new tv

#51
#51
San Diego Vol said:
120HZ or higher makes a huge difference, especially when watching sports. I didn't take this into account when I bought mine 3 years ago, when I bought a 60HZ. I get trailers behind players when they are running, etc. I didn't realize it was the HZ until I started doing a little research.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i wasnt saying that the HZ doesnt do anything. I was just saying that cable does not go up to 120, only 60.
 
#52
#52
Now you tell us.. What about the people that bought 60hz in the process? Lol
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
There's no question the PS3 homescreen and blurays/video games are in 1080p. Your cable is not.

To my knowledge, no cable is broadcast in 1080p.
 
#54
#54
Indianavol4eva said:
i wasnt saying that the HZ doesnt do anything. I was just saying that cable does not go up to 120, only 60.
Click to expand...

60Hz < 120 Hz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Plasma

:)

LCD is going to have motion blur out the wazoo, plain and simple. A 10,000,000 Hz refresh rate will not cure it.
 
#58
#58
govols/cc said:
I have no issue with motion blur.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You've just never seen a real TV to know the difference.

:)

The 600 Hz on plasma is actually just 60 frames per second. Plasma doesn't need a refresh rate any higher than that, because it doesn't suffer the motion blur effects of LCD. 120/240Hz is an attempt to mitigate the effects on LCD displays.

Newer LCDs do a good job of virtually eliminating the motion blur, but it is certainly still there. I have a Sony LCD in my bedroom, and I refuse to watch sports on it, because the slight motion blur really gets to me. I'm a videophile.
 
Last edited:
#59
#59
Thrasher865 said:
Yes, you do. You've just never seen a real TV to know the difference.

:)

The 600 Hz on plasma is actually just 60 frames per second. Plasma doesn't need a refresh rate any higher than that, because it doesn't suffer the motion blur effects of LCD. 120/240Hz is an attempt to mitigate the effects on LCD displays.

Newer LCDs do a good job of virtually eliminating the motion blur, but it is certainly still there. I have a Sony LCD in my bedroom, and I refuse to watch sports on it, because the slight motion blur really gets to me. I'm a videophile.
Click to expand...

If I can't see it then it isn't there to me. Why is plasma generally cheaper than all the others?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
Enjoy all the extra heat, electricity wasted, and possible burn-in on your plasma.

I'll keep my LED DLP for as long as I can. It saddens me that more people didn't see how awesome these TVs are, and crumbled to the hype of "flat" tvs. I <3 you 52" Sammy LED DLP!!!
 
#63
#63
Burn-in is virtually deceased. Constantly rotating pixels have lessened the effects of burn-in. I also have an energy efficient TV as well as an energy efficient surge protector. LED DLP's are nice though.
 
#64
#64
govols182 said:
LCD is cheaper and is dying technology. It is slowly being replaced by LED in the market.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong.

Plasma is and always has been cheaper, simply because the technology is cheaper to manufacture. LED = LCD. LED only refers to the backlight present to increase the contrast ratio problem that never existed to begin with on plasmas. Each pixel of a plasma is individually illuminated, there is no backlight.

In fact, one of the biggest advantages to plasma is you can get a TV twice as big, with 10x the picture quality for the same price you would get an LED/LCD.

Also, most LEDs are marketing gimmicks that barely if at all help this problem. The really thin TVs that are "edge-lit" LED LCDs don't do anything. Only OLED, which to my knowledge is still very expensive to manufacture, fixes the contrast issue.

The manufacturers of LCDs are making great strides to eliminate the problems that plasmas never had to begin with :)

I will tell you that burn-in still exists and is one of the few flaws of plasmas, but permanent burn-in is a thing of the past. Still after playing a video game with a HUD, etc, for a few hours, if the screen goes totally black, you will see a slight ghost of it that will quickly go away.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
rwemyss said:
Enjoy all the extra heat, electricity wasted, and possible burn-in on your plasma.

I'll keep my LED DLP for as long as I can. It saddens me that more people didn't see how awesome these TVs are, and crumbled to the hype of "flat" tvs. I <3 you 52" Sammy LED DLP!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I looked for a giant box that could take up half my living room, but apparently they're hard to find now. I settled on my 1.2" sammy that hangs on the wall like an elegant painting, and actually adds to the room, rather than is an eyesore.

:p

It's all hype.

At least its a Samsung!
 
#66
#66
Thrasher865 said:
Wrong and wrong.

Plasma is and always has been cheaper, simply because the technology is cheaper to manufacture. LED = LCD. LED only refers to the backlight present to increase the contrast ratio problem that never existed to begin with on plasmas. Each pixel of a plasma is individually illuminated, there is no backlight.

In fact, one of the biggest advantages to plasma is you can get a TV twice as big, with 10x the picture quality for the same price you would get an LED/LCD.

Also, most LEDs are marketing gimmicks that barely if at all help this problem. The really thin TVs that are "edge-lit" LED LCDs don't do anything. Only OLED, which to my knowledge is still very expensive to manufacture, fixes the contrast issue.

The manufacturers of LCDs are making great strides to eliminate the problems that plasmas never had to begin with :)

I will tell you that burn-in still exists and is one of the few flaws of plasmas, but permanent burn-in is a thing of the past. Still after playing a video game with a HUD, etc, for a few hours, if the screen goes totally black, you will see a slight ghost of it that will quickly go away.
Click to expand...

Also, plasma has no problem with viewing angle, while LCD-LEDs do.

the main problems with plasmas are that they are much easier to break, and they are only good for rooms with controllable light. If you need to move the TV often (like me going back and forth to and from college), then plasma is not for you. They are very easy to break. Also, since they have glass screens, the glare can be unbearable.
 
#67
#67
Indianavol4eva said:
Also, plasma has no problem with viewing angle, while LCD-LEDs do.

the main problems with plasmas are that they are much easier to break, and they are only good for rooms with controllable light. If you need to move the TV often (like me going back and forth to and from college), then plasma is not for you. They are very easy to break. Also, since they have glass screens, the glare can be unbearable.
Click to expand...

I always hear this used as a knock on LCD, not plasma. Plasmas do well in low-light conditions, LCDs do not. The glare thing can potentially be an issue, and is really the only thing about using a plasma in bright lighting conditions.

The moving thing is a valid concern. If the TV is staying in the same place, and isn't going to show a static image for days or weeks at a time (PC monitor), the only reason I would go back to LCD is if I needed something smaller than 36"
 
#73
#73
involved taking out 2 sconces to fit but was worth it

heck we used to have a 32" LCD on the wall and stuck it in the bedroom after the new one came. Wife looked at it and said "we used to really watch tv on that thing?"
 
#74
#74
utvolpj said:
involved taking out 2 sconces to fit but was worth it

heck we used to have a 32" LCD on the wall and stuck it in the bedroom after the new one came. Wife looked at it and said "we used to really watch tv on that thing?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, my parents have a 32 and I can't even watch it. I'll never get anything less than a 47 after I received my 50.
 
#75
#75
govols182 said:
Yeah, my parents have a 32 and I can't even watch it. I'll never get anything less than a 47 after I received my 50.
Click to expand...

Thats what I said when I got my 60. After looking at the 82 inch of the same model, im thinking about upgrading. Suprisingly, it has an amazing picture.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top