HDTV recommendations

[ncc74302]

Hey there... I was wondering if I could get some advice/feedback regarding HDTV sets. I'm looking at maybe getting one soon and am just not sure what to do as far as plasma vs lcd vs crt, as far as size, and as far as resolution. I'm hearing that the difference between 720p and 1080p/i is not that great and I'd be fine with 720, but considering my budget is low ($200-$400) I'm probably going to have to stick with the sub 25" tv's at 720p resolution. But still remains the question of what kind (LCD/plasma/crt).

Any hints? Also any advice as far as the larger ones go? We're thinking about getting a new larger one for the living room soon but thats farther in the future. The prospect of replacing a bulb on a projection tv or calibration isnt too nice of a thought.

 

[Alaedhros]

There's some info here, if you haven't seen it already.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I have a Pioneer Elite Pro 1140HD. *Very* nice set (a plasma).

As for 720p vs. 1080i/p: I wouldn't worry about it. With the distances most people sit from their sets, the difference in 720 vs 1080 isn't a problem.

I would definitely NOT go with a CRT set unless you are 1) very strong, or 2) have a very good hernia surgeon. These things are freaking HUGE. I'd go with either a LCD or a plasma.

 

[Michael Chris]

Probably get an LCD. My family has a Panasonic plasma, and it got burned in from closed captioning. Which is sad.

 

[Samurai8472]

my dad bought a Vizio at walmart for $1500. It's probably not the best but we'll get it a shot. We had a Haier a year back and he hated it for its complex remote etc. The Vizio is 1080i and 47 inches

 

[Borjis]

Michael Chris said:
Probably get an LCD. My family has a Panasonic plasma, and it got burned in from closed captioning. Which is sad.

The models made in the last 2 years are much better at eliminating image retention. They are not unlike an etch-a-sketch now.

There are no LCD's that can match a Plasma for Contrast though. Huge difference.

 

[zephramc]

ncc74302 said:
Hey there... I was wondering if I could get some advice/feedback regarding HDTV sets. I'm looking at maybe getting one soon and am just not sure what to do as far as plasma vs lcd vs crt, as far as size, and as far as resolution. I'm hearing that the difference between 720p and 1080p/i is not that great and I'd be fine with 720, but considering my budget is low ($200-$400) I'm probably going to have to stick with the sub 25" tv's at 720p resolution. But still remains the question of what kind (LCD/plasma/crt).

Any hints? Also any advice as far as the larger ones go? We're thinking about getting a new larger one for the living room soon but thats farther in the future. The prospect of replacing a bulb on a projection tv or calibration isnt too nice of a thought.

You could pick up a 32" Olevia or Vizio for about $400-$500. I've owned a 32" Olevia (332H) now for about a year. Bought it for the bedroom as my 12 year old 27" Magnavox finally took a crap. It's worked flawlessly and has a very nice picture for the price (I think we paid $700 back then). My only complaint would be that it's a monitor only, no SD or HD tuner, but I have DirectTV so it's not that big of deal. The SD picture is good, the HD (720p/1080i) picture is great, and while the blacks are not as dark, the colors seem more vibrant on the Olevia LCD than on my 52" Mitsubishi DLP.

I can't comment much on the Vizio, though I've read it's also a good TV for the price. http://www.avsforum.com/ seems to have knowledgable people posting. You might ask around there about which models offer the most "bang for the buck".

 

[TheSeeker]

I just saw Samsung's LED-backlit LCD HDTV last week and it has an amazing picture. I also just read a review of it and it was very favourable.

I'm still a couple years away from buying one (I'm waiting until I move back to Canada) so I'm a little excited at the prospect of how they'll improve in the next couple of years, not to mention further price drops.

 

[Timby]

Best picture: Plasma
Worst impact on energy bill: Plasma

Best bang for the buck: LCD
Worst contrast ratio without paying huge bucks: LCD

 

[Johnny Rico]

The new SHARP AQUOS D64U series are extremely thin and are already cheaper than what I paid for the model they replaced just this past June.

I have a 42D72U which is of course a 42", and now discontinued for the 42D64U model. Same exact specs but in a slimmer cabinet due to a rearranging of the internal circuits. I paid $1700 + shipping for the D72U, but you can get a 42" D64U for $1300 from Amazon right now.


Keep viewing distance in mind when considering the size. Figure viewing distance (in inches) divided by 2.5 for optimal size of television. I have my 42" in my bedroom that sits about 8-10 feet from my viewing position and that's about as close as I wanna get when it comes to viewing 1080p up-converted DVDs. Of course with HD 1080i sources, closer is alright, but you stil get a better picture from a bit further away.

 

[ncc74302]

Thanks for all the advice.

Just fyi, I'm looking in the ballpark of the $400-500 range.

Also, another concern of mine is DVDs - are they going to look absolutely crappy on the set? (we're talking original DVD, not blu-ray or HD-DVD). I bought the dvd player in 2003 so it's a little old. Just holding my breath - I know it's not going to be the best on an HDTV but I'm hoping it won't be unbearable.

I asked for BSG Razor as well as one of the season sets for either BSG or Heroes, so with any luck I'll be watching those on my new HDTV :-D

 

[Stormrage]

I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

 

[Noname Given]

Stormrage said:
I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

Not sure since I live in the U.S. and our SD is via NTSC. I'm not sure how good a standard def PAL signal looks.

 

[Stormrage]

Noel Given said:

Stormrage said:
I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

Not sure since I live in the U.S. and our SD is via NTSC. I'm not sure how good a standard def PAL signal looks.

I think PAL is better but faster.

 

[FordSVT]

ncc74302 said:
Thanks for all the advice.

Just fyi, I'm looking in the ballpark of the $400-500 range.

Also, another concern of mine is DVDs - are they going to look absolutely crappy on the set? (we're talking original DVD, not blu-ray or HD-DVD). I bought the dvd player in 2003 so it's a little old. Just holding my breath - I know it's not going to be the best on an HDTV but I'm hoping it won't be unbearable.

No, DVDs will look great, but the experience can be helped or hindered by the type of DVD player you have. Here's a bit of easy to understand reading.

Did you know that HD-DVD players can now be had for $100-$150?

Also, unless it's going to take six months, you should consider saving a bit more money and getting a 30-32". Unless you're sitting within a few feet of the TV you'll really notice the improvement in viewing area. I also find the higher resolution more noticeable with larger TVs.

One thing that no one has mentioned here but was probably in an article someone posted is to ask yourself where and when you do most of your viewing. Back-lit LCD TVs are easier to watch in the daytime, especially in a sunlit room. They don't have a glass panel like a plasma so they don't reflect light or appear to fade as much under direct light. If it's in your basement or something I doubt you'll care, but even lights in the room can be annoying if they're in the wrong place.

Money no object in the 50" range I'd get a plasma, but LCDs have come a long way in the past few years, enough that most of the shortcomings are minimal. Contrast and colour depth are the two major sticking points, though constantly improving and much closer to plasma all the time. LCDs have much lower power consumption which is nice.

I understand you're not made of money, just some suggestions.

 

[FordSVT]

Stormrage said:

Noel Given said:

Stormrage said:
I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

Not sure since I live in the U.S. and our SD is via NTSC. I'm not sure how good a standard def PAL signal looks.

I think PAL is better but faster.

PAL is higher in resolution (720x576 horizontal lines) vs NTSC (720x480 horizontal lines), but NTSC updates the image more frequently than PAL does (30 times per second vs. 25 times per second). NTSC is lower in resolution than PAL, but since the screen updates more frequently, motion is rendered better in NTSC video than it is in PAL video. There is less jerkiness visible. When video source material is transferred to DVD, it is usually transferred in the format it was created in - PAL or NTSC, and the subsequent image has either higher temporal resolution (more frames per second - NTSC) or higher spatial resolution (more lines per image - PAL).

 

[Johnny Rico]

FordSVT said:

Stormrage said:

Noel Given said:

Stormrage said:
I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

Not sure since I live in the U.S. and our SD is via NTSC. I'm not sure how good a standard def PAL signal looks.

I think PAL is better but faster.

PAL is higher in resolution (720x576 horizontal lines) vs NTSC (720x480 horizontal lines), but NTSC updates the image more frequently than PAL does (30 times per second vs. 25 times per second). NTSC is lower in resolution than PAL, but since the screen updates more frequently, motion is rendered better in NTSC video than it is in PAL video. There is less jerkiness visible. When video source material is transferred to DVD, it is usually transferred in the format it was created in - PAL or NTSC, and the subsequent image has either higher temporal resolution (more frames per second - NTSC) or higher spatial resolution (more lines per image - PAL).

Yes, NTSC 480i does 60Hz vs PAL's 576i 50Hz.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Stormrage said:
I went to Currys (an electronic shop) and I saw HDTVs showing SD programs. They looked terrible. My nomal tv had better picture quality. Is that how all them are? Since the vast majority of the programs out in the UK is in SD.

There could be a number of reasons for this. Mostly I see this in shops due to lack of education or maybe even apathy on the retailers part.

Ask if the set is tuned to a digital channel. Even better, ask that the set be tuned to a digital channel. In the US, stations are still broadcasting analog while running a digital channel in parallel. The digital channel *really* is on a different channel, but through the magic of ones and zeros, the digital tuner will report the signal as being channel "29-1" or the like.

If they're tuned to an analog signal, the big screen just magnifies al the crap it's picking up along with the actual signal. The retailer may have the image aspect set to stretch the 4x3 aspect ratio signal to cover the entire 16x9 aspect HD screen, making everything look too wide.

A real SD signal will look great compaired to analog in nearly all cases! While SD dosen't have all the detail of HD, it still should be crystal clear and free of snow and interference.

AG, IT guy at a TV station.

 

[ncc74302]

Just thought I'd give you an update

I ended up getting a 26" Element LCD HDTV. I love it - great picture quality both HD and SD, and my regular DVDs look great on it, though from what I have read that's mainly a tribute to my DVD player. It's a Sony DVD player - DVP NS325, and from what I have seen it's because it has an outstanding chipset for its' time (It's circa mid 2003).

 

[Irishman]

Element? Oh God no. You went to Target, didn't you?

If you haven't heardo fthe brand, there's a reason why it's not on anyone's top ten list.

Dude, if it's not too late, take it back.