The Battle over Big TVs Shifts to Quality

Tue Jan 9, 2007 6:13PM EST

See Comments (29)

I previously predicted the biggest TV at CES would hit 120 inches...and what we got was a measly 108 inches, all of 5 inches bigger than the biggest screen last year. What's going on? Well, if you ask me, the battle for "biggest" is on the wane. Now, vendors are shifting focus toward who's the best.

It's hard to tell from the photos, but indulge me for a moment. Here's the 108-inch LCD from Sharp (and any flaws the screen had yesterday really seem to have been fixed today). It looks great. But there was a tiny, unlabeled room behind this giant screen. I took a peek. Inside I found a 64-inch LCD from Sharp...operating at 4,000 x 2,000 pixels of resolution.

Whoa. The difference almost knocked me down. Even though the 108-inch screen was running at full HD resolution, jumping up to this monstrous 8.84-megapixel resolution LCD made a far bigger impact on me than the sheer size of the big display. Sure, Sharp was playing some tricks on us by putting the 64-incher in a darkened room away from the crowd, but still, I was amazingly impressed.

Everywhere you look on the show floor, vendors are downplaying size and upselling quality. You'd be hard-pressed to find a TV that didn't support 1080p. And vendors like Philips are touting technologies that make TVs look even better: Ambilight looks nice, but when the TV is floating, suspended in glass, with LED backlighting...well, it's a whole new ball game.

So what's more important to you? Big dimensions or big resolution?

Comments on The Battle over Big TVs Shifts to Quality

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by mdomingo11 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    resolution is the most important with me.naturally it must be at least 50 inch. screen.

  • 7 Posted by daaavid777 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have a Samsung 40" LCD with a mere 1080i resolution and it looks awesome in HD. The only way I want bigger is if the picture can equal or match what I have now. With a 40" screen 1080p would only be a slight improvement. There is a noticable drop in clarity between the 50" and 60" Sony SXRD screens when they are running at 1080p. The 70" is even more pixelated. For most viewers clarity depends on how far from the screen you are. I am at 10 feet with my 40" and I feel like I can reach out and touch some of the 1080i images on this screen. If I had a room where I would be 15 or more feet away a 50-70" screen would really be needed and the extra pixelation wouldn't be so noticable. Inanswer to the question: Give me clarity and quality over size any day.

  • 9 Posted by lstrumpf60 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have been waiting for a 1080P LCD TV at 37 or 32 inches. I also want to spend about $1000 on it. I can't see buying a TV that can't display full resolution that is being broadcast. The bigest TV that would fit in my home entertainment center is a 37" with the speakers below the screen. Also I am in no rush, so I can wait for the price to drop to $1000.

  • 10 Posted by lukeshelton18 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:00PM EDT Report Abuse

    In the realm of modern television, size is clearly not everything. Big screen tv's have been around since the 90's, but with the introduction of High Definition, the technological focus has shifted from stretching the screen to improving upon what is already there.

  • 11 Posted by mcg650 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    I saw Sharp Aqous 65" LCD TV at Magnolia Hi-Fi In Colma, CA today. It is the biggest LCD TV in the store today. Maybe in the future, they will be going to sell 120" LCD TV from Sharp.

  • 12 Posted by hockeyreferee78 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    I honestly think that the only think that would satisfy me for new TVs is when they do something like the simulation games where you where the tv in front of your face and you can look around you wherever and whenever you want so that way TV would be more interactive. Or another way to accomplish this would be at home rooms where it would be like an Imax Theatre where they just project everything to be projected. However I know this would be very complicated to accomplish but just the thought of it just makes me impatient for the future to come. However for the current: I honestly think Quality and Resolution is better becuase for one I haven't used an HDTV in my life (I'm 13 by the way) and I would like to experiance that however size to me isn't a concern, if your TV is too small, sit c@#$% up! Now at a minimum size I say is 20" (Which is what is in my room right now) for TVs. For computers: 15" For Cars" The standard puny TVs in a car are fine for Travel considering having a large Tv would be hard to design into a car nicely (however I know Pimp my rided did put a 60" into a limo as a divider). In conclusion: Resolution all the way!

  • 13 Posted by fernando1torres on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:59PM EDT Report Abuse

    Definitely resolution, I'm no expert, but what I've seen at electronics stores is that resolution plays a huge role in enjoying a great TV experience.

  • 14 Posted by ambareenejaz on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:52PM EDT Report Abuse

    i'm a housewife who very timely has stumbled upon this discussion.All of you seem to know so much about big screen TVs so maybe you can help me out here.We're building our house and plan to have a media room in there...so should we get a big screen TV or a multimedia projector with a screen and also what is better LCD or HD or plasma? with so many choices out there i'm all confused and I'm afraid my husband or kids are no help.

  • 15 Posted by rec06484 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    They have garbage on TV as it is..How much content is out there????????? NOT MUCH ..DUMMING DOWN OF AMERICA.....Has Apple CEO watched TV lately? NO NO NO CUZ ITS ALL CRAP....GIVE us another 100 chanels so we can watch the RICH GET RICHER

  • 16 Posted by ttjnash on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:23PM EDT Report Abuse

    @ ambareenejaz, Projection is great and all, just as long as the room is going to be dark at all times. You should go to a few retail locations and ask questions. Know how you will you use the TV. Certain TVs will burn images in them, say like if you watch CNN, the CNN symbol can be burned into the screen permanently. Also the size of the room and the distance you will be sitting from the TV matters. Go to the store, ask questions and see for yourself the differences. Most TVs smaller than 56", don't really need anymore than 720p(progressive), but if you want to spend the extra bucks and get 1080p, then go for it. Bang for your buck is a HUGE consideration in the TV market now. Good luck.

  • 17 Posted by leesmack@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:48PM EDT Report Abuse

    i just bought a 42 panasonic plasma hdtv. i love it and has 480p, 720p, and 1080i. it all looks great to me with the dish network hd package. plus i got the upconvert rca dvd player.

  • 18 Posted by dbuzick on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    Quality is most important. I would not consider purchasing a half HD resolution (720p) TV. My computer monitor is also a full HD capable display (1920 x 1200 pixels), Viewing HDTV on it, I can easily notice the vastly inferior quality of the FOX and ABC network programs which are only broadcast in half HD. All of the other networks broadcast in full HD (1920 x 1080 resolution), and the picture quality is dramatically better. The best size to purchase depends on how far back you plan to sit from it. There are many full HD resolution LCD and projection TV's available from 37" on up. Projection TV's are cheaper, but have a limited viewing angle, so are suitable only if you plan to sit directly in front of them.

  • 19 Posted by wmeyerriecks on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    Both are equally important but for different reasons. That mega-108-diagonal-incher has, if it is 1080P, pixels that are perhaps 1/20" or so... probably a pretty coarse image if you're within about 20 feet or so, not to mention the fist-sized "blocky" MPEG compression artifacts. If you were to watch a conventional 480P DVD on it at anything like within 15 feet of it, barf-O-rama. On the other hand, if one has a 27" 1080P and sits about 8 feet away from it, your eye can no longer resolve the maximum HD detail displayed on the screen. A 480P DVD on that display looks fine in that "living room setting." And that 4000x2000 display? An odd ratio (18:9 if the pixels are square) but WOWEE it must be crisp if a "native resolution" image with little compression artifacts were to be seen on it from about 10-12 feet away! THAT would make a great monitor for computer work, but the bandwidth required for video would be tremendous. To the point: If one were to view a standard (non-upconverted) 480P DVD on a 17" 1080P widescreen display and then a full-tilt 1080P HD-DVD on same, but from, say, 6-7 feet away, you probably could not tell the difference (excepting possibly video compression artifacts)... at that distance your eye simply cannot resolve that fine a detail due to the limited "pixels" (rods and cones) that it has. How do you suppose you see 16 million colors on your monitor *right now* when all it can produce are 256 shades each of red, green and blue dots? Because the dots are smaller than you can resolve. Don't believe me? Get out the trusty magnifying glass and look for yourself. So, for a given display technology (720P, 1080P), it all boils down to your viewing distance as a function of the size of the display, assuming that the display's maximum detail is being effectively utilized. Think of "one to three" for 720P and "one to four" for 1080P -- the current crop of display resolutions ... for every foot of diagonal display, you should be about three feet away for a 720P set and four feet away for a 1080P set... any further away and you're eyes begin to merge the pixels and they become wasted; any c@#$% and the pixels themselves become evident as a "grainy" image. I feel that 1080P is *presently* the way to go no matter what the size; just choose a display size appropriate for your planned viewing distance. Presently 1080P *is* the best that is readily available and accepted. Upconverting DVD players will output 1080P even though the source data is only 480P (an interesting interpolation problem to be sure). High definition cable/sat/broadcast, Blooo-Ray, HD-DVD... all of these will output data encoded at 1080P resolution. On many notebook computers the video chip will output that resolution, so a 1080P set can be used as a crisp monitor as well. OK, you may go back to sleep now.

  • 20 Posted by nicelpura on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:37PM EDT Report Abuse

    I work in sony before and the only the best that i saw clear T.V in this generation of milleminum is Bravia expected more people enjoy and exciting if the price in market lowest for Sony t.v.

  • 21 Posted by frugal68 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    Why bother when something better is always coming out. All this is psychological for the companies to take our money away. I bought this $8000 surround system that I never even use because it sounds too overwhelming. I prefer the subdued sound quality from the regular stereo speakers on the TV console. I use my smaller TV becuase it is easier to use and turn on than deal with all the crap hooked up to my Plasma. Plus I the small TV in my bedroom feels more homely and cozy. Enough of this hype folks. Get your butts out of the sofas and do some of the stuff you watch. Geeez.

  • 22 Posted by forthecandy@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:01PM EDT Report Abuse

    Size vs quality is kind of a silly argument when its possible to get both. I do feel quality is a key factor regardless of the size, but if you are looking to save money, a lower "quality" seems to be the smart thing money wise. Keep in mind that a t.v.'s maximum resolution is only relative to the max resolution the media format you are using. For example, a Blu-Ray disc will actually play in 1080p resolution, however, a standard DVD will only play in 480p. So you have to research exactly what you are going to use your T.V. for before you bother with the highest resolutions. For the record, I have both a blu ray and HD DVD player, and I can rarely tell the difference (one plays in 1080p, the other 720p). That being said, a huge 100" t.v. is not always necessary either. You must take into account the area in which you will be watching. If its a large room with a lot of space and you are sitting far away, bigger is better. However, in a standard living room 40-60" is plenty big. Before you buy, find a display and measure out where you normally watch your t.v. from. This should help you judge if the size is adequate. You will find out if you sit too close to a massive t.v. the experience will be much like sitting front row in a movie theater: not very enjoyable. The smart consumer will look for both a suitable size and sufficient resolution, unless this t.v. is a phallic symbol for you, in which case by all means go balls out, no pun intended. Personally I recommend Best Buy's Insignia brand LCD t.v.'s. They are a terriffic value (I own 3 of various sizes) and have many of the popular options that Sony and the big names have. To put it in relative terms, a 32" Insignia LCD 720p cost $550 while a Sony 32" 720p costs $800. Best Buy offers warranties on both, so if you are worried about longevity spend the extra $100. Also, I swear I dont work for Best Buy, just buy a lot of t.v.'s (video games are an expensive hobby.

  • 23 Posted by nictrasvinabl4 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:38PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have a projector (Epson 76c $900) at 1280x1000 or so and it looks great at 100" or 8.3ft. Movies are perfect, but games dont look as good as they would on LCD or Plasma. Not that much of a difference, but the crisper the better. It is cheap, huge screen, small size(5lb), and can be transportated really easy. Screen size is adjustable. Full 24hr replacement from Epson It must be far from the wall, the room be dark for best quality( no glare though!), can be stolen easier than a TV, bulbs are expensive, not as high resolution as the newest TVs. Setting up perfect is sometimes tedious, usually need to buy screen, speakers, ceiling mount, and sometimes cables. You can also throw your controller at the screen without ruining it!!! LOL... not that I do that...

  • 24 Posted by ibone562 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:22PM EDT Report Abuse

    I say 'bang for buck' should be the new slogan for this part in the HD TV mania trend... I was able to find at the local Circuit City a Philips 27" Widescreen HD LCD 1080i for %550... and that was regular price... been very happy with it and the versatility of the thing is whats great... full surround sound built in under the screen for the satellite HD TV usually, flip the switch and it goes to my brand new computer i bought at the same time, flip another switch and it goes to a PS3 that nicely displays that 1080 resolution that's getting people hooked like crack... All of this stacked in one neat little pile of convenient entertainment...

  • 25 Posted by rodelqd2 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    as long as i can watch it clearly - size is no problem :)

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 3 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.