.......i'm taking that as a bad thing

7/9/2007 7:59:46 PM

No, that's actually a pretty good LCD, one of the best. Definitely better than the Westinghouse and probably better than a Vizio.

7/9/2007 9:53:07 PM

awesomeness - one month til it's mine

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 9:58:28 PM

got the samsung then? how is it?

7/23/2007 9:28:11 AM

i'm planning on getting one myself.... 40+ inch for (hopefully ~$1500) but i haven't found one to be really set on yet...

7/23/2007 10:03:57 AM

Quote :

"Don't ever trust a guy that says "go to the store and compare" with regards to picture quality"

I have to agree there. Unless you mean go to a Now! (Tweeter) or something similar. If you go to BB/CC, even if you can play around with the settings, you'll be hard pressed to find a good signal and the lighting conditions are not anything like what will be in your house when you're watching a movie.

When I worked briefly for Panasonic I'd go to Best Buys and see an HD feed split 20+ ways leaving artifacts and corruption in all the feeds. If you find one of the premier TV's hooked directly to a DirectTV feed or a Bluray player those might be good.

Anyway I love the 47" 1080p westinghouses. For the money you can't get much better and honestly with some tweaking the picture quality isn't noticably worse than the more expensive branded LCDs.

7/23/2007 10:18:48 AM

which of them have the best SD picture for 'normal' tv viewing

7/23/2007 10:51:52 AM

what do you guys think of:
Samsung 40" LCD HDTV (LN-T4061F) - $1600
Sony 40" BRAVIA V-Series HDTV (KDL-40V2500) - $1800
Sharp 42" LCD HDTV (LC-42D62U) - $1600

7/23/2007 11:42:01 AM

Quote :

"which of them have the best SD picture for 'normal' tv viewing"

In my opinion you'll be disapointed with any LCD tv when viewing SD pictures. It _does_ look worse than your shitty tube TV you have now. It takes a really good scaler (I don't know what TV's are good right now, haven't payed attention) in your TV or purchasing a seperate box to do this to have a decent picture on SD content.

One of my buddies runs his SD content through one of his computers (I guess you could call it a HTPC but not really) and uses some open source programs to convert/touch up the signal to 19??x1080 (or whatever resolution LCD 1080p tvs are) and completely circumvent the build in scaler. So I guess that would be a cheap (although very nerdy) way to have good SD content on a LCD tv if you have an extra PC laying around.

But as a general rule, LCD (and HD tv's in general) are going to have pretty bad SD pictures.

7/23/2007 2:14:36 PM

^Depends if it's a SDTV digital signal, or an analog signal. The digital SD looks alright. Normal analog looks pretty bad on an lcd. For example current (non-QAM) computer tv tuners are analog and don't look so good. The newer QAM digital computer tv tuners handle a digital signal and are much better.

Just remember SD and normal analog tv aren't the same thing. You can have a SDTV digital signal that's simply a lower resolution version of HDTV but that still looks much better than analog.

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 2:19:46 PM

^ Well ya, digital SD tv will generally look better than an analog SD signal on an LCD screen. One less thing the TV has to do (digital 480p signal->upscaled->1080p digital signal vs. analog "480p" signal->digital 480p->upscaler->1080p digital signal). Either way the TV is going to have to upscale the signal and leaves room for loss of quality.

The main problem is just that, SD television doesn't have alot of picture information. You have to somehow get 1080 lines out of 480. Even if it was a perfect 2:1 conversion (480->960) it would still not look very good. Add in that the scaler has to blur lines together and whatnot because there isn't a perfect pixel to pixel conversion and you get more problems. Highend scalers are very good at this and also have algorithms to help out (anti aliasing type stuff) to smooth out the picture and almost create more detail.

And on a side note, isn't normal analog TV technically just a type of SD tv?

Of course it's been a while since I really read up on this stuff, but I don't think alot has changed.

7/23/2007 3:03:35 PM

^There's a little difference between analog and SDTV. The later is digital and therefore you won't get ghosting, snowy images and static noises. If the signal is weak on SDTV/HDTV you'll just get blocky/choppy images. I guess it's more about how the signal is transmitted, rather than picture quality.

Just remember HD isn't anything new. All HD is doing is trying to get back to the quality of old school 35mm film in a digital format. You can digitally encode a movie on 35mm film from the 1930's and it'll be 4-5 times the quality of 1080p, but we don't have the capacity to store that type of data right now so we have low quality digital HD. Film is still superior by far. In the theatres you're watching something along the lines of "4000P" if you were to convert the analog film to digital in terms of what you get per pixel.

Reminds me of a stupid question someone asked me...
"How can you have that movie on Blue-ray? They didn't have HD cameras then!!"

7/23/2007 3:43:30 PM

^ Nice quotations of wikipedia However I think you've got it a little wrong. The article on standard definition says SD generally refers to digital broadcasts of less than HD quality but that SD technically refers to any broadcast analog or digital of less than HD quality.

Most theaters are actually switching (or going to switch) to digital projectors instead of film from what I've been reading (I thought I even read the last star wars solely digitally distributed, and to show it the theater had to have a digital projecter and THX certified sound). The switch is more for ease of distributing the content I believe and that most films are being recorded digitally now. As far film from the 1930's I don't agree that it would have 4-5 times the quality of 1080p. The format (film) is capable of storing much more/higher quality information (hard to compare analog vs. digital though) however lenses and filming techniques of the time weren't sophisticated enough to transfer what was in front of the camera to the film with as high quality as HD of today. You might be able to technically get a 4000p picture from 1930 film but the picture would contain no extra detail over a 540 copy of the same content.

Anyway, I've gotten off topic, sorry.

7/23/2007 4:10:24 PM

Yes i did take "ghosting, snowy images and static noises" from wikipedia. I just usually refer to SD as digital.

Quote :

"In general, it is widely accepted that film exceeds the resolution of HDTV formats and the 2K digital cinema format"

-wikipedia.

You can scan 35mm to 4k and get a great image compared to 2k digital. You can even scan newer movies at 8k. (8,000 columns.)

Still you can scan a really really old 35mm negative and get a great 6k image that is FAR better than 1080p digital.

Quote :

"and that most films are being recorded digitally now."

Actually only a few films are being recorded digitally. Most films are still recorded with film. More tv shows are being recorded digitally though, but still not the majority. Only a few of the latest major movies were recorded in digital. Star Wars being one of them. Serenity i think, and a few others. WAAAY more tv shows though.


[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 4:23:38 PM

got the samsung


definite differences in SD quality... some are really crisp some aren't so much.... then again we dont have the HD box yet from TW (s-video right now)

7/24/2007 10:09:58 AM

^ How's that thing looking now? I've still got a couple weeks before I can get mine.

8/1/2007 3:48:45 PM

pretty pleased with it actually.... only issues i've had relate to TWC and their signal in one form or another

8/2/2007 3:14:52 PM

TV Ordered

Damn, I shouldn't have spent that money

8/23/2007 2:32:32 PM

Congrats on your new hdtv. i used to think that you could change the settings of a budget lcd and make it just as nice as a higher end lcd. that was until i got the sony bravia and just out of the box without anything set, the picture just smokes the westinghouse i had or another off brand (Scott) that I have. While you may think your Vizio or Westinghouse looks just as good in your house as the higher end lcds like Sony, putting a Sony set beside it both calibrated at its best, you'll be amazed. Also most of the higher sets have a better processor in you'll be able to tell the difference from the SD content. The Vizio and Westinghouse are very very good budget sets to say the least. Just don't try to fool yourself that they're just as good as the highly rated higher end sets.

8/23/2007 2:48:23 PM

are you trying to justifiy your overpriced sony?

8/23/2007 3:01:34 PM

i dunno, my samsung cost about 500 less and is rated higher... 1:1 pixel mapping through HDMI, onboard usb, 3 hdmi ports

ftmfw

8/23/2007 3:07:57 PM

^^ no i'm not cause i got it prolly for the price you'd get the budget tvs for. i would've never thought i'd buy a sony and i probably wouldn't at the retail prices, but for the price i got it for, i couldn't pass it up and it's unbelievable.

^ i'd say samsung could be labeled higher end models though don't you think?

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ...]

8/23/2007 3:17:36 PM

yep

8/23/2007 3:25:07 PM

i dunno, my 47" westinghouse has an awesome picture, 1 to 1 pixel mapping, vga input, 4 HDMI inputs (all 1080p), onboard usb

for $1349

id definitely recommend it

8/23/2007 5:28:01 PM

I just got a 47" Vizio LCD (Refurbished) with 2 HDMI and 1080p for $1100 from the TigerDirect store on capitol blvd.

I pretty much got it in preparation for Halo 3...

8/24/2007 11:39:46 AM

^ wow nice deal. yesterday I got the 47" Westinghouse 1080p for $1300. so far I'm really happy with it

8/26/2007 10:13:52 PM

were you able to use the coupon on it?

8/27/2007 12:42:14 AM

Mine's a Samsung 42" LCD

$1899

10000:1 contrast
8ms refresh

Don't touch Westinghouse with a forty foot pole.

8/27/2007 10:20:31 PM

Quote :

"10000:1 contrast"

you know this means nothing, right?

and im pretty sure every person in this thread who bought a westinghouse loves it

i dont think your opinion counts - since you dont own one

but im glad you like your samsung

8/27/2007 10:45:47 PM

^ seen 'em though. Lots of models. Side by side against other brands. I also know three buddies who got W-house (all different models) and all three broke within one year (one lost about a quarter of the screen in pixels, one became incredibly faded, and one began flashing different colors - looked like an acid trip or something). Considering the responses in this thread, I guess that's a one in a million three-way coincidence that did indeed happen.

But I do not in fact own one. Correct.

8/28/2007 8:52:53 AM

well, that failing westinghouse is all part of my master plan

im hoping it will fail in approx. 3 years

then i can get a new equal priced model from best buy thanks to the 4 year PSP

8/28/2007 10:39:19 AM

Nothing fails under warranty.

You goofed.

8/28/2007 11:01:15 AM

oh i can help it fail

8/28/2007 1:16:37 PM

The Toshiba 42in 1080p tvs (42HL67) are on clearance at Circuit City for $1,299.

8/29/2007 9:02:31 PM

bravia
sammy
sharp


get digital hd cable make the box up convert to 1080i

done

8/29/2007 9:39:21 PM

huh?

8/29/2007 9:56:35 PM

Last time I posted on here, I got blasted for voicing my opinion. Let's hope I get the same response - I love arguing with idiots :-)

First of all, asking for a "sub $2000" 40" 1080P television is like asking for a sub $20K Aston Martin. You can probably find one, but do you really want to buy it...?

If anyone out there is convinced that Westinghouse makes the best LCD panel (for the money or otherwise), you're simply trying to make yourself feel better for not having enough money to purchase a television that doesn't suck. Sharp and Sony charge what they do for their panels for a reason - they're better than everyone else's. Sharp is the clear victory at a few hundred dollars less than Sony, and the pioneers of the technology.

Arguing that anything one can purchase at Costco or Sam's is better than a Sharp or Sony high-end LCD panel is asinine at best, and like arguing that the Ford Festiva is a better purchase than the BMW 5 series. Sure, it costs less, and still gets you from point A to point B, but is it really as good? Last I checked the noise floor in the Festiva was much higher than that of the 5 series, but what does that matter, right? ;-) Sorry if the "noise floor" reference is confusing...

Samsung makes the best panel if you're looking to get out relatively inexpensively. Of course, buying the panels online makes everything cheaper - and it guarantees you that if your panel shows up at your doorstep with a set of antlers and a beer bottle sticking out of the screen, you're completely fucked. Worth the risk though, right? Hell, if you save $300, you can afford a dinner at Second Empire to celebrate being pwned.

Seriously - buying online is the worst thing you can possibly do. But don't take it from me - I would prefer you learn from your mistakes, as this forum has proven to be full of people that are convinced they know best. Those of us that do this day in and day out - we don't know shit. You folks trip me out :-)

9/1/2007 12:20:58 AM

Wow, that was mean. Sorry to blow up. Frustrating to see online sales that prevelent, especially knowing they often flop. Anyway. Whatever. If you have questions, let me know - at this point, you should know I'll give you my opinion :-) I'm sure some of you will talk down on me, and that's fine - what would this world be without conflict? ;-)

9/1/2007 12:39:52 AM

^^ and ^ dumbest post I have seen in awhile...you are a fucking idiot

My 42" 1080p Westinghouse (that I bought online) looks beautiful. My friend who paid ~$500 more for his 42" Samsung wishes he had saved his money and bought the same TV I bought.

[Edited on September 1, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason : douche]

9/1/2007 12:43:25 AM

^ If you think the Westinghouse is as good as the Samsung with picture quality, you're color blind. It's fine if you love the way it looks, but don't take it upon yourself to tell other people that it looks as good/better.

^^ There's not really anything wrong with buying a TV online, if you know what you're doing when it comes to the hookups, and you're prepared for the hassles of buying things online. It's a good way for someone to save money, if they know their stuff.

9/1/2007 2:34:44 AM

[Edited on September 1, 2007 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/1/2007 9:23:56 AM

Quote :

"^^ There's not really anything wrong with buying a TV online, if you know what you're doing when it comes to the hookups, and you're prepared for the hassles of buying things online. It's a good way for someone to save money, if they know their stuff."

For the most part, I would agree with you, but the horror stories I've heard and experienced from internet purchases, to me, make it not worth the risk. There are certain sites I would feel comfortable buying from, but if I simply stumbled upon an online shop by googling it or something, I would steer clear.

I had a client recently that decided to purchase his Sony LCD panel online, and even purchased it from a relatively reliable source. When it showed up to his house, the top corner was dinged and scratched pretty significantly - enough to warrant returning it for another one. Once he paid the shipping to return the thing, he had spent more money than he would have just buying the thing locally, not to mention the time it took to get everything right...

There are also quite a few things that people don't realize about an on-wall installation, (the only reason to buy an on-wall TV, if you ask me) like needing a power outlet installed at the television height, and fishing wires behind an insert fireplace and such. Most professionals in the industry won't install a panel not purchased from them, and if they do (without charging a significant amount of money), I would steer clear of their handwork :-)

9/1/2007 10:53:01 AM

I don't know about your client, but if something gets delivered to me fucked up someone other than me will be paying for shipping that shit back.

[Edited on September 1, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

9/1/2007 11:27:50 AM

Quote :

"^ If you think the Westinghouse is as good as the Samsung with picture quality, you're color blind. It's fine if you love the way it looks, but don't take it upon yourself to tell other people that it looks as good/better. "

obviously the samsung is better...what I was trying to say was that it wasn't $500 better

9/1/2007 11:54:29 AM

That's a matter of personal opinion though. To someone else, it may have be $500 better.

9/1/2007 12:07:02 PM

Quote :

"I don't know about your client, but if something gets delivered to me fucked up someone other than me will be paying for shipping that shit back."

Obviously, if you're dealing with a reputable business online, like Best Buy or something similar (it pains me to say that Best Buy is reputable... ), contacting someone to inform them of the situation is not all that difficult, but when the online business doesn't really have a staff of any sorts, and the staff they do have doesn't speak your native tongue, it can become quite a bit more difficult to get the matter resolved. Not to mention the time you spend handling the problem - I don't know about you, but my time is worth something to me.

Again, I'm not saying that all online television purchases are bad, but when you're buying something like a flat panel, which has to be handled in shipping with a little more care than something like a roll of toilet paper, you might find that buying the thing online, effectively, costs more than buying it locally. If you know how to install the television to your receiver, and are comfortable running wires through the walls and whatnot, knock yourself out. Most people, however, don't realize what they're signing themselves up for when they buy a flat panel and want it to look like "that one in the picture"

9/1/2007 12:16:23 PM

haha, very true

9/1/2007 12:21:56 PM

To address the topic of the post, I would recommend the Sharp LC42D62U. List price is $2099 (only $1899, according to Best Buy), obviously above the price cap, but Best Buy has it on sale right now for $1399. While I would love to sell you the TV, I can't match that price - that's the price Best Buy puts on something when it's going away. Buy it - you won't find better anywhere near that price.

9/1/2007 12:23:17 PM

why would anyone buy anything from you to begin with?

go buy an ad or something

9/2/2007 2:36:47 PM

Quote :

"Last time I posted on here, I got blasted for voicing my opinion."

And you deserved every part of it.

Quote :

"obviously the samsung is better...what I was trying to say was that it wasn't $500 better"

The Samsung probably had a digital tuner in it, whereas your Westinghouse probably doesn't. Not to take anything away from the Westinghouse panels though, the last one I saw was years ago and I was impressed by how good it was.

I'd get the Bravia if I had to pick though. I'm a bit biased though, as I've always been really impressed by Sony's television offerings.

9/2/2007 2:56:59 PM