![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.80.32.116
In Reply to: RE: Time to get specific.. posted by late on February 28, 2010 at 06:08:16
Really? My largest set is 60 inches and is five years old. I've began thinking about upgrading to 1080p and I can't imagine being happier with a smaller screen and I've been thinking of, at least, 65 inches. Perhaps I don't know what to look for and I'm unaware of the limitations.
-Wendell
Follow Ups:
I'm refusing to look too closely at the picture on my 110" screen. I don't have the cash for a "suitable" 1080p replacement projector so I'm milking the lowly 720p unit for as long as I can. There's a decision point everytime I have to spend $500 for replacement DLP bulbs....
A lot of TVs have motion artifacts, pixilation. TV and movies have too low
a framerate. The larger the set, the more I notice it. I don't usually notice these problems on a 42. They're not bad on a 50.
They jump out at me on a 60, but then you may have a better set than anything I have seen.
It all depends on the technologies used, quality of video processor in TV/source player and your eyes' sensitivity. I found the early LCDs to be particularly dreadful with pixelation issues but they've gotten much better at it. The more recent LED LCDs have brought the LCD world much closer to the picture I enjoy with Plasmas.
Most artifacts I see I will blame on inadequate channel bandwidth allocation by the satellite provider. This will only get worse as the provider steadily tries to cram more and more HD channels on their satellite broadcasts.
I don't see that but, perhaps, I'm simply used to the display. I still can't imagine going to a smaller screen when it is time to upgrade. I figure if I'm happy with a 60 inch 720/1080i picture. a 65 inch 1080p display will be acceptable.
-Wendell
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: