opinions on this 42" LCD?
- Thread starter SofaKingBanned
- Start date
For the same price, you can get a Westinghouse 42" LCD:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7699163&st=westinghouse+1080p&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1138084694260
...that will do true 1080p resolution. Similar contrast spec, too.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7699163&st=westinghouse+1080p&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1138084694260
...that will do true 1080p resolution. Similar contrast spec, too.
Agreed, that LG doesn't even do 1080i. That'd be a deal killer for me.
I'm sorry, should've clarified, I just wanted opinions on that TV itself. Like if it has a history of issues or something.
I already bought it, will be delivered tomorrow, so just wanted to know iif there's a particular problem. Paid $1377 for it from Circuit City.
They aren't, really. The big advantage with Plasmas was the color reproduction and greater viewing angles. Also, high end LCDs look MUCH better than those cheap ass things you see by the dozens at best buy etc.
Blacks are ALMOST true black, colors are vibrant, great contrast ratio etc. Problem is they used to burn in in about 10 minutes, the new ones are better, but notby much. If you play a lot of video games you will be especially prone to burn in (static menu/GUI items etc).
LCD are much sharper so you tend to get some aliasing on them and the viewing angle, for the most part, isn't as good. Refresh rates and such also tend to be fixed and slower, which can lead to tearing (again, videos games are especially prone to this).
The best bang for your buck now tends to be DLP televsisions. Not as small as an lcd or plasma, but great colors, HI def (up to 1080p), good viewing angle and cheaper than both alternatives. They do tend to be monsters though size wise.
plasmas tend to burn in, color fade and loose brightness with time.
am talking about the mid-range and lower ends.
the expensive ones (3k+) according to the internet dont suffer from that as much.
DLP for t3h win! i would have gotten an lcd if i had the money, but 50in+ lcds are outwordly expensive, specially here.
I have one of those Westinghouse 42" and I can tell you, it's not dim. Infact, I ran thru the Avia HT DVD to calibrate the color, brightness, sharpness...ect, and the brightness setting was actually pretty low. If you like your brightness cranked, plazmas will do better. But if you want a more true level of brightness, and every other setting, the Westi will do just fine. Plus, the definition as a monitor is just stunning. I ran WMV-HD IMAX DVDs on the PC and my god, how clear it is in true 1080P!!
I'd agree with that, based on my highly scientific method of going to the shop and looking at all the TV's.:biggrin: I think a lot of people go for the plasmas for the wow factor and they can casually mention to friends/co-workers with a sh*t eating grin on their faces "Got me a plasma the other day" and shuffle off. Some of course, not all people.
you just classified n8, and the 20% of the american demographic he ownz...
I used to be sure of that, but not so much anymore. You get a little bigger screen with a DLP, but you can get a 50 inch Panasonic PDP at Costco for a couple hundred bucks more than a new 1080p DLP goes for.
One bulb on the DLP and you're even on price. I was all set on getting a DLP until I did a little shopping this year. It's a tricky one to figure out, and there are all sorts of other variables involved.
Oh, and if you can see the rainbows from the color wheel, DLP sucks, I've heard. I can't, so it's not an issue.
I can't see the wheels, but I have heard that as well. The deal with the plasmas is that they burn in pretty quickly and many currently don't do 1080p (some don't even do 1080i). Same goes for LCDs + the really bad viewing angle and tearing.
Just seems like so far, the DLPs have less drawbacks, not so much that they are better.
Just seems like so far, the DLPs have less drawbacks, not so much that they are better.
The burn in problem on a decent plasma is pretty much a thing of the past. They don't do 1080p, that's true, unless you want to spend 20K on the new Pioneer, but how many people have 1080p sources?
LCD viewing angle is getting better as well. It's really hard to make a blanket recommendation these days.
LCD viewing angle is getting better as well. It's really hard to make a blanket recommendation these days.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not buy a high end TV right now if it won't allow me to run sources that will be highly available in the next few years at their full resolution.
PS3 will be 1080p and any decent media center computer should be able to push 1080p.
That's something that people worry about way too much. My brother won't use his Xbox 360 on my parents DLP, he can't stand the way it looks.
If you're a hardcore gamer, an LCD makes sense. But then you're making a screen size sacrifice. There's also the need to consider that if you watch a lot of standard definition TV (let's pretend you're one of the five hockey fans in the US) then that signal upconverted to 1080p is going to look like ass.
Like I said, there really isn't a good reason to pick one technology as king. They all have pros and cons.
Actually as a hardcore gamer it makes very little sense. Xbox 360s happen to tear the crap out of even high end LCDs. The refresh just can't keep up. I imagine the PS3 will as well.
As BV said, why spend a few grand on a tv that can't run a standard that will be more and more common over the next 2 years?
Also, LCDs cannot scale the way a plasma or DLP can.
8ms isn't fast enough for gaming? I haven't seen it, so I'll take your word on that. That sort of sucks.
Plasma or DLP have the same scaling problem that LCD's do. The only technology that doesn't have a native resolution is CRT. That's why standard definition signals look better on a 5 year old CRT projection TV than a brand new HD set.
The scaling has gotten a ton better though. 5 years ago it was just nasty.
Plasma or DLP have the same scaling problem that LCD's do. The only technology that doesn't have a native resolution is CRT. That's why standard definition signals look better on a 5 year old CRT projection TV than a brand new HD set.
The scaling has gotten a ton better though. 5 years ago it was just nasty.
Because there won't be anything broadcasting in 1080p. You'll have some Blu-Ray and HD-DVD titles. If you watch a ton of movies, it might be worth doing. If you watch football, not so much.
Unfortunately not. I have an 8mp display and it still get's tearing when playing xbox 360 games at 1080i.
As for sources, you're right that no one will broadcast in 1080p - it just requires too much bandwidth. But movies, games and the like will all be 1080p sources in 2 years. The ps3 will in November.
This thread can almost extend into if it's a call to get a media center pc to drive a big eye w/o a tuner (like the Westi), or just get a stand alone TV. Letting a pc scale windows remove scaling issues. In this case, a really hi rez eye is key.
If you're going down this road, pm me if you need some guidence as to the configs of the PC. I can tell you my experience w/ my Athlon64 3700+ w/ 2gb of ram...ect.
If you're going down this road, pm me if you need some guidence as to the configs of the PC. I can tell you my experience w/ my Athlon64 3700+ w/ 2gb of ram...ect.