obsessed with my new tv/computer monitor, this thing will make me nearsighted Options

[forkee]

whether its watching tv or playing on the computer, i cant seem to get away from its awesomeness, lol. its 23" of widescreen HDTV LCD heaven (1080i) w/tv tuner, 1600:1 contrast ratio, 1366 x 768 resolution, 8ms response time, component, composite, vga, s-video, hdmi inputs. and it was only $350 brand new at staples. i definitely recommend this unit over any other of comparable size, only because of how cheap it was.

http://www.olevia.com/jsp/products/detail.jsp?pid=323v









watch it play saw 3

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v633/for...¤t=IMGP0419.flv

so yea, 2 thumbs up, yadda yadda yadda

i seem to accomplish so much of nothing when im bored

This post has been edited by forkee: Jan 24, 2007 - 4:30 AM

[gt_driFFter]

Wow, a lot of misconceptions, and half-truths floating around in this thread! I'll try to shed some light on some of this stuff.

Contrast ratio's:
One of the biggest marketing ploys that manufacturer's use to try and lure consumers to their products. Now, I don't mean marketing ploy, as in, it doesn't exist, but rather something that's made a big deal out of, when in reality it is extremely insignificant. And it works! People will tote their contrast ratio like it's the best thing since sliced bread!
LCD's, for example, cannot produce a true black, due to flourescent backlights that light up the image, therefore, while an LCD tv may have a high contrast ratio, it may look washed out if the white levels are really high, but the black levels are really low (this is the case with most LCD's). Secondly, Shin, the 3000:1 contrast ratio you were bragging about, is actually a DYNAMIC contrast ratio. Meaning, it was acheived in a laboratory, under perfect conditions, in a room of total darkness. Even the smallest presence of light in a room will make it virtually impossible to distinguish the difference between a tv that has a 5000:1 contrast ratio, and a tv with a 1000:1 contrast ratio. In a completely dark room, yes there would be a mathmatical difference, but you would be hard pressed to notice it without a video measuring device.

question - what do u guys use for an antenna? my rabbit ears don't work too well and i dont have a coax on the wall.

Forkee, any amplified/powered set of rabbit ears with at least 40dB of amplification should work perfectly, granted you're not in a rural area. If your television has a HD tuner built in, a set of powered rabbit ears will even allow you to pull in your local stations in High-Def, for free! When they are broadcasting in hd, that is. Sorry, Judge Judy just hasn't made it to high-def yet . If your TV doesn't have an HD Tuner built in, then you will need to purchase an HD Tuner, in addition to a set of powered rabbit ears. $37 will get you an excellent amplified antenna at bestbuy, while the standalone HD Tuners will run around $180-$200.

with component ya get the clearest images and sound possible.

This is not true. An HDMI cable will give you the best picture/sound as it is an ALL DIGITAL cable. Component video will not even support the highest resolution available, 1080p. Also, component cannot give you ANY sound, seeing it's a video-only cable HDMI is the next step after component, with it also carrying digital, uncompressed sound and video, at once. Up until the most recent version of HDMI, v1.3, there have been a few problems, but 1.3 was designed to remedy these problems.


If anyone has any Audio/Video questions, post them up, or just shoot me a pm. It's not just a hobby, but my job, and career

This post has been edited by gt_driFFter: Jan 18, 2007 - 10:04 PM