Ive Been Tweetered
#83
Originally Posted by Shawn S
Most spouses’ that are against the “look” of a surround system are imagining monster 3FT tall cabinets housing 15” woofers.
It’s just not like that today.
A good quality system with 5 1/4” or 6” drivers will do fine with a good Subwoofer taking care of all the Bass.
If your wife saw a nice set of hardwood from someone like B&W or Energy I bet she would change her mind.
And I guarantee that a set of five properly placed small speakers w/sub will sound better then 42 tweeters haphazardly firing from one spot front/center of the room.
But apparently you value the opinion of a salesman that’s working on commission more then someone who’s been setting up A/V systems for myself and friends and family for nearly 20-years now.
So I’ll shut up now.
It’s just not like that today.
A good quality system with 5 1/4” or 6” drivers will do fine with a good Subwoofer taking care of all the Bass.
If your wife saw a nice set of hardwood from someone like B&W or Energy I bet she would change her mind.
And I guarantee that a set of five properly placed small speakers w/sub will sound better then 42 tweeters haphazardly firing from one spot front/center of the room.
But apparently you value the opinion of a salesman that’s working on commission more then someone who’s been setting up A/V systems for myself and friends and family for nearly 20-years now.
So I’ll shut up now.
#85
Originally Posted by Shawn S
Most spouses’ that are against the “look” of a surround system are imagining monster 3FT tall cabinets housing 15” woofers.
It’s just not like that today.
A good quality system with 5 1/4” or 6” drivers will do fine with a good Subwoofer taking care of all the Bass.
If your wife saw a nice set of hardwood from someone like B&W or Energy I bet she would change her mind.
And I guarantee that a set of five properly placed small speakers w/sub will sound better then 42 tweeters haphazardly firing from one spot front/center of the room.
But apparently you value the opinion of a salesman that’s working on commission more then someone who’s been setting up A/V systems for myself and friends and family for nearly 20-years now.
So I’ll shut up now.
It’s just not like that today.
A good quality system with 5 1/4” or 6” drivers will do fine with a good Subwoofer taking care of all the Bass.
If your wife saw a nice set of hardwood from someone like B&W or Energy I bet she would change her mind.
And I guarantee that a set of five properly placed small speakers w/sub will sound better then 42 tweeters haphazardly firing from one spot front/center of the room.
But apparently you value the opinion of a salesman that’s working on commission more then someone who’s been setting up A/V systems for myself and friends and family for nearly 20-years now.
So I’ll shut up now.
I'm running just two Klipsch RB-5 speakers and an RW-12 sub in my home theater but I'll probably buy some surround speakers and a center one day.
Edit: wsklar beat me on the reply.
#86
Originally Posted by wsklar
The guilt, the guilt. We saw small nice speakers, but she wasn't into it. She is the money maker and I am just happy to have something better then my 14 inch B&W Emerson that it's replacing .
wsklar's life is funny.
#87
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I don't think he's disagreeing that a 5.1 system will sound better, he just said that his wife doesn't want speakers everywhere.
I'm running just two Klipsch RB-5 speakers and an RW-12 sub in my home theater but I'll probably buy some surround speakers and a center one day.
Edit: wsklar beat me on the reply.
I'm running just two Klipsch RB-5 speakers and an RW-12 sub in my home theater but I'll probably buy some surround speakers and a center one day.
Edit: wsklar beat me on the reply.
#88
Originally Posted by dom
wsklar's life is funny.
Well, it's true
#89
Originally Posted by wsklar
Right, I am sure that a 5.1 system would sound better. But there is a market for the DSPs for people like me. If it gets installed and I think it sounds worse that the TV speaker, I will return it.
You can't really tell how something sounds until you have it set up in your home.
#90
Originally Posted by wsklar
If I told you that we will really are just going watch Elmo and Big Bird all the time on the 9K project, you would really laugh....
Well, it's true
Well, it's true
I'll be sure to save the electronics equipment upgrades until the kid is in his teens and has no interest in his parents then.
I wish my wife made more than me. If she did I'd be staying home with the kid for a year instead of her.
#91
Originally Posted by dom
I wish my wife made more than me. If she did I'd be staying home with the kid for a year instead of her.
Work > Staying home with an under 1 year old
Work < Staing home with an over 1 year old
#92
Originally Posted by wsklar
Still not sure how an ED TV can blow away an HD
If the Yamaha doesn't sound right for me, I will return it as well. But from what I heard, it sounded fine.
If the Yamaha doesn't sound right for me, I will return it as well. But from what I heard, it sounded fine.
This is what jrod is trying to say...
The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9
Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9
A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.
Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!
Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.
So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.
FYI
The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio
Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant. You have a 4:3 picture which is stretched to 16:9 for EVERYTHING.
I don't suggest buying that TV at all.
#93
Originally Posted by SiGGy
This is what jrod is trying to say...
The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9
Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9
A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.
Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!
Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.
So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.
FYI
The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio
Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant.
I don't suggest buying that TV at all.
The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9
Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9
A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.
Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!
Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.
So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.
FYI
The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio
Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant.
I don't suggest buying that TV at all.
is $2500 at Best Buy compared to the HD which is $3100.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1099392081954
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Panas...oductDetail.do
#94
Originally Posted by SiGGy
This is what jrod is trying to say...
The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9
Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9
A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.
Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!
Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.
So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.
FYI
The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio
Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant. You have a 4:3 picture which is stretched to 16:9 for EVERYTHING.
I don't suggest buying that TV at all.
The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9
Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9
A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.
Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!
Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.
So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.
FYI
The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio
Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant. You have a 4:3 picture which is stretched to 16:9 for EVERYTHING.
I don't suggest buying that TV at all.
Good point SiGGy.
Sorry wsklar, I thought you were getting a 1280x720 screen. You should probably reconsider that set.
#95
Here's some reviews on the yamaha ysp:
http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=yamaha+ysp
http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=yamaha+ysp
#96
Originally Posted by JarodL
what the fuck are you talking about? we are trying to save the guy some money and at the same time get him a better product. i am also trying to answer a few misconceptions some people had about HD content.
#97
good catch Siggy, wsklar definitely do NOT get a tv that isn't 16x9 or that isnt a standard resolution. Have you looked at the latest DLP sets from Samsung? I've read they're supposed to be the best things out this year.
#98
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Good point SiGGy.
Sorry wsklar, I thought you were getting a 1280x720 screen. You should probably reconsider that set.
Sorry wsklar, I thought you were getting a 1280x720 screen. You should probably reconsider that set.
TH-42PD50U - ED (JarodL recommended)
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 852 x 480
vs.
TH-42PX50U - HD
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 1024 x 768
1024 x 768 > 852 x 480 Right.
None I the models I saw have 1280x720, at least in the 3K price range.
I went to the stores during lunch and everyone I spoke to says to ge HD over ED. By the end of the year Comcast will have over 100 HD channels. They did say that non HD content may look better on a ED because the ED can handle the analog signal better, but since I will have this for years, I would think I would kick myself not getting HD.
#99
Originally Posted by Davediego
good catch Siggy, wsklar definitely do NOT get a tv that isn't 16x9 or that isnt a standard resolution. Have you looked at the latest DLP sets from Samsung? I've read they're supposed to be the best things out this year.
#100
Originally Posted by Davediego
good catch Siggy, wsklar definitely do NOT get a tv that isn't 16x9 or that isnt a standard resolution. Have you looked at the latest DLP sets from Samsung? I've read they're supposed to be the best things out this year.
Aspect Ratio 16:9 (Widescreen)
#101
Originally Posted by rise
Here's some reviews on the yamaha ysp:
http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=yamaha+ysp
http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=yamaha+ysp
#103
Here is Best Buys list of TV's.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....cat33900050026
Of the 42's - Only the Sharp has anything higher then 1024 x 768 and it's $6,999.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....cat33900050026
Of the 42's - Only the Sharp has anything higher then 1024 x 768 and it's $6,999.99
#104
Originally Posted by wsklar
Ok what am I missing...
TH-42PD50U - ED (JarodL recommended)
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 852 x 480
vs.
TH-42PX50U - HD
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 1024 x 768
1024 x 768 > 852 x 480 Right.
None I the models I saw have 1280x720, at least in the 3K price range.
I went to the stores during lunch and everyone I spoke to says to ge HD over ED. By the end of the year Comcast will have over 100 HD channels. They did say that non HD content may look better on a ED because the ED can handle the analog signal better, but since I will have this for years, I would think I would kick myself not getting HD.
TH-42PD50U - ED (JarodL recommended)
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 852 x 480
vs.
TH-42PX50U - HD
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S
Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 1024 x 768
1024 x 768 > 852 x 480 Right.
None I the models I saw have 1280x720, at least in the 3K price range.
I went to the stores during lunch and everyone I spoke to says to ge HD over ED. By the end of the year Comcast will have over 100 HD channels. They did say that non HD content may look better on a ED because the ED can handle the analog signal better, but since I will have this for years, I would think I would kick myself not getting HD.
Your totally missing what im saying...
ok..
1024x768 = 1.33 aspect ratio, which is the same as a 4:3 TV (i.e. square)
BUT it's widescreen? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK? everything is going to look jacked on that TV.
852x480= 1.77 aspect ratio, which is true 16:9. This will display a true 16:9 picture /wo any stretching or image manipulation. UNLIKE the 1024x768 TV your looking at.
basically 1024x768 will ONLY work correcly on a SQUARE TV. 1024x768 is NOT a widescreen resoltuon. It's a 4:3 square TV resolution.
852x480 is designed to be widescreen, it's a 16:9 resolution.
That TV is 1024x768 it's NOT HD. it's more like EED. Sure it's slightly better than EDTV but at a 1.33 aspect ratio? Thats totally whacked. PASS ON THAT!
Yes, go HD over ED. But not at 1024x768 on a widescreen. Thats resoution is designed for a 4:3 screen (square). Your screen is 16:9 (wide rectangle) if you were buying a square tv i'd say 1024x768 is fine. But the manufacturer stretched 1024x768 onto a widescreen. Thats just TOTALY wrong.
1024x768 is not HD. Find a 1280x720 or a 1920x1080 HW monitor then your talking HD.
do you see what im trying to say?
edited, please re-read
#105
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
What is so complex about this setup?
#106
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
What is so complex about this setup?
yea, i dont understand that either
edit: okay, but it still doesn't seem complex--- maybe the calibration
Last edited by bigblazinboot; 05-16-2005 at 02:16 PM.
#107
Originally Posted by wsklar
Here is Best Buys list of TV's.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...mcat33900050026
Of the 42's - Only the Sharp has anything higher then 1024 x 768 and it's $6,999.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...mcat33900050026
Of the 42's - Only the Sharp has anything higher then 1024 x 768 and it's $6,999.99
That sharp does sound pretty sexy though.
#108
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Hmmm, that might just be a limitation of plasma screens right now.
no, there are widescreen HD plasmas made with correct 16:9 resolutions. They are much more $$$$.
That "HD" TV is a hack, it's resolution is 4:3 yet on a 16:9 screen. And it claims to be HD, but it really falls short... especially since most HD content today is 1920x1080. It can only display 50% of a HD signal...
He'd be better off buying the EDTV than the "HD" one. Picture will look better on the EDTV.
#109
How about a nice UPS for less money than those surge things? Can a UPS power a plasma or do they take too much power?
Also, IMO spending a lot of money on cables is just
A lot of dudes on AVSForum swear by the ED Plasma because it can display SD content better.
Are you worried about burn in?
I hear that even the new plasmas can burn in those stupid network logos and the CNBC ticker.
Also, IMO spending a lot of money on cables is just
A lot of dudes on AVSForum swear by the ED Plasma because it can display SD content better.
Are you worried about burn in?
I hear that even the new plasmas can burn in those stupid network logos and the CNBC ticker.
Last edited by doopstr; 05-16-2005 at 02:21 PM.
#110
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Your totally missing what im saying...
ok..
1024x768 = 1.33 aspect ratio, which is the same as a 4:3 TV (i.e. square)
BUT it's widescreen? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK? everything is going to look jacked on that TV.
852x480= 1.77 aspect ratio, which is true 16:9. This will display a true 16:9 picture /wo any stretching or image manipulation. UNLIKE the 1024x768 TV your looking at.
basically 1024x768 will ONLY work correcly on a SQUARE TV. 1024x768 is NOT a widescreen resoltuon. It's a 4:3 square TV resolution.
852x480 is designed to be widescreen, it's a 16:9 resolution.
That TV is 1024x768 it's NOT HD. it's more like EED. Sure it's slightly better than EDTV but at a 1.33 aspect ratio? Thats totally whacked. PASS ON THAT!
Yes, go HD over ED. But not at 1024x768 on a widescreen. Thats resoution is designed for a 4:3 screen (square). Your screen is 16:9 (wide rectangle) if you were buying a square tv i'd say 1024x768 is fine. But the manufacturer stretched 1024x768 onto a widescreen. Thats just TOTALY wrong.
1024x768 is not HD. Find a 1280x720 or a 1920x1080 HW monitor then your talking HD.
do you see what im trying to say?
ok..
1024x768 = 1.33 aspect ratio, which is the same as a 4:3 TV (i.e. square)
BUT it's widescreen? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK? everything is going to look jacked on that TV.
852x480= 1.77 aspect ratio, which is true 16:9. This will display a true 16:9 picture /wo any stretching or image manipulation. UNLIKE the 1024x768 TV your looking at.
basically 1024x768 will ONLY work correcly on a SQUARE TV. 1024x768 is NOT a widescreen resoltuon. It's a 4:3 square TV resolution.
852x480 is designed to be widescreen, it's a 16:9 resolution.
That TV is 1024x768 it's NOT HD. it's more like EED. Sure it's slightly better than EDTV but at a 1.33 aspect ratio? Thats totally whacked. PASS ON THAT!
Yes, go HD over ED. But not at 1024x768 on a widescreen. Thats resoution is designed for a 4:3 screen (square). Your screen is 16:9 (wide rectangle) if you were buying a square tv i'd say 1024x768 is fine. But the manufacturer stretched 1024x768 onto a widescreen. Thats just TOTALY wrong.
1024x768 is not HD. Find a 1280x720 or a 1920x1080 HW monitor then your talking HD.
do you see what im trying to say?
I can only find 1 or 2 sets that have higher then 1024x768 and they are about 7K.
Also, isn't HD broadcasts 1024x768? Why would that be streched? And for the non HD (what little there is) I can either stretch it or it's it's bad, I can make it a square and have the black borders on either side.
SiGGy, what TV would you recommend which is 42 inch, flat and around 3K?
#111
Originally Posted by SiGGy
no, there are widescreen HD plasmas made with correct 16:9 resolutions. They are much more $$$$.
That "HD" TV is a hack, it's resolution is 4:3 yet on a 16:9 screen. And it claims to be HD, but it really falls short... especially since most HD content today is 1920x1080. It can only display 50% of a HD signal...
He'd be better off buying the EDTV than the "HD" one. Picture will look better on the EDTV.
That "HD" TV is a hack, it's resolution is 4:3 yet on a 16:9 screen. And it claims to be HD, but it really falls short... especially since most HD content today is 1920x1080. It can only display 50% of a HD signal...
He'd be better off buying the EDTV than the "HD" one. Picture will look better on the EDTV.
Yes, a lot more money....
If the HD TV is a hack, then I guess a lot of people are falling for it, because a lot of people are buying plasmas at the 3K-4K mark.
I can't find any evidence that HD content would look better on an EDTV compared to HDTV.
#112
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Hmmm, that might just be a limitation of plasma screens right now.
That sharp does sound pretty sexy though.
That sharp does sound pretty sexy though.
As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.
#113
Originally Posted by wsklar
I think the confusion may be because the size of the TV. This is a 42 inch TV.
I can only find 1 or 2 sets that have higher then 1024x768 and they are about 7K.
Also, isn't HD broadcasts 1024x768? Why would that be streched? And for the non HD (what little there is) I can either stretch it or it's it's bad, I can make it a square and have the black borders on either side.
SiGGy, what TV would you recommend which is 42 inch, flat and around 3K?
I can only find 1 or 2 sets that have higher then 1024x768 and they are about 7K.
Also, isn't HD broadcasts 1024x768? Why would that be streched? And for the non HD (what little there is) I can either stretch it or it's it's bad, I can make it a square and have the black borders on either side.
SiGGy, what TV would you recommend which is 42 inch, flat and around 3K?
I dont mean to be rude, but I have spelled this out 3 times now.
1024x768 is NOT a HD resolution.
99% of HD content is 1920x1080
Do the math. It's < 50% of HD resolution.
1024x768 is NOT 16:9, PERIOD. But it's being displayed as 16:9 that is INHERRITANTLY wrong.
Buy the EDTV, or spend the $$ and get a REAL HD plasma. Don't buy that hack middle of the line POS.
#114
Originally Posted by doopstr
How about a nice UPS for less money than those surge things? Can a UPS power a plasma or do they take too much power?
Also, IMO spending a lot of money on cables is just
A lot of dudes on AVSForum swear by the ED Plasma because it can display SD content better.
Are you worried about burn in?
I hear that even the new plasmas can burn in those stupid network logos and the CNBC ticker.
Also, IMO spending a lot of money on cables is just
A lot of dudes on AVSForum swear by the ED Plasma because it can display SD content better.
Are you worried about burn in?
I hear that even the new plasmas can burn in those stupid network logos and the CNBC ticker.
#115
Originally Posted by wsklar
Mainly the fact that the AV components (Cable, DVD, etc) will be on the far side of the room, which is about 20 feet. They will need to go into the basement or garage to run the cables. They also need to calibrate the DSP and of course they setup the components and program the remote.
#116
Originally Posted by wsklar
The Sharp is lottery money....
As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.
As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.
for the 38290389028390289038290832372738979042789047894892 04.1^8932890320 time it's NOT, NOT HD.
It's a hack, and it's a whacked 4:3 resolution crammed into a 16:9 screen.
I can't repeat myself any more...
Good luck with the purchase...
Your the standard person purchasing, you have hard facts in front of you.
But you keep saying it says "HD", but I keep trying to show you it's a hack. Welcome to the world of marketing...
Either pony up the $$ and buy a REAL HD plasma, or get the EDTV. Or be sold on marketing, get the "HD" monitor you are looking at. And enjoy the worse picture than the ED one has...
#119
Originally Posted by wsklar
The Sharp is lottery money....
As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.
As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.
Is english your first language? How many times do Siggy, Shawn S and I have to explain this to you. The Panasonic model you are looking at is NOT true HD. The ED TV will look better for HD content and SD.
The ED TV has a prettier picture then the HD... Is that easy enough?????
#120
Originally Posted by SiGGy
I dont mean to be rude, but I have spelled this out 3 times now.
1024x768 is NOT a HD resolution.
99% of HD content is 1920x1080
Do the math. It's < 50% of HD resolution.
1024x768 is NOT 16:9, PERIOD. But it's being displayed as 16:9 that is INHERRITANTLY wrong.
Buy the EDTV, or spend the $$ and get a REAL HD plasma. Don't buy that hack middle of the line POS.
1024x768 is NOT a HD resolution.
99% of HD content is 1920x1080
Do the math. It's < 50% of HD resolution.
1024x768 is NOT 16:9, PERIOD. But it's being displayed as 16:9 that is INHERRITANTLY wrong.
Buy the EDTV, or spend the $$ and get a REAL HD plasma. Don't buy that hack middle of the line POS.
Last edited by PHUNBALL; 05-16-2005 at 02:57 PM.