Why no 32" 1080P? Seriously, why?? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Would 1080p on a 32" look great at A DISTANCE OF 3 FEET?
Artwood is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 05:42 PM
Newbie
 
rhodiad@gmail.co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sure! Why not? It would look even greater at a distance of 5 feet.

And 1080p content looks absolutely stunning at native resolution on my 1920x1200 (letterboxed with 120 lines of black above and below) 24" Dell monitor at about two feet.

It looks great at 15 feet on a 50" display.

But the point is that if you want to use your display for your PC, then you really do need higher pixel density than if you're just watching movies. A 1080p 32" display should be fully capable of beautifully displaying 720p content or standard 480p DVD movies, assuming it has a decent scaler. But the vast majority of 32" and 37" HDTVs have a native resolution of 1366x768, which isn't great for PC use (even if you can find one that is capable of displaying non=resampled/sharpened/hacked-up signal) and will be resampling any HDTV or DVD signal it gets anyway!

If there were enough people with high-definition signal sources (game consoles and PCs) who want high resolution and high pixel density, then someone would start making 1080p displays in the mid-30-inch range. Maybe in a year or two when the whole market is saturated, manufacturers will find it profitable to start targeting this niche.
rhodiad@gmail.co is offline  
post #33 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 06:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
wsfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sharp announced two 1080p "gaming" LCDs. One is a 32" and the other is a 37" (I think it's 37"). I can't remember the exact specs but I know they are 1920x1080, 120Hz (?), and have 4 ms response time.
wsfanatic is offline  
post #34 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 06:20 PM
Newbie
 
rhodiad@gmail.co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Fantastic news. Thanks, wsfan!
rhodiad@gmail.co is offline  
post #35 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 06:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
wsfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Sharp gaming models are the new GP1U series.
wsfanatic is offline  
post #36 of 57 Old 01-31-2007, 08:06 PM
Newbie
 
rhodiad@gmail.co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
link:
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/Fun...643-16,00.html

In fact, Sharp's 2007 line evidently has (or will have) TWO sets of 1080p options in 37" and 32":
The GP1U (game player?) series mentioned above -- LC32GP1U and LC37GP1U
And the D62U series -- LC-37D62U and LC-32D62U

Woo-hoo!
rhodiad@gmail.co is offline  
post #37 of 57 Old 03-31-2007, 02:08 PM
Member
 
Lou82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhodiad@gmail.co View Post

link:
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/Fun...643-16,00.html

In fact, Sharp's 2007 line evidently has (or will have) TWO sets of 1080p options in 37" and 32":
The GP1U (game player?) series mentioned above -- LC32GP1U and LC37GP1U
And the D62U series -- LC-37D62U and LC-32D62U

Woo-hoo!

Did they release these TVs yet? Are these also optimal for general HDTV viewing or watching blu ray players? I am going crazy looking for a 1080p HDTV in the 32 inch range.

ANy help would be great.
Lou82 is offline  
post #38 of 57 Old 04-05-2007, 11:14 AM
Newbie
 
johanasu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Go to newegg and look up item # N82E16889101108

and item #N82E16889101117

Two 32" Sharp 1080p displays
johanasu is offline  
post #39 of 57 Old 04-05-2007, 11:21 AM
Newbie
 
rhodiad@gmail.co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
yep! they're starting to trickle in. FINALLY! 32" 1080! In a few months, we might even have some more choices.
rhodiad@gmail.co is offline  
post #40 of 57 Old 04-09-2007, 12:34 PM
Newbie
 
oh2ride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Actually, Sharp has 2 models of 32" 1080p the LC-32D62 & the LC-32GP1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rconn2 View Post

I don't get it. I've had a Dell Inspiron laptop

My laptop is over 2 years old and has a 1920 x 1280 15.4" widescreen UXGA screen. There are a number of large (> 40") lcd hdtv's w/ 1920 x 1080. Dell has a 30" widescreen monitor, very pricey (oops... hope I don't get in trouble for saying that) that has better than 1920 x 1080.

So, I don't get it. Manufacturers can make small screens w/ that many pixels, large ones, and monitors -- but NO HDTV's in the mid-size of 26 - 32" w/ native 1080P. Why?? I'm one of those holdouts for 1080P. And I've been waiting and waiting and like what's going on? When? I'd get the 37" Westinghouse, but it's really too big for the room I'd use it in. I don't want to argue (oops... I mean discuss) the need for 1080P... I want, and want yesterday.

[deleted by moderator]
-- rc

oh2ride is offline  
post #41 of 57 Old 04-09-2007, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh2ride View Post

Actually, Sharp has 2 models of 32" 1080p the LC-32D62 & the LC-32GP1.

But you replied to a post that was over a year old.

If you read through the rest of the thread (usually a good thing to do before you post, BTW), then you'll see that that those Sharp models were brought up a couple months ago right after they were announced.
mkoesel is offline  
post #42 of 57 Old 06-07-2007, 08:57 AM
Newbie
 
domfells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can anyone tell me if Sharp plans to release similar models in the UK? Or perhaps if there is a similar alternative in the UK (1080p 32" LCD)?

Thanks,
-Dom
domfells is offline  
post #43 of 57 Old 01-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
justlnluck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Posts: 901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I find it ridiculous that there aren't more models that are 32" with 1080p. I use a 768p Westinghouse TV as a monitor at my desk on a daily basis, but I think 1080p would be a perfect resolution to fit more text. Too bad I can't upgrade because TV manufacturers haven't caught onto this yet.

Justin
justlnluck is offline  
post #44 of 57 Old 01-24-2009, 04:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by justlnluck View Post

I find it ridiculous that there aren't more models that are 32" with 1080p. I use a 768p Westinghouse TV as a monitor at my desk on a daily basis, but I think 1080p would be a perfect resolution to fit more text. Too bad I can't upgrade because TV manufacturers haven't caught onto this yet.

Why can't you upgrade? It's not as if there are no 1080p displays in this size at all. Are you saying that none of the ones on the market fit your needs?
mkoesel is offline  
post #45 of 57 Old 01-24-2009, 11:43 PM
Member
 
jblevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With a 32" set, you would have to be about 4 feet from the screen to gain the benefit of 1080p. Most people aren't watching TV from 4 feet away. That's why you won't see 32" sets with 1080p. You'll be lucky if you can find anything below 50" 1080p in the next year or two.

For more explanation see this article:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
jblevin is offline  
post #46 of 57 Old 01-25-2009, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SystemShock2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area, in the state of Californication
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblevin View Post

With a 32" set, you would have to be about 4 feet from the screen to gain the benefit of 1080p. Most people aren't watching TV from 4 feet away. That's why you won't see 32" sets with 1080p.

You'll be lucky if you can find anything below 50" 1080p in the next year or two.

Huh? There seems to be plenty of sets below 50" that are 1080p these days.

Even 32" 1080p is not all that uncommon anymore.

"SED's dead, baby. SED's dead."
SystemShock2 is offline  
post #47 of 57 Old 01-25-2009, 03:19 PM
Member
 
ooa4oo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
because 23in. monitors are usually right in front of your face so you will see the benefits.
not many people put a 32in in front of their nose. its too big to use as a monitor. its also too small to use for general viewing and get the benefits of 1080p. you'd have to squish your whole family 3-4 feet from the screen.
its a size thats too big for a monitor and too small for a tv.
its probably suitable for a budget concious single male gamer or something. not a big demographic so it'll be one of the last sizes made.
ooa4oo is offline  
post #48 of 57 Old 01-25-2009, 04:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
What currently is the smallest 1080p display in the world?
Artwood is online now  
post #49 of 57 Old 01-26-2009, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SystemShock2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area, in the state of Californication
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ooa4oo View Post

because 23in. monitors are usually right in front of your face so you will see the benefits.
not many people put a 32in in front of their nose. its too big to use as a monitor. its also too small to use for general viewing and get the benefits of 1080p. you'd have to squish your whole family 3-4 feet from the screen.
its a size thats too big for a monitor and too small for a tv.
its probably suitable for a budget concious single male gamer or something. not a big demographic so it'll be one of the last sizes made.

Yah, 32" is usually for apartment-dwelling singles who don't really care about having a good set. Not necessarily gamers though... we like 'beeg' sets.

More like, well... chicks.

Kinda makes me think 1080p is a waste in that size on that basis alone. They don't usually care about image quality that much.

"SED's dead, baby. SED's dead."
SystemShock2 is offline  
post #50 of 57 Old 01-26-2009, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

What currently is the smallest 1080p display in the world?

In production, or in any form at all?

I recall a few years back there was a 1080p OLED prototype that was about 7" in size.

In production, it would be 32" for televisions, but there has been 1920x1200 16:10 LCDs in sizes as small as 15" so in theory LCD televisions as small as 15" (and probably even smaller) are possible.
mkoesel is offline  
post #51 of 57 Old 01-26-2009, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I didnt even read the first post so let me just say, Is this a real question? the answer is simple

Size vs distance. You need more then 42" to even begin to notice 1080p. and you ALSO need to stay within distance or will NOT notice the resolution.

as for the other question why make better resolution??? it looks sharper then 480i even though it may not be 1080p, more detail better.

seriously whats with the questions im sure you know the answer but want a further explation. well theirs notin much to it just size distance and content

put those 3 together then you can worry about resolution, In this case you skip the size as 32" is not enough whats your distance? and so on.

I hope this helps

Also i've sold 32" sharp 1080p lcd a year ago when i was working for sears

its just marketing as you wont see 1080p in a 32" again like i explained.

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u

XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #52 of 57 Old 01-28-2009, 03:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
mahlerfan999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemShock2 View Post

Yah, 32" is usually for apartment-dwelling singles who don't really care about having a good set. Not necessarily gamers though... we like 'beeg' sets.

More like, well... chicks.

Kinda makes me think 1080p is a waste in that size on that basis alone. They don't usually care about image quality that much.

(1) Well 32'' sets can be for anyone, say for a bedroom or a study. An apartment living room is not the only place you can find such a thing.

(2) A large fraction of gamers are teenagers, and they probably game on 32'' or smaller size tvs because that's the kind of size their parents would give them.

(3) Girls tend to like big screen tvs as well. They just tend not to jump on spending huge amounts of money on them is all!

(4) Pixel count doesn't determine quality.

(5) Size doesn't determine quality.

I know your post was tongue in cheek, but it begged for a response!
mahlerfan999 is offline  
post #53 of 57 Old 01-28-2009, 06:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SystemShock2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area, in the state of Californication
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahlerfan999 View Post

(1) Well 32'' sets can be for anyone, say for a bedroom or a study. An apartment living room is not the only place you can find such a thing.

(2) A large fraction of gamers are teenagers, and they probably game on 32'' or smaller size tvs because that's the kind of size their parents would give them.

(3) Girls tend to like big screen tvs as well. They just tend not to jump on spending huge amounts of money on them is all!

(4) Pixel count doesn't determine quality.

(5) Size doesn't determine quality.

I know your post was tongue in cheek, but it begged for a response!


Well, at least you got that I was kinda joking.

"SED's dead, baby. SED's dead."
SystemShock2 is offline  
post #54 of 57 Old 01-28-2009, 08:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a question- will BluRay look as good on a 32 inch that isn't 1080? 40 inch?
Is there much of a difference???

Thanks.
GraceAdler is offline  
post #55 of 57 Old 01-29-2009, 12:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 25
^^^^ grace i can answer that, in terms of quality it if its a say 32" exact model of the 40" the quality will remain the same HOWEVER on the 40" you are more likely to see 1080p theirs a bigger chance vs on the 32" you wont thus making you "feel" that it looks better.

So in other words if you were to ask me, what would i enjoy more my blu ray movies, in a 32" flat screen or a 40" flat screen

my answer would be a 40" for various of reasons..

really theirs no advantage in going for smaller size other then watching SD and even then YMMV based on how good the processing and signal are.

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u

XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #56 of 57 Old 01-29-2009, 04:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
mahlerfan999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemShock2 View Post

Well, at least you got that I was kinda joking.

As a single person living in an apartment with a 32 inch tv, I'm defensive! But I really am going to buy a bigger tv, if I could only choose between lcd and plasma.
mahlerfan999 is offline  
post #57 of 57 Old 11-25-2009, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I just ordered it from Crutchfield and will be using it with my 2009 2.26Ghz Core 2 Duo Mac Mini with 4gb DDR3 RAM to view my HD videos and photos stored on external FW800 1.5TB & 1TB HDs. I have been using it with my 42" and 47" 1080p HDTVs but want to view them from about 3 to 4ft away on a large desk. I also plan on using it sometimes with my HP laptop with blu-ray drive and HDMI output. I have a mini-display port to HDMI adapter from Monoprice that I will use to connect my HDMI cable to the 32". I have been using a DVI-HDMI cable since the Mac Mini has both mini-DVI and mini-Display port . I also have a 37" 1080p HDTV and I would not waste my money on a 720p LCD. Sure 720p is used by ABC,FOX ESPN etc but I could see more detail on my 1080i channels like CBS,NBC etc and when used in 1920x1080 mode on my PC or Mac.
jogiba is online now  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off