Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

TV's

sunbunny

By sunbunny,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

If you have a bright room you will be disappointed in the plasma. Screen is very shiny. 1080 yes. 120hz is the best right now for LCDs, but still high $. I"m waiting to see what happens to prices after the super bowl...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

dont waste your time at Circuit City. As others have said in other threads, the "blow out sale" is a rip off. I stopped by there today and saw a TV that I've had my eye on "reduced" for the same price I've seen it elsewhere. The place was total chaos too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d-dave Grand Master

d-dave

Posted
Posted

Oh boy, here we go!

LCDs and Plasmas are getting very close to being nearly identical. what you first need to do when you're thinking about a TV is 1) plan a budget, 2)determine where the TV will be and how far you are sitting from it, 3) think of the environment of your room, 4) Are you concerned with your energy bills?

Also, visit the HD guru's website www.hdguru.com for lots of good information about HDTVs.

About resolution and the other snake oils you see when they advertise TVs. 1080p is only good if you are buying the right size for your seating distance. The human eye can only distinguish so much detail. If you are thinking about 120hz, go to a store and look at some TVs with the 120hz demos on. I personally hate the 120hz. It makes a good blu ray movie look like it was shot on my SD camcorder. To me, it looks less like a movie, and more like a soap opera.

Things to really look for when shopping would be contrast ratio, off axis viewing, and adjustable settings. Contrast ratio is basically a measurement of how accurately a TV can move between shades of grey. TVs with good real life performance in contrast ratio will display a lot of image depth. Generally TVs with better contrast ratios will give a darker black which really brings POP to an image and is very satisfying. Also look at the colors of the TV. How do they look? Are fleshtones of an ESPN game too red? Is green grass a little too green? That's where the more adjustments you have, the more you can work with. Off axis viewing refers to a TVs ability display an image to the extreme left and right.

So what's the relative strength or weakness of the technologies?

LCD: Better ambient light performance. Since LCDs are backlit in the screen, they can deal with ambient light (from windows, lights, etc) much better than plasmas. They generally have a less reflective screen too. LCDs are much, much more energy effiecient than plasmas. they are also a good deal lighter than plasmas. If you are going 42" or smaller, LCD is the only option.

Plasma: Better black level and contrast ratio performance. They are energy hogs. Better pricing 42"+. Issues of burn in and image retention are not a big deal because most modern plasmas have special software to prevent such issues.

So there's my opinion. Think about what you want. If you are looking at 1080p, take your diagonal screen size and multiply it by 1.5. if your seating distance is bigger than that result, then you are not getting the value out of the 1080p, you just can see the extra pixels. For a 720p TV, then multiply your screen size by 2.

Good luck, and happy hunting. Read lots of reviews.

www.cnet.com

www.hometheatermag.com

www.ultimateavmag.com

www.soundandvisionmag.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • firefox1234
      Panthers Top 30 Visits and Draft Tracker

      By firefox1234 · Posted

      It may not be exact science and this FO is relatively new, but it is very much likely the first couple picks will be of players we met.
    • firefox1234
      It is time to Consider the Likelihood of WR at #19

      By firefox1234 · Posted

      The only other position group I could think of is ILB since Dan was there for Rodriguez and Hill Jr. pro days in Texas. It’s one of the reasons I get the feeling ILB could be the pick at 19.
    • tukafan21
      It is time to Consider the Likelihood of WR at #19

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Nobody is saying we don't need it, just that we have bigger needs elsewhere, and that type of WR is actually something that is often found in the mid rounds, you just have to scout and evaluate properly. Here's another way of looking at why WR in the 1st shouldn't even be considered an option. Looking only at players currently on the team, what position group would you feel strongest about 4 years from now? I'm not sure there is a better answer there than WR, as you have to think T-Mac is our best player on the team in 4 years (Brown is the only current player I think there is even an argument to be made over T-Mac there), with Coker not far behind. Our OL is too old to be considered, my opinions on Bryce is well known, Hubbard will be done by then and the rest of the RB is an unknown, Off-ball LB is maybe our biggest need, we only have 1 legit safety, it's certainly not TE, and our 2nd best CB right now will be 33 by then.   Brown should still be a beast as he'll only be 31, but nobody else on the DL projects to be that good in 4 years.  Edge rusher with Phillips, Scourton, and Princely is probably the only other possible answer than WR. So yes, that fast/shifty type of WR is 100% a need of ours, but we have so many other bigger needs both in the immediate and future, that to me, taking a WR in the 1st for the 3rd year in a row and having hit on another WR in the same time frame, just makes zero sense both currently and looking into the future.
×
×
  • Create New...