From what I've seen, I like the way LCD rear projection TVs look. They aren't too expensive in the grand scope of things... but then again the pricing has been leveled pretty well between types of TVs.
I like the LCD and Plasmas better than the rear projections. Pictures are crisper and better viewing angle. We have a Toshiba LCD and watching HD programming makes watching TV enjoyable. Its resolution is much better than the panasonic.
2 HDMI (HDCP Support I believe, I had to track down the model with nothing but a Coupon book from Costco, with 42" Panasonic HDMI)
Budget is about $1500-$2000 US
I've been reading the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD discussion. The general consensus is that we should get a 1080i or 1080p HDTV. Lower resolution like 768 cannot do justice to HD movies, and we will ultimately be dissatisfied with it. I've looked at both resolutions, and I am of the same opinion.
If someone uses the HDTV for a computer monitor, an LCD or LCD rear projection is better than a plasma, which is more subject to burns. I've heard this advice from many sources and tend to believe it.
I've been reading the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD discussion. The general consensus is that we should get a 1080i or 1080p HDTV. Lower resolution like 768 cannot do justice to HD movies, and we will ultimately be dissatisfied with it. I've looked at both resolutions, and I am of the same opinion.
By definition all such displays are pysically progressive in as much as interlace only makes sense with CRTs. That said I think there may have been an odd flat panel set or two that took 1080i but not 1080p.
720p should be adequate for screens under say 40" given that most folks tend to sit further away from smaller screens than larger ones (as a ratio of screen size) so the pixel density of 720p at the average viewing distance exceeds 60 pixels per degree (PPD).
If you can get the same quality for the same price 1080p is better. 60 PPD is the rule of thumb for 20/20 vision (some folks obviously see better) AND humans can actually "see" things smaller than that. The classic example is power lines in the distance which are far smaller than 1 arc second.
Better resolution that you can't see still translates into "more realistic" image. See some GigaPixl pictures if there is an example near you. Or if you have $5000 you can have a 8' x 16' photo delivered to you...actual size is 10' x 20' per panel and some are multiple panel panoramas...yes that's foot and not inches...
Quote:
If someone uses the HDTV for a computer monitor, an LCD or LCD rear projection is better than a plasma, which is more subject to burns. I've heard this advice from many sources and tend to believe it.
Plasmas can burn in but today's plasma sets are far better at burn in protection. Other potential burn in sources are viewing a lot of 4x3 TV or where the stations put an annoying bug in the lower right hand corner. These typically are avoided by running the set's little utility to reduce burn in every so often.
Comments
1. Get a plasma, they are faaaar better.
2. Get a Panasonic, they are excellent.
If the new Panasonic Viera is within your price range get it, no question.
I couldn't afford it at the time, so I went with a LCD Sony Bravia. My sisters Viera, which I picked out, kills the crap out of my Sony.
Thanks
Sebastian
You're welcome. My friend scored it for $1750 a few weeks ago. I haven't had a chance to see it in person yet.
The TV he has in mind is a Panasonic
1024x768
2 HDMI (HDCP Support I believe, I had to track down the model with nothing but a Coupon book from Costco, with 42" Panasonic HDMI)
Budget is about $1500-$2000 US
I've been reading the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD discussion. The general consensus is that we should get a 1080i or 1080p HDTV. Lower resolution like 768 cannot do justice to HD movies, and we will ultimately be dissatisfied with it. I've looked at both resolutions, and I am of the same opinion.
If someone uses the HDTV for a computer monitor, an LCD or LCD rear projection is better than a plasma, which is more subject to burns. I've heard this advice from many sources and tend to believe it.
I've been reading the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD discussion. The general consensus is that we should get a 1080i or 1080p HDTV. Lower resolution like 768 cannot do justice to HD movies, and we will ultimately be dissatisfied with it. I've looked at both resolutions, and I am of the same opinion.
By definition all such displays are pysically progressive in as much as interlace only makes sense with CRTs. That said I think there may have been an odd flat panel set or two that took 1080i but not 1080p.
720p should be adequate for screens under say 40" given that most folks tend to sit further away from smaller screens than larger ones (as a ratio of screen size) so the pixel density of 720p at the average viewing distance exceeds 60 pixels per degree (PPD).
If you can get the same quality for the same price 1080p is better. 60 PPD is the rule of thumb for 20/20 vision (some folks obviously see better) AND humans can actually "see" things smaller than that. The classic example is power lines in the distance which are far smaller than 1 arc second.
Better resolution that you can't see still translates into "more realistic" image. See some GigaPixl pictures if there is an example near you. Or if you have $5000 you can have a 8' x 16' photo delivered to you...actual size is 10' x 20' per panel and some are multiple panel panoramas...yes that's foot and not inches...
If someone uses the HDTV for a computer monitor, an LCD or LCD rear projection is better than a plasma, which is more subject to burns. I've heard this advice from many sources and tend to believe it.
Plasmas can burn in but today's plasma sets are far better at burn in protection. Other potential burn in sources are viewing a lot of 4x3 TV or where the stations put an annoying bug in the lower right hand corner. These typically are avoided by running the set's little utility to reduce burn in every so often.
Vinea