- This topic has 157 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 1, 2009 at 1:07 PM #489744December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM #488916zzzParticipant
TG- LED TVs seem to mostly be hype
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10370112-82.html
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/LCD-TV-v-LED-TV-The-facts/283145.html
December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM #489082zzzParticipantTG- LED TVs seem to mostly be hype
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10370112-82.html
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/LCD-TV-v-LED-TV-The-facts/283145.html
December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM #489465zzzParticipantTG- LED TVs seem to mostly be hype
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10370112-82.html
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/LCD-TV-v-LED-TV-The-facts/283145.html
December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM #489553zzzParticipantTG- LED TVs seem to mostly be hype
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10370112-82.html
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/LCD-TV-v-LED-TV-The-facts/283145.html
December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM #489784zzzParticipantTG- LED TVs seem to mostly be hype
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10370112-82.html
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/LCD-TV-v-LED-TV-The-facts/283145.html
December 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM #488941afx114ParticipantRe: 720 vs 1080… if you do most of your watching on cable, it probably won’t matter because the cable companies compress the shit out of signal in order to squeeze more HD channels through their pipes. So while cable may be offering HD channels, their quality certainly shouldn’t be considered true HD.
1080 only comes into play if you’re watching an un-compressed source, eg BluRay or Xbox/PS.
Also, your viewing distance from the TV is a factor on whether or not 1080 matters. If you have a big screen and sit close, 1080 can be noticeable improvement, but if you have a small screen or sit far, 720 is probably fine and you wouldn’t even notice the 1080. Here’s a good graph showing optimal size/distance ratios: http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
For me, contrast ratio and refresh rate is more important than 720 vs 1080.
December 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM #489107afx114ParticipantRe: 720 vs 1080… if you do most of your watching on cable, it probably won’t matter because the cable companies compress the shit out of signal in order to squeeze more HD channels through their pipes. So while cable may be offering HD channels, their quality certainly shouldn’t be considered true HD.
1080 only comes into play if you’re watching an un-compressed source, eg BluRay or Xbox/PS.
Also, your viewing distance from the TV is a factor on whether or not 1080 matters. If you have a big screen and sit close, 1080 can be noticeable improvement, but if you have a small screen or sit far, 720 is probably fine and you wouldn’t even notice the 1080. Here’s a good graph showing optimal size/distance ratios: http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
For me, contrast ratio and refresh rate is more important than 720 vs 1080.
December 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM #489491afx114ParticipantRe: 720 vs 1080… if you do most of your watching on cable, it probably won’t matter because the cable companies compress the shit out of signal in order to squeeze more HD channels through their pipes. So while cable may be offering HD channels, their quality certainly shouldn’t be considered true HD.
1080 only comes into play if you’re watching an un-compressed source, eg BluRay or Xbox/PS.
Also, your viewing distance from the TV is a factor on whether or not 1080 matters. If you have a big screen and sit close, 1080 can be noticeable improvement, but if you have a small screen or sit far, 720 is probably fine and you wouldn’t even notice the 1080. Here’s a good graph showing optimal size/distance ratios: http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
For me, contrast ratio and refresh rate is more important than 720 vs 1080.
December 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM #489578afx114ParticipantRe: 720 vs 1080… if you do most of your watching on cable, it probably won’t matter because the cable companies compress the shit out of signal in order to squeeze more HD channels through their pipes. So while cable may be offering HD channels, their quality certainly shouldn’t be considered true HD.
1080 only comes into play if you’re watching an un-compressed source, eg BluRay or Xbox/PS.
Also, your viewing distance from the TV is a factor on whether or not 1080 matters. If you have a big screen and sit close, 1080 can be noticeable improvement, but if you have a small screen or sit far, 720 is probably fine and you wouldn’t even notice the 1080. Here’s a good graph showing optimal size/distance ratios: http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
For me, contrast ratio and refresh rate is more important than 720 vs 1080.
December 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM #489809afx114ParticipantRe: 720 vs 1080… if you do most of your watching on cable, it probably won’t matter because the cable companies compress the shit out of signal in order to squeeze more HD channels through their pipes. So while cable may be offering HD channels, their quality certainly shouldn’t be considered true HD.
1080 only comes into play if you’re watching an un-compressed source, eg BluRay or Xbox/PS.
Also, your viewing distance from the TV is a factor on whether or not 1080 matters. If you have a big screen and sit close, 1080 can be noticeable improvement, but if you have a small screen or sit far, 720 is probably fine and you wouldn’t even notice the 1080. Here’s a good graph showing optimal size/distance ratios: http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
For me, contrast ratio and refresh rate is more important than 720 vs 1080.
December 1, 2009 at 7:40 PM #489071paramountParticipantout of state to avoid being double taxed by California – the standard sales tax + the e-recycle ‘fee’.
try tiger direct
December 1, 2009 at 7:40 PM #489237paramountParticipantout of state to avoid being double taxed by California – the standard sales tax + the e-recycle ‘fee’.
try tiger direct
December 1, 2009 at 7:40 PM #489621paramountParticipantout of state to avoid being double taxed by California – the standard sales tax + the e-recycle ‘fee’.
try tiger direct
December 1, 2009 at 7:40 PM #489708paramountParticipantout of state to avoid being double taxed by California – the standard sales tax + the e-recycle ‘fee’.
try tiger direct
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.