Ok - what is the real difference?
wgd.r...@verizon.net
Good Evening All:
When it comes to imaging I spent my adult life working with the purest
of the purest. Now $s are not a plentiful, so . . . .
Just came out of a SAMs store here in SW Florida.
What are the *real* differences between an $850.oo LCD 1080 120Hz
display and one of "same" overall specs going for $1,4500.oo?
Kind Regards,
Wayne
TJ
Might as well get this one out of the way early... About $600.
(That assumes you meant 1450.00 for the second one, not $14500.00)
TJ
UCLAN
> Just came out of a SAMs store here in SW Florida.
>
> What are the *real* differences between an $850.oo LCD 1080 120Hz
> display and one of "same" overall specs going for $1,4500.oo?
I'll assume you meant $1,450.00 [or have you started a new monetary system?]
Maybe you should tell us what these ' "same" overall specs ' are.
Specific models?
Kimba W Lion
>What are the *real* differences between an $850.oo LCD 1080 120Hz
>display and one of "same" overall specs going for $1,4500.oo?
The $1450 TV is priced higher to get you to think you're getting higher
quality. But everything is made in China by the lowest bidder anyway, so you
might as well get the $850 one and put up the extra $600 toward your next one
when this one goes bad.
Hmmm... They might have put some extra cynical in my DD coffee this morning...
Seriously, if you can't see the difference, get the cheaper one and buy some
other toys with the money you saved. And if the store won't let you compare
the two the way you want to, find a different store.
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
GMAN
be higher,etc....
wgd.r...@verizon.net
Can't see the difference? Surely if I had 1080 source material, I
*might* see significant differences. I, too, may be cynical; that
said, most of our TV watching is from std NTSC sources and numerous
DVDs (480 line stuff). As I see it, 1080, created by SONY and NHK
back in the 90s, is a poor spatial level to upconvert to from 480 line
material - 1080 currently being an economical compromise towards film.
If I could find a reasonably-priced 720 line 46" LCD (or LED-sourced
LCD) display, it would seem that this config would be ideal for our
current NTSC broadcasts + DVDs. And yes, dollars being important
right now, you have helped contribute to the decision to go with
price.
BTW, HD broadcasts. How many are really sourced at HD specs? Or are
most upconverted sources, like the foolishness of 240Hz. If
technology can make it and get away with selling it, that is what we
see on the shelves these days. LED TVs are misrepresented in a
fashion. Yes, they do, in small print, note the the LEDs are the
light sources, far from more correct labeling of plasma and LCD TVs.
Got off the track here. Unless someone who replies here has a
convincing argument for spending $1,450.oo over $850.oo for a 46" LCD
120Hz 1080 display, I guess I use the difference not for more toys,
but rather to help pay for my wife's drugs (cancer patient).
Pls accept my apology if I stepped on those who have, can see and
enjoy HD broadcasts. I respect your opinions, decisions. Just
trying to save what I can.
wgd.r...@verizon.net
dmaster
> >wgd.roam...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> >>What are the *real* differences between an $850.oo LCD 1080 120Hz
> >>display and one of "same" overall specs going for $1,4500.oo?
>
> >The $1450 TV is priced higher to get you to think you're getting higher
> >quality. But everything is made in China by the lowest bidder anyway, so you
> >might as well get the $850 one and put up the extra $600 toward your next one
> >when this one goes bad.
>
> >Hmmm... They might have put some extra cynical in my DD coffee this morning...
>
> >Seriously, if you can't see the difference, get the cheaper one and buy some
> >other toys with the money you saved. And if the store won't let you compare
>
> - Show quoted text -
From what I can tell, the extra $600 may be buying something, or it
may be buying nothing. Published specs, especially contrast ratios,
are often pure fantasy and are not valid for comparison. That is not
to say that some sets don't have significantly better contrast ratios
than others; its just that we can't tell from the published numbers.
Personally, I'd try to see both sets in person, showing the same
material, under the same lighting, and properly adjusted. That last
condition is the killer. So, if you can't do a proper side-by-side
comparison, what can you do?
There are some good reviews out there and they do show trends. Better
maker's sets will often do a better job. (Notice I didn't say more
expensive makers.) I'd start by looking at www.lcdbuyingguide.com .
Good sets preserve detail in dark areas; poor sets won't. Good sets
will preserve detail in bright areas; poor sets won't. Good sets
won't go blocky as much with fast motion. Good sets will present more
true to life colors. Good sets will do a better job converting
material to their native resolution, which is particulary important if
you still watch primarily SD or DVD material.
So, if you can't do the research, I'd pay the extra if you are getting
a better brand, perhaps a Sony or a Sharp, *AND* the lower price is
only getting you a no-name, house brand, relabled, low end set from
some unnamed sourse in China. One the other hand, even cheap HD sets
today will provide a pretty wonderful picture from an HD source,
particularly if you aren't too choosy, or sit pretty far back, or
don't have experience with a better set.
As far as the HD broadcasts, a lot of the stuff is now really HD
source material. Of course, if your delivery channel bit starves the
broadcast, it may not look any better (or even worse) than wide screen
SD. If you are still seeing NTSC, you probably are watching a cable
broadcast (barring a few low power OTA stations, or Mexico/Canada
stuff). If so, have your scanned for digital channels? Your locals
should be in the clear, and the local networks will likely be HD, so
you should be able to compare and see the differences yourself. I'm
only using OTA TV, but I see dramatic differences between NTSC
(analog), digital SD, and digital HD, assuming the content of the HD
broadcast is actually HD programming. (Some of the TV Guides, like
www.titantv.com, do a reasonable job of reporting whether the content
of an HD *channel* is HD *programming* or not.) Particularly
enlightening are the stations that simulcast and HD and SD version of
the same program.
Your comment about wishing you could choose a lower resolution set for
NTSC watching is right on the mark. I have an EDTV that makes SD
material look better than the same SD material on my HDTV. It's
probably due in part to a lesser degree of up-scaling. Stretching the
thin information content of an NTSC or digital SD broadcast over all
of the pixels of a 1080p TV, is far more likely to show all the flaws
of the original content (along with introducing a bunch of artifacts),
than it is to make the low resolution broadcast look good.
[These are only *MY* opinions based on *MY* experiences, and probably
worth just about what you paid for them.]
Dan (Woj...)
wgd.r...@verizon.net
read this, the retailers tend to stay away from show, offering access
to an NTSC signal, preferring, obviously, to show a prepared HD image.
And *most* imagea are slow-moving - do not offer fast imagery to show
the why of 120 and 240 Hz refresh. Yes, Best Buy, for example, has a
display showing movement of grass - one panel at 120 and the other at
240.
Bottom-Line: so what. As we all now know, it is all academic. By
what the wallet (or CC) will tolerate. BTW, this thread did open up
good replies - all appreciated.
A good weekend to all.
Wayne - in Sarasota, FL