Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

HDTV refresh rates

celc5

celc5

Well-known member
I've done my homework and I've come to the conclusion that refresh rate is extremely important for the 2 things I want to do with my TV, watch sports and play video games.

I've ruled out all 60hz LCDs because of blurring of the puck and when the camera moves quickly in football. I've ruled out 240 hz LCDs because they are a bit pricier than I'm willing to spend at the moment.

The TV will be in the basement gameroom, no window glare, so plasmas are NOT ruled out.

At 40 inches, I'm coming across 2 options:

1) LCDs at 1080p, 120hz, at least 20 or 30k contrast ratio
These are in the 800-1000 bucks price range.

2) Plasma at 720p, 600hz, and even higher contrast ratios.
These are dirt cheap around $600

I'm currently leaning toward the plasma at this point because of the great refresh rate. My question is, while factoring in the better contrast ration and refresh rates, will the 1080p make that much difference vs. the 720p?

I'm thinking the refresh rate and contrast ratio will give me a better picture with the plasma. But I want to hear opinions.
 
celc5 said:
I've done my homework and I've come to the conclusion that refresh rate is extremely important for the 2 things I want to do with my TV, watch sports and play video games.

I've ruled out all 60hz LCDs because of blurring of the puck and when the camera moves quickly in football. I've ruled out 240 hz LCDs because they are a bit pricier than I'm willing to spend at the moment.

The TV will be in the basement gameroom, no window glare, so plasmas are NOT ruled out.

At 40 inches, I'm coming across 2 options:

1) LCDs at 1080p, 120hz, at least 20 or 30k contrast ratio
These are in the 800-1000 bucks price range.

2) Plasma at 720p, 600hz, and even higher contrast ratios.
These are dirt cheap around $600

I'm currently leaning toward the plasma at this point because of the great refresh rate. My question is, while factoring in the better contrast ration and refresh rates, will the 1080p make that much difference vs. the 720p?

I'm thinking the refresh rate and contrast ratio will give me a better picture with the plasma. But I want to hear opinions.
Click to expand...

Heres what I just did about 2 months ago.. I went out and bought a Sony LCD 1080p Z-series, 52 inch with a 120hz refresh rate, contrast was
50,000-1
Hooked it up to directv HD looked like something i have never seen before, NOW! when used on regular channels, it was the worst thing i ever seen in my life..no I just spent 1600$ on a TV I'm not happy with..I kept it for 20 days then finally said screw it.. So I kept hear contrast ration is a BS sale marketing thing.. Ive heard it both ways..

I then went out and purchased one of the New Samsungs LED slim mount TV's
this is the one i got.Invalid Link Removed I think this one is 3,000,000 - 1.. this TV is unheard of bro, I hung it on the wall and it looks like a picture frame is hanging there..

Huge difference in Contrast ratio, now with the hz from 120-240..I cant see a difference and neither will the naked eye. I have a 60hz Aquos, in my bedroom, when the hz is that low, yes I can see a huge difference but anything over 120hz IMO, you wont notice
 
for most sports across cable or satellite you wont notice the difference. Even ones broadcast in 1080p are compressed so they don't really reach 1080p quality with the loss due to compression.

On video games the difference between them can be a little higher, but still not necessarily all that huge.

The only thing where it is noticeable is in bluray vides or using a computer hooked to it as a monitor. even then, its still pretty in 720p, just not as super sharp.


Keep in mind though 2 things - what size panel + how far from it is your seating. Those 2 details will be important as to whether the difference is slght or noticeable. roughly the 1080p has 2x as many pixels which translates to roughly 25% sharper visually. But if you are significantly far away for diagonal size that difference is almost unnoticeable and the positive color levels of the plasma can make up for it as well.

Plus keep in mind that as you saw for the price of the plasma now it can be your main television but 5-8 years from now get transitioned to a bedroom tv when the 1080 and/or 240hz refresh rate makes more difference.
 
With the current gamut of high-definition television sets, I would suggest you have two options. The first is to go with a set similar to the one IC purchased: a Samsung 6000 or 8000 series. As IC mentioned, the refresh rate is 240hz, the contrast is phenomenal, and the reproduction of colours is generally true. With this being said, the reproduction of blacks still cannot contend with the most premiere plasma sets. While this seems a marginal difference at best, this quality can be made very explicit depending upon the medium (i.e., games, sports, and movies) and environment (i.e., positioning, lighting, etc.,) the the set is situated within. Obviously, then, second choice is premiere plasma sets. To this end, one is hard pressed to find a better set than the Panasonic V/G10 series: across most review sites, including C-NET, Consumer Reports, etc., the V10 is regarded as the best set currently available, and is only surpassed by the Kuzo which is no longer in production. In regard to the reproduction of accurate colours, proper gamma (white/black) levels and contrast, this TV remains "king," so to say.

The next issue of contention is one not many people factor this in when purchasing an HDTV - this is, that HDTVs are not generally "plug-and-play". In order to reproduce the most accurate and true colours - if this sort of things is important to you, that is - calibration is necessary. This means both menu configurations (i.e., brightness, contrast, refresh rate, colours, sharpness, etc.,) as well as gamma alterations, completed through a "set-up screen" not immediately accessible. Most retailers offer "professional" calibration, but the steps are generally easy to follow and can be completed from home.

Now, I mention calibration because, in my estimation, it remains one of the predominant reasons for "buyer remorse" after a set is taken home. At the store, the TV "pops" almost unimaginably, the images seem sharp and clear, and the the contrast is so amazing the images almost seem to come off the screen; unfortunately, many do not experience this same experience at home. Discounting psychological factors, this can generally be attributed to calibration - specifically, the way the retailer calibrates sets to be sold on the showroom floor. The sets are not only calibrated for clarity and accuracy, but also to produce a brightness not available in "home mode". (The mode they operate on is called, "store mode".) This mode cranks up the brightness to differentiate it from every other T.V., on the showroom floor. Ultimately, though, what is the relevance here?

Well, generally speaking, high-end plasma sets such as the G/V10 are more "color-accurate" out of the box than high-end LCD sets - it is simply a consequence of the type of set one is buying. This inevitably will alter your experience of the TV, particularly considering the room the TV is in, and your initial expectations. If you are viewing in a generally well-lit room, desire that "POP!" from your TV, and are willing to perform some calibration, than you should purchase an LCD. If you are viewing in a generally dim room, desire true and accurate performance from your TV, and feel that either a) professional calibration is too expensive, or b) are disinclined to perform it yourself, than you should probably purchase a plasma.

My recommendations are, in no order (series of TVs):

Samsung UN8000/6000.
Panasonic TCP-G/V10.
Sony KDL-XBR.

For less quality, but less price:

Samsung LNA950.
Panasonic TCPS1.

Also, remember that components (DVR, PS3, etc) and cabling can "make or break" a TV experience. A full HDTV source utilizing components (component cables, that is) as opposed to HDMI will look considerably worse - particularly if you are as neurotic as me when analyzing your own TV's performance. While this difference is insignificant on non (full) HDTV components, games being played on the PS3, for example, are significantly different as it pertains to components v., HDMI. And, as IC said, viewing SD television on an HDTV is a factor not many take into consideration, but one that may ultimately ruin your experience.
 
celc5 said:
I've done my homework and I've come to the conclusion that refresh rate is extremely important for the 2 things I want to do with my TV, watch sports and play video games.

I've ruled out all 60hz LCDs because of blurring of the puck and when the camera moves quickly in football. I've ruled out 240 hz LCDs because they are a bit pricier than I'm willing to spend at the moment.

The TV will be in the basement gameroom, no window glare, so plasmas are NOT ruled out.

At 40 inches, I'm coming across 2 options:

1) LCDs at 1080p, 120hz, at least 20 or 30k contrast ratio
These are in the 800-1000 bucks price range.

2) Plasma at 720p, 600hz, and even higher contrast ratios.
These are dirt cheap around $600

I'm currently leaning toward the plasma at this point because of the great refresh rate. My question is, while factoring in the better contrast ration and refresh rates, will the 1080p make that much difference vs. the 720p?

I'm thinking the refresh rate and contrast ratio will give me a better picture with the plasma. But I want to hear opinions.
Click to expand...

1)
Samsung LN40A630 40" LCD TV 120Hz (Refurbished) 30k - $849.95
Samsung LN46A630 46" LCD TV 120Hz (Refurbished) 40k - $929.95

2)
Panasonic VIERA TC-P42X1 42" Plasma TV - $579.99

The expert ratings of the 46" Samsung is 85 and the Panasonic is 86 which are impressive enough.

Hope this helps.
 
LifterGym,
since you said the standard def stations were poor on your first LCD, how do they look on the new one?

Easy,
thanks for the info. We are on the same page :cheers:

Mullet,
I've seen the CNET reviews for that Panasonic GV10. I think it's out of my price range for what I'm willing to spend at the moment. I do like the other "budget" options you suggested though.

I've calibrated LCDs before so that's not going to factor into which option I choose.

I LOVE that you're neurotic about picture quality. I saw your old HD posts from a few years back with some searches and was hoping you'd see this thread :head:

Willis,
thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into those models as well as all of the ones that everyone has listed thus far :thumbsup:
 
For your size (40"), I would grab up a cheap 720p plasma. You would have to sit REALLY close to the TV to get your money's worth out of stepping up to a 1080p display. Also, plasmas are inherently better at displaying motion. No blur to speak of (though for marketing purposes, you see the whole "600hz subfield drive" stuff... doesn't matter).

I was in the same situation as you (deciding on a TV). I had a 46" LCD Sony Bravia (V model) 120hz 1080p, but sent it back due to extreme edge backlight bleeding. The picture looked great, except on dark scenes where the bleeding was very apparent. For the $1000 I spent on it, that was unnacceptable. So, I returned it.

I sit about 10' from my TV, so I opted for a dirt cheap Emerson 42" 720p plasma from Wal-Mart for $450! That's less than 1/2 what I payed for the Sony, and in my situation (distance from screen), 720p is more than adequate at 42".

Don't fall for the 1080p hype unless 1.) you sit REALLY close to the screen, or 2.) you have a REALLY big screen. IMO, it's not worth the extra money in your case. My cheap 720p plasma looks wonderful, especially at the $450 price tag! Of course, being an Emerson, it may break tomorrow. But, from what I've read, this TV is a rebadged Samsung. And, I did calibrate it using HD Essentials on BD... picture is great!

If you have the room, stepping up to the 50" 720p for about $700 would be a good idea, as well.

This is a very good chart...

Invalid Link Removed

You'll notice, for me (10' distance at 42" screen size), I am right in the middle of 720p range.

I would have gone w/ the 50" 720p plasma, but the wife said it was too big :(
 
willis60 said:
1)
Samsung LN40A630 40" LCD TV 120Hz (Refurbished) 30k - $849.95
Samsung LN46A630 46" LCD TV 120Hz (Refurbished) 40k - $929.95

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your #1, however there is a newer model of both of those TVs out.

I own the Samsung LN40B630. I always get comments on the TV....a friend of mine who is really into TVs claims that my TV is better than his and is one of the best TVs he's ever seen (we both work in IT). I think it's just what you're looking for Celc - I watch a lot of sports on my TV and it's just unreal as to how good things look. Even sportscenter looks sweeter!

Celc you said you wanted the following:
1) LCDs at 1080p, 120hz, at least 20 or 30k contrast ratio
These are in the 800-1000 bucks price range.

Well this TV is 1080p, 120hz, has a contrast ratio of 80k, and is in your price range.

Check the reviews here

Invalid Link Removed

Hope you get this TV you won't be disappointed! Even if you don't buy this specific model....I would really look into getting a samsung. They make the best TVs on the market, IMO.
 
celc5 said:
LifterGym,
since you said the standard def stations were poor on your first LCD, how do they look on the new one?
Click to expand...

Huge Difference! For Example... My wife watches Lifetime, brought the Sony z series home, i put it on for her, and i was like WTF! now mind you, I was watching the HDTV all day, and was in AWWWW..so realistically, switching over to the standard def will do that to you.. But i sat there, and said, i just spent 1600$, and I'm not happy, not all stations are HD.. So once I bought the Samsung LED, and put lifetime on i seen a huge difference.. now its still standard but I can at least watched a standard def channel and not get pissed for paying 2500$ for a TV, plus it just looks sick mounted to my wall:D
 
ShakesAllDay,
I sort of like your choice applied to EasyE's concept. Get the bargain bin plasma and it'll do the trick for what I want. When the LED price comes down a bit, the 240hz LCD can be a future purchase.

Thanks for the chart too.

What is your opinion of the picture quality of standard def stations on your plasma?

The reason I keep asking this is because my parents Samsung LCD (something like 720p, 60hz, 20k:1, looks decent in HD but horrific in standard def)

DarkHalf,
thanks for the specific feedback. I need to run searches for all the specific models you guys are suggesting when I really have time to digest each one :stooges:

Lifter,
Hmm, that sounds like a big difference to me. Ugh, nothin like bringing back up the TV's that cost a whole paycheck LOL :laugh: I'm TRYING to control myself here :D
 
celc5 said:
ShakesAllDay,
I sort of like your choice applied to EasyE's concept. Get the bargain bin plasma and it'll do the trick for what I want. When the LED price comes down a bit, the 240hz LCD can be a future purchase.

Thanks for the chart too.

What is your opinion of the picture quality of standard def stations on your plasma?

The reason I keep asking this is because my parents Samsung LCD (something like 720p, 60hz, 20k:1, looks decent in HD but horrific in standard def)
Click to expand...

Standard def. channels are pretty good. Of course, they look better on my 27" Sharp tube TV than the 42" plasma. When switching back and forth between a std. def. channel and its high def equivalent, my wife notices a slight difference. Of course, I notice a HUGE difference. There's only so much information in a 480i standard signal, and some TVs are better at "guessing" or adding the extra information to make up the entire pixel display that you end up seeing. I never got a chance to watch std. def. on the Sony (moved TV to another room and didn't have sat. in that room yet), but on the Emerson, it is pretty good... much better than the 40" RCA 1080p LCD that is in my office (this TV looks HORRIBLE on std. def channels). You'll have to do your own comparison on that issue.

I've read that it takes a lot more processing power to create a decent picture on a 1080p display vs 720p (1080p has roughly 2x as many pixels). So, that's where the higher-end TVs may shine. But, I have no qualms or dislikes about the std. def. channels when viewed on my Emerson.
 
I would also like to add that, in general, you want your most powerful processor doing the video scaling (TV, Blu-Ray player, up-convert DVD player, Hi-Def cable box, etc.)

What you don't want to happen is something like playing a standard DVD in a Blu-ray player, having the player up-convert the video to 1080p, then pipe that to a TV and have it down-scale the video back down to 720p.

Multiple scalings = bad news. You want it done once. So, in my case, I set my hi-def sat box to output 720p and my Blu-ray player to output 720p to match my 720p plasma. That way, my TV has to do little to no scaling (it's actually a 1024 x 768 display, so it has to do a little bit of scaling no matter what).

Or, if you buy a high-end TV, you may want it to do all the scaling. So, set all of your devices to output at the source resolution (no scaling), then your TV will scale it.

Some devices don't have this option.
 
I've browsed reviews on EVERY single set you guys have mentioned. I can tell there was a lot of thought put into your research because just about all of them have great reviews. The poor reviews are typically error 60... the error is really the person sitting 60 inches from the screen :laugh:

I've decided the price difference is too much to ignore for plasma vs. the LCD. So I'm sticking with plasma, especially for just gaming and sports in my "man cave."

Here's some narrowing down that I've done:

Panasonic Viera Plasma
Invalid Link Removed

Samsung Plasma
Invalid Link Removed

Shakes,
the Emerson that I see on Wal Mart site is only 60hz? Is that a misprint or are we talking about a different model?
Invalid Link Removed

Good suggestions on the scaling. I hadn't thought of that so I'll need to look into that some more obviously.
 
In terms of the sets you have here, I would most likely go with the Samsung. Samsung's PN series have traditionally performed quite well, both in terms of black levels and accurate color reproduction. If I may offer a point of consideration, though: the $300-$400 increase needed to obtain a "higher-level" set will most certainly be worth it in the end. Prior to purchasing last year's Samsung LN40A650, I had went with lower A models which were, in general, $300-$400 shorter. I went through the two preceding models prior to ending up with the A650.

All-in-all, so to speak, it is ultimately up to your preference, and how pernickety you are with picture quality? The deciding question then becomes: "Is the $300 initial savings worth the constant nitpicking your picture once it's home?". For this purchase, I went immediately with the V10, calibrated it myself, and have never been more impressed with a TV. By far the most true and accurate color reproduction that I have seen yet.
 
ShakesAllDay said:
This is a very good chart...
Click to expand...

Half the time I sit about 25 feet away from my 40" screen and I can tell the difference between 576p and 1080 but not the difference between 720p and 1080.

I honestly dont believe HD has reached its potential at all, I have seen some SD content look really nice(maybe shot on HD and sent on SD) and I have seen HD content look only slightly better than good SD (at 5 feet away from my screen).
Things to consider are the camera quality I think this plays a big role, and 2ndly film grain, when I watch bluray in 1080p sitting 5' away I can see the film grain(mostly effects skin texture appearance) and it really takes away from the PQ, to the point where it wouldn't matter if it were 720p or 1080p.
 
ItsHectic said:
Half the time I sit about 25 feet away from my 40" screen and I can tell the difference between 576p and 1080 but not the difference between 720p and 1080.

I honestly dont believe HD has reached its potential at all, I have seen some SD content look really nice(maybe shot on HD and sent on SD) and I have seen HD content look only slightly better than good SD (at 5 feet away from my screen).
Things to consider are the camera quality I think this plays a big role, and 2ndly film grain, when I watch bluray in 1080p sitting 5' away I can see the film grain(mostly effects skin texture appearance) and it really takes away from the PQ, to the point where it wouldn't matter if it were 720p or 1080p.
Click to expand...

The media definitely plays a huge part. As you said, even some HD channels are merely "broadcast" in HD, which significantly lessens the quality. Ultimately, though, tend to disagree that there is not a large difference between 720/1080p in similar lighting, with similar components, etc. Just my thoughts, though.
 
I agree with Mullet, the quality of the samsungs and the colors cant be matched really... I even had a Sony rep agree with me also:) yet another reason why i took it back and went with what I bought
 
I think what's really important to keep in mind.....especially as we my further into the future and technology continues to advance....that the most limiting aspect is the human eye. Eventually TVs will get so sophisticated that you won't be able to tell the difference between TVs other than their screen size.
 
I actually bought a LG 50in. plasma during black friday. 720p for only 599.00 @ conns. I love it man. the picture is bright as hell and gives great quality. I upgraded and went with directtv instead of dish. Got HD DVR and it was 30.00 cheaper than my rate with dish with no HD. I've already converted 2 of my friends over. They give great serv. and prices IMO.
Go with plasma. Great picture and great price. Hell, your gonna buy an new TV in 3 years anyway.
 
ItsHectic said:
Half the time I sit about 25 feet away from my 40" screen and I can tell the difference between 576p and 1080.
Click to expand...

You must have the eyes of a god. LOL

Seriously, though... I would bet that 99% of the people cannot tell the difference at those specs. Placebo works in many ways. ;)

BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm defending the picture quality of my lowly Emerson w/ those of the higher-end sets. I was just bringing up the point that for $450, it's tough to beat. And, though I strive to be a audio/videophile, my resources limit me to what I can afford, which def. isn't the best. If you can afford the best, get the best. You'll be very satisfied!
 
No disrespect to your set whatsoever Shakes. I'm doing the same thing on a budget. I was wondering if you saw above post where I wasn't sure about the refresh rate on your set... was it 60 or 600 again? I think I'm confused :think: LOL
 
celc5 said:
No disrespect to your set whatsoever Shakes. I'm doing the same thing on a budget. I was wondering if you saw above post where I wasn't sure about the refresh rate on your set... was it 60 or 600 again? I think I'm confused :think: LOL
Click to expand...

Before we get into "refresh rates", realize that LCD and plasma displays operate very differently, so you cannot compare the "600hz" plasma selling point with LCD's "120hz" selling point.

Read this...

Plasma is Nothing Like LCD

Not to be outgunned, the plasma companies (which are often the same companies that make LCD TVs) are bragging about 600Hz(!) refresh rates. That number is about as impressive as it is new. Plasma companies have been making at least 480-Hz panels over the past decade. But that figure means something completely different for plasmas than it does for LCD TVs because the two technologies are so different.

In the past, plasma makers simply talked about the frame rate—the number of actual video frames they show per second. All HDTVs (including LCDs) display at least 60 frames per second. (Pioneer has made panels that do 72.) Most video is shot at 30 or 60 frames per second, and film is shot at 24fps. So plasmas and LCDs are already showing every video frame (often more than once) and are therefore plenty fast enough.

But plasma needs to refresh even faster just to get to the 60fps mark, which is one of the ways it varies greatly from LCD. To make an LCD pixel brighter or darker, the panel adjusts the position of the liquid crystals to control how much of the backlight comes through the screen.

Plasma pixels can’t vary their brightness. They can only be on or off. But plasmas can vary how long a pixel is on for. And the longer a light shines (in milliseconds), the brighter it looks. To achieve this, each video frame on a plasma is actually comprised of a series of “subfields” of varying duration. The more subfields a pixel is on for, the brighter it looks in that frame of video.

[Insert: Plasma Frames. Caption: “Frames”—varying length of time that a plasma pixel is lit—determines how bright it appears in each video frame. Image courtesy Daewoo.]

It’s About Color, Not Motion

A plasma has to have at least 8 subfields per frame in order to produce the 256 shades of red, green and blue that make up a full color picture. And since there are 60 frames per second, a 480Hz (8 x 60) refresh rate is nothing to brag about. It’s a minimum requirement. With 10 subfields, as LG and Samsung are now touting, they can in theory do more fine adjustment of color.

But that doesn’t make them better than LCDs, since the latter don’t even use subfields. Instead, ever-improving electronics more finely control voltage levels to better adjust the position of the liquid crystals. And most important, increasing the number of subfields has nothing to do with how a plasma shows motion. It still has the same 60 frames per second.

In fact, the problem with LCD is not that it doesn’t show enough frames per second (60 is plenty). But our eyes can see the relatively slow process of rearranging the liquid crystals to set up the next frame. It’s like turning up the house lights in a theater during a set change between scenes of a play. Better to keep the lights off so the audience doesn’t see the furniture movers. In fact, that’s basically what some new LCDs are doing. They turn off the backlight in between frames so you don’t see the transition period. LG for example, is calling this feature a “scanning backlight,” but other companies have used this technique for a while. (Those “off” periods between each of the 240 frames seem to be the trick that LG is using to claim the magical 480Hz refresh rate.)

As usual, it doesn’t matter what the numbers are. It matters how the picture looks. Almost no one, except video fanatics and spec-readers, complained when LCDs did a mere 60 Hz. So even 120Hz is likely plenty. 240, 480 or 600 may be just a meaningless number.
Click to expand...
 
That quote is not necessarily accurate, IMO. It is true that plasma cells are "on-off" as opposed to the LCD's "variant" pixels, but the response time between each is entirely different. The response time being the amount of time the T.V., takes to respond to changing data, and thus vary the brightness (in the case of the LCD), the use (in the case of the Plasma) or the color (in the case of both) of the cell/pixel. The ultimately higher refresh rates of Plasmas are due not only to possessing subfields - though this is true to an extent - but rather, the fact that plasma-cell response time is exponentially faster. In general, this is the reason why Plasmas generally produce more accurate colors and less blur than LCDs: if, say, a colored object is moving rapidly across the screen - i.e., a video game - the clarity of that image is ultimately dependent upon how quickly the pixel/cells alter color in response to the movement. If the response time is slow, than you have "artifacts" of the image in other portions of the screen - or in other words, you have a color from "Image X" in "location p" where the image previously was, and we commonly call this "motion blur". This is due to the pixels/cells not altering their color fast enough, and it is a component of "refresh rate". In this instance, the "on-off" nature of plasma cells is an advantage, though it is a disadvantage for brightness (LCDs will almost always be brighter). Keep in mind, I own a high-end version of both, so I am not just plasma nut-hugging here.
 
I didn't completely analyze that quote. I did a quick google search trying to find something that explained the difference between plasma vs LCD and "refresh rates".

I remember the first "flat panel" computer monitor I purchased. I think it was a 19" Polyview (?). Talk about ghosting. I could barely stand to play games like Doom III or Half-Life 2. That thing must have had a response time in the 20's. I have yet to notice any ghosting on a flat panel since.

All in all, I was simply trying to point out that you can't directly compare plasma and LCD specs. Basically, plasma manufacturers put that "600hz" out there to "outgun" the 120 and 240hz LCD marketing.

You seem pretty knowledgeable... so any further info or clarification you could provide is appreciated.
 
Oh, I agree that the "refresh rates" can be all flash and no dash, so to speak, but in the particular instance of Plasma v., LCD, the refresh rate has some merit. In fact, where I think it is less significant is in the comparison of two LCD sets. LG, for example, has 240hz sets which look worse than LN40A650, which is last year's 120hz Samsung - overall picture quality is more of a factor, here.To say that the higher hz rates of a plasma is irrelevant, though, is not necessarily accurate; in fact, it is a point of consideration when purchasing the T.V., particularly if you are a gamer.

In terms of the motion blur, think of it like a comet's tail: as a figure - a character in an action game, for example - moves through the screen, what's really happening is that the cells/pixels are altering their color to reflect this movement. Unlike a tube T.V., what's moving is not the image (no blur on those, and this is why) but the pixels themselves. So, if you have an image moving very quickly - as in a video game - and pixels that do not move as quickly, what you get is pixels in an area the character "used to be in" reflecting his colors. Hence, a "blur" of that image's color traces from the figure like a comet's tail. And so, like the comet, most of what you see is the trailing portion, not the image itself. Plasma cells have inherently faster response times than LCDs. This is why even lower-end plasma sets, despite inferior picture quality overall, have less motion-blur than LCDs.
 
Great discussion fellas! You guys really took this to the next level in terms of learning.

Continue on... please :box:
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Plasma cells have inherently faster response times than LCDs. This is why even lower-end plasma sets, despite inferior picture quality overall, have less motion-blur than LCDs.
Click to expand...

LOL This is what I must have failed miserably at getting across... that you should have no response time issues w/ a plasma, whether they are touted "600hz" or not. Other factors contribute to overall pic quality, though. But, he brought up the refresh rate stuff, so that's where I headed.

Good stuff.
 
its not. you can see every acne scar, individual clumps of mascara on eyelashes, bloodshoot eyes, one chick even had some dried snot in her nostril. Might of been coke now that i think about it
 
Liftergym33 said:
I agree with Mullet, the quality of the samsungs and the colors cant be matched really... I even had a Sony rep agree with me also:) yet another reason why i took it back and went with what I bought
Click to expand...

I bought the same Samsung LED and the soundbar that was displayed with it at Bestbuy and the picture and sound are amazing, the colors and the blacks are awesome I've never seen better personally.
 
They are definitely great! I actually considered the 8000 over my V10! But, at the current moment, you are paying as much for the novelty as you are the picture quality, unfortunately.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
They are definitely great! I actually considered the 8000 over my V10! But, at the current moment, you are paying as much for the novelty as you are the picture quality, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

idk if it's the backlighting or what but it's so far and away superior to anything i've owned and the problems I had with my lcd with watching tv on an angle is greatly improved with this tv.
 
BUCKNUTS said:
idk if it's the backlighting or what but it's so far and away superior to anything i've owned and the problems I had with my lcd with watching tv on an angle is greatly improved with this tv.
Click to expand...

The LED lighting is significantly more exuberant than LCD, and in general, this tends to increase the viewing experience for most individuals. As I said earlier, though, all the calibration data I came across in my research - believe it or not, there is such a thing if you are so inclined to search for it - points to the Samsung 8000 producing slightly less accurate colors than either the Kuzo or the V10. Ultimately, however, objective data does nothing to either enhance or diminish the individual's subjective, psychological opinions about this or that T.V., set. Rather, the proof is in the pudding, so to say.

For the general viewing public, high-end LCDs/LEDs seem more attractive precisely because they are brighter, and this exuberance produces an illusion of clarity, contrast and the like.
 
I need to get the sound bar...when I bought mine they were out of those.. But now Im looking into a new home theater system also..so im torn...lol
 
any of you guy use wireless headphones for your sets? I've been browsing on amazon and the reviews pretty much suck a big one
 
i've only used wireless headphones playing xbox live games late at nite :D because they do overall suck. watching a movie particularly, not having surround sound and a solid subwoofer wrecks the experience
 
celc5 said:
any of you guy use wireless headphones for your sets? I've been browsing on amazon and the reviews pretty much suck a big one
Click to expand...

EasyEJL said:
i've only used wireless headphones playing xbox live games late at nite :D because they do overall suck. watching a movie particularly, not having surround sound and a solid subwoofer wrecks the experience
Click to expand...

I think all headsets for gaming just suck..Ive gone through about 4 of the so far for the Xbox..but I had the 3 year plan from best buy so I just keep bringing them in and get a new one.. I haven't tried the wireless, but then again i see some for almost 100$ but I'm skeptical about paying the for a headset..
 
I was looking for some for my laptop too. I like to watch TV on Hulu and can never hear my crappy laptop speakers while I'm cooking.

I had this vision in my head where there was this little wireless input that I could just plug into a TV or laptop... and wallah, the headphones work. Not so much according to the feedback I've seen online. Oh well, unnecessary novelty anyhow I suppose :shrug:
 
actually bluetooth headphones aren't too bad if your laptop has bluetooth built in. Better than many of the conventional wireless headsets.
 
hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I DO see pretty good reviews for a lot of bluetooth sets.

I'm gonna sound like a total shmuck here, but how do I know if my laptop is blue tooth compatible?
 
You'll probably have to check the manual or the specs online for that model. you can look for the little bluetooth logo Invalid Link Removed anywhere on the laptop, or in the system tray as well. its kind of 50/50 whether its built in or not. If it isn't, for $18 you can get this Invalid Link Removed to add bluetooth capability, assuming you have a free usb port
 
ShakesAllDay said:
You must have the eyes of a god. LOL
Click to expand...

I just wish I could spot as many hot chicks as my cousin while we are driving though, he must have the peripheral vision of a female.
I have had my eyes checked its slightly above average, 15/20 vision I was told, which is better than 20/20 then you get 10/20 and 5/20. What it means is I can see at 20 meters as well as someone with 20/20 vision can see at 15meters.

I cant really sit down and say hey thats HD or hey thats SD, but when flicking back and forth from SD and HD of the same broadcast I can see a difference in certain scenes.
The most quality stuff I have seen is the news of all things, I was flicking back and forth and there was a significant difference, the image seems to pop out more like there is a bit of a 3D effect, the textures of things are much more noticeable like the presenters jacket but those furry microphones look way different in HD.
 
Just to follow up with this thread, I ended up getting a Panasonic Plasma. 720p, 600hz, 30,000:1 contrast, at 42"

Invalid Link Removed

Sears priced matched so I ended up paying 585 for this set.

From what I understand, this set was released in Feb of 09 so it's a relatively new version of their budget plasmas. It's unclear to me if this set has the fabled Panasonic "anti glare" screen, but glare hasn't been an issue for me to this point.

I've had the set for about 3 weeks and here's some things I've noticed for anyone else who's in the market for a budget HDTV:

Pros:

-720p PS3 looks great with HDMI cables
-I'm not seeing any lag, pixelation, or "comet" effect with NHL or NFL

-Sound problems are WAY overstated. It doesn't boom but voice is heard clearly in a relatively big living room with high ceilings and such.

-Black levels look good to me... I'm sure they'd look lousy IF I had a high end Plasma next to it to compare to in my living room.

Cons:

-There's a mild glare before noon from the sun. I have to say the glare isn't half as bad as my old Sony Trinitron flat screen Tv though. So it's still an upgrade for me (plus who gets out of bed before noon these days?)

-The remote is a bit awkward with where Panasonic has their pointless VieraLink buttons. They are useless and in the way. Then again, I use my Comcast remote anyway so who cares.

Btw, I bought this tv for 2 reasons... NFL and God of War III. I RARELY play video games but this is gonna be the best game ever! The demo is simply sick and already "feels" like a finished product! Decapation and ripping out the eye of a cyclops rules :head:
 
Go for the LCD. Plasma is a world of problems. You can get a nice LCD for 600 bucks. Research burn in, viewing angles, and longevity and youll pick LCD no doubt.
 
Thanks for the suggestions. While doing my tv scouting, I found that the lcd's in that price range had too much pixelation when the camera panned with nfl games. That's just me though.

Concerning burn in, most sites suggest that it was a purely a "first gen" problem way back when they first came out. As far as viewing angle goes, I have furniture all the way 'around' the set and can see it pretty up to about 30 or 35 degrees.

Oh btw, someone suggested taking a blue ray disc with me to "test" models in the store. I sort of did it another way, I took a little rca antenna and just plugged it back into the set right there in the store. Based on antennaweb locations, I just picked whatever station was gonna work in the area of the store.
 
Keep an eye on this... Invalid Link Removed
They list deals on everything and often have links to awesome deals on TV's. Hell, they had a link to a 52" Sony XBR9 plus PS3 bundle for $1699. That's an incredible price for Sony's top TV.

Also I use this site... Invalid Link Removed to read trustworthy reviews, info, details, etc on consumer electronics. Cnet had done well for me.
 
Good looking out with the "slickdeals" site. I'd never heard of that one. And yes, the high end lcds were just as smooth side by side with the end plasmas. The Sony Bravia and Samsung LEDs were simply SICK, but unfortunately for now, out of my budget.

I used Cnet many many times while I was doing my research. I totally agree that it's a top notch resource.
 
celc5 said:
The Sony Bravia and Samsung LEDs were simply SICK,
Click to expand...

For future reference, only buy TVs that start with an S. Samsung, Sharp, or Sony. General rule of thumb when TV shopping. Should have mentioned it sooner....but looks like you got what you wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top