Alright I'm to damn indecisive and I can't make up my mind so I need you fine folks to do it for me. I'm contemplating selling my Sharp LC-32D43U and replacing it with a Sony GDM-FW900. The Sharp is a 32" 1366x768 LCD TV and puts out a great picture for what it is. The GDM-FW900 as many of you are well aware may be the finest consumer display ever produced, but it's only 24 inches (and technically only 22.5 inches viewable). This is basically a battle of picture quality versus size.
Keep in mind I've got my LCD pretty well perfectly calibrated. I'm sitting about 5 and 1/2 feet from the LCD (close enough to fully resolve 720p content at 32") and will be about 2-3 feet from the CRT (close enough to fully resolve 1080p content at 22"). Primary uses here will be 360/PS3 gaming (thank to the magic of the HDFury), secondary uses being Blu-Ray movies via the PS3, a secondary monitor, some light PC gaming, and the Wii:
1. Very Good PQ. Great color, decent black levels, decent shasow detail, handles motion well.
2. Lighter of the two weighing in at about 35-40lbs.
3. Bigger of the two with about 9.5 more inches of diagonal real estate
4. Without going into a lot of detail is a slightly easier cabling situation
5. Low maintentance
1. Shadow detail, though good for an LCD, still leaves a lot to be desired. This is probably my biggest issue with it and LCDs in general as it makes it very difficult to view darker content.
2. I'm in a dorm so finding a place for it where I can sit comfortably close to it is difficult; I'm basically arranging furniture based on optimal placement of tech at this point.
3. Lower resolution at a bigger size. Not a huge deal with the PS3 or 360 as those games render at or below 720p but it doesn't make it an ideal second monitor and I'm losing detail in Blu-Ray movies.
4. Unorthodox resolution means everything ends up getting scaled up or down.
1. Perfect PQ. Spot on color reproduction, deep inky blacks, great shadow detail, and no blur or ghosting.
2. Despite being thicker I can find a place for it a lot easier due to it's smaller size (gigity)
3. 1920x1200 makes it perfect as a second monitor and ability to handle 1080p makes it ideal for Blu-Ray.
4. Ability to scan at multiple resolutions eliminates scaling and ensures that lower resolution content isn't made to look worse due to poor scaling.
1. It's significantly smaller. Granted I will be sitting significantly closer to it so it may really not matter in the end but it's really hard downsizing.
2. This sucker's heavy weighing in at 92.6 pounds.
3. Cabling will be slightly more of a pain (not a huge complaint but worth mentioning)
4. Higher maintenance as focus pots may have to be tweaked down the line and I may have to adjust the raster size to get it to display 16:9 content properly.
So there you have it, I can't decide. I'm just too torn between perfect picture quality and bigger size. What do you guys think?
Always remember: The pessimist is never disappointed.