I think I am about to buy this television for my mother.
Anyone see anything about it that would be a major reason to stand off? I'm going to set up a cheap audio system to get over the low sound quality.
Not familiar but definitely shop around, neweggs pretty cool, but Amazon had it quite a bit cheaper.
Reviews there are pretty mixed, but most negative ones seemed to stem from bad sound, so with a little sound system it should be pretty good. I'm actually thinking about that one myself now.
Yup, which is kind of sad when you think about it. I have a Kuro 500M and it is still rated above any other set out there in terms of pure picture quality. There are some things the VT30 does better, such as faster phosphors and 3D, but overall it still gets beat by 3-4 year old tech.
I think I am about to buy this television for my mother.
Anyone see anything about it that would be a major reason to stand off? I'm going to set up a cheap audio system to get over the low sound quality.
Not familiar but definitely shop around, neweggs pretty cool, but Amazon had it quite a bit cheaper.
Reviews there are pretty mixed, but most negative ones seemed to stem from bad sound, so with a little sound system it should be pretty good. I'm actually thinking about that one myself now.
Wow good find there. My shop around button was broken and I almost lost a chunk of change. Thanks a lot Sloth.
Someone on SlickDeals.net said they got amazon to price match and got some free 3d glasses with it as well.
I think LG is regarded as a better LCD than Toshiba.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
edited September 2011
I hadn't seen many LG plasmas, mostly just samsung and panasonic.
I might give Amazon a ring and see if I can get them to match that since I was looking at something like the panasonic 42st30, and that's a pretty solid price.
EDIT: Looks like I missed it, these kinda deals are why I have such a hard time convincing myself to snag a TV. I'm half tempted to just get something cheap that's a solid step up from where I'm at (quite old 32" 1080i tube, really good picture though IMO) and then I can continuously hold-off on deals while still enjoying something decent.
I hadn't seen many LG plasmas, mostly just samsung and panasonic.
I might give Amazon a ring and see if I can get them to match that since I was looking at something like the panasonic 42st30, and that's a pretty solid price.
EDIT: Looks like I missed it, these kinda deals are why I have such a hard time convincing myself to snag a TV. I'm half tempted to just get something cheap that's a solid step up from where I'm at (quite old 32" 1080i tube, really good picture though IMO) and then I can continuously hold-off on deals while still enjoying something decent.
Just start checking out slickdeals.net once or twice a day. There are always deals on tv's on there. Find one that meets what your looking for, buy it, and don't look back. Otherwise you'll never get one.
I think it more than a little unreasonable to consider a failed backlight to be a problem that is "Beyond Economical Repair". Makes me think twice about buying Vizio unless it was just an incredible deal.
Okay! So the Toshiba SL417U 42-Inch that I ordered was lost and amazon just gave me a refund. Now i'm kind of frustrated since everything else I ordered for the room has arrived and in place but I don't have the important part yet.
Are there any retail stores that can even compare to the types of prices one can get online? At this point i'd rather just head out and pick up the thing instead of dealing with shipping.
Outside of their own super sale happening, not really. BrandsMart?
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Microcenter has a limited tv selection, but they do price match amazon and newegg, depending on the difference.
Wal-Mart usually has pretty good tv prices, too.
Best Buy typically has the best selection, and if you're careful, you can often find good deals there. Lots of overpriced stuff so you have to shop smart to find a good deal.
All in all, if you have a certain model in mind with little-to-no flexibility, you probably won't find it locally at a good price, but if you have a set of parameters you're shopping for with some flexibility in brands and details, you can shop around and find a great deal in a local store.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
If you live near a Fry's Electronics they usually have a dozen or so sets either advertised cheap or on clearance. Friday through Sunday they put out 8-10 pages of adverts in the local paper good through following Thursday, though they are careful to not mention the brand/model to the best deals to make price-matching more difficult.
So I'm juggling these deals I got on Amazon (and also, is it risky to buy off Amazon? Or a hassle as far as shipping and potentially returning goes?)
First is this LG. Listed at 1,550, but until the 1st it's only 721. And I'm looking to buy a TV with an Amazon card, so if I qualify for that then I'm looking at another $40. Is this a good TV though? It looks nice, bigger than what I was initially thinking.
Then there's this one normally 850, but on sale for 450. Looks like the next step down. Now, is 720 really going to be noticeably different from less than 10 feet away? I've heard no, but I can't tell with display models in a retail setting. Other than that, this is the size I was originally thinking of. Something around the 40" area.
From what I've gathered, I'm fine with the newer plasmas, their contrast and the fact that newer ones don't have as bad (if anything noticeable, really) a, well, whatever you call that fade-to-black as you walk around it, screen. And I don't want a low refresh rate, like 60hz, right?
Steam
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
Really, really tempting deal here. 60" Westinghouse LCD, 1080p, 120hz. I can't find any reliable editorial reviews. What do we have to say about this thing?
Eh, I'm not a fan of Westys. I don't know anyone who's had one that hasn't had problems within the first 3 years of ownership (purely anecdotal of course). I'd pony up another 2 bills and get an LG plasma if I wanted a 60" 1080P flatscreen on the cheap.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Agreed. For that size you're better off with a quality brand plasma over a cut-rate LCD. The quality, reliability, and warranty/service will be generally better all around for a modest increase in price.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I'd kind of like to know who the maker of that graph actually polled for their info.
Because for me, it's completely irrelevant. At my parents house, the couch is about 15 feet away from their television. Which was a 2 year old 42 inch LG 720p LCD, and is now a 6 month old 42 inch LG 1080p LCD (My sister got given the 720p set as a house warming gift when she moved).
The resolution difference between the two when watching my BluRays (through my PS3) is very noticeable to me. 2001 a Space Odyssey looked fantastic on the old set, and is simply stunning on the new set, it's easily much crisper and sharper. The Dollars trilogy looked pretty good on the old set, and is so good on the new set, I could count Clint's pores or Lee's moustache bristles if I really wanted to. Both sets were calibrated by the same person (my Dad), using the same calibration reference disc.
I don't have Superman's eyesight or anything, either. The 1080p set just looks so much nicer, even at a distance where apparently I shouldn't be able to tell at all...
I'm sure that has nothing to do with one set being a year and a half newer (in both model and amount of time of the set being used)
I think that chart is based on how the human eye at 20/20 vision can see things. Not polled for info.
Burtletoy on
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the low end of that chart is ridiculous. I only have about 9 feet in my living room, but 1080p was like night and day over 720p, to say nothing of 480p/SD. Maybe at distances greater than 20-30 feet those really low resolutions look closer to HD, but who the fuck watches TV from 30 feet away?
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
I'm sure that has nothing to do with one set being a year and a half newer (in both model and amount of time of the set being used)
I think that chart is based on how the human eye at 20/20 vision can see things. Not polled for info.
Maybe that's the idea, but I can tell you from experience that when my TV jumps to SD/480 on TV/DVDs, I notice a HUUUUUUGE drop in quality from 720p/1080p movies/tv/games. This is at 9 feet on a 40", which, according to this chart, should be borderline where 720p is just baaaarely noticeable. I can easily tell what's in 720p vs 1080p in my situation.
My bedroom is about 12 feet, and it's a 32" tv, and it's more of the same. My eyes bleed at 480p, but 720p looks great, and 1080p looks even better. I really don't buy the lack of discernability between resolutions at distances closer than 20 feet or so.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
The human visual system has a fixed capacity to detect detail from a distance. Our understanding of limitations with regard to visual detail recognition and identification from a distance is primarily based on the work of Dr. Hermann Snellen. Dr. Snellen developed the eye examination chart that bears his name (Snellen Chart). From his findings and the work of others over the last hundred years, one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified,[39] by a person with normal vision.[40][41][42] An arcminute is an angular measurement, which is equal to 1/60 of one degree of a circle. Normal vision is referenced as 20/20 or 6/6 vision in North America and Europe respectively.[42][43] The visual acuity threshold has been identified as a constraint factor in the recommendations on the optimum viewing distance for HDTV,[36] and also in formal research that comment on the subject of television and angular resolution.[1][44][45][46] With 1 arcminute as the constraint for seeing critical detail, in order not to miss any detail a viewer would need to be situated at a position where their view angle to a 1080p HDTV is approximately 32.86 degrees or greater.[1][3] However, there is not always agreement that the Snellenian limit should be the constraining factor.
To calculate the viewing distance, based on display size and content resolution, the following formula may be used:
Where:
VD: Viewing distance
DS: Display's diagonal size
NHR: Display's native horizontal resolution (in pixels)
NVR: Display's native vertical resolution (in pixels)
CVR: Vertical resolution of the video being displayed (in pixels)
Note: Make sure the angle mode is set to degrees when calculating the tangent. If using Excel, you must multiply the angle by PI()/180. If DS is given in inches, VD will be in inches. If VD in meters is desired, multiply VD by 2.54 and divide by 100.
Example for DVD video on a 32-inch 1080p HDTV:
(inches)
Example for high-def video on a 32-inch 1080p HDTV:
(inches)
This is the maximum sitting distance if the viewer wants to see every possible detail the content has to offer.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
This is the maximum sitting distance if the viewer wants to see every possible detail the content has to offer.
This is the important part you're overlooking. The human eye can perceive massive differences in resolution and picture quality without catching "every possible detail." That's why charts like that are not as useful for TV buying purposes and some people purport. Even well beyond these "maximum" distances, you will still be able to differentiate and appreciate increases/decreases in resolution, especially at typical living room distances.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Just saying what other smarter than me type people are saying.
Right, but what I'm saying is that that algorithm calculates does not directly correlate to how the human eye perceives the quality and resolution difference between TVs. That's all. It's true that you will NOT see all the details of a 32" 1080p TV at 12 feet, but you WILL be able to perceive a substantial quality difference compared to the same size 480p or 720p tv at the same distance, even if you're not seeing 100% of the visual detail. At less than 12 feet or so, you absolutely will see a difference with each step up from SD to 1080p at any TV size above 20".
Edit: I don't mean to sound argumentative about this or anything. I have installed literally hundreds of home theatres. I'm intimately familiar with what various tv resolutions look like at a wide range of distances. That chart just gets on my nerve because it's so blatantly wrong on a practical level.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
The chart has grey areas along side the solid lines.
The solid lines, I assume without doing the math myself, represent what that algorithem says is the maximum value zone.
So the areas in between those solid lines are where you would notice the "substantial quality difference" that you mention.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited September 2011
I'm not even talking about the grey areas. I mean the whole premise of the chart is busted. It's based on being able to individually discern every pixel. That is NOT how humans perceive resolution-based differences in image quality. We don't need to discern EVERY pixel to see an increase in resolution.
Let's look at a 36" screen at 10 feet. On this chart that hits right on the "full benefits of 480p visible."
I can tell you from experience that any person with halfway decent eyesight will see an appreciable difference between 480p and 1080p at that distance, where the chart basically claims that anything above 480p at that distance is just gravy, and cannot be noticed until you get closer.
I'm not arguing with science, I'm saying that someone has taken a perfectly valid algorithm for determining the limits of human vision and applied it in completely the wrong manner. Yes, at that size/distance you WILL NOT discern all the pixels in 1080p, but you will, without a doubt, see a very obvious improvement in quality over 480p.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited September 2011
Double post.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Posts
Anyone see anything about it that would be a major reason to stand off? I'm going to set up a cheap audio system to get over the low sound quality.
Not familiar but definitely shop around, neweggs pretty cool, but Amazon had it quite a bit cheaper.
Reviews there are pretty mixed, but most negative ones seemed to stem from bad sound, so with a little sound system it should be pretty good. I'm actually thinking about that one myself now.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
3DS / Pokemon XY: 0774-5590-9276
Wow good find there. My shop around button was broken and I almost lost a chunk of change. Thanks a lot Sloth.
50" LG instead for $640
http://www.buy.com/prod/lg-50pz550-50-1080p-3d-plasma-hdtv-w-smarttv/listingid/135113794/219885247.html
Someone on SlickDeals.net said they got amazon to price match and got some free 3d glasses with it as well.
I think LG is regarded as a better LCD than Toshiba.
I might give Amazon a ring and see if I can get them to match that since I was looking at something like the panasonic 42st30, and that's a pretty solid price.
EDIT: Looks like I missed it, these kinda deals are why I have such a hard time convincing myself to snag a TV. I'm half tempted to just get something cheap that's a solid step up from where I'm at (quite old 32" 1080i tube, really good picture though IMO) and then I can continuously hold-off on deals while still enjoying something decent.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Just start checking out slickdeals.net once or twice a day. There are always deals on tv's on there. Find one that meets what your looking for, buy it, and don't look back. Otherwise you'll never get one.
3DS / Pokemon XY: 0774-5590-9276
Hm lose the wi-fi but gain 8 inches and plasma. . .
plasma is better right?
Plasma has better black levels and, iirc, somethign with frame rates that movies are shot in makes plasma's better there too.
But also; less thin, heavier, higher power consumption, and produce more heat. Which is really only two things, but I listed it as four.
Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, LG, Vizio. Did I forget any?
+ a bunch of crap brands.
I own a Westinghouse.
Which is a crap brand LCD.
One of the most popular ones on the site. Free shipping. will be here tomorrow.
I think it more than a little unreasonable to consider a failed backlight to be a problem that is "Beyond Economical Repair". Makes me think twice about buying Vizio unless it was just an incredible deal.
Are there any retail stores that can even compare to the types of prices one can get online? At this point i'd rather just head out and pick up the thing instead of dealing with shipping.
Wal-Mart usually has pretty good tv prices, too.
Best Buy typically has the best selection, and if you're careful, you can often find good deals there. Lots of overpriced stuff so you have to shop smart to find a good deal.
All in all, if you have a certain model in mind with little-to-no flexibility, you probably won't find it locally at a good price, but if you have a set of parameters you're shopping for with some flexibility in brands and details, you can shop around and find a great deal in a local store.
First is this LG. Listed at 1,550, but until the 1st it's only 721. And I'm looking to buy a TV with an Amazon card, so if I qualify for that then I'm looking at another $40. Is this a good TV though? It looks nice, bigger than what I was initially thinking.
Then there's this one normally 850, but on sale for 450. Looks like the next step down. Now, is 720 really going to be noticeably different from less than 10 feet away? I've heard no, but I can't tell with display models in a retail setting. Other than that, this is the size I was originally thinking of. Something around the 40" area.
From what I've gathered, I'm fine with the newer plasmas, their contrast and the fact that newer ones don't have as bad (if anything noticeable, really) a, well, whatever you call that fade-to-black as you walk around it, screen. And I don't want a low refresh rate, like 60hz, right?
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
Really, really tempting deal here. 60" Westinghouse LCD, 1080p, 120hz. I can't find any reliable editorial reviews. What do we have to say about this thing?
I'd kind of like to know who the maker of that graph actually polled for their info.
Because for me, it's completely irrelevant. At my parents house, the couch is about 15 feet away from their television. Which was a 2 year old 42 inch LG 720p LCD, and is now a 6 month old 42 inch LG 1080p LCD (My sister got given the 720p set as a house warming gift when she moved).
The resolution difference between the two when watching my BluRays (through my PS3) is very noticeable to me. 2001 a Space Odyssey looked fantastic on the old set, and is simply stunning on the new set, it's easily much crisper and sharper. The Dollars trilogy looked pretty good on the old set, and is so good on the new set, I could count Clint's pores or Lee's moustache bristles if I really wanted to. Both sets were calibrated by the same person (my Dad), using the same calibration reference disc.
I don't have Superman's eyesight or anything, either. The 1080p set just looks so much nicer, even at a distance where apparently I shouldn't be able to tell at all...
I think that chart is based on how the human eye at 20/20 vision can see things. Not polled for info.
Maybe that's the idea, but I can tell you from experience that when my TV jumps to SD/480 on TV/DVDs, I notice a HUUUUUUGE drop in quality from 720p/1080p movies/tv/games. This is at 9 feet on a 40", which, according to this chart, should be borderline where 720p is just baaaarely noticeable. I can easily tell what's in 720p vs 1080p in my situation.
My bedroom is about 12 feet, and it's a 32" tv, and it's more of the same. My eyes bleed at 480p, but 720p looks great, and 1080p looks even better. I really don't buy the lack of discernability between resolutions at distances closer than 20 feet or so.
This is the important part you're overlooking. The human eye can perceive massive differences in resolution and picture quality without catching "every possible detail." That's why charts like that are not as useful for TV buying purposes and some people purport. Even well beyond these "maximum" distances, you will still be able to differentiate and appreciate increases/decreases in resolution, especially at typical living room distances.
Just saying what other smarter than me type people are saying.
Right, but what I'm saying is that that algorithm calculates does not directly correlate to how the human eye perceives the quality and resolution difference between TVs. That's all. It's true that you will NOT see all the details of a 32" 1080p TV at 12 feet, but you WILL be able to perceive a substantial quality difference compared to the same size 480p or 720p tv at the same distance, even if you're not seeing 100% of the visual detail. At less than 12 feet or so, you absolutely will see a difference with each step up from SD to 1080p at any TV size above 20".
Edit: I don't mean to sound argumentative about this or anything. I have installed literally hundreds of home theatres. I'm intimately familiar with what various tv resolutions look like at a wide range of distances. That chart just gets on my nerve because it's so blatantly wrong on a practical level.
The solid lines, I assume without doing the math myself, represent what that algorithem says is the maximum value zone.
So the areas in between those solid lines are where you would notice the "substantial quality difference" that you mention.
Let's look at a 36" screen at 10 feet. On this chart that hits right on the "full benefits of 480p visible."
I can tell you from experience that any person with halfway decent eyesight will see an appreciable difference between 480p and 1080p at that distance, where the chart basically claims that anything above 480p at that distance is just gravy, and cannot be noticed until you get closer.
I'm not arguing with science, I'm saying that someone has taken a perfectly valid algorithm for determining the limits of human vision and applied it in completely the wrong manner. Yes, at that size/distance you WILL NOT discern all the pixels in 1080p, but you will, without a doubt, see a very obvious improvement in quality over 480p.
I really don't care.