Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:


Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.


There is no such thing as an LED TV. The display is still LCD. The LEDs
are used only for backlighting, in place of other types of backlighting.

On Nov 17, 2:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

Buy something at the nexus of affordability, bigness, and "quality."
I got a big 'ol Sony LCD a year ago for the bonus room, mostly for
kids' gaming. Then it turned into the main TV watching place, once I
hooked it up to cable...

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

No signal benefits from LCD, plasma, LED, or anything else unless it
comes to you in HD. The difference between HD and non-HD channels on
my cable (and over the air, before I plugged it into the cable as an
antenna) is staggering. I get a couple of channels in HD, and they
are big, bright and beautiful compared to grainy, smeary old-standard
channels.

I now have a standing rule in the house - nobody buys a movie unless
it's BluRay. Now even DVDs look grainy and smeary compared to the
stunning detail on BluRays on the big Sony. Sounds like a commercial,
I know.

Now, on to my philosophy on "should I wait forever for the next big
thing?" - um, no. Jump in, enjoy it while you have it. Opportunity
cost is expensive, too. Yes, one day soon we will all have 3D TVs to
replace our Plasma/LED/LCD/whatever TVs. Until then... rest your
weary eyes on a big, bright screen.

On Nov 17, 2:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

2. your friend is correct but even OTA channels in my area are
1080i so I would not spend the money on a new TV unless it was capable
of displaying 1080i/1080p. also blu-ray discs will not look as good
as they could on a 720p TV.

FWIW I bought a 25" monitor/TV combo a while back for $300 and it is
true 1080p, I am now spoiled. For a TV only device I expect you could
pay less.

nate

On Nov 17, 2:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

Cable and satelite are both providing lots of 1080i signals these
days. I know that direct tv has some pay per view movies at 1080p.
Blue ray is 1080p. The various game machines also have higher
resolutions but I only know that the playstsation 3 is 1080p. On a
32" it is harder to tell the difference between picture quality at 720
verses 1080. The pricing is down far enouhg now that I would consider
somthing larger.

On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

There is 1080i as in interlaced scan and 1080p as in progressive scan.
1080p is twice as good as 1080i for resolution and only Blue Ray and
satelite do output of 1080p that I know of. Netflix is planning on
1080p. 720p is about equal in sharpness to 1080i. Regular High
Defination from cable or off air is 720p. Dvds are 520, and there are
regular interlaced players and progressive scan. Led is a type of
lighting for the Liqued Crystal Display that everyone wants because
tvs can be very thin, Led tvs are supposed to have a bit better color,
contrast and brightness, but at stores its hard to tell and Led are
never next to regular flourescent lit units. At Walmart black friday
deals you should be able to get a 32 Lcd for 200.00, order online and
I think its free delivery, its a great deal. Im sure its a 720p non
led tv but it will be nice. Netflix is working on 1080p as their next
step in the near future but for a 32 its not as importent as a 55" tv.
I wanted satelite but have to many trees.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:28:12 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.

Determine if the company compresses it's content...

Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)


Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

For use with Blu-Ray players you would need a 1080p or 720p (note the
"p") ...

LCD? My 15" PC monitor is many years old. I'm now after a bigger LCD
monitor.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

You've received great advice.

As you've read, LED is simply backlighting in the LCD TVs. Normal
backlighting used fluorescent tubes and had a lower contrast ration. LED
offers a brighter screen and higher contrast ration.

With smaller TVs, such as the size you may purchase (32") and smaller, 720
can be fine since the screen is more compact and the human eye can't always
pick up the difference. In larger TVs, the 1080 vs. 720 is more noticeable.
Many TV programs are still not transmitted in true HD. Many programs, older
movies, etc. are compressed to an HD picture, but it's still not true HD and
you can tell the difference. Newer movies and shows are slowly coming to
true HD. Therefore, purchasing an 1080 will pay off and add longevity to
your set.

You may want to consider refresh rate as well. A set with a rate of 60Hz
simply means the image refreshes 60 times a second. In some fast moving
action such as sports, chances are you'll notice a blur with this rate. A
higher rate of 120 or 240Hz will eliminate the blur. In fact, the human eye
can't really notice anything faster.

With the price of these TVs dropping drastically, you can find some great
sets.

On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill

On 11/17/2010 8:09 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
(snip)
Uh, thanks, really, for the great advice. Now...how did I end up on
"Homeowners Hub"?
I was just posting to this NG.

HB

Chuckle. We have all been providing content to 'those' web sites for
years, and we ought to start billing them for a share of their ad
revenues. Google yourself- we won't tell. You'll find you are a regular
contributor to all sorts of web sites you never even heard of.

And I bet THIS posting doesn't get mirrored....

--
aem sends...

"Higgs Boson" wrote
1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.


I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB


First is the timing. Prices have been dropping and are expected to drop
even more at Thanksgiving for the end of year sales. If you can get a 30
day price guaranty, start shopping, otherwise, it may pay to wait a week or
two.

I have two HD sets, a 32" 720 and a 47" 1080. The picture quality is equal.
At 32" you don't really need the 1080. Depending on location and space
available, bigger really is better. We have the 32" in the bedroom, the
larger in the family room.

Once you watch some shows in HD, especially the NatGeo channel with Great
Migration or some of the series on Discovery, Atlas, Earth, etc, you'll
enjoy them much more and try to find a way to fit a 60" set.

You did not ask about 60 Hz versus 120 Hz. For most everything, the 60Hz is
perfectly acceptable. If you are a gamer or watch very fast sports, you may
find a little difference with the 120.

In any case, get the biggest you can fit and afford. I have a Samsung and
an LG. Both were chosen by the quality of the picture in the store. We
felt they were equal or slightly better than others on display. www.lg.com
has some help in decision making also If you don't already have one, if on
cable get the HD DVR and you will be able to watch what you want and when
you want in glorious HD.

Bill Gill wrote:
On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill


And once you decide on what size and type you gotta have then you can
start on the other features offered. Internet ready? Wireless of
course, and how many USB ports, HDMI ports, software upgrades, VGA port
so you can hook up a computer so you can read your e-mail in 2 inch
letters from across the room and stream those videos from the xbox
......which means the computer will need a wireless mouse and
keyboard,.... and the sound system,....it's not easy trying to keep up
with all this stuff.
I use mine with OTA and the TV gets what it gets, 480 720 1080 with a
lot of streaming from online, the screen is sometimes full, sometimes
there are sidebars, some of the old shows on DTV are spooky they way
they zoom the size and clean up the old film or do whatever they do, the
people look to life like?
Now go forth and help revive the economy.

On Nov 17, 3:33*pm, (DA) wrote:
responding tohttp://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/Led-vs-LCD-TVs-and-720-pixel...

DA wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.

It's not LCD vs. LED. There is only one LED (OLED) TV on the market (Sony
XEL-1) that I'm aware of and at a whopping 11" diagonal you are probably
not considering it, unless it's for some special application (that I'm
struggling to envision, at the $1000 sticker price)

It's LCD with fluorescent (uncontrolled) backlight vs. LCD with LED
(controlled) backlight. I'd say it's a no-brainer - LED backlight lets
them turn it off when black is expected which gives it deeper shades of
black (better contrast). I'd definitely go for the LED-backlit LCD TV
these days.

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

Verizon will be happy to lease you an HD cable box that does output HD at
1080 (although, come to think of it, I'm not sure if it's interlaced 1080i
or full 1080p). Either way 720 looks rather disappointing compared
side-by-side with 1080

On a 50" screen from 10-12 ft away there is no noticeable difference
between 720 and 1080.

On Nov 17, 11:06*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

In any case, get the biggest you can fit and afford. *I have a Samsung and
an LG. *Both were chosen by the quality of the picture in the store. *We
felt they were equal or slightly better than others on display. *www.lg..com
has some help in decision making also *

Samsung almost always gets the best reviews when it comes to LCD TVs.
IMO, they make the best LCD TV....although I prefer Plasma.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

If you can get a 30
day price guaranty

Completely useless. Manufacturers have been creating private model
numbers for retailers for decades.

Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

If your going to do it get as large as you can afford 1080p w/refresh at
120.
the only caveat is your standard settop box fron verizon is 480 and sucks
big time w/lcd.
So be prepared to upgrade to a HD box and the HD package, been there done
that.
hth

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

If you can get a 30
day price guaranty

Completely useless. Manufacturers have been creating private model
numbers for retailers for decades.

So what? If you buy a TV from TV Land for $900 today and they drop the
price next week to $800, you get a refund. Why is that useless? It has
nothing do do with price comparison to other retailers.

On Nov 17, 10:06*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote





1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

First is the timing. *Prices have been dropping and are expected to drop
even more at Thanksgiving for the end of year sales. *If you can get a 30
day price guaranty, start shopping, otherwise, it may pay to wait a week or
two.

I have two HD sets, a 32" 720 and a 47" 1080. The picture quality is equal.
At 32" you don't really need the 1080. * Depending on location and space
available, bigger really is better. *We have the 32" in the bedroom, the
larger in the family room.

Once you watch some shows in HD, especially the NatGeo channel with Great
Migration or some of the series on Discovery, Atlas, Earth, etc, you'll
enjoy them much more and try to find a way to fit a 60" set.

You did not ask about 60 Hz versus 120 Hz. *For most everything, the 60Hz is
perfectly acceptable. *If you are a gamer or watch very fast sports, you may
find a little difference with the 120.

In any case, get the biggest you can fit and afford. *I have a Samsung and
an LG. *Both were chosen by the quality of the picture in the store. *We
felt they were equal or slightly better than others on display. *www.lg..com
has some help in decision making also * If you don't already have one, if on
cable get the HD DVR and you will be able to watch what you want and when
you want in glorious HD.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you mean your one set is 1080i or 1080p, only blue ray and maybe
some sattelites can do 1080p, 1080 p is better

On Nov 17, 8:45*pm, Bill Gill wrote:
On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:



Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& *cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ *as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. *The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. *Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

do you mean 720p and 1080i, yes they are the same, not 1080p, its
double the resolution

On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

On Nov 17, 10:49*pm, Ron wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:33*pm, (DA) wrote:





responding tohttp://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/Led-vs-LCD-TVs-and-720-pixel...

DA wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.

It's not LCD vs. LED. There is only one LED (OLED) TV on the market (Sony
XEL-1) that I'm aware of and at a whopping 11" diagonal you are probably
not considering it, unless it's for some special application (that I'm
struggling to envision, at the $1000 sticker price)

It's LCD with fluorescent (uncontrolled) backlight vs. LCD with LED
(controlled) backlight. I'd say it's a no-brainer - LED backlight lets
them turn it off when black is expected which gives it deeper shades of
black (better contrast). I'd definitely go for the LED-backlit LCD TV
these days.

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

Verizon will be happy to lease you an HD cable box that does output HD at
1080 (although, come to think of it, I'm not sure if it's interlaced 1080i
or full 1080p). Either way 720 looks rather disappointing compared
side-by-side with 1080

On a 50" screen from 10-12 ft away there is no noticeable difference
between 720 and 1080.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you are talking 720p and 1080i yes. 1080p - progressive scan, is
obvious even on smaller sets. And you do mean a Blue Ray test or try a
test again.

On Nov 18, 4:19*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote in message

news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

If you can get a 30
day price guaranty

Completely useless. Manufacturers have been creating private model
numbers for retailers for decades.

So what? *If you buy a TV from TV Land for $900 today and they drop the
price next week to $800, you get a refund. *Why is that useless? * It has
nothing do do with price comparison to other retailers.

It should work, and prices should drop to the end of the year and
there is a major over supply of lcd panels that need to be sold.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

If you can get a 30
day price guaranty

Completely useless. Manufacturers have been creating private model
numbers for retailers for decades.

So what? If you buy a TV from TV Land for $900 today and they drop the
price next week to $800, you get a refund. Why is that useless? It has
nothing do do with price comparison to other retailers.

Oh, got it. I still doubt it would happen, but I understand your point
now.

In article
,
Ron wrote:

Katzmaier
also says that the main real-world advantage of 1080p is not the extra
sharpness you'll be seeing, but instead, the smaller, more densely
packed pixels.

Katzmaier is a ****ing idiot. The "extra sharpness" and the "smaller,
more densely packed pixels" are the same damn thing. He should be fired,
and perhaps shot at dawn.

On Nov 17, 9:45*pm, Bill Gill wrote:
On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:



Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& *cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ *as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. *The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. *Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

*I* can certainly tell the difference between the two small tv/
monitors that I have, one 720p and one 1080p. With the same source
(1080i cable box) the difference, to me, is noticeable and somewhat
obvious. Diff'rent strokes etc.

Using as a computer monitor, of course, the 1080p one just blows the
720p into the weeds. No comparison whatsoever.

nate

Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Ron wrote:

Katzmaier
also says that the main real-world advantage of 1080p is not the extra
sharpness you'll be seeing, but instead, the smaller, more densely
packed pixels.

Katzmaier is a ****ing idiot. The "extra sharpness" and the "smaller,
more densely packed pixels" are the same damn thing. He should be fired,
and perhaps shot at dawn.

You left out drawn and quartered.

On 11/18/2010 5:39 AM, ransley wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:45 pm, Bill wrote:
On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:



Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

do you mean 720p and 1080i, yes they are the same, not 1080p, its
double the resolution
That's not quite right. p stands for progressive scan, and i stands
for interlaced scan. Interlaced scan is when the lines are drawn in
an interlaced manner. That is they show one line, and skip a line,
then on the next field they skip the lines that were just shown and
put in the ones that were skipped. So they show lines 1, 3, 5 ...,
then in the next field they show lines 2, 4, 5 ... This is how TV
has been done ever since it was new. Progressive means they show
all the lines in order 1, 2, 3, 4 ... There is no difference in
resolution, you get just the same number of pixels on the screen.
There is some difference in how it looks, which is why blue ray
is done in progressive. However, the TV takes care of how it is
displayed.

Bill

On 11/18/2010 7:31 AM, N8N wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:45 pm, Bill wrote:
On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:



Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

*I* can certainly tell the difference between the two small tv/
monitors that I have, one 720p and one 1080p. With the same source
(1080i cable box) the difference, to me, is noticeable and somewhat
obvious. Diff'rent strokes etc.

Using as a computer monitor, of course, the 1080p one just blows the
720p into the weeds. No comparison whatsoever.

nate
Well, as said, at the store compare the TVs before you buy. I'm just
reporting what people have said after careful testing.

Bill

On Nov 18, 6:39*am, ransley wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:45*pm, Bill Gill wrote:





On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& *cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ *as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. *The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. *Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

do you mean 720p and 1080i, yes they are the same, not 1080p, its
double the resolution- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1080p isn't double the resolution of 1080i. Both display exactly the
same number of pixels on the screen. The difference is that 1080i
displays odd rows in one scan pass, even rows in the next scan pass.
If P in fact had twice the resolution, the difference would between
the two would be striking. In fact, P is only slightly better.

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

On Nov 18, 12:13*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

If you can get a 30
day price guaranty

Completely useless. Manufacturers have been creating private model
numbers for retailers for decades.

That's true to some extent, but it doesn't make every price guarantee
useless. I've seen many stores caring the exact same models. I've
also seen what you're talking about. The bottom line is, depending
on what TV you actually buy, the price guarantee could be useful.

On Nov 18, 9:06*am, ransley wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:46*am, Ron wrote:

I was at best buy a maybe a month ago, in the 47" tv section, all tvs,
a whole wall were being fed 720p or 1080i except one tv. I immediatly
noticed it was much sharper, the saleman confirmed only that one was
on a Blue Ray player doing 1080p. it was Avatar. The difference was
obvious.

Did you even read the article that I posted????? They tested the TV's
with a Blu-ray players with the same source material.

I read it, but I went to *best buy and saw my own test, there was no
comparison, 1080p is the way to go. Just wait until they put out 2160p!

That is not what you said. You said a side-by-side comparison with
720p, 1080i and 1080p as the source material.

Whatever......you obviously have better eyes than me and all of the
NUMEROUS people that have done side-by-side comparisons and said there
is NO visual difference (minimal at best) between a 50" 720 or 1080 at
10-12 ft away when tested with a 1080p source (Blu-ray player). Keep
wasting your money and drinking the Best Buy Kool-Aid.

On Nov 18, 9:16*am, wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:39*am, ransley wrote:



On Nov 17, 8:45*pm, Bill Gill wrote:

On 11/17/2010 1:28 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros& *cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g.http://
www.ledvslcdtv.com/ *as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignoranceg)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

In regard to 1080 vs 720. *The results of several tests I have
read about indicate that for TVs less than 40 inches (some say
50) you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. *Before
you buy compare some at the store to make sure, but it is something
you should be able to see for yourself.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

do you mean 720p and 1080i, yes they are the same, not 1080p, its
double the resolution- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1080p isn't double the resolution of 1080i. * Both display exactly the
same number of pixels on the screen. * The difference is that 1080i
displays odd rows in one scan pass, even rows in the next scan pass.
If P in fact had twice the resolution, the difference would between
the two would be striking. *In fact, P is only slightly better.

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

On Nov 18, 9:23*am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:06*am, ransley wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:46*am, Ron wrote:

I was at best buy a maybe a month ago, in the 47" tv section, all tvs,
a whole wall were being fed 720p or 1080i except one tv. I immediatly
noticed it was much sharper, the saleman confirmed only that one was
on a Blue Ray player doing 1080p. it was Avatar. The difference was
obvious.

Did you even read the article that I posted????? They tested the TV's
with a Blu-ray players with the same source material.

I read it, but I went to *best buy and saw my own test, there was no
comparison, 1080p is the way to go. Just wait until they put out 2160p!

That is not what you said. You said a side-by-side comparison with
720p, 1080i and 1080p as the source material.

Whatever......you obviously have better eyes than me and all of the
NUMEROUS people that have done side-by-side comparisons and said there
is NO visual difference (minimal at best) between a 50" 720 or 1080 at
10-12 ft away when tested with a 1080p source (Blu-ray player). Keep
wasting your money and drinking the Best Buy Kool-Aid.

I think one big factor here that hasn't been mentioned is he is
apparently relying on BestBuy's statement of what the sources were.
Given that the typical floor person there is clueless or worse, who
knows what the real sources were for what he was looking at.

I bought a 50" Sony Bravia LCD at Circuit City a year ago. The
salesman asked me if I needed cables. I had the answer already
prepared: "I already have HDMI cables." Whereupon he takes me over
to the Monster cable rack and shows me a $80 HDMI cable and tells me
that since the Sony is 120hz, unless I have new cables, it won't
work. Of course, there are two big problems with that. First is
that the 120hz is the refresh rate of the display and has nothing to
do with the HDMI interface or cables. Second is that even if it did
involve the cable, the idiot must think that 120hz is some super high
frequency that requires special cable. Or more likely, he's out to
collect his commission and just lying.

As I was paying for my TV, an elderly man was buying a 27" TV and the
salesman got him to take the Monster cables. I bet the cables cost a
quarter or a third of what the TV cost. And the profit they made on
the cable far exceeds what they made on the TV.

So, who knows what they would do in a store to push a specific model
TV that has a spiff in it for the salesman.

On Nov 18, 9:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:



For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

Many people can't readily tell the difference between a page of text
printed at 600 dpi from one printed at 1200 dpi. Other people see a
big difference.

Claiming that there is no difference between 720p and 1080p because
YOU, or even thousands of people, can't tell the difference, is just
foolish talk. Maybe you just can't see as well as other people, or
maybe you just aren't as critical a viewer.

A small diffence may be all that matters to people who want that small
difference, because they appreciate the slight extra measure of
quality.

Yeah, and all of the reviews I've read agree with me. At best the
difference is minimal, and not noticeable with the human eye.

On Nov 18, 9:51*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:35:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:23 am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:06 am, ransley wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:46 am, Ron wrote:

I was at best buy a maybe a month ago, in the 47" tv section, all tvs,
a whole wall were being fed 720p or 1080i except one tv. I immediatly
noticed it was much sharper, the saleman confirmed only that one was
on a Blue Ray player doing 1080p. it was Avatar. The difference was
obvious.

Did you even read the article that I posted????? They tested the TV's
with a Blu-ray players with the same source material.

I read it, but I went to best buy and saw my own test, there was no
comparison, 1080p is the way to go. Just wait until they put out 2160p!

That is not what you said. You said a side-by-side comparison with
720p, 1080i and 1080p as the source material.

Whatever......you obviously have better eyes than me and all of the
NUMEROUS people that have done side-by-side comparisons and said there
is NO visual difference (minimal at best) between a 50" 720 or 1080 at
10-12 ft away when tested with a 1080p source (Blu-ray player). Keep
wasting your money and drinking the Best Buy Kool-Aid.

I think one big factor here that hasn't been mentioned is he is
apparently relying on BestBuy's statement of what the sources were.
Given that the typical floor person there is clueless or worse, who
knows what the real sources were for what he was looking at.

You can't really judge TVs in a typical mass merchant store, unless
your living room has similar lighting.

Manufacturers of all televisons have a preset for the picture called
"vivid" or similar, that is universally known as "Torch Mode". It is a
preset where everything is cranked way up, so the picture still looks
like something when displayed under a few billion watts of florescent
lighting. It is not a setting that should be used in the home unless
you are awaiting cataract surgery. Televisions in stores are set to
torch mode. You aren't seeing anything that can be fairly or
accurately evaluated.

At least we can agree on that....must be a sign of the Apocalypse.

wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:23 am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:06 am, ransley wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:46 am, Ron wrote:
I was at best buy a maybe a month ago, in the 47" tv section, all tvs,
a whole wall were being fed 720p or 1080i except one tv. I immediatly
noticed it was much sharper, the saleman confirmed only that one was
on a Blue Ray player doing 1080p. it was Avatar. The difference was
obvious.
Did you even read the article that I posted????? They tested the TV's
with a Blu-ray players with the same source material.
I read it, but I went to best buy and saw my own test, there was no
comparison, 1080p is the way to go. Just wait until they put out 2160p!
That is not what you said. You said a side-by-side comparison with
720p, 1080i and 1080p as the source material.

Whatever......you obviously have better eyes than me and all of the
NUMEROUS people that have done side-by-side comparisons and said there
is NO visual difference (minimal at best) between a 50" 720 or 1080 at
10-12 ft away when tested with a 1080p source (Blu-ray player). Keep
wasting your money and drinking the Best Buy Kool-Aid.

I think one big factor here that hasn't been mentioned is he is
apparently relying on BestBuy's statement of what the sources were.
Given that the typical floor person there is clueless or worse, who
knows what the real sources were for what he was looking at.

I bought a 50" Sony Bravia LCD at Circuit City a year ago. The
salesman asked me if I needed cables. I had the answer already
prepared: "I already have HDMI cables." Whereupon he takes me over
to the Monster cable rack and shows me a $80 HDMI cable and tells me
that since the Sony is 120hz, unless I have new cables, it won't
work. Of course, there are two big problems with that. First is
that the 120hz is the refresh rate of the display and has nothing to
do with the HDMI interface or cables. Second is that even if it did
involve the cable, the idiot must think that 120hz is some super high
frequency that requires special cable. Or more likely, he's out to
collect his commission and just lying.

As I was paying for my TV, an elderly man was buying a 27" TV and the
salesman got him to take the Monster cables. I bet the cables cost a
quarter or a third of what the TV cost. And the profit they made on
the cable far exceeds what they made on the TV.

So, who knows what they would do in a store to push a specific model
TV that has a spiff in it for the salesman.

My motto when in stores: Don't trust nothing what eats

On Nov 18, 9:55*am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:41*am, wrote:





On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

Many people can't readily tell the difference between a page of text
printed at 600 dpi from one printed at 1200 dpi. Other people see a
big difference.

Claiming that there is no difference between 720p and 1080p because
YOU, or even thousands of people, can't tell the difference, is just
foolish talk. Maybe you just can't see as well as other people, or
maybe you just aren't as critical a viewer.

A small diffence may be all that matters to people who want that small
difference, because they appreciate the slight extra measure of
quality.

Yeah, and all of the reviews I've read agree with me. At best the
difference is minimal, and not noticeable with the human eye.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Clearly you are blind. I have a sony 1080p tv. I can easily tell the
diffference between a blu ray movie at 1080p and any of the lower
resolutions sitting in our family room.

And there is a big difference between i and p. There are many
advantages to the progressive scan signal and the only downside is
bandwidth. The whole reason finterlaced was invented was to reduce
bandwidth. It creates also of byproduct issues that we didn't care
about back when the picture sucked anyway.

On Nov 18, 10:09*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:55*am, Ron wrote:



On Nov 18, 9:41*am, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

Many people can't readily tell the difference between a page of text
printed at 600 dpi from one printed at 1200 dpi. Other people see a
big difference.

Claiming that there is no difference between 720p and 1080p because
YOU, or even thousands of people, can't tell the difference, is just
foolish talk. Maybe you just can't see as well as other people, or
maybe you just aren't as critical a viewer.

A small diffence may be all that matters to people who want that small
difference, because they appreciate the slight extra measure of
quality.

Yeah, and all of the reviews I've read agree with me. At best the
difference is minimal, and not noticeable with the human eye.

Clearly you are blind. *I have a sony 1080p tv. *I can easily tell the
diffference between a blu ray movie at 1080p and any of the lower
resolutions sitting in our family room.

Oh, so you have a 720p TV sitting right next to your 1080p for
comparison while viewing a Blu-ray with the same source material.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Try again.

On Nov 18, 10:23*am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:09*am, jamesgangnc wrote:





On Nov 18, 9:55*am, Ron wrote:

On Nov 18, 9:41*am, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

Many people can't readily tell the difference between a page of text
printed at 600 dpi from one printed at 1200 dpi. Other people see a
big difference.

Claiming that there is no difference between 720p and 1080p because
YOU, or even thousands of people, can't tell the difference, is just
foolish talk. Maybe you just can't see as well as other people, or
maybe you just aren't as critical a viewer.

A small diffence may be all that matters to people who want that small
difference, because they appreciate the slight extra measure of
quality.

Yeah, and all of the reviews I've read agree with me. At best the
difference is minimal, and not noticeable with the human eye.

Clearly you are blind. *I have a sony 1080p tv. *I can easily tell the
diffference between a blu ray movie at 1080p and any of the lower
resolutions sitting in our family room.

Oh, so you have a 720p TV sitting right next to your 1080p for
comparison while viewing a Blu-ray with the same source material.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Try again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You said;

"I have a 50" Panasonic 720 Plasma. My neighbor has a 50" LG 1080
Plasma. We both sit about 11 ft away from our TVs. There is NO
noticeable resolution difference, period. Sounds like you bought the
Best Buy sales pitch."

I'm watching the same tv at different resolutions. And at 1080p the
picture is clearly better than at 720p.

On Nov 18, 11:04*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:23*am, Ron wrote:



On Nov 18, 10:09*am, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Nov 18, 9:55*am, Ron wrote:

On Nov 18, 9:41*am, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

For our friend considering a 32" TV, I'd say the difference beween
720P and either 1080i or p isn't going to be noticeable on that size
display.

Or on any TV up to 50" depending on how far away you are sitting from
the TV.

Many people can't readily tell the difference between a page of text
printed at 600 dpi from one printed at 1200 dpi. Other people see a
big difference.

Claiming that there is no difference between 720p and 1080p because
YOU, or even thousands of people, can't tell the difference, is just
foolish talk. Maybe you just can't see as well as other people, or
maybe you just aren't as critical a viewer.

A small diffence may be all that matters to people who want that small
difference, because they appreciate the slight extra measure of
quality.

Yeah, and all of the reviews I've read agree with me. At best the
difference is minimal, and not noticeable with the human eye.

Clearly you are blind. *I have a sony 1080p tv. *I can easily tell the
diffference between a blu ray movie at 1080p and any of the lower
resolutions sitting in our family room.

Oh, so you have a 720p TV sitting right next to your 1080p for
comparison while viewing a Blu-ray with the same source material.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Try again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You said;

"I have a 50" Panasonic 720 Plasma. My neighbor has a 50" LG 1080
Plasma. We both sit about 11 ft away from our TVs. There is NO
noticeable resolution difference, period. Sounds like you bought the
Best Buy sales pitch."

I'm watching the same tv at different resolutions. *And at 1080p the
picture is clearly better than at 720p.

I know what I said. I'm talking about the SAME source on a 720 vs 1080
TV. I NEVER said that a 1080p wasn't a better source than
720p.........sheesh.