Where did you hear that all TV's below 37 inches are only 720?
Check this out. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2102640411+1 38902005+138982080&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configur ator=&Subcategory=411&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc = 32 inches and 1080p. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Tomporowski Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] advise Since we're on this subject....All TV's below 37" are 720. What does one of those TV's do when fed with a 1080 signal? Or does it just not display? I've wondered about that since I would think that with the mixtures of 1080/720 stations, they'd want everything to display everything....or am I mistake because that makes sense? Steve Greg Sevart wrote: >> Scientifically, it's hard to understand why this happened because >> CRT, LCoS and DLP offered the highest picture quality at the lowest >> price, while direct-view large-screen LCDs have historically offered >> the lowest picture quality at the highest price. This seems to be the > > I disagree completely with this statement from the analysis. > Projection-based technologies have had two advantages: they're cheap and > available in very large sizes. They haven't ever really been competitive in > terms of image quality with anything other than bottom-feeder LCD and plasma > sets. > > Personally, I'm a big fan of Samsung's current lineup of LCD sets. I don't > really like their marketing though...for example, the new sets are NOT LED > TVs. They're LED-backlit LCDs. It's a major step forward in technology to be > sure, but it is still an LCD panel with the only change being from a CCFL to > LED backlight. AFAIK, the only places you'll find real LED TVs are the huge > jumbotrons at sporting venues. > > I should also mention that several people that have seen my 52" Samsung > Series 7 (LN52A750-now 1 year old) have went out and bought one themselves > based on nothing other than the spectacular image quality. Sony's best sets > are very comparable as well--you can't really go wrong with either of them > at this point. > > Plasma has always felt more like an interim technology to me, and the sales > volume supports that. There are still a few things they do better than LCDs, > but the current generation of LCDs have gotten so good that plasma really > only becomes compelling when looking for a set bigger than the 52-55" that > mainstream LCDs seem to top out at. > > Just my two cents. Opinions on this topic tend to be quite....strong. > > Greg > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4461 (20090927) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4461 (20090927) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
