Time For A New TV

[Havok]

Alright, so my 52" RCA rear projection TV has blown it's convergence fuse for the second time in a little over a month. It's actually an easy fix and only costs about $36.00, which is no big deal. However, if it is going to just keep happening, I'd rather just get a new TV.

Also, the projection TV takes up quite a bit of room, not that I would use it for anything else, but I like more streamlined and sleek looking TVs.

I'm looking for something around the $1500.00 range and as big a screen as possible. I don't know the difference between plasma, LCD, CRT or whatever so any helpful advice would be appreciated.

[Chardok]

for 1500.00 you can get a good-sized LED TV. Go Vizio. Biggest bang for the buck, good quality, can pick up at Wal-Mart. (PS - Wal Mart has 32" Vizio LCD's for 298!!!)

Anyhoo - LED TV'S looks like sex. I watched part of Despicable Me on Blu Ray on an LED in Wal Mart just yesterday and it was..well, it defies description, really. You have to just see it. Go LED if you can.

[General Zod]

LG and Samsung are probably your best two choices as far as quality/price ratio is concerned. The prices have only gone way down so you could probably pick up a 50" LCD for $900. Plasma is even cheaper but it's questionable whether it lasts longer than LCD.

[Mr Bean]

LG and Samsung are probably your best two choices as far as quality/price ratio is concerned. The prices have only gone way down so you could probably pick up a 50" LCD for $900. Plasma is even cheaper but it's questionable whether it lasts longer than LCD.

It's questionable what kind of TV we will have in 15 years when your Plasma or LCD TV's will start to burn out. Seriously shelf life on most existing TV's is estimated at 48 years if you use it three hours per day. So heavy usage of say nine hours per day your looking at an 18 year shelf life for the current Plasma's and LCD's. What kind of TV's will we be selling in 15 years let alone 48 years from now.
(All figures based of the 60,000 hours figure, some makers claim 100,000 hours)

If 4k is the next big thing after 3D TV we can expect it to be shown off in what two years at CES?

[adam_grif]

Current LED/OLEDs are not advisable because they have issues with fading over time. They will get more reliable and long lasting as newer models are released just like with any technology, but keep in mind that LED is in its infancy whereas LCD and Plasma are mature. Videophiles swear by CRT and Plasma, but since you're a normal human being you can ignore CRT as an option. You won't notice the difference without side by side comparisons, but Plasmas have better contrast ratios and some richer colours. Image Retention aka Burn-in is effectively a non-issue with new Plasmas TVs. It still happens but isn't permanent, any burn-in will fade quite quickly, and they are more resistant to it occurring in the first place.

You will no doubt be satisfied regardless of what you pick. Even though I say "don't go LED" just yet, you'll still probably love it if you buy it. Plasma and LCD, you can't really go wrong these days. Samsung Plasmas have the reputation of being the best, although traditionally I've been an LCD man myself. I can personally say that LG LCD TVs are great, and I've heard good things about the Sony ones too.

[Mr Bean]

The real thing is that equal sized Plasma's are roughly 400-600$ cheaper than near equivalent LCD's depending on price and features. Or maybe that's just shinny OLED TV's
Either way I see 58-63 inch Plasma TV's all under 2000$ while equivalent LCD's are pushing 3000$

[Vendetta]

Image Retention aka Burn-in is effectively a non-issue with new Plasmas TVs. It still happens but isn't permanent, any burn-in will fade quite quickly, and they are more resistant to it occurring in the first place.

Image burnin still happens, but most of the original causes of it are reduced (channel logos tend to be non-static now). It is a problem for games though, if you play one game a lot you can get hud elements burnt into the phosphor.

The type of image retention you're talking about where it goes away after a short time is indicative of a faulty set (the Y-Sustain board that discharges the plasma panel isn't doing so properly).

[Havok]

Thanks for the responses.

I play the SHIT out of Madden. I can visibly see the last three years of EA logos on the bottom of my screen. With that in mind, should I stay away from plasma?

[General Zod]

Thanks for the responses.

I play the SHIT out of Madden. I can visibly see the last three years of EA logos on the bottom of my screen. With that in mind, should I stay away from plasma?

LCD is generally considered superior for gaming than plasma, but it largely boils down to personal taste. Anecdotally my LCD has been chugging away for over a year of heavy use and the screen still looks perfect.

[salm]

A friend of mine has a relatively new plasma and plays a lot of video games. You can often see the static stuff like HUDs burnt in from the last game. It goes away for a while but can still be pretty annoying for a while.
Personally i wouldn´t buy a plasma if you play a lot of games. But some people, like my friend, are not bothered by this.

Also, i hear, that 50Hz are fine and you don´t have to shell out more money for a 100Hz Screen because consoles scale the screen back to 50Hz anyways. Or something like that.

[adam_grif]

Thanks for the responses.

I play the SHIT out of Madden. I can visibly see the last three years of EA logos on the bottom of my screen. With that in mind, should I stay away from plasma?

Does it bother you that it happens? Because it's your personal tolerance for that sort of thing that is the important thing here. You already know the advantages - colours are a bit better, and it's a cheaper set. Now you've got to decide whether the downsides outweigh them in your opinion.

[Vendetta]

Also, i hear, that 50Hz are fine and you don´t have to shell out more money for a 100Hz Screen because consoles scale the screen back to 50Hz anyways. Or something like that.

100Hz+ sets are lies (you can get up to 600Hz ones now, possibly even more). Lies and perdition. What actually happens is that the TV invents new frames to go between the ones it receives from the signal source, which can mean that very fast moving objects like footballs confuse it's poor little brains, and because it can't see a smooth path from one frame's position to another it erases the object completely (though I think that was a problem with a particular set that got fixed by a firmware update).

TV is now all shopped. You can tell because of the pixels.

But you'd be turning that feature off for games, because all that post processing adds to your input lag (the delay between you pressing a control and stuff happening on screen), because the set has to wait a couple of frames so that it has something to interpolate from before displaying anything.

[xthetenth]

Thanks for the responses.

I play the SHIT out of Madden. I can visibly see the last three years of EA logos on the bottom of my screen. With that in mind, should I stay away from plasma?

You will get burn-in. My dad has somewhat burned in the NHL 10 hud into our ~2 year old plasma. It's a shadow but it's there. Considering he's basically claimed my xbox since I got that for him, I'd say the usage is similar.

[Havok]

Also, i hear, that 50Hz are fine and you don´t have to shell out more money for a 100Hz Screen because consoles scale the screen back to 50Hz anyways. Or something like that.

100Hz+ sets are lies (you can get up to 600Hz ones now, possibly even more). Lies and perdition. What actually happens is that the TV invents new frames to go between the ones it receives from the signal source, which can mean that very fast moving objects like footballs confuse it's poor little brains, and because it can't see a smooth path from one frame's position to another it erases the object completely (though I think that was a problem with a particular set that got fixed by a firmware update).

TV is now all shopped. You can tell because of the pixels.

But you'd be turning that feature off for games, because all that post processing adds to your input lag (the delay between you pressing a control and stuff happening on screen), because the set has to wait a couple of frames so that it has something to interpolate from before displaying anything.

Can someone translate please?

[adam_grif]

Can someone translate please?

If someone tries to sell you a TV that is 600 hertz, don't buy it. Don't go higher than 100. Also, turn off all the extraneous features that your new Television comes with because they're worthless and will create input lag.

[salm]

You have to watch out because some TVs won´t let you turn off these image enhancement features (which fuck up your lag). Some TVs have a specific gaming mode which will turn off all that crap.

For gaming you don´t need a TV with more than 50Hz. Anything else is a waste of money. If more Hz make a significant difference for watching TV and DVDs i have no idea, though, so it might make sense to buy a 100Hz anyways.

If you get a 120Hz TV you can use it as a PC monitor and use this funky Nvidia gimmik to play normal games in 3D. It´s called Nvidia 3D Vision and consists of some software and Shutter glasses.

[Mr Bean]

Translation
The Human eye can not tell the difference between 60hz and 90hz but there exists some people who can tell the difference between 50Hz and 60Hz, however beyond 60Hz it's pretty much impossible for the Human eye to tell the difference. You can get eyestrain on anything less than 60Hz but some people are fine at at even 22 Hz while others hurt at 45Hz. The reason why 60Hz is the default is we can't see much beyond that and 60 gives you some flex room. The higher the refresh rate the better but beyond 60Hz your just talking padding so you don't drop below 60Hz.

The main difference you see is in frantic action scenes. Take your average Transformers fight scene run it at 30 Hz and 60 Hz and you can tell a massive difference, run it at 90 Hz and 60 Hz and you might be able to guess which one is the 90 Hz, but not a 90 Hz and a 120 Hz or even a 90 Hz and a 600 Hz.

Note TV's generally come in 60 Hz or 120 Hz. It was CRT's and Projectors you could get in all sorts of weird 75 Hz or 90 Hz's settings. 3D needs 120 because it divides it in half.

[salm]

Ah, yeah, substitute everything i said about 50 and 100 Hz with 60 and 120. You´re in the USA so you´re using NTSC not PAL.

[Mr Bean]

Ah, yeah, substitute everything i said about 50 and 100 Hz with 60 and 120. You´re in the USA so you´re using NTSC not PAL.

I was wondering why you kept saying 50 Hz. Yes Salm is correct and his standards are all for non America/South America market. Why 50 Hz is almost the same as 60 Hz requires several paragraphs to explain but suffice it to say it has to do with power generation and slightly different size of old TV signals.

[adam_grif]

For gaming you don´t need a TV with more than 50Hz. Anything else is a waste of money

I don't know how it is in americaland, but I know that some video games won't run on <60 Hz TVs.

[General Zod]

For gaming you don´t need a TV with more than 50Hz. Anything else is a waste of money

I don't know how it is in americaland, but I know that some video games won't run on <60 Hz TVs.

Are they titles anyone is likely to care about? All I can find an example of is Metroid Prime 2.

[adam_grif]

I don't know, I've always used a 100hz set. I know numerous 360 games claim they run on 60hz only on the back of the box, although whether this actually translates to not working on 50hz or not is anybody's guess.

[Mr Bean]

I don't know, I've always used a 100hz set. I know numerous 360 games claim they run on 60hz only on the back of the box, although whether this actually translates to not working on 50hz or not is anybody's guess.

Converters exist to go either way and cost less than 100$ but that's for the general purpose converters so you can use a US TV in Europe or vis-versa. There's likely smaller versions cheaper somewhere but considering the lack of gadgets being sold via a quick Google marketplace check I'm guessing it's not a common problem.

[Pu-239]

Huh, I heard the benefit of 120Hz TVs was that the frequency was both evenly divisible by 24, 30, and 60 which are common framerates. Sounds like BS to me, since wouldn't anything > 60Hz be sufficient to display w/o weird aliasing effects (Nyquist sampling theorem)?

[Uraniun235]

Huh, I heard the benefit of 120Hz TVs was that the frequency was both evenly divisible by 24, 30, and 60 which are common framerates. Sounds like BS to me, since wouldn't anything > 60Hz be sufficient to display w/o weird aliasing effects (Nyquist sampling theorem)?

You're saying that given a 24fps source, we should see telecine judder at 60 but not at 85? Can you explain that to someone who isn't familiar with the sampling theorem?