Great contrast, and then none.
345806
A couple days after the clock arrived, the display lost all contrast.  If you tilt it at odd angles, you can just barely tell that it is still operating at all.

Up until that time, the display had good contrast - in daylight it was even somewhat readable with the backlight off.  With the backlight on, I found it too bright during the night.

My main reason to buy this clock was 24-hour mode, which works as advertised.  I actually  never bothered setting the calendar function, since I just wanted an alarm clock that is less prone to getting set to 12 hours too late.
528658
Everywhere you look now flat, widescreens are the televisions being hyped as the ones to get. The fact of the matter is that eventually, those kinds of monitors will be the standard bearer of video technology. However flats are not without their flaws. Chief among them is the problem of "burn-in"; if you leave your set on a station that has its logo resting in the corner of the screen (most do now), and you happen to slip away to answer the phone or just forget and leave the set on, chances are that your set will sustain PERMANENT damage, that's just how it is. Plasmas produce superb images, but over time their brightness WILL decrease. For me, the higher the contrast the BETTER - most of the time. Unfortunately, that's just the opposite of what you're supposed to do to extend your plasma's lifespan. And there's no question that the widescreen image is great to take in. That said, I am here to sing the praises of the dying CRT / 4:3 aspect television set. A lot of programs I own are in 4:3, and they look BETTER on said type of screen. I rebuke the notion that "stretching" that same image across a widescreen is okay - IT IS NOT. If I wanted to view a 4:3 image, in it's ORIGINAL, UNALTERED aspect ratio on a 16:9, I would have to have black or (worse yet) gray bars on the sides, which WOULD negatively impact your plasma via burn-in or unbalanced contrast and brightness on the sides of the frame. I happen to find the horizontal black bars produced on a 4:3 more acceptable when viewing widescreen productions than on a 16:9. The CRT is far CHEAPER than plasma. A GOOD 50" plasma is going to set you back AT LEAST $6,000 (the good news is that prices continue to fall). This set is a fraction of that. The CRT's main disadvantages are screen size and weight. They are heavy, but they look and sound great when positioned properly in your desired viewing area. With CRT, there are no burn-in problems. One night I fell asleep with the limited edition dvd of "Memento" playing. Now unfortunately when the film ends, it goes back to a frozen, stationary menu image of black objects on a white background - if I did that on a plasma, I'd be fu___d! The best thing about CRT's is the level of black it produces. They always have produced a deeper, richer level of black than any plasma I've seen. This one is perfectly capable of displaying high-definition images, though you'll have to put up with the black, horizontal bars - but you're used to that, right? I'd give this set 5 stars but it just doesn't quite reach perfection with its video performance. I own a 32" Sony Trinitron XBR that is 10 YEARS OLD, and it produces sharper, clearer images than this set. I have no idea what Sony did to change the image reproduction, but it is noticeably and somewhat disappointingly different. The best way I can describe it? It's akin to having 35mm film prints developed: while my old 32" screen has a "glossy" look, this television here has a "lustre" look. It's still a great image, but something is missing; image detail is not as sharp, shiny or clean. This set IS capable of receiving HDTV images and they look very nice here. Also, dvds look pretty good; one of this set's best features is its ability to automatically switch between anamorphic and non-anamorphic playback from whichever dvd you're viewing.
2712938
Don't expect a nice clear display like the one in the product shot. Even at the highest contrast, it's hard to see the numbers.

Edited to add: Opps! It's 4 years later and this unit is still going strong. My review of 2008 was faulty. At that time, I had not stumbled or bumbled across the feature that allows you to adjust the view screen contrast! So I've given it the proper 4 stars it deserved all along. (Although it still bugs me that you can't see the caller's number while they are calling.)
4023715
It's been about 2 months since I have this TV. This is my first HDTV and wow what a transition. Even before I upgraded my cable to HD, I was pleasantly surprised to see this Samsung TV pick up the local HD channels through the QAM tuner. Anyway, the picture quality is mind boggling with true colors and great black levels. I am a bit annoyed with the dynamic contrast which prompted me to turn this feature off. There is enough number of I/O ports and the swivel base makes it more convenient. I compared this with the Sony TVs and decided to go ahead with this for more bang for buck. The shipping service was great, the CEVA folks unpacked and setup the TV to make sure it's working. Amazon's 30 day price guarantee is also great and I received a couple of refunds when the price fell down.

The sound on the other hand is quite disappointing. I'd say it's just about OK for general viewing but woefully inadequate for movie/sports watching. Somehow with the entertainment center I have the sound seems to be directed more toward the back than to the front. I think it's a given fact that most of the newer TVs on the market need home theater systems, except maybe the higher end models. I just got myself a Samsung HT-TWZ412H and it's so much better. The ANYNET feature worked like a breeze through the HDMI and the TV remote controls the sound on the home theater setup. I connected the cable box to the home theater using an optical cable.

SD channels on this HDTV look like crap, so much that I've completely stopped watching SD channels.

All in all the TV is great but if it fits the budget, you'll have to seriously consider getting yourself a home theater to up your experience.
560039
I picked up a pair of these to replace some older 24" (16x10) LCD monitors.  The display is beautiful and crisp, 3D looks great, and the 120hz seems does look better than my old monitors (at least at night).

However, the screen has such a gloss that it is hard to see in the daytime- to the point that I feel am having more eyestrain trying to view a webpage than I was on my old 60hz LCD monitors!  White screens are Ok to read in the daytime, but dark pages have me weaving back and forth in front of the monitor to find a 'sweet spot' that doesn't have a reflection of my (curtain drawn) Window- and I actively try to make the room where my PC is as dark and cave-like as possible.

The gloss isn't quite as noticeable during a 3D game as I assume the alternating shutters and eye separation seem to mask it quite a bit- but for non gaming use, but is a very obvious problem.  I know that glossy surface let more of the color and light from the LCD display as it is not being obscured by a finish on the panel, but the glare trade-off is just too much for me.

I am returning them for a pair if the GD245HQ monitors which have more of a matte finish to the screen.  The brightness and contrast ratio is a little less on the GD245's, but I am guessing that a good deal of this is due to the matte vs gloss finish.
2771307
I finally took the plunge and invested in my first L lens.  Out of the box, it's impressive.  Very high quality feel.  The images, however, left me with mixed emotions.

The 2.8 is great for low light situations - I found myself shooting without a flash in incredibly dark situations, and the background blur was fantastic.  The problem was the images were just not sharp.  No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't get crisp images.  I ended up mounting it on a tripod and shooting with a shutter release, and comparing that to my friends Nikon D80 with the kit lens under the same setup.  The Nikon easily outperformed the L lens in terms of sharpness.  (I was shooting on  a 30D).

I did some research and hear that Canon has been having some quality control issues, it looks like I might have gotten a bad copy.

don't let this stop you from getting the lens, as based on it's other abilities I'm sure that it's 100% fantastic.  Just keep your receipt and start testing it soon so you can replace it if necessary.

I will be sending mine in for recalibration.  If that doesn't fix it, then  I might have to switch to Nikon just out of principal...
2458171
After nearly a year of use, and some tests, we conclude that this filter subtly subdues highlights, and gently redistribute some light to shadows, like a bit of filler light. This effect is achieved without the dreaded halo effect, and without affecting sharpness.

PROS: A simple and inexpensive way of dealing with challenging light situations. The materials and workmanship are respectable, similar to other Tiffen filters.

CONS: The effect is modest. No coatings or multi-coatings as far as we can tell.

BOTTOM LINE: Definitely worthwhile to control contrast in harsh light, bright highlights, deep shadows. Makes less difference in diffuse light, low contrast objects, etc...

NOTE: A DEEP lens hood is recommended: if the sun light, or light source, directly enters the filter, it will wash out the image!
3588051
Outstanding picture quality, as can be expected from any Criterion Collection restoration.  However, if you are looking for something cheery or exciting, you won't find it here.  This is a very cerebral look at evil, a kind of macabre fantasy.
3719788
Just bought it and unpacked it. Nothing fancy. It has a couple of dead pixels in the upper right corner and significant light bleed in the lower left corner (obvious on full black background, invisible on anything colored). I guess that's where the price difference comes from.

5/25 EDIT: Ordered a replacement. Amazon was great, as expected, and had the replacement in two days. No dead pixels, no background light bleed anywhere; the image is perfect. No option but 5 stars, I guess.
863425
All the reviews said this lens produces near L quality and it's a great portrait lens. To me, the main value is its size and weight, but image quality is nowhere near the 70 200 F/2.8 or F/4 and it's not even as good as the $150 40mm pancake lens. Maybe it's low contrast or some feature I can't explain, but the images at all apertures seemed pretty lifeless...no pop at all.

As for focus, it's quick, but I had plenty of misses.  A chain linked fence confused it but didn't confuse the 70-200 F/2.8 at all. think if you're on a cropped body, you'd be better off with a 50mm to achieve near 85mm.  However, for full frame, this is really the only option that focuses quickly that weighs less than a boat anchor.
236836
Great image & sound, as well as no distortion to the sides.  However, the "smart" computer aspects are not intuitive.
1667254
I'm sitting here looking at this monitor right now. The middle of screen where I'm typing this looks OK, but both the tops and bottom of the screen are noticeably darker and loses contrast. Vertically it doesn't even have a 5-10 degree viewing angle.
1280129
I was first dazzled seeing my old dvds playing on my 32" panasonic 720p lcd monitor. And then I noticed the upconverting was terrible. There was posterization, image banding or solarization on all my disks. I think it's also called false image contouring. It's hard to describe, but as you go from one shade of color to the next, it should be smooth, but posterization will show one shade of color and then a next shade lighter or darker in it's own separate band and so on so it looks like steps across a scene or subject. It was not on every frame but as I noticed it, it became way noticeable. All HD material otherwise looked amazing on my monitor so it's indeed the player itself. I fiddled with every control and tried different HDMI cables and inputs to no avail. I bit the bullet and got a blu-ray Sony BDP-S360 at the recommendation of Best Buy. Voila!!! No more posterization. Apparently the engine to upconvert works way better on a blu-ray player.

I can say I liked the fact that the remote has an eject button which the Sony does not, but then I realized if I eject a disk I still have to get off my hump anyway to get the disk out. I'm willing to sacrifice that luxury of feeling that a machine does my every beck and call.
3032744
I am using the glasses with tridef and various games in half-color and full-color mode.

The framed glasses are comfortable and light, but with wicked ghosting (on the cyan lens only).
The clip-ons work nicely but are extra dark.

The framed glasses are a good design, and attractive, but I really have quite a lot of ghosting. They're just too light. Should be fine for watching black and white horror movies, but not much else. The red is good, but the cyan lets through way too much red, and ghosts like crazy--enough that I have difficulty seeing the scene through the ghosting. Very comfortable and attractive though. Wish they were sunglasses.

The clip-ons are pretty good. The red/cyan are well centered on the colors with almost no ghosting. Or it could be just that they've decided to let almost no light through--there's very little yellow in the scene, and basically the lenses are very dark. I can maybe use them for an hour or so before eye strain is just too much to take any longer--so dark! This is on a 400nit "super bright" screen, too. The low ghosting at the expense of colors means they're quite decent for watching black&white media, but too dark for extended viewing of, well, anything.

I'm torn on the rating. The price is low, but frankly they're just OK and if you can find *anything* better (even at a higher price) I'd recommend that instead, with these as an emergency fallback only.
1588684
Very faint printing. Could not improve contrast by changing printer setting. Bought a genuine Brother cartridge and it solved the problem.
1277369
Not sure if it's this product or the main body itself , but there are defintely issues with overall clarity.  sometimes it works great and no issues, it's like its almost intermittent, which is hard to believe , but sometimes i cannot get a clear picture of the target.  very odd.
910552
I have probably watched the movie Patton at least twenty times, if not more.  I've seen theatrical, VHS, DVD, and now Blu-ray versions.

The original film presentation in the theater, on VHS, DVD, and my old CRT TV was muted, grainy, and diffuse.  It is the image quality I distinctly picture in my mind for the movie.  The Blu-ray transfer though was anything BUT muted, grainy, and diffuse.  Regardless how the images have been scrubbed, the movie looks as if it was shot yesterday.  The images are sharp, clear, and bright.  At times the colors on the closeups are a bit too saturated, but not so much to be distracting unless you are a film purist.  When I popped the BD in the player to show my non-purist friends the Blu-ray version, without exceptions their only word was "wow," quickly followed by "how'd they do that?"  I thoroughly enjoyed the Blu-ray version of the film and count it as one of the showpieces of my HD library.

The DTS surround sound is acceptable, a nice rendition from a time when surround sound was not the standard.  If you are a film purist, don't buy the Blu-ray.  If you merely enjoy clear, sharp images that give a familiar favorite a newly painted look, like a restored antique, buy the Blu-ray version.  You'll feel like you're watching the movie again for the first time.