We've seen more than
our share of
32-inch panels pushing a 1366x768 pixel resolution. Fine, that works. However, just as
pixel-count sells digital cameras, it unfortunately also sells HDTVs to the uninitiated. So, along comes Sharp with their grand hopes of re-directing your fat wad into their coffers with this, the "Full HD" LC-32GS from the
AQUOS G series. According to Sharp, this is the
industry's first (to ship) 32-inch 1920x1080 LCD TV. That's right, 1080p which most will find a waste of pixel density (and almighty dollars) at that
screen size and typical viewing distance. No doubt, this set does bring the specs: that "world's highest" 2000:1 contrast ratio we've seen on other ASV panels, 450cd/m2 brightness, 176-degree visibility, 6-ms response, integrated digital/analog terrestrial tuners, and a sweet bevy of jacks including 2x HDMI with
Familink support, 2x Japanese D4, 2x S-Video, 4x composite, and a much appreciated DVI-I input for
digitally tethering your computer and making use of those extra pixels. Ships December 22nd in Japan with either a pair of side mounted, or single under-bezel speaker for -- get this -- a 32-inch premium price of ¥280,000 (about $2,395). Expect to hear rest-of-world dates and prices any day now.
[Via
Impress]
posted December 12th 2006 7:00AM
It's pretty damn useful if you are planning on using it for a gaming console and plan to sit within 3-4 feet of the TV. Plus it can double as a monitor. Dolt
i worked in a downtown hotel,recently we have replaced our RCA tv's,with SHARP"S AQUOS 32"...was'nt too long ...i"d say barely 1yr.and half..(most likely) but now we are experiencing some kind of trouble...to be precise ..while a guest was watching for almost less than an hour ...they would call that the tv have lost it's picture with only the audio functioning.I would presume that the sharp company,could have been imformed about it,because we would send some unit and they would back some set too. Of course,it would'nt be my main concern but could also be very importantly because i don't want my workplace to lose our hotel customer but most likely very importantly on your marketing image that Sharp Tv on this hotel was very,very bad in performance,as i usually say NOT VERY SHARP..AT ALL...W H Y
and you shall see more of those.. and 1080p in your watches, pdas.. etc... it's called progress dummies...
Yeah, all this misrepresentation of specs can really rile a person, but can you really tell the difference between 1080i/1080p kinda HD/true HD on a dinky 32 inch set?
Shit, I paid $3500 for a 30" Aquos with just 1024x768 (16:10) in 2003.
You certainly can when you use it as a monitor. So yeah, I'd pick it over an regular HDTV set.
I don't see the problem with it... since I always use my TV as a computer monitor, it's pretty frickin awesome to have that kind of resolution when I'm a little bit closer to the screen. Nobody scoffed at Dell for having a 2560x1600 on their 30" display. The only real difference is it said "Computer Monitor" and not "Television Monitor." Hmmm, is that finally the smell of convergence coming on?
You can never have enough resolution. If it's worth the extra cash depends on how you use it.
I think a 32" with that resolution makes a lot of sense in some scenarios. Think of people that don't have space/need for separate desktop / TV screens - you can use this one for both. Put in on your desk and have massive high-res desktop real estate, then move back a few yards to your couch and watch a movie on it.
Asking why seems terribly naive. More resolution means you can sit closer without SDE an it makes it much better for computer usage.
this is great news. hopefully itll come down in price soon. although it being the first and no real competitor i dont see that happening yet. and yea i use the exact same size hdtv in my room, but its only 1080i. its not a big room, and 32" is plenty big. use it for everything. hdtv, and computer monitor. mines a Sammy. :) anyways i hope more companies also follow sharps move.
This is really good apart from being really quite ugly...something the reviewer missed(How?)
I personally have a Dell XPS laptop with a 17" screen which has a resolution of 1920x1200, which is slightly better than this and trust me when I look at a 1240x1024 screen now, it makes me cry inside!
More resolution = better for me!
try at 15.4" with the same resolution.. dell sells latitudes packing that heat.
it's so beautiful.. I shed a tear every time I see one.
As for 1080p on a 32" display.. hells yeah. my living room (rent a house in a city.. in college) is way small so this would be perfect. The TV we have right now is a 32".. SDTV CRT :D
Why is it that all these tech review clowns think 1080p is worthless. It reminds me of all the ludites who said 800 x 600 resolution is all anyone really needs with their computer. God forbid we get to the point where tvs don't have do downconvert source material. I have the 42 inch 1080P Aquos which is much larger I admit. But I wil just sit back and laugh as I enjoy PS3, Blu-Ray, Computer, and yes HDTV images without giant obnoxious SDE.
I have a 1366*768 32 inch now but I love to have a 1080p screen, im running media center edition on it and when I use it as a monitor (for browsing) I usually sit about 6 foot away, the higher res would be awesome then.
I agree with #1. It's just progress. There's no reason to get mad at marketing tactics as long as you see past them and retain your ability to make informed choices. New technologies are "insisted" upon the average consumer (read: the masses) in order for worldwide adoption to take place. Ex: Flat panels can be found mounted in every grocery store, hospital, nail salon, etc. because consumers have 'voted' them in. I'm thankful that I don't see big ugly CRTs hanging threateningly from the corners of ugly waiting rooms anymore, even though I'm never an early adopter. You've got to thank the consumer whores, they bring technologies like this closer to us picky bastages. :)
This is a great TV if it performs as well as the Aquos 37 inch 1080p LCDs. At 32 inches it's as suitable a monitor as the 30s you've seen. Yes, there are 30s at 2560 x 1600 but at that resolution gaming becomes a serious challenge because that resolution is so hard for a graphics card to keep up with. I got the 37 inch Aquos for $1600 in November. AVSforums has had a lot of people very happy with them and there are threads dedicated to them with screen shots of people using them as monitors etc. Don't hate on resolution. It's not like it hurt you to have it available.
Now, if it were $239.50, then I could replace the regular little 4:3 flat panel I have sitting on my kitchen counter, you know, for the cooking shows. Need to see Rachel Ray in stunning full glory, I mean, her cooking, dig?
Do I want to use my PC in 720p or 1080p? Do I want to browse the web in 720p or 1080p? In order to display text crisply, the resolution of the display must match the resolution of the video card output. This is why I will insist on only a 1080p HDTV when it comes time to buy.
Jumping from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 on a 32" LCD is a waste of pixel?! You hear that? Engineers?! Stop improving stuff!! We don't need your god damned HD PS3! A calculator's LCD is good enough for me! Who needs a microwave when u have a lighter and some sticks!
my intellivison will look awsome on this!
Yes, having 1080p on a 32 inch screen is good. Maybe not every one can tell, but *I* can certainly see the difference.
Engadget should be complaining LOUDLY about every new 1366x768 set that hits the market, which ensures that EVERY program you watch will be scaled. Sure, it looks good scaling up 480p, but any HD broadcast will look crummy with that scaling applied.
If 1366x768 weren't low-end, why are actual 1280x720 sets marketed at higher price-points?
Yet instead of rightfully writing scathing reviews of 1366x768 sets, Engadget *complains about superior resolution*?!
Where have you been??? There's a ton of 1080p LCD TVs on the market. A pricegrabber search shows 43 different sets with sizes ranging from 30" to 57". Dude and yes megapixels sells cameras, it saves money on an expensive optical zoom. You must be one of those guys that runs their monitor at 640x480 in a whooping 256 colors.
its definitly not the worlds firt 32" 1080p LCD tv, i bought a 32" 1080p lcd last year for about $1400, sharp is way overpriced
Nice attempt at trying to read off as being a practical minded observer, but there really is merit in producing max res panels at whatever size. Most important is that source material does not need to be downscaled, which is a huge win for image consistancy and accuracy.
Also, think outside of just the immediate consumer needs. Convergence is coming and hi-res monitor/tv's are just one of the many necessities of this progression.
Gotta agree with most of the commenters -- it's progress and in general it's a good thing. (And it sure is a butt-ugly case design, but whattya gonna do?)
As for why 32" 1080p is a little silly... You'd have to sit about 4 feet away (or closer) from the screen to enjoy the 1080p goodness. As a computer monitor, it's a slam dunk. As a traditional living room TV setup, where you're more than 4 feet away, it makes less sense.
There's a great article about screen size and viewing distances here: http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
The real answer is this: when you put a true 1080p monitor a true 1080 (p or i) source, you get get pixel to resolution. NO software or hardware scaling. This is the best possible picture.
Its the return of the Aquos. Hallelujah.
1366x768 is just a stopgap. True HD was always meant to be 1080p no matter the size of the screen.
I've been waiting for a 32-37 inch 1080p LCD to hit the $500-$800 mark before I buy. Heck my 19" computer LCD does better then that resolution. So the faster they get to 1080p the better. Until then I'm happy with my 27 inch CRT.
Don't forget,
Nothing is currently being broadcast in 1080p now nor in the forseeable future. If one is not a gamer and does not use it for the computer then it is not worth the money. There are a lot of us out there like that, believe it or not. I found a great article about all tings 'resolution' after googling LCD TV review. The author goes over optimum viewing distance, resolution and screen size to come up with a usable table that basically states that lower resolution TVs are fine if you sit far enough away (we're only talking 4-12 feet here). The eye can only resolve just so much detail at ordinary distances. I will try to look up the article again now so I can let you all read it.
It's amazing how shortsighted the media (including you guys) are on 1080p. The question to ask here is "Why did it take so long?"
Just take a look on virtually any forum and you'll see tons of people wanting (and waiting for) a screen for dual use computer monitor and TV. 1080p is the minimum resolution where that becomes a reality for many people. This is where the real convergence is coming from.
I use a 32" 1366x768 TV as my main Home PC screen. It's usually playing media on MediaCenter, but I do everything else on it too. I almost bought the 27" model because it would have a higher density pixel count, so no higher res would not be a waste. Also no down-scaling would be tops!
"However, just as pixel-count sells digital cameras, it unfortunately also sells HDTVs to the uninitiated."
Say what? Is this the first time you've ever seen an LCD TV? Getting wrapped up in pixel-count when buying a digital camera might be a characteristic of the uninitiated, but that isn't the case with flat panel TV's. With flat panel TV's, the knowledgeable will try to get the highest possible res available - presently, that's 1080p.
1080p res will transmit over cable and satellite as some point, and already transmits with HD movies and games.
The goal is to get a TV that will handle everything - all resolutions - in the effort to future proof your TV at least for awhile.
32" isn't too small to handle 1080p. I'd want to know that what I have will natively display whatever content I throw at it.
Yeah, who wants a crappy 32" TV anyways...especially one that does 1080p? Oh, that's right, everyone who wants 1080p and doesn't need a 50" plasma. Seriously, Engadget. 32", 1080p and that price put it right in the sweet spot for my household (although the price is shocking).
>> Sharp's AQUOS LC-32GS is "world's first" 1080p 32-inch LCD: why?
Here's why. To display HD DVD and BD movies (and some HDTV broadcasts) with no downscaling, hopefully no overscan - that's one less stage for errors to slip in.
Might be fun to use as a computer monitor too.
I disagree edgadget. It's progressive scan which is far better than Interlaced as it displays all the pixels at once, it's pixel count is full HD, it's not stpidly large, and it's future proof. Get a decent upscaling 1080p DVD Player, and you're sorted untill Blu-ray or HD-DVD become more evolved. The fact that it's proggrssive scan, means that the up-scaling should, in theory, be more effective than if it was an Interlaceed TV. Plus 32" is a nice size - for me, 40" and up is just too big.