LCD-TV

[ToUgHsPot]

Would someone please recommend a LCD-TV 46-50" that would allow me to watch the 1080p movies on dishnetwork?

I have a Sharp 47" that I just purchased in January of this year and it's not passing the test.

 

[kb7oeb]

Just to check are you connected using HDMI?

 

[SNT]

Would someone please recommend a LCD-TV 46-50" that would allow me to watch the 1080p movies on dishnetwork?

I have a Sharp 47" that I just purchased in January of this year and it's not passing the test.

I don't know if it is that easy. I have a Samsung HLT5089S which is an LED DLP 1080p connected via HDMI and it doesn't pass the test either.

-SNT

 

[Sammy033]

Only certain PPV is available in 1080p... I think.

 

[DishSubLA]

Although Sharp is among the better HDTV's, Samsung and Sony, for two, are probably better. Although I have a Sharp, it does have some shortcomings, especially handling SD very poorly. However, the Aquos should give you a really good HD PQ. However, you will need to tweak it quite a bit. It took me 2 weeks to get it really right, and now I do enjoy VERY GOOD HD picture, even a bit better than the entry level Sony Bravia. Go to CNET.COM and search for your model; they often have recommended settings for your TV. Sharp does suffer from Morie effect, some jaggies, and what is sometimes referred to as--I think--posterization (it looks like coarse quantization) when viewed just a few feet away. By contrast, you can get just a few inches from that Sony 46" and it still looks good.

I am overall satisfied and enjoy very good HD PQ with my Sharp Aquos, but I will not buy another Sharp for the cited reasons and a few more I didn't mention (can't alter screen format via HDMI--Why? Other manufacturers allow this; now I mentioned it).

 

[joeyjojojnr]

Would someone please recommend a LCD-TV 46-50" that would allow me to watch the 1080p movies on dishnetwork?

I have a Sharp 47" that I just purchased in January of this year and it's not passing the test.

What, exactly, is the 'test'?

I would assume that if the TV suppoerts 1080p, that should be enough, no?

I was going to recommend Sharp myself...got one this summer and the TV is fine (not top of the line, but better than anything I've ever had) and while I did have one issue with it, the warranty repair was AMAZINGLY simple and fast in-home, so Sharp is definitely on my very short list of consumer product companies I like.

 

[ToUgHsPot]

Although Sharp is among the better HDTV's, Samsung and Sony, for two, are probably better. Although I have a Sharp, it does have some shortcomings, especially handling SD very poorly. However, the Aquos should give you a really good HD PQ. However, you will need to tweak it quite a bit. It took me 2 weeks to get it really right, and now I do enjoy VERY GOOD HD picture, even a bit better than the entry level Sony Bravia. Go to CNET.COM and search for your model; they often have recommended settings for your TV. Sharp does suffer from Morie effect, some jaggies, and what is sometimes referred to as--I think--posterization (it looks like coarse quantization) when viewed just a few feet away. By contrast, you can get just a few inches from that Sony 46" and it still looks good.

I am overall satisfied and enjoy very good HD PQ with my Sharp Aquos, but I will not buy another Sharp for the cited reasons and a few more I didn't mention (can't alter screen format via HDMI--Why? Other manufacturers allow this; now I mentioned it).

Great post buddy, I will definitely look into the CNET.COM for setting recommendations.

 

[joeyjojojnr]

This is just my opinion, but...

When I was researching an HD TV, I did a LOT of research. Ultimately, came to the conclusion that most of the upper-level brands (whatever consumer reports would give a nod to) are pretty damn good, and the differences in picture at that point are going to be discernible only to the true videophile.

In otherwords, I think the 'quality curve' on the graph tends to level off once you hit the tier of decent name-brand sets.

There are DEFINITELY differences and some will really be interested/annoyed in those, but I, in the end, realized I was not one of those folks and that going nuts with research was going to end up being a waste of my time.

Personally, I'd rank the decision on:

- is it the right size?
- is the picture 'good enough' for your eyes?
- is the remote/on-screen menus a decent interface?
- does it have enough ports in the back?

Every store touts the contrast ration numbers and brightness, and all that, but, honestly, those numbers don't mean much without context...namely what your personal opinion/tastes are and the room your TV will be sitting in.

 

[AriesGodofWar]

My Vizio 42in 1080p passes the test no problems. I assume their 47 inch+ panels would pass as well. Great TV for a good price at Costco.

 

[kwindrem]

Would someone please recommend a LCD-TV 46-50" that would allow me to watch the 1080p movies on dishnetwork?

I have a Sharp 47" that I just purchased in January of this year and it's not passing the test.

To pass the test, you need a TV that has a 72 or 120Hz refresh rate. Most higher end plasma and LCD models sold in the last 18 months or so support it. The Sony XBR4 or XBR5 models do. SOME of the current Aqous do, but not all. You need to check the fine print.

But unless you are looking to upgrade for another reason, I'd say it's not worth it.

1080p on Dish is ONLY for the streaming content. There are no channels broadcasting in 1080p. There are two versions of 1080p used in the US: 1080p60 and 1080p24.

1080p60 is true 60 FRAMES per second video. To my knowledge there is no way to get this to a consumer, and there's very little content created in this format. Sports would probably be the most useful place to see this used because of the fast motion.

3:2 pulldown is necessary to sync film to 60Hz video (either interlaced or progressive). One film frame is shown for 3/60ths of a second, the next is shown for 2/60ths of a second. So motion has an uneven pattern.

All modern displays deinterlace 1080i or 480i to progressive video for display but there can still be unavoidable motion artifacts. For content originated on film, there's always enough information to extract a full film frame for display (either 3 fields or 2 fields depending on the location in the 3:2 sequence). Any display with 48, 72 or 120 Hz refresh rates can sync to the original film frame rate and eliminate the 3:2 pulldown "judder". It can do this even with 60 Hz interlaced video. But the display must use motion clues to determine the 3:2 sequence and that process isn't 100% accurate.

1080p24 is used for film-based content (DVDs, Dish streaming content, etc.). It has a slight advantage to 3:2 pulldown elimination since there's no need to extract the sequence.

1080p24 actually takes 20% LESS bandwidth than 1080i60, so there's a benefit for transmission and storage. But I suspect that MPEG encoding takes this into account already. 1080p60 takes TWICE the bandwidth of 1080i60. HDMI supports the additional bandwidth and many systems use it between devices but it may be quite a while before we see content created in that format.

 

[BuddyBoy]

If you TV has a good deinterlacer, it won't matter whether your receiving is sending 1080p or 1080i. A good deinterlacer can identify 1080p24 sent as 1080i60 and reconstruct those 24Hz progressive frames by putting together the correct fields, and then perform N:N pulldown to display them at 72, 96, 120Hz (most common), or whatever multiple of 24Hz your TV natively displays.

 

[DishSubLA]

This is just my opinion, but...

When I was researching an HD TV, I did a LOT of research. Ultimately, came to the conclusion that most of the upper-level brands (whatever consumer reports would give a nod to) are pretty damn good, and the differences in picture at that point are going to be discernible only to the true videophile.

In otherwords, I think the 'quality curve' on the graph tends to level off once you hit the tier of decent name-brand sets.

There are DEFINITELY differences and some will really be interested/annoyed in those, but I, in the end, realized I was not one of those folks and that going nuts with research was going to end up being a waste of my time.

Personally, I'd rank the decision on:

- is it the right size?
- is the picture 'good enough' for your eyes?
- is the remote/on-screen menus a decent interface?
- does it have enough ports in the back?

Every store touts the contrast ration numbers and brightness, and all that, but, honestly, those numbers don't mean much without context...namely what your personal opinion/tastes are and the room your TV will be sitting in.

Yes, well stated. To the vast majority of folks they can't go wrong with a Sharp, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, or Pioneer, although a lot of folks on this board could see pretty clear differences among those. Westinghouse used to be so bad that even my elderly mother thought it inferior. Vizio is improving, but it used to be most returned brand of TV at Costcos.

I would add one more thing to rank a decision: how well the TV handles fast motion. Quite a few "Joe Blows" can notice this and are irritated by it.

 

[glen242]

I have not tried 1080P from E* yet, and I wonder what I will get if if I do try?

TV is a Mitsubishi 65732 DLP advertised as 1080P.

The picture @ 1080i is great, but if I would want to watch a PPV @ 1080P, would E* recognize my 1080P TV?

 

[kovach]

Here's a good roundup of LCD TV's: LCD TV Reviews, LCD Television Reviews - ConsumerSearch

 

[mhowie]

I have not tried 1080P from E* yet, and I wonder what I will get if if I do try?

TV is a Mitsubishi 65732 DLP advertised as 1080P.

The picture @ 1080i is great, but if I would want to watch a PPV @ 1080P, would E* recognize my 1080P TV?

Plan to pull the trigger soon on a 60"+ Mitsubishi DLP to replace a 10-year old 60" Mitsubishi rear projection. Glad to hear the picture is great from one who owns one. I will probably opt for one with LEDs instead of lamps.