Buying a 36" next weekend.... recommendations please!

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Craig Beam, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Craig Beam

    Craig Beam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Gresham, OR
    Real Name:
    Craig Beam
    It's gotta have a flat screen, and it's gotta do the anamorphic squeeze. Oh, and I need component inputs (but they all probably have those at this point, right?). I'm not really interested in the HD sets this time around (I'm hoping to keep it under $1000.00). I'm thinking either JVC or Panasonic.... Any thoughts and/or recommendations would be welcome!
     
  2. John S

    John S Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    5,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you want component video, you should be very interested in HD sets....

    If your spending that much, there would be no reason to not have HD capability.

    JVC and Panasonic both are quality manufactures.
     
  3. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Samsung makes some direct-view HD sets that might be in your price range. I think they even had a 16x9 direct-view HDTV for around $999. Do you really need a 4x3 set? 2.35 films will look pretty small all things considered. I always suggest that folks go with a 16x9-shaped set so that your "movies" which have GREAT picture quality are *bigger* than crappy "TV" pictures. Why go from an inferior picture (image quality wise) of a sit-com and shrink to an image about 1/2 its size when you want to watch Lord of the Rings????

    Should your movies be *bigger* than your TV shows? It's not just about "shoulds"...if your seating distance is optimized for 4x3 stuff then you're sitting too far away from your WS movies...or v.v.

    But if you *do* get a 4x3 set just be sure to get one that has the 16x9 squeeze. That way if you want you can move closer to your set when watching movies and maintain greater clarity from 16x9 resolution...
     
  4. Bill Will

    Bill Will Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My thoughts are that if your going to spend over $500 on a TV then get an HDTV set or go with the smaller Analog 32" JVC AV-32FA44 set because it can be had for under $500 (I've see it for as low as $488.88) & let the smaller 32" JVC tide you over until your ready to go HDTV or buy the 32" JVC HDTV AV-32DF74 which can be had for around $800 Don't know how low the JVC 36" HDTV AV-36DF74 can be had for though so you might want to check that model out. Again, over $500 go with an HDTV set. Just my 2 cents. Oh, Panasonic doesn't do the ""Squeeze Trick" but JVC's, Toshiba's, & Sony's wiil. All JVC's models & Toshiba models 32" & up have a One Year Labor Warranty compared to Panasonic, Sony & etc which only have a 90 Day Labor Warranty on all their Analog sets.
     
  5. Craig Beam

    Craig Beam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Gresham, OR
    Real Name:
    Craig Beam
    Okay, I'm now considering going with an HD set (thanks partly to the comments above), but I still have a couple of concerns.

    Of course DVDs and HD cable will look marvellous, but what about regular cable channels? I've heard conflicting reports on this. I have Dish Network, which is supposedly all-digital, but the receiver only has coax, RCA and S-video outs... so that's gonna be an analog signal going into the TV, right? Of course the satellite channels won't look as good as DVDs or HD channels, but will they look crummy? Dish accounts for at least half of my viewing, so this really does matter.

    Another thing: do all HD sets do the anamorphic squeeze automatically? Is there some sort of upconversion process involved or something?
     
  6. Ken.Nischan

    Ken.Nischan Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I can't imagine it'd look any worse than a non HD set, since you're upping the display res capability and all.
     
  7. JasonMA

    JasonMA Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Be careful with this issue. If you are someone that thinks size matters, then comparing a 16:9 TV to a 4:3 can be a bit deceiving. For example, you are considering purchasing a 36" 4:3 TV, so you pretty much know how big the image of a regular 4:3 program will be. For $1000, you can probably get a 32", maybe a 34" inch widescreen HDTV right? Well, did you know that a 16:9 image on that 36" 4:3 you had your eye on will be equivalent to an image displayed on a 33" 16:9 TV? That's right, it's in the same ballpark as the widescreens you can afford. You don't get that much of a bigger picture. However, it doesn't end there. Your 34" 16:9 HDTV will have a 4:3 image equivalent of 28" 4:3 TV. That's 8" less for 4:3 material and only 1" or so more for widescreen material on that snazzy 34" 16:9 TV. If you watch alot of 4:3 stuff, then you'll be disappointed, and you won't be getting a bigger picture on the DVD stuff anyway, so you don't win. Think some more about it before you buy.

    Just to let you know, in order to get a 36" inch 4:3 image on a 16:9 TV, you'll need to get one that is at least 44", and that will run you a lot more than your $1000 budget.

    Here's a link to a thread that this issue was discussed on if you care to read more into it. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...readid=180225.

    I actually started the thread because I was going to "upgrade" from my 36" 4:3 to a 34" 16:9. In the end, I decided to wait until I could afford a 40" to 50" 16:9 TV. Also a good link in there to a site where you can compare TVs.
     
  8. Todd K

    Todd K Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not sure what's up with those calculations. When I first got my 34" 16x9 direct-view we did all the proper measurements and determined that to get the same "size" WS movies (you can figure this out easily by comparing the width of the screen) on a 4x3 set you'd need a 4x3 tube that was about @40 inches diagonal.

    In other words, for WS viewing, the 34" 16x9 diag picture is remarkably larger...

    4x3 windowboxed material is approximately the size of a 27" 4x3 TV on my 16x9 34" tube..
     
  10. Bill Will

    Bill Will Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember you can get an HDTV set that has a 4:3 screen in sizes of 32" & 36". On a 36" set the widescreen picture would be around 33" & on a 32" set the widescreen picture would be around 29" This is the way I would go if you watch a lot of old moveis & etc. I also don't think that you can buy any 34" widescreen HDTV sets for around the $1,000 mark? The Sony 34" is closer to $2,000. That's why I say checkout the JVC 32" HDTV set for aound $800 & it will have a widescreen picture of around 29" Just my 2 cents. [​IMG]
     
  11. JasonMA

    JasonMA Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The calculations I put together are correct and can be verified using the link that Todd K posted above. I used basic triangle geometry formulas to come to my conclusions. The width of a 36" 4:3 TV is 28.8", while the width of a 34" 16:9 TV is 29.6", a difference of 0.8 ". That equates to approximatley 1" of additional diagonal viewing area, or a total viewing area that is 5.9% larger than the viewing area on a 36" 4:3 TV. I wouldn't consider that remarkably larger. The difference is almost unnoticeable, and definitely not worth plopping down an extra $500-$1,000 if you are only interested in the size of the picture. Obviously there is something to be said about the quality of the picture, but I am just comparing size because to alot of people that is an important factor.

    Also, the viewing area of a 4:3 image on the 36" 4:3 TV will be 8" additional on the diagonal, or 67.8% larger in the total viewing area over the 16:9 TV. Now that I would consider remarkably larger.

    So when you break it down, a 16:9 TV will have a 5.9% larger viewing area for 1.78/1 widescreen material, but a 4:3 TV will have a 67.8% larger area for 1.33/1 material. The numbers don't lie. It's would be difficult to choose the 16:9 TV in this situation if the only thing that matters to the buyer is size.

    And just for comparison sake, a 40" 4:3 TV would produce an image the same size as a 36.7" 16:9 TV and it would have a 16.5% larger viewing area than a 34" 16:9 TV.
     
  12. cabreau

    cabreau Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read this...it's very helpful also.

    http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm

    This is one of the reasons that I want to go with a 4:3 projector and screen. Since the width is going to be whatever I can fit anyway, might as well add the height of the 4:3 than keep it shorter by going with a 16:9.
     
  13. Craig Beam

    Craig Beam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Gresham, OR
    Real Name:
    Craig Beam
    The deed is done! I ended up going with the JVC AV-36F704... And I'm just loving it. I got it for a song (well, a $707.00 song), which was well below what I was planning on paying... which leaves me extra money to put towards my next purchase: a DVD recorder!

    Thanks to everybody who chimed in with info... I ultimately decided that the HD thing wasn't important enough to me at this point, and I'm really pleased with the picture quality of this set, particularly for the price. Both DVDs and my Dish Network channels look great, and my kids' jaws dropped open when they saw it for the first time (we upgraded from a 27"). [​IMG]
     
  14. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Congrads!
     
  15. JasonMA

    JasonMA Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice TV man. Congratulations.
     
  16. Bill Will

    Bill Will Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Craig, Congrats & after you've had the set for a few weeks I'd like to see you follow up with a test report on it.
     
  17. Craig Beam

    Craig Beam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Gresham, OR
    Real Name:
    Craig Beam
    Will do! Look for my review in the near future... [​IMG]
     
  18. Chris Tsutsui

    Chris Tsutsui Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice.... I just got a 36" HD ready Toshiba 36HF13 from costco for under $1,000 as well a couple months ago.

    I was happy with everything except for the sound which was a bit poor IMO. But I hooked up my GR-Research AV-3s with a rotel amp to the TV audio-preouts and now its excellent.

    I have Cox Cable service, and some stations have a slight grainy film over them which was less noticeable on my last 27". At least the colors and images are much improved.

    I have only watched a couple dvds on it using a playstation2. I'm thinking that I should buy a decent dvd player before I criticize the DVD performance.
     

Share This Page