Plasma for 1400

http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?Sku=5824463&SourceID=k2315

anyone seen a plasma from this company? Because this seems unbelievably cheap for a plasma to me. Was thinking about buy a second hdtv for the game room, in preparation for the new consoles.

Plasmas suck, unless the burn-in problem has been solved.

Burn in on Plasmas has been greatly reduced from a problem to a small risk. That being said, I take issue with a set that’s 1024 X 768 calling itself HD. It it cannot show an HD image without some form of scaling.

Funk.

I’m not sure that’s a really accurate statement. It can easily show a 720p signal because it has more than 720 lines. The width of the display apparently is not a factor in the standard. Now you may take exception to the standard but I don’t think that they’re making false claims.

It’s something of a dodge on the part of the sellers. Using lines of resolution harkens to the days of analog. But the ATSC standard defines horizontal and vertical resolution.

http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shared/2517984faq42.shtml

720p at a 16:9 aspect should be 1280x720.

A screen 1024 pixels wide only “uses” 576 pixels at a 16:9 ratio.

It’s just an argument that has been going on for a while amongst HD weenies. I side with the “HD not quite” camp. No big deal, and irrelevant to most.

Funk.

What does this mean exactly?

I was under the impression that the set has essentially rectangular pixels and that the image gets scaled to the full 1024x768. Meaning that the full 720 lines will get resolved (and scaled up a bit) but that the 1280 pixel width gets “crunched” to 1024.

Anyway, I understand what you’re talking about when you say you’re in the “not quite” camp Funk. I think it has hurt the industry to some extent that these standards have such leeway in them. On the other hand, the things I’ve read indicate that simply talking about a raw number of pixels is a good way to buy a poor quality set…that so much more goes into overall picture quality than the number of pixels and how they get displayed that you could easily think that a good 852x480 plasma showing a 480p picture looked better than a crappy box showing 1920x1080i.

Plasma TV’s, like anything, fit squarely in the realm of “you get what you pay for”. Unless it’s something I don’t plan on using for very long, I never buy a product just because it’s the cheapest I can find. Plasma technology, even though it has gone down in cost substantially in the last several years, is still expensive. Any manufacturer offering an extremely cheap model is only able to do so by cutting corners.

I would never consider a plasma unless I absolutely needed a TV that could mount to a wall because the majority of what you’re paying for is the fact that it’s flat. Good plasmas look really good and even some of the less expensive ones look decent, but for the same money you can get an excellent DLP or LCD projection set or even a badass CRT. Rear projection DLP’s and LCD’s are usually no thicker than the equipment you’re going to put under them. Unless you plan on hiding everything to go along with your wall-mounted plasma, that extra space will be taken up by the rack underneath it anyway.

Also, to echo what others have already said, resolution (or any specs for that matter) don’t necessarily make one product better than another. I’m sure you can tell a difference between a CompUSA Noname 19" CRT computer monitor and a really good Sony Trinitron or NEC, right?