tv help [Archive] - Aleromod.com

kwhauck

10-09-2009, 05:38 PM

it doesn't say car audio, video, and security :lol:

anyways looking to purchase our first nice tv in the next couple months and would like some personal input from people with flat screens

i am looking at a minimum 42" up to possibly a 55"

i will have $1500-$2500 to play with, maybe a little more, but less than $2000 would be nice.

so cover the basics for me, lcd, plasma, 1080p, aspect ratios, blah blah blah.....

Thanks in advance!! Kyle

AGT

10-09-2009, 05:44 PM

People like LCD because less burn in than Plasma but then again Plasma has bright colors and when it comes to 1080p you might as well get it altho you will save yourself some money with 720p. Aspect ratio should always be 16:9 which is just how you view the video you are watching

Oh and get 50 or bigger. I bought 2x50s and I am very happy. I see people that have a 42 and you really notice the difference especially side by side

My next TV will be a 58 or larger for sure.

Ryan from Ohio

10-09-2009, 06:16 PM

Depends on the room size.

In my place your head is litterally 9 ft and 11 ft away from the screen depending on what Lazy Boy you are sitting in.

We had a 32" at first which was plenty big... Way bigger than the 27" standard screen i did have.

We now have a 42" and its perfect. It seemed a little large at first but now I like it. Any larger would be to big IMO.

1080p is the minimum now. Dont get ANYTHING less.

Biggest thing is STICK TO A WELL KNOWN BRAND.

CactusWill

10-09-2009, 06:38 PM

LCD without a doubt. More reliable and most efficient. Plasmas have a bad reputation for alot of things, including being throwaway units, electricity hogs, and its possible to burn the screen.

kwhauck

10-09-2009, 07:24 PM

what about contrast ratio, is 100000:1 gonna really be that different than 3000000:1?

also i heard lg's are crap, yes?

any recommends brands?

Fi-Alero

10-09-2009, 07:29 PM

I work at a Pawn shop, I see every type of T.V. come through after 1 month to 5 years of use.

1080 LCD is the way to go. The size depends on how far you are away from the T.V. The trick is to go to the store, and look at the LCDs at a distance at which you would be sitting in the room.

As far as brands, I have an Emerson myself (budget line) and it looks just as good as any sony, toshiba, AOC, etc. All companies are making T.V.s so cheap these days to maximize profit, in fact, most brands use the same imported panels.

Oldsnut

10-09-2009, 07:37 PM

What about LED TV's?

cherrington17

10-09-2009, 07:58 PM

What about LED TV's?

led gives longer life span (no bulb to burn) and thinner/better contrast then standard lcd. but cost alot more.

your contrast ratio is going to be your white to black ratio. (how white the whites are, compared to the blackest black) the higher, the crisper the picture. plasma has a ridiculously high level of contrast, but images can burn in, much more energy to operate.

its up to you, as to what your looking for. each company has good lines and bad lines. IMO, LG is a good mid-high grade. Sony is the same. But both companies have their "cadillac" lines, which are high grade. AOC is made by Envision. EXCELLENT mid grade tv. Samsung is good...

I don't know of any that are horrible. I'd stay away from a company you've never heard of. But as for LG being crap, thats far from the truth. They are a major leading brand, these days. Good quality on most things.

lonnie

10-09-2009, 08:39 PM

I've got a 42inch Vizio plasma that I got for 747 and I haven't had any issues with burn in, and I play the Wii and PS2 on it all the time. With any plasma you have to go through a 100hr break in then all is good. My sister picked up a 32inch Vizio plasma and hasn't had an issue. The LED tv's look very good though...Out of them all stay away from DLP TV's...they end up costing more in the long run.

NickAlero2000

10-09-2009, 08:48 PM

Ian 2000GL LA1

10-09-2009, 08:54 PM

i help with home installs all day at a local shop i'de recommend the sony bravias or any of the new LG sets. they also deal with panasonic and one other company i cant think of right now. some of the LGs r just a touch sharper than the sony's. ide also reccomend a wall mount.

FrankTheTank

10-09-2009, 09:40 PM

maybe my eyes suck, but when i'm in the store i cant tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p set.
thus, i just picked up a 42" panasonic plasma for $480 from dell.

Vella's Alero

10-09-2009, 09:47 PM

Personally I would go with a 1080P Pioneer Plasma line. They have some wicked colour and if you have some seats that arent dead onto the screen LCD will fade and the colouring won't be as good on the sides.

Also is the room that it is being put into have a lot of light or not? If it doesn't then go LCD but if it has a lot of light then go plasma for ease of viewing.

A good site to check out that has dedicated people for all this and review a ton of screens would be www.pcmag.com . They are very reliable and have no connections with any one such brand so they are completely objective.

Another thing would be to take the contrast ratio number with a grain of sand because every company measures it differently so what might be 2000000 for one might be half that for another.

Ryan from Ohio

10-09-2009, 10:19 PM

We bought the $800 42" Phillips at Wal mart and put an extended 2 year warranty on it.

I think it was a bit over $940ish out the door.

Been about 9 months with it no issue besides the remote control is on the fritz.

heineck

10-09-2009, 10:34 PM

42" aquos, 3 yrs and still goin strong paid 600ish

Nate's Alero

10-09-2009, 10:48 PM

37" Westinghouse 1080I, 5years and its still perfect! paid 900 way back in 2004 LOL

BlackJack

10-09-2009, 11:04 PM

you can listen to all the banter about everything, but one of the most important aspects was not discussed.

yeah, size matters, but what matters most once you're narrowed down to a couple of good choices with overall visual quality, is refresh rate and black levels. That's where you want to make comparisons. If you are truly into video quality, you'll notice a serious difference between 60 and 120 refresh rate. The larger the screen, the more you'll notice the difference. 60 looks very choppy as compared to a 120 which is very smooth in motion sequences. This drove me absolutely bat-shit crazy with 60 hertz models.

Go to Best Buy and get a floor model. They have a policy where they have to take down/sell their wall display models every 3 months (at least, that's what the salesman and manager told us). You'll get everything included except the box, and a full warranty just as if you bought it new.

My wife went and bought a 51", a blue ray player (with built in netflix), and a yamaha 525 receiver (with 1080p upscaling) and HDMI cables for all of em and walked out at about 2100 including tax and extended warranty.

cavaliers60

10-10-2009, 12:04 AM

When you get one and start getting devises that use HDMI cables. Go to amazon.com and search for Bargaincell. He has cables for $.01. I bought 2 of them and they work perfectly!

jamcllw

10-10-2009, 01:09 AM

I work for a television manufacture and we build and sale anything from a 10.4" to 42". We use different manufacturers of panels (LG, Sharp, Samsung, AU Optronics, Chi Mei and a few others) depending on size and pricepoint and what not. I can tell you from personal experience that LG panels are trash! We repair or replace LG panels more that any other brand. I would personally never buy an LG television.

I own a 46" Sharp 1080p thats about 2.5 years old and still happy with it. I would recommend those to others.

There is no standard for contrast ratio. Manufacturers measure it all differently.

240 Hz is good for sports but makes movies and everything else look like a damn soap opera.

Plasma is pretty much a dead technology. Pioneer, Vizio, and Samsung have abandoned plasma because of cost and sales compared to LCD. Panasonic is the only major manufacturer of plasma panels left.

OLED is really nice but costs an arm and leg compared to similar sized TFT.

It really is a matter of opinion. You need to go to a store and look at them yourself and decide then. 4" of screen size for every foot you sit away from it.

Gr1m

10-10-2009, 01:38 AM

dont forget the surround sound!!

Redog

10-10-2009, 02:57 AM

We just got the Sharp Aquous last year and I recommoned it.

I was looking at the LG one too.

Our living room is very small so we only got a 32" We were goingto buy the LG and I think it was 39" but they were out of stock. We bought to fit our cabinet too

I suggest the LCD. Like everybody said, plasma burns in easy and the LCD has twice the life of the plasma.

AZFire316

10-10-2009, 06:16 AM

i own a 50" panasonic plasma and plasmas really have a bad reputation. The burn in issues exist on lower end panels and older plasmas, but newer ones such as mine, do not. I use my plasma also as my pc monitor with no issues. Energy consumption and heat are two drawbacks. TV life i dont think will be an issue also.

lonnie

10-10-2009, 07:35 AM

I have a 42'' Visio LCD with 1080P as well, cept I got mine for 410 :D
Look around for used TV's, they go cheap that way.I hate you...LOL...but I wouldn't pay that for a used set.....espeacially for a plasma set.

cherrington17

10-10-2009, 09:51 AM

maybe my eyes suck, but when i'm in the store i cant tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p set.
thus, i just picked up a 42" panasonic plasma for $480 from dell.

there is no difference in 720p and 1080p with any set under 42". The human eye doesn't have the ability to discriminate such a difference.

Cliff8928

10-10-2009, 12:28 PM

I own a 45" Sharp Aquos that I've had for just over 5 years now, also 2 other Sharp LCDs in the house. I've never had a single issue with the picture on any of them. I would recommend one.

A couple of the other advantages of the LCD is that it weighs less and uses less power / generates less heat than plasma. The LED backlit LCD TVs are even better! Another thing is that Plasmas just look "coarse" to me in comparison to LCD.

Probably most of what you're going to get in that size class is going to be 1080P.

To understand the whole P vs i thing, click here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan)

As for the Hz (Screen Refresh) rating. Most of the older TVs were 60Hz. Kinda makes sense because that's what the power going into your home is. BUT when you would watch a movie, most of which are filmed at 24 FPS you could see some artifacts in the screen because of the inconsistencies (60Hz/24FPS=2.5) Most older TVs have a feature called 3:2 pulldown to compensate. This is where 120Hz comes in. It works good for both film (120Hz/24FPS=5) and regular TV (120Hz/30FPS=4).

The aspect ratio is pretty well a non issue. Probably all TVs your going to get are going to be widescreen, and most likely any panel you get in that size class will be 1920X1080.

BlackJack

10-10-2009, 01:23 PM

there is no difference in 720p and 1080p with any set under 42". The human eye doesn't have the ability to discriminate such a difference.

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

You can't speak for all humans just because YOU can't see the difference below 42".

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my wife's 22" monitors.

cherrington17

10-10-2009, 02:02 PM

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

You can't speak for all humans just because YOU can't see the difference below 42".

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my wife's 22" monitors.

*cough* learn stuff *cough*
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768167

ServO

10-10-2009, 02:37 PM

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

You can't speak for all humans just because YOU can't see the difference below 42".

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my wife's 22" monitors.

Yeah agreed, I can tell the difference as well. I could care less if the internet says I can't.

cherrington17

10-10-2009, 04:42 PM

its the medical community supplying that info. not dah webbernetz.

the human eye cant discriminate such minute detail.

resolution and refresh rates will change the appearance too, which is a BIG difference between computer monitors.

also to mention, the average viewing distance of a computer monitor is MUCH less than that of your average TV. At the distance, it isn't possible for your eyes to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Plain and simple.

the contrast/refresh difference, yes. Pixel difference, no.

AZFire316

10-10-2009, 04:42 PM

One thing to consider when looking at 1080P vs 720P is if youre only gonna watch broadcast HD and not Blu-ray is that most HD tv is still transmitted in 1080i

lonnie

10-10-2009, 08:30 PM

The difference between 60hz and 120hz I can tell. The difference between 720 and 1080 not so much.

FrankTheTank

10-10-2009, 11:50 PM

The difference between 60hz and 120hz I can tell. The difference between 720 and 1080 not so much.
That is how it is for me. Especially when I am 10 feet from my tv

BlackJack

10-11-2009, 02:24 AM

*cough* learn stuff *cough*
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768167

Ah, so now THEY'RE authorized to dictate what I can and can't see as well? Yes, they did ask me to borrow my eyeballs and brain so they could do the test and make sure I couldn't see the difference. LOL Give up Chris. It's not going to fly.

its the medical community supplying that info. not dah webbernetz.

the human eye cant discriminate such minute detail.

resolution and refresh rates will change the appearance too, which is a BIG difference between computer monitors.

also to mention, the average viewing distance of a computer monitor is MUCH less than that of your average TV. At the distance, it isn't possible for your eyes to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Plain and simple.

the contrast/refresh difference, yes. Pixel difference, no.

Ok, now throw in your "distance" disclaimer. You simply said you couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. So yes, I agree. I can't tell the difference. At 20 feet viewing distance.

Leave it alone. Neither you nor anyone else can say whether I can or cannot tell the difference. I can certainly tell you that I notice that one is slightly lesser quality and resolution than another.

AZFire316

10-11-2009, 05:12 AM

refresh rates also tend to affect LCDs a bit more than plasmas, for example if you watch live HD sports on a 60hz LCD, it looks a little bit blurry during a high paced action scene where as a plasma at a comparable refresh rate is smooth and clear

lonnie

10-11-2009, 01:13 PM

Has anyone ever watched sports at 60hz and 120hz....I look at tennis and one difference I see is that at 60hz you can see a slight ball trail when following the ball..I can tend to get rid of this when playing with the temp settings and white levels. At 120hz simply put there is no trail. If you go with a plasma make sure it has an image cleaner, because plasma's have image rention...not sure if LCD's do, but if I were to compare my plasma to my 22" LCD for the PC...I would say no, and I watch just as many DVD's on the PC as I do on the plasma.

Atmosphere

10-11-2009, 07:23 PM

Plasmas are a lot better about burn in than they used to be, it's practically non-existent in the newer models. That's the route I'm planning on going for my next TV.

Also, consider when you will be using the TV/monitor. LCDs show up very well during the day, but some plasmas can be superior in low-light situations. I tend to watch TV/etc after work and school, which is why I'm leaning more towards plasma. That and the excellent contrast ratio.

Make sure you consider the finish too; matte is far better for rooms with a lot of direct lighting, but glossy may be a bit more vibrant when there's less light to bounce around.

Oh, and go for 120 Hz if possible. Not super important, but if you'll be watching fast-paced content you'll see a difference. Most companies are transitioning to it anyways.

Cliff8928

10-12-2009, 12:01 AM

Has anyone ever watched sports at 60hz and 120hz....I look at tennis and one difference I see is that at 60hz you can see a slight ball trail when following the ball..I can tend to get rid of this when playing with the temp settings and white levels. At 120hz simply put there is no trail.

That's probably primarily because of an improvement in the response time of the LCD panel. In all reality, if you're watching something that is broadcast at 30FPS, then 60 or 120Hz won't make a difference.

lonnie

10-12-2009, 06:31 AM

That's probably primarily because of an improvement in the response time of the LCD panel. In all reality, if you're watching something that is broadcast at 30FPS, then 60 or 120Hz won't make a difference.
I'm not talking about an LCD although the FPS are the same, I'm refering to a plasma TV, and there is a big difference between the two. I mean the difference of seeing a ball trail and not is a big deal to me.