I'm not trying to be a dick...

But I watched some movies being displayed on a Blu-Ray player at Best Buy today and the TV was set to 1080p (Sony LCD with the glass border around it).... like a tech demo for these people that were buying a TV...

I'm not blind.

I'm not stupid.

That shit looked NO BETTER than 1080i on my set...

And these people were all excited...

I'm sorry, but my CRT looks just as good if not better than those TV's...

WASTE OF MONEY

I went there with intentions of buying an LCD...

But until I see a difference comparable to 480p -> 1080i (or 720p) I'm keeping what I have.

You guys are nuts...

what a dick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roker

what a dick

---

Lets play Halo you fucking sellout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

Lets play Halo you fucking sellout.

---

I'm such a mainstreamer

give me a few minutes

1080p Blu-Ray looks about like 720p HD-DVD.

I don't really give two shits about HD movies, but I've seen enough of both to make that comment while being unbiased.

I'd just like to comment that I still suck at Halo 2 and basically bought the game to play with the two legends (Tonk and Stinky)

I haven't played H2 in months now.

Towards the end I just got burned out and basicly killed all my levels by shit talking 24/7 and not trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abasuto

shit talking 24/7 and not trying.

---

I think I enjoy that part the most

and trust me, there's plenty of shit talking when the roker and tonk are online

you should see my PR

Shit, now I wanna play but I'm over at my g/f's house and hadn't planned on going back home tonight.

This thread is hidden in the Displays forum as to prevent kern from finding it and saying "lol halo 2".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abasuto

Shit, now I wanna play but I'm over at my g/f's house and hadn't planned on going back home tonight.

This thread is hidden in the Displays forum as to prevent kern from finding it and saying "lol halo 2".

---

yeah

I guess kern didn't have a problem with anyone else playing it until I did

I broke his heart

the amount of dumbasses on Halo 2 is mind boggling*

it puts gamefaqs to shame


*present company excluded . . . or not

:oh_no:

Eh 1080i is 1080p but it shows only half the lines so really...there isn't any difference at all with a static picture. All I know is that it's not worth the extra for a P display unless you're anal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

But I watched some movies being displayed on a Blu-Ray player at Best Buy today and the TV was set to 1080p (Sony LCD with the glass border around it).... like a tech demo for these people that were buying a TV...

I'm not blind.

I'm not stupid.

That shit looked NO BETTER than 1080i on my set...

And these people were all excited...

I'm sorry, but my CRT looks just as good if not better than those TV's...

WASTE OF MONEY

I went there with intentions of buying an LCD...

But until I see a difference comparable to 480p -> 1080i (or 720p) I'm keeping what I have.

You guys are nuts...

---

Tonk, if it was Blu-Ray, it may have been encoded in MPEG2, not VC-1 and then looking like an upconverted DVD.

I've seen an HD-DVD running in 1080i and 720p on an LCD looks fabulous. Still, our set can look just as good but it made you want it.

Too many Blu_ray movies use crap encoding so it doesn't even look HD, never mind 1080p.

But I believe what you're saying about 1080p, I doubt I'd see the difference either.

I just wish our set did 720p so I can play a PS3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

That shit looked NO BETTER than 1080i on my set...

(...)

I went there with intentions of buying an LCD...
.

---

That's because LCD FUCKING SUCKS ASS.

Did you check out some plasma sets? The ones from Panasonic and Pioneer will kick the snot out of any CRT TV. LCD is just plain crap. The MOST expensive ones are a little less crap, but a waste of money since a bigger and better plasma would be about half as expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

That's because LCD FUCKING SUCKS ASS.

Did you check out some plasma sets? The ones from Panasonic and Pioneer will kick the snot out of any CRT TV. LCD is just plain crap. The MOST expensive ones are a little less crap, but a waste of money since a bigger and better plasma would be about half as expensive.

---

When there is a plasma set around 42" that does 1920x1080p with 1:1 pixel mapping, and they completely eliminate burn-in, they might be worth considering. However, odd-resolutions with rectangular pixels just aren't for me.

However, if black level and color accuracy are your primary concerns, then plasma sets are quite good. :)

My primary concern is OVERALL PICTURE QUALITY, which is quite natural considering I like my shit to look as good as possible. Why would I spend thousands of dollars on an LCD TV that gives me picture quality that's crappier than on the CRT TV I had? Black levels and colour accuracy SHOULD be your primary concerns, if you're at all concerned with picture quality.

Plasma just beats the shit out of LCD with regards to picture quality. One has to be pretty fucking dumb to get burn-in on a plasma TV these days. Outside of that, there isn't really anything to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

My primary concern is OVERALL PICTURE QUALITY, which is quite natural considering I like my shit to look as good as possible. Why would I spend thousands of dollars on an LCD TV that gives me picture quality that's crappier than on the CRT TV I had? Black levels and colour accuracy SHOULD be your primary concerns, if you're at all concerned with picture quality.

Plasma just beats the shit out of LCD with regards to picture quality. One has to be pretty fucking dumb to get burn-in on a plasma TV these days. Outside of that, there isn't really anything to worry about.

---

You are right that Plasma has better PQ than an LCD, but my CRT is WAY sharper...

Isn't a new technology coming out for TV's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

You are right that Plasma has better PQ than an LCD, but my CRT is WAY sharper...

Isn't a new technology coming out for TV's?

---

You refering to this?

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...atec55inch.jpg

http://www.engadgethd.com/category/sed/

"Leading the charge will be these 1080p 55-inch models with 450 nits of brightness, 50,000:1 contrast ratio (yes, you read that right), stunning 1ms response time..."

can't wait :drool_2:

Except they'll be $10.000 :oh_no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

You are right that Plasma has better PQ than an LCD, but my CRT is WAY sharper...

---

Funny, my plasma TV is A LOT sharper than my CRT. But sharpness doesn't equal good picture quality anyway; too much will just make shit look artificial. An ISF calibration usually involves turning sharpness down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

My primary concern is OVERALL PICTURE QUALITY, which is quite natural considering I like my shit to look as good as possible. Why would I spend thousands of dollars on an LCD TV that gives me picture quality that's crappier than on the CRT TV I had? Black levels and colour accuracy SHOULD be your primary concerns, if you're at all concerned with picture quality.

---

More contributes to picture quality than just color accuracy and black level, for instance, RESOLUTION, which matters more to me. Every technology has its advantages and disadvantages. To claim that plasma is better than everything, regardless of application, would be just plain stupid. Plasmas suffer from burn-in, and while this issue has been improved, it has not been eliminated. I play a good amount of videogames, and would therefore NEVER consider a plasma, regardless of how accurate the colours are or how inky the blacks are. In addition, I prefer to have the absolute sharpest image possible, which requires 1:1 pixel mapping. Unfortunately, due to limitations of plasma technology, most use rectangular pixels and odd resolutions that simply make them incapable of performing such a function while maintaining a correct aspect ratio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

Funny, my plasma TV is A LOT sharper than my CRT. But sharpness doesn't equal good picture quality anyway; too much will just make shit look artificial. An ISF calibration usually involves turning sharpness down.

---

I believe he was referring to actual sharpness of the picture, and not the artificial sharpening added by the inappropriately named 'Sharpness' control on most TVs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishamon

More contributes to picture quality than just color accuracy and black level, for instance, RESOLUTION, which matters more to me.

---

It matters a lot less than you seem to think.

If all else was equal, yes, you'd get a better picture with 1920*1080 instead of 1024*768 on a 42" display, but all else is not equal. It's about finding what gives you the best/most correct overall picture quality (yes, there is a factually correct picture, it's not all just personal taste) and then trying not to give too much of a shit about what teh specs say. A 37 or 42 inch LCD TV, for example, with a resolution of 1920*1080 will NEVER give as correct a picture as a 37 or 42 inch plasma TV. Fact.

(yes, LCD TV's get better all the time, yadda yadda yadda ;) Call me when black levels, color accuracy and, well, overall picture quality is anywhere NEAR CRT and plasma. It won't be within the next two or three years :loco: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishamon

Plasmas suffer from burn-in, and while this issue has been improved, it has not been eliminated.

---

You make it sound like a fact that EVERYONE who buys a plasma TV will at some point suffer from burn-in. That is just not true. You have to be pretty fucking stupid to get burn-in on a new(ish) plasma TV. I won't vouch for the quality of a five year old plasma TV, but you can bet it's not a problem on a ninth generation Panasonic plasma TV as long as you take just a TINY BIT of care. If you're not willing to do that to get the best picture quality available, then enjoy teh crappy LCD TV'z...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishamon

Unfortunately, due to limitations of plasma technology, most use rectangular pixels and odd resolutions that simply make them incapable of performing such a function while maintaining a correct aspect ratio.

---

More misinformation. Have you ever checked out a 50" plasma TV? They have 1365 or 1366*768 resolutions.

And again, you're putting way too much emphasis on resolution. 1:1 pixelmapping is useless when other factors aren't in order. A videogame can look perfectly fine, and better than on LCD, on a 42" plasma TV. And how many consoles out there actually support 1:1 pixelmapping? One? LOL. Talk about focusing on irrelevant factors...

One thing I should also add is that I have my Xbox 360 feeding my 1024*768 plasma TV a 1024*768 signal through VGA. Call it what you want, but I'm avoiding unnecessary scaling and there's absolutely no distortion going on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishamon

I believe he was referring to actual sharpness of the picture, and not the artificial sharpening added by the inappropriately named 'Sharpness' control on most TVs.

---

What do you think I was talking about? My comment in no way negates talking about 'actual sharpness'.

If one's main use for a 'TV' is Xbox 360 and 'large ass computer monitor', then yes, of course, an LCD display is the correct choice. I'd never dream of disputing that. But if one's main use for a TV is as an actual TV; watching TV, DVD's and playing some videogames now and again, then the right choice is most certainly a plasma TV. I play videogames quite often and nothing has ever burned in on my set.

LOL here we go again, meller on about how shit LCD's look and how GREAT plasmas look. Too fucking anal for me, my LCD looks fucking great with the PS3 and for the price I paid for the LCD it was really worth it considering it's a Samsung.

Plasma's do look better, sure but with that comes a nice fucking huge price tag aswell, LCD please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

It matters a lot less than you seem to think.

If all else was equal, yes, you'd get a better picture with 1920*1080 instead of 1024*768 on a 42" display, but all else is not equal. It's about finding what gives you the best/most correct overall picture quality (yes, there is a factually correct picture, it's not all just personal taste) and then trying not to give too much of a shit about what teh specs say. A 37 or 42 inch LCD TV, for example, with a resolution of 1920*1080 will NEVER give as correct a picture as a 37 or 42 inch plasma TV. Fact.

---

*sigh* Sounds like you have spent a fair amount of money on a plasma set and are trying very hard to convince yourself you made the right choice. Perhaps you did, for you. I'm not saying plasmas are crap (the way you are erroneously claiming all LCD sets are crap). Plasmas can be very good, for certain applications.

Quote:

---

You make it sound like a fact that EVERYONE who buys a plasma TV will at some point suffer from burn-in. That is just not true. You have to be pretty fucking stupid to get burn-in on a new(ish) plasma TV. I won't vouch for the quality of a five year old plasma TV, but you can bet it's not a problem on a ninth generation Panasonic plasma TV as long as you take just a TINY BIT of care.

---

I'm sorry, but since I play a lot of videogames, I don't want to have to worry about it at all. Sure, you can reduce your contrast to 50% or less when you play, don't play for more than a couple of hours at a time, etc. etc., but I want to be able to play as long as I want with the contrast as high as I like without having to worry. And yes, as soon as you turn on a plasma set, the phosphors start burning; as long as they wear evenly, you won't have a problem.

Quote:

---

More misinformation. Have you ever checked out a 50" plasma TV? They have 1365 or 1366*768 resolutions.

---

Go re-read my post. I said MOST plasma TVs have odd resolutions and rectangular pixels (yours does, for instance). That is not something I can live with, much like the inferior contrast of LCDs is somrthing you can't live with. Besides, at anything above 42" I would prefer 1080p, thank you. Yes, at that size and my viewing distance I can see a difference. Also, I prefer to limit the scaling as much as possible, so 1280x720 or 1920x1080 native are the best options. I just got through with a 1280x768 display, and even that small amount of aspect ratio discrepancy was more than I could stand.

Quote:

---

And again, you're putting way too much emphasis on resolution. 1:1 pixelmapping is useless when other factors aren't in order. A videogame can look perfectly fine, and better than on LCD, on a 42" plasma TV. And how many consoles out there actually support 1:1 pixelmapping? One? LOL. Talk about focusing on irrelevant factors...

---

Two at present, and more to come. Plus HD DVDs and Blu-ray movies. Not to mention I'm feeding DVDs through a DVDO iScan HD+ scaled to 1920x1080p over DVI, so it isn't just videogames and HD movies that benefit.

Quote:

---

What do you think I was talking about? My comment in no way negates talking about 'actual sharpness'.

---

Ummm, yes actually, it does. There is nothing wrong with actual sharpness, and nobody would ever purposely soften an image (unless they are trying to eliminate SDE on an LCD projector, but that's another issue altogether). What calibrators tell you to reduce is the Sharpness control on most TVs, which has nothing to do with actual sharpness. If you were talking about actual sharpness, then you are just plain wrong. Sorry for assuming you were making a correct statement; I should have known better. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

If one's main use for a 'TV' is Xbox 360 and 'large ass computer monitor', then yes, of course, an LCD display is the correct choice. I'd never dream of disputing that. But if one's main use for a TV is as an actual TV; watching TV, DVD's and playing some videogames now and again, then the right choice is most certainly a plasma TV. I play videogames quite often and nothing has ever burned in on my set.

---

I do watch a lot of TV (HD channels de-interlaced to 1080p look fantastic), but I also play a lot of videogames, and I want them to look as good as possible; an LCD provides a solution in a decent size without having to worry about burn-in.

Bishamon,

I am curious as to which TV you own. I am looking to make a purchasee at the beginning of the year and I want to make sure that the set I pick will also be adequate for my older systems (Neo/Dreamcast/Saturn). I was considering getting an SXRD Sony ..... but I am open to other TVs that can give me the results I am looking for. As far as actual TV watching .. I have Digital Cable and will soon be getting a DVR. I wont be using this TV as a computer monitor .. but I wouldnt mind having a VGA out on it for the Dreamcast.

Phillip

Plasma looks beautiful

but not practical for videogames

maybe in a few years when they work out more kinks

Phillip-

I have been playing with a 50" SXRD and it's actually quite nice. I was able to tweak it to produce very nice visuals with movies and games. In fact it's really stunning.

The main issue with SXRDs at the moment is quality control, and it's something that's impacting several Sony TVs. The SXRD sets are mostly having issues with color uniformity. The first one I had exhibited a greenish tint on blacks and grays, but only on part of the screen. Otherwise it was really nice. I got it replaced by a set that is just perfect from a color perspective and the convergence is whacked. In fact the MC is bad enough that it's visible from 8' or so. It's an optical issue on this particular set so it can't be corrected in the service menu.

Sadly, I like the TV enough to try again until I get one that doesn't have a significant problem.

As an aside, I've had good results with old consoles using the XRGB-2 Plus. I've had really good results with the Neo and Saturn.

If you can afford it ($ and space), I'd go with the XBR2 series of SXRD. They are having almost no issues at all, but they only come on 60" and 70".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

That shit looked NO BETTER than 1080i on my set...

---

Hey Tonk, I wouldn't expect 1080p to be significantly better than 1080i. The main advantage of 1080p is that it can be displayed on a fixed-pixel display without deinterlacing. If you have a CRT based display that can natively do 1080i then you're set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentsg

Hey Tonk, I wouldn't expect 1080p to be significantly better than 1080i. The main advantage of 1080p is that it can be displayed on a fixed-pixel display without deinterlacing. If you have a CRT based display that can natively do 1080i then you're set.

---

Not according to Sony :annoyed:

Oh, and you have a PM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonK

Not according to Sony :annoyed:

---

meh, they just wanna sell shit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishamon

Sounds like you have spent a fair amount of money on a plasma set and are trying very hard to convince yourself you made the right choice.

---

LOL. I certainly do not need any convincing.

I'm just trying to fight the myth of LCD being superior to plasma. Companies and their marketing firms have done a nice job of convincing people that LCD is teh shizzle and that plasma is old, while in fact most people have viewing needs that SCREAM plasma. It's sad that insane colours and resolutions have become the benchmarks for good picture quality :crying:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

LOL. I certainly do not need any convincing.

I'm just trying to fight the myth of LCD being superior to plasma. Companies and their marketing firms have done a nice job of convincing people that LCD is teh shizzle and that plasma is old, while in fact most people have viewing needs that SCREAM plasma. It's sad that insane colours and resolutions have become the benchmarks for good picture quality :crying:

---

plasma is beautiful

but I'm still concerned about burn ins

that's that

I don't think any sane person would say LCD looks better than Plasma it's just that for cheaper LCD's offer more than a Plasma resolution and size wise and ofcourse don't have any burn in which I think pretty much makes people dive into LCD instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roker

plasma is beautiful

but I'm still concerned about burn ins

that's that

---

I'm not.

That's that ;)

(and that's from someone who actually has a plasma TV. Most people who are so damn worried about burn-in never owned one...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lachlan

I don't think any sane person would say LCD looks better than Plasma it's just that for cheaper LCD's offer more than a Plasma resolution and size wise and ofcourse don't have any burn in which I think pretty much makes people dive into LCD instead.

---

Aren't they still around the same price? And, of course, LCD can't compete if we go to 50".

Didn't it used to be that 40-46" LCD TV's were really expensive, and really bad compared to their 32" and 37" friends? Plasma was the undisputed king at 40" or more, but since LCD's at that size has come down in price, so have people's requirements for picture quality, it seems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

I'm just trying to fight the myth of LCD being superior to plasma. Companies and their marketing firms have done a nice job of convincing people that LCD is teh shizzle and that plasma is old, while in fact most people have viewing needs that SCREAM plasma. It's sad that insane colours and resolutions have become the benchmarks for good picture quality :crying:

---

I would never claim that LCD is better than plasma, hands down, and I agree that there are people out there who just watch TV and movies and yet have been convinced that LCD is the way to go with false information. However, since prices of LCD sets have come down, and the image quality has improved, they have become a much better option than they were even two years ago. I just replaced my 32" LCD after almost three years, and back when I purchased it plasma was a much less expensive option (not to mention larger), but still not worth considering due to my viewing habits. Actually, that 32" LCD replaced a 43" DLP set, so I was stepping down in terms of screen size, but those early DLP sets had serious reliability problems and my wife and I are both rainbow-sensitive.

Anyway, there is no perfect display technology, and each solution has issues. What is ideal for one person may not even be an option for someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulletnyourass

Bishamon,

I am curious as to which TV you own. I am looking to make a purchasee at the beginning of the year and I want to make sure that the set I pick will also be adequate for my older systems (Neo/Dreamcast/Saturn). I was considering getting an SXRD Sony ..... but I am open to other TVs that can give me the results I am looking for. As far as actual TV watching .. I have Digital Cable and will soon be getting a DVR. I wont be using this TV as a computer monitor .. but I wouldnt mind having a VGA out on it for the Dreamcast.

---

I just replaced my old 32" Samsung LCD with a 42" Westinghouse. The Westinghouse is ideal for me because I was looking for a set that would accept and display 1080p over VGA (there aren't very many) as well as by both DVI and HDMI. A side benefit is that Westinghouse LCDs are very inexpensive (especially compared to 1080p offerings from Samsung, Sony, and Sharp), and since I'll probably only be keeping this set for 2-3 years, keeping the cost down this time was nice. The picture it produces is quite excellent, but it isn't without its flaws; most notable is that the off-axis viewing angle isn't any better than my three year old Samsung, and certainly not on par with current 'big name' offerings. Still, it has the inputs I was looking for and produces an excellent picture for over $1200 less than the 1080p offerings from Samsung or Sony.

When it comes to older SD sources, results can vary depending on how good the de-interlacing and scaling hardware is the the set you purchase. Many people complain about older sources looking like crap on HDTVs, but this is primarily due to the fact that most HDTV sets are very revealing of their source material. SD CRT sets tend to smooth all sources so pretty much anything looks good, but nothing looks outstanding. Not only are HD sets much higher resolution, but they also tend yo be larger than what a first-time HD buyer is used to, so all of the flaws of SD content are much more visible. Still, I found that older consoles looked great on my 32" Samsung LCD (I haven't tried any yet on the Westinghouse), and Dreamcast looked amazing over VGA.

The SXRD sets (and other RPTV options, such as DLP) are a good solution for someone looking for an image larger than 42" or so, since they are much more cost-effective than an LCD. I am interested in the new Samsung DLP set that uses LEDs instead of a color wheel, since my wife and I are both sensitive to the 'rainbow effect'. I use my 42" LCD (was only 32" until recently) as a primary display, and a Sanyo Z4 720p projector at 88" for when I want to 'go big' :), and that is why I didn't go with a rear-projection solution.

The best advice I would give is to make your purchase at a local store that has a good 30-day return policy so that you will have a chance to try all of your sources before deciding to keep the set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

Aren't they still around the same price? And, of course, LCD can't compete if we go to 50".

Didn't it used to be that 40-46" LCD TV's were really expensive, and really bad compared to their 32" and 37" friends? Plasma was the undisputed king at 40" or more, but since LCD's at that size has come down in price, so have people's requirements for picture quality, it seems...

---

I don't know, I got my Samsung 26" LCD for around $1200aud, no way in hell you'd find a Plasma doing 720p/1080i for that price here, overall for what my LCD is used for (PC,games) it's doing a damn fine job.

I think it's just that some really don't give a shit about picture quality, if your average joe see's a 106cm LCD from some no name brand they'll probably choose that to replace their old 40cm CRT over a Plasma at the same size for a grand or so more. One of my neighbours bought an SD Panasonic Plasma, looks good but hell for the price he paid and the resolution, you can get an LCD at the same size or a little smaller with your basic HD 720p/1080i for the same or less.

to me resolution is just (if not more) important as color accuracy and all that jazz.

why spend over a grand on a plasma thats "HD" but it doesnt even have the resolution to accurately reproduce 720p?

720p = 1280x720
some plasmas = 1024x768 (a 4:3 resolution no less)

the whole point of a fixed pixel display is for 1:1 souce:display pixel representation. everyone knows non native resolution always looks like shit (decent at best)

at this point i would never buy a plasma, the price is still restrictive and to get one with a proper resolution theyre much more costly.

i'll probably end up with a direct view crt myself till sedtv comes at a nice price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not sonic

why spend over a grand on a plasma thats "HD" but it doesnt even have the resolution to accurately reproduce 720p?

---

Because it'll provide picture quality superior to any LCD TV you can find, regardless of how high the resolution is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not sonic

the whole point of a fixed pixel display is for 1:1 souce:display pixel representation. everyone knows non native resolution always looks like shit (decent at best)

---

Very few LCD and plasma TV's actually support 1:1 pixelmapping. Claiming that to be the point of a fixed pixel displays just shows how little you know about all this stuff.

Ever heard of displaying DVD's on a fixed pixel display? They are FAR from matching the resolution on any HD fixed pixel display, but to top what a good plasma TV would give you, you'd have to go get a projector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

Because it'll provide picture quality superior to any LCD TV you can find, regardless of how high the resolution is.

---

but when you have a 1280x720 picture, and you display it on a fixed pixel device at any resolution but 1:1, youre going to get blurring, shitty edges, and a shitty picture.

or youre going to be losing over 200 lines on the sides and have a wide picture.

not feelin it.

stickin with crt.

most lcds ive looked at allow for a 1:1 mode, and a fill/stretch mode.

sure on a 1366x768 res lcd youll get some black bars around the edges with exact 720p content but its going to be pixel accurate.

the 360 outputs 1360×768 which is perfect.

and dvds are not hd content. everyone knows that. theyre 480p no shit they dont match 1:1. thats what hddvd and bd are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not sonic

but when you have a 1280x720 picture, and you display it on a fixed pixel device at any resolution but 1:1, youre going to get blurring, shitty edges, and a shitty picture.

---

No you're not. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not sonic

or youre going to be losing over 200 lines on the sides and have a wide picture.

---

A perfect example of the fact that you know nothing about this. OF COURSE pictures are not stretched or 'wide' when displayed on a 1024*768 plasma TV. Your primitive resolution logic may tell you that, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

No you're not. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

---

You know nothing about this. Trying to stretch a 1280x720 picture into a 1366x768 grid of pixels will result in it looking like shit. Hell, if I set my PC monitor to 1280x960 instead of its native 1280x1024, everything looks like complete ass. Same if I use the nVidia setup utility to make some bizarre resolution for myself: anything except 1280x1024 looks terrible in games like Quake4, etc.

Unless the resolution is exactly double, triple, quadrouple, what-have-you in each dimension, you'll end up with pixels missing, doubled seemingly randomly, etc.

Stop talking out of your asses by comparing this to your little experiences with computer monitors. They have NOTHING to do with what goes on inside a flat screen TV, be it LCD or plasma. These TV's are MEANT to accept and scale signals not matching their fixed resolution; computer monitors are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lachlan

I don't know, I got my Samsung 26" LCD for around $1200aud, no way in hell you'd find a Plasma doing 720p/1080i for that price here (...)

---

Of course it's only 'fair' when you compare displays of similar size. You can't get plasma TV's smaller than 37", and only Panasonic, among the bigger companies at least, actually make one of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lachlan

One of my neighbours bought an SD Panasonic Plasma, looks good but hell for the price he paid and the resolution, you can get an LCD at the same size or a little smaller with your basic HD 720p/1080i for the same or less.

---

Either plasma prices are really high outside of Denmark or LCD prices are just really low. You can get a 42" HD ninth generation plasma TV from Panasonic for under 2k (USD) around here. You sure as hell won't find one of the better 40" LCD TV's for that. And 'better' is, of course, only compared to other LCD TV's. Compared to the aforementioned Panasonic plasma, even the best LCD TV looks like ass...

Wow, With all of thse meller posts, I almost thought this thread was about the execution of some degenerate ilk.

In around 2 years SED and Laser tvs are going to make Plasmas obsolete. I don't see the point in investing thousands in something that will be shit very soon.

Fuck plasma. :)

If it's good now it's also good in two years. Just because something better will come along in MAYBE two years doesn't mean plasma is shit now or will be shit. If you need a good TV now, plasma is a very, very good option. If you're going to wait two years, you might as well also wait three, and four, and five, because something better will always be in the making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian Meller

If it's good now it's also good in two years. Just because something better will come along in MAYBE two years doesn't mean plasma is shit now or will be shit. If you need a good TV now, plasma is a very, very good option. If you're going to wait two years, you might as well also wait three, and four, and five, because something better will always be in the making.

---

Bullshit, TV technology has stagnated the last few years. SED and Laser are bright spots on the very close horizon that will be a superior option. LCD technology has progressed so much recently it is on the same level as plasma. I'll take the proper aspect ratios and resolution thank you very much.

CRT is still the best choice until the new guys arrive which is why I'm choosing a 200 lb beast over your slim power draining wall unit.

meller is too angry to refute.

whatever man.

theyre fuckin tvs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamuraiShodownSensei

Bullshit, TV technology has stagnated the last few years. SED and Laser are bright spots on the very close horizon that will be a superior option. LCD technology has progressed so much recently it is on the same level as plasma. I'll take the proper aspect ratios and resolution thank you very much.

CRT is still the best choice until the new guys arrive which is why I'm choosing a 200 lb beast over your slim power draining wall unit.

---

:buttrock: for the 200lb BEAST!