Walmart prices do fall

[Smokey]

That's also contingent on the screen size. At 50", I think the difference [720P vs 1080P] is clearly visible at normal viewing distance. At 42" or below, it's marginal.

With bluray native resolution being 1080p, that comment might be irrelevant and outdated

[Woochifer]

With bluray native resolution being 1080p, that comment might be irrelevant and outdated

How would it be irrelevant? You're seeing more and more 1080p HDTVs in the smaller screen sizes. It's not really necessary because at normal viewing distances, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference from the lower priced 720p sets.

[Woochifer]

Woochifer

You seem really up on this stuff. What are your thoughts on Plasma for gaming. My plan is Sony PS3 - Honestly I don't play a lot of games but with the new games you tend to sit and play them for a few hours. Gone are the days of 20 minutes of Pac-Man. The games are kind of addicting. My concern is the burning colours into the screen. I had an old JVC tube television that actually burned a pink spot on the screen (could not be degaused as a fix).

With the newer plasma sets, you really have to have a fixed graphic on screen for a long time to get temporary image retention. Permanent burn in on the newer plasma sets really requires a lot of abuse. You just need pay attention and use a little common sense (i.e., don't leave static images on-screen for days on end). The newer anti-retention features are not at all noticeable (there's no mexican jumping bean effect -- that's old info).

Plasma seems to have a bad rap for losing life and once it runs out of plasma the screen is dead. But they seem a fair bit less expensive up here than LCD Televisions.

Plasma doesn't run out. The phosphors simply fade over time -- in principle, not much different than CRTs. The newer plasma panels have a rated service life (where the maximum light output reaches 50%) of 100,000 hours, which is higher than the CCFL backlights on LCD TVs.

I remember that when Plasma first came out the consensus was that the picture was way better than LCD. Is a 40 inch 720p Plasma competitive with 1080 LCD. Is there anything to be looking for with Plasma.

LCD picture quality has come a long way, but plasma TVs have also improved during that time. LCD and plasma have addressed many of their earlier weaknesses, but some differences are inherent to the design itself. The bottomline is that plasmas will never match the maximum light output of LCD, and LCD will never match the viewing angle of plasma. I chose plasma because I like the more film-like quality of the images. Now that I'm used to a plasma set, the off-angle color shifting with LCD TVs is very noticeable. Some people that like bright picture settings with LCDs probably won't like the lower light output on plasmas either.

The smallest plasma panel being made right now is 42". Panasonic is the only manufacturer that makes 42" plasma panels at 1080p resolution. Samsung and LG only make 720p panels in that size.

I have a Sony Bravia 40 inch LCD here and if I have a complaint it's that some faces seem to morph - the forehead will move but the rest of the face doesn't. It's kind of weird. Noticeable in the center of the screen. Happens on TV program not on DVDs.

You might have the picture set to some kind of justified stretch mode. The regular stretch mode will reformat the 4:3 images to 16:9 uniformly, which makes everybody on screen look fat. The justified stretch mode will lessen the stretch in the middle of the picture and progressively elongate the stretch as you get further to the sides.

If it's a SD TV program, you should try setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 (pillarboxed mode).

[Smokey]

How would it be irrelevant? You're seeing more and more 1080p HDTVs in the smaller screen sizes. It's not really necessary because at normal viewing distances, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference from the lower priced 720p sets.

I know what you are saying. But my argument was choosing a 720p set soley base on that fact might not be the best route. A 720p set will compromise 1080i and 1080p sources regardless.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

With the newer plasma sets, you really have to have a fixed graphic on screen for a long time to get temporary image retention. Permanent burn in on the newer plasma sets really requires a lot of abuse. You just need pay attention and use a little common sense. The newer anti-retention features are not at all noticeable (there's no mexican jumping bean effect -- that's old info).

Adding to this, a properly calibrated plasma will eliminate any chances of getting burn in. Burn in does not just come from leaving a static image on the screen. It comes from leaving a static image on the screen that has the contrast and brightness too high.

LCD picture quality has come a long way, but plasma TVs have also improved during that time. LCD and plasma have addressed many of their earlier weaknesses, but some differences are inherent to the design itself. The bottomline is that plasmas will never match the maximum light output of LCD, and LCD will never match the viewing angle of plasma. I chose plasma because I like the more film-like quality of the images. Now that I'm used to a plasma set, the off-angle color shifting with LCD TVs is very noticeable. Some people that like bright picture settings with LCDs probably won't the lower light output on plasmas either.

I don't get this off angle bit, even though I know it is true. I want to know who watches their sets at the angles where changes of the color happen. I know on one of my Sony's, I would have to be sitting so far to the side for the color to change, that it makes the picture unwatchable even if the color didn't change

You might have the picture set to some kind of justified stretch mode. The regular stretch mode will reformat the 4:3 images to 16:9 uniformly, which makes everybody on screen look fat. The justified stretch mode will lessen the stretch in the middle of the picture and progressively elongate the stretch as you get further to the sides.

If it's a SD TV program, you should try setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 (pillarboxed mode).

I good stretch mode will just stretch the picture without adding any artifacts. Sony is particularly good at this, and so is Samsung.

[GMichael]

I'd rather have the grey bars to each side than to use any of the stretch modes available. Artifacts or not, stretching is just wrong IMO.

[Woochifer]

Adding to this, a properly calibrated plasma will eliminate any chances of getting burn in. Burn in does not just come from leaving a static image on the screen. It comes from leaving a static image on the screen that has the contrast and brightness too high.

Although I will say that some video game images do produce much higher contrast images than what you will typically see from TV or disc content.

I don't get this off angle bit, even though I know it is true. I want to know who watches their sets at the angles where changes of the color happen. I know on one of my Sony's, I would have to be sitting so far to the side for the color to change, that it makes the picture unwatchable even if the color didn't change

Here are some clips from Displaymate's website (they sell calibration software, but also post some interesting test articles) where they photographed some test images at different angles. The article goes to great lengths to identify the angles at which color shifting begins. For the LCD sets that they tested, you did not have to go too far off-center for image alterations become visible. Once I picked up on the off-center color shifting, it's became a distraction whenever I go over to somebody's house and watch something on a LCD TV.


Panasonic plasma at 0 degree angle

Panasonic plasma at 45 degree angle


Sony LCD at 0 degree angle

Sony LCD at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

I also think that it could have to do with the type of LCD panel used -- not all LCD panels are created alike. From my understanding, IPS panels have the widest viewing angle, but they are also the most expensive ones to produce. PVA panels cost less and offer up similar color resolution, but have a slightly narrower viewing angle. The least expensive TN panels are more common with computer monitors, and rarely used with TVs because of their narrow viewing angle and lower color range. Unless it's in the literature, the only way you can identify the type of LCD panel used by a TV is to open up the back panel and check the OEM number. The HD Guru site also posts info about the LCD panel type used in certain models.

Panasonic uses IPS panels exclusively for their LCD TVs (since they are a prominent OEM vendor of IPS LCD panels), and I think that Sharp and Hitachi also use IPS panels. Sony and Samsung manufacture and use both types

I good stretch mode will just stretch the picture without adding any artifacts. Sony is particularly good at this, and so is Samsung.

The thing is that some people just don't like to see everything look fat on screen. With my Panny, the justified mode will keep the proportions closer to normal towards the center of the screen. This works surprisingly well since most TV programs tend to direct the action towards the center of the screen. But, it still looks strange because any stretch mode is going to muck around with the picture quite a bit. LG I think calls it horizon mode and it's more of a zoom feature that stretches the image, but keep the proportions more normal by cropping some of the top and bottom.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Although I will say that some video game images do produce much higher contrast images than what you will typically see from TV or disc content.



Here are some clips from Displaymate's website (they sell calibration software, but also post some interesting test articles) where they photographed some test images at different angles. The article goes to great lengths to identify the angles at which color shifting begins. For the LCD sets that they tested, you did not have to go too far off-center for image alterations become visible. Once I picked up on the off-center color shifting, it's became a distraction whenever I go over to somebody's house and watch something on a LCD TV.


Panasonic plasma at 0 degree angle

Panasonic plasma at 45 degree angle


Sony LCD at 0 degree angle

Sony LCD at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

I also think that it could have to do with the type of LCD panel used -- not all LCD panels are created alike. From my understanding, IPS panels have the widest viewing angle, but they are also the most expensive ones to produce. PVA panels cost less and offer up similar color resolution, but have a slightly narrower viewing angle. The least expensive TN panels are more common with computer monitors, and rarely used with TVs because of their narrow viewing angle and lower color range. Unless it's in the literature, the only way you can identify the type of LCD panel used by a TV is to open up the back panel and check the OEM number. The HD Guru site also posts info about the LCD panel type used in certain models.

Panasonic uses IPS panels exclusively for their LCD TVs (since they are a prominent OEM vendor of IPS LCD panels), and I think that Sharp and Hitachi also use IPS panels. Sony and Samsung manufacture and use both types



The thing is that some people just don't like to see everything look fat on screen. With my Panny, the justified mode will keep the proportions closer to normal towards the center of the screen. This works surprisingly well since most TV programs tend to direct the action towards the center of the screen. But, it still looks strange because any stretch mode is going to muck around with the picture quite a bit. LG I think calls it horizon mode and it's more of a zoom feature that stretches the image, but keep the proportions more normal by cropping some of the top and bottom.

I have seen this test, and have some displaymate software I use for calibration.

I know all of the Sony sets I own use the IPS panel, because Sony uses these panels on their mid and higher end models. I also know they use IPS panels for their 3D sets, and Samsung does as well.

I got a really good price on Panasonic's 65" 3D plasma panels. They regularly sell for a hair less than 5G's, but I got them for $2600 a piece. I am going to use one in my Orlando home, and the other two in my studio. My accountant wanted to kill me dead, but the deal was too good to resist.

[RGA]

So an update. The Philips 240hz models seem to be a gimmick. The fellow at FS said that most people wind up turning the motion blur thing completely off - he says it's not a true 240hz model and the 1ms response time is a gimmick. Though it looks fine.

He doesn't like the LG models because there is a problem with the sync on a lot of them for video game players, audio and video not in sync. the 32 inch Philips advertises right on the box "PC-In" and yet has no PC VGA connection LOL.

He said the Samsung and Sony 60hz 1080p 40inch will be more than fine at a distance larger than 6 feet and that many don't really see the benefit of the 120hz. Unless it's sports. He said for movies or PS3 games there is no advantage. The backlight is worthwhile but only in the XBR models which are about 4 times the money. He was also not impressed by paying more for the light level adjustments. He also noted that Sony, Sharp, and Samsung 60hz TVs are usually better than the 120 hz models from the others.

So there are two 40 inch TV's - both 1080P both 60hz. The Samsung LN40C530 40 is less expensive than the Sony and has a swivel stand. To get 120hz version seems to be close to 50% more money. just doesn't seem worth if it.

Customer satisfaction seems pretty high to boot. http://www.google.com/products/catal...wAg&os=reviews

[Woochifer]

So an update. The Philips 240hz models seem to be a gimmick. The fellow at FS said that most people wind up turning the motion blur thing completely off - he says it's not a true 240hz model and the 1ms response time is a gimmick. Though it looks fine.

240 Hz can make a difference if it's correctly implemented, even with the motion interpolation switched off. But, keep in mind that many 240 Hz TVs, especially those in the lower price ranges, implement it by simply strobing the backlight. The screen itself does not actually refresh at that rate, and aside from being a deceptive marketing ploy, strobing the backlight at 240 Hz with a 120 Hz LCD panel has the net effect of reducing the maximum light output by about half.

Sony and Samsung implement 240 Hz correctly by using two separate video processors, each running at 120 Hz. I don't think that any video processors have a native 240 Hz rate yet, so this expensive method is the only way to do it correctly at the moment.

The thing you have to remember about going to 120 Hz and 240 Hz refresh is that they are supposed to reduce motion blur and juddering. The higher refresh rate can already help reduce motion blur, while the motion interpolation feature further smooths out the picture (but at the expense of all kinds of video artifacts that make the picture look fake).

He said the Samsung and Sony 60hz 1080p 40inch will be more than fine at a distance larger than 6 feet and that many don't really see the benefit of the 120hz. Unless it's sports.

Actually, the other benefit of 120 Hz (or any other even numbered multiple of 24, such as 72 Hz or 96 Hz) is the judder reduction on film-based sources. Where you really see judder is with the end credits or with any slow panning scenes.

[pixelthis]

So an update. The Philips 240hz models seem to be a gimmick. The fellow at FS said that most people wind up turning the motion blur thing completely off - he says it's not a true 240hz model and the 1ms response time is a gimmick. Though it looks fine.

He doesn't like the LG models because there is a problem with the sync on a lot of them for video game players, audio and video not in sync. the 32 inch Philips advertises right on the box "PC-In" and yet has no PC VGA connection LOL.

He said the Samsung and Sony 60hz 1080p 40inch will be more than fine at a distance larger than 6 feet and that many don't really see the benefit of the 120hz. Unless it's sports. He said for movies or PS3 games there is no advantage. The backlight is worthwhile but only in the XBR models which are about 4 times the money. He was also not impressed by paying more for the light level adjustments. He also noted that Sony, Sharp, and Samsung 60hz TVs are usually better than the 120 hz models from the others.

So there are two 40 inch TV's - both 1080P both 60hz. The Samsung LN40C530 40 is less expensive than the Sony and has a swivel stand. To get 120hz version seems to be close to 50% more money. just doesn't seem worth if it.

Customer satisfaction seems pretty high to boot. http://www.google.com/products/catal...wAg&os=reviews

TALK to another salesman.
Every modern set has a backlight control, and they can make a difference, they allow you to increase black level in a dim room, for instance.
SONY, sharp, and Samsung do tend to be better, but cost better, and I have not found a 60hz that can beat a 120 hz, not saying they don't exist, but every 120hz I have seen has looked fine.
240hz is under the law of diminishing returns, 75% of the picture is fake, extrapolated
frames, unless your processor is amazing you are not even watching anything real most of the time.
The PC thing is a minor issue, an HDMI adapter ( or a component adapter) will work fine.
A video card with HDMI is less than a hundred bucks.
A vga to DVI connected to a DVI- HDMI or any number of combinations works fine.
CANT beleive what you heard about the backlight, its absolutely rediculous.
In a dim room I turn mine down to 25% sometimes, the black levels look amazing.
Finally, a friend has a 46" SAMSUNG, bought a 42" PHILLIPS for his bedroom, likes
the pic better than his Samsung.
Go figure

[RGA]

Pixelthis

The thing is when I look at them I like the Philips the best but the settings may just be better out of the box.

It's basically between these

Philips http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...aff6bbb9ceen02

Sony http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...9b241bcacben02

Samsung
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...6e1f2a84aben02

On paper the Philips looks to be by far the best of the three of them. I assume that the Philips may not be a true 240hz but would it be a true 120hz? I assume you can make selections. The 40 inch Philips does have the PC VGA - just the 32 does not but they obviously just use the same box screening.

Both the Sony and Samsung are 60hz - the Sony has auto light adjustment for the room. Samsung's does not but has the swivel which would be useful - not a big deal though.

The guy who works for Philips testing them claims that it is a true 240hz so now I am thinking maybe FS (commission) is trying to get rid of the 60hz televisions - maybe has more money in it?