Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

32" conventional or 27" HD ready (best tv <$500)


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 of 10 OFFLINE   Ten_Smith

Ten_Smith

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 78 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 21 2001

Posted December 07 2004 - 04:32 AM

I'd like to hear some of you weigh in on whether I should go with a 32" conventional or a 27" HD ready TV. The two types of sets are at about the same price point at the local circuit city. I've heard it said that at this size the HD does not add much. Really, I'm looking for a new tv in the <$500 segment, so more general comments are welcome as well.

#2 of 10 OFFLINE   Arthur S

Arthur S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,572 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 05:53 AM

If you can sit 3 feet away from a 27 HD, get that. If you are going to be more than 5 feet from the TV, get the 32. This goes double if you plan to watch any widescreen DVDs. The 32 to get is the Toshiba 32A43. Probably about $450. Artie

#3 of 10 OFFLINE   Jim Mcc

Jim Mcc

    Producer



  • 3,721 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2004
  • Real Name:Jim
  • LocationOconomowoc, WI.

Posted December 07 2004 - 03:41 PM

Ten, a HD TV that small is a waste of money. Go with at least a 32" with component inputs. Consumer Reports rated these sets in the Dec. issue.

#4 of 10 OFFLINE   Ten_Smith

Ten_Smith

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 78 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 21 2001

Posted December 09 2004 - 06:03 AM

Thank-you gentlemen. My wife beat me to the puch and showed with a smaller combo set (tv/dvd/vcr) for the kids room. I had been thinking of a new tv for the den and move the old one down to the kids room. Now, I'll wait and troll the after X-mass sales to see what I can find. Right now I have a 27" Toshiba, but it got some damage from a lightning storm.

#5 of 10 OFFLINE   darrylCHER

darrylCHER

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 61 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2004

Posted December 09 2004 - 07:52 AM

Ten: Check out the Sharp 32F641 at Best Buy(standard def). It has a component input, 16:9 "squeeze mode" and a flat screen. It has a great picture with any source (rf/composite/s/component). DVD's look perfect using the component input and 16:9 mode. While your at Best Buy, first turn down the picture setting to about 27 (maxed out from factory at 50), then give it a thorough looking over! I've had mine for about a month, and I swear it just keeps getting better. By the way its in your price range of <$500. Darryl

#6 of 10 OFFLINE   Ten_Smith

Ten_Smith

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 78 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 21 2001

Posted December 09 2004 - 09:06 AM

Thanks Darryl. Your post is well timed. The two questions floating around in my mind are the relative importance of flat screen and 16:9 squeeze. I'd love to hear others comment on them. Here is my take. Flat screen seems not so important to me. Sure it nice to be able to see the screen from odd angles, but are you really going to watch a movie like that? I also know that my flat screen tosh has some problem with straight lines; lines that are supposed to be straight end up having a slight bend (really, I only notice that if I specfically look for it). I like the idea of the 15:9 squeeze giving you higher resolution. I'm not sure how much real visual impact it has. I

#7 of 10 OFFLINE   darrylCHER

darrylCHER

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 61 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2004

Posted December 09 2004 - 01:35 PM

Hey Ten, this is my first flat screen and I'm sold on it. No weird geometry problems at all, on movies or test disc's.

The 16:9 mode really has a huge impact on movies. I A/B'd many of my favorite scenes when I first got the tv (finding Nemo, Monsters inc, vertical limit, ect..) and the 16:9 mode was always better by a wide margin. Heck, even my wife said there was a major difference!!! Now that is saying something. Posted Image


Darryl

#8 of 10 OFFLINE   Ten_Smith

Ten_Smith

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 78 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 21 2001

Posted December 10 2004 - 01:33 AM

Yes, the wife endorsement is rare and to be cherished ;-)

#9 of 10 OFFLINE   Jim Peavy

Jim Peavy

    Supporting Actor



  • 717 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2002

Posted December 10 2004 - 02:13 AM

Definitely get one with the 16:9 enhancement feature. I have to go into the service mode for my Tosh 32A42 (to do the "squeeze trick") and even though it doesn't do it perfectly, still a big difference.
"I just pre-ordered I DRINK YOUR BLOOD, even though I have no job."

#10 of 10 OFFLINE   MikeEckman

MikeEckman

    Screenwriter



  • 1,088 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2001

Posted December 10 2004 - 04:28 AM

If you cant afford a 32" HD TV, I HIGHLY recommend Sony's 32" WEGA 4:3 non digital TV. I dont remember the model number of the current version, but I had one called the 32FS13 which was about 3 years old. It has the 16x9 mode that everyone else is talking about and the picture quality is EXCELLENT. Most people just assumed I had a digital TV when I had DVDs playing. The contrast is awesome, the color is awesome, and so is the sharpness. I assure you, you will not find a better picture on a non digital CRT TV for your money. I paid $900 for mine a little over 3 years ago, and I think now its about $550 - $599. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!
Mike Eckman
Chicago Heights, IL
Music Webpage: http://www.metalreviewcentre.com
Car Webpage: http://www.metalrevi...com/transam.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users