Is this the live action Squidbillies movie???

Why is it letterboxed when it's on a widescreen tv/monitor?

burnsk73 wrote:Waste of money. I bought a 42" LG Plasma, that WAS HD and brand new, from Best Buy for 1199.00.

No deal here.

1080p? Wow really? What model is it?

rzunig1 wrote:
Doesn't matter to me what he knows, I know they are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but I saw it with my own eyes. It doesn't matter how much it's compressed, it all depends on what is done with the signal within the box.

Exactly. You have no control over what is done with that signal. The shills at Best Buy have TVs set up with either default settings or high contrast/saturation so it "looks pretty." None of the sets at the large retailers are calibrated properly, and therefore they shouldn't be trusted 100%.

Everyone sees differently, and will see it from different angles and distances, but if you're looking for the technically best than there is no arguing. For a 42" TV, honestly IMO, in a family room situation 1080p isn't worth it, the money saved on a 720p set will allow for a nicer sound system that will better enhance the experience than the extra resolution.

For some of us that have 50, 60, 70" screens that are 1080p, signal matters. Quit getting your panties in a bind when I am spouting FACTUAL information. You live in the country, OK, OTA HD doesn't apply to you, but it doesn't make what I said less true.

There are many people on here that do not have a huge technical knowledge of home theatres, etc, and they should be fed ACCURATE information. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that some like yourself would be able to rationalize that some of the things I am talking about are irrelevant.

Oh I am not a direct TV fan. I have Comcast and could not be happier.
If you like your CBS NBC than thats great, I like the many choices cable has to offer me. HBO,SHOtime etc. all in HD on my 58 inch Panasonic plasma

I have a Samsung LCD in the kitchen as well and there is simply NO contest in PQ

That was in response to my comment about DirecTV's poor HD signal, but has nothing to do with. You like cable, so what? That is fine you like whatever, I was just trying to inform the uninformed about the quality of signals.

That last line, what does that mean? There is no contest in PQ between LCD, Plasma, and DLP? Or no contest between cable, OTA, and satellite (you don't mention HD or not)? Or contest in terms of Samsung vs. ____? I'm going out on a limb to guess that your TV in your kitchen is 32" or less, in which case, the smaller the TV gets the better the quality ALL signals will look.

Titanium400 wrote:

1080p? Wow really? What model is it?

My LG? It's the one that's going for about 1800 right now. It went on sale and is about the best LG Plasma you can buy.

pixelbender wrote:

Exactly. You have no control over what is done with that signal. The shills at Best Buy have TVs set up with either default settings or high contrast/saturation so it "looks pretty." None of the sets at the large retailers are calibrated properly, and therefore they shouldn't be trusted 100%.

Everyone sees differently, and will see it from different angles and distances, but if you're looking for the technically best than there is no arguing. For a 42" TV, honestly IMO, in a family room situation 1080p isn't worth it, the money saved on a 720p set will allow for a nicer sound system that will better enhance the experience than the extra resolution.

For some of us that have 50, 60, 70" screens that are 1080p, signal matters. Quit getting your panties in a bind when I am spouting FACTUAL information. You live in the country, OK, OTA HD doesn't apply to you, but it doesn't make what I said less true.

There are many people on here that do not have a huge technical knowledge of home theatres, etc, and they should be fed ACURATE information. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that some like yourself would be able to rationalize that some of the things I am talking about are irrelevant.

You're not spouting anything factual. Did you read those google results you posted? I did and the time warner claim has not been proven with any facts, it even says so in the articles on the page you posted, so DirecTV is still showing the commercials. So pick up your purse and go home!
You obviously have no facts.

DJ69 wrote:

Again, can I have what you are smoking?
It must be some good stuff. Either that or you are basing your babble on just YOUR experience.

1) no you can't have any
2) Cable is compressed via modulation and satellite is compressed via MPEG-2/4. OTA is uncompressed.

Here's a link - read it and learn.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6400524.html

A good quote:

"a single, uncompressed HD stream at 1080i, currently the highest-resolution specification in wide use, consumes about 1.4 Gigabits of bandwidth per second — 36 times the capacity available via one channel in a modern cable network."

pixelbender wrote:

if you're looking for the technically best than there is no arguing. For a 42" TV, honestly IMO, in a family room situation 1080p isn't worth it, the money saved on a 720p set will allow for a nicer sound system that will better enhance the experience than the extra resolution.

Well at least you got one thing right.

Bottom line is you do NOT need a 1080p set right now unless you play Blue Ray movies or play PS3. Unless you can afford that nice 103 inch Panny 1080p plasma. But for 60 grand I'd rather have a nice car

If you want REAL information go to http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=9/

As for you over the air signals. I'm glad YOU are getting great quality on your limitednumber of HD channels. TRo say it's better than cable in general is silly.

Well, actually cheaper now.


http://www2.shopping.com/xPO-LG-42PC3DC

drew30319 wrote:

1) no you can't have any
2) Cable is compressed via modulation and satellite is compressed via MPEG-2/4. OTA is uncompressed.

Here's a link - read it and learn.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6400524.html

A good quote:

"a single, uncompressed HD stream at 1080i, currently the highest-resolution specification in wide use, consumes about 1.4 Gigabits of bandwidth per second — 36 times the capacity available via one channel in a modern cable network."

Wow, thanks, someone else who actually has a clue commenting.

mosigma wrote:too rich for my blood, but nice pic on the display!

wait... how is that pic "nice"... what is it?...

pixelbender wrote:

But most 1080p sets display 1080i at 1080p. Most people buying 1080p are buying it for HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Also, most people want to "future proof" their electronics as best as possible.

To the idiots replying "what are you smoking" in regards to the "best signal OTA""

The "best signal OTA" is referring to HD and digital signals ONLY. For the most part, you either get the signal or you don't (if it is weak, you might get artifacting, which means you either have a watchable channel or you don't).

HD signals broadcast over the air either have no compression or less compression, and offer the best picture quality. Cables and satellite compress the HD signals HEAVILY, adding artifacts and just making the picture look like crap. No to mention they often up-res stuff. DirecTV is the WORST and has the WORST HD signals of any source.

Good point and I agree! I watch all of my HDTV channels OTA although I have cable to watch some of the news networks only available on cable. AND, I don't pay for/lease/rent an additional set top box to complicate the already six remotes I have.

rzunig1 wrote:
You're not spouting anything factual. Did you read those google results you posted? I did and the time warner claim has not been proven with any facts, it even says so in the articles on the page you posted, so DirecTV is still showing the commercials. So pick up your purse and go home!
You obviously have no facts.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6400524.html

"Now Time Warner Cable is suing DirecTV in federal court over those ads, insisting the quality of its HDTV signals is at least on par with satellite. In a lawsuit filed Dec. 7, the cable operator said DirecTV's ads touting supposedly superior high-definition picture quality were false. (In the same suit, Time Warner also accused DirecTV of falsely advertising that certain games available on NFL Network would be unavailable to cable subscribers in New York and other cities.)

Time Warner Cable said in its complaint that its HDTV services “provide exactly the same screen resolution” as DirecTV's and that the satellite company cannot substantiate the claim of superior picture quality. DirecTV declined to comment on the suit.

But Time Warner didn't specify the bit rates at which it distributes HDTV signals. In its lawsuit, the company said it 'simply makes available sufficient bandwidth to permit that level of resolution to be passed through to its viewers.'" [emphasis added for those of you that still don't get it]

drew30319 wrote:OTA is uncompressed.

"a single, uncompressed HD stream at 1080i, currently the highest-resolution specification in wide use, consumes about 1.4 Gigabits of bandwidth per second — 36 times the capacity available via one channel in a modern cable network."

Whoops. Amazing how they can pack 1.4Gigabits of data into a 19megabit channel without compression.

DJ69 wrote:
Well at least you got one thing right.

Bottom line is you do NOT need a 1080p set right now unless you play Blue Ray movies or play PS3. Unless you can afford that nice 103 inch Panny 1080p plasma. But for 60 grand I'd rather have a nice car

If you want REAL information go to http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=9/

Won't some 1080p sets also benefit those 1080i signals (whether from OTA, cable, or sat) by displaying them in progressive? Not arguing, I'm just suggesting that that might be another reason to have the 1080p set (for instance if you watch a lot of UniveralHD which is broadcast in 1080i).

As for you over the air signals. I'm glad YOU are getting great quality on your limitednumber of HD channels. TRo say it's better than cable in general is silly.

That last sentence hints that me saying "OTA is better than cable" in general makes me think you are saying I'm talking about number of channels? Because I never said that. In fact, I've even said it might not apply to those outside of larger markets.

Otherwise, I stand by my statement that, in general, the PQ of an OTA HD signal will be better in all regards in comparison to that HD signal from that station carried over cable or satellite.

I checked out the same Westinghouse monitor they are selling at BestBuy for $999 and it is the 720p monitor.
This one is a 1080p monitor

pixelbender wrote:


That last line, what does that mean? There is no contest in PQ between LCD, Plasma, and DLP? Or no contest between cable, OTA, and satellite (you don't mention HD or not)? Or contest in terms of Samsung vs. ____? I'm going out on a limb to guess that your TV in your kitchen is 32" or less, in which case, the smaller the TV gets the better the quality ALL signals will look.

Of course I'm talking HD, who cares about SD?

What I'm saying is LCD TV's (no matter the size or make) PQ are no where as good as a plasma, but that isn't what this is about so we can drop that.

LCD is good for one reson only. If you have a really lit room. (plasma glare sucks)Other than that LCD TV's are a complete waste.

DJ69 wrote:

Of course I'm talking HD, who cares about SD?

What I'm saying is LCD TV's (no matter the size or make) PQ are no where as good as a plasma, but that isn't what this is about so we can drop that.

LCD is good for one reson only. If you have a really lit room. (plasma glare sucks)Other than that LCD TV's are a complete waste.

My bad, I thought that comment was in response to something I said, but was just thrown out there apparently.

Camoli wrote:

Good point and I agree! I watch all of my HDTV channels OTA although I have cable to watch some of the news networks only available on cable. AND, I don't pay for/lease/rent an additional set top box to complicate the already six remotes I have.

Yeah, some TVs have both a cable/sat coax imput and an intenna input just so that you can get those HD signals OTA. For instance, the 61" Infocus popular on woot.

You are right, this isn't one of them and I'm just trying to warn people not to impulse buy just to save a few bucks.
you get what you pay for in life, always remember that.
Sure there are good deals here but TV sets are NOT included in it. Woot always has junk when it comes to electronics.
Their junk DLP sets are a prime example.

I've been having a totally satisfactory and trouble-free experience watching TV on a woot-purchased DLP for over 18 months, and you and I must have very different definitions of 'junk'.

You see that those ugly-ass lime green headphones sold out yesterday? I suspect my definition's a lot more mainstream than yours, dude.

burnsk73 wrote:

EVERY SINGLE LG PLASMA, including their most expensive ($2500) one, is 1024*768, which has HALF as many pixels as a 1080p set such as this one.

Saying it supports 1080 is a purely semantic cop out to answering his question. Yes it will take a 1080i input signal and put a picture on the screen, but it's still physically a 768p display, and there's nothing any source can ever do about that. It's a limitation of the set.

no tuner!!??!!

Titanium400 wrote:

He, as well as I, asked if it's 1080p.

These are the specs:

Broadcast Format Displayed What is this?
720p (HDTV) • 480p (EDTV) • 480i (SDTV)
Broadcast Format Supported What is this?
1080i (HDTV) • 720p (HDTV) • 480p (EDTV) • 480i (SDTV)


So no, it's not 1080p. However, you didn't call me a "troll". That was the only reason I attacked that idiot.

DJ69 wrote:

Of course I'm talking HD, who cares about SD?

What I'm saying is LCD TV's (no matter the size or make) PQ are no where as good as a plasma, but that isn't what this is about so we can drop that.

LCD is good for one reson only. If you have a really lit room. (plasma glare sucks)Other than that LCD TV's are a complete waste.

Wait just a minute...you didn't present DLP technology in your argument. You need to be fair before you present your case! And, quite frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about....

DJ69 wrote:
Pecking order of HDTV:
1. Plasma.
2. LCD.
3. DLP (poor mans' HD)

According to you. Some prefer LCD because of the available resolution at a lower price to use a computer with. Some would prefer a DLP (incorrectly labeled "poor mans hd") because you can get a larger set for the same price as a small plasma. Some would prefer DLP over plasma due to burn-in issues for video games, etc. IMO, Plasma gets you the deepest blacks but a well calibrated quality DLP (or LCD variances such as SXRD) will easily hold its own, and cost:size issues and lack of burn-in make it the winner for what I need a tv for.

While long-term tests may not be in, the way I see it:

I can save money buying the same size DLP as a Plasma. That plasma may die (in terms of useable PQ, brightness, etc) in 8 years, but if the difference is $900 than I can buy a bulb for $150 for the DLP and for the equivalent price of the plasma the DLP will last me 12 years (assuming 2 years per $150 bulb, may very better or worse). Plus, replacing that bulb gets you a "brand new" PQ in terms of brightness. My $0.02

EDIT: I mis-spoke. CRTs have the deepest blacks, but for the purpose of this conversation (and really this day in age, in terms of tech being currently produced) plasmas have the best. RIP my 30" HD CRT.

jimbot wrote:why would they put two DVI inputs? and only one hdmi? that just seems silly...

Dual PC's! One with all your security apps for browsing and runnning applications and the other with a stripped down OS installation and minimal drivers at boot up for gaming. I have a dual input monitor now and on my gaming PC from cold boot it takes 20 seconds to be at desktop executing an icon.

using_the_whole_fist wrote:

I've been having a totally satisfactory and trouble-free experience watching TV on a woot-purchased DLP for over 18 months, and you and I must have very different definitions of 'junk'.

You see that those ugly-ass lime green headphones sold out yesterday? I suspect my definition's a lot more mainstream than yours, dude.

OTOH the 61" infocus I get in the bandolier was a POS, had problems within 6 months. (Also has many known problems, 61md10.org I believe it is, and the bulb on that particular tv is $500 to replace).

burnsk73 wrote:

These are the specs:

Broadcast Format Displayed What is this?
720p (HDTV) • 480p (EDTV) • 480i (SDTV)
Broadcast Format Supported What is this?
1080i (HDTV) • 720p (HDTV) • 480p (EDTV) • 480i (SDTV)


So no, it's not 1080p. However, you didn't call me a "troll". That was the only reason I attacked that idiot.

1080i is visually closer to 720p. So this Westinghouse 1080p is an outstanding deal.

Titanium400 wrote:

1080i is visually closer to 720p. So this Westinghouse 1080p is an outstanding deal.

refurb (rox0rz!) though? I bought the Sova during the last Woot-Off and my sister just hooked it up today. Said it's cloudy, but her Sat box only has A/V cables.

EDIT: Damn re-fur-b filter.

Is there no hope of buying a separate warranty, or being protected by credit card based additional warranty when buying r-e-f-u-r-b on woot?

I've already had an impulse-HDTV-purchase gone awry with an as-is Sony 34XBR960, so I shall be weary to look twice at anything I can't get an extended warranty on.

pixelbender wrote:

OTOH the 61" infocus I get in the bandolier was a POS, had problems within 6 months. (Also has many known problems, 61md10.org I believe it is, and the bulb on that particular tv is $500 to replace).

You're complaining about the junker you got for free? there are reasons those things go in the Bifurcated Oral Cavities.

using_the_whole_fist wrote:

I've been having a totally satisfactory and trouble-free experience watching TV on a woot-purchased DLP for over 18 months, and you and I must have very different definitions of 'junk'.

You see that those ugly-ass lime green headphones sold out yesterday? I suspect my definition's a lot more mainstream than yours, dude.

I never said DLP's were "troublesome" I said they were the lowest order of HD.
The viewing angle SUCKS, rainbow effects and bulb replacement all work against a DLP set.
Again, its a poor mans HD set. Nothing wrong with it if you are on a budget.

So how about using this as a computer and/or gaming monitor?
8ms response time, 1080p resolution, DVI inputs...

Provided I have the video card capability, would more graphically detailed computer games look just as amazing, or better, than a standard CRT monitor?

gcadidas13 wrote:So how about using this as a computer and/or gaming monitor?
8ms response time, 1080p resolution, DVI inputs...

I've been using the 37" version as a PC monitor for the past 6 months. It's unreal. The only way I'd ever replace it is with a bigger westy (like this one!).

TehCaspia wrote:

LCD by FAR. They are MUCH cheaper in price, last decades longer, the bulbs are much cheaper, and they last longer too...AND most importantly, burn in almost never happens, whereas with plasma youll have trouble.

i agree with you LCD are better. but they dont last decades longer, just years longer. and for the most part they are actually more expensive. there are no bulbs in LCD, im not sure what your talking about. but they are better for rooms that have a lot of light in them, and for gaming, since they are way less likely to have burn in.

Camoli wrote:

Wait just a minute...you didn't present DLP technology in your argument. You need to be fair before you present your case! And, quite frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about....

I wouldn't dare put a DLP set into this convo.
They are not even in the same field as LCD/Plasma.

DLP technology is an oxymoron.

candelabra wrote:

You mean The Young Ones?

IT'S A REVOLUTION!!!

dgloff wrote:

I've been using the 37" version as a PC monitor for the past 6 months. It's unreal. The only way I'd ever replace it is with a bigger westy (like this one!).

What kind of gaming (if any) do you do on it? And if so, what kind of video card do you have?

Great TV for the price, but don't get one if you have or want a PS3. There is a HDCP communcation breakdown between these two specific devices. The HDCP will think the connection isn't valid, and you'll lose vidoe and audio via HDMI.

BTW, this is litterally the reference monitor for any producer in LA at the moment.

carlosriosness wrote:

i agree with you LCD are better. but they dont last decades longer, just years longer. and for the most part they are actually more expensive. there are no bulbs in LCD, im not sure what your talking about. but they are better for rooms that have a lot of light in them, and for gaming, since they are way less likely to have burn in.

Better says who? You?
Todays plasmas DO NOT have the burn in isues as they did years ago.
Try to keep up with the times ;)
Only an idiot can make burn in happen.

http://www.fotoconnection.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=25963&RefTag=froogle


1179.00. Little more, but brand new.

Froogle. It's an amazing thing.