Bought a similar one last time, then realized after I got it that it is only 720p. :-(

That fella needs some Grecian Formula for the beard...or the hair.

mdnorman wrote:Wouldn't this be good for a college kid in a dorm room?

Maybe even to big. This tv is cheap enough to get for your kid or have in another room. Its simple enough to be efficient and effective. The dvd player resolution will be fine for most people. Its only $215 with shipping.

Old NightGhost TV links--maybe still useful:

Response Time and Refresh Rate are 2 different things:

LCD TVs: Response Time and Refresh Rates. What's the difference?

1080p charted: Viewing distance to screen size
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

NightGhost wrote:1) The eye is an extension of the brain.

2) Humans' perception is limited by their flicker fusion frequency.

NightGhost wrote:What is the Difference Between an LCD TV and a Plasma TV?

Plasma Vs LCD Vs LED TVs - What Are the Differences?

LCD TV vs. Plasma

60Hz vs. 120Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 480Hz - LCD Response Rate
http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/120hz-240hz-60hz.html

bye

whatsamattaU wrote:Old NightGhost TV links--maybe still useful:

Response Time and Refresh Rate are 2 different things:

1080p charted: Viewing distance to screen size
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

bye

I miss NightGhost. Did he have his fill of Woot?

I never knew I needed one of these in my life until just now.

flamingkatz wrote:I never knew I needed one of these in my life until just now.

There's even more to learn! If you live long enough you will know ALL your needs.

albertconklin wrote:Bought a similar one last time, then realized after I got it that it is only 720p. :-(

Actually, this TV is not natively 1080i OR 720p. The screen is 1366x728, which is common and cheap these days. 1080i is most commonly 1440×1080 in the US (Dish Network, for example, calls this "HD," which it is.) This TV will "down-sample" to display 1080i and upscale for 720p. It would also make for one lousy computer monitor.

mdnorman wrote:I miss NightGhost. Did he have his fill of Woot?

I shouldn't be (why I get too little sleep), but:
I think the links will sum up the NightGhost situation best:
http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4416903
http://wine.woot.com/forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4417064
http://wine.woot.com/forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4416905
http://deals.woot.com/questions/details/18fcea33-bd36-4c8a-9224-3399e530c180/where-are-threepiecewoot-and-nightghost

seems the public never learns from this whole combo thing.

Combo pizza = awesome
combo lcd TV + cheap ass dvd player = bad.


History: TV + Built in cheapo VCR = bad.

now you have a TV with a cheap broke THING on it and you have to go buy a new THING and plug it in.

the cheap broke THING however was not Cheap for you. LOL they built the whole thing and elevated the price, you paid premium dollars for a cheap broke thing.


much better to buy your TV then buy your superior choice for the player, or at the very least a cheap disposable one for the right price.

No 1080p? That's worse than a flash drive without USB 3.0.

Does woot have expedited shipping? I'm leaving the country next week and I want the TV to come before then...

grimskull89 wrote:Seems well received on Wal-Mart...

Yes, I've seen the photos at http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/random-photos/ and I really care about what they think! Not.

sandbar67 wrote:Is it a TV with a built in DVD player, or a DVD player with a built in TV? This matters to me.

Ah grasshopper, it is matters to this.

skou wrote:The listing says this is a TV with Monitor capabilities. Does that mean that it will WORK as a monitor, or that it will take computer input.

I'm currently looking at (yes, it's on my desk) a Samsung T27A300, as my monitor, and it does that FLAWLESSLY. It also has a real good TV tuner in it, whenever I choose to watch TV. (1920 X 1280.)

Is this RCA that good?

steve

1920x1080 or 1280x720 are the standard HDTV resolutions.

grimskull89 wrote:From the product details

• RCA 31.5” viewable LCD HDTV features a crisp 1366 x 768 resolution and serves multi-purposes with features for video games, PC monitor and HDTV
  
• HDMI combines uncompressed digital audio and video signals into a single cable for high-definition sources. Various types of inputs of the TV allow you easy connection to your devices such as a PC or a video game console
  

Yes but.... the resolution of this model is 1366 x 768.

It can do 1080i, but for some reason Woot! has it listed as 720p in the title?

Seems like a downgrade...

For smaller, less expensive HDTVs 1366x768 is the norm. It will be fine for normal TV viewing distances. It would be a little grainy if you wanted a huge desktop monitor.
All TVs have the ability to scale the standard HDTV resolutions to their native resolution. This TV happens to have 1366x768 which is not an HDTV standard, so it scales everything.

Is that Joachim Phoenix or Matisyahu?

kerrkid14 wrote:The Aspect ratio on this is not that good. at 1326X628 i believe. It does connect to a computer via hdmi (sound and picture) or VGA (Just sound) with a separate audio input

The aspect ratio is 16x9.

grimskull89 wrote:You took it out of context, I was comparing this tv for sale to what "Steve" or Skou currently has.

The thing about the 1080i vs 720p was just a note, and in terms of resolutions:

1080i results in the resolution of 1920 x 1080

where as

720p results in a resolution of 1366 x 768 (or sometimes 1280 x 720)

Though, usually tvs (like this one) will input as 1080i and output as 720p.

Source -- http://hometheater.about.com/od/hometheatervideobasics/qt/The-Difference-Between-720p-And-1080i.htm

All TVs scale either 1080 or 720 to their native resolution. This TV is 1366x768 so that is what it displays-NOT 720.

mdnorman wrote:Wouldn't this be good for a college kid in a dorm room?

Yes

whatsamattaU wrote:Old NightGhost TV links--maybe still useful:

Response Time and Refresh Rate are 2 different things:

LCD TVs: Response Time and Refresh Rates. What's the difference?

1080p charted: Viewing distance to screen size
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/



60Hz vs. 120Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 480Hz - LCD Response Rate
http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/120hz-240hz-60hz.html

bye

Thanks for the links. HDTV standards were designed with the rationale that the optimum viewing distance would be roughly 3 times picture height. SDTV viewing distance was usually given as 5 times picture height.

I'll shut up for a while.

I've vowed never to buy another RCA product again. Every single RCA item I've bought in the last 10 years has died a premature death.

In other words, decent price for what it is. Lousy product for what it is.

greatwhite35 wrote:UGH! RCA...Everything I ever bought that was RCA was junk.

Agreed. Whowever the importer is simply bought the name RCA and has NOTHING to do with the original company that built the name and reputation. These zombie companies are all too common as they suck out the last bit of "consumer recognition" from the former brand name. I tried a Roku-type box from RCA (It was cheaper) and it didn't work out of the box. Bottom feed digital cameras, mp3 players, etc. are just not quality.

LastApeMan wrote:seems the public never learns from this whole combo thing.

Combo pizza = awesome
combo lcd TV + cheap ass dvd player = bad.


History: TV + Built in cheapo VCR = bad.

now you have a TV with a cheap broke THING on it and you have to go buy a new THING and plug it in.

the cheap broke THING however was not Cheap for you. LOL they built the whole thing and elevated the price, you paid premium dollars for a cheap broke thing.


much better to buy your TV then buy your superior choice for the player, or at the very least a cheap disposable one for the right price.

Years ago, Johnny Carson (Tonight Show) remarked that he had an all-in-one stereo, CD, tape player: "It's always in the shop," he quipped.

I have this TV, it works well, good picture, but surfing between channels is not a quick thing. It takes what feels like a second for it to switch. Channel 22....black screen...image...Channel 23.....black screen....image....CHannel 24....black screen....image....etc. Annoying!

For a second I was hoping the product was a beard pillow for your dog to sleep on. Oh well, maybe next time...

I just purchased one from walmart for $250 BUT it was 1080P and brand new. I would spend a little more and purchase it there.

KennyZ308 wrote:If this had a Blue Ray player, I would be all over this Woot.....

There wouldn't be any point in that: Blu-ray is 1080i or 1080p, so even if it did have a Blu-ray player, the resolution it affords would have to be downscaled to 720p anyway...

whitcwa wrote:For smaller, less expensive HDTVs 1366x768 is the norm. It will be fine for normal TV viewing distances. It would be a little grainy if you wanted a huge desktop monitor.
All TVs have the ability to scale the standard HDTV resolutions to their native resolution. This TV happens to have 1366x768 which is not an HDTV standard, so it scales everything.

I had an old Akai TV with the same resolution years back, when you tried to use it as a monitor you had black bands around the viewing area because there was no setting on the computer that would match the TV, the closest I could get was 1280 x 720 that resulting in a smaller usable screen than the expected 32 inch viewing area. I expect this to be the same thing. So if you are expecting to use this as a cheap big monitor you may be disappointed when you find that you don't get a 32 inch screen you get closer to a 30 inch screen.

Wow, this is the biggest tablet that woot has sold in awhile, I'm in for one! ... hey, wait a minute...

LastApeMan wrote:seems the public never learns from this whole combo thing.

Combo pizza = awesome
combo lcd TV + cheap ass dvd player = bad.


History: TV + Built in cheapo VCR = bad.

now you have a TV with a cheap broke THING on it and you have to go buy a new THING and plug it in.

the cheap broke THING however was not Cheap for you. LOL they built the whole thing and elevated the price, you paid premium dollars for a cheap broke thing.


much better to buy your TV then buy your superior choice for the player, or at the very least a cheap disposable one for the right price.

Google Translate: I bought one one time, it was kinda like this, and it broke. I was really sad.

Just my uninformed opinion...combos make me apprehensive. I've had a lot of TVs and accessories over the years. TVs last, accessories seem to have a much shorter life span. For as cheap as bottom end LCDs(and even LED) and DVD players are, I don't see the rationale for buying a combo, other than as a minor convenience. Assuming this RCA is no better than the "house" brands of Walmart and Best Buy, one could get a new 32 inch and new, separate DVD player for not much more than this deal.

Does the red light across the bottom stay on when the tv is off/standby? That would be really annoying in the bedroom for sleepy time.

I am amazed how some people are hell bent on having to have a 1080p TV when ALL of the network broadcasts ARE either 720p or 1080i. NO upconverter will convert anything without conversion loss. All upconversion methods are merely marketing hype. With any 32" HDTV no one will ever see the difference between a 720p and a 1080p 32" set. There will be people that will dispute this, but do some research before you say that this statement is wrong. Satellite companies receive the 720p/1080i signal and "upconvert" it so thet can "say" it is true HD... marketing hype. For now the only advantage of 1080p is for Blueray and other 1080p HD streams.

As far as LED goes, anyone with any HDTV knowledge is aware that a "LED" TV is still a LCD TV with a LED backlight instead of a fluorescent tube. I personally dislike the blueish lighting LED back lighted TVs give.

This brand however is another thing. RCA as far as I remember is manufactured by NAP which brands all of the cheap popular American brands including Zenith, Emerson, Sylvania, Gerrard etc. and are really not known for their quality.

buttmunch007 wrote:I hope this is a fakepost. But just in case...

1080i < 720p

Hooray for Google!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXfyvlPh0

It's not that simple. All flat panels TVs are progressive, so any 1080i signal will be de-interlaced and displayed as a progressive image. In addition, if you have a 1080p television, sending it a 720p signal will require up-conversion which always impacts quality, and even more so if you have a cheap TV with poor video processing. Many will argue that de-interlacing a 1080i signal into 1080p on a good TV will look better than 720p.

But, now we're talking about de-interlacing and up-conversion, so perhaps what's REALLY important is what format the original content was is in. Some TV channels broadcast in 720p, while others in 1080i. Ideally, it's best to watch it in the same format that you receive it. Unfortunately, I believe just about all cable boxes will require us to pick one output format, and I can't find any information on what format the source content is in from the cable provider. I'm certain that cable/satellite providers are rescaling/compressing the original content, so we're not REALLY getting HDTV anyway unless we're going OTA or from a BlueRay.

My advice, if you have a TV with a native resolution of 1,366x768 then send it 720p. If you have a full 1080p TV (1920x1080 resolution) then send it 1080i.

Or, do what REALLY matters, and test both to see if you can notice a difference, and pick the one you like best.

msawyer13 wrote:It's not that simple. All flat panels TVs are progressive, so any 1080i signal will be de-interlaced and displayed as a progressive image. In addition, if you have a 1080p television, sending it a 720p signal will require up-conversion which always impacts quality, and even more so if you have a cheap TV with poor video processing. Many will argue that de-interlacing a 1080i signal into 1080p on a good TV will look better than 720p.

But, now we're talking about de-interlacing and up-conversion, so perhaps what's REALLY important is what format the original content was is in. Some TV channels broadcast in 720p, while others in 1080i. Ideally, it's best to watch it in the same format that you receive it. Unfortunately, I believe just about all cable boxes will require us to pick one output format, and I can't find any information on what format the source content is in from the cable provider. I'm certain that cable/satellite providers are rescaling/compressing the original content, so we're not REALLY getting HDTV anyway unless we're going OTA or from a BlueRay.

My advice, if you have a TV with a native resolution of 1,366x768 then send it 720p. If you have a full 1080p TV (1920x1080 resolution) then send it 1080i.

Or, do what REALLY matters, and test both to see if you can notice a difference, and pick the one you like best.

I agree with everything you stated, well said. I myself will only view local broadcasts via OTA (over the air) using an antenna because as you stated, the compression and data loss through cable and satellite significantly degrade the HD picture. An antenna connection will almost always yield a much better HDTV picture.

TV's in the US are always listed in Progressive (P) all TV's that do 720p will do 1080i (interlace) So woot is correct when they said its a 720P TV. Now a 1080p tv will do 480p/i, 720p/i and of course 1080p/i

720, 1080, etc, etc. DVD, Bluray, etc. etc. Reality is that the average person cannot even distinguish the difference most of the time. Sure, place them side by side and you will see a difference. I don't know this but someone said that the main difference in Bluray and standard DVD is in the sound, not the picture. True? I don't know. Nor do I care. Then again, I can enjoy classic black and white movies. Stop worrying about the definition of the picture and concern yourself more with the quality of the entertainment of the movie and the plot.