Anyone familiar with the X360 Samsung LCD?

[Master-Mold]

A Best Buy near me just got their X360 retail set-up in a couple days ago. The set-up looked really poor, I mean it was the bottom half of a kiosk with the LCD just sort of mounted on to the top of a shelf.

There was a pretty sizeable group of people around it watching CoD2 be played. After the pile of people dispersed I went to work on the LCD which was badly calibrated. I mean it couldnt have been worse if a blind monkey set it up. Just to clarify it was not even in widescreen mode and had 2" black borders on top and bottom and the image was squished.

After about a literal 15 minutes I got it looking good, I mean really good as if it were mine at home and I proceeded to finish the CoD2 demo. The LCD is a Samsung 23" that Best Buy and other retailers sell for $899 on sale. I was so impressed I am thinking about buying one, but other than some net reviews I wonder if any of you own it or have gamed on it for awhile in a home setting. After seeing Kameo and CoD2 looking very crisp in widescreen I want the same display.

I guess I could always run my X360 on my 22" NEC CRT monitor as planned or my 53" HDTV, but neither are widescreen and my Sony HDTV doesnt natively accept 720P so I fear it will look like poo.

Any help would be great:smile:

 

[Carl B]

Master-Mold... did you just start fiddling with this screen? I mean, did they just let you do that or are you related to the kiosks/stations somehow?

 

[Master-Mold]

I just went ahead and fixed it.

It looked so bad and I wanted to get a real impression of the X360 the first time I used it. Im not kidding, it looked awful when I first got to it. Words cannot describe how bad...

Anyway the LCD wasnt mounted in a case or covered in any way. It was literally the same one they were selling on the other side of the store mounted on a shelf so the buttons on the right side were easy access. Lots of Best Buy employees walked by me but no one said anything. Alot of them were 17-ish kids and were probably scared to say anything.

 

[Carl B]

Well right yeah, wouldn't expect it *not* to be the same one afterall.

Anyway I saw it set up at EBGames and I agree it looks a lot better than some of the other LCD TV's out there, but that being said, I just don't know - 23" @ $899 doesn't strike me as ideal personally. But then again I can't get Best Buy's website to work right now so I can't compare to the others I found (since I was recently looking).

 

[pegisys]

I'm thinking of getting one or the 26" version, you can find the 23" for $699 online

 

[London Geezer]

I'm getting the 32" version soon enough so i'll post lots of impressions. Needless to say i'll play with it much more and better than bloody Walmart employees ever will.

Whenever i get the bloody thing!!

 

[Carl B]

I'm really very inches/$ oriented, and for myself I'm on a 52" HD projection TV. It's not going to be as crisp as newer LCD's, and it won't hang on your wall - but I have to tell you after going on two years now, it'd be hard to imagine something much smaller for my primary set.

For those looking into modern LCD sets, I would certainly urge that you acquire something on the larger end (as long as it's wallet comfortable). LCD's are still kind of expensive relative to where they'll be even a year from now, but if you go too small, then really it's more akin to a glorified monitor. Or, that's how I feel now, post 52"...

L-B's move I would say would be the most enticing one thus far in this thread.

 

[Dural]

For those in the US looking into getting an LCD soon, wait till black friday as there should be some good deals. Sears will have a 32" LCD for $799 and I'm sure Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's and probably CompUSA will have some on sale.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I'm getting the 32" version soon enough so i'll post lots of impressions. Needless to say i'll play with it much more and better than bloody Walmart employees ever will.

Factory default settings have too much color and 100% sharpness turned on, which should be lowered. Then there's the dynamic contrast stuff, and of course you'd want YUV component cables instead of S-video. Prepare to abandon cheap DVD players as well

 

[orfanotna]

The only thing that bugs me about these sets is WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY 1366*768? Why not 1280*720 or 1280*768, or 1280*800, or one of the other resolutions that are much more useful ?

 

[OtakingGX]

The only thing that bugs me about these sets is WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY 1366*768? Why not 1280*720 or 1280*768, or 1280*800, or one of the other resolutions that are much more useful ?

Because 16:9 widescreen is the new 4:3? It's the standard cinematic widescreen format that makers settled on.

 

[orfanotna]

Because 16:9 widescreen is the new 4:3? It's the standard cinematic widescreen format that makers settled on.

No it's not. The standard format is 1280*720 (the other one is 1920*1080). If you're making a fixed-res HDTV set, why not use an actual HD resolution as the native resolution?

 

[London Geezer]

The only thing that bugs me about these sets is WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY 1366*768? Why not 1280*720 or 1280*768, or 1280*800, or one of the other resolutions that are much more useful ?

Because that retains PC's 768 vertical lines typical of the 1024x768 resolution but in a widescreen ratio.
It doesn't change much if anything when watching a 720p source, in fact it might give the set some space to do some mojo with its internal image processing system and make the image potentially better (in some cases it's the same, but i've never heard of a 1366x768 set producing "bad" 720p images)

 

[orfanotna]

Because that retains PC's 768 vertical lines typical of the 1024x768 resolution but in a widescreen ratio.
It doesn't change much if anything when watching a 720p source, in fact it might give the set some space to do some mojo with its internal image processing system and make the image potentially better (in some cases it's the same, but i've never heard of a 1366x768 set producing "bad" 720p images)

Yes, I've heard the "768 lines" argument a million times and it's stupid IMO. First of all, PCs can display all kinds of resolutions, my laptop screen is 1280*800 and it works just fine, I'm sure 1280*768 would work just fine too. Secondly, this is a TV not a monitor, so why not optimize it for TV viewing? Thirdly, I've never heard of a TV/monitor internal scaler that produced IQ better than the native resolution. That's usually the realm of standalone scalers (that would cost at least as much as the TV itself) and HTPCs.

 

[Bill]

I noticed it seems most Best Buy sets are the 1366X768

I think it seems to be the future trend, one way or another, not something that's phasing out.

 

[orfanotna]

I noticed it seems most Best Buy sets are the 1366X768

I think it seems to be the future trend, one way or another, not something that's phasing out.

Most of them are that res because most of them are using the same panel.

 

[London Geezer]

Yes, I've heard the "768 lines" argument a million times and it's stupid IMO. First of all, PCs can display all kinds of resolutions, my laptop screen is 1280*800 and it works just fine, I'm sure 1280*768 would work just fine too. Secondly, this is a TV not a monitor, so why not optimize it for TV viewing? Thirdly, I've never heard of a TV/monitor internal scaler that produced IQ better than the native resolution. That's usually the realm of standalone scalers (that would cost at least as much as the TV itself) and HTPCs.

Well if it's stupid for you, fair enough. Not gonna try to convince you otherwise other than say there are reasons why they have that resolution, but it seems you're awfully opinionated already without knowing much.

 

[orfanotna]

Well if it's stupid for you, fair enough. Not gonna try to convince you otherwise other than say there are reasons why they have that resolution, but it seems you're awfully opinionated already without knowing much.

So enlighten me then, which of my points are wrong. And yes, there are reasons to have that res, but I think it creates more problems than it solves.

 

[London Geezer]

So enlighten me then, which of my points are wrong. And yes, there are reasons to have that res, but I think it creates more problems than it solves.

What problems does it create if i may ask?

Your proposed resolutions of 1280x800 or 1280x768 are NOT 16:9 so they would create problems.

1280x720 is lower than 1366x768 so for computer work (most LCD tvs have PC inputs to work with PCs) the latter is preferred.

 

[Master-Mold]

I have read the X360 is supposed to have a really good internal scaler. Does anyone have a clue how the picture would look running on a 22" CRT that is NOT widescreen?

I am a stickler on visual integrity and I dont want a distorted image or some cruddy scaling.