flatscreen tv

[ABBAFAN]

we in our house have just aquired two lcd flat screen wide screen tvs and to be honest i find the picture quality inferior to traditional tvs.the stretched screen distorts imafges which apear to warp towards the middle of the screen.for example if words are moving from one side to the other along the bottom like credits for example they appear to stretch towards the middle of the screen then contract as they get to the other side.also the pixels are hightly visible especially when watching something dark such as a snooker room or something happening at night.detailes such as lots of trees also reveal pixels its annoying to the extent that i use the old tvs more often.
what do other people think?

[Skybird]

I was asking that question to myself repeatedly, since my TV is old. When I watched the picture quality of the TVs they have in a warehouse, and make sure that the two devices I compare are fed with the same signal (standard cable that still is the basis over here in Germany) I always necessarily came to the conclusions that LCD display offer the worse picture quality, even with very expensive ones. Contrast is bad, pictures are not as sharp and crispy. It is a bit different with HDTV signals and -screens, here the contrast and sharpness is good, but you still often get motion blurrs, and if HDTV ever will become broadcasting standard within the next 5-10 years I dare to still have my doubts. It is not the first revolutionary new TV norm we had been offered, and the earlier two "revolutions" had been supported by far higher investments of the major broadcasters. Nobody spoeaks of them anymore. So this time, most broadcasters are more cautious to invest (and lose)money. The two major networks said, currently they do not have plans for a timetable. I think, this HDTV is just hype, and the old PAL norm is good enough for me anyway.

when i need a new TV, I will try to get a CRT device again, and it is much, much cheaper (also, LCD devices are designed to last 5 years, with CRT you could make this 10-15 years. So, when you buy a HDTV-ready LCD now, and it has a living time of 5 years, and costs 2-6 times as much money than a CRT-TV, while HDTV as a TV standard will be adopted by proadcasters not before the next 5-10 years or so - go figure). HDTV is only pushed by advert strategists who want to boost the manufacturer's profits. I only will make sure that it will be a 100Hz device with a 16:9 screen. The difference to 50Hz is far more interesting and relieving for my eyes than that between PAL and HDTV resolution. Resolution is not everything, the overall picture impression is what counts, and here LCD-TVs simply are worse than the old screens - no matter what the adverts and salesmen say.

I have eyes of myself, so I can see, I do not need to be told that this looks better than that, or the other way around.

[Chock]

Slightly diverse from the original post topic, but related:

When I train people on computer software, I very often have five or six people in the room all sat at computers, and this used to take place using traditional CRT monitors, but of course now all the equipment is upgraded to the latest TFT screens. The problem I find with that is that, where I used to be able to see what people had on their screen from pretty much anywhere in the room with the old CRT monitors, now I have to trot over to them and stand squarely in front of their monitor to see things. This slows training down sometimes and is one of the reasons why I still use a traditional CRT monitor at home most of the time, that and the fact that the colour repro on it is way better than on a TFT monitor.

Anyone who ever does any graphics, repro or printing work will know what I'm talking about here. Whenever anyone comes to my house and sees my monitor at home (CRT), they usually comment on how much better it is at colour representation than their (invariably) TFT monitor, this is true of my wife's brand new Apple Mac Book Pro, a laptop designed with artworking and colour repro in mind, and on a friend of mine's Alienware gaming laptop which cost him about 3 grand in UK sterling. My big old CRT monitor cost me 40 quid from a computer fair!

Sometimes, the latest technology isn't always as great an advance as you'd think it would be!

:D Chock

[The Avon Lady]

Our TVs are all CRT. We were contemplating getting a flat panel TV during recent rennovations but at the end we had room for our old CRT and we didn't feel the urge to spend the money when what we have works just fine.

However, we did shop around and saw some amazingly sharp flat panel TVs at the mid and upper price ranges and very lousy ones at low price ranges. We also noted consumer reviews on flat panels that reflected the different qualities available.

I suppose you get what you pay for.

Also, I've no experience with flat panel TVs but if they require fine tuning for sharpness, make sure what you saw was fine tuned. In the early days of LCDs for PCs, I first saw them in shops and was shocked by the fuzzy image until the salesperson went into the menu settings and sharpened things up for me. :88)

[Skybird]

Slightly diverse from the original post topic, but related:

When I train people on computer software, I very often have five or six people in the room all sat at computers, and this used to take place using traditional CRT monitors, but of course now all the equipment is upgraded to the latest TFT screens. The problem I find with that is that, where I used to be able to see what people had on their screen from pretty much anywhere in the room with the old CRT monitors, now I have to trot over to them and stand squarely in front of their monitor to see things. This slows training down sometimes and is one of the reasons why I still use a traditional CRT monitor at home most of the time, that and the fact that the colour repro on it is way better than on a TFT monitor.

Anyone who ever does any graphics, repro or printing work will know what I'm talking about here. Whenever anyone comes to my house and sees my monitor at home (CRT), they usually comment on how much better it is at colour representation than their (invariably) TFT monitor, this is true of my wife's brand new Apple Mac Book Pro, a laptop designed with artworking and colour repro in mind, and on a friend of mine's Alienware gaming laptop which cost him about 3 grand in UK sterling. My big old CRT monitor cost me 40 quid from a computer fair!

Sometimes, the latest technology isn't always as great an advance as you'd think it would be!

:D Chock
I wouldn'T mix monitors and TVs in one discussion. There are differences.

[bradclark1]

Unless you upgrade to digital cable you are wasting your money. It's a fact that analog comes through horrible on LCD's. With digital and LCD you'll be saying wow quite often.

[ABBAFAN]

hope so.another thing is that you cannot really watch a flatscreen tv from an angle because the image goes all weird wheras you could with a tube tv.

[bradclark1]

LCD's aren't good on angles but Plasma's are, but also LCD's don't reflect but Plasma's do. After the gives and takes of each we chose LCD.

[darius359au]

The viewing angle thing depends on the quality and make of the LCD too -weve got a Sony Bravia and that things got close to a 180 degree view angle :).

Ive alway bought Sony Trinitron crt's because of the quality an image ,but the LCD absoloutely blows it out of the water - especially with HDTV.

[bookworm_020]

AS long as it's not a cheep and cheerful model and not LG, it should be better than a CRT TV. You just have to way up how big you want the sceen to be.

My Wife and I have a couple of 51cm CRT TV's (The joy's of combining two households!) and the ydo the Job. We are planning to get a wide screen in the near future (when we buy a new house) for the lounge room. We most likely won't go over 42" (106 cm) in screen size and may go smaller. Whay have a screen where you need to sit ouside to watch it and a new power connection to handle the power consumption!:roll:

EDIT: Just been announced that Shap have faulty LCD TV's. IT's making the CRT's look like a good option

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/sharp-recalls-2500-lcd-tvs/2007/05/28/1180205127124.html

[NefariousKoel]

Analog doesn't look like anything amazing on an LCD, indeed. However, the difference in brightness and much less glare makes up for it by quite a ways.

Just like going from a CRT to an LCD monitor... there's trade-offs. I'm happier with LCDs in both cases because I can see the picture better. Not to mention no flickering.

Besides, you'd be ready for HD if you got one. Just make sure and check if it has a built-in tuner and isn't just a big TV monitor.

I'd go Samsung. My recommendation, anyway. ;)

[NefariousKoel]

Our TVs are all CRT. We were contemplating getting a flat panel TV during recent rennovations but at the end we had room for our old CRT and we didn't feel the urge to spend the money when what we have works just fine.

However, we did shop around and saw some amazingly sharp flat panel TVs at the mid and upper price ranges and very lousy ones at low price ranges. We also noted consumer reviews on flat panels that reflected the different qualities available.

I suppose you get what you pay for.

Also, I've no experience with flat panel TVs but if they require fine tuning for sharpness, make sure what you saw was fine tuned. In the early days of LCDs for PCs, I first saw them in shops and was shocked by the fuzzy image until the salesperson went into the menu settings and sharpened things up for me. :88)
If you're using an analog signal, you'll likely have to adjust the settings a bit, yes. LCDs are only made for certain resolutions and if it's off, it'll look stretched and/or fuzzy. Many of them have settings to mitigate this problem these days.... not perfect but quite manageable. They all have their "native resolution" at which it's supposed to be run and if the signal doesn't support it.. it'll look a bit fuzzy. However, they're generally pretty large and the further away you are from the screen, it looks better and better due to the brightness compared from a CRT which becomes darker looking the further away you get from it.

Another thing.. when you see such as 720p or 1080i.. this is what the letters mean:

i - Interlaced. This means that the picture is redrawn in two groups so you're only getting every other horizontal line drawn at once and both halves of the picture alternate. The problem with this is that if there's a long straight line in what you're watching, you'll get more "jaggies" along it. However, the picture is redrawn faster. At the moment, this is supposedly better for fast-moving video while sacrificing minor details such as that.

p- Progressive Scan. It draws the whole picture at once at the expense of refresh rate. You don't normally notice it much unless there's extremely fast changes in the film frames. Or those slow long straight lines passing across the screen such as watching a football game with a lot of rushing. It is usually run at a slightly lower resolution than Interlaced too.

These are the same display properties you never noticed with DVD players. I know some of you have seen "Progressive Scan" as a feature on DVD players before. Same thing.

Many LCD TVs out there these days support both 'p' and 'i' at their different resolutions. Check to be sure. More importantly check and see what type of connectors it has. Obviously HDMI will be required now or in the future, but having DVI, VGA, Component, A/V (numerous), and Coax is a definite bonus so you know it'll be compatible with all the rest of your equipment.

Damn, I feel like I'm at work. ;)

[ASWnut101]

...I suppose you get what you pay for...




:yep: :yep:


Exactly!


Go to your local TV shop and look.

The cheesey, crappy ones (10-40* viewing angle, less colors, "odd darkness," ect.) are around 500-2,000 dollars (USD). Really good ones (180* viewing angle, ultra sharp, more colors, ect.) here are around 5,000 USD.

[bradclark1]

The cheesey, crappy ones (10-40* viewing angle, less colors, "odd darkness," ect.) are around 500-2,000 dollars (USD). Really good ones (180* viewing angle, ultra sharp, more colors, ect.) here are around 5,000 USD.
I have one in your cheesey, crappy zone and there isn't a thing I wish I could change.

[SUBMAN1]

CRT's - Superior in Picture quality, Black Levels, Color output (Can support up to 80% of the human eyes color abilities), and can support multiple resolutions natively (a major plus since all LCD's support one high res native res which a CRT is not limited to). They also output very bright pictures since they create their own light.

LCD - Great in their native resoluton but every other resolution looks washed out and un-crisp, they lack black levels (Backlight makes it impossible to make perfect blacks), and lack color levels (only support 30% of the human eye capacity), have to rely on a backlight in high light conditions, and all around plain suck comparitevly. They do have a low profile and weight - their only + to a CRT.

CRT's are better in every respect except profile, and weight. Anyone else who tells you different doesn't come from a technical background and is ignorant of the real facts.

-S

[Tchocky]

How does power consumption match up?

[SUBMAN1]

How does power consumption match up?

Do I care? I buy for capability. Crap - if I worried about that, my PSu in my computer that pops the circuit breaker occasionally (50 amps inrush voltage at 120 volt) when the power cord is plugged in wouldn't even exist!

Dumb question.

-S

[bradclark1]

CRT's - Superior in Picture quality, Black Levels, Color output (Can support up to 80% of the human eyes color abilities), and can support multiple resolutions natively (a major plus since all LCD's support one high res native res which a CRT is not limited to). They also output very bright pictures since they create their own light.

LCD - Great in their native resolution but every other resolution looks washed out and un-crisp, they lack black levels (Backlight makes it impossible to make perfect blacks), and lack color levels (only support 30% of the human eye capacity), have to rely on a backlight in high light conditions, and all around plain suck comparitevly. They do have a low profile and weight - their only + to a CRT.

CRT's are better in every respect except profile, and weight. Anyone else who tells you different doesn't come from a technical background and is ignorant of the real facts. Why you would want to change the resolution on your TV I don't know.

-S
What an ignorant statement. I'll just believe my eyes and you believe your facts. Why you would want to change the resolution on your TV I don't know.

[CCIP]

The reason I use LCD's also is the fact that I find them much, much easier on the eyes over long periods due to total absence of flickering and a much milder light emitted by them. For me that's a major factor; I just can't stand CRTs for long sessions.

[ASWnut101]

The cheesey, crappy ones (10-40* viewing angle, less colors, "odd darkness," ect.) are around 500-2,000 dollars (USD). Really good ones (180* viewing angle, ultra sharp, more colors, ect.) here are around 5,000 USD.
I have one in your cheesey, crappy zone and there isn't a thing I wish I could change.


Well, that's what I saw at Best Buy and Circut City.

*Shrugs*

[Tchocky]

How does power consumption match up?
Do I care? I buy for capability. Crap - if I worried about that, my PSu in my computer that pops the circuit breaker occasionally (50 amps inrush voltage at 120 volt) when the power cord is plugged in wouldn't even exist!

Dumb question.
Eh, thanks for that.

Does anyone know if LCD's use more electricity, or is it just a dumb question?

[bradclark1]

The cheesey, crappy ones (10-40* viewing angle, less colors, "odd darkness," ect.) are around 500-2,000 dollars (USD). Really good ones (180* viewing angle, ultra sharp, more colors, ect.) here are around 5,000 USD.
I have one in your cheesey, crappy zone and there isn't a thing I wish I could change.


Well, that's what I saw at Best Buy and Circut City.

*Shrugs*
Check a Vizio out.

[darius359au]

How does power consumption match up?
Do I care? I buy for capability. Crap - if I worried about that, my PSu in my computer that pops the circuit breaker occasionally (50 amps inrush voltage at 120 volt) when the power cord is plugged in wouldn't even exist!

Dumb question. Eh, thanks for that.

Does anyone know if LCD's use more electricity, or is it just a dumb question?

LCD's use alot less power than CRT's

[FIREWALL]

[quote=ASWnut101]


Best Buy and Circut City.


These are probably two of the worst places to buy a tv. :down:

[ASWnut101]

[quote=ASWnut101]


Best Buy and Circut City.


These are probably two of the worst places to buy a tv. :down:

Well, when it's the only place in town, you've got to choose. I had no choice (except those two).

[FIREWALL]

[quote=ASWnut101]


Best Buy and Circut City.


These are probably two of the worst places to buy a tv. :down:

Well, when it's the only place in town, you've got to choose. I had no choice (except those two).

Understood:up: I use the internet to shop or COSTCO. Got best price for a higher end 42" lcd Phillips and free shipping.:)

[SUBMAN1]

What an ignorant statement. I'll just believe my eyes and you believe your facts. Why you would want to change the resolution on your TV I don't know.

Hardly. Know your facts - yes people want to change the resolution on their TV - HDTV. 1080i, 1080p, 720p, 540p, 480i, all use different resolutions.

1080p is a full 1080 lines of reolution.
1080i is about half effective resoltion of 1080p due to interlacing
720p is exactly that - 720 lines of resolution - (1280x720)
540p is 540 lines of reolution
480i is effectively 240 lines of resolution.

I guess if you haven't experienced the future, you wouldn't know. Sorry if I come across as harsh on the subject.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Eh, thanks for that.

Does anyone know if LCD's use more electricity, or is it just a dumb question?
Yep - sorry. I guess i am apologizing twice in one thread. Yes - LCD's use a fraction of the power consumption of a CRT. I guess I should have said - to me, it doesn't matter, but to someone who leaves their TV on 24/7, it might.

-S

[bradclark1]

What an ignorant statement. I'll just believe my eyes and you believe your facts. Why you would want to change the resolution on your TV I don't know.

Hardly. Know your facts - yes people want to change the resolution on their TV - HDTV. 1080i, 1080p, 720p, 540p, 480i, all use different resolutions.

1080p is a full 1080 lines of reolution.
1080i is about half effective resoltion of 1080p due to interlacing
720p is exactly that - 720 lines of resolution - (1280x720)
540p is 540 lines of reolution
480i is effectively 240 lines of resolution.

I guess if you haven't experienced the future, you wouldn't know. Sorry if I come across as harsh on the subject.

-S
It doesn't matter what your facts say. If your digital fed LCD looks better and sharper then your CRT it looks better and sharper. Your 'facts' can't change that. We got ours as a gift but I can't see people laying out more then twice the cost of a CRT to get a worse picture. If it didn't look better I'd have put our CRT back up. I haven't met anybody that had wanted to change the resolution on their TV and can't think of a reason why you would want to but hey, if thats an issue check before you buy. You aren't missing anything because you couldn't do it with your old CRT anyway.

[SUBMAN1]

It doesn't matter what your facts say. If your digital fed LCD looks better and sharper then your CRT it looks better and sharper. Your 'facts' can't change that. We got ours as a gift but I can't see people laying out more then twice the cost of a CRT to get a worse picture. If it didn't look better I'd have put our CRT back up. I haven't met anybody that had wanted to change the resolution on their TV and can't think of a reason why you would want to but hey, if thats an issue check before you buy. You aren't missing anything because you couldn't do it with your old CRT anyway.
Incorrect again. LCD's have a set size. They cannot be physically changed. Period. You set any resolution 'other' than the set resolution of the physical size of an LCD, and you will have to use dithering to make it look somewhat OK. You can use digital or not, it doesn't realy matter when trying to correct this problem. You cannot break the laws of physics. Period. You will have a washed out un-sharp picture that you can do nothing about. This is why he was saying that the LCD's he has look worse than his CRT. He is probably watching normal TV on a system designed for 720p or higher - and the resolution doesn't match up mathmatically, so the TV compensates via dithering the picture to try and get as close as possible. A line doubler or trippler will help (and they are expensive), but cannot eliminate the problem.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but LCD's is not a step up in technology. More of a step back. They do have some pluses though in that they are getting cheaper to manufacture and use less material. They also have a size and power advantage. Picture quality however is not on its plus side.

For the flip side - With a CRT, the gun can just change the scan range leaving you with exactly as sharp and crisp a picture as you had at any other given resolution. It is a simple thing for a CRT to change to different resolutions.

If you want to see what I am talking about, find yourself a Loewe Aconda (Approximately a $5200 40" widescreen TV), and compare it to an LCD. THere is no comparisson. THe CRT color and picture quality, regardless of resolution is better hands down.

Plasma is actually better than LCD's for the most part though (Based on xeon technology), but doesn't hold up as well in bright light. It will be better for response times as well for high speed action, but LCD's are catching up in response time.

Before I go flat panel (I do have some Samsung LCD's in my house, but they are used on secondary systems), I will buy laser which should be out near the end of this year - Mitsubishi should bring it to market. Lasers should approach good black levels again and should also give off at least 70%+ of the color spectrum for your eyes compared to LCD's 30%. If you want to see what I mean - look at your LCD and look for blocks in the picture (sometimes looks like noise) - that is your LCD trying to compensate. However, once you look for it and see what it looks like, it will bug you till the end of time because you will always see it.

-S

[bradclark1]

It doesn't matter what your facts say. If your digital fed LCD looks better and sharper then your CRT it looks better and sharper. Your 'facts' can't change that.
Thats about all I have to say on the subject and you keep ignoring that one point.

Incorrect again. LCD's have a set size. They cannot be physically changed. Period. You set any resolution 'other' than the set resolution of the physical size of an LCD, and you will have to use dithering to make it look somewhat OK. You can use digital or not, it doesn't realy matter when trying to correct this problem. You cannot break the laws of physics. Period. You will have a washed out un-sharp picture that you can do nothing about. This is why he was saying that the LCD's he has look worse than his CRT. He is probably watching normal TV on a system designed for 720p or higher - and the resolution doesn't match up mathmatically, so the TV compensates via dithering the picture to try and get as close as possible. A line doubler or trippler will help (and they are expensive), but cannot eliminate the problem.
Like I have said. Why would anybody want to change the TV resolution? And I don't know what I'm 'incorrect again' about.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but LCD's is not a step up in technology. More of a step back. They do have some pluses though in that they are getting cheaper to manufacture and use less material. They also have a size and power advantage. Picture quality however is not on its plus side.
I haven't said a thing about steps in technology. The only thing I can say about picture quality is mine is great. Better than CRT's and I'm not going to go check a $5,000 CRT TV. It had better wash dishes too at that price.

Plasma is actually better than LCD's for the most part though (Based on xeon technology), but doesn't hold up as well in bright light. It will be better for response times as well for high speed action, but LCD's are catching up in response time.
Like I said before they each have their pluses and minuses I like the LCD because it doesn't show reflections. I can put it against a wall facing a window and get no reflection. Thats a major plus.

I am thrilled to bits with my LCD and maybe you have mega-money crt's that has a real nice pictures and I am happy for you but we are just wasting each others breath here so I guess this is closed on my part because we each just keep repeating ourselves.

[SUBMAN1]

It doesn't matter what your facts say. If your digital fed LCD looks better and sharper then your CRT it looks better and sharper. Your 'facts' can't change that. Thats about all I have to say on the subject and you keep ignoring that one point.
It doesn't - at least not compared to a decent CRT. An LCD does have an advantage when running at it's native resolution (and considering you have a static picture and do not need to deal with rise and fall times inherent to an LCD crystal), but if that happens to be 1080p for example, then it will not look good because no one transmits in that res.

Like I have said. Why would anybody want to change the TV resolution? And I don't know what I'm 'incorrect again' about.
ALl the new formats require a resolution change. Maybe you haven't seen them yet, but they do. Even standard 480i that is commonly transmitted today is an 'off resolution' to any LCD manufactured.

Where I think you are getting confused is that we are talking TV's vs. computer monitors. Am I right? With a TV, you almost always run in an off resolution resulting in an unsharp picture - my biggest complaint on a set resolution device.

Here is an example to help you understand. Say you were playing a 16:9 DVD which is sent to your TV at a resolution of 852x480. Say you have a 1080p capable LCD for example - that LCD pixels will have a resolution of 1920x1080 for a 16:9 aspect ratio. If you convert the math to that, you have a drop in pixel resolution to .44375 across, by .4444444 down. This is where your problem starts because it is not a perfect .5. You cannot have an accurate representation of the picture because the pixels are not capable of putting an exact color or exact line of sharpness in the exact place it needs to be. It will be off to one side in an attempt to get it close. You get a non sharp washed out looking picture and there is nothing you can do about it. This is known as interpolation.

This is what the LCD is trying to do but will never do accurately - and this is soemthing the CRT will have no problem doing since it just changes the scan and can do what the LCD cannot.

Does that help explain it?

I haven't said a thing about steps in technology. The only thing I can say about picture quality is mine is great. Better than CRT's and I'm not going to go check a $5,000 CRT TV. It had better wash dishes too at that price.
I hear ya. You need a decent (add expensive here) CRT to probably compete with what you are talking about. This is probably where we are differing.

Like I said before they each have their pluses and minuses I like the LCD because it doesn't show reflections. I can put it against a wall facing a window and get no reflection. Thats a major plus.
Can't argue that point - especially if you have a Sony CRT - Sony's are reflection magnets.

I am thrilled to bits with my LCD and maybe you have mega-money crt's that has a real nice pictures and I am happy for you but we are just wasting each others breath here so I guess this is closed on my part because we each just keep repeating ourselves.

No - I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. A low priced LCD probably does look better than a low priced CRT. High priced CRT's however and it becomes a much different story.

-S

[bradclark1]

No - I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. A low priced LCD probably does look better than a low priced CRT. High priced CRT's however and it becomes a much different story.

-S
:) Probably but I'm in no position to ever find that out.

[geetrue]

OP's first reaction was to a wide screen LCD, I think most of you missed that point. :yep:

He didn't like the distortion, plus shouldn't we be talking about HD LCD or Flat screen HD CRT's due to the 2009 pending dead line on all transmissions of televsion signals being HD only?

[SUBMAN1]

OP's first reaction was to a wide screen LCD, I think most of you missed that point. :yep:

He didn't like the distortion, plus shouldn't we be talking about HD LCD or Flat screen HD CRT's due to the 2009 pending dead line on all transmissions of televsion signals being HD only?

Hahaha! We will see if the 2009 deadline holds (did you mean the 2000 deadline?:D). Still same issue though - 720p signal is .6666667 vs. a 1080p signal - still interpolated.

And yes - he is distorting the aspect ratio by stretching the screen. He should change the picture back to normal.

-S

[tycho102]

Sometimes, the latest technology isn't always as great an advance as you'd think it would be!

The Dell 2405FPW was notorious for its uniformity and color representation. There's a new panel that has a superior colour gamat, but about 1.5x the price. I forget which LCD. I think it's a 27" one. Response time probably sucks, though.

The DLP's are still a good buy at present. Everyone has gone to a +7 colour wheel at ~11k rpm (3rd generation?). There is some "rainbow effect" when the colour wheel is brand new, but as it fades a bit and the light dims, the issue is less pronounced. I like the Samsung DLP's because the colour wheel and lamp are user replaceable.

[darius359au]

we in our house have just aquired two lcd flat screen wide screen tvs and to be honest i find the picture quality inferior to traditional tvs.the stretched screen distorts imafges which apear to warp towards the middle of the screen.for example if words are moving from one side to the other along the bottom like credits for example they appear to stretch towards the middle of the screen then contract as they get to the other side.also the pixels are hightly visible especially when watching something dark such as a snooker room or something happening at night.detailes such as lots of trees also reveal pixels its annoying to the extent that i use the old tvs more often.
what do other people think?
Ive just had a thought about your Distortion problems - have you changed the Zoom type and aspect ratio? , i just re-read your post and it sounds like what I get with my LCD when its trying to resize a 4:3 image for 16:9 - it streches the image and puts in 5 "Zoom" spots , 1 in each corner and one in the center.

with my Sony theres 4 zoom types - "Wide zoom" which is the one that streches and zooms the 4:3 image to fit it on the 16:9 widescreen , "Normal" which doesnt change your picture at all so you end up with a 4:3 image in the middle of your screen and it doesnt use all the screen , then theres "Full" which is the full 16:9 widescreen image but thats only use with a 16:9 signal - HDTV or DVD , 4th is just an option to zoom in on the images on the screen.

The "Pixillation" can happen with a low quality signal or a low contrast ratio tv - anything over 1000:1 helps there :D

[Chock]

Yup, this is where people are finding out more about cinematic anamorphic lenses and what they do, and original image resolutions than they ever really wanted to know (or see). Anamorphic (widescreen prismatic) lenses, by their very nature, already force more detail onto less film emulsion area (a process reversed by the projector in the cinema, which is why you have to have panned and scanned versions of movies for older TV screens). This may change as film companies move into using digital, as opposed to traditional, film mediums, but is currently one of the reasons why the film you see on the screen in a cinema is of a limited resolution and also why CGI companies such as Industrial Light and Magic render their special effects at resolutions that a decent computer monitor would put to shame, there is simply no point in them rendering at a higher resolution than the film footage they complement, because if they did, the CGI sequencs in a movie would stick out like a sore thumb.
And when it comes to TVs capable of displaying high resolutions, the simple fact is that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; even if you had an 'aspect ratio perfect' conversion in terms of image proportion, when you try and display a picture at (for example) twice its original resolution, all you are really doing is trying to get two (or more likely four) pixels to display what one pixel was originally doing. And of course when this happens on areas of an image with graduated tones, how the graduation is interpolated over a greater number of pixels has a bearing on what you get; bicubic, bilinear and nearest neighbour types of interpolation when trying to double resolutions can work well for various still image types, but since your TV is displaying moving pictures, and only using one of these methods, it follows that sometimes it will do a great job, and sometimes not. Unfortunately more often, it's a case of 'not'.

:D Chock

[Radtgaeb]

I actually like my 45" LCD better than the plasma that was next to it on the shelf, and it's only a 720p! The plasma's picture (one of the new 1080p) was very pixelated and the glare was obscene. Our viewing angle is also amazing, nearly 180*. The only thing I can complain about is the black level, but color gradients are difficult to achieve on an LCD screen, but give it some time and it'll get figured out. And I have to say, watching a Colts game or a IU basketball game on that is sometimes better than watching it in person. And yes, I HAVE been to both types of events in person.

As far as my Xbox 360 goes....well, I just use a 20" widescreen HP monitor and it gives me a very VERY good HD picture. :cool: