Rated 
Great TV
Great Color and Resolution, No Glare, Sexy and Sleek Look
Could have more accessible inputs on front or side, Poor Factory Settings, No HDMI cables included but can buy for low price online at Monoprice or other
Posted Dec 29, 2006 - The factory settings on the Sharp are terrible with oversaturated colour and a cold blue tint affecting white objects on the screen like white shirts, documents etc, Fortunately with some considerable adjustment I warmed it up, adjusted the colour, contrast etc. 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.. :-) 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.
98% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?
Buy now at PowersellerNYC: $999.00
Comment about this review
Sharp Aquos 42-Problems with service.
Questionable Initial Quality and Testing
Nice LCD but the hum is annoying
Comments - Post a comment