Looking to buy an LCD TV.......any advice?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Been checking out some review sites on the web while looking for a TV, but thought I'd check with the always informative CP crowd to get some insight.

I'm looking to buy an LCD TV for our new pad that we're moving into in a few weeks. I can fit up to a 46 inch TV in my entertainment 'center', although I'm still considering going with a 44 inch, since we won't be sitting too far away. Our main living area is going to be an open floor plan that has both living room and kitchen, so having a bigger TV would be nice if you're in the kitchen cooking or fixing a drink.

Does anyone own one or seen one that they think I would like? Sounds like reading some consumer reviews that Samsung, Sony and Sharp all seem to have some decent models. Is this realistic or way off base?

Thanks in advance.

[HOOT]

I always have and always will buy Sony screens. Some people find them over priced but the quality always seems to be top notch for me.

I have a 53" rear projection (9 years), 18" computer monitor (6 years, hey it was big back then haha) and a 40" LCD (3 years), all are Sony and all still have pictures like I bought it yesterday.

When I go to a friends who have Samsung or Toshiba I can tell a difference in their HD picture (however that could be their TV provider and/or set-up).

I would never buy anything else Sony (i.e. speakers, receivers) but their screens always seem to be perfect for me. Anyways just my thoughts on it...

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

...
Does anyone own one or seen one that they think I would like? Sounds like reading some consumer reviews that Samsung, Sony and Sharp all seem to have some decent models. Is this realistic or way off base?

Thanks in advance.

Yeah, can't really go wrong there. Those are probably the top 3 LCD TV brands out there in terms of quality. Great reviews almost across the board. My family has a 1.5 year old Samsung 40" LCD that we are quite enamored with. Nothing but good things to say.

LCD is probably the way to go for you, especially if it'll be in a well-lit room with great potential for glare. Plasmas "generally" have somewhat better contrast, deeper blacks, richer colours... but are known for succumbing to glare big time. I really enjoy the LCD I watch daily, but I'd probably recommend a plasma if you were going for a home theater in a den with no/small windows and low level lighting.

I think you're on the right track. Watch for sales at a few key retailers for a couple of weeks and something might jump out at you.

Good luck in the search and have fun!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by HOOT

When I go to a friends who have Samsung or Toshiba I can tell a difference in their HD picture (however that could be their TV provider and/or set-up).

I would never buy anything else Sony (i.e. speakers, receivers) but their screens always seem to be perfect for me. Anyways just my thoughts on it...

Agreed. I have compared my Dell 37" (made by Phillips) to a 40" Sony side by side and the difference was noticable; especially on sports.

However that being said for the TV to replace that I went with a 50" LG plasma because it was on sale for just under $1000. Of course now I am looking at buying better blinds for the living room for afternoon football games- something I didn't worry about with LCD.

And you say you are looking at 44 or 46"- well most TVs will come in 42 or 46"; and keep in mind there is a 20% difference in screen size between the two. Compare here So if the budget allows then go bigger if you can.

Last tip- be sure there are enough inputs. I currently have 2 of my 3 HDMIs being used by satellite and Blu-Ray, 1 of the 2 component used by the Wii, and the lone composite being used by my g/f's karaokee. I somebody brings over a camera then I'm unplugging something.

[Vulcan]

If you have a big budget go for an LED LCD. I've heard the best one currently is the Sony followed by Samsung.

For a smaller budget check out the Samsung 650 or 750 models which have 120 hz. Some don't like this option and some love it. I like it.

For about $500 or so less get a regular 1080p set.

Check out the Samsung 500 series's or the Sony's and Sharps. Other choices would be Toshiba and LG, but I'd steer clear of the no name brands.

I'd go and wander around a big box store to see what you like but the smaller stores may have their models set up better.

I'd go for as big a screen as possible and the closer you sit, go for a 1080p over a 720p although the 720p or 1080i are cheaper.

Also look for sales and if no sale don't be afraid to bargain. Don't buy your cables at a big box store, a component cable is all you need to start and you can order cables at monoprice very cheap.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Also look for sales and if no sale don't be afraid to bargain. Don't buy your cables at a big box store, a component cable is all you need to start and you can order cables at monoprice very cheap.

Or do what I do, and ask for your cables to be thrown in because insert made up store said they would do so

[millhouse11]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For a smaller budget check out the Samsung 650 or 750 models which have 120 hz. Some don't like this option and some love it. I like it.

I have the 650, and love it. The 750 just has some additional features like games.

I do believe that Sony came out with a 240 hz model out, although, the reviews I've read, state that it's not worth double the money of a 120 hz model.

I'd go with either the samsung or the sony personally.

[CubicleGeek]

The king of LCDs is supposed to the the new Panasonic Viera's. They make very nice panels, but are on the expensive side. Expect to spend Sharp SE prices for a similar sized screen.

The Sharp's have had a fall in grace in the recent years as they have had banding issues in their panels that their competition has managed to resolve. You still see this even on their high end SE series.

I've also heard very good things about the new Bravia panels, but I haven't had much exposure to them.

I've had a problem with Samsungs over the years in that their color reproduction is poor. They tend to over saturate their colors as a cheesy way of creating higher contrast. The reds are redder, the blues are bluer, but neither color is exactly what it would be if you saw it in real life. This is the same problem that they had with their computer monitors which is part of the reason why it's a seldom chosen brand by professional graphic artists. Some people like this though, so it's to each their own.

If you want a quality flat panel, look at the Pioneer Kuro plasma's. I dare you to find a review that criticizes the picture quality on that panel. About the only criticism you'll read is concerning things like weight and power consumption (it is plasma after all). Also, the blacks are abyss-black, which is a quality that tends to be weak on LCD panels.

But aside from taking advice on a hockey forum, I recommend going down to a Bestbuy or Futureshop and taking a look for yourself. I find things like picture quality and color reproduction very subjective.

[Canada 02]

don't many of the big manufacturers get their panels from the same place? I thought Sony and Samsung were essentially the same screens in a different wrapper; maybe some bells and whistles differ, no?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

don't many of the big manufacturers get their panels from the same place? I thought Sony and Samsung were essentially the same screens in a different wrapper; maybe some bells and whistles differ, no?

Yes and no.

Wikipedia has a list of the makers and you are correct that often you will see multiple manufacturers using the same panel. The difference is often in the number of inputs, the number of settings they allow you to adjust, as well as the electronics they use (things like scaling chips to stretch the standard def picture (NTSC = 720x480) to scale to fit the larger screen (pixel size wise)).

For example, for a number of years the 20" widescreen Apple cinedisplay was highly regarded. The Dell 20" 2007 wfp was the exact same panel.

Olivia, Vizio, etc buy panels from various manufacturers and just hire a plan to assemble them based on their specs and requirements.

[LockedOut]

Originally Posted by millhouse11

I have the 650, and love it. The 750 just has some additional features like games.

I do believe that Sony came out with a 240 hz model out, although, the reviews I've read, state that it's not worth double the money of a 120 hz model.

I'd go with either the samsung or the sony personally.

I'm guessing 240 Hz will be more useful for 3D down the line if that ever catches on. This way you get 120 Hz per eye instead of 60 Hz that current newer 3D is using. Hopefully that'll cut down on the headaches and dizzyness.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by LockedOut

I'm guessing 240 Hz will be more useful for 3D down the line if that ever catches on. This way you get 120 Hz per eye instead of 60 Hz that current newer 3D is using. Hopefully that'll cut down on the headaches and dizzyness.

What I find strange in this increasing of the Hz (and there was a TV introduced that is 480Hz!) is that films are 24fps, and people don't complain.

I can understand why 120Hz is appealing (it avoids the whole 3-2 pulldown, movies ar 24fps and TV at 60fps both divide evenly into 120), but anything more just seems like bigger numbers for bigger numbers' sake.

[CubicleGeek]

It was quite a challenge to produce liquid crystals that could dissipate light fast enough to create 120Hz, so I would really question how well a 240Hz panel really works let alone 480Hz. Considering at 120Hz, you already need a black to black response time of ~8ms, you need 4ms black-to-black for 240Hz and 2ms (!!!) black-to-black for 480Hz.

Most panels that average 4ms or less are actually measured gray to gray.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For a smaller budget check out the Samsung 650 or 750 models which have 120 hz. Some don't like this option and some love it. I like it.

I just bought a 46' Samsung 650. There was a manufacturer's defect in the screen so I upgraded to a 850 (they are so popular the 650, 750 were out of stock). I'm very happy.

Sony and Samsung are the ways to go, IMO.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Wow, thanks for all the responses guys, really appreciate it.

I really need to get to store that has a bunch side by side so I can put a face to some of these models.........kinda hard when you live in a small town, but I'll give'r a shot.

Thanks again everyone.............awesome stuff!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

It was quite a challenge to produce liquid crystals that could dissipate light fast enough to create 120Hz, so I would really question how well a 240Hz panel really works let alone 480Hz. Considering at 120Hz, you already need a black to black response time of ~8ms, you need 4ms black-to-black for 240Hz and 2ms (!!!) black-to-black for 480Hz.

Most panels that average 4ms or less are actually measured gray to gray.

Just so we're clear, grey-to-grey is actually slower than black-to-black, but it's also very wishy washy... at least according to cnet.

Many manufacturers, on the other hand, report their LCDs' gray-to-gray response times. Pixels are rarely completely on or off--instead they cycle between gray states, that is colors--and, in general, switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white. However, some also argue that measuring gray-to-gray response time is pointless, since the manufacturers rarely tell where in the cycle they start and end their measurements.

The reason? For black to black, you can basically apply maximum driving force to shift the state of the pixel. Grey-to-grey requires weaker electric fields to avoid overshoot.

Originally Posted by LockedOut

I'm guessing 240 Hz will be more useful for 3D down the line if that ever catches on. This way you get 120 Hz per eye instead of 60 Hz that current newer 3D is using. Hopefully that'll cut down on the headaches and dizzyness.

My 3D-ready DLP refreshes the image (half-resolution - checkerboard pattern) every 8 ms... 125 Hz per eye. Don't have the glasses yet though. Thing is to actually get 240 Hz out of your GPU(s) is damn near impossible, so you're going to have frames repeat quite a bit anyways. No difference between 85 Hz per eye and 120 Hz per eye, I suspect. Anyways, like I said in the other thread, if anyone wants to see it (once I have it set up), just let me know and I'll be happy to show it to you. Even 60 Hz per eye is supposed to be good with the new nVidias. Some people are even okay with 37.5 Hz/eye. Basically, there's a threshold for everyone at which point they don't see the flicker anymore. Once that's crossed, extra Hz don't provide any benefit.

I wouldn't get 240 Hz for futureproofing. The future of 3D probably lies with glasses-free solutions that use prisms/screens to redirect light. Right now they're extremely expensive, but so were the polarized ones when they first came out. Not to mention that just because it's a 240 Hz display doesn't mean it can accept a 240 Hz input. Likewise, the 120 Hz TVs don't accept 120 Hz input. That's the difference between the new "true 120 Hz" Samsung and upcoming Viewsonic 22"-monitors, and a 120 LCD Hz TV which DOES NOT work for 3D.

[Bobblehead]

Well, currently I don't think any TV accepts anything 120Hz. That is just how it is written to the screen.
(And I believe you know the following SebC (among others), but for others reading the thread, a little clarification).

Regular standard def TV is actually 60Hz (well, if you want to get REALLY technical, 59.95Hz), so the full description of standard definition is 480i60. This means 480 lines, interlaced, 60 Hz. Most broadcast media are in variations of interlaced or progressive and 30Hz or 60Hz.

The catch comes in Movies. Movies on the big screen are shot and shown in 24Hz, or 24 film frames per second. In order to show a movie on a TV, the movie needs to be changed to somehow stretch its 24 frames per second into 60 frames per second for the TV. This is usually done by a process called "3-2 pulldown". What happens is one frame is shown 3 times, the next shown 2, the next 3, the next 2, and so on, so it comes out to 60 Hz (usually the DVD player does this, or when the DVD is encoded it is done).

But if you have a TV that displays 120Hz, 60Hz goes in twice (show each frame twice), and 24Hz goes in 5 times (show every frame 5 times), so that removes the whole 3-2 pulldown issue. That is the primary benefit of 120Hz.

Of course TV makers try to make this even better by examining the picture and seeing if they can make the changes look smoother. So instead of showing the same frame 5 times, they look at one frame and the following frame and then see if they can smooth the transition from one frame to the next. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Now makers are pushing 240Hz. As SebC mentioned, it can be used for 3D, but it is also used to try allow more frames to be interpolated and processed to try and make the picture even smoother. Instead of a movie frame being displayed 5 times, it is displayed 10 times, and that means twice as many frames to make a smooth transition to the next "real" frame.

That is my tutorial for the day.