Good HDTV for a budget of $1,000

[dcdude]

i was looking at THIS (http://tinyurl.com/2k75d)

i can get it for about 800 bucks at circuit city

any others i should be looking at

im looking for 32 inch if possible

[MICKEY T]

That Is An Excellent Tv. I Prefer 16:9 Screen. You Might Be Better Off With That In A Couple Of Years. I Have A Samsung Txn3098whf I Am Quite Happy With. Check Out Cnet And Their Best Buys And The Sight That Shows You The Viewing Areas On 4x3 Verus 16x9.

[ernande]

Hmmm, I'm really not a fan of the 4:3 format.

I'd recommend the 30" Sony WEGA widescreen KV 30HS420 for $999 (although you could get it on sale at Circuit City for $899). It has all the same features as the set you're looking at minus the dual tuners, subwoofer, and features HDMI instead of DVI (which is what future Sony sets will feature).

If you watch more standard TV than DVDs and don't mind stretching future HDTV signals, then the 4:3 set may be better for you.

[max]

there is really no point to buying an HDTV that is 4:3, if it is just for SD viewing than buy an SD TV. HD will bring out all of the imperfections of SD images.

my 2 cents, 16:9 HDTV. no sense on buying something that is already a thing of the past.

MAX,

[jokerb]

When I was buying mine, because of the budget, the option was between a 30" and 32". I still watch SD programming (no ESPN-HD here, Comedy Central, Lifetime...oops...err...where's the delete key for that last one), so it was a consideration.

A 16:9 image on a 32" TV comes in at about 29".

A 4:3 image on a 30" TV comes in at about 27".

So I was willing to give up the inch of 16:9 for 5" of 4:3. Even with the stretching/zoom technology that takes care of ratios, there is still a noticeable quality loss over the SD signal from a S-video feed. When there is enough HD programming, then I'll change my mind about this. Or when I can afford a 34" or larger.

I have the Zenith c32v37 which I'm very happy with.

[max]

Then why upgrade to an HDTV when you are not going to use it for HD?

Do you watch DVD's at all?,if so I would still suggest the widescreen over the standard. My opinion is a standard 4:3 HD set is a waste of money. I mean you wouldn't put a dodge neons engine into a dodge viper, or would you?

MAX,

[jokerb]

I didn't say I didn't watch HD programming or DVDs. I definately watch those. BUT, I still watch SD programming. Would I rather watch in HD? Yes. Do I have the option? No. That's the limitation of Time Warner Cable (and I live in an apartment where it is impossible to get sattelite).

Normally, I would agree with you. And obviously in larger TVs. But look at the measurements I sent. There is not a big difference in screen size of 16:9 viewing between a 30" and a 32" TV. So where is the waste of money for someone who is going to use the SD programming, in addition to the HD and DVD? I guess if you have medical problems with black bars, then that might be an issue.

And the Neon/Viper example is awful. We're not talking about the inside of the TVs. The 30" and 32" screens are both have the same performance (other than manufacturers differences), just a matter of screen size and shape.

Maybe it's more appropriate to say it's like putting a Viper engine in a Neon. Still not the best example, but it sure is a good way to hustle people on the drag strip!

[kevinw]

Here are some other options
http://www.sears.com/sr/product/compare/productcompare.jsp?compare=YES&poid_1=1078788199&poid_2=1078847313&poid_3=1078847315&poid_4=1078925511&prodCount=4&BV_SessionID=@@@@1280708837.1088608574@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdiadclliejfekcehgcemgdffmdflk.0&targetPage=%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fsearchresults.jsp&vertical=ELEC&pageName=%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fsearchresults.jsp&page=&sort=&order=&catname=TVs+%26+TV+Stands&subcatname=Projection+%26+High+Definition+TVs&subcat=-1073923599&sortorder=d&prod1078788199=on&prod1078847313=on&prod1078847315=on&prod1078925511=on

[xmmusicman]

I didn't say I didn't watch HD programming or DVDs. I definately watch those. BUT, I still watch SD programming. Would I rather watch in HD? Yes. Do I have the option? No. That's the limitation of Time Warner Cable (and I live in an apartment where it is impossible to get sattelite).

Normally, I would agree with you. And obviously in larger TVs. But look at the measurements I sent. There is not a big difference in screen size of 16:9 viewing between a 30" and a 32" TV. So where is the waste of money for someone who is going to use the SD programming, in addition to the HD and DVD? I guess if you have medical problems with black bars, then that might be an issue.

And the Neon/Viper example is awful. We're not talking about the inside of the TVs. The 30" and 32" screens are both have the same performance (other than manufacturers differences), just a matter of screen size and shape.

Maybe it's more appropriate to say it's like putting a Viper engine in a Neon. Still not the best example, but it sure is a good way to hustle people on the drag strip!

Well, I think what most folks are saying (and I agree) is that if you are buying an HD set why not maximize the viewing experience for HD rather than the SD. It's not just about the numbers, the HD format is 16:9 so you will be watching HD with black bars which apparently doesn't bother you, so maybe 4:3 is the better choice for you. But if you are spending the extra money for an HD set in lieu of a good SD set, it just seems like you are maximizing the SD over the HD with a 4:3 format HD set. I would rather have a widescreen HD set and stretch the 4:3 programming like I do for my RPTV than put up with the black bars for HD viewing, but that's just a personal preference, not a medical issue (unless you just think I'm insane!). The nice thing is that there is still a choice, though such choices are getting harder to find as some manufacturers are moving away from the 4:3 format for HD sets.

[jokerb]

You're completely right. It's a personal decision. I didn't like the quality of the strected 4:3 signal, and was willing to give up the inch and black bars for it. But it's only a weird quirk about the 30" v. 32" decision since they are so close (I guess the measurements of the 34" and 36" will have the same issues). And the price reflects that. The 30" HD is usually a little cheaper by the same manufacturer of a 32" HD. So I was willing to pay a little extra so I could have 5" of South Park! Woo-hoo!

Don't get me wrong, as soon as everything is in HD, I'll take a chainsaw to my 4:3 and make it into a 16:9. But the only channels of HD we have here in Austin are Fox, ABC, PBS, Discovery and The Law and Order Channel (TNT). HBO and Showtime are available, but they only have something decent on every now and then, and then play them all the time. HDNet and INHD are available at a premium, and I'll try those out soon, but I haven't been impressed with the programming lineup.

So I guess this turned into a ***** session about the HD programming available here. But that's the point of why I brought this up in this forum. For someone who still is upgrading to HD, but still enjoys SD programming, it might be too early to get a 16:9 TV that doesn't add that much screen size comparable to the loss of 4:3. Trust me, if I had a 60" screen, this wouldn't have been an issue.

[Matt27]

You do know that HD is 16:9 right?

True HD is 16:9, like max said you would just be wasting your money.

Why get 4:3 when you will be future ready with 16:9.

[max]

I think he does know HD is 16:9 and maybe the 4:3 is better for him.

and my analogy wasn't that far off.
Feeding an HDTV an SD signal is somewhat like feeding a viper with a neons engine. You aren't taking advantage of what it can really do.

If you watch mostly 4:3 then why not just stick with that and buy an SD 4:3 screen. It's not really worth the extra money for an HD set when the same show is also broadcasted in SD at all times. You could get 2 SDTV's for the price of 1 HD.

I was just pointing out my opinion, I would buy an HD set and try to maximize it by feeding it mostly HD and DVD's.
Why dont you give us a % of how you watch TV.

Mine is about:
50% DVD
45% HD
5% SD

So that's why I justified my purchase. with a % we can help you bit better, and keep this a positive thread... Hope this helps a bit.
Also I guess it's a bit different for me because Rogers has enough HD programs to keep me happy. Plus with the DVR I always have something HD to watch.

MAX,

[57U]

There is an FAQ on this subject - 4:3 vs Widescreen.

There are almost no 4:3 large HDTVs made, so that decision has been made for you. In the Direct View size, I can see why someone would purchase a 4:3 HDTV, even having read the FAQ.

[kevinw]

. For someone who still is upgrading to HD, but still enjoys SD programming, it might be too early to get a 16:9 TV that doesn't add that much screen size comparable to the loss of 4:3. Trust me, if I had a 60" screen, this wouldn't have been an issue.

The decision needs to be made on what programming do you want to be larger. SD or DVD'd and HD. I prefer my HD and DVD'd larger even though I watch more SD programming than HD. If you want a 4:3 hD tv better hurry, because they are not going to be making them much longer.

[dmlove]

Not debating the merits of ANY of the above comments, but I actually have a 4:3 HDTV, which I bought when my old SD bigscreen died. We got this tv because it has an excellent picture, and at the time, HD was not available to us (and there wasn't much content anyway). Needless to say, 2 months later, Comcast called and offered us HD, which we jumped on. Now we have more than10 channels in HD (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, InHD, InHD2, ESPN, Showtime, HBO and other premium channels we don't subscribe to). Now we're sorry we have the 4:3 tv, which still has an outstanding picture, especially in HD, but not the full widescreen viewing experience. If I were to do it again, or if the timing had been a little different, I'd go/have gone for the widescreen.

[max]

a few years ago I could understand goimg the 4:3 route, but with all the new HD products available now and coming soon I just cant see the logic.

You've got HD channels with more coming, Time shifting HD, HD PVR's,HD Video games and soon HD-DVD.

Why not take advantage of all this now and be future ready.
MAX,

[dcdude]

well now that i looked at that sears link and all your comments im sold on 16x9

the main reason i went for the 4x3 in the first place was because it was the only HDTV for that good of a price at my store

but now that i see the price i can get on 16x9 ill go with that

i wont be getting any HD broadcasts any time soon as digital cable/satellite is a little expensive, but for dvd's and video games alone its worth it - nothing good comes on tv anyway

[jdsports]

I am a new owner of the Sony 42" Sony Grand Wega and I do not even know were to start. I have cable getting hooked up in my house tomorrow. I watched VHS tapes on it today just to get a feel for it and it has a horrible picture. Anyone surprised other than me? What to do?

[schmidtandrew]

The 42 inch sony is a great tv and when connected to a hdtv feed you will be happy.
A vhs tape is the lowest quality source you will ever see

[jdsports]

any other helpful hints? I am going with cable and not DTV. Setup modes etc..

[max]

cable will leave you less than happy, DVD's will look great though.

MAX,