nusqax
10-04-2006 16:06:18
regardless of brand, which should i buy? they're the same price.
Wolfeman
10-04-2006 16:10:33
The difference between 1600 and 3000 is less noticable than 23" and 27". I'd go with the bigger one...
kdollar
10-04-2006 18:47:49
27, 23 is small and a waste of that much money....in fact if ur gonna spend that much i dont see any reason than going lower than 42...just my 2 cents
tylerc
10-04-2006 18:52:24
[quote7c8916219e="shortys408"]bigger is better.[/quote7c8916219e]
What he said.
nusqax
10-04-2006 20:10:50
[quotece8f7dee81="kdollar"]27, 23 is small and a waste of that much money....in fact if ur gonna spend that much i dont see any reason than going lower than 42...just my 2 cents[/quotece8f7dee81]
well, i'm only spending around $650. i don't think i can get a 42 inch with just that much.. (and i mean actually buying it)
akalic
10-04-2006 20:15:45
its hard to tell the sharpness difference, so i say 27
Wolfeman
10-04-2006 22:32:23
[quoteaf96c7ff9b="akalic"]its hard to tell the sharpness difference, so i say 27[/quoteaf96c7ff9b]
I concour...
KeithA
11-04-2006 05:45:28
It's generally safe to ignore a manufacturer's claim of contast ratio, especially with LCD tvs. I know you're not interested in brands, but Samsung is somewhat notorious for their "30001 dynamic contrast ratio" that, when measured by the ISF (Imaging Science Foundation), is substiantially lower.
Unless you're looking at one of the higher-end Sonys or Sharps, you can expect to compromise a bit in terms of black levels and contrast, so just go with the larger display.
nusqax
11-04-2006 10:37:47
OK, I've pretty much decided on the 27" one. Here's a link to the specs. Let me know what you think.
27" ÖLEVIA LCD TV (LT27HVX)
http//secure.syntaxgroups.com/products/specs.jsp?pid=lt27hvx
nusqax
11-04-2006 12:15:42
KeithA
11-04-2006 12:28:09