Opinions Requested - new 50"+ LCD TV
Meat Plow
Not because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size
or slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with
super high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US.
What are some choices and their advantages?
--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
William Sommerwerck
news:pan.2010.08...@hahahahahahahah.nutz.I.am...
> Well, I'm going to replace my 11 yr old 51" Panasonic projector.
> Not because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
> resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size
> or slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with
> super high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US.
> What are some choices and their advantages?
Panasonic's plasma sets generally get very good reviews, though their claim
of an "infinite black" doesn't match what Pioneer achieved in its last and
final Kuro models.
I've always liked Sony's better LCD sets. Quite a spectacular picture.
If the set has "local dimming", be sure it's shut off before judging the
picture.
Another thing... LCD sets with interpolated frames (a feature plasma sets
don't need) often turn a film image into something that looks like
videotape. Again, be sure this feature is turned off when evaluating the
set.
I doubt there are any 50" Kuros still around (and they went for $4K), but
you might look.
Although they require careful break-in, I'd look at plasma sets first.
They're better than LCD in every respect, except absolute brightness. I've
owned mine for over a year, and am still awed when I turn it on.
If you believe Consumer Reports, flat-screen sets, regardless of make,
model, or technology, are generally reliable.
Meat Plow
Is plasma not an outgoing technology? And if it is what ramifications
would one expect for service?
As far as reliability goes, my now 3 yr old Olevia 32" LCD still performs
without flaw even though the maker Syntax Brillian (spelling?) has gone
belly-up.
Thanks for the reply, Panasonic is one of the handful I give serious
consideration.
William Sommerwerck
> ramifications would one expect for service?
Not at all. Several companies manufacture plasmas, and no one has said
anything about discontinuing them. Pioneer made expensive models, and
dropped out for several reasons, one of which was the bad economy.
> Thanks for the reply. Panasonic is one of the handful
> I give serious consideration.
No problemo. Perhaps others will have more-specific suggestions.
I assume you know to make sure the set is adjusted for normal viewing, and
not set at the "eye blasting" factory-default levels.
Meat Plow
Yeah anything I viewed on display I would certainly take out of demo mode
or review the picture settings. At home I watch in low-light conditions.
I haven't turned a TV on here for 7 days. And then just to set up the
week's DVR recording. I might watch 10 hours a week so the new set will
gather dust.
William Sommerwerck
So a plasma set will be okay.
> I might watch 10 hours a week so the new set
> will gather dust.
Ah, but what glorious dust. The best Blu-ray disks -- and even cable
shows -- are spectacular.
Smitty Two
Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I'm going to replace my 11 yr old 51" Panasonic projector.
> Not because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
> resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size
> or slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with
> super high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US.
> What are some choices and their advantages?
So you're not going 3D?
Meat Plow
Yeah can't wait. Well I guess I have to wait, won't have the $$$ for a
month or so. My bedroom 32" HDTV is quite a thrilling watch albeit only
capable of 1080i. But I get tired of being cramped up in the bedroom
watching from a high back leather office chair. And the 32 isn't large
enough to watch from 10 feet away in my living room.
William Sommerwerck
>> even cable shows -- are spectacular.
> Yeah, can't wait. I guess I have to wait, won't have the $$$ for
> a month or so. My bedroom 32" HDTV is quite a thrilling watch
> albeit only capable of 1080i. But I get tired of being cramped up
> in the bedroom watching from a high back leather office chair.
> And the 32 isn't large enough to watch from 10 feet away in
> my living room.
Sitting 6' from a 60" display is one of life's great sensual pleasures. It
ain't Cinerama, * but it sure beats a "big, enormous 12 inch screen"
("Little Shop of Horrors").
One other thing you might want to consider... When testing sets, try turning
the Sharpness control all the way up, and seeing what happens.
I mention this because I like ultra-razor-sharp images. "Home Theater"
magazine recommends setting the Sharpness on a Pioneer Kuro to -15. Not
centered at zero, but minus 15 -- all the way down.
Mine is set to +15 -- all the way up. What's remarkable is that this setting
produces zero -- yes, zero -- overshoot, undershoot, or ringing. And if the
source suffers from excessive edge enhancement ("Gladiator", for example),
it's not exaggerated.
Along the same lines... Make sure every form of "enhancement" is turned off.
If the set doesn't produce a good image on its own, it's unlikely image
processing will help.
* One of the demo disks you'll want is the digitally spliced-together
edition of "How the West Was Won". It's taken directly from the camera
negatives, and in everything but sheer size, totally blows away what you see
in a Cinerama theater. The set includes both a rectilinear version, and a
"smilevision" version that curves the image to represent how it would look
on a Cinerama screen. Get "2001" and "The Searchers", too.
Meat Plow
Which set did you have? I'm trying to avoid as much shopping as possible.
Demos can be deceiving and I wouldn't mind paying a little extra and buy
from the local appliance and electronics store than say Best Buy or
WalMart. And a 60" isn't out of the realm of possibilities. 50" was just
a starting point. I was curious about these new Sharp 4 color sets too.
Just don't know if the technology is too virgin to be reliable. I'll have
the cash so a reasonable price is not as important as these other factors.
Would be cool to have some bells and whistles like a tcp/ip connection
for streaming video. Already have a decent Sony / Infinity 5:1 audio in
place.
William Sommerwerck
I have a 60" Pioneer Kuro, the final series. Not cheap -- and it was sold
only by specialist dealers.
I would look first /carefully/ at the Panasonic plasmas and Sony LCDs. Avoid
off-brands -- including Philips. I have a 32" Vizio in my den, and when
Comcast was transmitting QAM HD, it had a gorgeous picture -- with an
extremely wide viewing angle.
> I'm trying to avoid as much shopping as possible.
> Demos can be deceiving and I wouldn't mind paying a little extra and buy
> from the local appliance and electronics store than say Best Buy or
> WalMart.
You might as well go to Costco.
> And a 60" isn't out of the realm of possibilities. 50" was just a
> starting point. I was curious about these new Sharp 4 color sets too.
Without going into colorimetry (which I don't fully understand, anyway),
color TV is based on three well-defined primaries. Adding another might
increase the range of colors that can be displayed, but they won't be within
the range of colors that are recorded by the camera. Just because Captain
Sulu is impressed, doesn't mean you should be.
> Just don't know if the technology is too virgin to be reliable.
Heck, plasmas have been around almost 15 years, and LCDs of all sorts a lot
longer. The CU repair ratings are based on what their readers say, so I'm
inclined to believe them.
As you'll have the cash, that's all the /more/ reason for taking your time
and looking carefully. Make up your mind, and don't let anyone talk you into
anything.
GregS
>
>>>> Ah, but what glorious dust. The best Blu-ray disks -- and even cable
>>>> shows -- are spectacular.
>>
>>> Yeah, can't wait. I guess I have to wait, won't have the $$$ for a
>>> month or so. My bedroom 32" HDTV is quite a thrilling watch albeit only
>>> capable of 1080i. But I get tired of being cramped up in the bedroom
>>> watching from a high back leather office chair. And the 32 isn't large
>>> enough to watch from 10 feet away in my living room.
>>
>> Sitting 6' from a 60" display is one of life's great sensual pleasures.
>> It ain't Cinerama, * but it sure beats a "big, enormous 12 inch screen"
>> ("Little Shop of Horrors").
>>
>> One other thing you might want to consider... When testing sets, try
>> turning the Sharpness control all the way up, and seeing what happens.
A digital real time change in sharpness ??
I thought that was strictly analog.
Deke
Have you considered a DLP? Huge screens are available (80"), and the blacks
are incredible.
I bought a Mitsubishi 65", have had it for 2 years, no problems. They use
less electricity than a
LCD or plasma, and I'm still running on the original bulb (replacement cost,
around $100).
They also have a line of LCD sets, but they are pricey. There's also the
LaserVue line, a DLP
with a LED instead of a bulb. Check it out.
Meat Plow
>> Which set did you have?
>
> I have a 60" Pioneer Kuro, the final series. Not cheap -- and it was
> sold only by specialist dealers.
>
> I would look first /carefully/ at the Panasonic plasmas and Sony LCDs.
> Avoid off-brands -- including Philips. I have a 32" Vizio in my den, and
> when Comcast was transmitting QAM HD, it had a gorgeous picture -- with
> an extremely wide viewing angle.
My cheapo Olevia 32 is very impressive picture-wise. I like everything
about it except the viewing angle is slightly more narrow than I prefer.
It has one fault, a hum from the inverter in every audio source except
headphones out. That's ok though it's hooked to an Altec PC 3-way speaker
system with a good sub via the headphone jack, problem solved. The
internal speakers were tinny and had a sympathetic vibration with the
chassis at certain frequencies.
I'm going to stay with a major brand. Might check into Vizio, they've
been around long enough also.
>
>> I'm trying to avoid as much shopping as possible. Demos can be
>> deceiving and I wouldn't mind paying a little extra and buy from the
>> local appliance and electronics store than say Best Buy or WalMart.
>
> You might as well go to Costco.
>
>
>> And a 60" isn't out of the realm of possibilities. 50" was just a
>> starting point. I was curious about these new Sharp 4 color sets too.
>
> Without going into colorimetry (which I don't fully understand, anyway),
> color TV is based on three well-defined primaries. Adding another might
> increase the range of colors that can be displayed, but they won't be
> within the range of colors that are recorded by the camera. Just because
> Captain Sulu is impressed, doesn't mean you should be.
Yeah I don't understand the tech either. But the 4th color they've added
is yellow. How that pans out remains to be seen.
>
>> Just don't know if the technology is too virgin to be reliable.
>
> Heck, plasmas have been around almost 15 years, and LCDs of all sorts a
> lot longer. The CU repair ratings are based on what their readers say,
> so I'm inclined to believe them.
I meant the Sharp 4 color technology. I know the others have been around
long enough to be tried and tested. Also have an interest in the pure LCD
sets, no CCFL backlight. There has been plenty of talk here about them
but don't remember what the general consensus was.
> As you'll have the cash, that's all the /more/ reason for taking your
> time and looking carefully. Make up your mind, and don't let anyone talk
> you into anything.
I spent maybe a month looking at 32's before settling on the Olevia. It
had the same picture performance as most of the major brands but cost
half as much in most cases. I wasn't into spending a lot of cash for a
bedroom set back in 2007.So far, other than the sound issue, I made the
right choice. I especially like an adjustable backlighting for a bedroom
set. Makes it easy on the eyes in a dark room and helps the contrast
ration when the brightness is turned down.
Meat Plow
I haven't ruled out DLP. For as much TV that is watched here a bulb would
last a decade. I'm wanting to move my TV watching from the bedroom back
to the living room hence the need for a new set. The 51" Panasonic
currently there works but not for HD. I have a small 15" set for my
bedroom and would give the 32 to my son for his bedroom.
Plain...@yawho.com
<mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well I'm going to replace my 11 yr old 51" Panasonic projector.
>Not because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
>resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size
>or slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with
>super high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US.
>What are some choices and their advantages?
I'd like to point out that the aspect ratio of the screens should be
taken into consideration. Your 50" 3:4 Panasonic has a picture height
of roughly 30". To maintain the same picture height you would need a
60" wide screen TV. That is easily possible with DLP and plasma, and
even with LCD TVs.
My chief knock against DLP is a somewhat restricted viewing angle.
And let's be honest, the sets are much thicker than a comparable sized
LCD or plasma. However, a 65" DLP will easily fit within your price
limit.
As far as Plasma vrs LCD, the usual advice applies, avoid house
brands. Both are viable technologies. Plasma will cost you less.
Potentially, LCD will last longer. These are one of the products
where an extended warranty is a good idea.
Ultimately, you and your eyes (and ears) are going to have to make the
decision. In plasma I would go with Samsung or Panasonic, take a
lookat LG is you want to but I'd avoid buying an LG plasma.
In LCD I'd suggest Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic. Sharp's Quattron
process may be more of a marketing gimic that a real advantage.
Again, you are the judge.
3D is available in all three technologies. I'm of the opinion that it
is more of a gimic than a real step forward. Certainly nothing I have
seen persuades me to believe the reason so many movies are shot in 3-D
is the producer is trying to disguise the fact they have a mediocre
script, poor actors, and a director who is well past his prime.
PlainBill
William Sommerwerck
> to make the decision. In plasma I would go with Samsung
> or Panasonic, take a lookat LG is you want to but I'd avoid
> buying an LG plasma.
I just remembered... Panasonic has a system that automatically raises the
cells' bias over time to compensate for a drop in inefficiency. It's
believed that this will slowly degraded the display's black level.
> 3D is available in all three technologies. I'm of the opinion that
> it is more of a gimic than a real step forward. Certainly nothing
> I have seen persuades me to believe the reason so many movies
> are shot in 3-D is the producer is trying to disguise the fact they
> have a mediocre script, poor actors, and a director who is well-
> past his prime.
Oh, let's see... The Pixar 3D films are really awful, as was "Avatar".
And who can forget "Dial M for Murder", one of the past-his-prime
Hitchcock's very worst films? Ditto for "Hondo", "Kiss Me, Kate", and "It
Came from Outer Space". All of it 3D dreck.
Meat Plow
I'm looking at the Panasonic Viera 55" and Samsung similar model. I
realize the size of the old Panasonic 51" square projector's size in
comparison to say a 55" HDTV screen height. I like the prices and specs
of the plasma sets. Use wise, plasma should last 20 years in this
household.
Arfa Daily
"Meat Plow" <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.08...@hahahahahahahah.nutz.I.am...
Last Christmas, after agonising long and hard over replacing my ageing, but
still superbly performing, 32" CRT Tosh, I was totally knocked out by a 50"
Panasonic plasma, and that was what I ultimately bought. From time to time,
Pan offer 5 year full warranties on these sets. The store I bought mine from
was offering a 5 year warranty on their own account, and it includes the
panel. Having now watched the set for around 8 months, I can honestly say
that there is not a single thing about it that I don't like - apart from
possibly the sound which, in common with all slim sets, be they LCD or
plasma, is not particularly 'full'. Perfectly adequate for normal viewing,
but not great. To overcome this, I have my sat receiver optically linked to
a Sony HC amp with full format decoding, and that's what I use for watching
films. The picture on this plasma set is stunning - and, having spent many
years in TV and electronic service, I don't use that term lightly. I loved
my old Tosh, but on balance, I think I love this one even more.
About the only other piece of advice that I could give is that if you are
going to be looking at HD, make sure that you get a set that is 'full HD'
and not just 'HD ready' . On my full HD set, HD transmissions are really
noticeably sharper and more detailed, due to the fact that the panel's
native resolution matches that of the source. However, my son-in-law's
parents recently upgraded their sat TV package to a new HD receiver, and an
HD subscription, but they are quite disappointed with it, displayed on their
'HD ready' LCD Sammy, I think it is. I guess this is because the native
resolution of the panel is lower than the actual resolution of the HD
source, so although the set is capable of *accepting* the full res HD signal
that the sat receiver is outputting, it then has to downscale it in order
for the LCD panel to be able to display it, thus negating any real advantage
from having an HD signal in the first place ...
Just personally, I think that the colour rendition on plasmas knocks spots
off of LCDs. I was always happy with the level of maturity that CRT
technology had reached, in terms of natural colour rendition, and I was
reading just the other day, that the phosphors used in plasma panels, are
identical to those used in CRTs, so I guess that would explain why I like
the picture on my plas so much. :-)
Arfa
William Sommerwerck
> I was totally knocked out by a 50" Panasonic plasma.
Them big-box stores can be awful careless about how they stack stuff up on
them shelves.
Plain...@yawho.com
There are a number of pitfalls in the process of aquiring a signal for
an HD set. By law in the US all TVs must have a digiatl tuner. An
over the air signal can produce a stunning picture. However, this
depends on the local station. Some broadcast in 720p, others in
1080i. And most are still using SD for any remote feeds.
Converting a 720p signal to 1080i or vise versa results in
significant degradation. This can be made worse by 'professional'
installers. Shortly after having purchased my HD receiver I upgraded
my satellite subscription to include an HD receiver and the relatively
few HD channels available at the time. The installer insisted on
setting the HD receiver to output a 720p signal "because that matched
the native resolution of the TV" (the TV's native resolution was
1080p). Since the HD receiver included OTA capability the idiot had
set up a contition where a digital broadcast in 1080i would be
converted to 702p by the receiver, then converted to 1080p by the TV
with very unsatisfactory results. To further compound his folly the
fool set it to display SD signals across the full width of the screen
"so there wouldn't be any screen burn" - which does not occur with DLP
sets.
PlainBill
Plain...@yawho.com
You left out other 'magnificent' 3D movies, such as 'Gorilla at
Large', 'Bawana Devil', 'It came from Outer Space', 'Cat-Women of the
Moon'. And who could forget 'Jaws 3-D', no matter how hard they
tried.
You inclusion of 'Avatar' is rather instructive. While Cameron has
done some good work, 'Avatar' was a prime example of stunning CGI
images masking a very pedestrian script and average (at best) acting.
PlainBill
William Sommerwerck
>>> it is more of a gimic than a real step forward. Certainly nothing
>>> I have seen persuades me to believe the reason so many movies
>>> are shot in 3-D is the producer is trying to disguise the fact they
>>> have a mediocre script, poor actors, and a director who is well-
>>> past his prime.
>> Oh, let's see... The Pixar 3D films are really awful, as was "Avatar".
>> And who can forget "Dial M for Murder", one of the past-his-prime
>> Hitchcock's very worst films? Ditto for "Hondo", "Kiss Me, Kate",
>> and "It Came from Outer Space". All of it 3D dreck.
> You left out other 'magnificent' 3D movies, such as 'Gorilla at
> Large', 'Bawana Devil', 'It came from Outer Space', 'Cat-Women
> of the Moon'. And who could forget 'Jaws 3-D', no matter how
> hard they tried.
I did mention "It Came from Outer Space", which is generally considered a
"good" film. "Gorilla at Large" is an amazing example of a grade Z film with
a largely grade A cast.
> You inclusion of 'Avatar' is rather instructive. While Cameron has
> done some good work, 'Avatar' was a prime example of stunning CGI
> images masking a very pedestrian script and average (at best) acting.
Oh, nobody's denying -- including the critics who liked "Avatar" -- that
it's derivative and not particularly well-done acting- or script-wise.
(Cameron's commercial success has blinded him to his own weaknesses.) But
it's a very entertaining film, and it uses 3D with terrific effectiveness..
William Sommerwerck
Arfa Daily
> There are a number of pitfalls in the process of aquiring a signal for
> an HD set. By law in the US all TVs must have a digiatl tuner. An
> over the air signal can produce a stunning picture. However, this
> depends on the local station. Some broadcast in 720p, others in
> 1080i. And most are still using SD for any remote feeds.
>
> Converting a 720p signal to 1080i or vise versa results in
> significant degradation. This can be made worse by 'professional'
> installers. Shortly after having purchased my HD receiver I upgraded
> my satellite subscription to include an HD receiver and the relatively
> few HD channels available at the time. The installer insisted on
> setting the HD receiver to output a 720p signal "because that matched
> the native resolution of the TV" (the TV's native resolution was
> 1080p). Since the HD receiver included OTA capability the idiot had
> set up a contition where a digital broadcast in 1080i would be
> converted to 702p by the receiver, then converted to 1080p by the TV
> with very unsatisfactory results. To further compound his folly the
> fool set it to display SD signals across the full width of the screen
> "so there wouldn't be any screen burn" - which does not occur with DLP
> sets.
>
> PlainBill
Yes, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on with this whole
full HD / HD ready thing. I guess if the installer did not fully grasp the
concept of native panel resolution as opposed to apparent resolution in
terms of what the TV could accept, he might have felt that he was doing the
right thing in forcing the box to output at 720p regardless of the actual
source resolution, and in 80% of cases, he could well *be* right. From what
I've seen, a very great deal of the LCD sets sold by the sheds, at least
here in the UK anyway, only have a vertical panel resolution of 720, even
though the set can accept a 1080i or p input.
Arfa
AZ Nomad
>>Arfa
>There are a number of pitfalls in the process of aquiring a signal for
>an HD set. By law in the US all TVs must have a digiatl tuner. An
assuming they have a tuner
Bob Villa
> In article <pan.2010.08.17.21.38...@hahahahahahahah.nutz.I.am>,
> Meat Plow <mhyw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well I'm going to replace my 11 yr old 51" Panasonic projector.
> > Not because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
> > resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size
> > or slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with
> > super high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US.
> > What are some choices and their advantages?
>
> So you're not going 3D?
3D is a gimmick. We have the BD of "Coraline" in 3D and it is almost
as good as the demo I have seen at the showrooms.
Plain...@yawho.com
And here's a somewhat positive review.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/415/best-tvs-under-1000
I'm of the opinion that it would take a complete rework of the system
from studio to TV to get truely realistic colors. Heck, even
photgraphs are at best an approximation.
I always try to remember that what one person sees as a needless frill
someone else will see as a vital feature. And vice versa. So a
suggestion that the OP take a look is just that - a suggestion, not a
ringing endorsement of the technology.
PlainBill
William Sommerwerck
> Heck, even photgraphs are at best an approximation.
It's impossible to design a system that's 100% accurate. The main problem
seems to be that the green and blue cones' sensitivities overlap too much.
Meat Plow
I'm color blind anyway.