VeeshanVault

I could never justify the cost to upgrade my 36 inch RCA that I've had for over 15 years, but alas, it's slowly dieing So, I just bought a new TV.

When I went out last week to purchase a new TV, my choices were: Plasma, LCD, or Projection.

All 3 of them had pros and cons. Unfortuantely, the plasma was out due to the fact that my TV room is surrounded on 3 sides by 12 foot, floor to ceiling windows with no sort of curtain or shade. Thankfully, the roof has awnings that create nice shade, and I'm tucked away under a canopy of 80ft trees that enclose my home. All that helps with the sunlight to a certian degree. Plasma has a glass sheild that reflects way too much light, rendering it unviewable during certian parts of the daytime (morning and late afternoon).

LCD was my next choice, but the price jump for the size I was wanting was waaay too big. I also do not have a wall to mount it on in my living room, which would be ideal for an LCD.

Projection was my last choice, but during my 3 days of TV shopping (3 ENTIRE days, 5-6 hours each), a strange thing occured. I would walk into a store and see, perhaps 20-30ish TVs all at once. I would always walk straight towards the one that caught my eye from the front of the store. I was more than a little surprised that the exact same set caught my eye 3 stores in a row, and it was a projection set (the last one my list). After doing some reserach and pouring over the unique challanges my viewing room presented, I went ahead and got a 56" Samsung Projection. The cons to this come down to bulb replacement once every 3-4 years at 150-200$ a pop.

Now we have the issue that all television stations looks like shit. Sure the HD channels look fantastic (beyond fantastic actually). We bought an HDMI DVD player to upgrade our existing DVD's picture, but regular old televeion looks like complete ass. I have Comcast as a provider, and they are looking to have 400 more HD channels by the end of 2007, and another 400 by mid-summer of 2008. Of course, they count every single stream, so PPV and such are in the tally. I want to watch the Sci-Fi Channel and not have it look like shit. I want to watch Cartoon network or Comedy Central and see more than blurry pixels. This upgrade really is bittersweat. I hope Comcast moves things along, and also includes HD upgrades to their existing cable channels instead of just movie channels. Thankfully, there are HD versions of Fox, ABC, NBS, CBS, ect.

Another intersting thing is that certian DVDs are enhanced for a widescreen view. This means there are no bars at all. The movie fills the entire screen and looks like an orgasam feels. It's strange, because these movies are so hit and miss. None of the Star Wars films are enhanced, but the Akira DVD I bought 5 years ago is? I just don't get it. I am not replacing my DVD collection for the HD conversion. If I really want to, I'll just DL them. If these studios really think I'm going to buy Star Wars again in today's day and age, they got another thing coming. I must've bought that fucking movie 10 times in various incarnations throughout the years (not to mention the theater viewings). I'm done rebuying.

Anyway, the TV is better than I ever could've hoped for. I almost got the 61", but that would've been too big for my space. 56" was a perfect choice, although the 50 we were looking at would've been fine as well (don't tell my wife I said that!). It has a USB port, 3 HDMI inputs, PC input, and a bunch of other shit. I really love the menu system. It feels very much like a computer with nice, full color icons. A user can also access the advanced settings, which many sets can only be done with a special device. I was able to go to AVS forums and find a thread on my set, where someone had calibrated the set for optimal viewing with a calibrator and posted his exact settings for me to copy. So far, so good!

Samsung is the best... I have that same 56" and it's incredible. The normal stations don't really look that bad though, perhaps the aspect ratio is set to stretch them? they should have horizontal bars...

Discovery HD ftw!

They also get you by pumping in a special HD signal into every TV in the shop. In order to get that same picture, you'll need a BluRay or HD player and upgraded cables. I really hated my TV buying experiance.

Fash, nope, it looks equally bad on any of ther other various settings. You would think a $2000 TV would look better than your tube Oh well. Overall I am definately happier.

Do your local channels not offer OTA HD? Hell, I'm in Little Rock, AR and the local affiliates for fox, abc, nbc and cbs all offer OTA HD. I have a $50 HD antenna that looks like the saucer section of the Enterprise that hooks to my DVR to provide local HD on dishnetwork.

There was a formula somewhere that advises the best size tv for your viewing distance. I was surprised how much smaller the optimal size was for our view distance in our living room which ranges from about 8' to 12'. Sadly we still didn't get the larger tv. At the time, you could still get picture tube widescreen tvs at 30" and 34". It was $400 more for the four inches (and about 40 lbs) so we didn't get the larger one.
With your size screen, I can only imagine how pixelly certain things must look but it's probably because you're sitting too close for that screen size.
I also have comcast and had no idea they were bumping up the number of hd channels. That's good news. The more sports in HD the better. You are going to shit yourself once you see a hd hockey game.

Chidoro wrote:There was a formula somewhere that advises the best size tv for your viewing distance. I was surprised how much smaller the optimal size was for our view distance in our living room which ranges from about 8' to 12'. Sadly we still didn't get the larger tv. At the time, you could still get picture tube widescreen tvs at 30" and 34". It was $400 more for the four inches (and about 40 lbs) so we didn't get the larger one.
With your size screen, I can only imagine how pixelly certain things must look but it's probably because you're sitting too close for that screen size.
I also have comcast and had no idea they were bumping up the number of hd channels. That's good news. The more sports in HD the better. You are going to shit yourself once you see a hd hockey game.

My closest viewing is about 5 feet, with the furthest and optimal being 13 feet from the front of the set. Not having to deal with side viewing angles was one of the reasons I chose a projection in the end. It's really the perfect size for the space.

I can't wait for the Hockey season this year. Maybe I'll get back into the swing of things. It's been so long though...

It looks like you've found the AVS Forums already. If you dig deep enough, you'll find answers to just about anything related to Home Theater there.

Welcome Aboard!

For those considering Front Projectors, there's a new 1080p projector (Optima HD80 DLP) that's under 3K (previous sub 3K projectors have been 720p) I've been an LCD fan myself but this looks decent and has lens shift, etc. Just another option to consider.

Lengthy thread about it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=856599

Mine is 1080 too Although barely anything takes advantage of that right now.

Fairweather and Fash, what model did you get? I have the HL-S5687W (56" DLP 1080p) and would like to ask your opinion on a few things if we have the same or similar models.

SD TV looks like shit on a HD TV because it is shit. The comparison that most readily comes to mind is: Lemmings on a friend's Amiga displayed on a little colour TV looked fantastic next to the same game on a PC w/ a 1024x768 monitor. The monitor gave crisp, clear, and jagged edges to all the little blokes, where as the TV just fuzzed everything out and gave lovely anti-aliased smoothness to it.

You could also look at it like beer-goggles or cataracts being removed; Cybill Shepherd would never have looked that hot in Moonlighting without all the soft filters

Mines the HL-T5689S.

Mine is the HLT-5676S. This sucker is just over 13" deep.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... 3577986549


Mine was only $1,899 on sale. I also got a great deal on a new stand because the one I wanted was out of stock, and it was a deal breaker for me. I wasn't going to take home my new TV and put it on the floor They sold me my next favorite, which was almost $300 more, at the same price as the one that was out of stock. I delt with the store manager throughout the entire deal and he treated me very well. I also got a free HDMI cable out of the deal and a $100.00 Best Buy gift card becuase they upgrded my Comcast from regular to HD in the store. I also get the upgraded HD service from Comcast for free for 1 year. Total was around $2400 for everything, including another HDMI cable, the 5 disc HDMI DVD player, and a new power brick. I paid $500 cash and put the rest on a Best Buy card with 18 months same as cash. I feel like I got a good deal after everything was said and done.

EDIT: The only difference between Fash's and my set is the type of bulb. His has an LED bulb, and mine has a traditional bulb. His will last about 20,000 hours before replacing, but will be more expensive, and mine will last about 6,000 hours and be cheaper. I would've rather gotten the LED but they didn't have any in stock. As is, mine was about $300 cheaper than the LED model. I consider it a wash.

samsung has really stepped up their game... their tvs have always been decent, but they changed the form factor on their new flat panels and they look spectacular. the speakers are in the bottom, and they're completely hidden, so you get a cleaner look. they have a version with a curve on the bottom and one without (which i prefer, i like clean lines). i love the little aesthetic touches.

Samsung 5087 here. I love it. I can't wait until DirecTV launches the new HD channels and when the re-launch the new satellite that will provide the local channels in HD.

Only a true 16x9 aspect ratio will fill your entire TV (ie no bars). Sadly, most movies use a crazy wide aspect ratio.... LOTR, Star Wars, XMen all come to mind. 2:44 or somesuch--will have to check DVD boxes later. This ration simply does not scale perfectly to your TV resolution, hence the bars...at least that is what I was told.

Good call on getting the better DVD player and HDMI. Now get a Blu Ray player.

When I went to get a new tv a few months ago, I expected to spend a few thousand dollars on one. I decided to get a 42" inch vizio lcd and only spent about $1200. I'm really happy with it and highly recommend it.

Yeah, I have heard good things about the Vizio and Westinghouse brands. I have seen both and think they look good. I have a Samsung 42" plasma...got it for around 1300 (wholesale). Great TV and have the same complaints about the black bars on non 16x9 aspect ratios. Damn movies!

Apparently a lot of people with HD are actually going out and getting regular old school atnennas to put up for watching the local channels. From what I understand, the signal for those channels is much higher quality than the cable can provide.

Yeah, local channels that broadcast an HD signal can pretty much be picked up by any "old-school" antenna. Some rabbit ear setups don't really work too well for them though.

When I was shopping for a HD TV, I originally went with the Westinghouse 37" 1080p LCD. I brought it home, hooked it up, saw how absolutely shitty regular channels looked on it and brought it right back to the store. After that I spent another $800 on a 37" Philips LCD and I have to say it was well worth it. For some reason the Philips is able to scale regular definition or something, so that I don't wind up with stretched out and very grainy network channels. I don't get to watch a whole lot of HD channels, so the majority is watching the lower number channels (ABC, CBS etc). Since my cable company sucks and doesn't offer those in HD without spending like $15 more a month, I just watch the regular channels. I have to say that on top of having an amazing HD picture, the set really handles non HD really well. Congrats on your new purchase! HD is like high speed internet, once you go there, you'll never go back!

Kryshade wrote:When I was shopping for a HD TV, I originally went with the Westinghouse 37" 1080p LCD. I brought it home, hooked it up, saw how absolutely shitty regular channels looked on it and brought it right back to the store. After that I spent another $800 on a 37" Philips LCD and I have to say it was well worth it. For some reason the Philips is able to scale regular definition or something, so that I don't wind up with stretched out and very grainy network channels. I don't get to watch a whole lot of HD channels, so the majority is watching the lower number channels (ABC, CBS etc). Since my cable company sucks and doesn't offer those in HD without spending like $15 more a month, I just watch the regular channels. I have to say that on top of having an amazing HD picture, the set really handles non HD really well. Congrats on your new purchase! HD is like high speed internet, once you go there, you'll never go back!

Get an OTA antenna for your local stations. I think that most are broadcasting an HD signal now.

Fairweather Pure wrote:Thankfully, there are HD versions of Fox, ABC, NBS, CBS, ect.

That was from my initial post. It seems people are not noticing that line. Comcast in my area does indeed provide HD versions of the local channels. I would think that if my Comcast does, I'm sure almost everyone else would, because my Comcast sucks ass!

I would never get an antenna just due to the aesthetics. It's the same reason I would never get a dish.

post pix of setup~

Fairweather Pure wrote:

Fairweather Pure wrote:Thankfully, there are HD versions of Fox, ABC, NBS, CBS, ect.

That was from my initial post. It seems people are not noticing that line. Comcast in my area does indeed provide HD versions of the local channels. I would think that if my Comcast does, I'm sure almost everyone else would, because my Comcast sucks ass!

I would never get an antenna just due to the aesthetics. It's the same reason I would never get a dish.

An antenna does not have to be seen...also, I don't think anyone missed your original comment, as Kryshade was mentioning that his own cable company charges extra for the local HD channels which he could get for free OTA.

radio shack has a couple of fairly unobtrusive indoor/outdoor HD antennas. either one would be hard to notice on the eaves of your house:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index ... Id=2253765

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index ... Id=2348403

It's definitely obtrusive but this antenna will get you great HD reception if all of your HD towers are located in the same place:

http://www.radioshack.com/sm-more-produ ... 03088.html

I used it back in the day when I needed local OTH HD reception.

here's a blurb on it:

http://www.netlobo.com/free_hdtv.html

I have a flat roof. I can't hide anything!

Fairweather Pure wrote:I have a flat roof. I can't hide anything!

You don't have to have any antenna outdoors...we're not referring to the large multi-pronged antennae that you might be thinking of.

Boogahz wrote:we're not referring to the large multi-pronged antennae that you might be thinking of.

I am! The antenna I linked is a big UHF antenna : ) You can still have it in your house or attic if you want.



I think it would look pretty hanging from a vaulted ceiling!

I bet the shadows thrown by your projector with that would be sweet too!

Zaelath wrote: ↑July 10, 2007, 12:34 amYou could also look at it like beer-goggles or cataracts being removed; Cybill Shepherd would never have looked that hot in Moonlighting without all the soft filters

With the news of Bruce Willis retiring I have been rewatching Moonlighting... I was a bit too young in the 80s to appreciate it.

I don't think it was really the "soft filters" that helped her.

Aslanna wrote: ↑May 1, 2022, 7:17 pm
With the news of Bruce Willis retiring I have been rewatching Moonlighting... I was a bit too young in the 80s to appreciate it.

I don't think it was really the "soft filters" that helped her.

The original Star Trek series is well known for having those "glamour filters"

Gene Roddenberry gave Finnerman one episode to prove himself. If the results were good, the job was his. If it didn't work out… well, Finnerman could go back to working under Stradling, who was about to start shooting Funny Girl.

Finnerman pulled out his full bag of tricks — splashes of color, slashes of dark and bright light. He wowed the Trek producers, who offered Finnerman a three-year contract at $800 a week.

The cinematographer deserves far more credit for the legacy of Star Trek: The Original Series. His crisp lighting, vivid colors, carefully placed shadows, backlighting, and focus effects gave the show a bold, beautiful aesthetic. Nothing else looks quite like it. Nobody knew what the future would look like, so Finnerman was given free reign to play. The results were a kaleidoscope of contrasts — light and shadow, hard and soft.

Oh, speaking of soft….

Any first-time viewer of Star Trek probably asks themselves the same question: "Why is it that whenever a beautiful woman is shown in a closeup, the screen goes all blurry? Was the studio humid? Do I need new glasses?" This contrast is perhaps even more noticable in the modern age of high definition. You are not imagining things.

For example, when Edith Keeler, played by Joan Collins, first walks down a staircase in "City on the Edge of Forever," it seems as if she's being filmed inside a sauna. Ditto for the women in "Mudd's Women," or any of the many loves of Captain Kirk.

Yes, the philosophical Star Trek was aggressively progressive when it came to race and politics, but it could also treat beautiful women like delicate flowers, softening and idealizing them. Though the show was set in the 23th century, it was a techique steeped in the early days of Hollywood.

The soft focus was often paired with romantic, swooning music. While the crew members were shot heroically in blazing light and sharp focus, love interests, on the other hand, looked more like watercolors. To achieve the effect, thin layers of plastic, or diffusion filters, were placed before the lens for those shots. No, as far as we know, Vaseline was not smeared on the lens. The technique came to be known as "The Gaussian Girl," named for the Gaussian blur.

L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES
AUG. 24, 1986 12 AM PT
Excuse me, but who do the producers of “Moonlighting” think they’re fooling with that soft filter they use for every shot of Cybill Shepherd?

Perhaps they feel that the American viewing public is not strong enough to handle the “real” Cybill.

Come on, guys, what’s the deal? Out with it--is she deformed or what? The “halo effect” is annoying and unnecessary. It does little to disguise the toll that the years may have taken on Cybill and it makes her eye makeup look funny.

ERIN SIMON
Los Angeles

A “Moonlighting” spokesman said the oft-criticized use of a fuzzy-soft focus on Shepherd’s countenance was originally employed to effect a ‘30s movies style, making her look extra glamorous. It became overused and has since been greatly reduced.

"The toll that the years may have taken"... Harsh, Erin. She was only 35 at the time of Moonlighting...