Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › LCD TV; LED and 240hz Worth It?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LCD TV; LED and 240hz Worth It? - Page 2

post #16 of 66 is your best bet for researching audio/video gear. There are many reasons as to not get a Samsung. Also, those thin edge lit LCDS that Samsungs makes, ie last year 6000, 7000. 8500 series etc have major uniformity issues. Another thing to ponder is that their CS is horrible....There is not one perfect LCD out there. Some are better than others based on what you're using it for. For gaming or just blue ray and HD programming. After you figure this out, you can start to narrow down your choices. Most people would suggest buying a top tier brand for peace of mind but remember the top tier brands aren't perfect either, it's just that the probability of them going bad is a little less than a second/third tier brand sometimes, especially if you plan to own the unit more than 3 years. Top tier brands are; Sony Samsung Sharp LG Toshiba Next step now revolves around panel type, for gaming certain panels work better than others due to their lag input specifications. Also certain panels generate better blacks than some, and there are some that offer better uniformity than others. It's a broad area that I don't have the time to elaborate further on at the moment. Also, just so you know, Sharp seems to offer the best CS, they are one of the few companies that will issue you a new TV if you purchase a unit from them with issues. So that might be one reason to consider sharp. Me I prefer Toshiba, only because you get a similar quality product to the others but at a lower price. I cannot justify paying the premium for a Samsung or Sony LCD since they are not perfect LCDs.
post #17 of 66
Thread Starter 
rocks, sicne you know so much about televisions, what do you think of LED LCD's outside of what BDeuce already stated. Is it worth it? Also, if there any significant difference in motion from 120hz to 24hz?

I have a Samsung LCD on my bedroom right now and have been pretty happy with it for 2 years now but I did notice that the blacks aren't that sharp. Like when the HD movie goes to a shot of the night sky, the greys and blacks become a bit pixelated.

Others have also suggested Plasmas but I have one and I hated how much glare it reflects and the burnt sides (shadow when you watch non-HD channel and they crop the sides) annoys the hell out of me.
post #18 of 66
LED TV's greatest selling point is their supposedly reduced power consumption rating, ie energy efficiency. I have very little info regarding 2010 lcd models so most of what I am conveying here is relevant as far as all 2009 model lcd TV's are concerned. There is a vast difference or shall I say discernible difference between 60hz and 120hz TV's but not so much when compared to 120hz and 240hz. 120hz is noticable in sport programming or where fast action is displayed, it really enhances the look. Keep in mind some audiophiles detest it outside of sport broadcasting due to what is called the soap opera look. Some consider this bad for blue ray/hd programming and as such turn it off.

Now, despite the hype surrounding Samsung 2009 edge lit models, their picture quality had a few flaws even more than bargain sets. One such major flaw is their off angle viewing......Backlit LCD TV's generally produce better images and offers better off angle viewing, examples of these are the B750 Samsung LCD and the Sony XBR8/9 series. These models produce some of the best images of any LCD TV. The only reason to buy an edge lit LCD is if thinness is of utmost importance to you.
post #19 of 66
RFX, my dad wants to get back on the LCD train, so i'm going to do some more browsing the new few days on the 2010 models. right now, i am leaning towards a samsung right now. i can't give you specific models yet that i think are worth it.

i agree, is basically the end all of forums for home theater setup.

it doesn't seem you have a price limit do you?
post #20 of 66
Thread Starter 
Yeah, no price limit but I wouldn't paya ridiculous amount like $3k for a 46" 3D LCD. So price still has to be reasonable to a point where quality and the specifications are all there.
post #21 of 66
Thread Starter 
Went to the store this weekend and got to check out a 55" Sony LED, 240Hz and playing Avatar and just WOW!!! It was better than watching 3D, it was like looking at a window it was so clear and I just love the soap opera effect.

I just have a quick question about the soap opera effect, I have Directv so if I want a movie in HD through Directv will I get the same soap opera effect or will I only get that watching blu-ray movies in full 1080p?
post #22 of 66
that effect should be present in HD or even SD programs. it's personal preference in liking it or not and most TVs have the capability of turning the effect on or off.
post #23 of 66
Thread Starter 
Thanks, it is definitely something I like and yes I have seen some people who felt it was unnatural but I think in a couple of years it will probably be the standard. To anyone who hasn't experienced it, I highly recommend checking it out at Best BUY especially when they are airing Avatar. There were a good 10-12 people staring at the TV on just how clear and beautiful it was when I was at the store. I can see how it can bother some people though, but I personally like it. Having the option to turn it on and off is a great too. I'm a bti curious though, if it is mainly due to the 120/240Hz, how come Plasmas do not have the same effect and clarity when most Plasmas are running at 600Hz?
post #24 of 66
Try not to pay toooo much attention to refresh rates on plasmas. Plasmas display motion at 60Hz, the standard for most TV stations in the US. 60 Hz = 60 FPS. What the plasma does is take each frame (1 FPS) and display it in the field 10 times. It's not the same as 600FPS or 600Hz. It's a clever marketing technique that tricks consumers.
post #25 of 66
I should add that LCDs have much high response times than Plasmas. That has always been an issue with LCDs. That's why when they first came out for computers, gamers hated them because of the "blur". Manufacturers tried to compensate that with higher refresh rates, however, with TV, the refresh rate for broadcasts is 60Hz. When 120Hz was introduced it didn't magically upgrade the TV broadcast to 120Hz.

The response time on most LCDs out now is somewhere between 2-4 milliseconds. Plasmas have about .01 and maybe even lower. I don't know the complete science behind everything, but that's another reason why plasmas do not need a motion correct factor. it's just inherent in the technology
post #26 of 66
Thread Starter 
So does that mean that Plasmas will never get the soap opera effect even if they broadcast in higher Hz? Also, you said that any HD should get the soap opera effect through my Direct tv but as you stated they only broadcast at 60Hz so does that mean that I wouldn't see that in in any HD movies through satellite? Or have they bumped up their broadcast to those with a capable tv?
post #27 of 66
If you are already set in getting an LCD, there shouldn't be much of an advantage to go beyond 120Hz.

Motion blur is not really an issue for plasmas, compared to LCDs. And soap opera effect on LCDs is usually not considered a positive as it is a 'fabricated' and processed look. It may look ok for sports but for movies, it looks odd. (Note also that lots of movies are 24Hz, tv/cable broadcasts are 60Hz)

The problem in HDTV world is that there so many myths that it is extremely hard to compare specs that matter.

Take a look here:
post #28 of 66
The soap opera effect is actually a good thing that has been ruined by the inferior frame rates of film--now when we see a pan that actually looks smooth, we call it hyper-real and bad when it is really a more accurate interpretation of what is going on.

That being said I don't really like how it looks either, if the source is originally 24fps (which has then maybe been through a pulldown), you are getting into shady territory when you start trying to interpret what should be in the middle between two frames. If the film was shot at 24fps and has jumpy pans...I want my DVD to have the same pans.

I think xkcd said it best:

with the alt text of "We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look 'fake'"

I agree with those sentiments...but I am so used to it that I also have to agree that it looks fake even though technically superior. The only argument I can think of for keeping slow framerates on film is that it gives the director more options for exposure and low-light shooting (you can shoot all the way down to wide open at 1/30 and still make your framerate).

I have a Panasonic LCD that I just got and I like it a lot...IPS panels > TN garbage.
post #29 of 66
Originally Posted by otc View Post
if the source is originally 24fps (which has then maybe been through a pulldown), you are getting into shady territory when you start trying to interpret what should be in the middle between two frames. If the film was shot at 24fps and has jumpy pans...I want my DVD to have the same pans.

Yep definitely. Depends on the original source. Right now we are stuck with 24fps for movies...
post #30 of 66
Thread Starter 
Even BluRays runs with 24fps? When I was watching the BluRay of Avatar in the LED LCD by Sony at the store, it looked flawless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › LCD TV; LED and 240hz Worth It?