[MontegoGoGoGo]

So, we bought our LCDs about 3 years ago, and I'm totally happy with them. One of them is even 720.

Anyway, I'm happy with both TVs, but am in the market for a new one.

My question is: did the TVs made 3 years ago even HAVE a Hz rating/speed? I tried looking up our current TVs by model number and didn't find any Hz rating in any of the descriptions.

Both of our other TVs are Sony, but this time I think I'm going with the Samsung 52" and it comes in various Hz speeds.

The 60Hz is almost $1,000 cheaper (but harder to find) and I'm thinking if I'm happy with the picture quality of the 3-year-old TVs, wouldn't 60Hz be fine for us?

I know the purists will always say go for the newest and best and most expensive, but I'm not sure I can justify that.

Anyone? Thanks!

[ragingclue]

Unless you do FPS gaming or something like that, I personally don't think the $1000 difference is worth it to move up to 120 Hz for the average Joe (or Jane).

Just my $.02

[samwoo2go]

Go Plasma 600HZ. problem solved.

If you must go LCD, I say stay with the 60HZ. The 120HZ is mainly beneficial for sports broadcast and gaming, as it decrease motion blur at high speed. If you don't really do neither of the above and I have a feeling you don't, you don't need 120hz. Plus I don't know about the new 120hz, but when it first came out, I watched it at my buddy's pad and it was playing a movie. My personal opinion is that it introduces too much artificial artifact and makes the characters look "too real" which is a bad thing and drowns out the film and make everything look look like it was shot with a cheapo HD hand Cam.

o and only George Lucas needs a 240hz LCD

[Cosmop]

My $0.02

Go with the 120Hz and nothing smaller than 50inches.
I have a Sharp 52inch I bought 2 years ago and I love the picture quality. I've not seen too many TV's with a better screen. I always get complements from people when they come over to my house. I would look at Sharp when you're comparing TVs.

[335e92tx]

- hmm .. I would think size would not matter for you..
j/k

Viewing distance the #1 factor in screen size. Nothing worse than looking at scanning lines from a 50"+ screen that is not much more than 7feet away. I think content also plays into size.

[aut0sh0cker]

55" Sony XBR8 FTW! 120Hz that has local-dimming LED backlighting. This is the best picture I have ever seen in someone's home, and I believe it is worth the premium.

I know there is probably nothing wrong with your TVs right now. And at first, like samwoo2go said, the picture becomes "too real" but after time, it becomes hard to look at any other "lesser" TVs...

[Alexander]

Nah man I just got a 240hz LED... Amazing!

But for you I'd stick with 60hz no more than 120hz. Also I highly recommend Vizio LCDs. They rock.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by samwoo2go

Go Plasma 600HZ. problem solved.

If you must go LCD, I say stay with the 60HZ. The 120HZ is mainly beneficial for sports broadcast and gaming, as it decrease motion blur at high speed. If you don't really do neither of the above and I have a feeling you don't, you don't need 120hz. Plus I don't know about the new 120hz, but when it first came out, I watched it at my buddy's pad and it was playing a movie. My personal opinion is that it introduces too much artificial artifact and makes the characters look "too real" which is a bad thing and drowns out the film and make everything look look like it was shot with a cheapo HD hand Cam.

o and only George Lucas needs a 240hz LCD

That's the problem with my Dad's monster Samsung 240hz, movies look lame and cheap, because the picture is to real. Also the refresh rate messes up action scenes, I don't know the terminology but its off.

[SantaPimp27]

Originally Posted by MontegoGoGoGo

So, we bought our LCDs about 3 years ago, and I'm totally happy with them. One of them is even 720.

Anyway, I'm happy with both TVs, but am in the market for a new one.

My question is: did the TVs made 3 years ago even HAVE a Hz rating/speed? I tried looking up our current TVs by model number and didn't find any Hz rating in any of the descriptions.

Both of our other TVs are Sony, but this time I think I'm going with the Samsung 52" and it comes in various Hz speeds.

The 60Hz is almost $1,000 cheaper (but harder to find) and I'm thinking if I'm happy with the picture quality of the 3-year-old TVs, wouldn't 60Hz be fine for us?

I know the purists will always say go for the newest and best and most expensive, but I'm not sure I can justify that.

Anyone? Thanks!

Im big into home theater and i would whole heartedly recommend a plasma. they are cheaper than lcd's in comparable sizes and render much better PQ. unless you will be using it as a monitor or putting it in a VERY bright room, plasma is the way to go.

Tv's are a little harder to come by right now because manufacturers are all flipping over their product lines for 2010.

Here's a link to a Panasonic S2, brand new and very affordable. This will render better picture quality than any LCD on the market. And if you want a nicer display, go for the G20 or the yet to be released VT25.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TC-P.../dp/B0039ZOWAM

And as most know, Pioneer had the king of ALL tv's, the Kuro, before they stopped making them last year. When they shut down their tv division, many of their engineers were hired and many of their patents were bought by Panasonic. So expect too see Kuro technology in this years panny plasma's and in their plasma's for the years to come.

Originally Posted by samwoo2go

Go Plasma 600HZ. problem solved.

If you must go LCD, I say stay with the 60HZ. The 120HZ is mainly beneficial for sports broadcast and gaming, as it decrease motion blur at high speed. If you don't really do neither of the above and I have a feeling you don't, you don't need 120hz. Plus I don't know about the new 120hz, but when it first came out, I watched it at my buddy's pad and it was playing a movie. My personal opinion is that it introduces too much artificial artifact and makes the characters look "too real" which is a bad thing and drowns out the film and make everything look look like it was shot with a cheapo HD hand Cam.

o and only George Lucas needs a 240hz LCD

The "too real" effect you are seeing is commonly referred to as the "soap opera" effect, and this is not a result of the 120hz or even 240hz processing.
the soap opera effect is due to frame interpolation and motion smoothing "enhancements" that are used to try and reduce motion blur. They almost always introduce artifacts into the picture and degrade picture quality. If your friend turns off every motion enhancement setting on the tv, this should get rid of that effect.

makes me wonder why LCD manufacturers would introduce such un-useful settings into the tv's.

Hope this helps.

Ps - if you need more help, head over to highdefforum.com or avsforum.com. i post on both and there are many knowledgeable people on both.

[SantaPimp27]

Originally Posted by Aonarch

That's the problem with my Dad's monster Samsung 240hz, movies look lame and cheap, because the picture is to real. Also the refresh rate messes up action scenes, I don't know the terminology but its off.

see post above. its not the refresh rate, its the image enhancements that create this effect. if he goes into his settings menu and turns everything off, then he can get rid of the effect.

and yes it is very annoying and is nothing what the director intended the movie to look like. funny thing is some people actually like it

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by samwoo2go

. Plus I don't know about the new 120hz, but when it first came out, I watched it at my buddy's pad and it was playing a movie. My personal opinion is that it introduces too much artificial artifact and makes the characters look "too real" which is a bad thing and drowns out the film and make everything look look like it was shot with a cheapo HD hand Cam.

Yeah my sister in law has a 55" Sony LCD with 120Hz refresh, and everything looks very crisp, but also incredibly cheaply shot. I thought it was the refresh rate too, but I guess not.

I will always recommend a good plasma over an LCD as long as you transport it correctly and don't have glare issues.

[samwoo2go]

Originally Posted by SantaPimp27

Im big into home theater and i would whole heartedly recommend a plasma. they are cheaper than lcd's in comparable sizes and render much better PQ. unless you will be using it as a monitor or putting it in a VERY bright room, plasma is the way to go.

Tv's are a little harder to come by right now because manufacturers are all flipping over their product lines for 2010.

Here's a link to a Panasonic S2, brand new and very affordable. This will render better picture quality than any LCD on the market. And if you want a nicer display, go for the G20 or the yet to be released VT25.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TC-P.../dp/B0039ZOWAM

And as most know, Pioneer had the king of ALL tv's, the Kuro, before they stopped making them last year. When they shut down their tv division, many of their engineers were hired and many of their patents were bought by Panasonic. So expect too see Kuro technology in this years panny plasma's and in their plasma's for the years to come.



The "too real" effect you are seeing is commonly referred to as the "soap opera" effect, and this is not a result of the 120hz or even 240hz processing.
the soap opera effect is due to frame interpolation and motion smoothing "enhancements" that are used to try and reduce motion blur. They almost always introduce artifacts into the picture and degrade picture quality. If your friend turns off every motion enhancement setting on the tv, this should get rid of that effect.

makes me wonder why LCD manufacturers would introduce such un-useful settings into the tv's.

Hope this helps.

Ps - if you need more help, head over to highdefforum.com or avsforum.com. i post on both and there are many knowledgeable people on both.

same reason that turn the contrast way the fuck up. It looks good in a brightly lit show room with nature shit on.

+1 on all the plasma recommendations. The only reason to get LCD over plasma over the 42" mark is if weight is a serious issue or low profile is of extreme priority.
This is almost like the VHS vs Beta battle and I would say once again...VHS is winning

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by samwoo2go

same reason that turn the contrast way the fuck up. It looks good in a brightly lit show room with nature shit on.

+1 on all the plasma recommendations. The only reason to get LCD over plasma over the 42" mark is if weight is a serious issue or low profile is of extreme priority.
This is almost like the VHS vs Beta battle and I would say once again...VHS is winning

Beta won the porn wars though. Unfortunately, that was not enough.

[MontegoGoGoGo]

Man, bummer to hear an industry pro say to get plasma! Had already decided on LCD based on minimal research. Room does have lots of light. But it's for bedroom which is 90% night watching. Research said plasma is going out and most are moving away from making them anymore. (didn't say why) Also said they are power hogs and bad for glare. But are cheaper! When I was first shopping around on best buy I was really liking plasma prices.

Sounds like 60hz will be fine to watch tool academy and real housewives of orange county, lol!

Will be about 15-20 feet from tv. Anyone have a samsung? Just curious why plasma iver LCD? Thanks to everyone for the help !

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Beta won the porn wars though. Unfortunately, that was not enough.

Well I hope that someone realizes that clearer is not always better! Especially in porn. There are some blemishes that you just DON'T need to see. I swear I could see the makeup lines on the Olympic commentators this year.

Back to the OP. Another reason to consider an LCD is if the TV will be living in a bright environment. LCDs have a bit better contrast in brightly lit rooms.

[JayKay335i]

Go with 120hz. The more Hz, the less blur and more real the motion is. With 120Hz and non-HD TV, the people start to look too realistic and the the motions look very acted out due to the complete lack of blur. With HD, it looks perfect. I think the 240Hzs look crappy because movies and TV just look too real and you begin to realize how much actors suck.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by MontegoGoGoGo

Man, bummer to hear an industry pro say to get plasma! Had already decided on LCD based on minimal research. Room does have lots of light. But it's for bedroom which is 90% night watching. Research said plasma is going out and most are moving away from making them anymore. (didn't say why) Also said they are power hogs and bad for glare. But are cheaper! When I was first shopping around on best buy I was really liking plasma prices.

Sounds like 60hz will be fine to watch tool academy and real housewives of orange county, lol!

Will be about 15-20 feet from tv. Anyone have a samsung? Just curious why plasma iver LCD? Thanks to everyone for the help !

I watch lots of sports and have a PS3, so the refresh rate does matter to me. Also, where I was going to put the TV, there is no glare.

I haven't heard much about plasma technology dying, in fact it's made great strides in the past few years, and is much better than it used to be. However, the push for more efficient electronics is something they can't really fight, especially with LED coming out. But I'm not an industry pro, so it may be in fact dying, and I wouldn't even know.

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Well I hope that someone realizes that clearer is not always better! Especially in porn. There are some blemishes that you just DON'T need to see. I swear I could see the makeup lines on the Olympic commentators this year.

lol yeah definitely. That dude that was paired up with Scott Hamilton made me wish I was watching on a 12" CRT over analog antenna with horrible signal, sitting 20 feet away.

And, as far as beta goes, they finally got theirs years later when BluRay pushed HDDVD into extinction. Good to see that.

[persian54]

What about LED?

[SantaPimp27]

Originally Posted by MontegoGoGoGo

Man, bummer to hear an industry pro say to get plasma! Had already decided on LCD based on minimal research. Room does have lots of light. But it's for bedroom which is 90% night watching. Research said plasma is going out and most are moving away from making them anymore. (didn't say why) Also said they are power hogs and bad for glare. But are cheaper! When I was first shopping around on best buy I was really liking plasma prices.

Sounds like 60hz will be fine to watch tool academy and real housewives of orange county, lol!

Will be about 15-20 feet from tv. Anyone have a samsung? Just curious why plasma iver LCD? Thanks to everyone for the help !

I posted this awhile back. Not directly copied but heavily influenced by a poster another forum who is a AV professional.

Here are some reasons why plasma is hands down better than lcd.

1. In a room with average and/or low ambient light, plasma gives a much deeper black level which means more saturated colors and detail in the picture. Set up properly you will see a sharper and more 3-D looking image because plasma has more dynamic gray scale range (depth). More steps in tonal range as the difference between black and white is greater. A plasma TV is brighter than any CRT (tube) TV so the brightness issue many talk about is a moot point.

2. Plasma's have much better off axis viewing picture quality as opposed to LCD that degrades quickly when viewed from the side, above/below the screen.

3. Plasma delivers far better color accuracy as it can render deeper, richer colors and can blend tones better than LCDs and generates a larger color pallet.

4. Plasma TV's do not suffer from motion blur as they have 600 Hz sub-fields so the image can maintain its quality longer than LCDs which degrade immediately after being charged. (that is when the image signal is sent to the panel). The response time of a plasma display is measured in microseconds rather than milliseconds, that is at least 1000 times faster, hence another reason for no motion blur/smear.

5. In larger display sizes, plasma TV's cost less, sometimes much less yet still deliver a better picture for all of the above mentioned reasons.

6. Plasma TV's look more like your old CRT display rather than a computer monitor.

7. Plasma TV's have long life, most are rated at a 60,000 hour half life. Panasonic projects their plasma TV's will last at least 100,000 hours.

8. The myths surrounding plasma TV's like the gas has to be recharged, they have short lifespans, they are power hogs, they burn in easily and the like are just that, myths and are in fact not true at all.

9. Plasma TV's are much, much better for gaming due to the rapid response times, better color gamut, better back levels and shadow detail.


So there you have it – Plasma is superior in black levels, color saturation, shadow detail, screen uniformity, off axis viewing, motion resolution(full 1080), color depth, and in reproducing everything as it was intended to be seen.

And yes, OLED will take over as the #1 technology for TV's. But until that day comes, plasma will still be around and still be the best. I dont think we will see big, affordable OLED tv's for atleast another 4-5 years.

And to answer your questions:

1. No, plasma is going nowhere. Plasma will be around for just as long as lcd. On average, plasma costs around $1 more per month to run. And with Panny's new Neo-PDP panel, they are even closer to lcd than that. Panny also created green plasma's that consume 50% of the energy that they do today, so once this technology gets integrated into their displays they will be almost even with LCD's.

2. With night watching, plasma is really the only way to go. Plasma is much better choice in dim environments because of the deeper black levels.

3. Glare should not be a problem in a dimly lit room or in a bedroom with the lights off. Newer plasmas also come with anti-glare coating that is much more effective at reducing glare. And nowadays, the nicer lcd's use glass screens just like plasma's and they have even more glare. im sure that in a bedroom at night, a panny plasma with anti-glare coating will result in almost no glare.

4. There is no such thing as an LED tv. They're still LCD tv's, they just use LED's as their backlighting instead of fluorescent tubes. LED's are played up like a new technology, but in fact they are still lcd's with all the same problems. In the UK, Samsung LED tv commercials were banned because they were found to be misleading. Don't fall for all the marketing Hoopla.


Hope this helps

[yppah]

If you should compare the expert ratings of various brands and read the expert reviews, there's no doubt that you will get the best LCD TV for the budget. Just my 2 cents.

[335R1]

I own a 32inch 1080p samsung lcd for the bedroom and 46in 1080i plasma for the entertainment room. The 46in is much more colorful and clear. I prefer the plasma.

[BMdblU]

Originally Posted by aut0sh0cker

55" Sony XBR8 FTW! 120Hz that has local-dimming LED backlighting. This is the best picture I have ever seen in someone's home, and I believe it is worth the premium.

I know there is probably nothing wrong with your TVs right now. And at first, like samwoo2go said, the picture becomes "too real" but after time, it becomes hard to look at any other "lesser" TVs...

This.

I have a 46" Sony XBR Z and love it, I've had people say the picture looks fake but I'm now use to it and anything else looks dull.