Need a TV

OhMyGosh wrote on 2/3/2010, 10:29 PM
OK, I'm finally ready to buy a HD TV, but I don't have a clue. I have been to all the stores, read the reviews, talked to the sales people, etc. I know most people say 'just look at which one looks the best.' Wish it was that easy......... I don't watch much TV (not to say that I wouldn't pay the extra ten bucks for the HD content), but I would love to finally see my projects in HD. I want to spend around $1500.00, and according to the 2" of screen per inch of distance from the TV, I need a 55". Now it gets cofuseing, LED, DLP, Plasma, etc. Do I want 60, 120, or 240Hz (the guy said you can switch the 240 on or off, because sometimes it messes something up) for the refresh rate, and what is the difference between that and the 'response time.' I saw a Samsung on HSN about a week ago that was 64" and was ready for the new 3D signal that will be out in about 6 months??? Vizio, Bravia?? Here is one I was looking at (snooze ya loose), but I just couldn't decide. It seemed too good to be true. Some help in the way of actual model numbers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Cin

Comments

Eigentor wrote on 2/4/2010, 6:50 AM
I'm still waiting on one of my 4 analog TV's to die so I can justify buying a flat screen. I've done a lot of looking, and my opinion is LCD. I'm not sure your eyes can differentiate between 60, 120 or 240 Hzt update rates. Don't think I'd spend to much more for anything over 60 (unless you play heavy duty games). True LED is very expensive, if it even exists yet. Though when it does, it should use a lot less power. The ones claiming LED now, are using it for backlighting only, the rest is LCD. Plasma use to have issues with premature burnout, don't know if that is still a problem. They will use more power, generate more heat and are probably thicker/heavier. DLP is probably a minority out there and I don't know that I would invest in it for a TV. I would go with 60 Hzt, 1080i LCD. Many of the brands are made by just a few. Vizio is a Sony make. Sony is certainly one of the better, but you do pay for the name. LG is a Gold Star/Zenith make. $1500 should get you a nice LCD.
Terry Esslinger wrote on 2/4/2010, 9:14 AM
You will be sorely disappointed if you get a 60htz set. The 120 and 240 sets display considerably less motion artifacts. My wife even notices it.
Markk655 wrote on 2/4/2010, 7:54 PM
Agree all that has been said. Get at least 120 Hz LCD. Plasmas tend to be regarded as the past, but at the same time, they often provide better pictures than LCDs under the majority of conditions (similar to VHS vs. beta). LEDs are the future and there are some wonderful TVs that combine LEDs and LCDs. These don't give off as much, are more energy efficient and also more expensive. Then again, sometimes a simple feature like embedded networking or an SD card slot can sweeten the deal. Regardless of what you choose, I'm sure it will be OK and you'll be happy with it at your price point.
OhMyGosh wrote on 2/4/2010, 8:44 PM
Thank you guys for your replies and info. This is a big investment for me, and I want to get it right. You have really helped me narrow my search to a 120Hz, or higher LCD. When I saw the one on HSN (a shopping channel), they said it was 3D compatable. Does anyone know what that means? Also, they said it would 'upconvert' standard DVD's to HD. Is that possible? Thanks again for the help :) Cin
Byron K wrote on 2/4/2010, 11:22 PM
Another feature you may want to keep in mind if you're looking at picking up an LED TVs is the ability to do localized or local dimming. This will generally provide better blacks and higher contrast ratios than standard backlit LED TVs.

Yes, 3D technology is around the corner but I suspect they will be expensive when they first come out just like plasmas were and probobly won't have a lot of material to view on it for at least at year.
GerryLeacock wrote on 2/5/2010, 3:35 AM
And it seems like just yesterday we were considering our next TV to be a color TV! Late 1960's, I think. The manual said to adjust the color to match skin tones. Pretty difficult if all I watched was Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner!
Eigentor wrote on 2/5/2010, 5:38 AM
As far as 3D goes, after seeing Avatar, that sounds cool. But I would refrain because it's just so new, technology wise, on TV's. I still remember the Yuppie being interviewed 10+ years a go; having spent thousands on an HD analog TV, only to realize that there was almost no HD being broadcast.
WRT the standard DVD upconvert to HD, one thing to remember is that the information to upconvert is not resident in the source, so it would have to be doing some sort of interpolation to make it HD (I'm no expert but I believe this is true).
Markk655 wrote on 2/5/2010, 5:44 AM
Re- 3D TV.Supposed to be here within a few months. Although not much content expected this year. If considering that, and you have an AV receiver, I have seen reports where you require the latest HDMI version (1.4). Might want to check on that. Then again, I have also read that the PS3 firmware will be upgraded to allow for 3D HDTV. 3D TV is expected to be a bit more expensive (few hundred dollars) rather than thousands.

Eigentor wrote on 2/5/2010, 6:16 AM
The issue with 60 hzt vs 120 hzt has to do with how it presents the picture. If the source is video, the frame rate (~30 fps) divides evenly into 60 hzt and no conversion is needed, if the source is film, the frame rate doesn't (24fps) and a 3:2 conversion happens causing some distortion. Also remember that most if not all cable source is at 60 hzt. Also keep in mind that you will probably have to buy good (Monster) HDMI cables at about $100-150 to get the best out of your TV.
OhMyGosh wrote on 2/5/2010, 6:21 AM
Thanks again everyone for the help in deciding. I just noticed I forgot to put the link in my first post (go figure). This is the one I narrowed it down to, and they lowered it since I first looked at it by $100 (that's the good news). Once they lowered the price, it sold out (that's the bad news). However, a local store has one remaining in stock, and I was thinking of getting it this morning if you think it's a good deal. Thanks again. Cin
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Vizio-55-Class/10993799
Byron K wrote on 2/5/2010, 11:59 AM
Posted by: GerryLeacock, Date:2/5/2010 1:35:05 AM
And it seems like just yesterday we were considering our next TV to be a color TV! Late 1960's, I think. The manual said to adjust the color to match skin tones. Pretty difficult if all I watched was Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner!

Funny you should mention this because a co-worker and I had a friendly bet a couple of days ago as to when the first color broadcast was made. I mentioned to him I was in elementary school when I used to go to the local Raido Shack w/ my dad to test tubes for our old B&W.

He said in the '50s and I said consumer broadcasts were in late 60's early '70's. (:
Tim L wrote on 2/5/2010, 2:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_TV

It looks like there were a few shows broadcast in color in the late 1950's. But I know that growing up we only had a black-and-white set until the early 70's, I think.

And to stray further and further from OMG's original post... a funny little story.

Years ago my brother and his then 4- or 5-year-old daughter were watching an old B&W show of some kind on TV. She asked why the show was only in black and white, and he replied, "Well you know, when I was a little kid everything was black and white." She thought for a moment and looked incredulously at him and said "everything?", and he replied "Yes", then said, "Well, what do you mean?" She said "Everything was just black and white??? Like even trees and the grass and stuff???" In her mind, she was pondering that the whole world itself was just black and white when he was a kid.

Tim L

Terry Esslinger wrote on 2/5/2010, 3:30 PM
Our first color television in the 50s was a three color acetate like film taped over the black and white set. True story!
gogiants wrote on 2/6/2010, 10:02 PM
My 2 cents, which you probably won't trust anyway since we don't know each other!

- Vizio is not Sony, but it is still a good enough brand.
- You will be freaking blown away by the TV if you are moving from standard def. Don't feel like you have to spec yourself to the max to be happy. My approach: My first high-def TV will be the kids' TV soon enough!
- TVs have come so far that you are more likely to see a difference based on high-def source than you are based on the TV. In other words, save a few bucks on the TV and make sure your source (Cable, satellite, blu-ray) is the best you can afford.
- Read up on CNET and other places about the difference between 60/120/240Hz. People that compare TVs for a living have a hard time telling the difference in the latest TVs. 120 might be worth a jump, but 240 is pushing it.

OhMyGosh wrote on 2/7/2010, 1:51 PM
Thanks gogiants. I went with the 55" Vizio 120Hz and since I have nothing to compare it to, other than my 12 year old 19" TV, I think it's amazing! :) I'm glad I finally decided to do it. I have been a victim of paralysis through analysis for way too long, and it felt good to just do it. Cin
gogiants wrote on 2/7/2010, 3:35 PM
Absolutely... it looks like a great TV. Enjoy!