Questions about some TVs at Walmart

[jimdagys]

I was looking at some 19 inch TVs at Walmart. One is a Vizio 720p for $128, and another is a Sansui 720p for $128.
Both TVs have the same connections, including HDMI, PC and USB (although the USB might only be for pictures, not AVI video). One question I have is that the Vizio is double the weight of the Sansui. Is that a good thing? Usually I think that heavier is better. Which TV do you think is better?
Another question I have is that I can't seem to find a 19in TV that is 1080p. Could the human eye discern the difference between full HD broadcast on a 19in 720p vs a 19in 1080p?
What other things should one look for when buying a small TV? The specs talk about "contrast ratio". How does that play into the overall quality of the picture?

[usually_quiet]

I was looking at some 19 inch TVs at Walmart. One is a Vizio 720p for $128, and another is a Sansui 720p for $128.
Both TVs have the same connections, including HDMI, PC and USB (although the USB might only be for pictures, not AVI video). One question I have is that the Vizio is double the weight of the Sansui. Is that a good thing? Usually I think that heavier is better. Which TV do you think is better?
Another question I have is that I can't seem to find a 19in TV that is 1080p. Could the human eye discern the difference between full HD broadcast on a 19in 720p vs a 19in 1080p?
What other things should one look for when buying a small TV? The specs talk about "contrast ratio". How does that play into the overall quality of the picture?

There is a physical limit to how small the LCD panel manufacturers can make each pixel on the screen and still make them cheaply. You aren't going to find a TV under 22 inches that has a panel with true 1920x1080 resolution, and even then, you won't find an inexpensive small one with with true 1920x1080 resolution.

However, unless they are sitting about 3-4 feet (or about 1 meter) away, a human being with average eyesight won't notice a significant difference in the picture they see on a small 720p TV and the picture they see on a small 1080p TV of equal quality.

Contrast ratios are frequently exaggerated by the manufacturer. Don't believe them. Try to find reviews from people who these TVs and see what they say. Without any reviews to go by, I'd pick the Vizio. Vizio has a good reputation among inexpensive TV brands.

[lordsmurf]

720p and 1080p are about the same, even as large as 40", when viewing video content. Reading text (like a computer) is really the only time you can see resolution differences.

The main reason is that video compression tends to knock out that "detail" that people falsely claim to see. Even a 1080p Blu-ray disc can be sorely lacking in any actual detail at that fine of a level. A lot of people insist they can see the detail of 1080p, when in reality it's all in their head. They believe it's 1080 because they want to.

The same is true of 352x480 vs 720x480 for VHS capturing. (Though that one is complicated by encoder quality.)

[Cornucopia]

...Vizio has a good reputation among inexpensive TV brands.

Except when it comes to their power supplies (and their support after-the-fact). Don't get me started...

The other stuff, about 720p vs. 1080i/p at <~32 inches, I quite agree on.

Scott

[lordsmurf]

The other stuff, about 720p vs. 1080i/p at <~32 inches, I quite agree on.

I'm sure you know this, but few others do...

When it comes to professional video encoding, one of the questions asked is how much something can be compressed, and still "look like" it has detail. Perceptions matters a lot more than actual technical accuracy. This question has to be asked because of the limits imposed by bandwidth -- be it DVD-Video, Blu-ray, or typical household ISP connections. It's a balance between absolute uncompressed quality, and what can be passed off as such.

[sanlyn]

Standar5d definition video usually looks better upsampled to 720p rather than upsampling to 1080p. That upsizing would be like taking a postage stamp and trying to make a very large picture from it: the more the small image is expanded, the worse it looks.

In any case, at 19" you can't see the difference between 720 and 1080, unless you touch your nose to the screen and examine carefully. Considering the low-bitrate crap most cable stations broadcast nowadays, 720 ends up looking cleaner on most TV's under 40" or so.

To me, a heavier tv might (I said might) indicate better construction, maybe a better power supply as someone suggested. It could also indicate exactly the opposite (sloppy construction at poor tolerances), but I'd trust something heavier. Both sets are reputed to have a decent image, but I believe Vizio has the edge.

[Beavis]

I've always liked Toshiba for a small TV like that... but you'll pay more than $128.

[jh443]

One question I have is that the Vizio is double the weight of the Sansui. Is that a good thing? Usually I think that heavier is better. Which TV do you think is better?

This is a common belief, and manufacturers know this. I cannot speak to this precise situation, but I believe everyone should know that as a home electronics repair technician, I have seen numerous instances where appliances have been "stuffed" with useless plates whose only discernible purpose was to increase the weight of the product.

This usually happens in products of the lowest quality, BTW. (Edit: Which probably WHY it was brought in for repair in the first place )

[victoriabears]

I have had the cheapest stuff last forever and crap out in the first month, and expensive stuff do the same.

I would make a value judgement based on the fact you buy Insurance to cover you for risks you are not prepared to take yourself, pay $128 and it goes in 18 months, may be you would just write it off to experience, pay $500 and not see it the same, so that $125 warranty might be worth it.

If you are talking picture quality, you won;t know until you get it home.