I know this gets asked a lot but...

You should probably look at the Sony KV-34XBR800. I believe it is the highest rated 34" widescreen on CNet, and has most of what you are looking for. I was able to get mine from a high end local retailer for just a tad over $2K. So far I am very impressed with its performance, after tweaking the color.

BTW... Why do you say the RPTV's are "generally better" ??? I believe the consensus is that CRTs generally have better picture quality than RPTV's.

 

After calibration, the Sony 34" HDTV is quite a good looking set. The only thing it won't do on your list is 720P native, but I'm unaware of any set in the catagory you are looking in that does.

 

Hey John,
I am currently considering the RCA F38310. The integrated tuner is a nice feature considering it has a high deff component in (to bipass the direct tv tuner) as well. There are two at the CC by my house currently for $1179.00 (open box/closeout). I would rather a flat screen but at that price!!! Also, the bigger 38" tubes may be a little harder to find here pretty soon. There is such a diference between them and the 34's that I almost have to go with the bigger of the two. I too, have heard great things about the Sony. Good luck. MM

 

John, I have just spent a little time researching the RCA that I mentioned and please disregard my consideration. There were horror stories of this set actually catching on fire. I guess it's true, you really do get what you pay for! MM

 

John CW wrote:

"As for RPTV's, apparently they often offer a higher horizontal resolution."

RPTV's may have more total lines of horizontal, but I believe that is just because they are wider than most conventional CRT sets. I think when you look at resolution, you have to look at it in terms of lines of resolution "per inch". That is the only fair way of comparing one set to another of different size.

 

the 34" toshiba can be had for much less than the sony, and the greyscale on the toshiba's is generally amazing. though considering the 36" 4x3 is the same price i would get that, it has the same screen size as the 34" widescreen when your watchign WS material and it does the squeese so there is no lost resolution. but thats just my opinion.

 

Just to clarify If your set on a Widescreen hey go for it, but you seem to be misinformed.

1) 4x3 tv's are just as much HDTV's as 16x9

2) if you consider approximately 5% smaller to be MUCH smaller then hey thats your opinion, but a 36" 4x3 showing widescreen is approximately 5% smaller than a 34" but when viewing a 4:3 image the 36" is about 60% larger. Now I know Jan Strand usualy says that it just seems wrong to have broadcast tv bigger than movies, again its all preference.

3) there would be no loss of detail, they will both display the same resolution, that is what the anamorphic mode is for on these tv's

Again I am not trying to convince you to go 4:3 for me thats the better option, I am just trying to make you aware that the only differences are these, a different shaped box on your stand, 5% less total area for WS material and 60% more area for 4:3 material. oh yeah and they cost the same.

 

JohnCW,

Very few HD TV's currently come with a built-in HD tuner. You will most likely have to settle for an "HD ready" set and buy a separate HD tuner, unless you are willing to wait a couple of years to make your purchase. I think I have read that integrated tuners will be much more common-place in a couple years.

Also, someone said the 34" Toshiba (I believe 34HDX82) is less expensive than the Sony. That was not my experience. The Toshiba was actually about $50 more after I negotiated on both. I was considering the Toshiba too, which would be another good option for you.

If you are set on a 16:9, I would stick with it. I actually tried a 4:3 and was just disappointed at how little of the screen is filled with a DVD widescreen movie. I know it seems silly, but a 16:9 set just feels more satisfying when watching DVD's or HD programming.

 

I would Love it if someone would jump in on this, because there is no loss of resolution between a 4:3 tv with the anamorphic squeese and a 16x9 tv.

 

There is a great loss of resolution displaying 16x9 pictures on a 4x3 TV. For example, arbitrary numbers, (that do apply exactly to 1024x768 DLPs).

Let's say that the set has 1024x768 pixels. Now in order to display a 16x9 picture on this 4x3 set we must have black bars on top and bottom. Those black bars use pixels and you are left with 1024x576 as the resolution that will display the picture if it is 16x9 or 1.78 aspect ratio. For 2.35 aspect ratios, you are left with 1024x435.

 

Jim,

I thought "anamorphic squeeze" meant that there was no loss of resolution (as long as the device was capable of doing the squeeze correctly)?

Maybe my understanding of anamorphic squeeze is wrong? Could you please explain it?

Thanks,
John Flegert

 

Yes John you are correct, and Jim you are assuming the 4:3 tv cannot do the squeeze and i specifically said that a 4:3 tv with the squeeze ability.

what you said is however correct if the 4:3 tv cannot do the squeeze, but then there are nto very many 4:3 HDTV's that cannot do the Squeeze... I dont know of any infact.

And John simply put the anamorphic squeeze compresses all of the scan lines into a 16x9 window. ....... now allw e need is a tv that can squeeze toa user specified ratio, imagine 2.35:1 movies with no resolution lost to black bars... mmmmmmmm

 

Ok John if you are so sure then explain how there MUST be a loss of resolution, hmmm lets see same number of scan lines on both tv's so how can there be less resolution.

the whole point of a squeeze mode if to compress the resolution into into the viewable area.