New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDTV Experience - Page 2

post #16 of 100
Thread Starter 
My dad bought normal dual wire cable that you'd use to wire a doorbell lol. So it has to be 12 or 14 gauge right?
post #17 of 100
14 or 16 should be fine. But there are no disadvantages to thicker cable, so if you are building into the wall, maybe 12 isn't a bad idea.
post #18 of 100
Thread Starter 
OK so my dad will have to return that normal cable and get some 14 I guess. Thanks.
post #19 of 100
Or, you could get 10 AWG.

Check out Blue Jeans Cable for some solid in-wall NEC-rated cable. It's inexpensive ($0.38 to $1.05 per foot) and high quality.
post #20 of 100
You'll have trouble getting 10awg to fit most connectors. (conenctors are totally optional and acoustically transparent. But bannana plugs are nice if you need to unhook your speakers for any reason and hook them back up again).
post #21 of 100
In general, I would recommend LCD over any other type. They work better with glare, have a looooong lifespan and generally are the most reliable HDTV.
post #22 of 100
Thread Starter 
OK, but there must be some advantages of Plasma otherwise they wouldn't still be being made? Thought I heard some companies are reducing production and moving to LCD, like Sony I think?

So yeah I'll get some 14 gauge speaker wire. The TV will be bought around January time for the price reductions after Christmas. We won't buy a HD-DVD/BluRay player for a long time I hope, for when the war ends.
post #23 of 100

HDTV

My father has a plasma and a DLP. He prefers the picture on the DLP (both are Toshibas). I have a Samsung 720p DLP that is three years old and I love it. I think that the DLP technology is great, especially with the new 1080p sets. You don't see pixels as the mirrors in the DLP overlap them slightly.

Samsung is getting ready to ship a LED based DLP set. That overcomes the issue of your bulb needing replaced- LEDs have a lifespan that is longer than yours or mine (unless Ray Kurzweil is right). The newer technologies coming down the pike are based upon thin-film CRTs. They will be flat-panel, similar to LCDs in size and feel- but will have CRT levels of contrast and blackness.

Plasma is a dead-end technology (IMHO). They use too much juice, have a limited lifespan, suffer from pixel degradation, etc. LCDs are better, but it's hard to make them without the screen-door effect. I think that DLP is going to have a long life-span, and the resolution and image filtering in front of that little chip is going to get better and better. Best bang for the buck- unless you HAVE to hang it on the wall.

Samsung was the early leader in the technology, but they aren't the only players with good stuff. That said, my 5065 has been a real workhorse - heck it's just got DVI (HDMI wasn't around yet) inputs!
post #24 of 100
As a consumer of high end video gear, I can offer this input.

LCD is getting much better and offers more versatitlity for the average consumer, but for the best quality in a larger panel you have to go plasma. LCDs simply can't touch the picture quality of a high end plasma, and with the release of tthe 60"+ 1080p plasmas, it is far from a dead technology right now. If you want a high end solution for movies and HD TV, plasma continues to be the way to go. That beng said, LCD techonology does look very good and within a few yers, technology like SED will take over. Most people are better off going LCD.

As for 1080p, if you are gettting a pannel under 45" you probably don't need it. If you are getting a big panel and will be using it with a PC, you defintitely want it. Anything over 50", I wouldn't get something without 1080p. All the 1080p panels are starting to come out, and if you have chance to see the newest Blu-ray titles, you'll understand how much better they look than even the best DVDs. once you see it, you don't really want to go back. I am however, using a 65" 1080p panel.

If you are on a tighter budget or are looking at 50" and under, consider getting the last generation of plasmas and LCDs. They will offer excellent picture quality and are availble for extremely good prices.

At 55" I would look at the newest LCDs from Sharp, Sony and Samsung. I hve one form Sharp nd Sony. If you are using it exclusively for movies and HD TV and want the best picture, look at the higher end plasmas, but do expect a bit of sticker shock.
post #25 of 100
In general one thing to keep in mind, resolution is NOT the most important aspect of image quality. In fact it seems to be a distant 4th most important factor, after 1) Contrast, 2) Color saturation, and 3) Color accurary. See this link for more info on that:
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-2.html


If you want to learn about Plasma vs. LCDs, I can share with you some of the pages I recently read and studied to make my own decision (eventually went for Plasma btw):

LCD vs. Plasma TV
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml
http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,239035250,240036500,00.htm
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/el...fullstory.html

This is Panasonic speaking on the benefits of the Plasma over LCD. You must go over the 4 different "lectures", they are pretty cool and informative:
http://www.panasonic.net/think_plasm...ity/index.html

Also check out CNet's HDTV buying guide:
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5102926-1.html?tag=hed

Top 10 Plasma TVs lists:
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/top10.html

Top 10 LCD TVs lists:
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/top10.shtml
http://hometheater.about.com/cs/tele...p/aalcdtva.htm

On EDTV vs. HDTV:
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...efinition.html


The promise of SED TV is no small feat: it offers the combination of the best features of all existing technologies: flat screen and high resolutions, thinner than current flat displays, most accurate colors over the whole surface of the display (as in Plasmas), no ghosting of fast moving images (a strength of plasmas but a weakness on LCDs), lower heat and low energy consumption (even better than LCDs), but most important of all, ideal contrast and perfect blacks (as in a CRT).

In fact there is another technology on the roadmap: Laser TV, which promises even better colors than SED with similarly perfect blacks. But that seems to be more on the vaporware side so far, or at least is further ahead in time compared to SED. Toshiba and Canon at least officialy announced their alliance and plans to build SED displays by end of 2007.

Links about SED:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_Display
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sed-monitor.htm
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sed-tv.htm

Links about Laser TV:
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6216/52/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_TV
post #26 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra View Post
In general one thing to keep in mind, resolution is NOT the most important aspect of image quality. In fact it seems to be a distant 4th most important factor, after 1) Contrast, 2) Color saturation, and 3) Color accurary. See this link for more info on that:
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-2.html
While I think that is true, once you get over 50" and use closer viewing distances, resolution isn't an issue you can ignore and can dramatically change the viewing experience.
post #27 of 100
Quote:
Plasma is a dead-end technology (IMHO). They use too much juice, have a limited lifespan, suffer from pixel degradation, etc.
Well, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. I did not notice any increase in my electric bill after I purchased my plasma. I don't remember the statistics but I believe a good plasma should last 12+ years with normal use. I'm not sure what you mean by pixel degradation, both plasma and LCD can suffer from dead and stuck pixels. I'm not saying that LCD is bad, but to me, I think plasma has a more true-to-life image and presents movies better. Another factor to consider is lighting conditions. Plasmas have better black levels which is better for viewing in low light.
post #28 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack View Post
While I think that is true, once you get over 50" and use closer viewing distances, resolution isn't an issue you can ignore and can dramatically change the viewing experience.
Just saying it is the 4th most important factor doesn't mean you should ignore it obviously, my post never implied that you should ignore resolution. However, worldwide marketting buzz makes strong emphasis on resolution as if it was the non-plus ultra factor that will bring high quality images just by itself, which is not the case. My point was to simply state that fact and make the OP aware of it.
post #29 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra View Post
Just saying it is the 4th most important factor doesn't mean you should ignore it obviously, my post never implied that you should ignore resolution. However, worldwide marketting buzz makes strong emphasis on resolution as if it was the non-plus ultra factor that will bring high quality images just by itself, which is not the case. My point was to simply state that fact and make the OP aware of it.

I understand. I was not trying to disagree with you. The OP is looking for a 55" panel. The article you reference specifically states that they are talking about panels smaller than 50". My point was simply that based on my observation of my 1080p panels, resolution takes on far greater importance when you cross the 50" barrier. Actually, I would say 45", but that's just my opinion and preference, as I do try minimize my viewing distances.
post #30 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplex View Post
How do you work out what height to mount it?.. eye level when standing? sorry that might be a stupid question.
To avoid neck strain, the ideal height is having the center of the viewing area at eye level assuming your most frequent watching position, which is usually sitting. That means the center of the viewing area on the screen should ideally be at about 3.5 feet (~40 inches, or 1 meter) high.

Some more info:
http://www.jakeludington.com/ask_jak...ng_height.html

Viewing distance is much more critical than vertical angle of view however. See these links for more info on viewing distance:
http://www.practical-home-theater-gu...-distance.html
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.c...alculator.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack
resolution takes on far greater importance when you cross the 50" barrier.
Agree to some extent, but the screen size alone doesn't make resolution more relevant. It's actually screen size and the right viewing distance. Resolution is equally relevant for 55" at its right viewing distance as it is for 42" at its right viewing distance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home