What do you friends think of this HDTV?!

It's a piece of crap. I looked into buying this TV a few months ago, but didn't. The picture looks HORRIBLE on anything that is not HD. Regular cable is pathetic looking on this thing. The TV felt cheap and the remote was lackluster. It didn't have as many inputs as I was looking for either. I settled on a samsung 27" HDTV http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6818054&type=product&id=1091101106432

It works very well for what I need it for. It has a DVI input, 2 component, 3 RCA, 1 s-video and AV out. Ended up paying about 200 after a gift card I had.
 
How was the advent connected to "regular" tv...just coax or what??

Regardless, why would you want a 4:3 hdtv??? Is there something I'm missing??
 
coax, yes.

Price is the biggest reason for me wanting a 4:3 hdtv. You simply can't find a good 16:9 tv for under 500 bucks. At the time the cheapeast 30" widescreen I found was a phillips for 699. The widescreen gave less viewable area for most of the stuff people view anyway. Regular TV is broadcast in 4:3, and there are few games that truely support full widescreen. If you are using your TV for watching cable, and playing games, then why go wide if you are on a budget? $450 is a much easier amount to spend versus paying upwards of $650+. Xbox games still run in progessive scan, as do supported PS2 games, and they look great, even at 27".

It's obvious that the OP is looking for a set that is affordable (as many people are).
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']It's a piece of crap. I looked into buying this TV a few months ago, but didn't. The picture looks HORRIBLE on anything that is not HD. Regular cable is pathetic looking on this thing. The TV felt cheap and the remote was lackluster. It didn't have as many inputs as I was looking for either. I settled on a samsung 27" HDTV http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6818054&type=product&id=1091101106432

It works very well for what I need it for. It has a DVI input, 2 component, 3 RCA, 1 s-video and AV out. Ended up paying about 200 after a gift card I had.[/QUOTE]

Does this support the 720?
 
If you're going to go out and get an hdtv, save your money and get something you REALLY want. I've found the hard way that if you wait, the deal will come to you.

Example - I REALLY wanted a 42" Sony Wega Rear-Projection at Best Buy. If I had waited, I could have gotten one open-box that was in new condition, at 15%-off the open-box price with coupon (Price difference = $800).

If you live near Nebraska Furniture Mart, they have been advertising that they're clearing out their TV's this week as well...
 
[quote name='the3rdkey']Does this support the 720?[/QUOTE]

I dunno, I haven't tried it. I think I have one Xbox game that runs in 720p.
 
I never understand why people ask "Why would you want a 4:3 HDTV?" The answer is simple until 50% of the feeds coming into the television from cable and games are 16X9 then there is no reason to purchase it.

Most 4X3 TVs support a Widescreen mode which read the signal and adjust appropriately and nothing is stretched. The opposite is not true for a 16x9 screen. First off not all widescreen sources are 16x9. Which means watching that you will still have bars and or stretch the picture in certain cases. Secondly stretched 4x3 sources on a 16x9 TV look like ass. Its too soon to buy a 16x9 when they cost more in comparison to their 4x3 counterparts. I would rather have bars along the bottom which is more natural as opposed to bars down the sides.
 
Secondly stretched 4x3 sources on a 16x9 TV look like ass.
Click to expand...
Solution: Don't use streteching. Ever widecreen TV I've tested had a "normal" mode where 4x3 was displayed in true aspect (with bars on the left & right).



[quote name='mtxbass1']Price is the biggest reason for me wanting a 4:3 hdtv..... If you are using your TV for watching cable, and playing games, then why go wide if you are on a budget? [/QUOTE]If you're watching standard old-format TV/games, why do you need HDTV? Standard-definition is only 480 scanlines... so why do you need a 1080 display? (just curious)



If/when I go to HDTV, I'll definitely want the widescreen option, so I can watch my Movies the way they were meant to be seen. I saw one widescreen at Sears for $399, although it was only 720 resolution.

troy
 
They have better deals on televisions than that.

A few months ago, I bought a 50" Toshiba widescreen Plasma TV (I believe it's plasma, not sure) for only $1400. I looked in a magazine not long ago, and the same television was listed at $3000. There weren't any catches, it just said "price drop" on the tag and nobody was smart enough to buy it.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Solution: Don't use streteching. Ever widecreen TV I've tested had a "normal" mode where 4x3 was displayed in true aspect (with bars on the left & right).



If you're watching standard old-format TV/games, why do you need HDTV? Standard-definition is only 480 scanlines... so why do you need a 1080 display? (just curious)



If/when I go to HDTV, I'll definitely want the widescreen option, so I can watch my Movies the way they were meant to be seen. I saw one widescreen at Sears for $399, although it was only 720 resolution.

troy[/QUOTE]

First off, why wouldn't I buy an HDTV? A high end Toshiba or Sony of the same price is easily $300-350.00. For less than $100.00 more you can get a TV with a LOT more inputs, and the support of 480p-1080i. It's a no brainer. Why do I need a 1080i display? Maybe I like to play Gran Turismo 4 in HD. HDTV broadcasts also look very good on this TV. The fact that 480p is supported is also reason enough for me to purchase a HDTV. Non-HD tv's in the same size (27") only support 480i, if that.

Just like someone else mentioned, 80% of what people watch (if not more) is the standard 4:3 format. Why even worry with widescreen at this price point? (Under $500.00).
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']I never understand why people ask "Why would you want a 4:3 HDTV?" The answer is simple until 50% of the feeds coming into the television from cable and games are 16X9 then there is no reason to purchase it.

Most 4X3 TVs support a Widescreen mode which read the signal and adjust appropriately and nothing is stretched. The opposite is not true for a 16x9 screen. First off not all widescreen sources are 16x9. Which means watching that you will still have bars and or stretch the picture in certain cases. Secondly stretched 4x3 sources on a 16x9 TV look like ass. Its too soon to buy a 16x9 when they cost more in comparison to their 4x3 counterparts. I would rather have bars along the bottom which is more natural as opposed to bars down the sides.[/QUOTE]

Interesting...every widescreen set I've ever used (mine, friends, family) has done a bang-up job of converting 4:3 images to fill the widescreen. The few 4:3 sets I've used that will actually "compact" 16:9 images either chop off too much or make me think I just took acid and/or shrooms.
 
If you're watching standard old-format TV/games, why do you need HDTV? Standard-definition is only 480 scanlines... so why do you need a 1080 display? (just curious)
Click to expand...

Technically its 240, which is 480i. The question is redundant though, because any television that can support 1080 should be able to support 480. If not just buy an upscaler...
 
[quote name='electrictroy']
If/when I go to HDTV, I'll definitely want the widescreen option, so I can watch my Movies the way they were meant to be seen. I saw one widescreen at Sears for $399, although it was only 720 resolution.

troy[/QUOTE]

The huge majority of movies are not 16:9, so you still get bars or stretching on a widescreen.

And unless you're going extremely high end the only 1080 you'll get is 1080i. 720p is a much better image, IMO.
 
Question:
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']klwillis45:
How can you not notice the short, fat, horizontally rounded faces on the signals that are stretched to fill a 16x9 space?[/QUOTE]


Answer: Cuz they aint there.

I've personally used widescreen sets of all types (CRT, Plasma, LCD, Projection) and from different companies (Toshiba, Sony, Pioneer, Samsung) and they all have converted 4:3 without noticable distortion. Have you used lower end sets or are you just going off what you've seen in the showrooms?? The few, newer 4:3 sets I've used that convert widescreen produce the distortion or major cropping.
 
I have a JVC 30' 16x9 TV, and when I watch regular TV, it looks great 'stretched'. Infact, I beleive it only chops off a little at the top/bottom instead of actually 'streching' the picture.

But, if your really getting a 16x9 TV, the main reason right now would be to watch movies, not TV.
 
Check the full article http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...+advent+HT2751A+review&hl=en&client=firefox-ahere.

Taken from Computer Power User online:

At first glance, the idea of a sub-$500 HDTV sounds farfetched. We were skeptical, too, until we actually took a hard look at the HT2751A. Let’s be clear. The HT2751A isn’t aimed at the home theater connoisseur who needs a 60-inch screen. With a 27-inch screen, the HT2751A is small, even by traditional TV standards. The HT2751A’s screen uses a 4:3 format but can display HD content either in 16:9 mode or in Zoom mode, stretching the image to fill the entire screen.

We thought that SD (standard definition) broadcasts looked as good on the HT2751A as on a good analog set, with crisp colors and respectable sharpness, but we were really impressed with the TV when we switched to HD content. Although the screen’s real estate is limited, it’s the quality, not the quantity, that counts. The HT2751A acquitted itself very well when we watched video in a widescreen, 16:9 format with only slight amounts of motion blur. The TV’s image was crisp, and color rendition was very good. We didn’t like the Zoom mode because a bit of compression was evident, and the TV had to crop a small amount of the material out of view. However, with HD broadcasts still relatively rare, the HT2751A is a good hybrid TV.

Is the HT2751A a smart way to step into the world of HD? Based on its price and performance, we’d have to say yes.
pixgray.gif
Click to expand...


It looks pretty good, especially for $329. I bought my analog JVC 27" for the same price... so I would go for it.
 
You are insane. You have a 4x3 signal and it stretches it to 16x9. Period. There is no high-end/low-end difference. Its simple math. The 4x3 signal needs an additional 33% of information which just isn't there, it will always stretch or zoom and you will lose the ratio of the picture or you will lose the top and bottom of the picture completely. Its a fact. No amount of technology will ever change that. The extra data doesn't just come out of thin air. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean its not there. I think you should do some testing and notice the difference.

There are some great HD forums out there to help better explain this:
www.hdtvarcade.com
www.avsforum.com

I challenge you to take a game with a perfect circle, stretch it and still tell us that it remains a perfect circle when stretched. PoP 2's pause screen is a perfect example. Make sure the xbox is set to 4x3. And then set your system to either HDzoom the pic or stretch the source, you will see that it is no longer a circle it is now an oval. This is the exact thing that is happening to every 4x3 signal that is stretched to fill the 16x9 space. Unless you have bars down the side, maintaining the 4x3 aspect ratio, you are distorting the pic. The only other solution is to zoom the signal, in which case you cut off the bottom and top of the pic. So my question is why would you have a 16x9 that either puts bars down the sides, cuts off 33% of the pic or distorts it when a 4x3 signal will do none of those?

Maybe its just me? As gamers continue to evolve and demand higher quality graphics and immersion, I don't understand the mentality of the 16x9 screen yet. Like I said earlier as soon as its hits 50% it will make sense but until then I don't see the draw.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I have a JVC 30' 16x9 TV, and when I watch regular TV, it looks great 'stretched'. Infact, I beleive it only chops off a little at the top/bottom instead of actually 'streching' the picture.

But, if your really getting a 16x9 TV, the main reason right now would be to watch movies, not TV.[/QUOTE]


If you're getiing chopped off/distorted check to see if you can manually resize the picture. When I setup my folks WS 30" Sony CRT HDTV , the "out of the box"settings were not quite right (distortion/chopping). IIRC, the "out of the box" modes were: Wide, Wide Zoom, Normal (4:3 w/side bars) & Full. Try using a station w/ a ticker (I used ESPNews) as these stations tend to take up the most real estate and doing a manual resize if possible. I used Wide zoom (I think) and resized it so it didn't chop and had no noticable distortion with non-HD broadcasts.
 
OP: If you are looking for a great alternative, try a projector. Some great HD projectors can be found if you look hard enough for under or close to a grand and the screen can be measured in feet not inches ;)

If you don't need the HD, you can grab them for under $500. www.woot.com

Back to the topic though, the TV you have pointed out is a fair entry-level TV. Around father's day is always a great time to buy a tv, second only to xmas/superbowl in the deals available category. If you sign up for a Reward Zone card you'll get an additional $10 back in the mail because of your purchase and I believe there was a 10% off any single item for father's day as well. So those combined will really help in the long run. Even better if you can get CC to pricematch and drop another 10% off of that.
 
OP: I went to www.epinions.com and there were zero reviews for any Advent televisions. That doesn't mean its bad, that just means that no one has reviewed it. Just something to keep in mind.

However, this samsung. is what most people on other forums are debating over, as far as competition for the advent. Really it comes down to brand name. I did find the samsung for $415 +Shipping here.
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']Technically its 240, which is 480i. The question is redundant though, because any television that can support 1080 should be able to support 480. If not just buy an upscaler...[/QUOTE]The question wasn't redundant. Re-read what I wrote: "If you're watching standard old-format TV/games [480i NTSC]... why do you need a 1080 display?" That question made perfect sense.



[quote name='Cornfedwb']The huge majority of movies are not 16:9, so you still get bars or stretching on a widescreen.[/QUOTE]True, but it's still better than watching on a 1.3:1 "square" display. Most widescreen movies range from 1.85 to 1.66 : 1 ratio, where HDTV has a 1.77:1 ratio... the aspect match is much, much closer to the actual film.




[quote name='rabidmonkeys']OP: If you are looking for a great alternative, try a projector. www.woot.com[/QUOTE]"16:9 Default aspect ratio at 800×450, 4:3 supported at 800×600)"

Barf. That's terrible.

troy
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']The huge majority of movies are not 16:9, so you still get bars or stretching on a widescreen.[/QUOTE]True, but it's still better than watching on a 4:3 "square" display. I still prefer to watch my movies on widescreen.




[quote name='rabidmonkeys']OP: If you are looking for a great alternative, try a projector. www.woot.com[/QUOTE]"16:9 Default aspect ratio at 800×450, 4:3 supported at 800×600)"

Barf. That's terrible.


troy
 
I learned it in college (electrical engineering). Approximately 480 lines are used for actual picture, ~25 lines are used for data transmission like closed captioning, and ~20 lines are used for the blanking interval.

troy
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']
However, this samsung. is what most people on other forums are debating over, as far as competition for the advent. Really it comes down to brand name. I did find the samsung for $415 +Shipping here.[/QUOTE]

Same TV I showed the OP in the second post. On sale right now for $424 at BB. OP, if you have any questions about the samsung, shoot me a PM. I have that exact TV.
 
My advice is to not get a 4:3 HDTV regardless of price. Since you're a gamer when Xbox 360 and PS3 come out you're going to be kicking yourself 2-3 years from now for buying a 4:3 when the default is going to be 720p-1080i on games.

If I were you and in desperate need of a TV I'd by a POS 27" from Wal Mart for $200-250 and hopefully be able to get a real 16:9 HDTV when you can get a 30-34" for $500 or less. It won't be much longer than 12-18 months before you can do that.
 
I think you need to take that class again and read up on some HD and anamorphic widescreen. The 525 is not DISPLAYED, 480 is DISPLAYED. There is a reason its called "overscanned". And that is where the Macrovision copyright and timecode are stored, not closed-captions. (My mom is/has been a captioner for over a decade.)

The projector has a resolution higher then an analog tv (720x480) set so how can they make you barf? Plus, I also think you need to do some pricing on projectors, that price is $200 less then froogle. Last time I looked you couldn't by an 8 foot TV for $500.

There is no ratio that is 1.77:1, its 1.78:1 :p. Either way take a cinematic film like Indiana Jones, which is 2.35:1 you are going to get bars on a 16x9. Take a smaller film like Batman which is 1.66:1 and you'll get bars if you keep the true ratio. Yet, most films are filmed with in 1.85:1, not 1.78, so tell me again how that differs from a 4x3 and what the advantage is?

16x9 and the 1:78 is the broadcast format for HDTV and for games, but not for film. And since this is a game site, I would say I just talked myself into a corner since the xbox360 is that ratio. ;)

Frankly, this was an awesome discussion between us. I wish it wasn't buried deep in here. Oh well, if anyone wanted a primer on HD they just got it.
 
OP: You need to way your entertainment needs. Put a percentage to the following:

Watch TV:
Watch DVDs:
Play Games:

If games comes out above 50% then I would consider a 16x9. Either way, make sure you go HD, everything else will fall into place. If you've never experienced HD personally, it will change your outlook on games and you'll find yourself replaying old titles that support 480p and higher. Hell, I played Enter the Matix just because its 1080i on xbox, even though I had it for the cube.
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']Hell, I played Enter the Matix just because its 1080i on xbox, even though I had it for the cube.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately 1080i doesn't make a shitty game good or the FMV on it less tiled.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']My advice is to not get a 4:3 HDTV regardless of price. Since you're a gamer when Xbox 360 and PS3 come out you're going to be kicking yourself 2-3 years from now for buying a 4:3 when the default is going to be 720p-1080i on games.
[/QUOTE]

If a game is capable of 720p does that necessarily mean it's displayed widescreen?

I was thinking of buying a cheap, used 2 year old Panasonic off craigslist - it's only $40! but I guess I'll wait for smaller HDTV's to come out. Currently I have a JVC 48" widescreen projection, but it's just too big. I have to agree though that widescreen is kind of useless. Movies still have the black bar, games are stretched (although the panorama setting for my JVC does a pretty good job, it's still distorted)
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']The 525 is not DISPLAYED, 480 is DISPLAYED. There is a reason its called "overscanned". And that is where the Macrovision copyright and timecode are stored, not closed-captions. [/quote] (1) I didn't say 525 displayed. I said "technically NTSC is 525 lines, first odd then even". My statement was correct. (2) Closed captioning is stored in the non-visible part. On engineering tvs (with all 525 lines visible), it looks like dots crawling across the screen. (3) Macrovision is not stored anywhere... it's a scrambling of the sync signal which throws VCRs out of whack. (4) I don't think NTSC uses a timecode? That only exists in the digital world.



The projector has a resolution higher then an analog tv (720x480) set so how can they make you barf?
Click to expand...
It's barf because I want ____x1080i, or at a minimum ____x720p. This projector only does _____x480p which is not HD. It's SD.



There is no ratio that is 1.77:1, its 1.78:1 :p.
Click to expand...
Nope. 16:9 converts to 1.77777777777... : 1 ;-)
Either way take a cinematic film like Indiana Jones, which is 2.35:1 you are going to get bars on a 16x9. Take a smaller film like Batman which is 1.66:1 and you'll get bars... tell me again how that differs from a 4x3 and what the advantage is?
Click to expand...
I already answered this question. Yes widescreen tv has bars, but the bars will be smaller on a 1.78:1 screen than on a 1.3:1 screen. Take a 1.85:1 film like Indiana ones. The old "square" screen would have large bars on the top and bottom. In comparision, the widescreen tv would just have thin slices of black. BOTTOM LINE: It looks better on the widescreen.

(ASIDE: Here's a very good site that describes how widescreen movies are converted to fit TVs (often incorrectly): http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm )




Frankly, this was an awesome discussion between us. I wish it wasn't buried deep in here. Oh well, if anyone wanted a primer on HD they just got it.
Click to expand...
yep

troy
 
I got a widescreen, and never looked back. Widescreen is the standard for HDTV, as well as the next generation of consoles. More than 50% of your viewing will be in HD well before the time you get your next TV, assuming you're waiting at least 2 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top