|
Post by knobtwister on Nov 28, 2008 15:54:32 GMT -5
Some random factiods:
Yes projection lamps are expensive. $200 is on the cheap side. They last about 2-3000 hours. Newer rear projection sets are using LED lamps that should last at least 10,000 hours.
The lifetime for LCD and Plasmas is generally accepted to be about 60,000 hours. In plasmas the phosphors are depleted. With LCDs the fluorescent back light fails. Some LCD have replaceable back lights or even better LED back lights.
Most bars and restaurants don't spring for the Hi-Def cable or satellite packages. The exception is high end sports bars. It's really tricky to do High-Def in a sports bar with lot's of screens and their preferred centralized setup of receivers or cable boxes. Because of Hollywood's paranoia the only way to guarantee that HiDef will work is to connect the cable box etc. with HDMI cables. Going more than 10-12 feet with HDMI is very expensive. We just attach the receivers to the back of the sets and avoid the hassles.
Don
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Nov 28, 2008 17:04:56 GMT -5
WTF are you talking about Bill? If you watch sports in HD, at least at my house, the images are broadcast in 16/9, and perfectly proportioned. Practically everything on your list of "watched" is broadcast in HD, although why would anyone would care if "Judge Judy" was in HD or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 17:12:44 GMT -5
I still DO NOT GET how all these sports fans seem OK with these elongated images, to the point where they themselves must go out and replace their properly proportioned TVs at home. Reminds me a lot of SUVs. Gee, everyone is buying these -- they must be better than what I have now. So they trade in their Accords for TrailBlazers. Please! Such a misinformed (actually, completely wrong) opinion should not come from a newspaper man!
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Nov 28, 2008 17:33:12 GMT -5
We are in the market, primarily because both of our TVs have been circling the drain for some time now. We want a 32 inch for up stairs, (to fit in a existing entertainment cabinet) and a 42 inch for down stairs, for both sports and the Wii. Still waiting for better prices, though. Will we notice a diff between 720p and 1080p?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 28, 2008 17:37:13 GMT -5
WTF are you talking about Bill? If you watch sports in HD, at least at my house, the images are broadcast in 16/9, and perfectly proportioned. Practically everything on your list of "watched" is broadcast in HD, although why would anyone would care if "Judge Judy" was in HD or not? Maybe it's a coastal vs. Heartland thing. I guarantee that if I walk down to Ol' Mexico Ristorante two blocks from here, all the wide-screen TVs will be showing football fields that look 300 yards long and all the players will look short and fat.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 28, 2008 17:38:12 GMT -5
I still DO NOT GET how all these sports fans seem OK with these elongated images, to the point where they themselves must go out and replace their properly proportioned TVs at home. Reminds me a lot of SUVs. Gee, everyone is buying these -- they must be better than what I have now. So they trade in their Accords for TrailBlazers. Please! Such a misinformed (actually, completely wrong) opinion should not come from a newspaper man! So you agree with TeqBob that all the sports you see on flat-screen TVs in pubs, etc., look dandy, you mean?
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Nov 28, 2008 17:43:28 GMT -5
Please! Such a misinformed (actually, completely wrong) opinion should not come from a newspaper man! So you agree with TeqBob that all the sports you see on flat-screen TVs in pubs, etc., look dandy, you mean? Hey newsman! Read my post carefully. "at least at my house".
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Nov 28, 2008 18:09:22 GMT -5
We've had a 42" Polaroid LCD TV set up in our home for about 2 hours now. What we've learned is that you can adust things to make up for stretching out. I'm assuming that places like Old Mex don't time to make the adjustments. I wouldn't either, if I owned several of these, and they were placed in a restaurant.
|
|
|
Post by ajrosales on Nov 28, 2008 19:11:42 GMT -5
Can someone tell me why so many people are spending so much money on huge, verrrrrrrrrrrrry wide TV sets that distort the images because of their screen proportions? there's a couple of things going on here. #1)I get aggravated by incorrect aspect ratios, personally. When my mom got an HDTV, I turned that "stretch" setting off so that everything looks good. HD channels fill the whole screen, and non-HD channels don't!. Another setting I turned off was the "automatic compression" for the audio signal. I hate that everything all of the sudden has to be normalized as if there shouldn't be any peaks or valleys in the sound you hear. so, to wrap up point #1, there are probably a lot of people using their tv's incorrectly. #2) many cable channels already broadcast in HD, as do the big three (on cable that is) so you can already watch many standard programs in HD. our PBS station broadcasts in HD as well (on cable). I would imagine that HD will more and more become the standard for broadcasting. I personally like watching PBS in HD. it's great. I would think that many channels are going to convert to HD really soon, if not next year. It pays to be prepared so that you don't buy a digital TV that can't do HD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 19:28:23 GMT -5
Oh, hell, I don't need another fancy TV that will tempt me to lie around in my recliner getting even fatter then I already am. I'm getting a new set of golf clubs instead.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 28, 2008 19:38:33 GMT -5
Re: 1080 vs. 720. If I understand the various fora I read correctly, you don't need 1080 for broadcast/cable material and/or a smaller (under-50-inch) screen. I suppose when a major-brand 32-inch LCD with replaceable backlight (which amounts to Sharp, I guess) and lots of inputs dips below $500, we'll give in. Our two-year-old Toshiba promises to last long enough for that spec set to drop to $200, though. (We had a Sony that went 20+ years before one of the guns crapped out.)
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 28, 2008 20:20:16 GMT -5
We bought our flatscreen two years ago. I think its a 42", not sure.
The aspect ratio thing that Bill is talking about is, at least as far as I can tell, operator error. Ours has settings where you can tell it to either preserve the original ratio, or tell it to fill the screen.
Once we figured out where the HD channels were on our cable service, we'll never go back. The picture is just stunning.
The good news is these things are great for reducing home energy consumption. The bad news is they are an environmental disaster to make (at least that's what I heard...)
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 28, 2008 20:28:00 GMT -5
Diane asked if we should get a new one. The old one's almost shot. I considered the economy and such and said nah. When the old one dies, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 29, 2008 0:35:40 GMT -5
I sell these things all day and here's my take, FWIW:
LCDs have two advantages over Plasmas: 1) They're brighter, so they look a little better in an over-lit room (like a big box store). 2) They have non-reflective screens that don't put off much glare.
If your current tube-type TV, which reflects at least as much as a plasma (more if it has a curved front) isn't driving you nuts with glare, plasma is probably better because, it's faster, it has blacker blacks, whiter whites and more grays in between, and the colors are richer and more natural. It takes a lot of money to make an LCD look as good as a plasma, but the differences are pretty subtle, so I wouldn't sweat it much. Buy the TV that looks good to you.
With all of that said, it is pretty universally accepted that the best flat panel TVs in the world are Pioneer Elite plasmas. But the Panasonics are close. Really close.
Oh yeah, and Bill's a doody-head. When did he get a cell phone? If you don't want aspect ratio distortion, you just watch an HD TV in HD.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Nov 29, 2008 9:20:15 GMT -5
LCD's are deeper in the low end and brighter on the top end and are very resonant.
Plasma's have toasted wheat underpinnings.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 29, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -5
LCD's are deeper in the low end and brighter on the top end and are very resonant. Plasma's have toasted wheat underpinnings. Actually LCDs are only brighter on the top end. Plasmas are deeper on the low end. LCDs are Taylors. Plasmas are Martins. Tim
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Nov 29, 2008 17:19:20 GMT -5
Then this must be a Gibson,
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 29, 2008 21:37:00 GMT -5
No, that's Bill's TV.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 29, 2008 22:33:22 GMT -5
You sure are mean to me, Farley.
Cranky old man.
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on Nov 29, 2008 23:05:51 GMT -5
Bill, you are trying really hard to justify your position on why HDTV isn't a good idea. The truth is you're just plain wrong.
The technology provides as fantastic experience when it is installed and configured properly. I suggest you watch the Masters golf tournament or a great movie or even Judge Judy (which does broadcast in HD) on a friends 52" plasma and see for yourself that it is far superior to anything coming out of a CRT, even a great CRT.
|
|