46" VS 52" (Quality Difference?) I would rather go big, and get the 52" but does going bigger mean just stretching the picture and sacrificing Quality?
238308
Since both have the same resolution/pixel count, the 46" TV should theoretically have a more dense group of pixels than a larger 52" TV. BUT, under normal viewing distances, you will notice the size difference much much more than the pixel spacing. If your viewing distance is 8 feet or less, the 46" may be a good option, but beyond 8 feet, I think you will be much happier with the 52".
1031971
I bought one recently because my (1) my old TV died and my TV service (Verizon FIOS) offers several HDTV channels. There are HDTV channels for all the major networks and several of the cable channels: ESPN, HBO, etc. I watch baseball (Red Sox) on HDTV and I'll be able to watch football in HDTV in the Fall. So it was easier for me to decide to switch to HDTV. As for your existing DVD movies, while they're not HD, they will look better on a 56" DLP. The HDTV screen aspect ratio is much closer to that of the original movies, so if you watch the movie in its original format, the "letterbox" effect isn't as dramatic. I'm very pleased with the way my DVDs look on HDTV ... not HDTV quality, but MUCH closer to a movie theater experience than before. If my old TV hadn't died, I probably would have waited until HDTV was the "norm" as you are considering doing. In retrospect, I'm glad it died. Paul
1437602
Oh wow, personally I think not, I barely handle my 48 inch. And it came in 2 separate packages ( all on one delivery). And to set it up. I would just call them direct for the info. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
1375923
Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year it will be <$100, but by then these camcorders will be cheaper anyway. I've made up my mind on the HG20! Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year... » Read More Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year it will be <$100, but by then these camcorders will be cheaper anyway. I've made up my mind on the HG20! « Show Less
682665
I was interested initially in the 40A550, but ultimately went with the 40A650 because the important features were a priority for me, maybe a bit of futurizing. But now that I've had the 40A650 for 10 days, I've just made the plunge and am exchanging it for a 46A650. I figure I haven't bought a tv in 16 years, let alone a flat screen or high def, so I'm getting exactly what I want and I wouldn't want bigger..but for me the type I want came first if that was the only choice..don't know if this helps but as this post was 4/08, you may be past this by now..Good luck..
1722456
Not really, the Pic is "FABULOUS"!! WOW! We are planning to get the 60" for our living room maybe next year! But you won't be sorry, I would buy a few of them if I could??! Good Luck!
51150
I would definitly go 720p. The truth is unless you are going 42 and above and are going to be withing 8 feet of the television the 720p vs 1080p debate is not neccasary. I am not judging you but I work in an electronics store part time while goin to school. (Sears commision salesman). I notice that many people coming in say that they have to get 1080p when in reality it is pointless unless you are going over 42 and then until you hit 52 it is still debateable.
468160
Weird-must just be the number made. I'd never seen the 32" one. In retrospect I'm glad I got 40", but at the time I was thinking I'd probably go with 32 had it been available. (Dang...when I first got my 32 it seemed HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE, and now my 40" just looks 'okay', LOL)
1514948
hi, i have a similar size room, tried 26, 32 , and 37 inch. 32 is best. one thing not talked about often is, there's also a minimum viewing distance for these tvs, esp. 720p. any closer, you see the pixels, any noise in the image, etc. with a hq tv like samsung, sony, sharp, my experiments indicate for a 32" around 5 feet is about as close as i'd want to go. anything else, i'd have to go to 1080p (the sharp 32" aquos 1080p model is great up to 3 feet, but more $$). btw, right now you can pick up a samsung LN-T3242H at circuit city for $720 if you're a AAA member (you need to go to www.aaa.com/circuitcity to get a coupon code). this model is a level down from the 3253H but i picked one up yesterday and so far it seems pretty good to me. you can read about both models on amazon. good luck.
1224587
52 inch tv = 546 sq inches viewing area46 inch tv = 430 sq inches viewing areaYou get 27% more tv area in a 52 inch tv.
474191
IMHO, this one is a no brainer if price isn't the issue. You have plenty of distance for the 52. Hell, my living room is 21 ft., so I put the couch in the middle of the room so I can be close enough for the "full effect".Also, if you wall mount, it won't take up too much of your living room space. The only thing that's throwing me is the viewing angle you mentioned. Is there no way to look at this head on?
918264
I was at my local Big Box store today trying to compare the 3 mentioned TV's and the samsung is a B860 not 850, and I ruled it out because the edge of the TV (all the way around) is clear and it creates a very distracting reflection. And they now no longer carry the V10 in a 50" but have it in a 54", and offers it up to me for $1888., Out the Door!!! I think that deal is gonna be hard to beat ! Is there anything such as "to big" ?
905429
I have the 40 inch version and the picture looks great when viewing from an angle. No loss of color or richness. (I did have to adjust the preset colors definitions to my liking, but that was regardless of the viewing angle.).
474189
For 8ft to 12ft viewing distance, definitely go with 52" if price isn't an issue. You won't regret it. I too was in the same boat, 9 ft viewing distance and went with the 52". Couldn't be happier. It was shockingly big at first but don't worry you'll get used to it. PS. only had 26" CRT prior to my 52A550.
1590090
The 52" XBR4/5 has the "floating glass" bezel and side speakers, which not only makes it wider than the 52" W3000, but also gives it a more elegant look. If you have limited space, then the W3000 is your best bet. However, if space is not an issue, go with the XBR4/5 with the 120Hz Motion Enhancer. It makes the picture "pop-out", like 3D. Really amazing picture clarity and color. I have the 52" XBR4 with PS3 setup.
2096651
no its been awhile since you posted this but, go with the sony, you wont be able to tell the difference on resolution on a 40"
2032326
PS. I would appreciate it if you could post whether or not you're able to adjust the 42" picture to your satisfaction.