[Ari @ May 2nd 2007 3:34AM]

Engadget, can you please stop furthering the myth that the "Dynamic" contrast ratio means something. Ever since companies started using and advertising DCR, they have been acting like their LCDs suddenly have magically increased their contrast ratios by ten-fold while the native contrast ratios, the ones that really matter, have only gone up a little. Just like everything else, it's just a gimmick to get consumers to switch from plasma, to LCD (not that I'm a plasma fan). I remember that something similar happened with response time. Companies used to add together the TrTf and the GtG to get the "response" time, but as a faster monitor sells now they just quote one number.
* I'm not 100% bout that last one but it's what I remember.
Samung refuses to publish their LCDTV Native CRs at all so it is all but impossible to compare the screens with models like the Sharps(not that the NCR is necessarily telling of the LCD quality). Someone need to get on the ball and standardize the specification system. I hope I don't sound like a know-it-all, but I just can stand all the marketing bull these companies put out.

[nikster @ May 6th 2007 11:44PM]

dynamic CR or not, the picture on this one looks about 10 times better than anything other LCD in the mall - sony, panasonic, even sharp pale in comparison. only LG has a brand-new comparable one in terms of picture quality.
looks as good as the plasma standing next to it, minus the low rez and high engery usage.
i am picking one up today for about USD 850 here in thailand. expect U.S. prices to be much lower, perhaps 700 - 750.
yeah it's not "true" HD - I figure I will buy a new one when and if 1080p HD is wide-spread. in 3+ years or so, and then 50" LCD TVs will be $300 ;)