46" SHARP 1080p LCD TV $999 (after $300 off) - full HD - WOW!

I just got a Vizio at Costco a couple weeks ago knowing the price would drop near black Friday. I am not impressed with the black levels of the Vizio and have actually had a couple issues with video quality (some white noise looking interference bleeding on the top and side). It looks like the Vizio is going back and will get this one as it's $100 less and appears to be a better TV.

LINK

Sharp 46" LCD HDTV
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Dynamic Contrast Ratio: 10000:1
Brightness: 450cd/m2
Item # 460550 link

For future refrence, the size of the TV should be mentioned in the thread...

1) fix the link
2) specify size
3) good deal

In 2008? For $1000? It is for me.

rigor said: white noise on top? as in CCTV - no overscan? thats really not a bad thing

1080p in a 46" is unneccessay. see here: 720p vs 1080p

plus I got my Panny 50" 720p from the Buy.com deal for $848 shipped.

this deal is not hot in my opinion.

njguy646 said: plestiuc said: 1080p in a 46" is unneccessay. see here: 720p vs 1080p

plus I got my Panny 50" 720p from the Buy.com deal for $848 shipped.

this deal is not hot in my opinion.

Yea but is your Panny an LCD or plasma?

Plasma. Even better.

I would only get LCD if I planned to use it as computer monitor.Plasma beats LCD in every aspect except this one.
This 46" is too big for a computer monitor, though.

plestiuc said: 1080p in a 46" is unneccessay. see here: 720p vs 1080p

plus I got my Panny 50" 720p from the Buy.com deal for $848 shipped.

this deal is not hot in my opinion.

The article you linked states "1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want." But it depends on your room size and how far you sit from the tv. Nevetheless, this is a very good deal for a 46" LCD...especially THIS model.

titanblitz said: plestiuc said: 1080p in a 46" is unneccessay. see here: 720p vs 1080p

plus I got my Panny 50" 720p from the Buy.com deal for $848 shipped.

this deal is not hot in my opinion.

The article you linked states "1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want." But it depends on your room size and how far you sit from the tv. Nevetheless, this is a very good deal for a 46" LCD...especially THIS model.

did you even read the article ?? do not mislead people out of your ignorane.

this line: "1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want." refers to PROJECTORS and 123-inch projection screens!

don't take it of context:
"For me and many people with large projection screens, 1080p is the minimum resolution you'd want."

this is the bottom line on the 720p vs 1080p on LCD/Plasma screens:
"What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV."

and this is not even 50". On a 46" the margins are even smaller.

plestiuc said:
For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV."

and this is not even 50". On a 46" the margins are even smaller.

Of course they will be able to see the full benefit. YOU posted it just one line above ("and become full apparent at 6.5 feet")

It does sound like you are bitter about getting non-1080p technology. I do agree with you though about plasma have better picture

as for what resolution is necessary, none, you can watch a movie on a 13" CRT if you want. Even bluray (as long as you have the proper connections)

I have the 50 inch panny 720p from last year's black friday for $900 and it is by far the best TV out there. You never see any bad reviews. I would not have minded a 1080p model, but I will not be able to tell the difference. I figure in a about a year or so I may upgrade, but to get the best black levels and no worry about 120hz and all that crap you need on LCD's, the Panasonics are the best bang for the buck. I just bought a 42 inch for the bedroom for $600.

The 55U is the lowest spec model from Sharp with 1080p. The next higher level is 64/65U
I believe the differences are not major and include poorer response time (6ms vs 4ms for 64/65), Fewer HDMI connections and a lower native and dynamic contrast ratio. But in outward appearance the TVs look almost identical.

plestiuc said: Plasma beats LCD in every aspect except this one.

That's a little simplistic. There are lots of reasons to select LCD over plasma.

Setintine said: The 55U is the lowest spec model from Sharp with 1080p. The next higher level is 64/65U
I believe the differences are not major and include poorer response time (6ms vs 4ms for 64/65), Fewer HDMI connections and a lower native and dynamic contrast ratio. But in outward appearance the TVs look almost identical.

The 65U also has HDMI v1.3 w/ Deep Color and 120hz refresh rate. Not sure what kind of panel the 55U series uses, but the 65U has an 8 bit ASV panel.

Just thought I would share some info about LCD vs Plasma.

Here are some specs of a 52" Sharp 1080p LCD vs 50" Panasonic Plasma 720p Plasma:

Sharp LC-52D43U
Power On (Manufacturer) 297 watts
Standby (Manufacturer) 0.70 watts
Power On (Crutchfield-tested) 285.38 watts
Standby (Crutchfield-tested) 0.46 watts
Estimated Cost per Month (Crutchfield-tested) $5.23
Weight 88 lbs
1500:1 contrast ratio (7500:1 dynamic)
60 Hz refresh rate
30,000 to 40,000 hours rated backlight life. Can be replaced.
http://www.Crutchfield.com/App/Pr...lcd&tp=161

Panasonic TH-50PX80U
Power On (Manufacturer) 497 maximum watts
Standby (Manufacturer) 0.20 watts
Power On (Crutchfield-tested) 187.85 watts
Standby (Crutchfield-tested) 0.12 watts
Estimated Cost per Month (Crutchfield-tested) $3.43
Weight 82.7 lbs
15,000:1 contrast ratio (1,000,000:1 dynamic)
480Hz refresh rate
100,000 hours rated screen life. No replacement available.
http://www.Crutchfield.com/App/Pr..._and_specs

In this comparison the Plasma beats the LCD in power consumption, weight, contrast, and refresh rate. I looked at other LCD's from Sony, Toshiba, and Samsung and the results are the same. The reflection issues with Plasma is a minor issue but has been mostly taken care of with filters, and the burnin issues have also become minor issues with the pixel shifting technology. The pluses for Plasma are MUCH better contrast, color, response time, and screen life. If the picture is so much better why would anyone buy an LCD these days? Plasma is the better bang for your buck. If you game alot or use the tv for a monitor I can see it, but for just about anything else I don't see the advantage.

As for 1080p vs 720p with a 50" TV you have to be within 7 feet of the screen to even BEGIN to notice a difference and thats only if you are watching 1080p content. I measured my couch and it is behind the 7 foot mark so I am good. I can't imagine being closer than that. Sunburn anyone?

Ha, I couldn't watch a full NFL game last year on my Pioneer Plasma (after 1 year of ownership)because of burn-in. I ended up watching the Giants VS Packers game last year all the way through. I then had to proceed with "Iceage" movie on a loop for 12 hours to get rid of the image retention (scoreboard). Does that sound fun to you? I will NEVER buy a plasma again. Pioneer PDP4360 was over 2K when it came out. My Samsung 46750 series is a billion times better. I am tired of people hiding the fact that burn-in is still very real!

brickhouse said: Conservative1 said: Ha, I couldn't watch a full NFL game last year on my Pioneer Plasma (after 1 year of ownership)because of burn-in. I ended up watching the Giants VS Packers game last year all the way through. I then had to proceed with "Iceage" movie on a loop for 12 hours to get rid of the image retention (scoreboard). Does that sound fun to you? I will NEVER buy a plasma again. Pioneer PDP4360 was over 2K when it came out. My Samsung 46750 series is a billion times better. I am tired of people hiding the fact that burn-in is still very real!


New Plasmas have anti image retention features like pixel shift. Your $2000 Pioneer didn't have these new features. Granted there is still an issue but the technology has improved on this problem.

plus another factor that contributed to your burn in problem is probably the fact that you did not "break in" your plasma properly if at all.
see more about "break in" here: Break In Your Plasma

cllamont said: It cant be a model exclusive for Costco.
Most of the high-end manufacturers WILL make/name/numbers products exclusively for Costco, even if the item is identical to the one being sold elsewhere. Or the packaging or 'bundle' will vary slightly. This helps maintain and protect their pricing outside the Costco world.
Mattress manufacturers have been doing this for aeons. You can NEVER find the exact mattress for price-comparison across different sellers/chains, even when you run across THOUSANDS.
They don't REALLY make thousands, do they? No! They just switch fabrics/colors for different vendors.
Same deal at Costco; except with more products and more manufacturers.

It's an Ok Deal but sharp really has lost it's edge, Samsung's are just alot better and if you hold tight I am sure within a month you'll have chance to get Samsung for $1100 or less some place with ease (not some BS in the snow for 14 hours on friday)

Just my opinion though, and 120hz LCD is as good as any Plasma, plasma have tons and tons of disadvantages, the only true advantage is true blacks.. thus much better contrast. Which with the newer LCD panels of any quality this is shrinking and for most people (and I mean probably 98%) they couldn't tell the difference if someone was there to point it out. 1080p is what you want unless you are buying a 32"... why the hell would you want 720 when you can get 1080p for nothing more??? I have 720 I bought in 2001 and it really really shows it's age now. Still working fine though.

plestiuc said: 1080p in a 46" is unneccessay. see here: 720p vs 1080p

plus I got my Panny 50" 720p from the Buy.com deal for $848 shipped.

this deal is not hot in my opinion.

I am sorry but that article is a load of crap. I can easily read/text where it is still clear (using 75 DPI font sizes on the computer its hooked up to) on my 42" 1080p TV from around 20 feet away. According to this article I wouldn't even notice the benefits of 720p yet (HAHAH! I don't think so!) according to it I have to get 7 feet away to *start* noticing the benefits) and 5 feet away to fully get the benefits. What a laugh when I can see the individual pixels from 10 feet away.

Also sitting 15 feet away from my 37 inch 1080p LCD TV downstairs gives a much better picture than the 50 inch 720P TV upstairs from 20ft away. That article is totally off.

Yet again, the average consumer has no idea. All I see is the forum nazis (Hc000, namlook) and a lot of others who need to step away and into the light of day.