New 42" 1080p Sharp Aquos Due End Feb 07

[Crayons]

Hello all,

Sharp sales tell me that a 42" 1080p Sharp Aquos should be available in Aus end Feb 07.

LC-42GD7X... you can find some specs on it in this brochure...

http://www.sharp.net.au/catalogue/brochure...38_brochure.pdf

Does anyone know what model this would be overseas (WHY do they insist on totally different naming conventions in every market?!) so we can check out some reviews.

Most importantly, I am interested to see if it is likely to suffer the 'banding' issue that seems to have plagued some Sharp models.

Anyone got any knowledge on it?

[curious1]

Hello all,

Sharp sales tell me that a 42" 1080p Sharp Aquos should be available in Aus end Feb 07.

LC-42GD7X... you can find some specs on it in this brochure...

http://www.sharp.net.au/catalogue/brochure...38_brochure.pdf

Does anyone know what model this would be overseas (WHY do they insist on totally different naming conventions in every market?!) so we can check out some reviews.

Most importantly, I am interested to see if it is likely to suffer the 'banding' issue that seems to have plagued some Sharp models.

Anyone got any knowledge on it?

The 42" is in the US as the LC-42D62U, it was coincidently released about 3 months after the 46" & 52" D62U's and as has been discussed has slightly lower specs and panel comes from Taiwan not Japan. Going on post's in the avs forum the 42" seems to have a much lower incidence of banding also.

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLand...58,1761,00.html

I was about to bite the bullet on the 46" but might wait and see now how the 42" handles console/sport compared to the 46's claimed 4ms.

[strange_one]

any idea on the RRP of this one yet?

[Crayons]

any idea on the RRP of this one yet?

Sharp told me $5400

[AndrewWilliams]

I can't understand why manufacturers are even bothering with 1080 on such tiny displays. I guess it's purely marketing as in 99% of lounge rooms you won't be able to tell the difference between a 768 and a 1080 42" panel. Might be ok as a PC monitor on a big desk I guess.

Paying 5+ grand for a 42" display (especially an LCD) is bordering on insanity in the current market.

[Crayons]

I can't understand why manufacturers are even bothering with 1080 on such tiny displays. I guess it's purely marketing as in 99% of lounge rooms you won't be able to tell the difference between a 768 and a 1080 42" panel. Might be ok as a PC monitor on a big desk I guess.

Paying 5+ grand for a 42" display (especially an LCD) is bordering on insanity in the current market.

A fair point - even considering you could expect a grand or so off that after a brief haggle.

Hmmm... so on that point - I wonder what the best LCD panel at 1366x768 would be. Any opinions?

[Anthony123]

so are they all due out end of feb... ie the 52, 46 and 42?

anyone know rough prices for each of these?

[strange_one]

I can't understand why manufacturers are even bothering with 1080 on such tiny displays. I guess it's purely marketing as in 99% of lounge rooms you won't be able to tell the difference between a 768 and a 1080 42" panel. Might be ok as a PC monitor on a big desk I guess.

Paying 5+ grand for a 42" display (especially an LCD) is bordering on insanity in the current market.

Because the average Joe has now been programmed by marketing to believe that anything less than 1080p on a 42" will be outdated fast and his PS3 games won't look as good

[Brazzwald]

Wow Sight n Sound had an add in the Sunday Mail (Brisbane) with a 42" Sharp LCD, looks to be the LC42BX5X, 2 x HDMI, Contrast 1200:1, 1366x768, $1999 is the price.

Brazzwald

[Owen]

Because the average Joe has now been programmed by marketing to believe that anything less than 1080p on a 42" will be outdated fast and his PS3 games won't look as good

We said mate.

Manufacturers have to come up with some way of selling new and more profitable models to a gullible public.

1080p has been a powerful marketing tool to achieve that aim.

[betty boop]

I can't understand why manufacturers are even bothering with 1080 on such tiny displays. I guess it's purely marketing as in 99% of lounge rooms you won't be able to tell the difference between a 768 and a 1080 42" panel. Might be ok as a PC monitor on a big desk I guess.

Paying 5+ grand for a 42" display (especially an LCD) is bordering on insanity in the current market.

removes the need for scaling andrew. you can basically take 1920x1080 picture straight out a hidef player and display it without any scaling needed. Even ch12 these days is putting out 1920x1080 picture. Scaling artifacts if present on a plasma are quite noticeable even on a 42" screen.

anyways if you check the distance charts right upto 4m if I remember there is some benefit with a 1920x1080 picture even on a 42" screen.

ofcourse if you can go with a larger screen good for you. its not an option for everyone.

re your comparison between 768 line vs 1080 line. with true hi-def material the difference with the added detail is certainly noticeable on a 1080 line screen.

I do agree though $5k for a 42" screen is nuts. This pretty much 1st gen with lcd at these sort of sizes and res, give it time and I'm sure theyll drop.

[Owen]

anyways if you check the distance charts right upto 4m if I remember there is some benefit with a 1920x1080 picture even on a 42" screen.

That’s misleading mate.

In demonstrations between current model 50” 768p and 50” 1080p Pioneer Plasma’s side by side displaying content from BluRay and HDDVD, know one present could see any difference in resolution beyond 2.1 meters viewing distance.

On a 42” you would need to be even closer.

[betty boop]

That’s misleading mate.

In demonstrations between current model 50” 768p and 50” 1080p Pioneer Plasma’s side by side displaying content from BluRay and HDDVD, know one present could see any difference in resolution beyond 2.1 meters viewing distance.

On a 42” you would need to be even closer.

what ever you reckon owen. I know you think that anythign under yoru 57" rptv is a waste of space, so in this regard we will agree to dissagree. I actually own a 42" display. I know scalign artifacts with screens even 42" is a reality and very much noticeable. Having a native 1920x1080 display for 1920x1080 material certainly helps in this regard.

even as per the viewing distance chart the benefit of 1080p is noticeable upto 4m. And the detail of the 40 & 50" 1080 line screens I've seen is sensational in my opinion. Ofcourse this does not compare to say viewing on a 100" projected image, which is a whole nother experience, but still for many there is much to enjoy I think in these smaller screens.

[Skiller]

I'm looking forward to the 42", if I can get it for around $4k and it's got HDMI 1.3 it could be exactly what I've been waiting for . But even without HDMI 1.3 it'll be FAR better for my needs than any other HDTVs I've seen .

[CoNFooZeD]

I'm looking forward to the 42", if I can get it for around $4k and it's got HDMI 1.3 it could be exactly what I've been waiting for . But even without HDMI 1.3 it'll be FAR better for my needs than any other HDTVs I've seen .

HDMI 1.3 in a panel is unlikely to provide any benefit. A receiver might be a different matter, but I wouldn't hold out buying a panel just for HDMI 1.3.

[Owen]

what ever you reckon owen. I know you think that anythign under yoru 57" rptv is a waste of space, so in this regard we will agree to dissagree. I actually own a 42" display. I know scalign artifacts with screens even 42" is a reality and very much noticeable. Having a native 1920x1080 display for 1920x1080 material certainly helps in this regard.

even as per the viewing distance chart the benefit of 1080p is noticeable upto 4m. And the detail of the 40 & 50" 1080 line screens I've seen is sensational in my opinion. Ofcourse this does not compare to say viewing on a 100" projected image, which is a whole nother experience, but still for many there is much to enjoy I think in these smaller screens.

You are entitled to your opinion as are we all, but suggesting to people on this forum that a 42” 1080 display will look more detailed or show visibly higher resolution then a 42” 768p model at as much as 4 meters is not doing forum readers any favours and is VERY misleading.

All you are doing is confirming in peoples minds the marketing hype fed to them by manufacturers.

Go over to AVS Forum and suggest that a 42” 1080 display has a visible resolution advantage over a 42” 768 display at 4 meters, and you will get a lot of disagreement from the experienced members there, as it’s just not the case.

42” displays can most certainly look different to one another at 4 meters, but the difference has nothing to do with resolution. In fact the 768 display can easily look much better then the 1080 model if it has better video processing, better colour, higher contrast ratio, lower black levels or is simply set up better.

[betty boop]

You are entitled to your opinion as are we all, but suggesting to people on this forum that a 42” 1080 display will look more detailed or show visibly higher resolution then a 42” 768p model at as much as 4 meters is not doing forum readers any favours and is VERY misleading.

All you are doing is confirming in peoples minds the marketing hype fed to them by manufacturers.

Go over to AVS Forum and suggest that a 42” 1080 display has a visible resolution advantage over a 42” 768 display at 4 meters, and you will get a lot of disagreement from the experienced members there, as it’s just not the case.

42” displays can most certainly look different to one another at 4 meters, but the difference has nothing to do with resolution. In fact the 768 display can easily look much better then the 1080 model if it has better video processing, better colour, higher contrast ratio, lower black levels or is simply set up better.

as I said owen....whatever, personally I couldnt careless what you think as know full and well it is based on your very narrow perspective of a 57" screen and with your opinion that anythign else being a waste of space for 1920x1080. Couldnt careless about avs either you can spend your life over there, I'll trust my own eyes and judgement thankyou, I'll actually have a look at this screen for myself to come to my own conclusions and I'm sure others can do the same.

I'm looking forward to the 42", if I can get it for around $4k and it's got HDMI 1.3 it could be exactly what I've been waiting for . But even without HDMI 1.3 it'll be FAR better for my needs than any other HDTVs I've seen .

yes hdmi v1.3 may not be of any huge benefit unless it has true colour capability, yet to see any screen with that. but yeah can imagine the sharp beign a pretty top panel given the few I've seen of theirs in the past.

[ton]

Its hear

Hello

The LCD is just starting to filter into the retail network.

They will be available through Harvey Norman, Good Guys, Retravision, JB Hi

Fi and most retailers will be able to assist you with your inquiry.

regards

Teena*

csc sales support

[Bails1503559549]

You are entitled to your opinion as are we all, but suggesting to people on this forum that a 42” 1080 display will look more detailed or show visibly higher resolution then a 42” 768p model at as much as 4 meters is not doing forum readers any favours and is VERY misleading.

All you are doing is confirming in peoples minds the marketing hype fed to them by manufacturers.

Go over to AVS Forum and suggest that a 42” 1080 display has a visible resolution advantage over a 42” 768 display at 4 meters, and you will get a lot of disagreement from the experienced members there, as it’s just not the case.

42” displays can most certainly look different to one another at 4 meters, but the difference has nothing to do with resolution. In fact the 768 display can easily look much better then the 1080 model if it has better video processing, better colour, higher contrast ratio, lower black levels or is simply set up better.

For me, it really is a question of scaling and deinterlacing rather than resolution. I have an outboard video processor and am looking to feed my display a 1080p signal. The scaling/deinterlacing solutions on the vast majority of lcd TVs (well, almost all TVs for that matter) are pretty crap. And it is noticable. I don't want to send my TV a really good 1080p signal (or 1080i if it won't accept 1080p, as many won't) and have it stuff the picture with crappy scaling to 768p. The same applies for new HD formats - I would much rather a 1080i/1080p input from a HD/Bluray player displayed without the substandard scaling of the TV introducting artifacts. To me, the difference in quality is very clear. These days, I would insist on a 1080p panel regardless of the size. Otherwise, I know that I would be less than satisfied and back in the store in two years time when only 1080p panels are available. But that might just be me!

[BribieG]

Last year went into H.N. determined to buy a 1080 display from BENQ that had been featured on CNET and ended up buying a 768 display as, even from the normal 'shop' viewing distance, couldn't see enough difference to justify spending and extra grand. In fact the Sony Bravias at that time (768s) s**t all over the BENQ but were way out of my price range late 2005.

Having said that, my next set at over 50 inches will no doubt have to be a 1080

[vvv1503559864]

The 42" is in the US as the LC-42D62U, it was coincidently released about 3 months after the 46" & 52" D62U's and as has been discussed has slightly lower specs and panel comes from Taiwan not Japan. Going on post's in the avs forum the 42" seems to have a much lower incidence of banding also.

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLand...58,1761,00.html

I was about to bite the bullet on the 46" but might wait and see now how the 42" handles console/sport compared to the 46's claimed 4ms.

I must be missing something but I can't see what the big deal is. 46'' D62 looks ok on specs and has this new backlight system but is quite expensive. The 42'' D62 looks worse on specs than the current equivalent bravia and is still quite dear. Only seems to be worth having if you are bent on response times.

[curious1]

I must be missing something but I can't see what the big deal is. 46'' D62 looks ok on specs and has this new backlight system but is quite expensive. The 42'' D62 looks worse on specs than the current equivalent bravia and is still quite dear. Only seems to be worth having if you are bent on response times.

The main reason I'm looking at the Aquos series is it does 1080p via DVI-I (VGA/DVI), as I'll get the HD addon for the X360 soon also.

[kootaberra]

Hello all,

Sharp sales tell me that a 42" 1080p Sharp Aquos should be available in Aus end Feb 07.

LC-42GD7X... you can find some specs on it in this brochure...

Does anyone know what model this would be overseas (WHY do they insist on totally different naming conventions in every market?!) so we can check out some reviews.

Anyone got any knowledge on it?

The Australian model is different because it has a HD DBV inbuilt tuner. 6msec, response time, 6,000:1 contrast. 1920x1080, 2xHDMI DVI-I, S-vid, Componet in, Digital audio out. Looks good.

[vvv1503559864]

The Australian model is different because it has a HD DBV inbuilt tuner. 6msec, response time, 6,000:1 contrast. 1920x1080, 2xHDMI DVI-I, S-vid, Componet in, Digital audio out. Looks good.

6K:1 is dynamic; native is 1200:1 which is worse than the current bravias and sumsungs.

I thought 360 can do 1080p via component.

So I am still not sure what the point is.

[curious1]

I thought 360 can do 1080p via component.

So I am still not sure what the point is.

Last time I checked about 2 months ago, the 360 only did games @ 1080p via component, for HD-DVD @ 1080p you needed VGA.

I'm hoping the 42" street price will be around or slighty lower than the 40" sony X, and depending on PQ might still go for the 46" (leaning that way), by then it might also be in better supply & slightly cheaper.