Akai 30" 16:9 Wide Flatscreen TV $499 & change @ Sam's B&M

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kimchee411

Senior member
Apr 28, 2001
272
0
0
That's a good question! I know HD signals will show up in full wide screen... but what about those analog signals that are shown in wide screen? Anyone out there have a 16:9 set?
 

aldamon

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
3,280
0
76
Originally posted by: jjo


I began thinking ... the only reason I liked the 16:9 set was because it was 16:9. It really had no "frills" (but not getting to use the remote, I can't know this for sure). The 27" seemed to have more bells and whistles, for $150 less. Sure, it wasn't a "cool" 16:9, but it had a "16:9" mode (and it didn't seem to weigh a ton like the 16:9 set -- I would have had to draft 2 of my friends just to get that set out of my Jeep.)

I'm sorry, but the differences are more than "cool" if you actually care about your viewing experience. I posted this earlier in the thread (never got the TV), but here it is again:

Akai: 30" 16:9 = 14H / 26W / 30D

Akai 27" 4:3 = 16H / 21W / 27D

The 16:9 set destroys the 27" in widescreen size (probably twice as much viewing space) with only a two-inch vertical loss in normal 4:3 viewing. Honestly, I can't understand how you think the tiny 16:9 mode on a 27" 4:3 TV is any good. Whatever floats your boat I guess. I have a 27" 4:3 and widescreen pretty much blows, but I'm an OAR whore so I grin and bear it.
 

aldamon

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
3,280
0
76
Originally posted by: LurkingInNC<br
Using the tools above, wouldn't most people be better off with a 32" 12:9 format tv than a 30" widescreen tv? For a letterbox signal they provide a similar viewing picture size (25.6"x14.4" for the 32" normal vs. 26.1"x14.7" for the 30" widescreen ). But viewing a normal signal, the 32" normal is significantly bigger (25.6"x19.2" for the 32"normal vs. 19.6"x14.7" for the 30" widescreen). A 36" 12:9 format tv would yield viewing sizes of 28.8"x16.2" for a widescreen signal and 28.8"x21.6" for a normal signal.

Not trying to thread crap (I realize that there are other issues than picture size, including the 'bars' issue), just trying to clarify in my mind the implications of the actual viewing dimensions for the two formats...

No. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how i understand it. When you put a 16:9 window on a 4:3 screen you don't use all of the TVs scan lines to create the image. The resulting picture IS in a 16:9 ratio, but the resolution sucks.


 

kimchee411

Senior member
Apr 28, 2001
272
0
0
Originally posted by: aldamon
Originally posted by: jjo


I began thinking ... the only reason I liked the 16:9 set was because it was 16:9. It really had no "frills" (but not getting to use the remote, I can't know this for sure). The 27" seemed to have more bells and whistles, for $150 less. Sure, it wasn't a "cool" 16:9, but it had a "16:9" mode (and it didn't seem to weigh a ton like the 16:9 set -- I would have had to draft 2 of my friends just to get that set out of my Jeep.)

I'm sorry, but the differences are more than "cool" if you actually care about your viewing experience. I posted this earlier in the thread (never got the TV), but here it is again:

Akai: 30" 16:9 = 14H / 26W / 30D

Akai 27" 4:3 = 16H / 21W / 27D

The 16:9 set destroys the 27" in widescreen size (probably twice as much viewing space) with only a two-inch vertical loss in normal 4:3 viewing. Honestly, I can't understand how you think the tiny 16:9 mode on a 27" 4:3 TV is any good. Whatever floats your boat I guess. I have a 27" 4:3 and widescreen pretty much blows, but I'm an OAR whore so I grin and bear it.

V-compression can be used to fill the 4:3 screen with a 16:9 angle, of course it's compressed... but then again, normal 4:3 viewing is stretched in the 16:9 TV (or just plain small if you use regular 4:3 with the black bars on the sides). It's just a matter of how much you value your movie viewing experience vs. regular TV and how much/which black bars annoy you. I personally think black bars on the top and bottom are much more bearable than bars on the sides (probably because I'm used to the top/bottom bars) but I don't mind a little stretching on 16:9 for TV.

 

jjo

Junior Member
Jan 22, 2003
3
0
0
I know that component is better over composite, but does using the component inputs (Y/Pb/Pr) look better than the S-Video input, or do they do about the same job?

 

Wolverine27

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2000
2,350
0
0
Originally posted by: jjo
I know that component is better over composite, but does using the component inputs (Y/Pb/Pr) look better than the S-Video input, or do they do about the same job?

Component video should be better than S-Video.

 

Runciter

Senior member
Apr 26, 2002
222
0
0
Originally posted by: jjo

Question: on either a "true" 16:9 set, or a 4:3 with a 16:9 mode, can you watch TV shows that are starting to broadcast in widescreen? (i.e., "Enterprise," and some CBS sit coms, and I think Letterman). Are those "true" widescreen, or are they just letterboxed to give the widescreen look? If you can watch them in widescreen on a 16:9 set, will the set "know", or will you have to set it accordingly? If if you set it, will it just "zoom" the picture up to fill the screen, or will it do some better calculations to get a better-looking image?

Are there any TV shows now that are "true" widescreen (if there is such a thing)?

There are actually quite a lot of shows that are either in HD or widescreen (cough, Fox). I don't believe Enterprise is being broadcast in HD right now (but it is filmed in HD), but I could be wrong. My local UPN station is O&O and they aren't doing HD right now, but everyone else is here (Big3, Fox, WB, PBS). Of course how you get the signal is another matter (OTA, dbs, cable). Depends on your set, but for the most part, most HD ready sets are actually monitors where the brains are in the STB. Also how your provider (network) sets up the signal will impact the STB. As an example, King of Queens is in HD and my set would be on Full (terminology will differ depending on manufacturer) and the STB displays the 16x9 image correctly. If/when they switch to 4:3 programming (say local news) and the signal is correctly imbedded to say it is 4:3 it will center the image and display grey (or black) bars on the sides. I guess in that sense it "knows".
 

Runciter

Senior member
Apr 26, 2002
222
0
0
Bump for hoping that someone who bought one checked out the component input with a progressive source... anyone?
 

alyosha

Senior member
Jan 9, 2001
399
0
0
I need to get component cable and I'll post the results of the test then. In about couple of weeks.
 

mcharkowski

Junior Member
Nov 14, 2001
15
0
0
Some guy on one of the Yahoo! Groups said he fed it 480p and it choked. This doesn't surprise me, as Akai says specifically, on their web page, which TVs are progressive. This one did not say progressive next to it.

That being said, however, I bought this TV and I think it's phenomenal. Absolutely wonderful for watching DVDs. Finally having a TV that can display all 425+ lines coming from my DVD player is really nice. I've got a 36" Toshiba which probably is the same viewing size on letterbox material, but the AKAI is so much more detailed because it has the correct format. The only weakness I've found is that it has a fair amount of light falloff in the corners. It appears to be getting better, though, as the tube breaks in and it is completely unnoticeable in program material. Highly recommended (especially for the price).
 

lzpoof

Senior member
Jan 20, 2001
916
0
0
Don't know if it's been mentioned but there is a 32" Advent flatscreen at BB for 500 this week.
 

Runciter

Senior member
Apr 26, 2002
222
0
0
Originally posted by: mcharkowski
Some guy on one of the Yahoo! Groups said he fed it 480p and it choked. This doesn't surprise me, as Akai says specifically, on their web page, which TVs are progressive. This one did not say progressive next to it.

Doesn't surprise me either, but here's to hopin! What Yahoo! Group was that on? I did a search on Akai (all 52) and also CFT3090 and no dice on either. I'm still on the fence on this one, but a discussion group of owners would be helpful..!
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Is there any way for a non-Costco member to get in on this deal without having to pay the extra fee? Any ideas?
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Is there any way for a non-Costco member to get in on this deal without having to pay the extra fee? Any ideas?

yes, get a membership to sam's club where the deal is. ;)

Generally Warehouse clubs will give you a one day pass if you go up to the counter and ask...
 

kimchee411

Senior member
Apr 28, 2001
272
0
0
Originally posted by: lzpoof
Don't know if it's been mentioned but there is a 32" Advent flatscreen at BB for 500 this week.

Agghhh... yet another good TV buy. FREE SHIPPING too (though there's sales tax). It's too hard to choose.
 

Jombo

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2001
1,048
0
0
Originally posted by: djheater
Originally posted by: Morph Is there any way for a non-Costco member to get in on this deal without having to pay the extra fee? Any ideas?
yes, get a membership to sam's club where the deal is. ;) Generally Warehouse clubs will give you a one day pass if you go up to the counter and ask...
calling ahead to see if they give out one day pass will save the time and effort like someone else mentioned earlier in the post ^^

also, i remember back in my college days, i usually found a "one day pass" to Sam's on one of those coupon books that gets handed out all over campus. (if you live near a college, worth a shot i suppose)
 

lfisher

Junior Member
Oct 10, 1999
13
0
0
You can still see it on the website if you can find an individual store that has it. It is just not showing up for the main online store.
 

Atrac

Golden Member
Mar 26, 2000
1,222
0
0
Well I ended up getting this television and while I'm very impressed with 16x9 DVD Mode, regular TV viewing (from DirectTV) is absolutely *terrible.* The image quality is way to harsh. I honestly fell like I am watching a WebTV or Computer hooked up to a TV. I tried turning down the brightness and contrast, but the image is still waaaay too bright.

Does anyone know the remote code or any other way to get into the service menu of this TV?

I think I may end up taking it back. :(
 

Runciter

Senior member
Apr 26, 2002
222
0
0
Have you tried using Avia's Guide to HT or some comparable guide to set up the tv for the proper video settings? Is the only problem with the screen being too bright or edge detail to sharp or...?

I'm still on the fence on this set. How heavy is it? Getting the set home and up the stairs is another big obstacle for me.
 

Atrac

Golden Member
Mar 26, 2000
1,222
0
0
It's definately a problem with edge detail. I've got a pretty good eye for adjusting dark areas (so what's supposed to be black doesn't appear grey, etc.) and I just can't find the right mix of Contrast vs. Brightness. I've just spent about half an hour making adjustments and it just doesn't work for me.

I remember when Flat Screen TV's (Tube) first came out, there was talk online about going into the service menu of the TV and turning off a particular "setting" that made the picture less harsh. I believe that it was a setting for edge detail (can't remember what it was called though). I believe that if I could turn that off on this TV, I'd be very very happy. :)

The TV was a bitch to get home. My friend removed the passenger seat of his '98 Honda Civic (Two Door) and we brought it to my house (had to take it out of the box though). It's pretty heavy (not sure of the actual weight though).

The remote surprisingly doesn't look like a Samsung remote. It looks more like one of those "One For All" remotes.

For those interested, the Sam's Club in El Monte, CA had two left (one boxed and one display). If I can't turn off the Edge Detail setting, they're going to have three. heh heh