U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Consumer Electronics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2007, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Blackwater Park
1,715 posts, read 6,436,452 times
Reputation: 567

Advertisements

We bought a Samsung 42" plasma in February for about $1,500.

Here are some general thoughts about it:

- great picture when watching HD channels/movies, but standard definition actually looks worse (using S-video helps some)

- the tv gets really hot; hot enough to probably heat up the living room a few degrees

- burn-in is still a small issue; I play a lot of games, so I always have to be aware of how long i've been playing. I've had some image retention, but not long-term burn-in.

If I could do it all over again, I probably would have waited to buy one. It's still so new at this point, and I would have waited for more channels to be available in HD and for the tvs to be more affordable.

Don't get me wrong, the picture is great, but it's not as big of a deal to me as everyone makes it out to be. If I had to quantify it, I would say the picture is about 20% "better" now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
The best picture quality, is not from flat-screen plasma nor LCD HD TV's, but from high resolution rear projection TV's. These are much cheaper too, but are much heavier and bulkier, and a lot of people have no idea that such TV's exist.
Are you talking about DLPs? If so, I completely disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2007, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
3,589 posts, read 3,245,837 times
Reputation: 533
I have an HDTV and though the format took some getting used to for me (at first watching it gave me a headache) now I always look for programs on the HD channels in the guide before I search the other channels. It is infinitely superior to regular television.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2007, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
3,589 posts, read 3,245,837 times
Reputation: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjukken View Post
I understand that HD tv is supported in US.

Her we stil are mostly suported to PAL. (europen vertion of NTSC)
Some HD suported Channels. But mostly HD tv' need Blueray or HD-DVD here. (or PC)

So i will not change my CRT to an LCD/Plasma HD tv for long yet.
Ive even seen socalled HD-ready tv's that acctuly got worse picture than my CRT from Loewe. Gues that coz HD is notfully suported.

If u have full HD suport. why stick to NTSC?
Tho if u dont have full HD suport. wai until ur favorit channel got HD support.


TJ..
When I lived in the UK I noticed that PAL pictures were usually better than standard definition NTSC pictures anyway with more realistic flesh tones, though HD is still a huge improvement on a standard def PAL picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2007, 04:10 PM
 
4,948 posts, read 16,726,679 times
Reputation: 2867
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
Yes, they look good and I won't say never ever will I not buy one but I am not chomping at the bit to buy one. I have been looking at the same NTSC TV picture for almost 50 years now- even before it was in colour or cable was ever heard of. And it looks fine to me. I don't need it to look any better. I keep hearing about these converters that will allow me to keep my regular TV sets after the regular TV transmitters are shut off in a year but I have yet to see any in a store.
starting in January you can get 2 40.00 vouchers from the gov't to use to buy the converter. there will be a web site and number to call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2007, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,726 posts, read 29,336,363 times
Reputation: 12539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in TN View Post
We bought a Samsung 42" plasma in February for about $1,500.

Here are some general thoughts about it:

- great picture when watching HD channels/movies, but standard definition actually looks worse (using S-video helps some)

- the tv gets really hot; hot enough to probably heat up the living room a few degrees

- burn-in is still a small issue; I play a lot of games, so I always have to be aware of how long i've been playing. I've had some image retention, but not long-term burn-in.

If I could do it all over again, I probably would have waited to buy one. It's still so new at this point, and I would have waited for more channels to be available in HD and for the tvs to be more affordable.

Don't get me wrong, the picture is great, but it's not as big of a deal to me as everyone makes it out to be. If I had to quantify it, I would say the picture is about 20% "better" now.



Are you talking about DLPs? If so, I completely disagree.
The best quality possible from any TV today is from the bulkier high definition TVs (tube-base). These may have a flat panel but are a foot or more in depth (front to back), and very heavy. These are cheaper than LCD, and Plasma. Since consumers want very slim screens, TV manufacturers have switched to LCD, plasma, etc., which can be made thin enough to hang on a wall like a picture frame. These are the high definition TV's I am referring to:
http://products.howstuffworks.com/st...ying-guide.htm
Quote:
Many direct-view sets are now equipped with a built-in HD receiver. Not all digital sets are full-blown high-definition televisions (HDTVs) with a built-in HD receiver. HD-ready sets require separate digital receivers, which are available from several manufacturers. Digital sets that are HD-ready (meaning they have no internal digital receiver) are also known as high-resolution monitors.

Last edited by RayinAK; 12-24-2007 at 06:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2007, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Blackwater Park
1,715 posts, read 6,436,452 times
Reputation: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
These are the high definition TV's I am referring to:
http://products.howstuffworks.com/st...ying-guide.htm
That seems more of an information page; I'm not sure which TV you are referring to.

Quote:
The best quality possible from any TV today is from the bulkier high definition TVs (tube-base). These may have a flat panel but are a foot or more in depth (front to back), and very heavy. These are cheaper than LCD, and Plasma. Since consumers want very slim screens, TV manufacturers have switched to LCD, plasma, etc., which can be made thin enough to hang on a wall like a picture frame.
It still sounds to me like you are referencing DLP, 3LCD, etc. If so, I have yet to see one that produces as good of a picture as a plasma or LCD. They typcially have lower black levels than plasmas and I've heard the bulbs need to be replaced every few years.

I will agree that they do appear to be a good bargain if one doesn't require a flat panel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2007, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,726 posts, read 29,336,363 times
Reputation: 12539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in TN View Post
That seems more of an information page; I'm not sure which TV you are referring to.



It still sounds to me like you are referencing DLP, 3LCD, etc. If so, I have yet to see one that produces as good of a picture as a plasma or LCD. They typcially have lower black levels than plasmas and I've heard the bulbs need to be replaced every few years.

I will agree that they do appear to be a good bargain if one doesn't require a flat panel.
No. I am referring to the high definition TV's Sony and others produced just before they switched to LCD, Plasma, etc. These TV's took advantage of the S-Video and Component signals, although they were not fully HD TV's as we have today with built-in digital tuner, HDMI ports, etc., these were still HD TV's (High Definition). You still can find some, but are becoming rare. Some have a tuner, but most don't. The ones that don't have a tuner can be upgraded with a digital tuner from radio Shack and others.

These TV's produce the best signal, and its clear from any viewing angle angle, color rendition is much better, don't have the LDC and Plasma problem with shadows or black backgrounds, and don't show a sort of pixel streak across the screen when the subject moves. A problem is that they didn't have a HDMI port like some of today's TV's have, but I am certain that manufactures could easily work on that if that's what consumers would want. It just won't happen, because TV manufacturers have already re-tooled their equipment to produce the TV's of today and tomorrow.

Those folks who still have one of these TV's around can still use them by adding a tuner. That's all that's needed.

You have to keep in mind that it's not the TV that necessarily is "the" HD component. The TV is just a display that is capable of displaying high definition signals. Any high definition TV, regardless of kind (tube, LCD, Plasma, etc.), can clearly display the signal. The new high definition TV's of today, can still play analog signals, although these look worst than very old TV's. But they are HD ready, just like the older TV's I have mentioned above. The difference is that these older TV's didn't have the tuner or translator to show a digital signal. However, all one needs is a digital tuner to bring the signal into the older TV.

Lots of this subject is explained here:
http://www.cinemasource.com/products...v_display.html

Last edited by RayinAK; 12-25-2007 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Askim, Norway
231 posts, read 646,734 times
Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by nativeDallasite View Post
When I lived in the UK I noticed that PAL pictures were usually better than standard definition NTSC pictures anyway with more realistic flesh tones, though HD is still a huge improvement on a standard def PAL picture.

I havent seen NTSC. since i still havent wisited USA.

Yah HD is better. But only if the imput is HD.

If ur cabel company dosent send HD. (720P or 1080i)
std NTSC or PAL will look bad on most big HD tv's. coz it's upscaled.

Like when u see a smal youtube stream and zoome it all out to ur W 22" computer screen.

But with right imput. yeah ofc it's way better.

TJ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,726 posts, read 29,336,363 times
Reputation: 12539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjukken View Post
I havent seen NTSC. since i still havent wisited USA.

Yah HD is better. But only if the imput is HD.

If ur cabel company dosent send HD. (720P or 1080i)
std NTSC or PAL will look bad on most big HD tv's. coz it's upscaled.

Like when u see a smal youtube stream and zoome it all out to ur W 22" computer screen.

But with right imput. yeah ofc it's way better.

TJ..
The free over the air TV channels will transmit digital video signals beginning in 2009. One can have paid TV (cable), most of which are digital, although all may not be high definition as high as 1080i or 1080p. However, quite a lot of stations are already transmitting digitally already. If a high definition TV does not have a HDMI jack in the back, one still can use an S-Video cable, or Component cables and still display quite nice image on the screen. I imagine that Radio Shack and others would have S-Video/HDMI adapters, or even Component/HDMI adapters by now.

TV manufacturers have switched to LCD, Plasma, and other technologies, and all include several jacks on their TV's. For example, the one I bought last year allows the connections of RCA cables, S-Video, Component, HDMI, computer, and a light cable. There is a huge market taking advantage of all of these inputs. For example, I can view video signals, photo, etc. on my TV. I can send the signals wirelessly from my computer, or from an iPhone or any other devise capable of sending the signal to the TV via cable or not. I can connect my DSLR camera straight to the TV and watch the photos, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Ocean Shores, WA
5,081 posts, read 13,138,296 times
Reputation: 10691
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
..I have been looking at the same NTSC TV picture for almost 50 years now - And it looks fine to me. I don't need it to look any better...
I'll bet your phonograph records sound fine on your wind up Victrola.
No need to buy CDs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Consumer Electronics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top