
Got my 42" Plasma at Wal Mart
#61
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 4:18 pm
#62
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 4:23 pm
I wish I could have picked up that Westinghouse 26" LCD HDTV on special
this year... or the Syntax at CC maybe... would have made a better
tailgating setup TV than my 17" Dell LCD HDTV.
Maybe next year...
your refering to the dell monitor?
#63
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 5:15 pm
"uldn't take any one person's word for it with
something this expensive, then just visit some A/V message boards like
AVSForum and read and learn. The minority of people there will recommend
EDTV versus HDTV and most of them do so while defending their own
purchase of an EDTV."
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....-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.
#64
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 5:31 pm
#65
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 7:56 pm
your refering to the dell monitor?
Yeah, it's a PC monitor too.... nice set, sharp HD picture too, but only 17"...
kind of loses it's wow factor, plus viewing outside it's kind of small for football
games.
Now mounted up in the corner of my gameroom it works just fine. It'd be
nice to just leave it up there and get a 26" for tailgating instead.
#66
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 8:01 pm
These are not minority opinions. 10 percent is a good estimate.
I've also read articles and seen links that say 50%... I suppose someone
could always do the math and figure out how many pixels more there are in
1080 lines of resolution than in 480 lines, but that's not the point.
If you're lucky enough to be blind and not be able to tell the difference
between 1080i and 480p easily with your own eyes, then you'll be really
happy with EDTV. In fact, I've read those exact sentiments on AVS....
apparently some people can't tell. I can see the difference pretty clearly. I
suggest people look at both before deciding for themselves, then.
#67
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 8:12 pm
#68
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 28, 2005 - 9:24 pm
I've also read articles and seen links that say 50%... I suppose someone
could always do the math and figure out how many pixels more there are in
1080 lines of resolution than in 480 lines, but that's not the point.
If you're lucky enough to be blind and not be able to tell the difference
between 1080i and 480p easily with your own eyes, then you'll be really
happy with EDTV. In fact, I've read those exact sentiments on AVS....
apparently some people can't tell. I can see the difference pretty clearly. I
suggest people look at both before deciding for themselves, then.
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.
#69
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 29, 2005 - 12:47 am
#70
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 29, 2005 - 6:06 am
#71
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 29, 2005 - 6:57 am
I'm not a math major by any means but it seems to me that 1920x1080 is equal to 2,073,600 pixels, 1024x1024 would be 1,048,576 pixels, 1024x768 would be 786,432 pixels and 852x480 would be 408,960 pixels. So besides the enormous pixel count of the full hd plasma the other two more common hd panels have roughly twice the amount of pixels that an ed panel has.
You know the thing that jumps out at me is that for years I loved my Volkswagon. It handled great, has plenty of pep, is comfortable for long drives and gets me through ice and snow to go snowboarding. Its probably the finest car I've ever had the pleasure to own. But then a friend of mine let me drive his Audi S4. All of a sudden my Volkswagon drives like a brick, doesn't have heated seats, loses traction when it's wet, and that s4 hauls ass.... You know that Volkswagon looked great until I saw something better.
The vast majority of consumers will think that ed looks amazing because they have been watching their tired old crt for the last however many years. And don't get me wrong, ed panels do look great. But once you've seen a 50" Pioneer Elite or Fujitsu you just don't see the same thing when you look at an ed plasma.
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.
#72
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 29, 2005 - 4:36 pm
#73
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 30, 2005 - 4:17 am
#74
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 30, 2005 - 9:02 am
- You will always be able to tell the difference between an HDTV using a 1080i signal, and an EDTV using a 480p signal.I sure can tell the difference between EDTV and HDTV....and I'm not a trained TV Guru at all!
#75
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 30, 2005 - 10:27 am
#76
OFFLINE
Posted Nov 30, 2005 - 9:28 pm
- What cables are the "right cables" ?Right cables are neccessary ofcourse.
- Stretching the image wouldn't give a better picture...Yes your dvd's will look fine on an EDTV but with the new upconvert DVD players using HDMI or DVI cables you see better contrast on an HDTV plasma then you would on an EDTV plasma.
- Uhh... HD is more expensive than ED.If you have SD cable you are better off getting a HD tube for half the price and still have your tv looking great.
Can you edit your paragraph above so it is a little easier to understand? None of it makes much sense to me.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users