Re: Not enough emphasis on picture quality in general..AGREED..more...

66.185.85.81

Posted by Rich H on January 18, 2002 at 10:27:03

In Reply to: Not enough emphasis on picture quality in general posted by Ted in NJ on January 18, 2002 at 07:31:09:

Agreed Ted.

I purchased my Panasonic Tau 27" tv over seven years ago, based on it's excellent picture quality. I still get a better picture on that thing than most of the displays I've seen in stores and it's hard to replace it with anything meaningfully better (except, darn it, a plasma).

Two things in my TV's favor: 1. I have tweaked the best picture out of it, whereas the dumbasses in most stores can't seem to be bothered to actually take five minutes and adjust their display models to look decent.
2. Many of the larger CRTs costing mega bucks are using internal processing (line doubling etc) to try to reduce scan lines and artifacts. I find myself quite aware of the unnatural artifacts that this processing produces. Whereas, my Panasonic does not screw with the picture info with processing, and at 27" from most viewing distances the scan lines are invisable. The result is an absolutely amazing little jewel of a picture - wonderful clarity, no distracting artifacts. It simply looks better than what I see in most show rooms.

It's funny. I was recentlyl in a high-end AV store standing beside a father and son who were being shown some 32" (I think) Sony tvs. Both sets were showing "Bug's Life." One Sony set was the "basic" model, while the other was a couple thousand dollars more, owing to it's internal line doubling/processing which reduced scan lines.
The salesman was going on his oratory, aimed at convincing these two guys why the more expensive picture looks better, sharper, truer, richer. But anyone could see the "basic" model had a subjectively clearer, punchier picture (despite slightly visable scan lines). The Father and Son pointing at the basic model both said: "But that one looks better." Causing the salesman to cast a look as if these bumpkins just couldn't appreciate quality. But the customers were right on the ball. Good for them for using their own eyes.

Rich.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - Rich H 07:12:01 01/11/02 (21)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - Sam9 14:51:39 01/18/02 (0)

Not enough emphasis on picture quality in general - Ted in NJ 07:31:09 01/18/02 (2)

Re: Not enough emphasis on picture quality in general..AGREED..more... - Rich H 10:27:03 01/18/02 (1)

Agreed - bobo1 23:20:38 01/30/02 (0)

Re: I wish they'd bring back Beta... - Jim Willis 01:19:38 01/15/02 (0)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - xenon101 06:24:21 01/14/02 (1)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - abraham 07:41:14 01/31/02 (0)

Theaters - better video, but annoying people too - Larry S 18:25:39 01/12/02 (0)

You haven't seen... - Rod M 14:42:48 01/12/02 (0)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - sam9 11:23:16 01/12/02 (0)

We have all seen... - Estes 19:57:05 01/11/02 (3)

Re: We have all seen... - sam9 11:27:14 01/12/02 (1)

Film has been around for a century... - Estes 18:16:43 01/15/02 (0)

But the sound is so much better(nt) - bstan 21:29:47 01/11/02 (0)

Agree to a point but .... - John C. - Aussie 18:02:20 01/11/02 (0)

a vast, Right Wing cable conspiracy... - petew 16:34:41 01/11/02 (0)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - SamM 08:50:17 01/11/02 (1)

No Flames, I agree - bstan 17:19:25 01/11/02 (0)

Re: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... - KenS 08:47:35 01/11/02 (2)

That is only when audiophiles set up HT - lwang 13:10:47 01/11/02 (1)

Re: That is only when audiophiles set up HT - Lizard 19:42:09 01/27/02 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: Not enough emphasis on picture quality in general..AGREED..more... - Rich H 10:27:03 01/18/02 (1)

Agreed - bobo1 23:20:38 01/30/02 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.