Which TV... Options

[dougefresh_]

Damn...you made some good choices. Samsung is the best when it comes to LCDs, and Panasonic is the best when it comes to plasma. What are you going to do with the TV? If it's just for watching shows and movies, I'd go with the plasma. The colors are deeper and richer, which I really like. If you're going to be playing games, you may want to go with the LCD, as it will most likely have a faster response time. Then again, that particular plasma has some sort of game mode where the response time increases, so maybe it's a wash. Plasmas are also slightly more prone to burn-in, but I've heard they've gotten better in that aspect over the years.

+1 on what are you using it for & Samsung being the best for LCD's, but you got the refresh rates backwards.

Most LCD's nowadays have either a 120hz or 240hz refresh rate, which isn't fast enough for gaming. You really need a refresh rate of 480, which the older plasma's have, and the new ones typically have a refresh rate of 600hz. The old LCD's with a 60hz refresh rate sucked ass, and you could easily see the motion blur just watching a football game or any other action sequence in a movie. Gaming was out of the question. I don't understand the point of getting something in hi-def and then having it blur. Some people don't really notice it too much, but it jumps off the screen for me.

The main difference is this:

LCD's: A Brighter picture, doesn't show black as well (like pitch black color appears like a dark gray). Much Slower refresh rate and therefore potential
motion blur. Uses 1/2 the power of Plasma tv's. However, if you don't do any gaming, the 240hz refresh rate should be plenty to avoid any motion blur for regular tv/movie watching.

Plasma's: Darker picture (like it's in "movie mode" all the time), but the refresh rate is so quick, you'll never have motion blur. Necessary for gaming.
Uses double the power as an LCD and gives off heat.

[BigBen]

I gotta call BS, the human eye cannot tell the difference between 120 and 240hz, its just not good enough, data suggests that only in rare and specific circumstances can the human eye detect a difference between 60hz and 120hz...

Don't get caught up in all the hype with that crap, the most important piece is getting progressive scan, proper sizing, and what fits your budget...

[dougefresh_]

I gotta call BS, the human eye cannot tell the difference between 120 and 240hz, its just not good enough, data suggests that only in rare and specific circumstances can the human eye detect a difference between 60hz and 120hz...

Don't get caught up in all the hype with that crap, the most important piece is getting progressive scan, proper sizing, and what fits your budget...

I don't know about the 120hz, but I would think the 240 would be okay. I brought Call of Duty (COD4) for PS3 over to my buddy's house who also has a PS3 for him to check it out one time. He has an older Sony Bravia LCD that was at 60Hz, and it was ridiculous... whooooshh... whoooshh (not the turbo whoosh) you couldn't see shit. There was so much motion blur, he started getting a headache and we turned it off after 3 minutes. Completely unplayable. I wouldn't buy a 120hz for that reason, and I'd want to actually play COD on a 240hz to see if it's okay before I bought one. Again though, if you're not gaming (and probably a 1st person shooters at that) it doesn't really matter. The speed of that game is way faster than any action movie you'll watch.
Personally, I'd get a 240hz Samsung... I like the brightness of the LCD's, and viewing angle is a non-issue with newer LCD's.

Link me that article about the human eye, I'd like to check it out. When I was looking at Samsung LCD's last year with my gf, I had to point out in the stores HD loop where the motion blur was happening on the 120hz LCD. Then she could see exactly what I was talking about, but she probably would not have noticed it. For some reason, it jumps off the screen for me. I guess I'm just a freak of nature. Some people would probably never notice it on a 120, so 240 may be fine like you say.

[BigBen]

Then you guys have crap TV's or crap cables, i have a 700 dollar 60hz Oliviea and i get no motion blur, it is totally playable... has anyone even considered the frame rater a PS3 outputs (or xbox 360)

[BigBen]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10243372-82.html

That sums it up but is hardly concrete, the reference i made was form a medical journal i am a subscriber too, i have seen Toshiba demo disk of the 60 v 120hz on a scrolling text across the bottom and the difference is dramatic, but, the in stor displays are DESIGNED to amplify the 60v120v240 effect by purposely displaying a shitty image to begin with, try it with ESPN's bottom line and see if you can find a difference....


http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/eyes-on-is-a-24.php
Sums it up again, the displays are rigged, in the real world its BS (or darn near), just like the display models all have the brightness and color jacked up with specilized disks with abnormally contrasty recordings trying to make you think that the 5:00 news will look as good a "Planet Earth" on blu ray does....

[dougefresh_]

Then you guys have crap TV's or crap cables, i have a 700 dollar 60hz Oliviea and i get no motion blur, it is totally playable... has anyone even considered the frame rater a PS3 outputs (or xbox 360)

I use all HDMI inputs and run everything through a decent Sony amp (w/ full HDMI, not pass-through) & Bose surround sound speaker set up. I've never seen any motion blur on our set ever, AND IT IS a crap tv... an older HP plasma TV, but it has a 480hz refresh rate. We were looking into getting a new one last year, but put it off because the picture is fine for the time being. Plus, I wanted a Samsung LCD, but after seeing the gaming on my friend's Sony, I was afraid that even the 120hz wouldn't cut it.

I doubt my friend has crap cables, as he's not one to cheap out on stuff, and dropped $3K on that Sony new (like 3+ years ago).
You lost me on the frame rater outputs.. I don't know what that is? He plays other games and I guess that are fine, but that older Sony @ 60hz just can't handle COD... it's way too fast for that thing.

Hmmm... Do you play Call of Duty 4 or 5 on that Oliveia? Maybe it's just that particular game or other fast FPS's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, aside from refresh rate, there are also several other "technical" specs worth comparing between the two sets. If that discount site you're looking at doesn't have good details, try going to BestBuy's site, and if they have both sets, select "compare" and get into the technical specs page. There's probably 30 things on there, including # of HDMI inputs, # colors it can produce, etc... I think they have snippets of what each of them mean, but I don't remember now.

[triplejumper18]

Refresh rate between LCD and Plasma aren't comparable because that's not what causes or cures motion blur.

[dougefresh_]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10243372-82.html

That sums it up but is hardly concrete, the reference i made was form a medical journal i am a subscriber too, i have seen Toshiba demo disk of the 60 v 120hz on a scrolling text across the bottom and the difference is dramatic, but, the in stor displays are DESIGNED to amplify the 60v120v240 effect by purposely displaying a shitty image to begin with, try it with ESPN's bottom line and see if you can find a difference....


http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/eyes-on-is-a-24.php
Sums it up again, the displays are rigged, in the real world its BS (or darn near), just like the display models all have the brightness and color jacked up with specilized disks with abnormally contrasty recordings trying to make you think that the 5:00 news will look as good a "Planet Earth" on blu ray does....

I know they rig those bad boys up in the store.. and I've seen that split screen scrolling thing. It's funny because even when they jack up the plasma's to fully bright, it still looks like "movie mode" (or they did a year ago, anyways). I like CNET reviews, and I'll check those out in their entirety later, but I gotta jet outta work in a few. I totally agree that the difference is probably subtle between 120hz and 240hz. It may just be that particular game that, which happens to by the only one I really play a lot.

[priceprince]

I bought a similar plasma from Best Buy a few months ago, I think it is the PN..550 from Samsung. It is by far the best TV I've ever seen, but this is coming from a guy who had a crappy Olevia 32" LCD for years. The only gripe is when I try to watch it when the blinds are open, the glare is pretty significant. But in a dimly lit/dark room, the plasma picture quality/contrast ratio can't be beat.
I'd definitely recommend the Samsung, but the new Panasonics are just as good.
A couple things though... the new generation of plasmas are just about impervious to image burn in, and most TVs have screen savers that pop up over a static screen after a couple minutes anyway. And the power consumption is waaay less than the old ones, my TV is energy star certified even. There are some articles on cnet that show yearly consumption of a LCD vs plasma, and it is not that different. Like the salesman told me when I bought mine... "if you care that your power bill for your TV is $6 a month instead of $5 for LCD, then you should get an LCD."

[BigBen]

I use all HDMI inputs and run everything through a decent Sony amp (w/ full HDMI, not pass-through) & Bose surround sound speaker set up. I've never seen any motion blur on our set ever, AND IT IS a crap tv... an older HP plasma TV, but it has a 480hz refresh rate. We were looking into getting a new one last year, but put it off because the picture is fine for the time being. Plus, I wanted a Samsung LCD, but after seeing the gaming on my friend's Sony, I was afraid that even the 120hz wouldn't cut it.

I doubt my friend has crap cables, as he's not one to cheap out on stuff, and dropped $3K on that Sony new (like 3+ years ago).
You lost me on the frame rater outputs.. I don't know what that is? He plays other games and I guess that are fine, but that older Sony @ 60hz just can't handle COD... it's way too fast for that thing.

Hmmm... Do you play Call of Duty 4 or 5 on that Oliveia? Maybe it's just that particular game or other fast FPS's.

I play COD:MW and got my copy of COD:MW2 last night at midnight (Lvl 10 baby), my point is that a refresh rate of 240,000,000,000hz does not do any good if the output is only 30hz... (P.S. i meant frame rates not rater haha)

So the question is, what does COD output form the PS3 or Xbox360.... if it is below 240Hz then your really not going to see a significant improvement.... and in all fairness some people are definitely more sensitive than others.

[triplejumper18]

I play COD:MW and got my copy of COD:MW2 last night at midnight (Lvl 10 baby), my point is that a refresh rate of 240,000,000,000hz does not do any good if the output is only 30hz... (P.S. i meant frame rates not rater haha)

So the question is, what does COD output form the PS3 or Xbox360.... if it is below 240Hz then your really not going to see a significant improvement.... and in all fairness some people are definitely more sensitive than others.

Frames per second (FPS) is different than the refresh rate (Hz) and that's different than response time (ms). That stuff doesn't make the difference in image blur because it's the LCD technology itself that causes image blur.

[BigBen]

Frames per second (FPS) is different than the refresh rate (Hz) and that's different than response time (ms). That stuff doesn't make the difference in image blur because it's the LCD technology itself that causes image blur.

Well then i guess i dont know enough about it....

What i do know is that on my 60hz TV i have no issues, so i will not be paying out the butt for anything any time soon...

Hey in the end if it looks good to you, who cares what the masses or studies say! Perception is reality right?!!??!

[LapisLazuli6]

I've decided on a 46" 1080p television, but idk what brand yet lol