# Sharp AQUOS 80" LED TV



## Mike P.

I just saw the Sharp AQUOS 80" TV in store, It looks good! Kinda makes me want to replace my Samsung 67". The only problem is the price, $5000 here in Canada. 

http://www.sharp.ca/en-CA/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/LCDTVs/LC80LE632U.aspx


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike P. said:


> I just saw the Sharp AQUOS 80" TV in store, It looks good! Kinda makes me want to replace my Samsung 67". The only problem is the price, $5000 here in Canada.
> 
> http://www.sharp.ca/en-CA/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/LCDTVs/LC80LE632U.aspx


My local Best Buy told me Sharp had one of these when I was looking at the 70" model and asked if they offered anything bigger; in this particular store, they didn't carry the 80, but another one in my city did. 

I wish I could afford or had the room to house one of these beasts; as it stands, I'm not even sure we can swing a 70 budget wise. Is this AQUOS part of their ELITE line? I was told the "standard" Sharps are nowhere near as good as their licensed-from-Pioneer ELITE sets...:huh:


----------



## tazz3

I saw this in best buy a few weeks ago its huge and pretty cool


----------



## Osage_Winter

tazz3 said:


> I saw this in best buy a few weeks ago its huge and pretty cool


I would hope so, tazz, as the 70 looked HUGE in Best Buy amidst a plethora of other screens even!

BTW -- reppin' Long Island, huh? Gotta give props -- I'm originally from the Long Beach area...:T


----------



## bxbigpipi

Two months after I bought my 70" the 80" came out. By that time I could not return my set. Had I known I would have waited to get the bigger set. With that being said though I love my 70" ! It's great!!


----------



## tripplej

From a lot of websites the reviews are not that great. The main advantage is the size to give that "wow" factor but then it has picture quality issues. Could it be due to the size?

For the price of the 80 inch you can get the sharp elite 60 inch which would give you better picture quality.


----------



## NotBananas

I bought the 80" Aquos last Oct.2011 so I have over 6mo. of experience with it. It's awesome! But....I had the Panasonic 58" plasma TV for over 3 years and got used to its image. I knew LCD's can't compare to plasma (the two technologies are radically different), but having moved to a new house with a dedicated home theater I created in a 20ft.15ft. room, I bit the bullet and got one for $4,600 (retail $5,000). The local store (Fry's Electronics) started a campaign that they will match any legitimate internet price. I found a website that had this on sale (delivery extra, duhhhh) and showed it to the clerk. They looked it up on the web and sure enough it was on sale, so they had to give it to me for $4,600 (I forgot to mention to Fry's about the $500 freight delivery from the webs store ;-).

The good:
* Awsome size and brightness. Not as bright as plasma (LCD can never be as bright).
* DLNA enabled for home network
* Relatively light for it's size (about 120lbs).
* Comes with all the bells and whisles of any new TV: Netflix, Amazon, etc. access.
* You can adjust any parameter to suit your taste.

The bad:
* Not as bright or sharp as my Panasonic plasma (see below for explanation of LCD vs. plasma technology), but better than any other LCD I've seen.
* No option to automatically "stretch" SD 4:3 stations or movies to fill the width of the screen. The Panasonic has that as an automatic feature. In otherwords, when a standard def 4:3 aspect video is displayed, it stretches it to fill the width of the screen automatically (if I set it up to do so). It does make everything wider, but then no black bars on the sides. 

After several months of use, I got used to the LCD and love it now. In a room it's larger than life screen almost makes you forget that you are home, not in a IMAX theater.

Of course I have the 9.2 surround sound system with one 15" and six 10" subwoffers (I have great neighbors ;-). Why so many? That's a comment for another time.

BTW, I opted not to get the 3D version (extra $1,000) since I'm not convinced 3D is here to stay. Reminds me of the 70's with the quadraphonic sound system and CB radios. Neither are here now.


----------



## tripplej

Hi NotBananas,

Glad to hear you are enjoying the 80 inch.. 

Can I ask, how is the viewing when you are sitting away from the center of the screen? Meaning, you are at an angle. When comparing with your old Panasonic I take it the Panasonic was much better at angle viewing?

Any picture quality issues? Uniformity issues?

Also, is this edge lit or backlit? Local dimming or no?


----------



## NotBananas

tripplej: The screen is in the middle on the wide side of my 20x15 room and the viewing seats are only about 10ft. from the screen (viewing seats are 4ft. deep). The way to calculate the viewing field is to have the image fill your vision from the left and right side so you almost have to turn your head to see the left and right edge of the screen. This is the reason IMAX is so popular because the image fills your whole field of view.

The seats on the side can see the same image with no degradation or loss. The Panasonic was a little better, but only because it was plasma.

Amazingly, the human brain will adopt to whatever the image looks like. After a few weeks of watching the LCD, it became so much better than initially that I can only attribute it to getting used to the new display type vs. the plasma.

Colors are excellent and you can adjust about six different ways to compensate for color variations. I chose the "dynamic" method, which tends to make images a little higher contrast and color saturation, so it doesn't look as "bland", but not so much that it looks like a cartoon.

Most all new LCD's are LED lit which is back lit so you don't get the bright edge of the florescent like the previous generation. Also LED's obviously never (almost) get dim as they age, so the image is consistent throughout it's life.

What I was amazed at the uniformity of the image across the whole panel. I can view it at one edge or the other at almost 180° and never loose brightness or details. 

This beast weighs 122lbs. so wall mount was not an option, besides there was a window (covered up) behind it. I suspended it from the ceiling with four 150lb. test monofilament clear fishing lines, two on each side, so each side has 300lb. capacity (600lbs total) which I figured is enough of a safety margin. Now it looks like it's floating in the air because it's about 1ft. from the theater style curtained back wall and about 3ft. from the ceiling.

BTW, I sold the Panasonic on Craigslist for $800 so the total upgrade was "only" $3,800


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas thanks for your input. 

I am strongly leaning toward a 70 inch but I am also thinking of an 80 inch so that is why I asked so many questions.

I am happy to see that you are enjoying this 80 inch display. 

Do you have a picture of your setup? I would love to see how it looks. 

Thanks for answering my questions. Too many tough decisions for me.


----------



## NotBananas

tripplej: You know what they say: "he who dies with the most toys wins!". I was also in the indecision mode for a few months before I bit the bullet and bought the 80". Of course Sharp came out with the 90" a few months after that (it doesn't matter because there's no way I'm going to spend $10k on any TV).

As the ladies say: "size does matter". Again, my objective was to fill my field of vision with the screen. This one accomplished that.

It's like buying a house. The first one is the toughest, then you just have to "cough up" the difference between the current one when sold and the new one. I also learned that the optimum time t sell a display is between 2-3 years before the one you got is so old, nobody would want it (remember Sony's Trinitron?). 

BTW, my Martin Logan electrostatic speakers are huge (6ft. tall and 19" wide), so the screen looks kind of small in between them. As a frame of reference, the equipment shelf is 72" wide.

Are you looking for 3D as well? Then only the new 80" has that capability which is about $1k more.


----------



## tripplej

Wow. Thanks for sharing the picture. I am very impressed.

I was initially looking at the 70 inch and of those I am leaning toward the Sharp Elite since it is the best in the LED arena. I don't mind spending a bit more on the TV if it will last a long long long time! 

But then while looking around, I noticed the 80 inch at my local big box retailer but I was kind of hesitant to think of getting it since the reviews on cnet and other places were not that great. But the folks here on this forum are turning my decision making since they along with you are stating it is very good.

Decisions Decisions..

one final question.. how is the reflection? Can you see lights on in the room during daytime watching on the glass?


----------



## DealFinder

I would go with the 70" Elite in terms of picture quality, as the 80" Sharp appears to be lacking in that regard. The off-angle viewing is problematic also.


----------



## tripplej

DealFinder said:


> I would go with the 70" Elite in terms of picture quality, as the 80" Sharp appears to be lacking in that regard. The off-angle viewing is problematic also.



DealFinder, thanks for your information.

yes. From the reviews, the 80 inch has some problems but from the folks on this thread they all seem to have good reviews. So, I am kind of turn so to speak. I do like the 70 inch sharp elite due to all the high reviews and all the users on the elite thread seem to like the tv as well. 

I have seen the 70 inch sharp elite as well as the 80 inch sharp at the big box electronic store but they were located very far from each other so I couldn't compare and contrast. Of course the 80 inch is just so big so it automatically got the wow factor. 

I know I will decide on one or the other. Just trying to see what folks think to help me decide. Either way, I am sure I will be happy with either item.


----------



## NotBananas

The old story is that I was perfectly happy with my '74 Wolkswagon Beetle until I drove a '76 Lincoln Continental Mk-IV. Guess what I thought of my VW after that? 

I also visited the big box stores to compare. One of the "features" of most all displays have is a "Store" mode in the setup which exaggerates all options so the image will pop out at you. Another fact is that none of the store demos were setup properly by the "expert" salespeople. You also have to remember where you read the reviews and what experience the reviewer had with displays and who advertises with them. You are not going to slam one of your advertiser's products.

My first large screen TV was a three CRT tube projection TV using a 72" parabolic silver metallic screen called Advent in 1978 and I never went back to a smaller screen. I bought a three CRT tube Kloss after the Advent's tubes started to fade (sold it in the newspaper; no internet then). After the Kloss was the Pioneer Elite 50" rear projection three CRT tube, huge furniture box set. Then when that started to fade, I bought the Panasonic 58" plasma which I had for a few years, and the last one now is the Sharp.

The surface of the Sharp is a matte finish. Never get one that's glossy! Even when you're watching it, it's like a mirror and reflect everything. Even if you don't get the Sharp, make sure you get the matte surface.

One of the "tricks" I used is to take a DVD with you that you are familiar with, and ask them to play it. If they give you a hard time, tell them you are spending several weeks' of salary for the salespeople, so they have to cooperate or you go to their competitor. I usually tell them when I write the check for the TV, I really don't care whose name is on it. I'm getting the same product, no matter where I buy it.

The off-angle viewing is the same for all LCD's and all plasma's. The technology is the same regardless of who you buy it from. I usually don't view it at a 120.

The screen does not have glass. It has a hard plastic covering which is the reason it can have a matte finish. 

You should be wary of reviewers who may not have any experience in owning and using large screen displays. 

You should also make sure whichever you choose has internet access. Even some of the Sharp models don't. This gives you a benefit of accessing Youtube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. and also allows you to update the firmware of the display by directly downloading it from Sharp's website.

I also have DLNA setup in my home network with internet, which means I can watch all the movies I have on my computer directly on the TV. Fascinating technology.

BTW, I bought the 60" Sharp for our bedroom, and very happy with it.


----------



## tripplej

thanks NotBananas. You certainly did your research and are very satisfied with your purchase.

I will have to test both tv's. I am currently debating between the sharp elite 70 inch and now of course the sharp 80 inch which was never in the running till I started reading this thread and seeing how everybody here is enjoying the tv. Prior to this, I was debating between the Panasonic Plasma 65 inch TC-P65VT50 and the sharp elite but decided to go with the sharp elite. 

Thanks again for all your assistance. I will have to research some more and eventually decide.


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas said:


> * DLNA enabled for home network



Hi NotBananas,

Can you explain to me what DLNA enabled for home network means?

I am very curious.

Is it wireless application between the TV and the computer? Meaning, it is some software that you install on your PC and then you have it wireless talk to the tv and then what happens? You run a video file on your computer and it shows up on the tv in one of it's inputs?


----------



## NotBananas

DLNA is "Digital Living Network Alliance" (see dlna.org). It is exactly what you thought. It links all your devices that have a DLNA capability built in through the CAT-5 network cable. This is in addition to the HDMI cables that interconnect the devices.

It basically allows you to access the internet on each DLNA device and to link all the devices to a Home Media Server. In my setup I have hundreds of full length movies and music on my computer. With DLNA enabled devices using a Media Server software, you can play all the movies on the TV through the network attached to the computer just like as if it was a DVD player. The obvious implication is that I am copying all my Blu-ray movies to my computer (I have RAID implemented on it) and eventually all my Blu-ray DVD's will be on it. Now whenever I get a Blu-ray DVD, I use my computer to copy it to my hard disk. Eventually I will sell all my Blu-ray DVD's and Blu-ray DVD players because all movies will be on my computer (thus the need for the 10TB hard disk capacity).

The Media Server software I use is free, called Serviio which can be downloaded at serviio.org. It's real simple to install. After installation it scans the network for DLNA enables devices and configures them automatically. It literally took me about 1/2 hour to set it up and have it configured. 

Below is the complete diagram of my DLNA setup. This is completely separate from the HDMI cables that are connecting the devices. You still need them.

Since my computer is in a different room in my house, I used the "WiFi Range Extender" which had only 4 ports and the "Ethernet Switch" to expand to 8 more ports for all my equipment. Again, all this equipment is still connected to my Yamaha receiver which has 8 HDMI ports (which is one reason I chose it).

If you notice I have two Blu-ray changers that hold 400 Blu-ray movies each. This is in addition to the Pioneer Blu-ray player which is region free and automatically converts European and Asian PAL standard video Blu-ray DVD's to NTSC so I can watch any movie from any region.

This is just part of the equipment I have setup. I have 9.2 speaker system setup and I also implemented 8 subwoofers (yes, 8) and I'll explain why later. I also have a totally separate tube pre-amp, power amp and three turntables setup for my vinyl collection of about 2,000 records. I switch the speakers between the receiver and the power amp through relays that activate when I power up the tube equipment automatically. But that's another story.


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas,

Wow, thanks for the in-depth details. I am very impressed. So, the wireless DLNA is used so that the internet reaches your tv, right? But, would you need this since the tv is wi-fi? If you have wi-fi enabled via the wireless router, doesn't the tv get internet access that way? 

Since your computer is away from your home theater, how long is the hdmi cable that is connected between your computer and your tv?

Are all sharp tv's enabled with DLNA ?

Also, do you need a cat5 cable connected between the computer and tv or router and tv? I assume no, right?


----------



## NotBananas

There is no direct connection between my computer and the home theater room. No HDMI or CAT-5 cables. It's all done through the "WiFi Range Extender" in the theater room which links to my "Netgear Router" in my office (computer room).

There is no physical cables between them because they are over 30ft. apart. Running that length of CAT-5 cable around the floor baseboards and across doorways under 4 thresholds is not practical. Even though it can be done, it wouldn't be wife approved. The only purpose of the WiFi is to eliminate the cable.

The Serviio server software on my PC sends the video to the WiFi Router which delivers it to the TV display as a streaming video.

This is exactly the type of streaming that Netflix uses so you can watch movies on line in real time. I also subscribed to Amazon's Prime service for $79/year which also has thousands of movies you can stream. BTW, I have software that can save the streaming movies to my PC while I'm watching them (for archival purposes only ;-).

Most newer TV's already have the wireless WiFi built in, so you don't need the "WiFi Range Extender" that I have. Some of the less costly models don't have it, so be sure to check.

The Sharp 80" I have also has WiFi, but because I wanted all my devices on the DLNA network, I chose to use the extender with the switch. Even if the TV has WiFi you still need the WiFi Router which is connected to your modem. The TV has to have something to link to, in this case a WiFi Router. It cannot connect to the internet directly without the Router and modem.

Don't forget, I still have all my devices connected to my Yamaha receiver with HDMI cables. The DLNA network does not eliminate the HDMI cables. It just connects my PC to the home theater.

The Sharp TV (and all other DLNA devices) has a menu option to select which input you are viewing. If you want to watch DVD's, you select the Yamaha receiver as an input. If I want to watch movies on my computer, I select DLNA input. It's as simple as that.

Also most all newer Blu-ray players have DLNA capability too, so I was still able to watch movies from my computer using a 4 year old Panasonic plasma display which didn't have DLNA. I just selected the Blu-ray player input on the Panasonic and selected DLNA on the Sony Blu-ray player.

BTW, don't spend any money on expensive HDMI cables! Don't let the salesman talk you into it! I've seen them selling 6ft. long Monster Cable brands for $60! These may have had some merit in an analog system, but HDMI is all digital, so it doesn't matter what type of cable you use! All you are sending are zeroes and ones, which are on-off signals across the cable. I use $4 HDMI cables throughout my system and it looks just as good as the $60 cables. I tried one Monster Cable and saw no difference so I returned it.


----------



## tripplej

Thanks NotBananas. I appreciate your time and detail explanation.

I will like to use DLNA in the future once I get my new tv. 

I am not an expert in all the connection parts so if you don't mind, I may private message you when the time arises. 

Thanks once again. Appreciate the assistance. 

By the way, if one were to setup something similar to what you have (starting from scratch), what would you say would be the ballpark number in terms of costs?


----------



## Osage_Winter

It's so weird that this thread was ressurected because I was just in Fry's on Labor Day to pick up a couple of Infinity Primus 363 towers for my two channel system, and I was looking at the Sharp 80" they had on display which looked amazing (they also had a 90" in a box that they wouldn't demo). 

The salesman told me the 80" was a blowout because it was a previous model that didn't have the Quattron applications...I forgot exactly how much it was, but it was a great deal; we just couldn't do it because of the entertainment center issue we have to place the screen in, plus of course money...

My original thought that going from a 50" SXRD to a 70" Sharp LCD would be effective in terms of image intensity and more immersion during filmwatching -- now I am beginning to think 80 inches is the only way to go in order to sense this difference in size I'm looking for. But there seem to be a ton of negative comments regarding the 80" Sharps...

Do the non-Quattron Sharps perform that much "worse" than those with the technology? Would there be a definite picture impact difference going from a 50" screen to a 70" screen at 12 feet, or would the 80 be more effective?


----------



## NotBananas

As my wife keeps telling me "size does matter" ;-). As you might have read in my first few post on this thread, I long ago discovered the fact that the image should fill up your field of vision almost to the point where you have to turn your head to see the left and right extremes of the screen. Why do you thing IMAX is such a success? Because they fill your whole field of view with the image. I would always go for the larger size.

My 80" is only about 10ft. from the seats and it barely covers my field of view.

BTW, Fry's is my favorite toy store. That's where I bought my 80" for $4,600 when the retail was $5,000. I didn't want 3D and I don't care for the Quatrron technology that adds a yellow color (4 total, thus the Quatrron name) to the image. In my opinion it gives you a phony color and reduces the pixel resolution by 25%. This is because with the RGB each color had 33.3%, with Quatrron, each color is reduced to 25% of the total pixel size. They took the color printer technology concept which requires 4 colors, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black to create color print on paper. The main reason for the different colors of the TV vs. Printer is because the printer is reflective to produce color, where as the TV is generating the color through illumination of the RGB pixels.

Also as I mentioned before, I had a plasma TV and now a LCD, so your eyes get used to whatever image you have because there's nothing to compare it with side by side. If the 90" price comes down to reasonable level, I'll be selling my 80" to upgrade to the 90". Maybe next year.

I also mentioned that the Sharp has a "store" mode in the setup which exaggerates all attributes to make the screen image pop-out among the competition.

Just remember, the salespeople work on a commission and whatever rebates the manufacturer offers the store to push their product. Also if the salespeople had any technical knowledge about the equipment are selling. they wouldn't be working at the big box stores. 

Just ask them the difference between LCD-LED, Plasma and DLP technology. They are like deer in the headlights when trying to explain.


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas said:


> Just ask them the difference between LCD-LED, Plasma and DLP technology. They are like deer in the headlights when trying to explain.


lol. That is the main reason I try not to go to big box electronic stores. I might as well go to amazon instead. At least there I can get lower prices.


----------



## Osage_Winter

NotBananas said:


> As my wife keeps telling me "size does matter" ;-). As you might have read in my first few post on this thread, I long ago discovered the fact that the image should fill up your field of vision almost to the point where you have to turn your head to see the left and right extremes of the screen. Why do you thing IMAX is such a success? Because they fill your whole field of view with the image. I would always go for the larger size.
> 
> My 80" is only about 10ft. from the seats and it barely covers my field of view.
> 
> BTW, Fry's is my favorite toy store. That's where I bought my 80" for $4,600 when the retail was $5,000. I didn't want 3D and I don't care for the Quatrron technology that adds a yellow color (4 total, thus the Quatrron name) to the image. In my opinion it gives you a phony color and reduces the pixel resolution by 25%. This is because with the RGB each color had 33.3%, with Quatrron, each color is reduced to 25% of the total pixel size. They took the color printer technology concept which requires 4 colors, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black to create color print on paper. The main reason for the different colors of the TV vs. Printer is because the printer is reflective to produce color, where as the TV is generating the color through illumination of the RGB pixels.
> 
> Also as I mentioned before, I had a plasma TV and now a LCD, so your eyes get used to whatever image you have because there's nothing to compare it with side by side. If the 90" price comes down to reasonable level, I'll be selling my 80" to upgrade to the 90". Maybe next year.
> 
> I also mentioned that the Sharp has a "store" mode in the setup which exaggerates all attributes to make the screen image pop-out among the competition.
> 
> Just remember, the salespeople work on a commission and whatever rebates the manufacturer offers the store to push their product. Also if the salespeople had any technical knowledge about the equipment are selling. they wouldn't be working at the big box stores.
> 
> Just ask them the difference between LCD-LED, Plasma and DLP technology. They are like deer in the headlights when trying to explain.


I agree with what you say about the salespeople at the big box stores -- I didn't put any stock in what he said, I was just reporting...

As far as the field of vision and almost needing to turn your head to follow the action onscreen -- that's a bit too extreme for us. I am a hardcore home theater enthusiast and avid film watcher, but I don't need to have the field of vision so filled up that I need to turn my head from side to side to follow the action. We will be sitting 12 feet from whatever screen we get -- we can't change that -- and I am just wondering if going from a 50 to a 70 inch size will make a noticeable difference in picture impact...or if I should ONLY be looking at 80" models...:coocoo:


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> lol. That is the main reason I try not to go to big box electronic stores. I might as well go to amazon instead. At least there I can get lower prices.


Agreed.

I picked up my Onkyo stereo receiver via Amazon at an amazing discount and deal -- the only reason I bought the Infinity towers at Fry's was because they were practically giving them away during that infamous "$99 per speaker" blowout sale...:rubeyes:


----------



## NBPk402

bxbigpipi said:


> Two months after I bought my 70" the 80" came out. By that time I could not return my set. Had I known I would have waited to get the bigger set. With that being said though I love my 70" ! It's great!!


I have learned not to keep looking after you buy as there is always something better very soon after you buy, and often for less money. When I was young and single it was not a big deal but later in life having a family makes you spend less.


----------



## NotBananas

*tripplej*: I would be glad to help you setup the DLNA system. It's the usual learning curve when I fool around with new technology. It takes a while to understand how everything links and works together (hardware and software), but once I had it figured out, it became relatively "simple".
You can contact me direct email using my handle here which is notbananas at gmail . com


*Osage_Winter:* I didn't think going from a 58" plasma to the 80" LCD would make that much difference, but I was wrong (don't tell my wife I admitted to be wrong). The edges of the screen in any film do not have much action to focus on, but it does help with the total immersion feeling of being "in the movie". Even at 10ft. distance from my screen I never have to move my head because, as I said earlier, the image just fills my field of vision, so no ping-pong effect.

Too bad big box stores don't have a home trial for the TV's. There's nothing like trying it in your own home to see if it meets your needs. Unfortunately the only thing you can hope for is that they will take it back with no questions asked within a 30 day refund period. Our local Fry's does have that policy and I took advantage of it a few times (not for this 80" Sharp).


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas said:


> *tripplej*: I would be glad to help you setup the DLNA system. It's the usual learning curve when I fool around with new technology. It takes a while to understand how everything links and works together (hardware and software), but once I had it figured out, it became relatively "simple".
> You can contact me direct email using my handle here which is notbananas at gmail . com


Thanks NotBananas. Appreciate it.

Only thing I have issue with now is the latest news about how Sharp is doing, which isn't very well per the news. 

Per the Japan Times news article,


> "Market players apparently believe Sharp's risk of bankruptcy has significantly increased. Its credit default swap premium, which is widely regarded as an indicator of credit risk, has more than tripled since early August and stood at 1,915.41 basis points Wednesday, according to Tokyo Financial Exchange Inc. On Wednesday, Moody's Investors Service downgraded Sharp's short-term rating from "Prime-3" to "Not Prime," or junk status."


Let me see how this works out first.


----------



## Osage_Winter

NotBananas said:


> *tripplej*: I would be glad to help you setup the DLNA system. It's the usual learning curve when I fool around with new technology. It takes a while to understand how everything links and works together (hardware and software), but once I had it figured out, it became relatively "simple".
> You can contact me direct email using my handle here which is notbananas at gmail . com
> 
> 
> *Osage_Winter:* I didn't think going from a 58" plasma to the 80" LCD would make that much difference, but I was wrong (don't tell my wife I admitted to be wrong). The edges of the screen in any film do not have much action to focus on, but it does help with the total immersion feeling of being "in the movie". Even at 10ft. distance from my screen I never have to move my head because, as I said earlier, the image just fills my field of vision, so no ping-pong effect.
> 
> Too bad big box stores don't have a home trial for the TV's. There's nothing like trying it in your own home to see if it meets your needs. Unfortunately the only thing you can hope for is that they will take it back with no questions asked within a 30 day refund period. Our local Fry's does have that policy and I took advantage of it a few times (not for this 80" Sharp).


So, what are you saying...at our 12 feet distance, should I discern a difference between the 50" display and a 70" (which will be closer to what we could afford and fit in our room realistically)?


----------



## tripplej

Are any of you guys having power off issues?

I was checking out the sharp thread on another forum (avs) and several owners were complaining about automatic power off situations.. i.e. they are watching something and then all of a sudden the tv will power off.


----------



## NotBananas

tripplej said:


> Are any of you guys having power off issues?
> 
> I was checking out the sharp thread on another forum (avs) and several owners were complaining about automatic power off situations.. i.e. they are watching something and then all of a sudden the tv will power off.


I've had my Sharp 80" for almost 1yr. and a 60" for over 6mo.(bedroom #1) and never had any problems with it including powering off. Maybe there is a problem with the line voltage going below the minimum with the load of a new Sharp panel, so the Sharp power supply automatically shuts down to protect itself. Just a guess.

As far as the size making a difference, it absolutely does! I was also debating myself if the extra cost is warranted, since my Panasonic 58" plasma was still working perfect (sold it on Craigslist for $750 which partially paid for the new screen).

In my HT system, I'm trying to accomplish a replica of the movie theater experience, so the larger the screen, the more of an immersion feeling there is. Why do you think IMAX is so successful? Whenever there is a new movie out and it shows both as a regular screen and IMAX screen at the same time, the IMAX version is always full.

When you look at you existing screen no matter what size it is, focus on the center without moving your eyes and observe what you see that's outside of the sides of the screen. If you see your walls, then you are too far away. If you see only the edge of the image, then you are at the minimum distance away.

You can also try as a temporary test to sit closer to the screen until all you see are the edges, and if you are comfortable with that view, then you are a candidate for a larger screen. But that's a personal taste, so everyone has to try it to see if the difference in cost is worth it.


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas said:


> I've had my Sharp 80" for almost 1yr. and a 60" for over 6mo.(bedroom #1) and never had any problems with it including powering off. Maybe there is a problem with the line voltage going below the minimum with the load of a new Sharp panel, so the Sharp power supply automatically shuts down to protect itself. Just a guess.


Thanks for your reply. I was a bit concerned to say the least when I read about the automatic power off that I was reading over there. I also was thinking it might be isolated to the folks and it is not an issue that most are facing..

The 80 inch is more costly then the 70 or 60 inch that is for sure. Something to consider for sure.


----------



## NotBananas

> The 80 inch is more costly then the 70 or 60 inch that is for sure. Something to consider for sure.


I agree that if you are buying an 80" as your first large screen LCD, then the initial cost could be quite expensive. But just like a car, there is a point of diminishing returns where if you keep your TV for longer than 2-3 years, it's value becomes so low that selling it will not recoup most of your cost, so the new TV will not be partially paid for by the sale of the old one. I sell mine every 2-3 years being that technology changes so fast. Waiting any longer would make it quite valueless because of advancing technology.

My "old" Panasonic didn't have internet connection or DLNA capability vs. the Sharp which does and it has a backlit LED-LCD, not an edge lit. The only thing I didn't get is the 3D capability for many reasons. Most have to do with the old catch 22: very few movies are released in 3D and I the studios don't make too many because not many people own 3D TV's because there isn't too much movies available.

Why should I invest extra money in a new technology when there are several standards in 3D technology, none that impressed me at all. I recall the battle between Beta and VHS. Eventually VHS won, but in the beginning Beta was supposed to be the better quality where VHS had the length of recording time. Most consumers chose the length of recording time as being more important than quality. Pity all the consumers that invested in a Beta machine and tapes.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Ok fellas...

All this talk has _really_ got me wanting that 80" Sharp...

OR, the 90...:yikes: :gulp: :unbelievable: :spend::spend::spend::spend:


----------



## tripplej

I would love the 90 inch but it is just too expensive. But if they cut the price near the 80 inch, I will be all over it.


----------



## tonyvdb

Not to drag this thread off topic but


NotBananas said:


> The only thing I didn't get is the 3D capability for many reasons. Most have to do with the old catch 22: very few movies are released in 3D and I the studios don't make too many because not many people own 3D TV's because there isn't too much movies available.


more than half the movies released now are in 3D but I do agree that the technology is better in the theaters than at home. The Glasses are a big turn off for many people.



> I recall the battle between Beta and VHS. Eventually VHS won, but in the beginning Beta was supposed to be the better quality where VHS had the length of recording time. Most consumers chose the length of recording time as being more important than quality. Pity all the consumers that invested in a Beta machine and tapes.


Bata was the better quality due to the tape running almost twice the speed as VHS and was and still is being used in professional studios in newer formats like ED Bata and Digital Bata.
Sonys big bumble on the Bata front was they refused to license the Bata technology to other companies until it was too late where JVC who invented VHS did and so the market was swamped with VHS machines from every manufacturer around.


----------



## NotBananas

I recall the first Panasonic 40" plasma tv over 7+ years ago cost over $10k. Same now with the 90" which is around $10k. My theory is if the item is so new that it's impractical to own one (even if I had $10k) relative to the cost of the 80" which I've seen around $4,400.
Again, the first time I bought a flat screen, I kept trading up every 2-3 years and was able to sell the old one to partially pay for the new one (that logic convinced my wife to trade up ;-).


----------



## tripplej

Does the Sharp 80 inch come with a stand? I wasn't able to find details anywhere in regards to this..


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> I would love the 90 inch but it is just too expensive. But if they cut the price near the 80 inch, I will be all over it.


Isn't it close to nearly 10 grand at most retailers, or am I way off? I think I saw it for like nearly 8K at my Fry's...could be mistaken though...

Yeah, I'd jump at that if it was the price of the 80 -- still, you gotta have the room for that monster, and I just don't think we'd be able to make it work in our setup because we still want an entertainment center to flank the screen...:hissyfit:

EDIT: Looks like notbananas confirmed by suspicions of the 90" screen's price...


----------



## bxbigpipi

Hey tripplej, by stand do you mean the base? If so then yes. The 90 inch does also. I have the 70 inch and I love it, but man I would love to get the 80 or 90 inch!


----------



## NotBananas

Don't forget the 80" is the diagonal measurement. The actual width is 6ft. wide and 4.5ft. high. 

One other item which I found to be very important: The Sharp line of LCD's have a matte screen rather than a reflective screen like the LG and many others, including my old Panasonic plasma. The reflective screen was very distracting if it happens to be positioned were you get the reflection off a kitchen, outdoor sliding doors, windows, etc.


----------



## tripplej

bxbigpipi said:


> Hey tripplej, by stand do you mean the base? If so then yes. The 90 inch does also. I have the 70 inch and I love it, but man I would love to get the 80 or 90 inch!


yes. Thanks. Stand meaning the base.

A friend of mine just got a 60 inch Sharp and he stated he had to buy a stand so that prompted me to ask here..


----------



## tripplej

NotBananas said:


> Don't forget the 80" is the diagonal measurement. The actual width is 6ft. wide and 4.5ft. high.
> 
> One other item which I found to be very important: The Sharp line of LCD's have a matte screen rather than a reflective screen like the LG and many others, including my old Panasonic plasma. The reflective screen was very distracting if it happens to be positioned were you get the reflection off a kitchen, outdoor sliding doors, windows, etc.


6ft x 4.5 ft is a lot of wall space.

I will have to get several poster boards taped together to see how it looks on the wall.. 

I do like the matte screen better.


----------



## NotBananas

If anyone's interested, there's a dealer selling new ones on eBay for $3749.81 with free delivery from Texas (and a 90" for $8,895 from Florida) I paid $4,400 for mine almost 1yr ago.


----------



## tripplej

For those of you who have the 80 inch are you doing any gaming on it? How is the gaming aspect? Wii, xbox, etc.


----------



## bxbigpipi

Hey triplej I don't know if this counts but I have the 70" sharp and gaming is great, no lag but you have to switch it to game mode for no lag.


----------



## tripplej

bxbigpipi said:


> Hey triplej I don't know if this counts but I have the 70" sharp and gaming is great, no lag but you have to switch it to game mode for no lag.


Thanks for the input. I am assuming the 70, 80, and 90 inch all made by Sharp are the same in nature when it comes to gaming.. Good to hear no issues with your 70. I will get the nintendo Wii U when it is available later and eventually will get it hooked up to the 80 inch (that is my plan anyways) .. .


----------



## bxbigpipi

No problem I just got around finishing modern warfare 3 yesterday. I had the surround sound going and it was great. My only complaint is that they are making the campaigns too short. Battlefield 3 was short also.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Really want that 80 inch...can't even afford the 70 inch right now...:hissyfit:


----------



## tripplej

Osage_Winter said:


> Really want that 80 inch...can't even afford the 70 inch right now...:hissyfit:


Well, only a few more days till black friday and the holiday sales. You never know, you maybe able to get that 70 at least if the price is right!

That is what I am thinking..


----------



## NotBananas

You can probably pickup an "older" model 80" that does not have 3D capability which is what I have. I've seen them selling for $3,600 locally in SF Bay area. The newer 3D versions are the one's everybody is pushing.


----------



## Osage_Winter

You are most likely right, guys, on both your assesments...

However, I have a couple of caveats that stand in my way: First, it's not just the cost of the display itself -- we don't plan on wall-mounting the new LCD, instead placing it kind of flush within a wall unit/entertainment center which houses our current 50" rear projection set. But in order to fit a 70" -- forget about attempting the 80 -- we would need our handyman to reconstruct this wall unit (he's a master cabinet maker) so that it fits a larger screen, while still attempting to save wall space the entertainment center is on so that our Polk RTi12 main towers and the PSW350 sub still fit to the left and right of the unit's side cabinets. NOT an easy task. The 70 MAY just work, according to his calculations, but an 80"-plus is really gonna push these elements beyond the capabilities of the wall all of it sits on...

The cost of what our handyman wants -- because we don't want to lose this wall unit exclusively (we paid a lot for it and it is rather beautiful, made of genuine dark wood with glass shelving and glass doors on the side tower pieces to house our receiver/Blu-ray player on one side and my wife's china collectibles on the other) -- has to be added to the price of a new display, and this kills us in the wallet, too.

Further -- I am wondering just what kind of "improvement" I am going to see going from our Sony SXRD, which gives a nice film-like presentation with high definition film material (some call it "flat" even though most Blu-rays are highly detailed, even in the set's Standard picture mode), to the Sharp LCD LED...:huh:


----------



## NotBananas

The visual improvement is awsome going from my 57" Panasonic plasma to the 80" LED LCD. This is the reason IMAX can get a premium price for their tickets, compared to the regular sized movie screen.

It's the total immersion experience into the movie that makes it well worth it.


----------



## Osage_Winter

NotBananas said:


> The visual improvement is awsome going from my 57" Panasonic plasma to the 80" LED LCD. This is the reason IMAX can get a premium price for their tickets, compared to the regular sized movie screen.
> 
> It's the total immersion experience into the movie that makes it well worth it.


I'm sure the visual impact going from a 57 to an 80 WOULD be incredible, Mr. Bananas -- but I'd be going from a "mere" 50" to a "mere" 70.....:hissyfit: :rolleyesno: :crying:


----------



## NotBananas

The distance from the screen to the viewing seats makes a big difference. I sit about 9ft. from the screen, so the width of the screen fills my entire field of vision. Meaning that the left and right side of the screen is at the edge of my eyes, so I can see the whole screen without turning my head.
If you sit close enough to the 70" screen, you can get the same effect as the 80" screen.

I was happy with my 57" screen because I was sitting much closer in my old house to almost fill my field of vision, but just not quite close enough because of the practical limitation of the couch distance to the screen.

Again, referring to the IMAX experience, same issue - your field of vision is filled by the image.


----------



## Osage_Winter

NotBananas said:


> The distance from the screen to the viewing seats makes a big difference.


I know that, all to well -- and therein lies the problem, because we are MUCH further away from our display area than you are from yours (12 feet versus your 9)...



> If you sit close enough to the 70" screen, you can get the same effect as the 80" screen.


Not possible, because of our setup and room arrangement; thus, my concern for going from a 50" to a 70"...


----------



## bxbigpipi

Osage_Winter said:


> I know that, all to well -- and therein lies the problem, because we are MUCH further away from our display area than you are from yours (12 feet versus your 9)...
> 
> Not possible, because of our setup and room arrangement; thus, my concern for going from a 50" to a 70"...


Hey Osage I just finished measuring my seating distance and it is 12 feet also. I went from a 50" to a 70" and trust me there will be a huge difference in size and immersiveness!! The 50" is now in my bedroom and believe me it looks very small almost looks like a 40". You will not regret getting the 70".


----------



## tripplej

I am about 14 feet from the wall where I will hang the tv. Am I ok with an 80 inch due to the distance? How about a 90 inch? Or would I be better off with a 70 inch?


----------



## Osage_Winter

bxbigpipi said:


> Hey Osage I just finished measuring my seating distance and it is 12 feet also. I went from a 50" to a 70" and trust me there will be a huge difference in size and immersiveness!! The 50" is now in my bedroom and believe me it looks very small almost looks like a 40". You will not regret getting the 70".


Thank you, 'pipi! :T


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> I am about 14 feet from the wall where I will hang the tv. Am I ok with an 80 inch due to the distance? How about a 90 inch? Or would I be better off with a 70 inch?


You would certainly not be "better off" with a 70 inch at that distance -- shoot, if I could, I'd be putting the 90 in our space (12 foot distance)...but if all you can AFFORD or all you have the space for is a 70 inch, then pull the trigger...


----------



## tripplej

Osage_Winter said:


> You would certainly not be "better off" with a 70 inch at that distance -- shoot, if I could, I'd be putting the 90 in our space (12 foot distance)...but if all you can AFFORD or all you have the space for is a 70 inch, then pull the trigger...


I am leaning toward the 80 or the 90 but with the bigger tv sizes, I am concerned with the distance. 

From the chair to the wall it is 14 feet but then when you hang the tv on the wall, don't you lose a foot possibly since it is not flush against the wall. I was thinking of getting those articulating wall mounts.

So, considering, the distance really will be 13 or even 12 worse case, will I be disappointed if I get a 90 and be better off with the 80 or even yet more better off with the 70.

I am ok going with a 70 (sharp elite), 80, or 90. My only issue is the viewing distance..


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> I am leaning toward the 80 or the 90 but with the bigger tv sizes, I am concerned with the distance.


That 90 sure is sick -- I saw one but in a box the last time I was at my local Frys buying a pair of Infinity P363 towers for my two channel system...they wouldn't let anyone demo this monster of a screen...

I wonder what the image quality is like on that thing, though; I mean, at somewhat "normal" distances such as 12 feet or under (in a usual living room), do you see all the imperfections, aliasing, noise, etc. with a screen that big?

So, you're concerned that the 90 would be _too big_ for your room/distance? 



> From the chair to the wall it is 14 feet but then when you hang the tv on the wall, don't you lose a foot possibly since it is not flush against the wall. I was thinking of getting those articulating wall mounts.


No, when it's flush against the wall, you wouldn't lose a foot -- maybe an inch or so because of the bracketing behind it and some cabling thickness that may gather, but not a foot; interestingly enough, my situation is a bit different in that we currently have a rear projection HDTV which sits in a wall unit/entertainment center, and this unit is pulled off the wall at least a good foot...still, this makes the screen 12 feet from us. If I didn't have the wall unit, this TV would be WAY too far from our seating distance. Since we're planning on using the same wall unit when we upgrade to a larger LCD (I'll probably be 116 years old by then with gray hairs in places I don't want to think about, but I digress), I don't need to consider the "hanging flat on the wall" phenomenon which would make the screen further away -- it's going to be mounted on its provided tabletop stand, with our handyman custom-altering the entertainment center in order for the 70" or larger screen to fit in that area kind of flush with the opening...



> So, considering, the distance really will be 13 or even 12 worse case, will I be disappointed if I get a 90 and be better off with the 80 or even yet more better off with the 70.


Why would you be "disappointed" with the 90 at that distance...do you mean for the reasons I outlined above in terms of seeing more artifacts in the picture or getting headaches and eye strain? 



> I am ok going with a 70 (sharp elite), 80, or 90. My only issue is the viewing distance..


What would your EXACT seating distance from the screen be -- 14 feet?


----------



## tripplej

My exact seating would be 14 feet.

My concern is at that distance will I only notice pixalation (artifacts).. Or should I not be concerned?

I get over the air reception not cable or sat. So, by sitting at 14 feet, will the picture be acceptable?


----------



## Osage_Winter

I'm not 100 percent positive if you would experience pixelation and other anamolies at the 14 foot seating distance with a 90 inch screen; my instinct would be that you wouldn't, especially on high definition programming/material, but perhaps someone else could chime in with more experience...


----------



## TheOtherChris

A couple of months ago I decided it was time to replace my well used 57" CRT RPTV.
I REALLY wanted to buy the 80" Sharp.
When I demoed it (in store) I found that I actually preferred the PQ of the 70" instead.
To my eye, artifacting was more noticeable on the 80" Quattron than it was on the 70" 745
So, I bought the 70" 745 and have been very happy with it so far and have not yet experienced any sort of size envy, or buyer's remorse. Others very much prefer the immersive quality of the 80 or 90 and don't notice any degradation of PQ. You really need to test drive the screens. 

My front row seating distance is currently about 11 feet.


----------



## tripplej

How does one test the screen when they are playing dvd at the stores for OTA reception?

Wouldn't OTA reception be lower quality then dvd quality? Or would you say about the same?


----------



## Black Ops

tripplej said:


> How does one test the screen when they are playing dvd at the stores for OTA reception?
> 
> Wouldn't OTA reception be lower quality then dvd quality? Or would you say about the same?


DVD would be higher quality than OTA SD. OTA HD will higher quality than DVD. Blu-ray will be higher quality than OTA HD.


----------



## tripplej

Thanks for the details. For those of you who have this tv and are watching any OTA reception, how is it


----------



## vann_d

Man, just read this thread and some info in it seems to be contrary to what expert reviews and measurements that I have read told me.

For instance, "LCD can never be as bright as plasma." CNET reviewer says LCD can put out far more lumens than plasma.

"Off angle viewing is the same between LCD and plasma." CNET reviewer says plasma off-axis display is much better than LCD.

I dunno, one guy gets paid to review and take measurements of flat panel displays and presents his findings. I find it difficult to discount his opinion...


----------



## Osage_Winter

You know what I am eyeballing now? That Samsung 75" LCD...wow, does this thing look gorgeous -- very pricey, but gorgeous...

:blink::blink::blink:

A handyman we had over yesterday to fix our broken water heater (we actually needed a new one to be installed) told me a friend of his bought this TV and when you walk in the room, it's like "whoa -- that is HUGE!" and that the picture is jaw dropping...

Unfortunately, his friend got it during a Black Friday closeout for a ridiculous discount -- so I am going to have to continue saving the pennies...


----------



## tripplej

yeah. that 75 inch Samsung is impressive. Not sure of the reviews thou.. We will have to see if it is good or not. 

I am torn between this 80 inch and the 90 inch Sharp as well as all those 85 in 4K TVs but of course those are way way way over priced..


----------



## Black Ops

vann_d said:


> Man, just read this thread and some info in it seems to be contrary to what expert reviews and measurements that I have read told me.
> 
> For instance, "LCD can never be as bright as plasma." CNET reviewer says LCD can put out far more lumens than plasma.
> 
> "Off angle viewing is the same between LCD and plasma." CNET reviewer says plasma off-axis display is much better than LCD.
> 
> I dunno, one guy gets paid to review and take measurements of flat panel displays and presents his findings. I find it difficult to discount his opinion...


The facts are that LCD's can get brighter than plasma. However, the peak brightness is often too bright. Under normal viewing conditions, plasma can be as bright as you need it to be. Unless you are dealing with substantial direct sunlight you won't use the full brightness capabilities of an LCD anyway.

LCD's do struggled more with off axis viewing. This is the lone drawback to the best LCD in all the land, the Sharp Elite. It will only be a problem if you have seating off to the side. If your seating is in front of the display you have nothing to worry about.

Both display technologies have their pros and cons. You have to find what suits your viewing environment best.


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> yeah. that 75 inch Samsung is impressive. Not sure of the reviews thou.. We will have to see if it is good or not.
> 
> I am torn between this 80 inch and the 90 inch Sharp as well as all those 85 in 4K TVs but of course those are way way way over priced..


Indeed, J -- I'd LOVE that Sharp 90 incher...my wife says no way, and that we'd never have the room for it...


----------

