Physical_Graffiti wrote:Don't buy plasma.
the wicked child wrote:Would like to keep it around $800 or so. Just looking for some guidance in what I should look for. I am willing to go up a little on the price if it is truly worth it... but I can't afford to drop $2k on a tv either.
pittsoccer33 wrote:when youre talking about rates measured in hertz, there are two different things measured that way:
1) the video frame rate (how many individual images are captured per second)
2) the number of times per second the panel updates the pixels
Hollywood movies are shot at 24 frames per second. Historically some were doubled and others tripped to fit in a 60hz update pattern.
Television is usually shot at 30 frames per second, and are each shown twice, to create a 60hz signal. This matched up well with your 60hz tv you've watched since the 1950s.
Now with advanced tvs we can do things to match the video source's frame rate to the tv's update rate.
In the most preferable way, a 120hz tv will flash each frame of a 24hz bluray movie five times (24x5=120). They will flash the incoming video from a tv network twice per second (60x2=120). They can also use digital algorithms to artificially create more frames to fill in the spaces. Looks good on animation and some live tv, looks kind of creepy (to me personally) on most other things. 240hz just do this action twice as often.
FanofUlf wrote:The impression I have is that, ideally, if buying now, get an LED because it has the best picture and best reliability, far better than an LCD.
I was told LED's can last 20 years but LCD's usually are 5-6 years.
Hence the take I have (and correct me if I am wrong) is: LED, 120HZ, 1080P.
Now I am not sure if I really need 240HZ, Smart Apps, or else I am buying an obsolute inferior TV, your take?
My TV is too small, I need a 46 (if I buy it for me) or a 50-52 if I buy it for my parents.
Curious if you have any other models to suggest.
Users browsing this forum: Beveridge and 4 guests