[QUOTE="a_simple_gamer"]I play in 720p, and i have seen 1080p, the difference in 32'' my TV is, is rather minimal, so i dont plan to buy a new 1080p TV until i have a house big enough to install it in Right now, 720p and 32'' TV is just perfect for meshawty1984

His eye sight is fine, his tv is probably ok, you have been buying too much into the 1080p hype. The true fact of the matter is that any screen smaller than about 50-55 inches makes no difference. That is assuming you are sitting around 6-12 feet away from the screen. The average viewer is going to be sitting 6-12 feet away.

Now if you are using it as a montior and you are 6-12 inches away, you will see a difference. However, in 99 percent of all cases, this is a tv in your living room or bed room. Due to this, you are sitting at a normal viewing distance in which you will not see any differece.

I alway find it funny that the average consumer feels that 1080p is the most important feature when looking at buying tvs. In reality, it is one of the least important features. Contrast ratios, black levels, color satuartion, motion lines of resolution and many other come into play far ahead of resolution.

I could go on and on and tell you about how I love everything related to home theater, and how it has become an obsession of mine, and how I have studied and learned so much about it over the past decade, but you could still think I am some dumb little kid spewing garbage. So I won't bother, just do your self a favor and go see what the professionals say over at CNET (look up David Katzmiers articles), or pop on over to the AVS forums and have your eyes opened to what actually matters in televison tech and what is nothing more than marketing hype.

It is so important to do a little research and see what actually matters or you may end up eating the marketing hype and you will be stuck with a LED LCD, Bose Surround Sound System, hooked up with Monster Cables....AHHHHHHH there is a sucker born every minute who buys this trash and thinks that they have the top of the line. When in reality, they could have had a system that runs circles around this for actually much cheaper. It is all about finding the truth and filtering out all of the marketing hype--i.e. Bose and Monster are the kings of marketing bullsh#$!

There is a reason that all videophiles only buy plasma. Plasma gives you a far superior picture due to increased black level performace, better color accuracy, and the response time of the pixels is in the micro seconds, whereas LCDS are still in the milliseconds. It is a common misconception that the 120Htz or 240Htz rectifies motion blur. The motion is caused by the pixels reacting to the inputs in a slow manner.

And to the OP, yes you will still see motion blur. Try watching Planet Earth, I use to sell tvs and would show customers several scenes where motion blur was a problem. One scene was when a bird was flying across the sky. It blurred so badly that not only could you not identify what bird it was, you could not even tell that it was a bird.

As I digress, I am tired of giving people this information. All it takes is doing a little research. Check out the AVS forums or CNET to get the ins and outs of why Plasma is FAR superior to LCD.

I have a Samsung 46 inch LCD and it works great with my PS3. If I remember right it's the LN46A630. It's 120 Hz LCD with a contrast ratio of 40K:1. The quality is by far much better than any plasma. I bought the TV shortly after I got my PS3, as I did have a Projection TV and I noticed a huge difference between the two. I highly recommend getting the Samsung if you were thinking about getting it.

schizo_talon

No one has any opinion on LED TVs?beekayjay

Plasma out performs them for half the price.

LED LCDs are the best of the best in LCDs (back lit ones, not edge lit), but still fall short of plasma and are insanely expensive. Plasma will most likely be king of the roost until OLEDS come way down in price. OLEDS will have deeper blacks than even plasmas and give you a picture that will look like you are really there.

[QUOTE="Velocity"]Plasma has no ghosting. Panasonic Plasmas FTW!!!bloodling

That was my choice too and it turned out awesome! 600hz rules!

Plasma is far superior to any LCDs. They have the best black levels, no motion blur, no lag, best contrast, etc. If you watch the cheapest plasma next to the most expensive LCD in a dark room, you will pick the plasma as the better picture every time. However, Panasonic is currently undergoing some big time problems. Their black levels are currently doubling--this is a very bad thing. This means the blacks are lightening up and looking more lack blacks on an LCD. Panasonic claims that nothing is wrong with their sets and that they are programmed to do this to extend the life of the screen. This is absolute garbage, as models from just a few years ago did not undergo this terrible transformation.

Since Pioneers no longer exist, Panasonics are having huge problems, and LCDs just plain stink... I think all that is left is Samsung Plasmas. I hope Panasonic gets things turned around or what I would really like is for Pioneer to get back in the game. I want to upgrade my 60 inch, but since there is nothing that currently looks that great at the moment, I am waiting. I may go with a front projector and get a 150 inch screen to project on. You can get one that has similar picture quality to that of a Panasonic (before the blacks lighten) for about $4000. The only down side is you have to have a completely darkened room.

Good luck with your purchase descison. I say wait it out, or go with a Samsung plasma.

Right now, the best tvs out are the panasonic plasmas.

Plasmas make LCDs look like garbage.

LCDs--Still have motion blur (even with 120htz). Black levels are very weak, unless you spend a fortune for led backlighting (and even then the black levels are just decent). Pictures just don't look acurate with low black levels.

Plasmas give you full 1080 motion resolution--so you have zero motion blur. Their black levels are superb, causing the picture to pop and look very much like real life. Panasonics are currently the best.

You can get a 50 inch 720p for aroun $1000. I would get this over the 1080 model in 42 inches for around the same price. 1080p makes zero differnce unless you have a set that is larger than 60 inches.

Really nice thread! Very helpful!

The only thing I would like to see added is information about contrast ratios. I'm thinking about getting a HDTV soon, and I see that a lot of them have a contrast ratio of 800:1. Some people on another website told me that that's really bad, and that contrast ratio is the most important thing to worry about when looking for a HDTV. But when I did some research on it, I found a website that said contrast is the least important thing to worry about if you use your TV with the lights on, and that even having just a single candle lit will make it extremely hard to see the difference between a TV with a 10,000:1 contrast, and a TV with a 500:1 contrast.

So, is 800:1 really bad, or does it not really matter?

dzfunk64

Contrast ratio is the most important aspect of any tv. However, here is the real kicker, it is a very distorted fact amoung differing brands. I am only going to talk about LCDs and Plasmas, as this is what most people purchase. Plasmas have a very high native contrast ratio. Panasonic is the current best brand in the biz as Pioneer has dropped out. Panasonic has Native contrast ratios in the range of 30,000:1 and 40,0000:1.

Then you look at LCDs with claims of 60,000:1 and higher, but it is all a dirty trick to confuse customers. The contrast ratio they use is an artificial measurement. They call it the dynamic contrast ratio. Without getting super technical and causing more confusion, it is basically a way to make their numbers look better than plasma. If you measured it natively, like plasmas do, the LCDs would all be around 2,000:1 to around 4,000:1.

Now you may ask what contast even means. It means that your blacks will be a very true inky black with a high contrast. Your blacks on a low contrast tv will look grey to varying shades of purple and blue. Your colors will pop and look more natural on a high contrast set, and look washed out on a low contrast set.

My advice, if you are on a tight budget, is get a 720p panasonic plasma. It will smoke the doors off of any 1080p lcd. Customers are confused with the marketing of tv manufactures that 1080p is a big deal. The truth of the matter is that the human eye can see absolutely no difference on any set that is smaller than 55 inches. And even the bigger sets, it is still hard to tell. Also LCDs still suffer from motion blur (even the 120htz sets), and burn in on plasmas (quality plasmas like Panasonic and Samsung) is a thing of the past.

Whereas, the contast levels, you will see a difference that is night and day. I have a passion for tech and home theaters are one of my hobbies. I would only buy a panny plasma for a HDTV, as they are priced very reasonably and nothing in flat panels can touch their quality.

You should be able to get a 42 inch 720p panny plasma for around $600-800 if you shop around.

Ok, I have a 20G HDD. I only have around 8 games with saved data on the HDD. Like the Guitar Hero's and Madden for example. Now when I look at my free space it's telling me this : 6, 824MB / 18G ???????????? My question is this. Is that MB number the amount of data I have used or that I have left??? I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone anywhere else so I'm here looking for one. I have been told by my friend who owns a PS3 that it's the space I have left. In which case, there's no way in hell I've used 16G's of memory...no possible way! Please help clear this up for me before my warranty is up. I just may return itChiSports81

That is how much space is left. You have almost 7 gigs of space left and appear to have used 11gigs. It is easy to do this. The biggest thing that sucks up your space is game installs. Many games take 2-4 gigs per install. Oblivion takes 4 gigs and I know MGS4 took a good bit too, but I can't remember how much. You can go in and delete the game installs, especially if they are games that you are not likely to play again or any time soon.

My advice, I had a 20 gig as well, go to newegg.com and buy a 320 gig for around $140 and swap it out. Then you won't have to worry about space ever again.

I was just wondering if the Video store actually works.....I have a US account, but I don't live in US...every time I try to rent/purchase a movie I get an annoyng message : "Content not available at this time" :? WTH! :x

Someone else in here has bought/rented any movies or tv shows? :) How do they look in HD?

N-REAL

Why would you ever spend money renting movies off of PSN? The price of Netflix for a whole month is about the cost of one rental on PSN. Not to mention the picture and sound quality differences. Digital Downloads compress everything and the pic and sound quality suffer severely. Stick to Blu-ray, and if you like renting, I suggest Netflix.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

i think it's important to note that this debate isn't closed - i swear i noticed a difference with certain audio cables, and so do many professionals in the PM comments section. and lmao at the PM saying because it's digital impedence doesn't matter, they obviously have no idea wtf they're talking about. too bad PM is mostly just staff flunky writers instead of people with real knowledge.

the fact is there IS a difference, but the question that most people argue now is: is it WORTH it.

the main argument that most pundits use is that they all do the same job. what many of them fail to mention is that parts, manufacturing quality, and workmanship, play a large role in determining what sort of picture quality or audio quality you're going to get. and even then, it comes down to a question of whether having minimized impedence and signal noise is worth an extra 100-1000% in price :P

either way, it's foolish to say a 5$ monoprice cable is as good as a 150$ monster cable. is the difference worth it to you though? most people can't even notice it... mind you a 5$ monoprice cable does have a higher chance or corrosion or breaking, but then you could argue you could buy 30 more before you'd hit the Monster price point...

3picuri3

You can argue the facts all day long. I was once suckered into buying a Monster cable and found out the hard way. I'll stick to the facts, not speculative debate, because the truth is that they're the same. No matter what the cost. You're paying for the name, nothing more.

well you're just flat out wrong Bioshock. but I guess that's what happens when you rely on popular mechanics and cnet for your engineering information. why don't you sit down with some actual whitepapers or just visit some engineers at your local university so they can teach you how wrong you are. i don't speculate my friend, and i don't rely on soundbites from popular mechanics for any of my knowledge (which ceased to be relevant over a decade ago when they lose most of their actual engineer writers). thx ;)

you think what you want though. i really don't care what you choose to believe, especially if your best citation is a PM article with a glaring technical error in it.

anyone that argues they are IDENTICAL does not understand what they're arguing over. FACT. seriously, spend some time on Ars, or Engadget, then google some whitepapers aon HDMI cable impedence and material component transmission differences.

the argument HAS ALWAYS BEEN is it WORTH IT. when people say there is NO difference, they're just wrong and misinformed or can't see it. think I'm wrong? compare a monoprice cable to a 30$ sony cable. 25$ more and even my mother would notice the difference. the problem is many cables don't offere significant improvements for the price...

Funny thing is, both of you guys are correct. "There is no difference" and "there is a difference" comments are both correct in the proper contexts. Sure, there is a difference in engineering of the cables. And from a technical standpoint, you can get very scientific to prove that there is a difference, above the 1s and 0s debate. However, there is also no difference, in the fact that when viewing a blu-ray movie or other HD source on a HDTV, you will see NO difference in picture quality.

I have a Pioneer Elite 151fd, and have tested this for myself. I am quite picky and know quite a bit about this subject matter. I used to train employees that would need the knowledge to sell tvs. My findings were the same as what local news stations have reported, what Cnet has reported (and David Katzmier is no slouch in this area over at Cnet), and what many other magazine and websites have reported, SIMPLY--you just CAN'T see a difference.

Oh, and I would never say a nice word about the Monster company. They are straight up liars in every sense of the word. Look at there HDMI series 700 or 500 ( I believe), they claim it only passes a 720p signal. That is strange, because the HDMI standard that was passed back in 2001 or 2002 clearly stated that all HDMI cables pass 1080p. So is Monster making an inferior HDMI cable that is not up to spec? Or are they trying to trick the public into buying an even more expensive cable? I think it is the latter.

Also, this company stated that component cables can't pass 1080p. When it clearly can. Then they created a component cable that they claimed miraculously could pass 1080p, but according to them, it was the only one that could. And don't even get me stared on their snake oil known as power conditioners. Just don't waste your money on them or the joke of a company called Bose.

I am also surprised that the poster was bragging about his TV. Sure it is a top of the line LCD, but it is an LCD none the less. You could have had a plasma for so much less that would have given you so much more. Heck, even a Samsung LED DLP could give you a much better picture in a much larger tv, provided that you did not need to mount it on a wall.

I've been playing Mike Tyson's Punch Out since the day it released. Thats 22 years now. I've play Fight Night 1, 2, and 3 and I can promise you this much, I won't be playing them in 22 years.dlp21

Me too, and I doubt there will ever be a better boxing game than Mike Tyson's Punchout. And when I said better I am referring to the funfactor. Nothing will ever come close. Although, I look forward to FNR4 just so I can be Tyson.