[Evoncalabbalo]

Thinking of getting one of these , they are the bods dollocks apparantly. Any got one , always nice to hear a second opinion.

http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/reviews/lcd..._TX32LXD70.htm

[casinobonusa]

Looks like a solid TV but I'm always confused when LCD manufacturer's tout refresh rate for a LCD as a selling feature. I was always under the impression that LCD's didn't use refresh rate in the traditional sense. So what does 100hz refresh rate on a LCD actually mean?

It also doesn't state the response time in milliseconds anywhere in that article which makes me a little curious. Also at the end of the article the reviewer goes on to start talking about 1080p TV's which I think the general consensus right now is that 1080p is a waste on such a small display because the eye simply cannot see the extra resolution in such a small space at normal viewing distance. This doesn't say anything about the quality of the TV in question, just that the reviewer might not be that knowledgeable.

[Enrobrorb]

I think the general consensus right now is that 1080p is a waste on such a small display because the eye simply cannot see the extra resolution in such a small space at normal viewing distance.

That may be a thought some have, but it's certainly not the general consensus. No reason to be capped is there? At 1080 I can now use that as a monitor with a noticeable difference between 720 and 1080.

[casinobonusa]

That may be a thought some have, but it's certainly not the general consensus. No reason to be capped is there? At 1080 I can now use that as a monitor with a noticeable difference between 720 and 1080.

I agree, if a person is going to be using a display as a monitor where up close viewing might be needed then by all means the higher the resolution the better. If you are only going to be watching TV at a viewing distance of let's say 5-8 feet than the benefits of a higher resolution are greatly diminished IMO.