Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

Just a warning, plasma screen TVs can "burn" an image into your screen, leaving it there forever (traces of it), as a LCD/LED will not. I agree with Shayne, wait for LED to get cheaper and then go for it. I'm sure there will be some nice deals on Black Friday if you get up at 4:30 AM lol. However, I'm perfectly happy with the LCD I have. Vizio and Samsung are both good/cheap companies.

[Afrobean]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

first off, the numbers given are usually what's called dynamic contrast ratio.

Yeah, dynamic is basically worthless. But the contrast ratio itself is important. If it can't do solid blacks and solid whites, it ain't worth ****.

many LCD's have a power-saving feature. When the screen is mostly black, the backlight dims or shuts off.

Not completely. When my LCD is showing a screen of solid black, it is still backlit. Other LCDs are probably better about this, but that's exactly what I was saying: contrast ratio is important and one should check out a TV in person before committing to an investment.

static contrast ratio only matters in low ambient light

I don't know about you, but I do a lot of TV watching in low ambient light.

And like I said, it varies from set to set with LCDs being the weakest.

Most NTSC sets operate or used to operate at 60Hz. The most common 3D method involves alternating between 2 different perspectives rapidly. So, in order to get dat fluid 60fps motion, they just doubled the refresh rate and boom 3D*.

You're right, except that almost all 3D content (i.e., Blu-rays) are NOT 30 or 60 frames per second. They're 24. Film is 24 frames per second. For 24 frames per second to display 1:1 on a TV set, it needs 120 Hz, because 120 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 30. In order to do frame-alternating 3D, it needs twice the frame rate, 240 Hz.

And like I said, most people will never have any problem with viewing 24 FPS film displayed at "30 fps". Frankly, I've not yet found myself bothered by it, but ideally, I would like a display that does 24 fps like it's supposed to be, even if the 60 Hz display looks good to me.

I'm not sure if 120 Hz even can display 24 fps content with frame-sequences stereoscopic 3D. They'd need glasses which could sync to the irregular cadence that 24 fps content goes to when displayed on 60 Hz sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2:3_pulldown#2:3_pulldown

It talks of interlacing, but that's not how it's done for progressive sets. Pretty sure they just repeat every third frame for an extra cycle. This produces something like 6 frames in each second which are on screen longer than the remaining 18 frames. People don't generally notice this stuff because it goes by so quickly though. Same idea with interlacing in general. It happens so quickly that people without an eye for it don't even know it happens.

Just a warning, plasma screen TVs can "burn" an image into your screen, leaving it there forever (traces of it), as a LCD/LED will not. I agree with Shayne, wait for LED to get cheaper and then go for it. I'm sure there will be some nice deals on Black Friday if you get up at 4:30 AM lol. However, I'm perfectly happy with the LCD I have. Vizio and Samsung are both good/cheap companies.

Actually, plasmas are a lot better about this sort of thing these days. No reasonable person should have any problems with burn-in on a current issue plasma. Even older ones don't pose much threat as long as one is careful.

[darkshark]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

OLED technology is currently taking off, which in turn is going to drive the cost of TVs down in general. Once enough factories are built to produce OLED screens, it won't be uncommon to see large sized TV's for $200-$300. LCD and regular LED screens will likely become obsolete. Though I think the largest OLED TV built right now is around 40", but that number can only increase.

[MrGiggles]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

Yeah I watch my TV with the lights on so contrast ratio isn't important to me. I should have made that more apparent MY B.

I'm also about 90% sure that 120Hz sets can play 24fps (would it be 48fps 3D?) 3D content. I feel like they could simply play it same way as a 60Hz monitor would play 24fps, but doubled for each eye. I don't know why that wouldn't work but you might.

I'm absolutely 100% positive, however, that 120Hz became popular as a result of the 3D craze and not because purist film connoisseurs whined about pulldown.

[justaguy]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

Yeah, dynamic is basically worthless. But the contrast ratio itself is important. If it can't do solid blacks and solid whites, it ain't worth ****.


Not completely. When my LCD is showing a screen of solid black, it is still backlit. Other LCDs are probably better about this, but that's exactly what I was saying: contrast ratio is important and one should check out a TV in person before committing to an investment.


I don't know about you, but I do a lot of TV watching in low ambient light.

And like I said, it varies from set to set with LCDs being the weakest.


You're right, except that almost all 3D content (i.e., Blu-rays) are NOT 30 or 60 frames per second. They're 24. Film is 24 frames per second. For 24 frames per second to display 1:1 on a TV set, it needs 120 Hz, because 120 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 30. In order to do frame-alternating 3D, it needs twice the frame rate, 240 Hz.

And like I said, most people will never have any problem with viewing 24 FPS film displayed at "30 fps". Frankly, I've not yet found myself bothered by it, but ideally, I would like a display that does 24 fps like it's supposed to be, even if the 60 Hz display looks good to me.

I'm not sure if 120 Hz even can display 24 fps content with frame-sequences stereoscopic 3D. They'd need glasses which could sync to the irregular cadence that 24 fps content goes to when displayed on 60 Hz sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2:3_pulldown#2:3_pulldown

It talks of interlacing, but that's not how it's done for progressive sets. Pretty sure they just repeat every third frame for an extra cycle. This produces something like 6 frames in each second which are on screen longer than the remaining 18 frames. People don't generally notice this stuff because it goes by so quickly though. Same idea with interlacing in general. It happens so quickly that people without an eye for it don't even know it happens.


Actually, plasmas are a lot better about this sort of thing these days. No reasonable person should have any problems with burn-in on a current issue plasma. Even older ones don't pose much threat as long as one is careful.

damn you almost have 20k posts wtf

[Afrobean]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

I'm also about 90% sure that 120Hz sets can play 24fps (would it be 48fps 3D?) 3D content. I feel like they could simply play it same way as a 60Hz monitor would play 24fps, but doubled for each eye. I don't know why that wouldn't work but you might.

They might be able to. But 24fps content has a strange cadence when played back on a 60 Hz set.

it basically goes like this:

AABBCCCDDEEFFFGGHHIIIJJKKLLL

I think, anyway. So the glasses would have to be able to detect this unusual pattern and alternate the LCD shutters on the glasses appropriately in time.

I'm absolutely 100% positive, however, that 120Hz became popular as a result of the 3D craze and not because purist film connoisseurs whined about pulldown.

120 Hz has existed for years, LOOOOOOOOOONG before 3DTV was actually a realistic possibility. It came about because of Blu-ray's native support for 24p playback.

You'd be surprised what film purists demand. For example, I got Back to the Future on Blu-ray recently and it looks ****ing amazing. But some people want to complain about visual anomalies that are only visible in stills and is completely invisible in normal playback. Some have even refused to buy it because of this... even though the alternative option of DVD is WAY worse.

Anyway, 60 Hz is already enough to display 30 fps content in 3D using alternating frames. Higher hertz rates could only serve two possible functions: different frame rate support as I said, or smoother video using frame interpolation.

[MrGiggles]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

They might be able to. But 24fps content has a strange cadence when played back on a 60 Hz set.

it basically goes like this:

AABBCCCDDEEFFFGGHHIIIJJKKLLL

I think, anyway. So the glasses would have to be able to detect this unusual pattern and alternate the LCD shutters on the glasses appropriately in time.


120 Hz has existed for years, LOOOOOOOOOONG before 3DTV was actually a realistic possibility. It came about because of Blu-ray's native support for 24p playback.

You'd be surprised what film purists demand. For example, I got Back to the Future on Blu-ray recently and it looks ****ing amazing. But some people want to complain about visual anomalies that are only visible in stills and is completely invisible in normal playback. Some have even refused to buy it because of this... even though the alternative option of DVD is WAY worse.

Anyway, 60 Hz is already enough to display 30 fps content in 3D using alternating frames. Higher hertz rates could only serve two possible functions: different frame rate support as I said, or smoother video using frame interpolation.

Yeah nevermind I just went and did some research and my findings fit with what ya sayin about this. Although 60Hz is not nearly enough for 3D, 30fps will give you headaches in minutes.

SO I WAS WRONG

ARE YOU HAPPY AFROMBEAM

[Afrobean]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

SO I WAS WRONG

ARE YOU HAPPY AFROMBEAM

No. Why would I be glad when other people are wrong?

ps good video about hertz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ur9IF5OmU

[justaguy]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

afrobean you are so weird dude wtf

[darkshark]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

afrobean you are so weird dude wtf

How is he weird? Weird in the fact that he doesn't gloat about being right? I think FFR needs more of this.

[justaguy]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

How is he weird? Weird in the fact that he doesn't gloat about being right? I think FFR needs more of this.

No...

[ninjaKIWI]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

3D is a stupid gimmick and looks terrible in my opinion, just like touch screens.

[darkshark]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

just like touch screens.

Touch screens are anything but a gimmick. They've opened up a whole new world when it comes to mobile technology and efficiency. Not to mention it's not like making a screen into a touchscreen reduces the screen's quality by any perceptible amount.

If you wanna stick with a mouse and trackball, by all means do so, the rest of us can enjoy this new technology. (Not that touchscreen technology is new, but its uses are)

[Afrobean]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

3D is a stupid gimmick and looks terrible in my opinion, just like touch screens.

Whenever I hear someone say "3D is a stupid gimmick", I can't help but imagine that some moviegoers in the 1930s must have been saying things like "color is a stupid gimmick."

Or moviegoers in the 1950s saying things like "widescreen is a stupid gimmick."

Sure, 3D can be a stupid gimmick, but so can almost anything which can be a legitimate tool in filmmaking. We just need quality cinematographers and directors to get on board with it and show us what can kind of artistic designs can be pulled from it. Throwing things out of the screen is terrible, but using and manipulating to add depth to a picture can be an amazing artistic value. There is nothing that can add depth the way a stereoscopic picture can.

[ninjaKIWI]

Re: Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

Touch screens are anything but a gimmick. They've opened up a whole new world when it comes to mobile technology and efficiency. Not to mention it's not like making a screen into a touchscreen reduces the screen's quality by any perceptible amount.

If you wanna stick with a mouse and trackball, by all means do so, the rest of us can enjoy this new technology. (Not that touchscreen technology is new, but its uses are)

Touchscreens may be fine for mobile stuff like cell phones and the such, but I'm talking PC monitors.

Sure, 3D can be a stupid gimmick, but so can almost anything which can be a legitimate tool in filmmaking. We just need quality cinematographers and directors to get on board with it and show us what can kind of artistic designs can be pulled from it. Throwing things out of the screen is terrible, but using and manipulating to add depth to a picture can be an amazing artistic value. There is nothing that can add depth the way a stereoscopic picture can.

Well, I don't know what to say. You're right, but I haven't enjoyed it at all so far.