I know this gets asked a lot but...

Discussion in 'Displays' started by John CW, Mar 22, 2003.

  1. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was wondering if anyone could recommend a TV. I'm not just asking for general advice, I actually have a set criteria and price range. So, if anyone could help I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

    I want a 34"-40" flat screen CRT (I know RPTV is generally better... but its got to be CRT, thanks!)

    The prince range is about $1500 - $2200.

    Its got to be HDTV compatible (integrated would be nice, but I doubt I'll get one for my price! [​IMG])

    720p capable

    Decent horizontal resolution (if this actually changes between CRT models??)

    Not bothered about surround sound or anything.

    Oh and it must be 16:9 (naturally [​IMG])

    Can anyone recommend a TV within these specifications? I've looked around and spotted two (although they seem distinctly average): The Panasonic CT-34WX52 and the RCA F38310.

    Any information is greatly appreciated!

    Thanks!

    ~ Johnny
     
  2. SeanA

    SeanA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Jim Doolittle

    Joined:
    May 1, 1999
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. MikeMcGrew

    MikeMcGrew Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2000
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  6. MikeMcGrew

    MikeMcGrew Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2000
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  7. SeanA

    SeanA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    SeanA: There's no point in telling me this! I don't know anything about it! [​IMG] I'm only relaying what was told to me in the thread I linked for you... I really don't know who is right [​IMG]

    Also it's besides the point: I'm want a CRT model, for other reasons besides PQ, so it doesn't matter to me. [​IMG]

    Sean, can you tell me if the KV-34XBR800 has an integrated tuner in it? If I wanted to watch cable would I need an additional tuner? (This is all so confusing to me!)

    ~ Johnny
     
  9. John-Miles

    John-Miles Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks John-Miles, but I'm looking for a HDTV not a 4x3 one. Plus watching widescreen movies would be MUCH smaller on a 4x3 set than a 16x9 one and there WOULD be loss of detail.

    Thanks.

    ~ Johnny
     
  11. John-Miles

    John-Miles Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. SeanA

    SeanA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    John-Miles: I see your point but movies and HDTV are my main concern, hence my interest in widescreen. The difference between a widescreen and a 4:3 set when watching films is tremendous. But having a 40" widescreen TV still means having a fairly large (for me anyway) 4:3 image.

    But I am sure you are wrong about the loss of detail on a 4:3 TV. It IS a lower resolution. Perhaps someone can join in and explain this in more detail.

    Thanks,

    ~ Johnny
     
  14. John-Miles

    John-Miles Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Jim Doolittle

    Joined:
    May 1, 1999
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. John_F

    John_F Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 1999
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  17. John-Miles

    John-Miles Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  18. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    John: It's all a matter of resolution, reguardless of the "squeeze" capability. I know that with SDTV 4:3's, that even WITH a "squeeze" mode they is a DEFINITE loss of resolution (it's technically impossible for there not to be). I'm not sure about HDTV 4:3's though, but it could easily be worked out if someone took the time.

    One thing is for sure though: With a High Definition 16:9 image, there MUST be some loss of resolution.

    Thanks,

    ~ Johnny
     
  19. John-Miles

    John-Miles Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. John CW

    John CW Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    A TV's resolution cannot be altered by its software, it is a TECHNICAL specification. If a TV has 480 lines of vertical resolution and is widescreen then a 16:9 anamorphic picture is using 100% of available resolution.

    If the TV is 4:3 then some of the vertical resolution is lost drawing the black bars.

    That's about as simple as I can make it. Again I don't know about DTV/DVD images on a 4:3 HDTV, but this must be true of SDTV images on a SDTV and of HDTV on HDTV's (at the very least with 1080i images).

    Would anyone else like to comment? I'm sure someone could explain it better.

    ~ Johnny
     

Share This Page