need HDTV recommendation - please help

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:01:39 -0700, clover wrote:

On 7/6/2012 11:26 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:08:46 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

an LCD set may have leftover image when the image transitions to
full black.

I can't say I've seen that in maybe six years of LCD viewing.

That might mean that I'm lucky in my choice of sets, or it might mean
that the manufacterers have finally solved that problem.

Amen. Had an edge lit LCD 17" since 2000 used as PC monitor, with same
old icons in same old place for years at a time, no sign of burn in.
Replaced some months ago with 32" 768 TV. No sign of such mythology on
this set either. Other LCD TVs here, some LED, are also PC driven, none
shows signs of burn in. I vaguely recall CRTs having the problem
though. Phosphor burn?

I definitely have seen it on CRTs.

Since my previous post, I also remembered that I bought an LCD monitor
maybe 10 years ago. There was never any burn-in, but there was an
irregular patch of grey overcast maybe three inches in diameter towards
the lower left

But that was caused by the owner's carelessness :-)

Once when I was doing some rearranging, I mushed the face of the monitor
against something, which damaged it mechanically. It was still useable,
and it didn't bother me much, except when it made me think of my
carelessness.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:09:44 -0700, Adam wrote:

Thanks, but sorry, I don't understand the last part about "16x9 will be in
letterbox".

In this case, black bands above and below the picture so its width will
fit onto the 4:3 CRT.

Viewing 4:3 pictures on a 16:9 set will make the bands appear on the
sides.

I recently recorded some 16:9 from the cable box onto DVDs. They have
black borders on four sides, but they are still adequate for us.

Most digital (HDTV) sets, and maybe some CRTs, have zoom options to get
rid of the black bands, but you would lose or distort some of the
picture as well.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"clover" wrote in message
...
On 7/6/2012 10:51 AM, Adam wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 7/5/2012 1:46 PM, Adam wrote:
I am looking for a quality HDTV for my "frugal" elderly parent,
who just wants to be able to watch TV for free after buying the TV
(and does not have/want internet/cable).

I am not sure whether the following HDTV would be too much TV and
many of the features (internet, etc.) will not be taken advantage of.

VIZIO 42 Inch Class Theater 3D LCD HDTV with VIZIO Internet Apps,
E3D420VX
...
http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-Class-Th...g_bs_172659_16

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.


Speaking as half of a two great-grand-parent household, from a community
of peers, a TV screen can be very important or trivial to daily life.
Among those to whom it is very important (a group which includes this
household) picture and sound quality values vary vastly. A neighbor's
cable-connected, projection HDTV recently blew its third or fourth bulb,
he's opted to replace the set with a used Sony 36" CRT. It has decent
sound and he's satisfied with the picture. Plus, he only spent $125 to
get it. On the down side it took two much younger men to put it in
place.

When others here ask for guidance in choosing new TVs, I caution mostly
about sound quality. The feeble speakers of 42" and smaller flat
screens
can be difficult for septuagenarian and older ears. Having access to
treble and bass controls is important. If wireless headsets are in
order,
be sure that the TV does not mute its built-in speakers when the
headset(s) connect. After all we don't ALL have hearing problems. If
headsets are being considered, I'm a fan of Sennheiser wireless. Among
their offerings is a set designed for the hard-of-hearing and in all of
their sets which we have, volume control is on each headset.

Without internet access, the internet apps features of TVs would be a
waste of funds - generally at least $100 over the same set without.

Lighted remote control with larger keys can be a blessing.

Barring Elmo's comment regarding 3D sets probably being better built, if
it costs more and they're budget restricted, why consider it. Have they
been to 3D movies? If so, did they enjoy wearing the glasses in order
to
see the film? Is it likely they'll enjoy it any more at home? Do they
have Blu-Ray player(s), will they buy 3D players?

And, if they're switching from analog to digital for the first time, are
they in good health? If so, it's quite likely the digital set will
belly-up in their remaining lifetime and they might write you out of the
will for having recommended one ;-)


Thanks, I found your post to be extremely helpful/sensible,
especially the last sentence/paragraph. :-)j/k

Actually, except for the "must-have" ability to receive digital TV
signals,
none of the new features will be used/needed. The TV is for
an extremely simplistic "frugal" person who gets confused by
complicated (multiple) remote controls. Perhaps,
a digital TV converter & antenna may be the best route to take?


Many of our senior community residents still use analog TVs, many with
converters, many others still getting analog cable signals from Time
Warner, under covenants negotiated decades ago with their predecessors.
The neighbor I mentioned as recently upgrading;-) from projection HDTV to
36" Sony analog CRT, is connected to a cable box. It converts his HDTV
channels to component analog output and the picture is indeed quite nice.
Smaller than before, but suits his needs.

We all know that old analog TVs will probably operate longer than many of
us here in blue-hair-city have left, so it is a very economical choice.
Especially for pensioners on ever diminishing income streams.



Thanks, I'd have to get the make/model of the current TV in order to
have something more tangible for comparison but, picture quality-wise,
how does a 32" 720p 60Hz LCD HDTV+antenna setup compare to
the CRT+digital TV converter (not Comcast cable box; see below)+antenna?

Zinwell ZAT-970A Digital to Analog TV Converter Box (for Antenna Use)
http://www.amazon.com/Zinwell-ZAT-97...bs_979935011_1

I'm staying away from projection HDTV for now. :-)

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Adam:
Actually, except for the "must-have" ability to receive digital TV
signals,
none of the new features will be used/needed. The TV is for
an extremely simplistic "frugal" person who gets confused by
complicated (multiple) remote controls. Perhaps,
a digital TV converter & antenna may be the best route to take?

That rings true to me.

- Get a converter where it's remote can also change the TV's
Volume and On/Off - and preferably *NOT* be able to
change channels on the TV.

- Attach the converter

- Set TV to channel 4

- Pull the batteries from the TV remote and put it
somewhere out of sight.

- Show them how to use the new remote.


Seems like the minimum possible number of changes to their
current routine.
--
Pete Cresswell


By Golly, I think Pete's got it. :-)

"Adam" wrote in message
...

Thanks, I'd have to get the make/model of the current TV in order to
have something more tangible for comparison but, picture
quality-wise,
how does a 32" 720p 60Hz LCD HDTV+antenna setup compare to
the CRT+digital TV converter (not Comcast cable box; see
below)+antenna?

FWIW, my 32" analog Sanyo has better colors than my Vizio HDTV, and
except for ststionary studio shots seems nearly as sharp.

The news program just showed their website. I could read the fine text
with difficulty on the HDTV at my best vision distance, not quite make
it out on the analog one. At non-optimal distances there isn't much
difference between them.

jsw

Per Adam:
Thanks, but I thought an antenna is needed with an HDTV as well, right?

My understanding was that you were thinking about using an
indoor antenna instead of a rooftop antenna.

My experience has been that non-rooftop antennas do not work
nearly as well for digital as they do for analog TV.

That being the case, I'd try whatever indoor antenna I was
considering in the apartment it would be used in before spending
money on a new TV.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:37:50 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article , "Adam"
wrote:

Actually, except for the "must-have" ability to receive digital TV signals,
none of the new features will be used/needed. The TV is for
an extremely simplistic "frugal" person who gets confused by
complicated (multiple) remote controls.

And let's all acknowledge that when we're 80 years old, we will all be
saying the same thing--"I don't want to deal with all the new stuff that
the 20 year olds are excited about. I know what I want, so just give it
to me. And stop trying to shove things I don't care about down my
throat."

No way.

It fails to match people in that age group that I know.

Very condescending...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Adam:
Thanks, but I thought an antenna is needed with an HDTV as well, right?

My understanding was that you were thinking about using an
indoor antenna instead of a rooftop antenna.

My experience has been that non-rooftop antennas do not work
nearly as well for digital as they do for analog TV.

That being the case, I'd try whatever indoor antenna I was
considering in the apartment it would be used in before spending
money on a new TV.
--
Pete Cresswell


Thanks, but I've been referring to higher-end indoor/outdoor HDTV antennas.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Adam" wrote in message
...

Thanks, I'd have to get the make/model of the current TV in order to
have something more tangible for comparison but, picture quality-wise,
how does a 32" 720p 60Hz LCD HDTV+antenna setup compare to
the CRT+digital TV converter (not Comcast cable box; see below)+antenna?

FWIW, my 32" analog Sanyo has better colors than my Vizio HDTV, and except
for stationary studio shots seems nearly as sharp.

The news program just showed their website. I could read the fine text
with difficulty on the HDTV at my best vision distance, not quite make it
out on the analog one. At non-optimal distances there isn't much
difference between them.

jsw


Thanks, analog has better colors but digital has better definition,
which makes sense. Okay, I'm getting a better idea now.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message
...
In article , "Adam"
wrote:

Actually, except for the "must-have" ability to receive digital TV
signals,
none of the new features will be used/needed. The TV is for
an extremely simplistic "frugal" person who gets confused by
complicated (multiple) remote controls.

And let's all acknowledge that when we're 80 years old, we will all be
saying the same thing--"I don't want to deal with all the new stuff that
the 20 year olds are excited about. I know what I want, so just give it
to me. And stop trying to shove things I don't care about down my
throat."


Thanks, but I already feel that way and I'm not even near that age yet.
:-)
And, I hate to even think about how much more complicated technology will be
when
I get to that age.

To designers out there, would you please make things more user-friendly?