Video Asylum

• Re: cheap 16:9 - 2ms 16:51:57 10/13/03 (1)
  In Reply to: cheap 16:9 posted by 2ms on October 07, 2003 at 01:53:30:

  I'd really like to spend under a grand but can conceivably spend a couple hundred bucks more if there's something way better for the little bit more. I've got a bit of brand loyalty for Philips -- how's their $1000 30PW850H 30"? Anyone know if it's as good or better than the $1000 30" Samsung? Is there anything else in my price range?
  
  

  ---

  • I don't remember the Philips model no. - GTF 20:11:15 10/13/03 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: cheap 16:9 posted by 2ms on October 13, 2003 at 16:51:57:

    But I saw one of their widescreens. I looked good.
    GTF
    
    

    ---
• Re: cheap 16:9 - KKM 08:08:19 10/09/03 (0)
  In Reply to: cheap 16:9 posted by 2ms on October 07, 2003 at 01:53:30:

  You should go here for the definitive answers to your question, these guys are very informative and sharp:
  

  • http://avsforum.com/   (Open in New Window)

  
  

  ---
• That Samsung - GTF 07:13:06 10/09/03 (2)
  In Reply to: cheap 16:9 posted by 2ms on October 07, 2003 at 01:53:30:

  is a rather nice set. I looked at that when I was shopping for a new widescreen. I almost went for the Samsung DLP but their not ready yet for regular broadcast quality. Neither are the LCD's or Plasmas.
  If Sony didn't just come out with the XBR910 I would of bought the
  Samsung widescreen your looking at.
  I did buy the 910.

  GTF
  
  

  ---

  • Re: That Samsung - RandyH 17:20:08 10/14/03 (1)
    In Reply to: That Samsung posted by GTF on October 09, 2003 at 07:13:06:

    "I almost went for the Samsung DLP but their not ready yet for regular broadcast quality. Neither are the LCD's or Plasmas."

    What do you mean by this statement?
    
    
    

    ---

    • Not ready for prime time. - GTF 17:27:29 10/15/03 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: That Samsung posted by RandyH on October 14, 2003 at 17:20:08:

      Every store display always show those monitors playing a HD feed from a DVD or some other VERY high quality feed. The DV (direct views) were
      almost always hooked up to cable or a satellite feed. DV's never look as good so I had the store disconnect a Plasma tv from it's super feed and hookup the same feed as the DV's.
      Try it and then you'll see. These monitors when feed regular cable or satellite they then can't compete with a good DV. If you watch only OTA HDTV or a progressive DVD then one of the HD monitors (DPL, Plasma, LCD) are an excellent choice, but if you watch regular cable or satellite then a DV is the way to go.
      Go try.
      GTF
      
      

      ---
• You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 - Dalancroft 14:30:43 10/07/03 (3)
  In Reply to: cheap 16:9 posted by 2ms on October 07, 2003 at 01:53:30:

  You'll get at least as much screen size for the $$$ and have a better picture if you end up with something like a mid- to high-end Sony WEGA, Panasonic or Toshiba.

  One popular solution to the dreaded "black bars" costs about $7-10 and is said to work wonders. Buy some black art matte, cut it into two pieces about 4" wide x the TOTAL width of your screen (including cabinet plus 1" on each side, bend the 1" at a right angle and affix Velcro to the side of your TV as well as in the 1" wide "bend."

  When playing a 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movie, simply move the mattes up or down to block the "black" bars on your TV (which, owing to direct view technology, are not true black anyway). Control your lighting, and you might be surprised at how "film like" the picture is.
  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 - 2ms 21:43:19 10/08/03 (1)
    In Reply to: You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 posted by Dalancroft on October 07, 2003 at 14:30:43:

    So the Samsungs have lackluster picture quality? I literally think I'll never watch anything other than DVDs, so it really seems like a waste of space to get a 32" when a 26" 16:9 would have nearly just as large display (area occupied by movie content rather than black bars).
    
    

    ---

    • Re: You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 - Dalancroft 09:53:09 10/09/03 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 posted by 2ms on October 08, 2003 at 21:43:19:

      "so it really seems like a waste of space to get a 32" when a 26" 16:9 would have nearly just as large display (area occupied by movie content rather than black bars)."

      Actually, if you use the calculator in the link I've provided, you'll see you'll actually get a 29" screen size, which while it sounds negligible is actually pretty significant.

      FYI, I did not comment on the Samsung's picture quality as I have not seen the set; I just know my friend's Sony WEGA is absolutely stellar on DVDs. And I find it difficult to believe you would NEVER watch anything besides DVDs on your monitor -- no Super Bowl? No CNN after a terrorist bombing or during a war? -- but I could be wrong.

      In the end, get whatever makes you happy. I was just trying to help, is all.
      
      

      • http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6463_7-1016109-4.html   (Open in New Window)

      
      

      ---
  • That should be "flat screen" - Dalancroft 14:31:43 10/07/03 (0)
    In Reply to: You're probably better off going 32" flat-panel 4:3 posted by Dalancroft on October 07, 2003 at 14:30:43:

    Not "flat panel" like a plasma, but a direct view set in which the picture tube is (virtually) flat. Available in your price range.
    
    
    

    ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---