Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
403 of 412 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
LC-42D62U : A very good buy, November 10, 2006
This review is from: Sharp Aquos LC42D62U 42-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV (Electronics)
I just purchased mine a few days ago and so far its all been rosy.. :-)
I normally dont write reviews (ok, so I'm lazy, big deal, sue me.. :-)), but when I was researching for this model I found VERY little information about this TV (almost all reveiews were about the 46" D62U model), so finally making this purchase was almost like a leap of faith. So to make it a little better for other people who might be researching this model, I decided I would give my two cents worth. If you're reading this, then hopefully you will be better informed than I was when I made my purchase.
Note : These are all MY impressions, based on MY preferences, which might be quite different from yours. Also, I am no expert in the field of HDTV's, and I have not tested ALL the features of this TV yet.
So here goes...
Appearance :
Yes, it looks beautiful. The "fingerprint friendly" glossy black bezel gives it a subtle classy look without becoming too garish. The downside to that... you'd have to put in some effort to keep it clean, not that big of a deal though.. just like if you have shiny black car. Even the smallest bit of dirt/dust gets accentuated because of the shiny black background. Also, since the LCD screen is anti-glare, the reflections from the bezel COULD get distracting if you're sitting in a well-lit room with multiple light sources. This hasnt been a problem for me since the lamp for my living room is on top BEHIND the TV, but if your light source is behind the viewer, you might want to give this some consideration. All in all, nothing particualary flashy/different about the looks of this model versus the multitude of other LCD TV's out there. The speakers are mounted at the bottom (as with most TV's this size), and are not detachable.
The remote is the standard Sharp remote, nothing fancy about it. The clicker can also be programmed to command your cable box, VCR and DVD player
Features :
1080 p (isnt that the reason you are looking at this review?.. LOL)
ATSC-NTSC tuners to catch over the air HD/SD broadcasts
2 HDMI input ports
No PIP mode, (though in my opnion, PIP is highly overrated)
No cable card slot (until the time bi-directional cable-cards become the norm, cable card slots are really not that useful)
No DVI input. If you want to hook up your PC, you'd need to use a DVI-to-HDMI converter and use one of the HDMI input slots on the TV. Its not that big of a deal to me, but it might be to some. Of course, it would have been NICE to have a DVI input slot, other manufacturers have it, so why cant Sharp? I attribute it to cost-cutting measures.
Performance (HD) :
Out of the box, the HD picture was stunning. Watching the Rutgers-Louisville game last night on HD, I could see clearly the individual faces of spectators sitting many rows back in the background. Very nice. But.. moving closer to the TV (about 3 feet. Yeah, I know its too close, but I HAD to check), I could see quite a bit of pixelization in the lighter areas of the image. This pixelization affected even the NON-moving parts of the image. Furthermore, the pixelization blocks were not constant, which give the image a grainy, shimmering look (the kind you get on your PC games if you set Anisotrpic filtering too high, and Anti-aliasing too low). Of course, moving further away from 3 ft, this effect wasnt noticable, and pictures looked great. Anyway, since I was in the "critique" mode, I took my TV to my neighbor's who has Dish Network (I have Time Warner Cable), navigated to the same HD channel, and Bingo, the pixelization is gone..!!! This leads me to belive that the problem lies with the quality of HD signal provided by Time Warner. I think, to carry as many channels as possible, TWC might be compressing their signals too much, and when the time comes for my cable settop box/HDTV to de-compress the image, it has to do too much guesswork to fill in too many blanks left due to data rejection (not data loss... but data rejection, the data that is INTENTIONALLY left out to compress the signals). To read more of my ramblings on compression, see the "HDMI - Is it really that big a deal?" section at the bottom of this review.
Performance (SD) :
Out of the box, not so great. Significant artifacting and pixelization. Rather disappointing, in fact. A few tweaks later (Noise reduction turned off, Sharpness reduced, backlight intensity reduced, Cable box configured to output 4:3 channels in 480p instead of 480i), a much better picture. Still SOME artifacting and pixelization, and of course not as good as the HD channels (naturally.. lol), but definitely watchable. Hardly any artifacting/pixelization visible from our normal seating distance of 8-10 ft. This finally got my wife's seal of approval ... "OK, we will keep this TV" ... ;-)
Performance (DVD) :
Well here, I was pleasantly surprised. I KNEW beforehand that DVD's look rather good on HDTV's, but my DVD player is a 4 yr old, no-name, el-cheapo, only 480i output model which I got for free for signing up for a Bank of America chekcing account. YET, the picture quality was only mariginally less than what I saw on my HD channels. I have no plans of buying an HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray DVD players, but I WAS contemplating buying an upconverting DVD player. But looking at what my current DVD player is giving, I think I'll hold off on that purchase.. :-)
Performance (Sound):
Oh well, I really do not have THAT discerning an ear. For what its worth, the sound was clear and adequate enough for me.. I'll admit I haven't even play around with any of the sound settings yet.. :-P
Comparison with other brands :
I spent many an hour in Circuit City looking at this and other models, and harassing their sales staff into cycling thru a myriad of input signals, and settings on these TV's. In my opnion this model is best compared to Sony 40V2500 and Samsung S4095D (or S4096D.. they're identical for all practical purposes, and circuit City had the 4095D), both 40 inch, and both 1080p.
Sharp v/s Sony - I felt the Sony had a slightly better picture quality. The image was sharper, and the colors looked more natural. However, the Sharp showed slightly more details on close-ups of people's faces (perhaps due to the fact that the Sharp has 2 inches more of real estate). Also the Sony was about $250 more expensive (for a size 2 inches less), but hey, its a Sony.. :-)
Sharp v/s Samsung - Virtually identical picture quality. Yet Samsung was priced about 300 more than Sharp (for a size 2 inches less).
Out of the three, Sony seemed to have the best picture quality (both HD and SD) and most natural colors, but only marginally. I believe the extra $250 would be justified if it was the same size as the 42" Sharp. The Samsung is just plain over-priced. It should actually be cheaper than the Sharp.
Of course, if you're looking for absolute best, then look at Sony XBR2 40", but that one is WAY over-priced.. lol. You buy that one, your wife might make you sleep on the couch for the next 2 weeks. But considering that the couch would normally be in front of your new XBR2, that might not be such a bad deal... ;-)
About banding :
I looked and I looked and I looked.. till the cows came home to party. No banding on my unit.. :-). I have read quite a few reports of banding on the Sharp D62U series (even CNET mentions it), but most all of them are about the 46" (and 52") models. The 42" model has slightly different specs from 46 and 52" models (even though they are a part of the same series), so its possible that this model is not affected by the banding issue. But thats pure guesswork and I cant be sure about that. So if you plan to purchase this (42D62U) model, my advice would be to buy it from a local store, which have more generous return/exchange policies. [...]
Summin Up :
This is definitely not THE BEST LCD TV out there (I belive the Sony XBR takes that honor), but its pretty darn good. And for a price of [...], it is a VERY smart purchase to make
On another note.....
HDMI - Is it really that big a deal? :
Makes you wonder why they harp on about the HDMI connection, when the main benefit of HDMI is that it can carry uncompressed signals at a very fast rate? Yeah, uncompressed from your cable/satellite box to your TV, but what about all the compression/decompression already done beforehand by your cable/dish service provider? To carry more and more channels, our service providers are finding newer and newer ways of compressing their signals, often sacrificing the quality in this process.
Did you know, that if a brodcasting station films their program in hi-def (720p or 1080i), you're lucky if you get 20% of the original data to your cable/satellite box? Granted, that out of that 80% data that is "rejected" (I refuse to call it transmission loss), quite a bit of it is redundant (eg for a non-moving background, every progressive frame would contain the same info as far as the background images are concerned), but then then quite a bit of it is NOT. It is this missing data, that our cable/satellite box then has to "fill-in", based on different image processing algorithms.
Uncompressed...? Yeah Right..!!! The only thing uncompressed is the greed of these service providers.
In my mind HDMI makes sense only if you have a high def DVD player churning out 1080p signals, and then you use HDMI for that. Otherwise a component video cable would do just fine. I have both HDMI and component video cables connecting my cable box and my TV, and I see absolutely no difference. And they want me to pay [...] for a Monster HDMI cable? yeah sure.. LOL
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
47 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Go ahead and pull the trigger because it's worth it..., November 17, 2006
This review is from: Sharp Aquos LC42D62U 42-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV (Electronics)
I am a video technician for large scale shows and events. The company I work for owns about 30 Sharp LCD monitors, and with good reason. I did a lot of foot work and price comparison, and this LCD is the BEST purchase you can make if you do not want to break the bank. From my research, this is the only model in its price range that is 42" AND 1080p. All of the other models in the two thousand price range were mostly 40" 720p, which isn't bad but why settle for less? To keep it brief, here is a quick rundown:
PROS:
+Great size. Looks humongous in my moderately sized room. (Yes, like the ladies will tell you that 2 inches DOES make a difference)
+1080p hdmi (which is better than DVI because it carries both audio AND video) A MUST if you're a gamer (ps3/xbox 360 games are 1080p) But even my ps2 looks amazing pushing 480i on this monitor.
+Great looks, in fact the "piano black" design was the most attractive in the store in my opinion.
+Great over all picture. Brilliant colors, and not bad contrast for such a low ratio (1200:1). And this sucker is BRIGHT! Thank goodness for the automatic brightness correction feature which is quite nice.
+HD channels look absolutly stunning! As well as slideshows from my laptop, and DVDs on this 42" beauty
+Lots of inputs including multiple component connections and two hdmi inputs, perfect for a cable box plus a ps3
+Clear menu functions with lots of options to tweak it to your desired picture.
+Not terribly heavy at 66.2 pounds. (I carried it up to my second story apartment by myself)
+Nice sturdy stand for table/countertop. (Many I have dealt with have cheap stands)
+Sounds good but I must confess I only listen to it on my Sony dolby digital surround sound. (is there any other way?)
+Good price. (Especially if you can find it on sale such as I did.)
And now the BAD:
(Which isn't much)
-No PC input. This is a little dissapointing because I have to use up one HDMI slot to use my Mac on it via DVI to HDMI cable ten bucks on that famous auction website. (Plus I knew this when I bought it so I can't really complain)
-I must warn you that standard cable straight out of the wall into your monitor will look like crap. Definatly need a digital cable box with HD or Satellite to view this monitors full potential, however this is the case with most LCDs.
-At a close distance pixelation is very noticable and somewhat distracting. (Again, the case with most LCDs but who watches tv from within a few feet anyways? Otherwise not much of a problem.)
-Picture tends to lighten at more intense viewing angles. Faces look whiter etc. (Also common in most LCDs)
-Stand doesn't pivot. Not a biggie, but it would be nice. I guess they sacrificed stability for functionality in this case.
-Remote is HUGE, but this seems to be a trend among newer electronics. You can program it to most other devices such as VHS, DVD, Cable box but won't program to other audio recievers besides Sharp and there is no "guide" button for cable box control. 2 or more remotes is certainly unavoidable.
So in summery...BUY IT!!! Best BANG for your hard earned BUCK!!!!!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Comparison Sharp 4206 and Samsung 4095, August 8, 2007
This review is from: Sharp Aquos LC42D62U 42-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV (Electronics)
I've now had both the 42" Sharp 4206DU and a Samsung 40" S4095D (both 1080p) for nearly a year and I definitely prefer the Sharp. I'm not a total techno-geek nor someone who has to have the biggest, most awesome home theater setup so this review is for your average couch potato who is, nevertheless, able to hear and see small differences in television video and audio quality.
First of all, let me say that the difference between high definition and standard definition television viewing is huge. With a high definition broadcast and television, you can see details that are simply amazing. I find myself watching cake decorating challenges on food network's high def channel just to look at the light shining off tiny little drops of sugar sculpture or frosting. Watching a poker tournament is a whole different experience -- you can see every pore on a player's nose and every bead of sweat on his forehead. My mother's first comment on seeing a broadcast in high definition on the Sharp was that she would never want to be filmed in high definition. You can see every wrinkle.
On the down side, high-definition set standard broadcasts look worse than they do on a CRT, although not by much. You can see the difference, by switching between a network news program's high and standard definition broadcasts. The difference is staggering. If, however, you're not going to get a high-definition signal right away or play games on a current game module or watch a lot of DVDs on a high definition DVD player, then there is no sense spending your money now on a high definition television. If you know you want a high-definition set, then the question is which one to buy. Of all the sets that I looked at (and I checked out a LOT of them), in the 37-42" range, the Sharp was the best buy. The Sony XBrite was the best looking set, no question, but not worth the substantially higher price one would have to pay for it. If money is really no object, by all means go for the Sony. Otherwise, the Sharp is the one I'd choose.
The Sharp was the first high def t.v. I got and then when I wanted a second television I got the Samsung. Watching these sets with a DISH network satellite signal and a good, but non-high def DVD player, here's why I like the Sharp better:
SIZE:
I initially had the Sharp in a small bedroom, about 8 1/2 feet from where it would be viewed. Quite honestly, a 46 inch or even 50 inch picture would have looked better from that distance. However, as a piece of furniture, a 42 inch television was too big for the room. A 2 inch difference may not seem like a lot, but it does make a difference both in terms of viewing quality and at how much space it takes up in the room. If you don't want your television to overwhelm a small space go with a slightly smaller set. Otherwise, get the biggest set you can afford that has a picture that really isn't too big for the viewing distance. There are lots of online calculators to help you figure out the best size for your viewing distance. Keep in mind that a high-definition picture is less stressful to look at and should be bigger than a standard set at the same distance. In addition a standard broadcast is not going to take up the entire screen (assuming you don't stretch the picture to fit the screen, although personally I think stretching makes things look strange).
ATTRACTIVENESS:
Both the sharp and the Samsung are beautiful models. The sharp has a wavy curve to the bottom that some people will no doubt find appealing. To me, however, the curve at the bottom is distracting as it tends to pull the eye down. It took me a long time to learn to ignore it. Other than that the sharp is the more attractive unit. The Samsung has one serious downside in that it has a bright blue light that glows when it is off. Unfortunately the Samsung is the unit that I have in my bedroom and I have to cover the light with a DVD box when I go to sleep otherwise I find the light interferes with sleeping. If I were buying a second set again, I would probably get another Sharp. Even though it looks a little big in the room the extra size is helpful if your viewing distance is more than 7 feet, plus it doesn't glow in the dark.
PICTURE QUALITY:
Both sets have good picture quality although both take a serious amount of adjusting from the factory settings. Oddly, the Samsung requires that contrast be set almost to the maximum. It took me a very long time to get both sets adjusted. Different settings are required to get the maximum best viewing a high-definition broadcasts, standard definition broadcasts and ancillary input. The sharp, in particular, lets you save different settings for each one and you can toggle between them. I went to the online AVS Forum and looked up discussion threads for each of my televisions to see what settings other people found were optimal and used used the most common ones as my starting point, which made it much easier to adjust both televisions. In general, the Sharp is, well, sharper, although the flesh tones tend to be washed out. Colors are brighter and warmer on the Samsung, which also has better skin tones. Picture quality is definitely best on each with an HDMI cable, however, do not spend more than $30 on one. The picture quality won't be any different. I know this, I learned the hard way. If you want to know why a cheap cable works as well as a monster cable, there are plenty of online explanations and I can verify this from personal experience as well. I started watching DVDs from a standard player with an S-video cable and the picture and sound were garbage. Component cables (blue, green, red) took care of the problem and the picture quality is comparable to a high-definition broadcast.
SOUND QUALITY:
If you're going to hook up your television to a stereo system ignore this section. I don't have room or the outlets to add home theater sound to my television, so I just use the speakers in the television itself. Neither set has particularly impressive sound, although the sound on the sharp is acceptable. The sound on the Samsung is really tinny and on some programs makes dialogue very difficult to understand as the difference in the frequency between dialogue and background is not what it should be. I'm not someone who cares that much about the sound on my television so I ingored other people's bad reviews on sound for the Samsung. Big mistake. If you're planning on using the television as is without hooking it up to a stereo then you should not get the Samsung. I've kind of gotten used to the sound, but I still have to hit rewind on my DVR far too frequently because of missed dialogue.
REMOTE, RESPONSIVENESS, COMPATIBILITY:
The sharp remote is really big and has a kind of strange pointy bulky bottom end. The Samsung remote is definitely a more user friendly size, but doesn't work as well as the sharp one. The Samsung remote must be pointed directly at the television and it doesn't work too well from a distance. Both remotes are fairly easy to use once you learn them. Both televisions are completely compatible with dish network remotes, although I find I need to have the television remotes around for picture adjustments when switching between inputs. Screen menus are fine on both sets once you get used to them. The real problem with the Samsung is that the response time from pressing anything on the remote is really long. It takes a long time for the television to come on and it takes a frustratingly long time to switch between inputs. The sharp does not have this problem.
VALUE:
Both sets cost about the same amount of money and I'd say both are pretty good buys compared to other televisions on the market. If you don't play on a 1080p console and don't think you're going to keep this television for more than a few years you can buy a less expensive 1080i television instead of spending the extra money for 1080p since right now the best signal you can receive is 1080i. Otherwise, since the broadcasters have a mandate to improve their signals to 1080p within the next few years you do well with either of these sets. There are other reviews on here that explain some of the input limitations on these sets, so I won't repeat them here. For viewing with a satellite or cable receiver with an attached DVD and VCR, the inputs on both sets are fine. You can't go wrong with either of these television sets, however, given the larger picture, better sound and slightly better picture, the Sharp is a better value than the Samsung. If I had it to do over, I'd have two of them.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
