32" Price Differences?

F

frankyk

Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
891
I've seen 32" LCD TVs go anywhere from $399 to $1399 but I don't understand how 32" TVs can be over $1k seeing how 42" go for $1k to $1.5k now.

What's the biggest difference between say:

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Elem...75549/catOid/-12869/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sams...73637/catOid/-12869/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

Obviously the contrast ratio but does it mean that big of a difference in quality and the cost premium of $500 or so? The PC input could be used for any TV couldn't it btw?
 
er, i sell these suckers, hate doing so, need to not work there, but the picture difference is huge... like .... enormous
 
Yes it does.

A dynamic Contrast ratio of 1200:1 (which I'm guessing it is for the price, and the fact they listed the dynamic contrast ratio for the Samsung) is HUUUUUUGEEEE, like astronomical, it would not be worth getting the cheap one at all. I'm surprised they even bothered to sell a 1200:1 ..they probably just show really colorful shows :|
 
the bit of the panel isnt even working on most. i dont care what any say. i throw a dvd in a player at work on component, I hit pause. I look at all the colours, none of them are pretty besides samsung superclear is sort of decent. sharp sux on the 62U 46". I see blobs of colours on most, like for ever 10 shades of red on the cheapest panasonic plasma, I see 3-4 at most shades of that same colour on the picture in the other lcds. samsung gets a few more than most. Panasonic LCD is pretty awesome actually with their new line, neck and neck with samsung, better than sony, better than sharp.

now, the B grade lcd's are fuzzed out, artifact filled and just look sandpaper like.
 
so i should buy HDTVs with only 5000:1 + contrast ratios?

i.e. it's worth spending the extra money for a higher priced monitor even though size isn't huge.
 
er...

think about 1800 dollar s-ips displays. they have like a 800:1 contrast ratio. the ratio is meaningless really. if you actually viewed that contrast ratio at max, you would burn out your retina's like taking off your helmet looking at chernobyl, type of thing. the eizio or however you spell that brand, has, mathematically, 20x less contrast... yet we all know, or should know, that it shows blacks 200x better and fine differences in contrast.

its all a bunch of crap. clarity is the only important thing with using an lcd tv as a monitor. that has to be tested. bring a laptop with DVI out on it and plug the sucker in to the displays. the right, eager, smart salesperson will allow you to do that. like viewing angles... 178 ?? um YEAH RIGHT. how about 80 degrees. all lcd's, even the new panasonic 23-26" ones, have crap viewing angles. it gets duller when you go from center. all these numbers. i get sick of these things. glad soon when i dont have to sell them.
 
~El~Jefe~ said:
er...

think about 1800 dollar s-ips displays. they have like a 800:1 contrast ratio. the ratio is meaningless really. if you actually viewed that contrast ratio at max, you would burn out your retina's like taking off your helmet looking at chernobyl, type of thing. the eizio or however you spell that brand, has, mathematically, 20x less contrast... yet we all know, or should know, that it shows blacks 200x better and fine differences in contrast.

its all a bunch of crap. clarity is the only important thing with using an lcd tv as a monitor. that has to be tested. bring a laptop with DVI out on it and plug the sucker in to the displays. the right, eager, smart salesperson will allow you to do that. like viewing angles... 178 ?? um YEAH RIGHT. how about 80 degrees. all lcd's, even the new panasonic 23-26" ones, have crap viewing angles. it gets duller when you go from center. all these numbers. i get sick of these things. glad soon when i dont have to sell them.
Click to expand...

Er... now I'm totally confused, in general, what's the best gauge in terms of buying a quality LCD TV? I can bring in a laptop but it only has a d-sub. All I want is a good price/quality ratio LCD/TV. I intend on using it as a monitor/TV most likely. It's just all confusing since I see a lot of 32" go for $399 to $599 and then I see some go for $1k, then I see some 42" go for $999 and then I see some go for $1500, and I'm just like wtf...
 
some use really terribly slow response times is one thing.

the other thing is some definitely do not use 8 bit colour, which is terrible! They say they do, but their colour range is so limited.. they must be lying or made something crappy... the bigger the monitor, the more colours you need to be able to decipher between two dots or else it looks like goop on a screen. Another thing is input abilities. some monitors scale things poorly. most do actually. sux. only one that does all things properly no matter what I put on it without fuss is a 7 series 42-58 inch plasma Panasonic.

clarity sux on the vast majority of sub 1000 dollar 32 inch monitors. some say westinghouses are exception to rules, I would have to say yeah that is true but they dont have much colour punch in the lower models compared to samsung, sharp, pana, sony. Basically, get either a westinghouse anything for cost reasons/satisfaction or the highest model top name brand monitor like I mentioned. sux.
 
any specific 'features' that i should be looking out for?

HD tuner?
more than one HDMI input?
PC input ability (can't we use something else and still get PCI input ability or no?)
 
frankyk said:
I've seen 32" LCD TVs go anywhere from $399 to $1399 but I don't understand how 32" TVs can be over $1k seeing how 42" go for $1k to $1.5k now.

What's the biggest difference between say:

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Elem...75549/catOid/-12869/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sams...73637/catOid/-12869/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

Obviously the contrast ratio but does it mean that big of a difference in quality and the cost premium of $500 or so? The PC input could be used for any TV couldn't it btw?
Click to expand...



LCDs use different quality LCD panels, PVA,TN, SIPS etc.... this and the hardware/circuitry are the driving forces in how much a panel costs. A 32 inch panel costing more or the same as a larger panel most likely has a better lcd panel in it and/or better hardware/circuitry behind it.
 
If the TV quotes 16.7 million colours, it is a true 8 bits per colour panel.
However, if it quotes 16.2 million (and some other numbers) it is a 256,000 colour, 6 bit panel that uses dithering to get 16.2 million colours.

Contrast ratio does matter.
Its not about bright or dark, that is purely controlled by the actual filters used for the panel and the strength of the backlight.
It is about further condensing the number of colours that can be displayed.
The higher the contrast ratio, the less colours are merged together.
For example, a contrast ratio of 400:1 will show a sky and clouds with mostly cyan and white colours and very little colour detail. A contrast ration of 600:1 will look a lot better introducing more blue detail.
The higher the contrast ratio the better but beware.....

Some of these contrast ratio figures are fudged!
ie the panel itself is nowhere near capable of the claimed contrast ratio.
What they have done is fitted a multi brightness light behind it and they turn the light up for brighter scenes. You can often see the changover, i wouldnt get one of those.

There are new 10 and 12 bit panel TVs just coming out which give more outstanding colours for normal media (ie the colours will look more vivid compared to an 8 or 6 bit panel TV) and for new media/players that use the extended colour range you will see more colour detail.
To be honest you will see extended colour detail on any source as the colours will be better defined.
The extended colour range will ideally require a stronger backlight so these TVs should have higher brightness and also higher contrast ratio figures.

The above new TVs seems to be coming out hand in hand with 100/120Hz refresh rates.
I havent seen a genuine refresh rate this high on a TV, they mostly use a bit of trickery to separate each frame better to improve clarity - ie they introduce a blank frame or other method to remove the previously displayed frame. This makes a moving image look sharper and less blurred like some LCDs are prone to.
It does appear to help gaming but isnt quite as good for TV and video.
Beware though, you will not get 100/120fps to be displayed. The ones i have seen still only accept 50/60Hz and perform magic trickery on it.

Undoubtedly there will be newer hybrids of the above and some that are genuine in their claims, you will need to research well and dont believe all the hype!

Some LCD panels are prone to image sticking.
This is when a static picture is left on the screen for some time, it will look like it has burned in. Over time it will fade away if the same picture isnt displayed again, the fading can be accelerated by displaying a RGB 255:255:255 (white) picture.
Which panels are prone to this you will only find out through other peoples experience.

You CAN help the problem though regardless of which panel is used by keeping the panel cooler.
You will find that image sticking is much worse on warm/hot days so its worth blowing a fan towards your LCD when its warm.
Image sticking can become permanent if not allowed time to fade away so its a good idea to prevent it happening.
If you mostly use your TV for PC or anything else that keeps menus etc in the same place for extended periods you need to take precautions.
If you mostly watch TV/movies its likely to never concern you.


You will mostly be confined by the price you want to pay to determine the quality you can get.
I'd read a lot of reviews and opinions before parting with my cash for a new TV.

To be honest, this is a bad time to buy a TV as at a minimum now, you want a good 12bit colour TV with well implemented 100/120Hz refresh and at least 1000:1 genuine contrast ratio.
What I really want is a laser projector which has been shown to be a world apart from anything else, having a genuine contrast ratio of around 100,000:1 !!!!
These should be on sale within a year or 2.
Cant wait :D
 
Nenu said:
If the TV quotes 16.7 million colours, it is a true 8 bits per colour panel.
However, if it quotes 16.2 million (and some other numbers) it is a 256,000 colour, 6 bit panel that uses dithering to get 16.2 million colours.

Contrast ratio does matter.
Its not about bright or dark, that is purely controlled by the actual filters used for the panel and the strength of the backlight.
It is about further condensing the number of colours that can be displayed.
The higher the contrast ratio, the less colours are merged together.
For example, a contrast ratio of 400:1 will show a sky and clouds with mostly cyan and white colours and very little colour detail. A contrast ration of 600:1 will look a lot better introducing more blue detail.
The higher the contrast ratio the better but beware.....

Some of these contrast ratio figures are fudged!
ie the panel itself is nowhere near capable of the claimed contrast ratio.
What they have done is fitted a multi brightness light behind it and they turn the light up for brighter scenes. You can often see the changover, i wouldnt get one of those.

There are new 10 and 12 bit panel TVs just coming out which give more outstanding colours for normal media (ie the colours will look more vivid compared to an 8 or 6 bit panel TV) and for new media/players that use the extended colour range you will see more colour detail.
To be honest you will see extended colour detail on any source as the colours will be better defined.
The extended colour range will ideally require a stronger backlight so these TVs should have higher brightness and also higher contrast ratio figures.

The above new TVs seems to be coming out hand in hand with 100/120Hz refresh rates.
I havent seen a genuine refresh rate this high on a TV, they mostly use a bit of trickery to separate each frame better to improve clarity - ie they introduce a blank frame or other method to remove the previously displayed frame. This makes a moving image look sharper and less blurred like some LCDs are prone to.
It does appear to help gaming but isnt quite as good for TV and video.
Beware though, you will not get 100/120fps to be displayed. The ones i have seen still only accept 50/60Hz and perform magic trickery on it.

Undoubtedly there will be newer hybrids of the above and some that are genuine in their claims, you will need to research well and dont believe all the hype!

Some LCD panels are prone to image sticking.
This is when a static picture is left on the screen for some time, it will look like it has burned in. Over time it will fade away if the same picture isnt displayed again, the fading can be accelerated by displaying a RGB 255:255:255 (white) picture.
Which panels are prone to this you will only find out through other peoples experience.

You CAN help the problem though regardless of which panel is used by keeping the panel cooler.
You will find that image sticking is much worse on warm/hot days so its worth blowing a fan towards your LCD when its warm.
Image sticking can become permanent if not allowed time to fade away so its a good idea to prevent it happening.
If you mostly use your TV for PC or anything else that keeps menus etc in the same place for extended periods you need to take precautions.
If you mostly watch TV/movies its likely to never concern you.


You will mostly be confined by the price you want to pay to determine the quality you can get.
I'd read a lot of reviews and opinions before parting with my cash for a new TV.

To be honest, this is a bad time to buy a TV as at a minimum now, you want a good 12bit colour TV with well implemented 100/120Hz refresh and at least 1000:1 genuine contrast ratio.
What I really want is a laser projector which has been shown to be a world apart from anything else, having a genuine contrast ratio of around 100,000:1 !!!!
These should be on sale within a year or 2.
Cant wait :D
Click to expand...


Absolutely brilliant post!!:D This cleared a lot of questions for me in reference to checking contrast ratio and so forth. Now my only other question is, at a distance of 7+ feet viewing which will I benefit more from 1080p compliant screen or 720p compliant?
 
Glad it helps :)

The ideal resolution screen depends on the size of screen as well as the distance from it.
Your best bet is to get a shop to put a 1080p computer display up on a few 1080p sets and view them from 7ft or more.
If using Vista especially, you can resize fonts so try to get them to display it how you would use it at home.

If you - and your family can read text easily without any strain at all, that size is fine.
If not and you cant sit closer, you need a bigger TV or should get a lesser resolution TV.
Its not wise to get a 1080p set that you or any of your family cannot read easily.

You risk them or youself getting headaches and other potential health issues, especially with the eyes.
Beware of strain to any part of the body (eyes, neck, back etc) which could become tense when using a screen that is too small.
 
Nenu said:
Glad it helps :)

The ideal resolution screen depends on the size of screen as well as the distance from it.
Your best bet is to get a shop to put a 1080p computer display up on a few 1080p sets and view them from 7ft or more.
If using Vista especially, you can resize fonts so try to get them to display it how you would use it at home.

If you - and your family can read text easily without any strain at all, that size is fine.
If not and you cant sit closer, you need a bigger TV or should get a lesser resolution TV.
Its not wise to get a 1080p set that you or any of your family cannot read easily.

You risk them or youself getting headaches and other potential health issues, especially with the eyes.
Beware of strain to any part of the body (eyes, neck, back etc) which could become tense when using a screen that is too small.
Click to expand...

Granted. This will be on a minimum of a 40" display more than likely I will be looking to get a 42" display. Currently I have a 32" CRT that I use and find that at the 8"+ viewing distance I really need my glasses to see the screen (which only does 480i). So at a nominal distance of 8ft will I benefit more from a 1080p display or a 720p display? This will mainly be used for tv/gaming. From my reading it seems that everyone says that you should got with a 1080p where available because it is easier for the system to downscale the image on a 1080p vs downscale a 1080p image on a 720p screen (if that makes sense).
 
thats what i have wondered as well.... is there a real difference between 720p and 1080i on a 37-42" TV?
 
nighthawk101 said:
thats what i have wondered as well.... is there a real difference between 720p and 1080i on a 37-42" TV?
Click to expand...

Ok so I have been over at HighDefForum talking with those guys and reading their posts and have come up with some very good information. From what I gather, anything smaller than 42"(and even that is small) will not necessarily benefit from 1080p displays. However, this is determined on what you want to be doing with the TV. Are you watching TV/Movies with it only or are you planning on hooking up your computer and gaming on it (console vs. computer is different)? If you are doing normal gaming (720p) and watching movies/TV then a 1080p display is not necessary as your eye will not be able to tell much of a difference at that distance. However, for computer gaming where the resolution can be adjusted to match that of the display, you will see a large difference.

With that said, when the time comes for me to buy a new tv in Oct/Nov I will basically be seeing what is the best deal around (hopefully I will be able to pick up a Sammy or Sony for cheap on BF). If you are in the market now, take a look at the Westy TX-42F430s or LVM-42w2 and the Vizio GV42LF(found at Sears) or VU42LF(found at Costco). All three sets are 42" with 1080p display, HDMI, Component and offer a price point of around $1200 (the GV Vizio is a bit more expensive).

Take a stop in the HighDefForums and read their FlatPanel TV forum and you will get some good info.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top