Buying a new TV

[jhonny]

 

UK-centric, but was in B&M Bargains today and you can get a 50" Panasonic Viera Plasma for £350 which is insane value, even if it's their bottom of the range one.

 

Plasma's don't suffer from screen burn anymore, and wifi is pointless if you have Apple TV or a PS3/Xbox which does all internet stuff but better than some internal TV software.

I call bullshit, the built in Netflix app on my Sony is infinitely faster and clearer than on Xbox, Apple TV does a good job though.

 

your tv is much better than mine!

[kokoon]

The main question is, are you really going to use any of those "smart tv" functions, because if not, you can save a dollar or two if you opt for a "dumb" version.

 

For me, this boils down to whether or not you'll have a computer of some sort hooked up to the tv. I only use my plasma as a screen (no digital tuner, no analog, no speakers, no playback, no internets). I would have bought one of those pro panny panels that are jus that - plasma panels, but those are stupid expensive.

 

Also, I have learnt not to use wifi for HD video streaming. It just never worked for me like it should. Theory is one thing, real world use another.

[blackdust]

I like how no one has mentioned 3D tv's. That was dead in the water before it came out.

[kokoon]

It's pretty neat for porn, combined with MCFI...

[olo]

Yeah, like Joyrex says, "smart tvs" are usually so much worse than what you usually hook up to it (a pc, a console, ...)

 

As for 600/120Hz, it really doesn't make any difference unless you turn on the MCFI motion smoothing, which is a topic on its own. It's that ungodly soap-opera effect that makes every motion look uncanny and absolutely nothing like it's supposed to. It's what the industry came up with to try to make up for the bad pixel response times.

 

So the 60/120 thing only comes into play when you have auto motion plus on? Which I would have off. That soap opera thing is jarring to me. Been looking for a new TV, the 60 refresh are quite cheaper & was leaning that way. But am I missing something about the 120 refresh?

[kokoon]

There's another important point to 120 Hz, it is capable of displaying 24p (film) content natively with the correct cadence, since 120 is a multiplier of 24 (and also 25 and 30, PAL and NTSC). With refresh rate of 60 Hz, video is displayed using a 3:2 pulldown method that holds every other frame for a third longer. This results in a slightly noneven, jerky playback of 24p content, which means the majority of movies and high-budget tv series. Of course, the playback device has to be able to playback the content in its native mode. I consider correct 24p playback absolutely essential.

Other than that, there really isn't any advantage. And especially not above 120.

[olo]

There's another important point to 120 Hz, it is capable of displaying 24p (film) content natively with the correct cadence, since 120 is a multiplier of 24 (and also 25 and 30, PAL and NTSC). With refresh rate of 60 Hz, video is displayed using a 3:2 pulldown method that holds every other frame for a third longer. This results in a slightly noneven, jerky playback of 24p content, which means the majority of movies and high-budget tv series. Of course, the playback device has to be able to playback the content in its native mode. I consider correct 24p playback absolutely essential.

Other than that, there really isn't any advantage. And especially not above 120.

 

Do you watch with the auto motion plus feature kokoon? If I turn that setting off, does the 120 still function without that shiz, or they're 2 different animals entirely and they're not tied to one another? I like the idea of watching sports with the 120, but I can't stand the soap opera look.

[kokoon]

I have it off for everything except porn and sometimes some sports. If it's a 120 Hz set, it probably displays 24p correctly (if that's what you meant by "still function"), but to be sure, check the specs.

[olo]

I have it off for everything except porn and sometimes some sports. If it's a 120 Hz set, it probably displays 24p correctly (if that's what you meant by "still function"), but to be sure, check the specs.

 

Right on. Thanks for the info. May have to rethink my current choice.

[olo]

I have it off for everything except porn and sometimes some sports. If it's a 120 Hz set, it probably displays 24p correctly (if that's what you meant by "still function"), but to be sure, check the specs.

 

Sorry couldnt edit.

 

Actually Kokoon. I know size does matter. But, when it comes to television sizes, I'm looking at 42-46" TVs. Is the 60 vs.120 refresh as important with that size, then say 50"+TVs? more so/less so? I'm thinking it would be more important with larger screens.

[kokoon]

It is quite possible you won't notice the 3:2 pulldown though. If you're not that used to true 24p, you might be perfectly okay with a 60 Hz set as well. However, I'm afraid the low-end LCDs that run lower than 120 Hz also cut corners on other, more important qualities. It is difficult.

If you're after natural, faithful image reproduction with minimal motion artefacting, look into plasma, you get far more for the money. Beware of plasma's inherent cons though, mainly image retention (not suitable for PC display).

[kokoon]

I don't think size has anything to do with it. Like I wrote above, it has more to do with what you're used to, and how picky you are. I know there are big film buffs out there that don't know any of that tech stuff and can appreciate a good movie. I remember so well the moment I saw perfectly fluid 24p video in my living room, if only for a few seconds before it skipped a frame (it was media player's fault). If you can watch movies and the like on a computer monitor and you're satisfied with how fluid the motion is, all other specs being equal, I advise you rather pay more for a bigger screen, than 24p capability.

 

If you're after cinema-like experience, go as big as you can, and you'll still have picture that covers a narrower angle of view than in cinema.

[eugene]

bump.

 

i sort of accidentally destroyed my tv yesterday and i'm looking fro a decent 50 incher atm (currently eying this one: http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P50S60?t=specs&support#tabs)

i get that plasma are much better in picture quality but there are just so many drawbacks that i've read about: too reflective, buzzing on bright images, burn in, kinda low number of shades of gradation (something i always hated on monitors) is it still worth it after all that ?

[Adieu]

panasonic plasmas are quality. I have two 50" and enjoy them.

[eugene]

i don't think brands matter anymore, all of the major ones are capable of producing amazing tvs if you stuff them with a couple of thousands of dollars. i'm just really bothered by how reflective they are and i can't really tell how exactly will it look in my apartment without having it there, just look at this shit:

 

now if you slab about 800$ bucks more you can get the ST60 with better anti glare, but that's just too much. and there's nothing really in the middle.

[Joyrex]

i don't think brands matter anymore, all of the major ones are capable of producing amazing tvs if you stuff them with a couple of thousands of dollars. i'm just really bothered by how reflective they are and i can't really tell how exactly will it look in my apartment without having it there, just look at this shit:

 

now if you slab about 800$ bucks more you can get the ST60 with better anti glare, but that's just too much. and there's nothing really in the middle.

Go for the Sharp brand of TVs - they are one of the only TVs still made in Japan, and what I like most (and I think you will too) is they all have a matte finish, which reduces glare to almost nothing. There was a 50" model this past weekend on sale for 479USD - I almost got it because it was such a good deal (normally 700USD).

[eugene]

im still looking for plasmas, jr, simply a better price/quality ratio (if you ignore the reflection problem which isn't really a big issue with leds). sharp doesn't do those.

[Rubin Farr]

Wtf is the point of curved TVs?

[baph]

I have a 46" Samsung LN46A650 from, I dunno, 2008? It's still ticking. Recently the backlighting has seemed a tad less consistent than before, but it's only noticeable on single-color, bright screens, like a fade to white. I've sort of had an itch to upgrade, particularly as I could get something like a native 120Hz edge-lit LED Samsung UN48H6350 for around a thousand less than I paid for the old set in 2008, with obviously much better specs.

 

But at the same time, my family went from approximately 1987 to 1999 on the same decent Sharp CRT and it feels too soon, you know?

 

Pretty happy with the LCD Samsung reliability, though. And the LN46 was supposedly one of the least reliable models from them. Samsung seems to hit a sweet spot with price-quality.

 

Re: smart features: even the old LN46 had them, and they sucked then. They probably still suck. But it seems like there aren't any higher-spec TVs without that particular feature set? If you want edge lighting and 120 Hz, you're probably going to end up with shitty smart apps, or am I wrong? I just ignore them. Hopefully they aren't intrusive if you don't want them.

 

Plasmas were always a bit of a no-go for us because we move around a lot, they're less efficient, and at least at the time of my last purchase there was a commonly (?) held belief that they wouldn't last 5 years. The contrast and motion quality looked beautiful but we made a conscious decision to aim for practicality over some aesthetic advantages.

 

I guess there's not really any point to this post innit. Oh yeah, so I should wait until the LN46 croaks for good, right?

[baph]

Wtf is the point of curved TVs?

 

People are dumb and will buy into a marketing gimmick, I suppose.

[Nebraska]

Wtf is the point of curved TVs?

 

i don't really get it either. first, you have to be a certain distance away for it to actually work like it's supposed to (so if you can even afford the tv, you also need to make sure you have a big enough space).

 

what you're really seeing here is companies with enough money to experiment and see what the next big thing will be with 4k ultra hd kinda now reaching "affordable" status except- how much 4k native media is there?

 

right now, buying a new television isn't about what television to buy, but rather, why you're buying it. are you going to be watching your media online (smart tv), dvd/blue ray movies only (4k, led or lcd) or are you going to be gaming?

[Joyrex]

im still looking for plasmas, jr, simply a better price/quality ratio (if you ignore the reflection problem which isn't really a big issue with leds). sharp doesn't do those.

Plasmas are nice, but Sharp's LED-lit LCD TVs produce excellent picture quality, rivaling (and beating, IMO) the picture quality of plasma. The biggest drawback for me with plasma is the amount of heat they put out, and they are significantly heavier than LCDs, if wall-mounting is something you want to consider (my 50" LG plasma weighs 93 lbs vs. a 50" Sharp LCD weighs around 33 lbs.). You can of course wall mount a TV that heavy, but make sure you put the wall mount into the studs of the wall.

 

That being said, I have seen a few Samsung 60" plasmas and 60" LG plasmas at very low prices recently.

 

Curved TVs supposedly offer a more immersive and wider viewing angle - I've taken a look at a few, and I can't say I'm terribly impressed in terms of image quality or any purported immersiveness.

[Joyrex]

 

Wtf is the point of curved TVs?

 

i don't really get it either. first, you have to be a certain distance away for it to actually work like it's supposed to (so if you can even afford the tv, you also need to make sure you have a big enough space).

 

what you're really seeing here is companies with enough money to experiment and see what the next big thing will be with 4k ultra hd kinda now reaching "affordable" status except- how much 4k native media is there?

 

right now, buying a new television isn't about what television to buy, but rather, why you're buying it. are you going to be watching your media online (smart tv), dvd/blue ray movies only (4k, led or lcd) or are you going to be gaming?

 

I'm holding out for Sharp's 70" 4K 3D LED TV, which I can get for 3499.00 USD right now, but hopefully by this fall will be under 3K, which would be reasonable for me.

 

I was looking at Sharp's 70" 1080P LED TV (around 1370USD), but then I thought about the fact that in probably 2-3 years, there will be some 4K content I might want to take advantage of (streaming mostly), which would render my purchase this year obsolete for that kind of media. I'd only get 3 years of use out of it before I would have to consider replacing it, and I usually like to hold onto my TVs for at least 4+ years before "retiring" one to my in-laws or kids.

[Joyrex]

I have a 46" Samsung LN46A650 from, I dunno, 2008? It's still ticking. Recently the backlighting has seemed a tad less consistent than before, but it's only noticeable on single-color, bright screens, like a fade to white. I've sort of had an itch to upgrade, particularly as I could get something like a native 120Hz edge-lit LED Samsung UN48H6350 for around a thousand less than I paid for the old set in 2008, with obviously much better specs.

 

But at the same time, my family went from approximately 1987 to 1999 on the same decent Sharp CRT and it feels too soon, you know?

 

Pretty happy with the LCD Samsung reliability, though. And the LN46 was supposedly one of the least reliable models from them. Samsung seems to hit a sweet spot with price-quality.

 

Re: smart features: even the old LN46 had them, and they sucked then. They probably still suck. But it seems like there aren't any higher-spec TVs without that particular feature set? If you want edge lighting and 120 Hz, you're probably going to end up with shitty smart apps, or am I wrong? I just ignore them. Hopefully they aren't intrusive if you don't want them.

 

Plasmas were always a bit of a no-go for us because we move around a lot, they're less efficient, and at least at the time of my last purchase there was a commonly (?) held belief that they wouldn't last 5 years. The contrast and motion quality looked beautiful but we made a conscious decision to aim for practicality over some aesthetic advantages.

 

I guess there's not really any point to this post innit. Oh yeah, so I should wait until the LN46 croaks for good, right?

If you are considering an upgrade, you might look at an active-matrix (aka back-lit vs. edge-lit) LED LCD TV - they produce a closer picture to what you can get on plasma. Edge-lit HDTVs tend to have darker centres (especially the big ones).

[Adieu]

My 50" panasonic plasma is not very heavy and only wall mounted with dry wall screws. It couldn't be more than 50 lbs. It's probably 3-4 years old and doesn't have any picture issues except for a slight color issue in one area that rarely shows up on startup and can only be seen on plain screens. Most likely from falling asleep with the tv on netflix menus.