As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The TV Thread: Holiday 2010 has ALREADY begun!

1246762

Posts

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    For some reason I thought DLP televisions were heavier than that Samsung is. Like at least twice as heavy..

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Malkor wrote: »
    For some reason I thought DLP televisions were heavier than that Samsung is. Like at least twice as heavy..

    I can pick up my 61" LED DLP by myself. And I am not Lou Ferrigno.
    Clipse wrote: »
    That site reads like a whole bunch of bullshit without any (actual, cited) scientific support as far as I can tell. The notion that nothing higher than 50:1 is worthwhile in a dimly lit room is absurd - I can tell the difference in contrast between my LCD and an older CRT in even a fairly well-lit room, and in a dimly-lit room it's a night-and-day difference. And both displays are far over 50:1.

    The only thing I can guess is that perhaps this was written about front projection displays (for which contrast really does suffer very badly from even dim lighting) and the website's staff assumed direct-view displays would be the same.

    EDIT: I should probably clarify, I agree that 10,000:1 is a perfectly good contrast ratio for a DLP display. I just felt I should point out that that website is, in general, bogus.

    Its primarily targeted for projector use, which makes many of their points make more sense. The primary reason I linked it was the support for the issue you agreed with, which is limed above.

    Raynaga on
  • Doc HollidayDoc Holliday Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    My 52" bulb DLP weighs 35 pounds.

    Doc Holliday on
    PSN & Live: buckwilson
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah, my dad's 50" bulb DLP weighs about 10 lbs. less than my LG 42" LCD.

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    And just to emphasize, if you do look at DLP make sure you go LED, at this stage there's no reason not to. No bulb replacement.

    Raynaga on
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Scrublet wrote: »
    The important spec is the 120 Hz refresh rate that helps the LCD cope with quicker movement

    No, the important part is that 120 is the least common multiple of 60 and 24, meaning that a 120Hz LCD can display both 24Hz (film) and 60Hz (TV/console) content natively. A higher refresh rate adds nothing to the ability to cope with quicker motion, except a guaranteed upper bound on the response time.

    This won't help with quicker movement? You are correct on the benefits of 120Hz with the 24fps content. However, the issue is that manufacturers often lump their anti-judder techniques in with this 120 Hz. So people say they love/hate 120 Hz when in fact it's anti-judder that they have a problem with. So, when someone asks if 120Hz is important, I always want to make sure they're talking about the speed of the TV. The extra refresh rate IS helpful, even with anti-judder turned off. If you think I'm wrong on that, go look at one of Samsung's new (and ridiculously overpriced) 240 Hz TVs next to one of their 60 or 120Hz TVs before debating it.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Is there any way to make SDTV look good on a nice 40" Samsung 1080p HDTV? Have HD service, and the HD channels look great... but the regular cable channels are horrible and almost not worth the TV upgrade.

    Tried viewing in both 4:3 and 16:9... it's equally bad.

    GPIA7R on
  • xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    SD looks pretty decent on my Samsung. Yeah it's not "OMG HD" but it doesn't look bad. It just looks like I'm watching TV on an old SD screen.

    xzzy on
  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I wrote out a post about my TV (a KDL37V5500) earlier, but somehow managed to close the tab (without pressing Ctrl-W) and lost it, only to find a bundle of rage instead.

    Basically, I've spent a few days with the TV now (playing games exclusively on it) and I'm pretty happy with my purchse. I'm no A/V expert at all so I can't comment on how black the blacks are or whether these settings would be better than those settings, but I consider myself a bit of a graphics whore and I like things to look nice. And on this TV, as far as I'm concerned, things look good. My main concern was the viewing-angle and ghosting with a fast-moving image, and I've so far not had a problem with either of these. There is some slight alteration in the image as you move around, but you've got to be a long way round, and even then it's hard to notice unless you're specifically looking for it. As for ghosting, the loading screen of Mirror's Edge has been my test (fast-moving red image across a white background) and it's come up perfect. ME in general seems a good game to test it out with, as you've got lots of bold primary colours contrasted against a white background, and the whole thing is meant to be moving along at a good speed anyway. Both that and Dead Space (lots of blacks) look absolutely gorgeous.

    Also just for fun, while playing with other options, I looked at some of the sample still images on there. Good grief, they're firstly some gorgeous pictures, but they look absolutely stunning on the screen. So vivid and clear.
    Again I'm no expert, but I know when I think something looks good, and things look good to me on this TV.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Is there any way to make SDTV look good on a nice 40" Samsung 1080p HDTV? Have HD service, and the HD channels look great... but the regular cable channels are horrible and almost not worth the TV upgrade.

    Tried viewing in both 4:3 and 16:9... it's equally bad.

    I think this Gizmodo article is addressing the same thing. Mainly the last paragraph about resampling. Maybe someone else can confirm whether or not this guy knows what he's talking about...I don't watch much TV in general (beyond sports, which led the HD charge) so I've never been worried about the SD features too much.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    xzzy wrote: »
    Complaints it puts artifacts in the image, or it "looks like ass", like someone was filming on a cell phone.. unspecific complaints like that. Like the image is "too real".

    But there's a lot of confusion with the topic. There's "120hz", and there's "Auto Motion Plus", which is some kind of wacky frame interpolation that tries to reduce blurring between two frames. I think some people complaining about the 120hz are actually complaining about AMP. The real benefit of 120hz is that the amount of cycles per second is evenly divisable by 24, which is the standard number of frames per second. On a 60hz screen, every other frame is held for 3 cycles. On a 120hz screen, every frame is held for 5 cycles.

    The problem is that people tend to prefer what they're used to. They see a 120hz screen and are uncomfortable because there's something wrong with the image they can't put their finger on.. specifically, every frame spends the same amount of time on the screen. AMP compounds the problem by 'creating' frames and inserting them between 'real' frames to try and make motion even smoother. This does not always work well.

    This is not correct for current generation LCD televisions. In current generation LCD televisions 120Hz is produced by using frame interpolation (called AutoMotion Plus, LiveMotion, etc etc etc by different vendors) to create frames that are inserted between existing frames. 120Hz inserts two frames per three frame sequence, 240Hz inserts four. Frames are not "held" on the screen - they are refreshed, they're just being refreshed with fake (for lack of a better term) material.

    These frames are created by processing the first and second frame and finding the visual middle ground between the changes. THAT'S the reason for the slick, video-like effect - it's quite literally creating information that was not there when the source was filmed.

    In my not so humble opinion this is worse than pan and scan - it's a violation of the directors' vision and it looks terrible. It's like the speed-up you'll see watching PAL material on an NTSC set without the actual time dialation.

    That said, it's fine for games (assuming you've got a set with a sufficiently fast processor that doesn't have an input delay. You'll find most game modes will actually turn off a great deal of the video processing (and in some cases, like Toshiba and Samsung, they'll actually crank the processor to provide faster chip-to-screen results).



    In response to plasma burn in for gaming: I've been raiding for upwards of four to six hours several times a week on my 42PZ80 Panasonic; not a lick of retention. This problem has been solved.

    Threepio on
    142.jpg
  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Threepio wrote: »
    This is not correct for current generation LCD televisions. In current generation LCD televisions 120Hz is produced by using frame interpolation (called AutoMotion Plus, LiveMotion, etc etc etc by different vendors) to create frames that are inserted between existing frames. 120Hz inserts two frames per three frame sequence, 240Hz inserts four. Frames are not "held" on the screen - they are refreshed, they're just being refreshed with fake (for lack of a better term) material.

    Er, you realize you can turn off AMP, right? And presumably the same goes for the various other names for motion interpolation on 120hz sets. The frames still aren't being held on the screen for 1/24th of a second (for 24fps material), but instead you get each frame on screen 5 times, each time for a length of 1/120th of a second. On an LCD the distinction between a 24hz refresh rate and a 120hz refresh rate with simple 5:5 pulldown is negligible, assuming all else is equal. I've heard there are a few 120hz TVs that, when given 24fps video to display, do 3:2 pulldown and then frame doubling, however. Don't know if any companies are still releasing these, but if so they should be avoided.
    Scrublet wrote:
    This won't help with quicker movement? You are correct on the benefits of 120Hz with the 24fps content. However, the issue is that manufacturers often lump their anti-judder techniques in with this 120 Hz. So people say they love/hate 120 Hz when in fact it's anti-judder that they have a problem with. So, when someone asks if 120Hz is important, I always want to make sure they're talking about the speed of the TV. The extra refresh rate IS helpful, even with anti-judder turned off. If you think I'm wrong on that, go look at one of Samsung's new (and ridiculously overpriced) 240 Hz TVs next to one of their 60 or 120Hz TVs before debating it.

    I didn't say that a faster response time won't help with quicker movement; it would indeed, in reducing motion blur. But a faster response time does not require a higher refresh rate, and due to poor advertising practices for LCD panels a higher refresh rate does not necessarily imply the fast response time it logically should.

    Secondly, I think you're getting a bit confused with regards to de-judder techniques -- or perhaps I am. On 60hz panels, motion interpolation has to act as a de-judder technique, as displaying 24fps content on a 60hz panel necessarily implies there is going to be some telecine judder. On a 120hz panel you can display 24fps content in a fashion which gives each frame equal screen-time; there should not be any telecine judder. Motion interpolation (on 120hz panels) is ostensibly about reducing motion blur, which is totally unrelated to (telecine) judder. In practice though, I've found motion interpolation (particularly Samsung's AMP) is terrible for film, hit-or-miss for television, and decent for video games.

    Clipse on
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    I didn't say that a faster response time won't help with quicker movement; it would indeed, in reducing motion blur. But a faster response time does not require a higher refresh rate, and due to poor advertising practices for LCD panels a higher refresh rate does not necessarily imply the fast response time it logically should.

    Secondly, I think you're getting a bit confused with regards to de-judder techniques -- or perhaps I am. On 60hz panels, motion interpolation has to act as a de-judder technique, as displaying 24fps content on a 60hz panel necessarily implies there is going to be some telecine judder. On a 120hz panel you can display 24fps content in a fashion which gives each frame equal screen-time; there should not be any telecine judder. Motion interpolation (on 120hz panels) is ostensibly about reducing motion blur, which is totally unrelated to (telecine) judder. In practice though, I've found motion interpolation (particularly Samsung's AMP) is terrible for film, hit-or-miss for television, and decent for video games.

    Edit: we're on the same page. The problem I run into whenever I have this discussion is that TV manufacturers decided that trying to explain motion interpolation to the consumer was too hard, and instead lumped this feature in with their 120Hz feature. Initially when you commented I thought that was why you thought 120 Hz wasn't important in reducing motion blur. There won't be telecine judder, but there can still be "judder" from the simple fact that sometimes things will move on screen faster than they could be sampled during recording...which is the motion interpolation you mention. It can also be used to reduce motion blur. All that being said, faster refresh rates may not be the only way to reduce lag on a panel, but they are one way. By the way, be careful using that motion interpolation for games...a lot of times the processing that effect takes introduces noticeable lag (especially in tight-timed games like Guitar Hero/Rock Band).

    While reviewing all this to make sure I wasn't saying anything stupid, I happened upon this summary which deals with this subject (excepting the 24fps). This guy isn't impressed, and going by the majority of the LCD-owners posting in here, I'd say 240 Hz isn't going to matter much to most people. I thought it made the soccer demo I saw on it look better though.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So, LED TV's...what's the deal with them?

    Burtletoy on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    Scrublet wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Is there any way to make SDTV look good on a nice 40" Samsung 1080p HDTV? Have HD service, and the HD channels look great... but the regular cable channels are horrible and almost not worth the TV upgrade.

    Tried viewing in both 4:3 and 16:9... it's equally bad.

    I think this Gizmodo article is addressing the same thing. Mainly the last paragraph about resampling. Maybe someone else can confirm whether or not this guy knows what he's talking about...I don't watch much TV in general (beyond sports, which led the HD charge) so I've never been worried about the SD features too much.

    That guy knows what he's talking about. The series of forum posts he links to are even better, if you like this kind of technobabble.

    That said, what he's saying applies mostly to game graphics, which are sharper than TV graphics. Something like Daily Show doesn't really have a lot of hard edges, so the crapulating done by your TV isn't quite as dire. Then again, fancy-shmancy console emulators, like you see on XBLA games and the like, can actually try to mitigate the failings of HDTVs, whereas your cable box doesn't give a shit.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So, LED TV's...what's the deal with them?

    In LED TV's, LED's are the light source. They are more energy efficient and produce less heat then CCFL and I think they are longer lived as well, but since their implementation in panels in consumer electronics is relatively recent claims to longer life in LCD panels (as opposed to CCFL which are pretty long-lived) have not had time to be observed in the real world. They are definitely longer lived than incandescent bulbs (as used in some rear projection tv's). They are also supposed more environmentally friendly, but I know not the comparison in environmental footprint between say CCFL's in a 46" screen versus the number of LED's used to light up the same 46" panel.

    anecdotal: the LED-driven LCD panels I've seen on laptops seem to be noticeably brighter than their CCFL counterparts. Like you can see the screen well when using it outside in daylight.

    Djeet on
  • xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    LED screens can also be retarded thin. I saw the new Samsung at bestbuy.. it was maybe two inches thick.

    This works because the bulb is set to one side, like how laptop screens are lit.

    xzzy on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    The commercial is sexy, I can't wait to see the thing in person.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    There is a major factor in these LED TVs to consider. Last year Samsung and Sony both put out "local-dimming" LEDs. Anyone who knows more than me feel free to elaborate and correct, but the short story is that MOST LCD panels use CCFL lighting, which is basically a fluorescent light that's always on. The LCD's job is polarize and block light as much as possible when the color/grayscale demand it. Local-dimming LEDs were awesome because they used multiple LEDs instead of this single lighting, and allowed the ability to turn off LEDs in certain areas. That's why the Samsung 950 last year could go ridiculously black for an LCD monitor. Still not equal to high-end plasmas, since inside their own little areas the LEDs are still limited in what they could do, but a huge step in the right direction.

    For whatever reason, they took it out of this year's panel. The new LED TVs from Samsung are not local-dimming; they put the light in the side as xzzy already said. This is a step in the wrong direction...it creates uneven lighting around the edges of the picture and removes the benefits of local-dimming. I'm not sure why this decision was made...it may be to reduce thickness. Honestly I don't understand this whole thickness craze...if you have a 6" or less thickness, is that 3-4 inches REALLY such a huge deal? Worth sacrificing picture quality for in some cases? (Edit: I guess the Samsung 950 was almost 12 inches thick. Still, it's wall-mountable and I'd rather have the better TV than the 1.16" TV).

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Threepio wrote: »
    This is not correct for current generation LCD televisions. In current generation LCD televisions 120Hz is produced by using frame interpolation (called AutoMotion Plus, LiveMotion, etc etc etc by different vendors) to create frames that are inserted between existing frames. 120Hz inserts two frames per three frame sequence, 240Hz inserts four. Frames are not "held" on the screen - they are refreshed, they're just being refreshed with fake (for lack of a better term) material.

    Er, you realize you can turn off AMP, right?


    Yes, and by doing do you put the television back into plain old 60Hz mode. It's currently either fuckawful or off. Compared with the sub-field drive of plasma it's night and day. 120Hz (and now 240Hz) features are bastardizations of film.

    Re: LED TVs: they consume less power, take up less space and generally provide wider coverage of the visible colour spectrum (on par with last years top end CCFLs). They can be back mounted or side mounted - you'll know the side mounted LED sets when you see them, Samsung's 7000 and 8000 series are 1.16" thick. The wallmount for it looks like a coat hanger, no word of a lie.

    Threepio on
    142.jpg
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bah. My local Best Buy doesn't have the LED TV's in stock so I can't go look at them before making an impulse online purchase. Lame.

    Burtletoy on
  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Threepio wrote: »
    Yes, and by doing do you put the television back into plain old 60Hz mode. It's currently either fuckawful or off. Compared with the sub-field drive of plasma it's night and day. 120Hz (and now 240Hz) features are bastardizations of film.

    [Citation Needed]

    The consensus on AVS Forum and the blu-ray.com forums was that Samsung (particularly last year's 650/750/850/950 models) did simple 5:5 pulldown on 24fps content when AMP is turned off. And the lack of telecine judder when playing a blu-ray on my 650 is quite easily noticeable -- I compared setting the player to 24p and setting it to 60p when I first got the TV, using some scenes from Planet Earth where the judder is very obvious at 60p.

    Like I said in my previous post, there are some (awful) 120hz displays that will take a 24p signal, do 3:2 pulldown, and frame-double it. But that is far from all of them.

    Clipse on
  • Gear GirlGear Girl More class than a state university Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So if my viewing distance from head to tv is about 8 feet maybe 9.5 feet if I move some shit around in my room what size of TV am I looking for that won't obliterate my eyes.

    Gear Girl on
  • xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Gear Girl wrote: »
    So if my viewing distance from head to tv is about 8 feet maybe 9.5 feet if I move some shit around in my room what size of TV am I looking for that won't obliterate my eyes.

    I'd say something in the 45" area. I'm about 10 feet from my 46", and if I move any closer my eyes start to feel like they're trying to take in too much.

    xzzy on
  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Gear Girl wrote: »
    So if my viewing distance from head to tv is about 8 feet maybe 9.5 feet if I move some shit around in my room what size of TV am I looking for that won't obliterate my eyes.

    Go to Best Buy or wherever and look at sets. See how far you're standing from them. I regularly watch movies on my 65" from under 10' and play video games from under 6'. My eyes still work fine I think.

    Djeet on
  • Gear GirlGear Girl More class than a state university Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hmm I think I may have measured slightly wrong. It is probably more like 8 feet at the most. I'm thinking 42inches but I am such a big as the sun person this is killing me.

    Gear Girl on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Then get a 61'' or 67'' Samsung DLP LED, biggest awesome set for your money.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Like I said in my previous post, there are some (awful) 120hz displays that will take a 24p signal, do 3:2 pulldown, and frame-double it. But that is far from all of them.

    D:

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    re: TV size, if you're watching film content, you pretty much want the screen to fill your field of vision in the ideal case. This is also how you should watch films in theaters - they're designed such that the screen eats up almost all of your vision, so you're as immersed in the movie as possible.

    Ideally, then, if you're 10' away, you want a 60" or 65". Of course, this is likely neither practical nor affordable, and if you have a wife she may nut you for even suggesting it (assumign standard wife stereotypes). But the idea that if you're 10' away the "ideal" size is 42" or so is just plain wrong. You want that fucker to be huge, if what you're going for is an ideal media watching experience.

    In the SD era, this wasn't necessarily the case; a TV that big meant pixels as large as God's testicles, and it looked ugly as hell. On a 1080p set, though, those pixels will look just fine. For HD content, of course. SD content will continue to look like ass. But fuck SD content.

    Me, I have a 50" set that I view from about 9'. It could definitely be bigger. I mean, it's nice and big and all, and I'm very content, but if I was loaded I would up it to at least a 60".

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Key phrase, at least.
    This is HD people, go big or buy SD.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Me, I have a 50" set that I view from about 9'. It could definitely be bigger. I mean, it's nice and big and all, and I'm very content, but if I was loaded I would up it to at least a 60".

    In my current townhouse, with a basement about 60% suited for home theater, I'm 7' away from my 50" and it is awesome. If I was 9' I'd love a 60" but like you said...money :) @ GearGirl, if you're talking about eye damage don't do ridiculous amounts of TV...otherwise buy the size that fits your budget.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    re: TV size, if you're watching film content, you pretty much want the screen to fill your field of vision in the ideal case. This is also how you should watch films in theaters - they're designed such that the screen eats up almost all of your vision, so you're as immersed in the movie as possible.

    Not always true, you got these assclown directors filming all their action in shakeycam and it's fucking nauseating on the big screen. The intro sequence to Quantum of Solace is the most recent example, but it's hardly the only offender. Transformers was terrible for this, as was the last Bourne movie.
    Ideally, then, if you're 10' away, you want a 60" or 65". Of course, this is likely neither practical nor affordable,

    Not by a long shot.. 46" was the biggest I could fit in my living room. Granted I'm still in an apartment, which limits space, but that was the upper limit. So far I'm glad of it.. I really don't think I'd be happy with something bigger. To do this I'd have to start getting seriously into "home theater", that is, putting everything in the basement to lock out light, get recliner type seats.. stuff like that to make sure I could get a comfortable view.

    As it now, if I want something to fill my vision, I can just sit closer. Grab the bean bag, toss it in front of the tv, and I'm good to go.

    xzzy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Burtletoy wrote:
    This was from 12-9-08

    Burtletoy wrote:
    Hurrah for my new Westinghouse LVN-37w3se exploding and emiting smoke in less than 1 month after buying.

    I guess what I'm telling you guys is don't buy from buy.com because of a pitiful 14 day return policy and don't buy Westinghouse. Fuck this.

    Well my new TV came in the mail today. Westinghouse was kind enough to upgrade my broken 37 inch TV to a broken 42 inch TV.


    Maybe the next one will take less than 3 months turnaround on Westinghouse.

    I repeat, don't buy a Westinghouse TV regardless of some supposed name brand recognition. Thier customer service is terrible. It took an entire month since they'd recieved my old broken tv for them to enter it into their database as recieved. It then took them another month to tell me I was going to be getting a 42" replacement. It then took them another half a month to send me the broken replacement TV.


    Further update on this. I sent the broken 42" back to Westinghouse, who then refused the shippment due to extreme damages to the box. Joy. It arrived back on my front porch today. Looks like it is FedEx's fault and according to Westinghouse they will come over to my house in the next week or so to assess the damages they did to the TV and then they will compensate me for the TV or buy me a new one.

    I'm very much hoping for the monetary compensation.

    Seeing as how I bought the 37"er for $550 (msrp = ~$1000) which was then upgraded to a 42" (msrp = ~$1400) this could turn out to be an amazing deal for me in the long run. If I walk away with 3x what I paid for this first TV, I don't see how I can stand to be angry at Westinghouse, buy.com, OR FedEx.


    ...and then I will go to Best Buy and get a led tv so at least I can have a good return policy if it craps out again.

    Burtletoy on
  • xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Well, I would still be angry at fedex. They shouldn't be chewing up boxes like that.

    It's just nice that this time it worked in your favor.

    xzzy on
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    To everyone who's been posting about buying last year's Samsung A-line LCDs, I would strongly recommend giving Amazon a look right now. Particularly the LN52A750 and LN52A850, at $2000/$2300 each, and free shipping. Note that if you are between the two, the 850 has always looked a LOT better to me, and it's only $300 extra bucks.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • Folken FanelFolken Fanel anime af When's KoFRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Scrublet wrote: »
    To everyone who's been posting about buying last year's Samsung A-line LCDs, I would strongly recommend giving Amazon a look right now. Particularly the LN52A750 and LN52A850, at $2000/$2300 each, and free shipping.

    !

    Only 1 46a650 left...

    But then Amazon just sent me a coupon code for $100 off Samsung's B-line.

    Dammit...

    Folken Fanel on
    Twitter: Folken_fgc Steam: folken_ XBL: flashg03 PSN: folken_PA SFV: folken_
    Dyvim Tvar wrote: »
    Characters I hate:

    Everybody @Folken Fanel plays as.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So now that I'm seriously looking for a new TV again, one more question about these Samsung LED TV's...whats the difference between the 6 series and the 7 series?

    Is it just the TV's internet connectivity that is the difference? I can't seem to find out what the difference is between, say the UN46B7100 and the UN46B6000

    Any help here?

    Burtletoy on
  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So now that I'm seriously looking for a new TV again, one more question about these Samsung LED TV's...whats the difference between the 6 series and the 7 series?

    Is it just the TV's internet connectivity that is the difference? I can't seem to find out what the difference is between, say the UN46B7100 and the UN46B6000

    Any help here?

    You also get an extra RF input! Holy fucking shit!

    I have no idea why they even made the 7000. Besides internet I think it has additional built-in media organizing features, if you're into that. Really the 6000 and 8000 should have been the only models, with all of the 7000s features in the 6000. Link if desired. Yet another link denouncing 240Hz. Maybe I just fooled myself into thinking I saw a difference.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So now that I'm seriously looking for a new TV again, one more question about these Samsung LED TV's...whats the difference between the 6 series and the 7 series?

    1

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Right, I finally got a HDMI lead for my TV and tried it out today and.. well some things I noticed. Firstly when loading up Lost and Damned, it had a funny glitch at the top of the screen that I never noticed before swapping over. Basically as the game was going through its loading screens (swapping through different images, the GTA thing they do) it had this dark bar briefly appear at the top, before fading away. It does seem to be the same size as the bar that it flashes up to display the screen resolution, so I wonder if it's something related to that.
    Secondly, things just seemed really dark. I figure it could partly be because I'm using a different input and so one I've not fiddled with any settings before, but it didn't seem to naturally look this dark before. Just some HDMI configuration issues? Anything I need to know? I tried fiddling with some of the advanced settings, but that just seemed to make the image all smudged and blurry whenever it moved.

    Might try Mirror's Edge tomorrow and see what happens.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
This discussion has been closed.