Anyone notice how cheap TV's are getting lately?

MacLeod

Just wondering if anybody else has noticed this. First off, Walmart has upgraded their TV line to include some pretty solid offerings. For instance they now carry Sony, Samsung and Sharp LCD's and Panasonic plasmas! The 50" Panny goes for $1300 while the 1080 40" Sony is $1150 and their cheapest is a 42" Vizio plasma for $750!!!

At Circuit City and Best Buy, theyve got some pretty smokin' deals as well. 40" Samsung LCD's for $900 with LG sets for $1000. Theyre also carrying the 1080 Sammy and Sony sets for $1200. These were $1500-2000 just a few weeks ago! LG and Sammy 42" plasmas can also be had for $1000 and last week Circuit City had a 42" Sammy plasma on sale for $880!!

Dont know what happened all of a sudden but it looks like the bottom has fallen out of HDTV prices at least for now.

wallstreet

I must be old school, because those prices seem astronomical to 10 years ago when I bought my 36" Mits for 600 and some change. Funny, now people don't mind dropping $1500 for 10 more inches.

ben62670

I saw that too. I went to CompUSA today, and couldn't believe the price drops. I kept looking at the labels expecting that they were 720's, and they all were 1080's:eek:

treitz3

It's about time.

F1nut

Ya'll know what that really means, don't ya? Something new is coming out soon.

Face

wallstreet wrote: »

I must be old school, because those prices seem astronomical to 10 years ago when I bought my 36" Mits for 600 and some change. Funny, now people don't mind dropping $1500 for 10 more inches.

Plus a MUCH better picture. :rolleyes:

danger boy

the 120Hz tv's are now hitting the market.. and the 60Mhz's are being offered at big discounts. the consumer really wins this time.. there is nothing wrong with the 60Hz TV's.

Norm Apter

danger boy wrote: »

the 120Hz tv's are now hitting the market.. and the 60Mhz's are being offered at big discounts. the consumer really wins this time.. there is nothing wrong with the 60Hz TV's.

What is the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz, in practical application? Is the former supposed to offer a better/clearer picture? Or does it lead to some other benefit?

I just want to know where we're headed, since things are changing so fast

danger boy

this is what i pulled off the net..


While the rest of the world is gawking at 108-inch LCDs and quad-resolution pixel counts, I'll let you in on a little secret: 120Hz HDTVs are going to help movies look better than ever on the little screen in your living room.

Here's how.

Film is 24 frames per second. That standard was the approximation of what was defined in the early 20th century by hand crank cameras. And just about every movie disc you can buy is encoded in this format. We're not just talking DVD. We're talking about HD DVD and Blu-ray, too.

The problem is, most TVs run at 30 frames per second. Fitting that 24-frame content onto a 30-frame screen isn't that easy; the math just doesn't compute cleanly. You can't divide 24 by 30 without filling in the gaps with some junk. That junk causes stuttering in the video. This is a jerky-looking phenomenon that's particularly noticeable when the camera pans across a scene. The conversion is better known by film and TV wonks as 2:3 pulldown. It spreads out 24 frames into 30 by placing one frame on the screen three times and the next one after that two times, and repeating this pattern ad infinitum.

How does this relate to an 120Hz HDTV showing frames at 120 frames per second? A bit of simple math tells you that 120 is a multiple of 24, because 24 x 5 = 120. So one of the claims of the purveyors of these sped-up monitors is that they can natively reproduce 24p programming, namely, just about every film has ever been shot.

These new HDTVs avoid this awkward 3:2 pulldown process altogether by changing their frame rate to something that's a multiple of 24 by using either frame doubling or interpolation (also called "tweening"). Then, their playback can be as close to native 24fps playback as you can get. That's why 72Hz (24 x 3 = 72) and 120Hz refresh rates are gaining traction. Native 24p playback: Yeah, sounds good. But how will it be implemented and which manufacturers are involved? And who does it best? –

dcmeigs

Thanks, DB for the turtoral. Good stuff.

danger boy

the 120Hz refresh rate only applies to LCD's not plasmas or rear projection displays

mule

Norm Apter wrote: »

What is the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz, in practical application? Is the former supposed to offer a better/clearer picture? Or does it lead to some other benefit?

I just want to know where we're headed, since things are changing so fast

Average application, you will not notice a big difference. But sports and video games or anything with fast action and the 60 can get pixelated and you lose all detail. It is really horrible, but for people that just watch reality tv, they would never see a difference.

PhantomOG

A couple weeks ago Sam's was selling a Sharp 65" LCD for under $3k :eek:

I've had my 52" LCD for only about 6-7 months and I'm already thinking about what size my next bigger tv will be

I paid about the same price for my 1080p/24 52" LCD as I did for my very first 32" 1080i CRT. Prices are going down and people are buying bigger and bigger.

Midnite Mick

How long before this resolution is affordable?

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-37511-97.html

I-SIG

Midnite Mick wrote: »

How long before this resolution is affordable?

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-37511-97.html

I've been wondering about that myself. 1080 x 2 & 720 x 3. Hopefully some idiot doesn't try to do 2160i first.

Wes

MacLeod

My one **** about this is that the CRT TV's are off limits now.

Since 90% of TV is in 4:3 and not all channels are available in HD or you just dont want to pay $30 extra a month to get them and taking into consideration that SD video such as standard digital cable or DVD's look like hammered **** on LCD's and plasmas, a nice 35" set would be just the thing. A year or two ago, Best Buy had a Toshiba 35" for $450 and a 36" Sony for $550. Too late now. Nothing bigger than a 27" can be found anywhere. Your only options are a tiny little 27" (what I have now) or knock over a couple liquor stores and drop $1500 on a flat panel. No in-between.

I can buy an expensive house and relatively expensive car on credit with no problem but I cant get credit (never quit a good job to move to Texas and be an over-the-road truck driver) to buy a f**king tv so Im stuck paying cash which makes $1500 tv's pretty much a non-option. So that leaves me with 32" LCD's - which are smaller than a 27" CRT viewing 4:3 (which the vast majority of my viewing is) and still looks like hammered **** on SD. But if they still made 35" sets, I couldve bought one of those $450 Toshiba's and been as happy as a clam for many years to come.

Thats what cheered me up about seeing that 42" Vizio at Walmart for $750. I know Vizio aint no Sony (which is what I really want) but they do make a solid TV and if they can get down to $600 with that thing - Im back in business!

okiepolkie

MacLeod wrote: »

Thats what cheered me up about seeing that 42" Vizio at Walmart for $750. I know Vizio aint no Sony (which is what I really want) but they do make a solid TV and if they can get down to $600 with that thing - Im back in business!

PASS, PLEASE PASS on that Mac:eek:

You aren't that far from me. If you need a good deal on a tv that bad, I can always meet you in Nashville or something. You might as well stick to the 27" if you are going to go with a Vizio, especially with the qualifications I've seen you give televisions over the past year.

MacLeod

Really? Ive seen several Vizio plasmas in bars and restaurants I deliver to and they always look pretty decent and they do well with Cnet reviewers. I know Vizio's arent the best and dont compare to Sony or Pannys but Im figuring "bang for the buck" here. Ill never own a Sansui, Westinghouse, Sanyo or RCA anything but I keep hearing and reading good things about Vizio and I would take a "very good" picture for $600 over an "excellent" picture for $1500.

Trust me, I know the benefits of getting quality gear but its a simple matter of finances. $1500 tv's are not an option for me at least not now. Not only because Circuit City doesnt trust me but also because I just bought a house and there are only so many splurges my wife will tolerate while we still have a futon as a sofa in the living room, no bedroom suit and no outdoor furniture on the back deck.

One little aside tho - the moment Circuit City or Best Buy deems me worthy of some credit, whoooo baby! Vizio who? Sony 1080 baby!

okiepolkie

I would still recommend to wait just a little longer until you do have the money. There are other reasons I would not recommend Vizio, or at least not yet, but the main reason right now is that the picture quality is still not on par with the better sets.

Wait until the Christmas sales start up again. Then you can get a better set for the same money. Remember the 42" Hitachi from Sears last year for $700? Not a bad set at all for the money, and there will be more deals.

apphd

I think the recent price drops (especially in the large BM locations) reflect 3 things going on right now.
1.The continuous advancement of technology, and lower prices.
2.The higher cost of fuel. Households are tightening their belts leaving less for luxury items. The large chains have probably already paid for the shipping of these to their warehouses. They have trucks running on a daily basis to their retail locations, and for now are willing to eat most of that added cost.
3.Economic Stimulus checks are in the hands of consumers. Most probably now need them for food and gas to get to work, but some will be able to spend on the luxury items, but it's just a lot more competitive now for the retailers.

If my theory is right, we should see price drops on some other somewhat costly items.

denimdelinquent

wallstreet wrote: »

I must be old school, because those prices seem astronomical to 10 years ago when I bought my 36" Mits for 600 and some change. Funny, now people don't mind dropping $1500 for 10 more inches.

I checked out in inflation calculator online, and $600 in 1998 is $772 in 2007.

Looking at Costco.com you can get a 37" 720p Hitatchi LCD for $799.99.

So for $28 more you can have a television with a 1" bigger display, much better resolution, that weighs signficantly less and takes up 1/10th the space of the CRT.

10 inches may not seem all that much bigger, but in square inches, for example, the difference between a 37" lcd and a 47" lcd it equals to over 60% larger viewing area.

SolidSqual

I just bought a 42 inch Samsung plasma for $800.

denimdelinquent

I wonder how long until DLPs and Plasmas go the way of CRTs?

obieone

Don't forget Mitsu is allegedly premiering a LASER tv this fall

MacLeod

denimdelinquent wrote: »

I checked out in inflation calculator online, and $600 in 1998 is $772 in 2007.

Looking at Costco.com you can get a 37" 720p Hitatchi LCD for $799.99.

So for $28 more you can have a television with a 1" bigger display, much better resolution, that weighs signficantly less and takes up 1/10th the space of the CRT.

10 inches may not seem all that much bigger, but in square inches, for example, the difference between a 37" lcd and a 47" lcd it equals to over 60% larger viewing area.

Thats pretty interesting. I never thought of it in terms of inflation. I bought my Sony 27" back in 2001 for $500!!!

I wonder how long until DLPs and Plasmas go the way of CRTs?

I dont think plasmas are going anywhere. They have a better picture than any of the other technologies and you can get more screen for less. The whole IR and burn in thing will be a drawback to them tho. As for DLP, I dunno. If they ever get their reliability down pat I think theyre the best display type out there. No burn in, no IR, no motion blur and damn near every bit as good a PQ as a plasma and you can get 57" sets for $1500!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS6wsJRGqnQ&NR=1

Wow!! I think I know what Ill be buying in, oh, say about 18 months!

MacLeod

Keiko wrote: »

That vid was posted Jan 07. I just bought a 40" Samsung LCD. I got tired of waiting and wondering about those new Toshiba SED TV's that were supposedly coming out 2 years ago. And now Laser Television. Feck it! I'm waitin on the holodecks.

LOL! I with ya!

I remember reading an article on SED in Sound and Vision back in '05 I believe it was. Swore they were right around the corner. Still waiting.

On an aside, I was just watching a Youtube clip on LCD vs Plasma and got a kick out of how a 46" LCD was $5000 and a 50" plasma was $4000! Thats was only 2 years ago! Now theyre barely over $1000.

wingnut4772

must....have...laser....television......

obieone

I too, don't drink the upgrade-koolaid, because there's ALWAY something newer, bigger, brighter, shinier! Technology better knock it off before people start getting burnt out.
They'll end up like dotcoms & housing market-crash!

Face

wingnut4772 wrote: »

must....have...laser....television......

What happens if the screen breaks, isn't that a little dangerous?

denimdelinquent

MacLeod wrote: »

Thats pretty interesting. I never thought of it in terms of inflation. I bought my Sony 27" back in 2001 for $500!!!



I dont think plasmas are going anywhere. They have a better picture than any of the other technologies and you can get more screen for less. The whole IR and burn in thing will be a drawback to them tho. As for DLP, I dunno. If they ever get their reliability down pat I think theyre the best display type out there. No burn in, no IR, no motion blur and damn near every bit as good a PQ as a plasma and you can get 57" sets for $1500!



Wow!! I think I know what Ill be buying in, oh, say about 18 months!

Many manufacturers are leaving the Plasma business. Big guns like Pioneer and Phillips.

okiepolkie

denimdelinquent wrote: »

Many manufacturers are leaving the Plasma business. Big guns like Pioneer and Phillips.

Actually, Pioneer is not leaving the plasma business, they are just retooling how to bring them to market. They are doing away with a 42" plasma, but they will still be making a 50 and 60 in the conusmer and professional market. Panasonic will begin making the glass for Pioneer in mid 2009, but Pioneer will still put their own electronics and proprietary technology in at their own plants.

Phillips may be cutting back on plasmas, but they aren't a driving video force in the U.S. anyway.

Until an LED driven LCD, OLED, SED, or something new makes it to the market, I still think a good plasma looks better than a good lcd. I am looking forward to CEDIA expo again this year to see what changes will be made as far as new technologies, but I will enjoy my pioneer plasma until then:)