Speaking of HDTV for console gaming

[Tap In]

Samsung/MS offering package deal (Best Buy)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat91700050030&type=category

Take your video gaming and TV viewing into the next generation with this money-saving HDTV and Xbox 360 offer.

For a limited time, you'll save $300 on an awesome Samsung 30" HDTV when you buy it with the hard drive-equipped Xbox 360 console, an extra wireless controller, and your choice of one of three games.

comes out to $459 for the HDTV
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=334VOWOGK15AHKC4D3FVAGA?skuId=7716769&type=product&id=1138087675171

1920 x 1080 pixel resolution; HDMI inputs; black cabinet; 16:9 aspect ratio


man I wish they'd have offered it at launch... well not that BB had any systems at launch

 

[DemoCoder]

Looks like false advertising. This set is unlikely to truly be capable of 1920x1080P, it's best vertical resolution is 720 according to Samsung's own specs. I doubt the horizontal as well given how poor previous HD crts were. I'm sure it accepts 1080P and does its best to display it, but there is a difference.

Notice how TV manufacturers never quote actual dot pitch, while computer monitor manufacturers do.

 

[rounin]

Also, the slimfit have geometry issues ...

 

[scooby_dooby]

This TV doesn't claim to be 1080p, just 1080i. It does appear it's 720p native resolution though.

 

[Tap In]

compared to a 27" STV that someone is using and are considering X360 anyway, $459 is still a smokin deal at 1080i/720p :smile:

 

[Acert93]

Notice how TV manufacturers never quote actual dot pitch, while computer monitor manufacturers do.

Yeah, the industry is not very clear on labelling. I like to browse electronics when I shop and it annoys me to no end why you have to hunt for what input resolutions they accept and what they really output. At most low-class stores (like Wal*Mart) the rule is if they don't clearly label it you don't want to know! With 1080p now coming into the mix I think this may confuse things a bit more.

Oh well, if I really need an answer on a HD TV I just have to ask the av forum... or you!

 

[kyleb]

Also, the slimfit have geometry issues ...

Newer ones like the one here are better in that respect than the orignals which gave them that rep.

 

[NavNucST3]

Newer ones like the one here are better in that respect than the orignals which gave them that rep.

I'm an original pre-slimfit owner...talk about out of whack geometry, and there is only so much you can do from the service menu. It definitely depends on the source as well though.

 

[sonyps35]

That's pretty nice but you might want to consider a syntax olivia 26" LCD or something like that.

It's LCD which in my book is super nicer because of the size. You can usually get them around $500 if you shop around hot deals forums online..which ins't much more than that Samsung. It's not a big brand I guess, but they have decent qaulity reputations.

 

[NavNucST3]

That's pretty nice but you might want to consider a syntax olivia 26" LCD or something like that.

It's LCD which in my book is super nicer because of the size. You can usually get them around $500 if you shop around hot deals forums online..which ins't much more than that Samsung. It's not a big brand I guess, but they have decent qaulity reputations.

Even with the issues my 30" set has, I would take a CRT over most LCDs, its "super nicer" in image quality and larger in size.

 

[sonyps35]

Even with the issues my 30" set has, I would take a CRT over most LCDs, its "super nicer" in image quality and larger in size.

Well therein lies the debate.

Not really larger in size though. 32" LCD's can be found for 799 and less now.

And since they're measured differently that's an even bigger size increas than it appears. A 17" LCD is nearly eqaul to a 19" CRT.

 

[wco81]

Sony announced a bunch of very expensive LCD and SXRD sets with 1080p HDMI inputs (some have up to 3).

But these are not HDMI 1.3 ports and they apparently don't support 1080p24, which would be best for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.

Maybe next year.

 

[London Geezer]

Sony announced a bunch of very expensive LCD and SXRD sets with 1080p HDMI inputs (some have up to 3).

But these are not HDMI 1.3 ports and they apparently don't support 1080p24, which would be best for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.

Maybe next year.

HDMI 1.3 supports the same resolutions as HDMI 1.1 or 1.2.
The differences between all those is sound formats as far as i know.
HDMI has been able to carry 1080p for a long time, it just wasn't enforced so you could find cables that can handle it and cables that don't. That's what we get from non-standard connections, or at least non-enforced standards.

 

[wco81]

Besides the sound formats, the key is to get inputs which support multiples of 24fps, since the video is going to be stored at that frame rate.

But instead, it appears most HDMI inputs support 30 or 60.

Ideally, it supports 24/30/48/60 and maybe 72 too.

 

[TheChefO]

Great Deal for the money -
720p native = prefered in my book

Until MOST content is at 1080p, that res is a hinderance as upscaling/downscaling (upscaling more so) for games truly ruins image quality. For movies/tv the scaling isn't much of an issue though.

Most of this isn't noticed at smaller tv sizes though.

 

[NavNucST3]

Well therein lies the debate.

Not really larger in size though. 32" LCD's can be found for 799 and less now.

And since they're measured differently that's an even bigger size increas than it appears. A 17" LCD is nearly eqaul to a 19" CRT.

Umm, ok. I'm going to chalk this up to you being confused, because 30" widescreen really is larger than a 26" widescreen and they are both measured the same, diagonally. I don't think there has really ever been a debate about CRT vs LCD in terms of I/PQ, the debate usually ranges around power consumption, size and weight. A glance at the OP and the quote I was responding to should have led to the assumption that we were all comparing widescreens...

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, it used to be that LCD displays were way inferior CR to CRT, but there are LCD displays that go as high as 3000:1 now, and Sharp has a 1million:1 CR LCD display in the works. CRT has lots of other issues that fubar up IQ, jitter, voltage restoration, divergence, burn in, etc CRT is dead, the only reason it's still alive today is legacy. Most consumers who purchase CRTs don't even know what the specs are, they get them because of price driven by existing volume production lines. Even if you don't like LCD's gamut, PDP/SED/FED is better on all counts of PQ. Then there's OLED, LCD/LCoS, DLP, SXRD, and a bunch of other competiting technologies, but no matter the tech, the future looks flat. The boob tube is dead.

 

[kyleb]

Black levels, color accuracy and response time all insure CRTs place against current LCD technology.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Most consumers who purchase CRTs don't even know what the specs are, they get them because of price driven by existing volume production lines.

Or more likely they go into a store and see the CRTs just look better, without excessive contrast, visible compression artefacts, colour and contrast abberations when viewed from different angles, and the like. I don't need specs to tell me which picture looks better to me, and 9 times out of 10 it's CRT.

 

[TheChefO]

Or more likely they go into a store and see the CRTs just look better, without excessive contrast, visible compression artefacts, colour and contrast abberations when viewed from different angles, and the like. I don't need specs to tell me which picture looks better to me, and 9 times out of 10 it's CRT.

"cool" > IQ to most consumers though. [typing on Sony 19 g400 crt]