|
Vizio E420i-A1. Sticker price ($500) at Sam's Club, so I'm not married to them. I didn't really look too hard at, say, Best Buy or Target because they weren't exactly helpful (or maybe it had to do with bringing a laptop and headphones). Note that, thanks to being in an exurb of Los Angeles, the nearest thing remotely resembling either a Fry's or a boutique (or hell, even a not-chain) electronics shop is more than an hour's drive away. Meant for a master bedroom with a very nice (and very heavy) entertainment centre cabinet that the Vizio would fit in with a couple millimetres of lateral clearance (38.13"W vs 38.25" space; no lateral vents or right-on-the-edge ports so it shouldn't be "a thing") and all the vertical and depth clearance in the world, and enough space behind it to just crawl back there and hook cables in. Meant for a Motorola U-Verse box, so if either acts up with the other, that'd be good to know before I buy. Also might receive signal from a laptop or HD camcorder at some point. It has apps but no 3D. I don't really care about either. Passes lagom (especially the sharpness test - do you know how hard it is to find a TV that passes this?!). Appears to passes belle-nuit. Fails some custom thing off avsforum (specifically the reds), but by far less than any other TV at Sam's Club. Haven't tested it with nonstandard component input (read: Playstation 2) yet but, again, don't really care. If an alternative in 37~42" would produce a better picture and be cheaper and/or a better fit (or if the E420i-A1 is a shameful TV), feel free to bring it up. Also if installation and removing a Trinitron is available from somewhere else that'd deliver to north LA County (and - especially for the Trinitron part - doesn't cost rear end) feel free to recommend. EDIT: I missed something super obvious: whether I can even turn it enough to squeeze it in during installation  (and whether it can be turned on from the remote the first time - I have a Dorm Room Special TV that needs to be turned on from the TV itself... but then that one isn't a Vizio). Odds are this referendum is going to be void by this evening. Maybe it'll help someone else though, I dunno, so I'd rather not pull it entirely.EDIT: THE LEGEND OF CURLY'S GOLD: Yeah, I can slide and turn the base in place without scraping up the TV or the cabinet. Yeah, I got someone to take the Trinitron. No, I don't need to turn it on from the TV itself after a power outage. Since I haven't heard back about any tragedies I'm assuming I'm good to go. EDIT: THE RETURN OF THE KING: Unqualified success. Feel free to add the E420i-A1 to the "Goons bought this" list. (Also the E390-A1; performs basically the same.) dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 24, 2013 |
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
AzCoug posted:How do you get rid of that?? Some TVs do it well, some do it badly but let you turn it off, and that one is the third kind. If you have it already, see if you're in the return window. If not, pick something else. Also Game Mode might help (powerful emphasis on might) but no guarantees.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Note that buying a Plasma TV requires some additional discretion, since labeling a display 720p - which is 1280 samples per line - when it's actually 1024x768 (they're not square pixels but  ) is still more common than 1366x768 and 1280x720 combined. Actually, 1280x720 panels are rare in any format besides mobile phones these days.1080p plasma displays should be as advertised - 1920 x 1080 - but I'd double-check it, and for that matter anything you're spending that much on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
CombatMedic posted:I've had 2 Vizios in the past 4 years, and while they've worked fine, I really hate the UI / menus. It's as if there's some arbitrary rules over what I can or can't adjust. If I choose Smart Surround audio, I can't adjust the EQ. If I choose normal audio, I can't adjust the treble. If I choose A, I can't adjust B. On top of that, the menus are laggy as gently caress. The menus (at least this year) are about as responsive as you'd expect an interface powered by a TV's spare cycles to be, and the exclusions make sense. Also have you checked for firmware updates, and are you really in the menu enough for this to be a dealbreaker? As for your new TV, if the remotes aren't out, ask the staff for help.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
xarph posted:Is it safe to assume that no one makes TVs with s-video connectors any more? Time to buy an s-video->hdmi converter box and stop fighting progress? They're still available, if you hit up Google Shopping, but you could have to go far afield to get one. A conversion box or (if they still make those with DIN sockets) a receiver may be a better option, and will certainly endure the march of progress better. If it's not so much because that's the best a device can push* but because you're paranoid about it being terrible with a better transmission format**, a lot of TVs have scalers that are on the ball now - but you'd be best off taking your device with you to check. *Mostly S-VHS and 4th- and 5th-generation video game consoles. **The PlayStation 2 specifically. I think it's the only vaguely common A/V device (probably not the only thing manufactured) that ever pushed non-standard YPbPr - as in not just not always 720 samples per line in 480i mode but variable samples per line. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
xarph posted:As mentioned above, it's the best quality video you can get out of the PS2 with best compatibility. Most PS2 games work with component, but PS1 games don't, at least on my current TV (Vizio VL370) THAT would be because your TV's scaler doesn't do 240p/288p/"Arcade Mode". It's common with analog component ADCs that are slaves to the DTV-derived parts of the component video spec. I bet certain games - notably Final Fantasy but in practice like half of them - look like they got stretched in MS Paint. If they're using 512 framebuffers (576 samples) or less then that's pretty much what's happening, and I haven't seen a flatscreen that did those justice since like 2009 - but modern TVs are getting closer, oddly enough at a time when such a task will soon no longer be useful. The only thing I can recommend is try your PS2 with some TVs. I don't know if your typical electronics chain will understand (although Best Buy did back at the end of 2011), but anything that moves TVs is usually worth tolerating and any salesperson worth their salary or store worth your patronage will know it's not worth a customer's time to try and hack a TV, especially over component video, and if you do something really objectionable they probably have a legal recourse. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
EDIT: Some mad soul is going out trying to catalogue displays by input lag (in this instance, total port-to-screen time). It's probably going to take a while to build up and may never be comprehensive, but we can at least watch and hope.euphronius posted:The worst part of finally getting HD is that DVDs no longer hack it. How did I use to live with that quality of picture. CRT is a hell of a drug. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:I'm looking at a Vizio 42 ($478) and a Sanyo 42($378). At least on the Sanyos I've seen you can't actually turn off the overscan. (Admittedly one HDMI port might be different from the others, and I'm almost certain someone will counterexample.) For some people it's worth $100 to not do that. For me it makes the Sanyo worthless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Van Dis posted:I need a television recommendation. I haven't had one in a decade so I'm pretty out of touch with the current technology. I think my major limiting factors are: They have 1080p displays that cut it, but they're small enough that they're liable to cheap you out with a TN screen or something; you may be better off with like a big 1080p monitor if you can guarantee IPS and you don't need sleep timer. The distance chart gets trotted out a lot, but 720s don't have a lot of traction here because almost all 720p panels are actually 1366x768 (or for some plasmas 1024x768!), meaning nothing is sharp and everything gets subjected to disposable office monitor levels of quality. quote:-I might get a video game console at some point, but like a Gamecube or PS2, because all these newfangled games are too much for my old brain Ooooooogh. Not sure if anyone has decent component video or any S-Video anymore. And a computer monitor almost certainly won't have either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
In practice, you can add around 40% to useful viewing distance because of how light and retinas actually behave, and get a start on making it a decent distance chart. The idea that you can go 'oh hey this is where a center-FOV pixel is one arcminute wide; okay that's the line then' is actually sort of adorable in a 'they're actually so naive that they can believe this' sense. Also some TVs are declaring themselves 1080p while ... you guessed it being 136#x768. Like the one the dude above looking for 720p brought up. I'd say that the actual pixel grid size should have to be declared in big unmistakable type on the package, but I'm guessing regulatory capture. And I'm not sure the Xbox One recommendation in the OP is a good idea. Or any console recommendation, really, but considering that it doesn't even let you get rid of one TV receiver - let alone all of them - and can't be used with RF-jack Freeview, Xbox One comes across as a bit empty promises. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Fortunately 768p masquerading as 1080p is not terribly common, and probably only in the cheapass and/or <=32" end. The only time I remember seeing it in this thread (recently) was in Van Dis' query earlier this page. As for Xbox One, apparently the vast majority of their fancy TV stuff is just HDMI passthrough (one IN port) + overlay. Nothing you'd really miss unless you just have to voice-command your TV, and not a lot of practical demonstration, leaving concerns that the receiver's services could conflict with Xbox Video and other native on-demand and livestream services. Considering the 360 had native apps for Verizon FiOS and Comcast Xfinity (and AT&T U-Verse, until AT&T deprecated the kit around the time the U-Verse app got Gold-gated) it's actually kind of a step back. v v v That's a bit of a relief. I think. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:Is anybody aware of a display that has multiple VESA mount sizes? I would like to be able to mount a display to a wall with 400x400 interface while having another 100x100/75x75 interface available to mount a computer to, but I'm having a hell of a time finding a simple solution. You'd probably be better off finding a VESA mount with its own VESA mount  or an acceptable substitute for one. I would be kinda really surprised if you couldn't tack a nano-PC to at least one adjustable mount on the market.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
TVs do weird things sometimes. Go stop by your local only technically not Best Buy with a laptop or something. Give the settings a whirl. See for yourself. NOTE: Color resolution issues (4:4:4 vs 4:2:2 vs whatever) aren't an issue unless you're using your TV for a PC monitor beyond this test phase, as broadcast and even Blu-Ray video is all 4:2:2 anyway and video games consoles expect no better because of this, and something like f.lux's darkroom mode (only in beta) is probably a better tool to evaluate this than all those test screens put together. If you can't turn off overscan, however, the TV can go get scrapped.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:If I have a PS3, is there really any need to have a Smart TV? It seems neat but pretty unnecessary if you already have a way to stream things. I guess the only benefit would be the ability to watch ESPN3/streaming on the big screen. Strictly speaking no, but 'smart' features are so commodity - and thereby so pervasive - at this point that you'd be doing yourself a disservice performance/quality-wise by excluding smart TVs from your search.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Looks like Sony's figured out gamers care about input lag. They're putting it in print now: Maybe if the one in the bottom left is 4:4:4 it might be worthwhile.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
blargle posted:I've got an HTPC and don't care about smart TV, is it possible to buy a dumb TV with a high end display? Or are the good displays always bundled with smart TV features? Smart TV features cost like 2 bucks a unit. For decent manufacturers putting them in everything is usually cheaper than sometimes not putting them in. Also crappy sets sometimes come with smart features. Basically there's no relation between quality and 'smart', so unless it's intrusive (and rest assured, people will bring up if it's intrusive) or you're actually after smart features it's literally not worth thinking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
catch22 posted:ST60 is better, particularity in a brighter room, but it's also a pretty fair step up in price ($1000 for a 50"). It still has a great picture, plus it's $700 new, with warranty, as opposed to a TV you bought off craigslist for almost that price. He said gaming, and even in whatever passes for game mode the ST60 has four to five frames of input lag 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Just about any TV sold in the past few years will deal with 1080p signals just fine, even if it's actually 1366x768 (which has basically supplanted 'true' 1280x720 panels). http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ is a fairly exhaustive set of test images. Use your PS4 to test your TV; even though there's an offline set so you don't have to have Gold and use IE, the 360's scaler makes a mess of anything high-res. Note also that the TV's image processing (motion interpolation, overused sharpening, less than 4:4:4 chrome subsampling) can damage your picture as well. sellouts posted:How close are you sitting to it? I bet you won't be able to notice a difference between 1080p and 720p on that small of a screen. Neither light nor human vision works the way any thought process that would produce this comment would require them to. Most of those distance charts are garbage because they assume your eye works like, and maps cleanly to, the pixels on your LCD (which is such a flawed assumption that it is not even wrong) and discount the visual cortex's ability to resolve line thicknesses and angles far narrower/subtler than the distribution of photosensors on the retina suggests. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
On the one hand, 4K is not in and of itself ready for prime time, and I don't know if it can be updated for HDMI 2.0 later if it's not there now - I would contact Sony themselves with the model number for more information. On the other hand, what you yourself have seen at least merits coming back with your own test sources. And on ... that one foot you can sort of pick stuff up with I guess, if a TV's too small for your room then it's too small for your room. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Short version: 4:4:4 means it actually calculates color for each pixel, rather than averaging 2 to 8 of them and assigning that hue to the lot. Brightness is accurate per-pixel regardless of that number, so long as it's 4:something and the panel isn't utter garbage. DVD and Blu-Ray are generally encoded 4:2:2 (color is averaged across lateral pairs). Computer interfaces and video games are generally intended for 4:4:4. 4:2:2 takes considerably less processing power to render than 4:4:4. Practical upshot: It's fine for movies, TV and consoles (at least through this generation), but not so much for computers. Long answer: Google chroma subsampling. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
For things that aren't 'use it as a PC monitor': non-factor. 4K video is 4:2:2 and game consoles don't put games out in 4K. For things that are 'use it as a PC monitor': ruin. Even with each pixel taking up as little space in your visual field as it would at 4K, for text and interface elements it can be literally headache-inducing. Although it's not as bad as it would be years ago, since the modern visual language for operating systems is becoming all flat and simple, and basically abandoning subpixel antialiasing because you can't count on the pixel layout with things like tablets that can turn any which way. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
those guys on the previous page posted:6500K looks kinda orange-ish? Of course you're confused, because it shouldn't be orange-ish. White-point temperatures in color processing are a reference to black-body radiation, as in the band of light an object emits by simple virtue of being a certain temperature (in Kelvins). That's why infrared cameras see people and animals better than stuff like trees, and why stars like the Sun glow (and also incandescent lights). That's also why things get red-hot, then white-hot (actually mostly green but there's still enough red and blue to dilute it to white-ish), then blue-hot. (UV temperatures are still described as blue-hot, because they emit an absurd amount of light in almost the entire spectrum, and you still get tons of blue light.) White like you see in daylight is 5000K, because the Sun's surface is 5000K and that's the kind of light you get in daylight. If anything, 6500K should be aggressively blue. The display looks a little orange when it's calibrated because you're used to looking at something bluer than that - in fact, bluer than outside. Super-orange if you're using incandescent lights, because those are mostly 2700-3500K, depending on the filament and inert gas in use. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Yeah, the Gamecube cable was some 60-dollar active cable (the box itself spat out digital (I think) 4:2:2) and only the first-edition Gamecubes had the port. And then the Wii came out with component for everyone (for about 2/3 of its run), and now Dolphin's supplanting the Wii and there aren't that many Wii U or late Wii users who haven't had their fill of the Gamecube's library AND refuse to use Dolphin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:FUHD I get the feeling that's going to get changed to XHD or something at some point and (if they don't go with "or something")  backup drive manufacturers and, according to Wikipedia, one Mexican broadcaster in particular will be cordially invited to pound sand.And then, a few decades on, everything will be at terminal definition anyway or the economy/biosphere/peak $resource won't support manufacture of new data displays or something and our progeny and the youngest of us can marvel at resolution acronyms like the relic they probably should have been sometime before someone coined WUXGA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Can the human eye even distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p at a distance of ten feet if the screen is less than 46 inches? If it's in good condition. Or sometimes even if it's in marginal condition. This applies to both the TV and your eyes. You should probably give your eyes a chance rather than take the advice of hastily made Internet charts unexamined. Keep in mind that an independent TV shop will be hard to find in many places and chain shops usually make TVs as vibrant and high-contrast as their market segment demands, blowing the image fidelity to Hell. Also there haven't been good 720p screens since people got the idea of producing 1366x768 screens in any quantity. So really any 720p screens. Yeah you pretty much shouldn't buy less than actual 1920x1080 1080p even at 15 inches now. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Fremry posted:you can't distinguish individual pixels on a 1080p TV. Substantiate your claim. No one is arguing with you about "4K". 720p content CAN look better at 2160pK because unlike 1080p (1.5x scale) it's an even multiple of 720p (3x scale), but you're right in that this probably isn't worth paying more for a smaller, lower color quality panel. A better reason for Viper_3000 to skip UHD panels for the moment is that the protocols and signal density that the panel's computer can handle aren't rec.2020 reference-ready, let alone actual 3840x2160 full-color-density PC-style-input ready, and at least the 1080p display would continue to be useful for longer (and if it wasn't it's probably easier to resell a 60" TV to one of the neighbors later on than a 50" model). But no part of a comparison between 3840x2160 panels and 1920x1080 panels made you say that even the 1080 panel is useless; in fact it wasn't even relevant - and you did anyway. I could make an argument rooted in why above-1080p displays are hitting everything from laptops to cell phones, but I want to hear from the person who made the statement whether they have anything worth countering. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I like how its already been stripped before 2.2 has been fully implemented. Why the gently caress do we have HDCP again? Its done nothing but gently caress consumers. Because Hollywood in equal parts is tremendous cowards, seems hellbent on pretending it's not other Academy members or distributors responsible for most of the cinema piracy, and wants things to work the way they did in the days when movies could be physically scarce.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
EDIT: ^ ^ ^   EL BROMANCE posted:Depending on what he uses the TV for, and his viewing distance. His TV is 1024x768. Yes, I know it's 16:9, but it's still 1024x768. You had to go over 50" for square pixels on 2008 Panasonic plasmas, and that was still 1366x768. Nothing is ever native resolution on such a screen. Also the whole "plasma is axiomatically better than LCD" chestnut that overlooks variations in quality between manufacturers, that LCDs have had seven years to become more refined and more commonplace, and that the plasma in question has seven years of wear on it. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 21:02
|
|