claudione314
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 264
The LVM-42w2 is 1080p. The W4202 is 720p and, of course, much cheaper.The 42" is 1080p just like like the 37". It is actually identical to the 37" just larger for a little over $200 more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The LVM-42w2 is 1080p. The W4202 is 720p and, of course, much cheaper.The 42" is 1080p just like like the 37". It is actually identical to the 37" just larger for a little over $200 more.
As others have suggested, you could have both if you get even just an Opteron 165 and overclock it to X2 4800+ speeds. But if you, like me, have no clue how to even start with overclocking, then I would recommend against that idea, as you could seriously damage your processor.So what would you all suggest? I think I will be able to get both at some point in the future but I have to make a decision as to which one I will purchase first. Since the 4800+ is discontinued, I figured I should get that one first since it will only become more difficult to find and also more expensive to buy. I am also concerned that when I am finally able to buy the Westy 37" it could be discontinued or difficult to find.
Please post some cool pic's of WoW on your 37"
After reading through this thread, i'm SOLD!
Where can I get the best deal on this display? Also, does it do 1:1 pixel mapping at 1920x1200? I just want a nice and sharp picture.
It will definately do 1:1 pixel mapping but the the monitor is 16:9 1920x1080.
Do you know which resolution would be 1:1? How does 16:9 look? I just want sharp text as I would have with any other LCD monitor.
1920X1080 would be the 1:1 resolution, and it will be razor sharp so long as you use one of the digital inputs.
The people you speak of would be me. There are dozens/hundreds of comments here and at avsforums specifically regarding the black levels of this set that support my empirical evidence. Panel bleed might vary a few percent between different sets... but if it's more than that, then that is a major quality control issue that needs to be discussed. Backlight bleed on this panel is significant. Fact.
My data is as complete as it needs to be for discussion in this topic. Setting the bar as high as you stated means that nobody would have anything to say about this set, and we'd be sitting at one reply for all eternity because nobody has seen a statistically significant number other than the QC people at Westinghouse Digital. If you've got conflicting measurements, then post about them and disagree with me. But you are not disagreeing or posting numbers; You are calling into question my methods and judgement, so I will defend them.
I do agree that everyone should test the unit for themselves and decide, and have said exactly that more than once on this forum for this particular subject. But I want people who's only option is to buy this set sight unseen to be aware of the Westys flaws. And the backlight bleed is unquestionably a major one.
I've been looking everywhere for like the past hour on what the pixel pitch on the westinghouse 37w3, 42w2, and the 47w1 is, can anyone help me out. Please, and Thank You
A question for people that own the LVM-37W3.
I went to Best Buy, and saw the LVM-37W2 . . . it looked grainy, but so did all of the displays there; was it their set-up, their signal, and so on? Or are all of them, including the LVM-37W3 , grainy even when hooked up to a computer?
More specfically, does your display look grainy when playing games / desktop usage through Digital input?
I looked at camera shots of the display and it looked awesome, was not grainy at all.
But in real life it looked grainy.
don't trust best buy's displays. Also, the W2 is not a 1080p monitor, so it would look far worse close up than the W3
Is the 37W3 really that much better than ALL of the Westinghouse big displays? I think BestBuy had every size, not sure if they had the newer ones, though.
And like I said, all of the displays looked grainy. And that is the only thing that is keeping me from getting one, but if people that actually have the 37W3 say otherwise and so on.
It seems, more likely than anything else, that BestBuy just has a crappy set-up, bad inputs and so on. . . .
Plus they probably do not have it as properly adjusted as I would have it.
And it was not the W3, it was the W2.
It's 100% because of Best Buy's setup. I can almost guarantee you that if you went back and looked closely, you'd see that they were using composite (or, at the VERY BEST, s-video) inputs for their video feed. This monitor is just as sharp as any computer LCD out there (my opinion, of course).
Wow! Right after I place my order on PCNation the price went back up a bit on it. From $1375 to $1398. I guess I bought it on the last day of the sale.
so i take it its not a good idea to use composite? I will be using just the coax. I'm 16 and dont have a cable box in my room...only http://ati.amd.com/products/tvwonder550/index.html
will this look like ass?
Mine is coming Friday. I can't wait. Vista is going to be very sweet on this thing.Got my Westinghouse LVM-42W2 42" 1080p display today!
Ordered it last thursday from mwave.com for about $1350 shipped, it arrived yesterday. The display was in perfect condition. All my worries and concerns have passed. Everyone was right, life will never be the same!
I am in awe constantly; I get giddy at times. Even the little things, like playing music with full screen media player visiualizations -- on a 42" screen in the livingroom it suddenly seems cool. I played games and watched movies/anime till 3am last night, I couldn't help myself.
I am very happy with the display, no different from the LCD's I've used at work. There is visible backlight bleed when viewing the display from an angle, but this disappears completely when sitting in front of the screen. Despite this I in no way feel that I "didn't get my money's worth", this thing is incredible. I recommend the 42w2 to those looking for a large display. Mine sits on the wall of my livingroom, I use a small hostpital table to sit back and hold my KB/Mouse/gamepad/joystick/ect. I am happy I spent a little more for the 42" in my situation with my PC in my livingroom. Even from my couch 10 feet away, the screen is large and I can easily read subtitled anime videos easier than when I was sitting close to my 19" crt. The 37" wouldn't have been this nice from the couch. If you need to sit closer than 4-5 feet however (see below), don't get the 42"!
No visible bad pixels, ghosting, or banding yet. Maybe banding comes from persons watching lots of 4:3 video and this causes burn in on the screen? Dunno.
Now for my personal opinion: In regards the "pixel pitch" bashers -- this shouldn't mean a thing if your sitting the appropriate distance from the screen. 1920x1080 is 1920x1080. Pixel pitch only matters unless your sitting closer than you should, which you should not be doing anyway cause it sucks being that close! This thing is not meant to replace the display on your desk. I notice a lot of people doing this with their 37" and honestly I don't know how their eyes can stand it. Keep in mind the bigger the screen the more light it puts out. This 42" sucker is a giant light bulb, it will light up my whole livingroom! If you sit close your eyes WILL strain and hurt. This is moreso with the 42" -- I sit 5 feet away from this thing with my keyboard and mouse and I consider that about perfect. If I sit any closer than 4 feet my eyes HURT. I don't lose anything by sitting farther back -- I can bettter see the entire screen without having to look all around. At this distance it's still friggin huge and shockingly crisp, and my eyes don't strain the least. From peoples comments here, the 37" likewise appears to be best at 3.4-4 feet away. End opinion.
I cant wait to wow my console buddies with my 8800gtx pushing this thing!
It is like this.
think signal. There are a lot of different kinds of signals. to make it simple we are talking about analogue vs digital.
Analogue is more organic. It can get fuzzy. As opposed to digital. It is either on or off. (please do not take this to mean you can not get weak or intermittent signals with digital)
The cool thing about signals is that you can use the same medium (in this case a coax cable)
SO, if you take a coax cable it has so much bandwidth. Like a straw or a pipe. It can hold so much signal.
The cool thing about digital signals is that typically it can "hold" more data then the old analogue signals could. SO this means you can push higher quality signals through the cable.
SO, if you take your tv signal encode it to all digital and send it out over cable / satellite video feed in a digital signal and then have a decoder at the other end and output that signal in a digital format it will look better.
I am no engineer or anything but I did work for a cable company for a while and this was the simple break down they gave me.
I hope this helps.
Cause I got a good price on Ultimate.Quick question: why are you getting Vista at launch? Just curious.