HDMI. (only DVI / component)

Which by USA standards at least says that the TV is _not_ "HD ready".

I think people in the UK have been mis-sold a few times. Alot of TVs here have HD on the label, or in the product name, and they do not have HDMI inputs. :o

[wicker_man]

I had the same issue. I have HD resolution, but no HDMI. (only DVI / component)

Which by USA standards at least says that the TV is _not_ "HD ready".

I think people in the UK have been mis-sold a few times. Alot of TVs here have HD on the label, or in the product name, and they do not have HDMI inputs. :o

Yeah, you guys got basically screwed by your friendly BestBuy/Comet employees. They have to make commission, you know ;)

[crazzyyfool]

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. As long as the connection on the TV is HDCP capable, all you need is a HDTV source and DVI > HDMI converter and you can receive HDTV. You dont need HDMI on a TV for it to be HD.

HDMI is basically a HD version of the orginal SCART, it carries video and sound whereas DVI only carriers video, so you use other connections for the sound source.

Just for the record, I got my HDTV direct from ACER and it says everywhere the TV is capable of HD with the correct source.

If this is not the case and I have a TV which cannot receive HDTV then ACER have been in breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

• 
  

From the ACER site.

• 32 inch Widescreen LCD-TV Display
  
• 1366 x 766 Native Resolution
  
• State-of-the-art Design & Technology
  
• WOW Surround Sound by SRS Labs
  
• HD Ready with HDCP compliance
  

The "HD Ready" Acer AT3201W LCD TV takes high definition visual home entertainment to another dimension. By combining the very latest technology, superior design and full connectivity with existing home AV equipment, the AT3201W provides everything you need for easy access to the world of high-impact home entertainment.

Edited May 3, 2006 by thefunkymunky

[lnmnky]

Just for the record, I got my HDTV direct from ACER and it says everywhere the TV is capable of HD with the correct source.

If this is not the case and I have a TV which cannot receive HDTV then ACER have been in breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

I'm sure "capable of HD", "HD Ready","HDTV", "HD compatible"... Are different things (slightly).

Unless it says "HD Ready" with an official sticker then it isn't _really_. :(

Even if the product code is xxxxHD01 then that's no guarantee.

I'm going to pull an insurance job on mine when I want to upgrade. Sick + wrong, yes. I don't care. I don't think it can do HDCP.

Good old wiki... "HD Ready" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready

EDIT : Good, mine is Hd ready :D Supports HDCP over DVI. Phewww!

Edited May 3, 2006 by lunamonkey