TvBob

You can't look at it that way because edtvs have technology to accept those higher resolution signals and emulate them to a degree. No, not as well as true hdtvs, but when hdtvs do 720 at 1080, edtvs look better than 480 when they do those resolutions, which is why most experts claim there is not more than a 10 to 20 percent difference in overall picture quality. 50 inch is not really the debate at hand, you need a 50 inch to actually experience true hd actually, which is another reason why some go with 42 inch edtvs. But the comparison is between 42 inch plasmas. And I wouldn't say the difference between an edtv and hdtv plasma is close to the difference in performance in a vw and audi lol.

I'd like you to show me one article written by someone with a decent reputation that claims there is a 50 percent difference. The point is the difference is not as great as you continue to claim. I have 20/20 vision, the only way I see any sort of significant difference is if I stay within 6 ft of the tv the entire time. For all practical purposes, edtvs will serve not only the average consumer well, but even many with high standards as far as picture quality, for many years.

That's just false. Look at any of the edtv vs hdtv debate threads. There is strong support for both. Some of the most respected posters (tv addicts but good people) there who own many expensive tvs, hd and not, praise high end edtvs like the panny. They believe edtvs are is the best compromise for combining today's technology and tomorrow's. In the end, you can't really go wrong with either type of set, so I don't feel that strongly about it. I just don't see this "huge" difference in picture quality with hd sources you keep talking about between edtv and hdtv plasma, assuming the models themselves are similiar quality. I encourage everyone to go to a store that has a decent display so you can see for yourself what you are may or may not be missing. There is definitely a wow factor for hd on an edtv, and on an hdtv, yes you can see a difference up close, but I really wouldn't call it huge. I am hardly the only one who thinks this: "So once you accept our word that burn-in really isn't an issue with the latest plasmas--whatever their resolution--the question becomes: how much better does HDTV look on a high-resolution plasma than on an EDTV plasma? The answer: not much, especially if you sit far enough away from your TV. Apparent resolution has a lot to do with seating distance, and unless you sit quite close to the set--say, seven feet or less--you probably won't be able to tell the difference in sharpness between a 42-inch EDTV and a 42-inch HDTV side by side. It's also worth noting that because black levels, or the TV's ability to display an inky black, may be superior on some EDTVs, their images may look slightly better with darker scenes. And remember, regular or standard definition TV and progressive-scan DVD look essentially the same on both sets. For many people, the slight compromise in sharpness isn't worth the extra $1,000 or more that it costs to upgrade to the HDTV or high-resolution version of the same set. " http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-5683218-1.html Good article on the subject. "Two terms have evolved regarding HDTV compatibility. "HDTV" plasmas are models with higher resolution, usually 1024x1024 or 1024x768. "EDTV" models have lower resolution, usually 852x480. The term "EDTV" is unfortunate because it sounds like an EDTV screen will not display HDTV properly. This simply is not the case. It is true that the higher resolution 42" plasmas have a slightly better picture than their lower resolution counterparts. But to put a subjective number on the difference in picture quality, we would say it's around a 10% difference. The one exception to that rule is in the cheapest 852x480 models, which definitely can have substantially less picture quality on HDTV. But a top quality EDTV plasma screen is usually within a couple hundred bucks or so compared to the price of the lowest quality models." Another good one: http://www.plasmatv.com/hdtv-edtv.php These are not minority opinions. 10 percent is a good estimate.

Perhaps, but there are aspects of a tv's display that video games tend to bring out that tv programs do not. And many people will be buying a plasma for the xbox 360. In any case, I saw several games that had real life video footage recorded for intro movies or in combination with onscreen rendered action, as you would see on a tv broadcast, so I think I got a pretty good idea about the differences between 1080 on an edtv and plasma. The right video game can be a more comprehensive test than a tv program or dvd alone because it can combine many types of video.

"And if you don't see a big difference between 480p and 720p/1080i, then you're in the minority. To each their own I suppose. Not saying this set won't look good..." I see a difference between the resolutions, but I don't see a huge difference between the higher resolutions on an edtv compared to an hdtv, it's there but not huge. "And I'd say the difference between DVDs on an EDTV versus an HDTV (assuming an EDTV is better even) is much smaller than the difference between HD content on an HDTV versus an EDTV... you're going to notice one difference much more than the other because HD sets do a great job with DVDs also." I would say the way standard tv looks on an edtv compared to an hdtv is a bigger factor than dvds, but the slight improvement on edtvs for dvds just adds to the advantages. I definitely would say edtvs do as good a job with standard tv compared to hdtv as hdtv do in displaying the higher resolutions compared to edtvs, dvds aside. "The best arguments for EDTV are 'I can't afford anything more' and 'I don't care about HD'. Not the greatest arguments in the world. I'd bank the $1,000 and save for another month or so to get the rest. And not caring about HD is fine, I just can't personally understand it having watched a lot of HD over the last two years. Still has the wow factor when family and friends come over." Yes, I guess the fact that people would rather have a better viewing experience with at least 80 percent of what they watch and the majority of what they will watch in many cases for the next few years at least is not a good argument. Believe me, your opinion is not in the majority. Xbox 360 games produce the best display I have ever seen at 1080, and fully support this resolution, I don't see why it isn't a good method for comparison. On both an edtv and hdtv 360 games look significantly better than older xbox games at 480.

" As more and more HD content is available the savings won't look nearly as good to you." Where is your evidence that is will not look "nearly" as good? HD will look better than on most edtv sets, but the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to think. Edtvs do a fine job with the higher resolution signals, to the point where many do not notice the difference between hd on a low end hdtv and hd on a higher end edtv. It is definitely worth it to upgrade to hdtv even with an edtv. I just don't see people regretting having only an edtv when viewing hd content because it does look a lot better than standard tv and not much worse than true hdtv sets. They certainly aren't going to buy a new tv just for a modest improvement in hdtv. The choice comes down to this. Somewhat superior hd viewing at the higher resolutions with true hdtv plasmas, or somewhat superior standard tv viewing (which is what we still watch for the most part) and in some cases dvds on edtv plasmas. The degree of these respective differences are very similiar. Both choices offer their own advantages. Current 480 DVDs and standard tv is not going anywhere anytime soon. I did a comparison using an xbox 360 with a game using 1080 resolution, and with an edtv and hdtv plasma this weekend. Honestly, you had to be within 5 feet of the screen to notice much of a difference. There is nothing regrettable about how the game looked on the edtv, it looked noticeably better than most 480 resolution sources regardless of what resolutions edtvs support.

Walmart is the worst store to shop online. Their online presence has improved, but they were very late in adapting online technologies compared to other big stores thanks to ridiculous anti-technology philosophies. I also think this is a reason why they have a hard time coordinating stocks of products between all their stores.

Yes, it's real hard for an angry mob to break a display case. They are in easy reach.

The scariest part is they sell guns and have them in easy reach there.

More edtv ignorance. It's funny, over at the avsforums, of course they have some regular people, but they have an awful lot of tv gurus and when this debate comes up, edtv gets a lot of support, probably more than hdtv. The fact is its still very much worth upgrading to hdtv even if you have an edtv set, hd on a high end edtv set will look better than on a low end hdtv set. While hd obviously will look better on an hdtv plasma, it stil looks extremely good on an edtv. But we covered this extensively in the tv thread. My view, like many others, is that you are not a dummy at all if you buy an edtv. The fact is edtvs can do things better than hdtvs, not just that they are a cheap shorterm solution. Standard tv looks better on higher end edtvs, and dvds in some cases as well. You can decide to invest in the future, but is it worth it to suffer with poorer sdtv for who knows how much longer, especially when hdtv still looks great on edtv? Why in the world should you outlaw a type of set that outperforms hdtv sets in several ways? I laugh when people say most tv is not in HD, that's just not true at all. Even people with the most hd channels, and many others do not have any particularly since satellite companies don't plan to offer universal hd anytime soon, still watch standard tv for a vast majority of the time....keep in mind most hd channels still have relatively few hd programs. This is changing, but not nearly as fast as some like to believe....hdtv has been a painfully slow spreading technology. But I always say don't be so fixated on whether it's an edtv or hdtv. Just try to look for a deal on a higher end model, a higher end edtv will always be better than a low end hdtv. There is more to the quality of a set than resolution.

Good links but also check out this extensive forum thread on the matter: linky

"Everybody says you're a dummy to get EDTV, but I've had mine for a year and love it. Current DVDs look great, no worries over whether the TV or the DVD player has a good upscaler, and standard TV (480i) looks as good as it can (on HDTV sets it can look worse)." It's funny, over at the avsforums, of course they have some regular people, but they have an awful lot of tv gurus and when this debate comes up, edtv gets a lot of support, probably more than hdtv. But we covered this extensively in the tv thread. My view, like many others, is that you are not a dummy at all if you buy an edtv. The fact is edtvs can do things better than hdtvs, not just that they are a cheap shorterm solution. Standard tv looks better on higher end edtvs, and dvds in some cases as well. You can decide to invest in the future, but is it worth it to suffer with poorer sdtv for who knows how much longer, especially when hdtv still looks great on edtv? I laugh when people say most tv is not in HD, that's just not true at all. Even people with the most hd channels, and many others do not have any particularly since satellite companies don't plan to offer universal hd anytime soon, still watch standard tv for a vast majority of the time....keep in mind most hd channels still have relatively few hd programs. This is changing, but not nearly as fast as some like to believe....hdtv has been a painfully slow spreading technology. But I always say don't be so fixated on whether it's an edtv or hdtv. Just try to look for a deal on a higher end model, a higher end edtv will always be better than a low end hdtv. There is more to the quality of a set than resolution. "Of course the HD channels will look a LOT better on the HD than the ED, but that's not what I am going to use the ED for." Alot better? Hardly, please go to the store and compare. I highly disagree that the picture quality between hdtv and edtv is substantial. More substantial is when you are comparing a lousy brand model to a good model regardless of whether its edtv or hdtv. Despite what resolutions it technically supports, its not like hdtv doesn't look much better than standard tv on edtvs. Most people can't tell the difference when an hdtv program is being broadcasted on both types of sets, and this is not likely to change for several years, until hd broadcasts at ultra high resolutions.

Well I don't know what brand the 1299 hdtv plasma is, but I doubt it can be much worse than magnavox, which people have been drooling over for 1499.

HDtv is hardly hitting it's stride, basically all predictions for how widespread it would be have lagged far behind. More and more people are using dish or directv and they will not be offering local networks in HD in some places for several more years. Both of these look much better on edtvs. Even those with the most HD channels already still watch 80 percent standard tv and that percentage will not be dramatically lowered anytime soon. For many it comes down to whether you want to wait who knows how long for a fairly minor improvement in hdtv reception or enjoy a decent sdtv picture on edtv plasmas which is what we watch most as well as great dvd viewing for quite some time. I seriously doubt blue ray or hd dvds are going to make an real impact for years to come, just like what happens when most updated technologies arrive on the scene and struggle. "Your average consumer does not replace their TV's every 4 years, more like 6 to 8 years and they will be regretting their EDTV purchase come next year" Most Americans that can afford plasmas have multiple tvs in multiple rooms, and I doubt it takes them 6 to 8 years to replace any of those tvs and move the older tvs to the smaller rooms. If you have 3 tvs in 3 rooms, chances are you are going to replace one of them sooner than that. Next year is a stretch, I don't think hd is going to be nearly as widespread as you think for considerably longer than that, especially when cable keeps losing its customers to satellite. All plasmas have come down in price, but to get a middle of the road plasma hdtv (magnavox is not middle of the road) like philips for example, you still are going to have to pay 2 grand or more. You can get a top of the line plasma edtv for 700 or more less, but both are very significant purchases. And technically, you need a 50 incher to truly enjoy an hdtv picture. 2 years is ago is not a relevant comparison because both edtvs and hdtv plasmas have dramatically evolved since then. EDTVs are not being purchased by dumb uninformed consumers. Just check out avsforums, some of the highest tech gurus over there purchase them and believe a high end edtv is the way to go for the majority of consumers. I would agree hdtv plasmas would be the easy choice if edtvs did not have advantages over them related to more than just cost. People buy tvs to watch tv for the most part, and sdtv will be more prevalant than hdtv for a long time to come, which edtvs have a distinct advantage with.

LOL the syntax high end model 37 lcd for 999 after rebates is one of the best BF deals of them all, if not the best. Do you know what compusa is selling them for, lol?