HDTVs and Contrast ratios.

Artoria

I'm looking at 2 different TVs both of them are by Sharp and both of them at 65 Inch.

the first once I was looking at is this one.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8758052&type=product&id=1216423487202

Very nice TV has everything I need/want on it and a 10,000:1 contrast Ratio

Then there is this one.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8734211&type=product&id=1201913529944

It has a 27,000:1 contrast Ration and costs another $3,000

My question is this am I going to notice a huge difference between the two? is the better contrast Ratio worth the extra $3000?

Like I said I plan this to be the last TV I buy for at least 15 or more years so I want to do this right.

thanks!

mcdermott

Like I said I plan this to be the last TV I buy for at least 15 or more years so I want to do this right.

The odds of this are nearly zero.

Just sayin'.

Trying to drop the "big bucks" in the hopes of never buying again, especially in a technology that is still fairly new (not quite cutting edge, but still), is generally a bad idea. You'll almost always be better of spending half that now, then half that again in like 3-5 years...the TV get in 3-5 yeas for half the price will kick the ass of the TV you'd buy today, and now you will have two TVs as well.

Kind of unsolicited advice, but thought I'd throw that out there.



On contrast ratios, don't believe everything you read. Generally the same company will measure them roughly the same way across different models, but they're still far from the kind of objective measurement they're touted as. I've seen 10,000:1 models that looked washed out as fuck, and 5,000:1 models that kicked their ass.

In this case, due to the above, I heartily recommend against spending the extra $3000. That $3000 will probably buy you a better TV than either of them in five years, and again then you'll have two. Or be able to re-sell the old one. Also, if you're in a financial situation where you really have to ask if the extra $3K is worth it, it almost certainly isn't. If nothing else, from a movie/gaming standpoint, you'd likely be better off taking $1K-$2K of that and dumping it into your audio setup, unless that's already tip-motherfuckin'-top.


EDIT: Thinking about it for an extra second, I may be exaggerating a bit on the rate at which costs of electronics fall. The point is still good, though, even if the specific ratios are a bit off.

cloudeagle

Assuming the manufacturer isn't fibbing about the ratios, there's really not that huge a difference between those two numbers. At least not enough to be worth another $3,000. 10,000:1 is quite nice as TVs go.

PeregrineFalcon

I'm betting those are some deliciously bullshitty "Dynamic Contrast Ratios" - IE, they'll measure a single, solar-flare intense point of bright white on a black screen as the "peak", then power the screen off and measure that as "low."

And mcdermott is spot-on. Buy a damned good TV now, get a good audio setup, and have change left for 5 years down the road when you buy an even more pimpin' setup.

Djeet

I'm thinking the price difference has more to do with the 2nd TV having a higher refresh rate to the first (120hz vs. 60hz). My understanding is 120hz means smoother motion, particularly in higher speed scenes, and 2:3 pulldown can be avoided. This is one of the new features of higher end TVs. Since you're blowing a big wad of cash, go educate yourself at the TV sticky thread at Moe's. Or go see for yourself at the store (compare apples to apples, similar setting on the TV's and same source material). If you cannot tell the difference, save the cash and buy the cheaper one. $3K can buy a sweet sound system, or a lot of movies, or both.

Captain Vash

The more expensive television almost certainly has a more advanced post processing unit.
Video upscaling, static cleanup and all that business...
basically, the 7k television would be pimping, but as has been said, 5-6 years from now OLED will be prevalent and for 3k you'll get a television half as slim, twice as bright with double the contrast.

Sir Headless VII

Can you not just goto bestbuy and see the difference yourself?

Scrublet

While this forum works good on a general level for all advice, I would repost this question in the Moe's Tech subforum of G&T. There's a TV thread stickyed at the top, regulars in there tend to know a ridiculous amount about stuff like this.

Rook

A film in a cinema from a projector has a contrast of about 500:1 ish for comparison. And I don't know if the software controlling dynamic contrast has improved in recent years but I've always found it makes a film look horrible, blacking out dark scenes, removing all the detail.

L*2*G*X

I understand plasma screens (kuros, at that) will be near-perfect next year, and the highest-end lcd tv's with led backlighting are perfect apart from motion resolution.

I've been researching TV's in-depth the last 6 months and this is my rule of thumb: Spend 2500 or 500$, but not inbetween.

if you can spend 2500$ you will get a very good tv. Anything less will have issues because of imperfect technology, wich will make you long for an old CRT tv like you long for your mom's.. well.

Two years from now the solutions for those technological issues will be in full production. Also at that point the perfect plasma and lcd technology will be scrapped so OLED tv's can be pushed. That is the sweet spot right there, christmas 2010.

In the meanwhile, get something cheap and replaceable.