Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The TV Thread: More for Less

2456733

Posts

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Skoal Cat wrote: »
    Contrast ratios are bullshit. There is no real standard anyone measures againsts.

    But, since they are both from the same manufacturer, you can assume they use the same bullshit standard, which means the two numbers should actually be compared.

    Just don't compare a listed Sony contract ratio to a Vizio one.

  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Touche.
    I'd read some reviews on AVSforums to see what fanatics are saying.

    edit: Its actually a $90 difference once the TVs are in your cart

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Got a Harmony One today 8-)

    next stop ceton infinitv 4 (once i can convince myself to shell out for one)

    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    So, uh, for a 4-year-old LCD, my 37LG50 is pretty nice.

    The remote sensor board failing that one time sucked, but I'm glad I had a protection plan on it.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    So the general consensus is that 4,000,000:1 and 5,000,000:1 is not a noticeable difference? That's all I really want to know. Otherwise why are they two different TVs with that price difference? The extra USB port on the more expensive one can't be worth 90 bucks. >_>

    Plus, that extra $90 buys a hell of a lot of games on Steam. :P

    steam_sig.png
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited May 2011
    I suspect the 5,000,000 one is a newer model, and the contrast ratio was upped as general advancements in the technology they were previously using.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    $300 42" 3D Vizio at Sams Club?

    That seems like a good price point.....

  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Holy shit thats a great price point. What model?

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • Folken FanelFolken Fanel J.2C When's KoFRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hey I'm not sure if I should just make and H/A thread or not but you guys seem better equipped to handle this question.

    My parents got a surround sound system for their tv. Its really meant for a PC but it should hypothetically work for a TV too. The problem is... the TV only outputs sound via S/PDIF and a headphone jack. The subwoofer gets plugged into an electrical outlet and the sound source can be plugged into the subwoofer via 3.5 mm or rca jacks.

    I checked monoprice but there doesn't seem to be a any converters from S/PDIF to -anything-

    I'm pretty technologically illiterate so I'm not sure if a solution even exists with this tv. I tried putting it through the 3.5mm headphone jack but the rear speakers just spit out static. I read that the type of surround sound from S/PDIF is different from "virtual" surround sound systems.

    Can anyone let me know if there's a solution to this? For reference, the surround sound system is a logitech Z506.

  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    One last question, and it's (hopefully) a simple one: Is 3D worth it? And because I wear glasses, I presume it'll be a major conflict if I have to wear another pair of glasses to use the 3D capability?

    Note: I do not own a 3D-capable blu-ray player (unless PS3 can do it, no idea on that one.) edit: apparently it can.

    steam_sig.png
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited May 2011
    I don' think its worth it (at least not yet), but the market (read: manufacturer) has dictated that there is no going back.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Also am I seeing this correctly? There are almost no 3D-capable HDTV's that actually come with a pair of glasses? That would make the decision much easier.

    Edit: It's done. I decided to hold off on the 3D stuff until I feel like I'd actually...you know, use it. I ended up going with a 46" Samsung LED-LCD.

    steam_sig.png
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I went with a 3D TV because I couldn't pass up the deal I got from Fry's.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I was so close to going with a 3D tv. Ultimately I didn't feel like it would be worth it for a few reasons:

    -I'd have to start buying 3D blu-ray movies on a regular basis to get any sort of frequent use out of it
    -I'd have to buy expensive-to-purchase and expensive-to-fix-if-they-ever-break goddamn glasses for it
    -There aren't enough channels broadcasting in 3D yet
    -I can live just fine with playing my vidjagames in 2D

    steam_sig.png
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    My TV is the LG 55LW5600. It's passive, does 2D->3D and vice-versa, and the glasses are $8 apiece.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • orionminusorionminus Registered User
    edited June 2011
    Late to the party but in February I'm walking through Costco and I see they have two 2010 Panasonic 3D HD Plasma TV's on sale:

    A 42' for $699 and a 46' for $899.

    They're both 3D, 1080P but the 46' has THX and comes with a free pair of 3D glasses so I picked that one up.

    Very happy with the price I paid and the quality of the TV, LA Noire looks amazing on it.

    The TV I was replacing was a Panasonic 27' flat screen Tau that I bought 10 years ago.

    That sucker weighs 108 pounds and is now in my 13 year old little brothers room, she's still banging like a champ.

    I'm a Panasonic customer for life.

  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Samsung is, afaik, considered by most to be the best lcd maker.

    So good choice.

    But I own a Westinghouse, so my opinion doesn't count for shit.

  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Triple B wrote: »
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    I don't see a case to buy a Panasonic LCD over Samsung unless it's on sale. However, I don't see a case to buy a Samsung anything over a Panasonic plasma because I rarely see a sale undercut them by much if the quality is comparable.

    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.
  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    I don't see a case to buy a Panasonic LCD over Samsung unless it's on sale. However, I don't see a case to buy a Samsung anything over a Panasonic plasma because I rarely see a sale undercut them by much if the quality is comparable.

    Yeah, but I figure LED-LCD is pretty good technology, and plasma (with all its advantages) has a lot of disadvantages as well.

    steam_sig.png
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited June 2011
    LED LCDs are awesome. We have some at work and I got to take an awesome video microscope to check out the detail.
    So, so fucking cool.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Triple B wrote: »
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    I don't see a case to buy a Panasonic LCD over Samsung unless it's on sale. However, I don't see a case to buy a Samsung anything over a Panasonic plasma because I rarely see a sale undercut them by much if the quality is comparable.

    Yeah, but I figure LED-LCD is pretty good technology, and plasma (with all its advantages) has a lot of disadvantages as well.

    Unless you're talking about weight and power, no it really doesn't. In fact plasma beats LED-LCD at every price point in picture quality, and it doesn't have to go up to the price points LED-LCD does to do it (except for that $6000 but that had nothing to do with picture quality, that was just a dumb ultra-thin thing).

    Around the 80s or something of the last thread I did the whole LED-LCD/plasma war with some dude. It finally ended with me digging up a bunch of reviews from multiple places all saying the same thing. It also wasted a ton of my time doing it and as fun as it was I've definitely reached the point where if people want to spend more money on a TV that has less picture quality and in some cases is thinner, they can knock themselves out.

    Edit Elaboration: That's not to knock their advancement over old LCD tech. That shit sucked, and they are definitely not bad. It's just a device that MUST be backlit to generate light is never going to hit the dark levels it needs to against a device that doesn't. Especially when the light's coming from the edge. The tech is just way too expensive when top-end 50" plasmas are often found sitting at $800.

    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Not sure if this is the place for this. Internet TV things, I'm interested in one but I don't know much about them. I was looking at the Roku XDS thing on Amazon, little box with wifi that let's you stream Netflix/Amazon video/etc right onto your TV. Apparently some TVs have this built in now. I think it'd be cool so that I could use my Amazon prime videos and Netflix on my nice new TV, but I don't know anything about it aside from what they say they're supposed to do.

    I don't have a laptop (running with a rig) or any recent consoles (my newest console is my Dreamcast) that I can hook up to my TV. I'd prefer a Bluray player that does the internet TV thing as well as movies, but again there's a lack of information on them. Anyone know more about this?

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited June 2011
    We use Roku boxes at work for random shit, and the Facebook/Flickr/Picassa channels are pretty shitty. They keep glitching out on us. I haven't used anything else, but it is what it is.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Personally?

    I'd buy a netbook for ~$200 and hook it up to my TV if I was looking for connectivity.

  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    I don't see a case to buy a Panasonic LCD over Samsung unless it's on sale. However, I don't see a case to buy a Samsung anything over a Panasonic plasma because I rarely see a sale undercut them by much if the quality is comparable.

    Yeah, but I figure LED-LCD is pretty good technology, and plasma (with all its advantages) has a lot of disadvantages as well.

    Unless you're talking about weight and power, no it really doesn't. In fact plasma beats LED-LCD at every price point in picture quality, and it doesn't have to go up to the price points LED-LCD does to do it (except for that $6000 but that had nothing to do with picture quality, that was just a dumb ultra-thin thing).

    Around the 80s or something of the last thread I did the whole LED-LCD/plasma war with some dude. It finally ended with me digging up a bunch of reviews from multiple places all saying the same thing. It also wasted a ton of my time doing it and as fun as it was I've definitely reached the point where if people want to spend more money on a TV that has less picture quality and in some cases is thinner, they can knock themselves out.

    Edit Elaboration: That's not to knock their advancement over old LCD tech. That shit sucked, and they are definitely not bad. It's just a device that MUST be backlit to generate light is never going to hit the dark levels it needs to against a device that doesn't. Especially when the light's coming from the edge. The tech is just way too expensive when top-end 50" plasmas are often found sitting at $800.

    So plasma TVs don't have a half life after which they lose 50% of their brightness? A lot of reviews and compare/contrast articles I looked up mentioned this.

    Also, RE: contrast ratio/not being able to produce blacks that are "black enough". I find this to be a massively nitpick-y issue, personally. I've been using LCDs for years, never once used a plasma, and never once found myself going "Man, I wish these blacks were blacker. This truly is detrimental to my experience using this display."

    steam_sig.png
  • harvestharvest By birthright, a stupendous badass.Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So is it safe to say that LED LCD run cooler than normal LCD and plasma? Heat is the #1 problem with my current TV (apart from being broken).

    steam_sig.png
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Triple B wrote: »
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    Scrublet wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    I almost went with a Panny, myself. What brought me back to Samsung was the price/size ratio. The one I just ordered is 46" and cost me 1k, whereas Panasonic's 42" equivalent ran about 1200. Both 1080p, both 120Hz. I figured the Samsung was the easy choice. Plus it's one of those "Touch of Color" dealies so it'll look extra sexay.

    I don't see a case to buy a Panasonic LCD over Samsung unless it's on sale. However, I don't see a case to buy a Samsung anything over a Panasonic plasma because I rarely see a sale undercut them by much if the quality is comparable.

    Yeah, but I figure LED-LCD is pretty good technology, and plasma (with all its advantages) has a lot of disadvantages as well.

    Unless you're talking about weight and power, no it really doesn't. In fact plasma beats LED-LCD at every price point in picture quality, and it doesn't have to go up to the price points LED-LCD does to do it (except for that $6000 but that had nothing to do with picture quality, that was just a dumb ultra-thin thing).

    Around the 80s or something of the last thread I did the whole LED-LCD/plasma war with some dude. It finally ended with me digging up a bunch of reviews from multiple places all saying the same thing. It also wasted a ton of my time doing it and as fun as it was I've definitely reached the point where if people want to spend more money on a TV that has less picture quality and in some cases is thinner, they can knock themselves out.

    Edit Elaboration: That's not to knock their advancement over old LCD tech. That shit sucked, and they are definitely not bad. It's just a device that MUST be backlit to generate light is never going to hit the dark levels it needs to against a device that doesn't. Especially when the light's coming from the edge. The tech is just way too expensive when top-end 50" plasmas are often found sitting at $800.

    So plasma TVs don't have a half life after which they lose 50% of their brightness? A lot of reviews and compare/contrast articles I looked up mentioned this.

    Also, RE: contrast ratio/not being able to produce blacks that are "black enough". I find this to be a massively nitpick-y issue, personally. I've been using LCDs for years, never once used a plasma, and never once found myself going "Man, I wish these blacks were blacker. This truly is detrimental to my experience using this display."

    The black level thing really depends on how you use the television, though. Mine is next to the back door, and even with the blinds closed, the room is fairly well lit during the day. So even dark grey looks pretty damn black when I'm watching my set. However, if you have a theater room, well then we're talking about a whole different reality. In a nice dark room, light bleed and washy blacks would piss me right the fuck off. I'd probably want to smash my current set to bits.

    terriblepostsigpic.jpg
    AusPAX tickets get [X] Accomodation get [X] Plane tickets get [ ] Goodie giftbags made [ ]
  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Then you may have anger management issues. :P

    I feel like it's a very small, very vocal minority that experiences conditions where light bleed and blacks that look gray even become an issue, though.

    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Just like there is no difference between just using the TV speakers and a sweet reciever with a 7.1 setup.

    I mean, they are both just making noises, right? What could the difference be?

    Only a very vocal minority would make a fuss about that.

  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Just like there is no difference between just using the TV speakers and a sweet reciever with a 7.1 setup.

    I mean, they are both just making noises, right? What could the difference be?

    Only a very vocal minority would make a fuss about that.

    Yeah. Hardly noticeable--except for in very specific conditions--shades of gray/black, and tiny speakers vs. massive surround sound system. Same thing.

    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So you agree that you are wrong?

    And there totally is a difference between a Dynex and a Samsung?

    Because; There is. And you are wrong.

    Edit: I mean, if you want to argue that the only differnce between every tv on the market is tiny and unnoticable, maybe your opinion will find more ground in a [chat] thread or something.

    But coming into a video philes thread and telling us that since we all care about picture quality we are a vocal minority that doesnt know anything, well......

    I mean, sure. People that care about picture quality ARE a minotiry. But that doesn't mean your tv actually looks better when you turn the contrast/color up to 100.

  • Triple BTriple B Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So you agree that you are wrong?

    And there totally is a difference between a Dynex and a Samsung?

    Because; There is. And you are wrong.

    Edit: I mean, if you want to argue that the only differnce between every tv on the market is tiny and unnoticable, maybe your opinion will find more ground in a [chat] thread or something.

    But coming into a video philes thread and telling us that since we all care about picture quality we are a vocal minority that doesnt know anything, well......

    I mean, sure. People that care about picture quality ARE a minotiry. But that doesn't mean your tv actually looks better when you turn the contrast/color up to 100.

    Do you have a fucking inferiority complex? Find where I said you "don't know anything because you care about picture quality" and I will personally buy you a new TV of your choosing. Also, the word "minority" implies (read: means) that there is less of something. Do I think the number of people who care about/notice light bleed is smaller than those that don't? Yes. Personally? I don't find it to be that damn big a deal, because I don't even notice it when the screen is displaying something that isn't >50% black. I guess you really don't like the fact that it doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you. Either that or you honestly didn't know that when a person speaks, it's usually their own goddamn opinion they're conveying. (Note: It shouldn't have to be prefaced with an "IMO". Just take it for granted that the text that follows my name and avatar is my opinion.) Jesus tapdancing Christ, I hope you don't hurt yourself when you eventually fall off that horse.

    steam_sig.png
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    My parents have a Roku and it works super well for Netflix. Very easy setup, streams HD over the Wi-fi no problems.

  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    oooookay.

    I got a nice panasonic plasma a month or so ago and I noticed this afternoon that there is some burn in where black bars are on non-widescreen movies.

    The main reason for this is that my daughters kids movies are all 4:3 and have the black bars.

    I ran the built in bar pass thing for 15 minutes like it said, but I can still see the burn in on the screen on a static image.

    What, if anything, are my options for trying to get the burn-in out. The tv is only a freaking month old. I probably wouldn't notice it a lot of times, however, it's just going to probably get worse with the kids movies. :(

    Steam.gif Galedrid - WoW.gif Benediction - bnet.gif Galedrid#1367
    Origin.png Galedrid - FFXI.png Kingshand - FFXIV.png Galedrid Kingshand
    360.png Galedrid - WiiU.gif Galedrid - 3DS.png 3222-6858-1045
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Can you have it display static for a day or two? Apparently that can often fix burn-in.

    terriblepostsigpic.jpg
    AusPAX tickets get [X] Accomodation get [X] Plane tickets get [ ] Goodie giftbags made [ ]
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Do I need to make a dvd for that or something/ I don't see an option in the tv.

    Steam.gif Galedrid - WoW.gif Benediction - bnet.gif Galedrid#1367
    Origin.png Galedrid - FFXI.png Kingshand - FFXIV.png Galedrid Kingshand
    360.png Galedrid - WiiU.gif Galedrid - 3DS.png 3222-6858-1045
  • harvestharvest By birthright, a stupendous badass.Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I don't know how to fix it, but I know the best way to prevent it from getting worse: Get a 4:3 TV and use it for those movies. We keep a spare around for just that reason (and for SNES gaming).

    steam_sig.png
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited June 2011
    That simply should not be happening. Could it be image retention/ghosting? I'd call Panasonic if all else fails. A new plasma should not burn in under everything but extraordinary circumstances of abuse.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
Sign In or Register to comment.