3D Televisions

This happened to me too on my Sharp 3D 60. I will go back through the settings to find out what I had to change to get the true full screen 1080p, and not widescreen 1080p.

 

Found mine. It was;

 

View Mode Options >>

Stretch

Dot By Dot <<<

S. Stretch

Zoom

 

Dot by Dot gave me true full screen picture, with the contents true resolution.

This happened to me too on my Sharp 3D 60. I will go back through the settings to find out what I had to change to get the true full screen 1080p, and not widescreen 1080p.

 

Found mine. It was;

 

View Mode Options >>

Stretch

Dot By Dot <<<

S. Stretch

Zoom

 

Dot by Dot gave me true full screen picture, with the contents true resolution.

 

Thanks!

 

I will try and tackle this issue tonight, I honestly am pissed since I went from 55" to 65" in my bedroom because I want a larger picture, not a larger TV

I'm sort of pissed.

 

I love the TV, insane pic quality and the design is top notch.

 

But, when I now look at pictures, there is a large black bar in top and the bottom when doing 16:9, going zoom or widezoom makes it fullscreen but the movie gets distorted and Batman looks like he thin as a toothpick.

 

Why the fcuk should one get a 65" over a 55" when the movie isn't played fullscreen!?

 

 

If the movie is shot in 2.35:1 (Batman for example..) and you're watching on a 16:9 screen - you are supposed to see black bars top and bottom of the picture.

 

Any viewing of 2.35:1 material shown fullscreen (no black bars) at 16:9 will involve some sort of stretching / cropping / image manipulation.

 

Watching it with black bars top and bottom will present the image in the way the director intended.

If the movie is shot in 2.35:1 (Batman for example..) and you're watching on a 16:9 screen - you are supposed to see black bars top and bottom of the picture.

 

Any viewing of 2.35:1 material shown fullscreen (no black bars) at 16:9 will involve some sort of stretching / cropping / image manipulation.

 

Watching it with black bars top and bottom will present the image in the way the director intended.

Correct. This applies to any 16:9 screen. 55", 65" doesn't matter.

 

You were just using either a stretch or a crop on your 55 before SnowPoke.

I picked up a 55" LG LED last October for $798 on eBay and have never been able to find another deal like that. I need to pick up another TV in the near future too.

 

wow, which model did you get? was it new?

 

I got a 55LM6700. It's a 2012 model 55" LED with a satin finish stand and frameless design. Very stylish and it was $1300 with a 3D blueray. Bought on eBay's Beach Camera as part of daily special. Picture is 95% of Samsung's at 40% discount. LG has improved a lot recently. Used to suck.

 

Samsung is the leader in LED tv. Price is the only downside. Sony is outdated in looks and color is too "natural", plus Sony TV lacks cool features.

 

There are tons of plasma fans out there because PQ is great. But the glare on the glass doesn't work well for well lit rooms.

I can't remember but it was discontinued shortly after. I got it from Vanns on ebay. Been an awesome tv so far just the only tv I have right now and it's in my bedroom so I need one for the main room but preferrably something bigger. Gonna hold off until the sales start around November I think.

The 16:9 screen ratio was a stupid idea to begin with. Most cinema films are done in anamorphic and, contrary to common believes, it's not 16:9. Unless the signal origin was 16:9 in the first place, I have yet to see a 16:9 set that does everything correctly.

 

I am still perplexed by the board's love of Samsung & LG tv. Simple analogy: a KIA, en mass, is an ok car to get around. But it wouldn't stand a pinhead of a chance to get praise on L/P. So why would a Samsung & LG be embraced here? Simply by their prices? The picture is neither accurate nor great. And after 3 years, it simply nose-dives; the set still works but no matter what one does, it simply can't be re-calibrated to display the proper colours.

If the movie is shot in 2.35:1 (Batman for example..) and you're watching on a 16:9 screen - you are supposed to see black bars top and bottom of the picture.

 

Any viewing of 2.35:1 material shown fullscreen (no black bars) at 16:9 will involve some sort of stretching / cropping / image manipulation.

 

Watching it with black bars top and bottom will present the image in the way the director intended.

 

I now know you are correct. I tried and flick around the settings of my Boxee and if I choose "zoom" it uses the entire screen but I am sure I will loose the some picture on the right and left because of this, right?

 

Well, at least now I know it isn't the TV and that I have a choice how to view it.. Thanks!

 

The 16:9 screen ratio was a stupid idea to begin with. Most cinema films are done in anamorphic and, contrary to common believes, it's not 16:9. Unless the signal origin was 16:9 in the first place, I have yet to see a 16:9 set that does everything correctly.

 

I am still perplexed by the board's love of Samsung & LG tv. Simple analogy: a KIA, en mass, is an ok car to get around. But it wouldn't stand a pinhead of a chance to get praise on L/P. So why would a Samsung & LG be embraced here? Simply by their prices? The picture is neither accurate nor great. And after 3 years, it simply nose-dives; the set still works but no matter what one does, it simply can't be re-calibrated to display the proper colours.

 

I have never seen a KIA that is the nicest looking car on the block What should one get instead you mean?

I have never seen a KIA that is the nicest looking car on the block What should one get instead you mean?

 

I never said a KIA is nice looking; just saying for simple transport, it ain't too bad.

 

I'll admit that the industrial styling on the Korean sets are ok. But ultimately it's the picture quality that counts and the Korean sets are far from anywhere being even remotely close to a passing grade. They also don't last because they use sub-par parts. A higher-end Sony or Sharp set can beat it any day any time any where. At where you are, you can try looking for a Loewe or a Barco; these are products made for studios so quality & longevity won't be an issue. They are $$ but you get what you pay for.

I never said a KIA is nice looking; just saying for simple transport, it ain't too bad.

 

I meant the Samsung are among the nicest designed TV's out there, hence the KIA remark

 

Next time I go TV shopping, you will be the first one I consult Sir

I meant the Samsung are among the nicest designed TV's out there, hence the KIA remark

 

Next time I go TV shopping, you will be the first one I consult Sir

 

The 16:9 screen ratio was a stupid idea to begin with. Most cinema films are done in anamorphic and, contrary to common believes, it's not 16:9. Unless the signal origin was 16:9 in the first place, I have yet to see a 16:9 set that does everything correctly.

 

I am still perplexed by the board's love of Samsung & LG tv. Simple analogy: a KIA, en mass, is an ok car to get around. But it wouldn't stand a pinhead of a chance to get praise on L/P. So why would a Samsung & LG be embraced here? Simply by their prices? The picture is neither accurate nor great. And after 3 years, it simply nose-dives; the set still works but no matter what one does, it simply can't be re-calibrated to display the proper colours.

 

It's a good thing I'm only an audio addict, not a TV guy.....I don't know how many more vices I can handle.

 

I'm sure I can appreciate a great Sony or Sharp, but for those prices I see a greater need to upgrade the DAC or amps.

It's a good thing I'm only an audio addict, not a TV guy.....I don't know how many more vices I can handle.

 

I'm sure I can appreciate a great Sony or Sharp, but for those prices I see a greater need to upgrade the DAC or amps.

 

LOL on the 1st line.

 

On the 2nd line: if you really want to indulge, go buy a turntable, tonearm, cartridge & phone amp (plus cables). Otherwise, just go buy better tubes!

LOL on the 1st line.

 

On the 2nd line: if you really want to indulge, go buy a turntable, tonearm, cartridge & phone amp (plus cables). Otherwise, just go buy better tubes!

 

Have all those things...even reel to reel tape deck.

 

Now a lifetime of upgrading awaits!

Have all those things...even reel to reel tape deck.

 

Now a lifetime of upgrading awaits!

 

I know, just teasing.

 

Keep me informed on the upgrades please.

Question for the knowledgeable tv people out there...considering picking up one of the Sharp Aquos 80" 120hz smart tvs. I currently have a 55" LG 120Hz tv in the bedroom. Both are LEDs. I'm happy with the LG. Anyone have one of the Sharp Aquos 80" tvs (LC-80LE632U)? Is 120Hz enough? And lastly, i'm wondering if it's stupid to buy right now or just wait another 2 months till black friday. I don't know if the really big tvs are going to have the discounts.

I too am thinking new TV for Black Friday... My old Mitsubishi DLP from 2006 is on its way out the door. Depends on what kind of deals, but I was looking at the Sharp 847U or 745U in 60" format. I need to see these in person - how much difference am I going to to see between my old DLP from '06 and one of these?

Was night and day difference from my old DLP. I had Samsung and JVC DLPs and then went to an LCD which I thought was better and then the jump from LCD to the LED LCD was even better. There are some good deals with financing right now, like no interest if paid in full within 18 months. I just would hate to buy a tv today and then see it for 500 less in 2 months.

80" is really stretching the limit a bit. 60" would be a lot better. You really have to check 120Hz yourself as some people find it distrurbing while others swears by it. Like DLP, some people can see the colour wheel effect while others can't. I trust that you belong to the latter group since you have a DLP set. But that doesn't mean you will find 120Hz ok. There is no comparison between a DLP set vs. LED. But I really think you need to compare 80" to the 60".

 

Whatever deal you will get on black Friday would be a model that's soon to be replaced. As long as you are ok with that, all is fine. New TV sets are usually announced until early January at the CES so you are good for a couple of months. No epic tech on tv sets coming out of Japan or Korea thus far so any "new" stuff would likely be high refresh rate, higher contrast ratio and fluff like internet-ready tv.

 

Hope this helps.

The 16:9 screen ratio was a stupid idea to begin with. Most cinema films are done in anamorphic and, contrary to common believes, it's not 16:9. Unless the signal origin was 16:9 in the first place, I have yet to see a 16:9 set that does everything correctly.

 

I am still perplexed by the board's love of Samsung & LG tv. Simple analogy: a KIA, en mass, is an ok car to get around. But it wouldn't stand a pinhead of a chance to get praise on L/P. So why would a Samsung & LG be embraced here? Simply by their prices? The picture is neither accurate nor great. And after 3 years, it simply nose-dives; the set still works but no matter what one does, it simply can't be re-calibrated to display the proper colours.

 

I don't think it was stupid. 16:9 made sense because it was a compromise of many different popular aspect ratios. With so many aspect ratios in use, there really isn't a single size solution. Even movie theaters use moving curtains.

 

Samsung makes excellent displays and has some of the most cutting edge technology when it comes to consumer products. I don't think they are any worse than any other brand, such as Sharp. In most cases it's just the limits of technology. I don't think any manufacturers is really putting out significantly better sets based on the same technology. Top of the line vs top of the line is pretty comparable, though I can't say I've ever bothered or had the chance to compare two sets 4 years later. Regardless of which you buy, consumer products are consumer products. No brand is going to give you reference quality images at 60" for $2K.

 

I pretty much tell everyone to just get a set that suits their size, price range, and furniture. Barely anyone can tell the difference between an amazing picture, a great picture, and a good picture. And since they'll only have one set in the room, they'll never feel like they have a bad picture because they'll never be able to compare it to anything.

Question for the knowledgeable tv people out there...considering picking up one of the Sharp Aquos 80" 120hz smart tvs. I currently have a 55" LG 120Hz tv in the bedroom. Both are LEDs. I'm happy with the LG. Anyone have one of the Sharp Aquos 80" tvs (LC-80LE632U)? Is 120Hz enough? And lastly, i'm wondering if it's stupid to buy right now or just wait another 2 months till black friday. I don't know if the really big tvs are going to have the discounts.

 

For what room and for what purpose? Personally I think 80" is either too big or too small. It's too big for a TV and too small for a theater experience. If it's going in a dedicated room where you can control lighting, I'd say just get a projector and go much bigger, like 120"+.

 

That TV also doesn't have the greatest reviews. Seems more like just a big TV than a good TV. Then again, I doubt you'd notice the flaws unless someone pointed them out or you had something to compare to.

 

I don't think you'll see BF deals on those. BF deals are often on shitty things or more common things. Wouldn't make much sense to try and drive 80" sales when 99% of people don't even have enough space for an 80" TV.

 

As for 120Hz, I'm sure it's fine. It really has nothing to do with the size of the TV. I think some TVs now even offer something like 600 Hz. I personally have no idea how they compare because I hate these features and always keep them off. I tried 120 Hz once and I thought it made films unwatchable.

Thanks, it would go into a tv room but not huge at all and there are windows which even with the blinds, light gets in. I actually love the 120Hz look but it did take some getting used to. I'm going to swing by BB today and check them out again. Last time I was there I don't remember being blown away by the 80 next to the 70 so maybe i'll just get a 70" and save about $1500. It would be for watching movies and normal HD channels and some football.

BWUK/DS: I can write a book on why the 16:9 ratio was/is/and will remain to be stupid but you would likely rebutt every point. Likewise, you analysis of the tv technology is flawed --- consumer or otherwise --- in many ways; it's like saying most cars on the road are the same as they work on more or less the same principles since the invention of the automobile. But you are the resident cynic and it'll be off topic to discuss this further. So let's just say your idea of choosing tv matches your selection of mattress.

 

Chipster: FWIW, the tech (i.e. parts & electronics) of the 80" & 70" are nearly identical. I dare say the 70" would appear to be superior as a smaller non-projected screen would always look better (though the spec would likely be the same). Considering the added weight, the surface area and the potential danger involved, I would choose a 70" or a 65" set. 80" is stretching the limit on current technology without any added benefits over the 70" & 65"; it's more or less just a bragging right of having a larger screen. So do go take a look and compare, I think you would end up saying some $. Cheers.

I went and looked this morning. The 70" with quattron and 240hz looked very good. They had the 80 in both 120hz and 240hz. The 240 looked noticeably better BUT I think they adjusted the settings to make it so and also had the 120hz tilted slightly up. In all reality with the settings right I think the 80" 120 would be fine for me but it probably wouldn't help sales if they were asking $1k more for a TV and it looked pretty close to the cheaper one so I think that was done on purpose. The reason I say that is because they also had a 90" 120hz in the magnolia room and I thought it looked pretty good. Basically what it comes down to is the 70" loaded is about $1500 less than the base 80 and I don't know if the extra size is worth it to me. Going to mull it over for a little.

I went and looked this morning. The 70" with quattron and 240hz looked very good. They had the 80 in both 120hz and 240hz. The 240 looked noticeably better BUT I think they adjusted the settings to make it so and also had the 120hz tilted slightly up. In all reality with the settings right I think the 80" 120 would be fine for me but it probably wouldn't help sales if they were asking $1k more for a TV and it looked pretty close to the cheaper one so I think that was done on purpose. The reason I say that is because they also had a 90" 120hz in the magnolia room and I thought it looked pretty good. Basically what it comes down to is the 70" loaded is about $1500 less than the base 80 and I don't know if the extra size is worth it to me. Going to mull it over for a little.

 

Always go as big as possible. It's amazing how they "shrink" after just a few weeks of ownership...plus you're going to own it for years potentially, might as well not let $1500 be a deciding factor when it's going to be amortized over so many days with it.

 

And you're right to ignore the in-store comparison as any sort of evaluation metric. The varied settings from set to set conspire to make those sort of eyeball tests totally useless for the most part.