OT: 37" 1080P LCD HDTV $999 at Fry's today

craftech wrote on 9/25/2006, 3:55 PM

Bjorn,

Isn't 37" kind of small for that kind of money. I don't doubt that it is a good buy, but when I look at a (16:9) 37" screen it looks really small to my eyes and combined with the narrow viewing field of LCD screens, don't you think a plasma screen is a better value? Personally I own a projector and an HD DVD player. Now everyone wants to come to my house because it is like "going to the movies".

John

john-beale wrote on 9/25/2006, 4:41 PM

what kind of projector? are there any 1080p projectors out there now that are actually affordable? curious to know.

Coursedesign wrote on 9/25/2006, 5:02 PM

I don't know any other 37" 1080P TVs that are even close to $999.

There are lots of 720P at that price of course, but there really is a substantial difference in sharpness.

Plasma? Haven't seen an affordable 1080P plasma yet, could come I guess, they just haven't yet.

Remember also that plasma screens suck a LOT of electricity, a DWP report here said they used as much power as a large refrigerator (which is the #1 power slurper in most homes).

I agree that 37" is pretty small, but sometimes it is an appropriate size, and it is the first time it has come with 1080P at an affordable price. Just hang it on the back of the bathroom door... :O)

The first "affordable" 1080P projector I know about is Sony's VPL-VW50, about to be released probably next week for a measly $4,999.

It uses SXRD (liquid crystal on silicon) and an automatically irising lens to get a contrast ratio of 15,000:1. Full analog inputs + two 1080p-capable HDMI inputs.

Mercury lamp for lots of oomph on the light output, and mortgage-free lamp-replacement.

Stewart Filmscreen even created a special Firehawk SST screen for this projector.

(Owner: "Well, *I* just got a Firehawk SST for my VW..." :O)

(Wonder who comes up with these names...)

craftech wrote on 9/26/2006, 7:52 PM

\what kind of projector? are there any 1080p projectors out there now that are actually affordable? curious to know.
=========
I have an NEC LT380
I bought it to show public presentations of my videos, but ended up using it more for home theater. It is essentially a native 4:3 business/video projector but displays 16:9 equally as well. Despite the 600:1 contrast ratio this projector has the lumens to display a pristine image even in a room with ambient light. Most dedicated HT projectors are not as bright and need a screen with a very high gain and total darkness to come anywhere near the inflated specs many of them tout. I made a high gain homemade 80 inch screen and am in the process of making a 110" diagonal 16:9 screen. You can sit on top of the screen off to the side at a 60 degree angle and still see a crystal clear image.
The Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD player outputs 1080i, HD DVD discs are 1080p, but visually there is no difference so a 1080p projector is totally unnecessary and is hype only. See my earlier post.
If this LCD screen is for television watching the 1080p is definitely a waste of time and money. There isn't the programming and I really don't like those tiny LCD screens. What is the point of seemingly impressive specs if the source isn't up to the task, the screen is too small, and you have a very narrow field of view to appreciate it? Stand up and the picture disappears, or sit to the side and the picture disappears. Etc.

John

Coursedesign wrote on 9/26/2006, 9:26 PM

John,

My projection TV screen is 110" diagonal with low gain, about 1.3 which is optimal if you don't have to have the gain (and gain is a PITA as you know).

I'm not sure what you mean by "a 1080p projector is totally unnecessary and is hype only." Compared to what?

All film-originated material is obviously progressive in nature, so it makes sense to avoid as many interlace-deinterlace-reinterlace-deinterlace conversions as possible.

Ye olde CRTs functioned best when used with interlaced scanning, but all the technologies since are by nature progressive-scan.

CRTs don't have a future, so we're left with 100% progressive display technologies.

720p doesn't have a future (mostly because "720" is a smaller number than "1080").

1080i is just a stopgap on the way to 1080p which is what everybody wants as soon as their wallets can afford it.

Better LCD TVs today have very wide viewing angles, pretty close to 180 degrees actually. Less so vertically of course, but no disaster at all.

37" is a good size for 2-4 people sitting in a sofa watching from say 10 feet away.

Now the nice thing about a 1080p screen is that it allows you to sit much closer to get a larger viewing angle, and NOT see the world like through a 720 pixel bug screen.

EDTV (480p) plasma etc. are the worst, I don't understand how anybody can put up with those fist-sized pixels on large screens, but close to that are 27" CRT HDTVs where the shadow masks again make it appear that you are looking at "reality" through a screen door.

If you have a decent electronics store where you live, go see if you can get an honest side-by-side demo of same size 720p and 1080p. The difference may make you bust your wallet, if you can't wait for the 1080p prices to come down (which will happen very quickly now).

craftech wrote on 9/27/2006, 5:21 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "a 1080p projector is totally unnecessary and is hype only." Compared to what?
=============
In theory 1080p should look better than 1080i and twice as good as 720p because of the theoretical ability to display ALL pixels of HD content. And as you said fixed pixel displays are all progressive scan. Since the only difference is that a 1080i shows half of the detail during any part of a frame it isn't hard to constuct a 1080p image from it. Since movies are captured at 24fps in 1080p, by simply using 3:2 pulldown 1080i at 30fps is easily converted..

Tests on the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray Disc Player and the Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD PLayer confirm this.

Why spend all that money on a tiny 1080p display when for the next few years anyway it appears to be totally unnecessary especially given current programming content? IF I get a chance to take a photo of what I see when I project something like Phantom of the Opera in HD onto my 80 inch screen using my XGA 4:3 projector set to 16:9 through my Toshiba HD-DVD player I'll post it. If I am able to capture what I am actually seeing your jaw will truly drop as has everyone else's that has seen it. Of course I am only talking about movies here. I don't try to send a TV signal through it nor would I at $400 a pop for the projector bulbs.

Also, my 80 inch 4:3 screen is high gain. Probably close to 2.0. It is homemade and cost me under $50 to construct. The 110 inch 16:9 screen I am constructing now will have just as much gain, but since I needed 60 inch high material instead of 48 inch high material it will cost me around $115 to construct. It will also serve as a 120" 4:3 screen. The projector cost me around $2200 and the HD DVD player around $450. I already had a home theater audio setup so the total cost for the visual equipment was around $2800. The player upscales SD content better than anything on the market as well. I built the large front speakers and bought the rear channel and center channel speakers from Athena Technologies. I also bought an inexpensive 15 inch subwoofer and modified it to the point that it will now cause structural damage with certain movie content. The whole thing is awesome.

John

Coursedesign wrote on 9/27/2006, 9:19 AM

Why spend all that money on a tiny 1080p display when for the next few years anyway it appears to be totally unnecessary especially given current programming content?

There are so many different considerations here, I barely know where to start.

1. What is the optimum size for your viewing environment? Could be 10" if it's a seatback in your car, or 110" or more if it's a large living room.

2. Can you accept either a direct view display or a projected image? Direct view displays are OK even if the room isn't pitch dark which makes a lot of things easier. On the other hand, you can't go over 103" right now, and that's at a hefty price.

Gary' Mersons article said "more than 48% of the sets tested lost up to half the vertical resolution [due to poor deinterlacing!]."

That means "up to 48% of the sets deinterlaced without significant resolution loss."

Just buy those sets! [Or, better yet, don't ever buy a TV again. Buy a computer display that is designed to handle video well (with Faroudja DCDi, etc.)]

IF I get a chance to take a photo of what I see when I project something like Phantom of the Opera in HD onto my 80 inch screen using my XGA 4:3 projector set to 16:9 through my Toshiba HD-DVD player I'll post it. If I am able to capture what I am actually seeing your jaw will truly drop as has everyone else's that has seen it.

As somebody who bought his first HD projector in 1993, a $40,000 Vidikron VPF40HD, with a custom Stewart Film Screen to go with it, and continuously keeping up with the state-of-the-art since then, my jaw is more likely to stay in place than to harm my knees or ankles.

Last week I spent an hour with Sony's 1-year old $10,000 1080P projector that replaced (and surpassed) the $30,000 Qualia that preceded it. I wrote about it here, basically I think it's the best below Christie level ( which is in nosebleed pricing territory).

I watched regular DVDs on the Sony (they looked incredible upscaled), I watched the best of HD cable (looked especially incredible in the contrast rendition where lesser projectors quickly sink), and the usual HT test material. All I can say is "WOW!"

Btw, my current 110" screen is a Da-Lite roll-up that I bought "freight damaged" on eBay for $150. The "freight damage" is a 1/8" paint chip that is invisible when watching movies or when the screen is rolled up...

Interlaced vs. progressive was originally about saving bandwidth (interlaced takes up half the bandwidth, which is its only advantage, everything else is a handicap).

Today it is about a battle between TV engineers and computer engineers that will probably not end until the last TV engineer has been laid to rest (hopefully voluntarily :O) :O).

craftech wrote on 9/27/2006, 5:39 PM

Bjorn,

Since I couldn't really help you I researched the Emprex HD-3701P TV you asked about, but could not find a review. I did however find a thread posted by some owners here and here.

John

Coursedesign wrote on 9/27/2006, 6:07 PM

John,

Thanks for pulling those reviews!

So you think this is what Fry's is selling right now? They don't advertise the name, and I've been too busy to go check it out myself.

It seems the Emprex is a 1366x768 LCD though, not 1920x1080 as was clearly stated in Monday's Fry's ad.

It is of course possible that their ad was a mistake, wouldn't be the first time, but this type of mistake wouldn't be so typical for them.

If this 37" is 1080P it could also make a great editing screen for Vegas. Not too big, not too small for that... :O)

craftech wrote on 9/27/2006, 6:21 PM

Bjorn,
I went by the model on their website. They have carried it for awhile. I found the ad online. If you look at the SKU it says 4860630.

Now look at the link above. It is the same SKU number 4860630.

John

EDIT: I checked past bargains on Fatwallet and other sites. The sale price apparently has been $899 for awhile and not $999.

Coursedesign wrote on 9/27/2006, 6:49 PM

John,

My bad. That was a nearly year-long thread on avsforum, and I didn't go to the end where they talked about the HD-3701P which is the latest 1920x1080 model.

This could be a cool monitor, but an extended warranty is probably a must...

$899 is even more cool! Noticed also that at least some Fry's stores price match Outpost.com, would save $43 shipping...

37" could be pretty handy for HD editing too, just hang it on the wall above the editing workstation...

Gotta see if I can machete my way through the asphalt jungle of L.A. and make my way through the infamous Khyber, er, Sepulveda Pass on the equally infamous 405, aka the Cobblestone Freeway (worn by enormous traffic) to Fry's.

craftech wrote on 9/27/2006, 6:53 PM

37" could be pretty handy for HD editing too, just hang it on the wall above the editing workstation...
========
Now THAT sounds pretty interesting.

John

Laurence wrote on 9/27/2006, 9:57 PM

I'll bet it's just a 720p set that is compatible with a 1080 signal. The smaller companies sometimes overstate their specs.

rstein wrote on 9/28/2006, 6:44 PM

Fry's sells "B" stock and "open packages." I've been burned on EVERY high-ticket item purchased from them. In every case, failure at or shortly past the end of warranty. And warranty service at Fry's? Fuggitaboutit!

Fry's has a tremendous number of complaints to local BBBs, and it's not hard to Google for Fry's ex-employees who shed light on their business practices.

Caveat emptor re Fry's.

The only thing I'd buy there are 4mm DDS3 tapes (and I inspect those very closely before ringing them up). Oh, and maybe some beef jerky, too. :-)

Bob.

Coursedesign wrote on 9/28/2006, 6:55 PM

It is not a 720p monitor with a 1080i input, that's already been verified.

I certainly would never buy anything from Fry's that's been opened "and inspected by their careful techs." That is beyond useless, but if you buy shrinkwrapped brandname products and know what you're getting, you can sometimes get good bargains there.

rs170a wrote on 9/29/2006, 11:58 AM

To put a close to this thread, a poster on the SOCAL group bought one of these at Fry's and it was an Emprex brand.

Mike

corug7 wrote on 10/4/2006, 3:58 PM

To open this thread again, did anyone here pick this up? Seems like it'd make an excellent computer monitor...maybe. I'd be pretty jazzed about working on 37" of real estate.

rs170a wrote on 10/4/2006, 5:32 PM

...did anyone here pick this up?

A regular poster on the SoCal Vegas forum did and here's his response:

Since a lot of you are interested in what is available in LCDs and when I mentioned this to a group I belong to they were interested. I thought I'd pass this on. I bought a 37" 1920x1080 TV-monitor at Fry's for $999. It was the weekend they introduced it and I took a chance on the "Emprex" brand because of the resolution. I've had it a couple of weeks now and when I upgraded my Direct TV to HD the technician said, "Man, that is a good TV. I look at TVs all day. I don't care what the name is on it is." He couldn't believe the price.

Only one thing. It had VGA, component, HDMI, etc but no DVI. I bought a cable that converts DVI to HDMI and it worked beautifully with my Nvidia 7900. When I threw up HDV footage on it I saw detail I didn't know was in the picture. I also saw what Magic Bullet did to the picture and it was great.

Mike

Coursedesign wrote on 10/4/2006, 8:12 PM

I saw it at Fry's in Redondo Beach, and the picture had indications that looked good, even though it was hooked up to an intentionally poor signal to make it look not as good when compared to the $3,000 large screen TVs.

This really should be a no-brainer case for any trial lawyer who wants to send his seven kids to Harvard, by just showing that Fry's and Best Buy for starters are systematically feeding a poor signal to the less expensive TVs and a good signal to the more expensive ones. That really smells like racketeering and consumer fraud.

Anyway, unlike Anaheim and Sunnyvale, the Fry's staff in Redondo Beach refused to price match Outpost's $899 price. Instead they wanted $1,399, plus $499 for an extended warranty, so I told them to go to a certain warm place that is rarely mentioned in tourist brochures.

There is certainly nothing even remotely like this for the money...

Another unrelated finding in this price range: Apple's 23" Cinema Monitor is much sharper than Dell's 24" LCD, and it has more pleasant gradations too.