120hz LED or 240hz LCD?

[murphy55d]

If all other things are equal, and brand is the same, which would you go for?

Which of the two *should* be better? Keeping in mind a LOT of sports would be watched on this particular set.

These are the two I had been looking at:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Philips-40...5D-F7/17208304

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Philips-40...5D-F7/14860126

$550 and 40inches are my firm limits. If you have another option at that size and price, feel free to suggest. With any refurb I had planned to get an extended policy which I think at WalMart is like 50 bucks for 3 yrs. 40inch though is the only size I will consider for where I want this TV.

 

[fralexandr]

i'd go with the 240Hz TV (which might really be a 120Hz TV). the "120Hz" tv is likely a 60Hz tv with Trumotion type processing to make it "appear" 120Hz. edge-lit LED isn't that great for backlight uniformity, but does save a significant amount of power over LCD.

if you REALLY care about power savings the LED tv might be worth it, but otherwise the 240Hz would probably provide a better experience

 

[smitbret]

For sports, save yourself the headache of even worrying about it and get one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=ATVPDKIKX0DER

or this

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

[murphy55d]

I can't fit anything larger than a 40 inch, hence me saying 40 is the largest size I would consider. If I wasn't held back by that I'd get a plasma. Though neither of those two you linked are 1080p.

Power consumption not an issue whatsoever. if I get one, i'll go with the LCD. thanks for the input!

 

[Zivic]

I can't fit anything larger than a 40 inch, hence me saying 40 is the largest size I would consider. If I wasn't held back by that I'd get a plasma. Though neither of those two you linked are 1080p.

Power consumption not an issue whatsoever. if I get one, i'll go with the LCD. thanks for the input!

at that size, the fact they aren't 1080p isn't an issue.

 

[smitbret]

I can't fit anything larger than a 40 inch, hence me saying 40 is the largest size I would consider. If I wasn't held back by that I'd get a plasma. Though neither of those two you linked are 1080p.

Power consumption not an issue whatsoever. if I get one, i'll go with the LCD. thanks for the input!

* - Did you check the actual measurements of the televisions?The Samsung is .7" longer and .1" taller than the tv you picked out. You're telling me that you can't find an extra third of an inch on each side to get a television that is 3" larger and of much better quality?
Philips #1 38.19 x 25.63
Philips #2 39.10 x 24.40
Samsung 39.80 x 24.50
Panny 40.30 x 25.10

* - What sports are you watching in 1080p? Cable, Satellite, etc. are all 720p or 1080i.

* - At those sizes, 1080p is going to make little to no difference. The way plasma handles motion as well as the overall superior picture makes it a no brainer.

Your Wal-Mart televisions, are ok, but for movies, general television, console gaming and especially sports, they will get their doors blown off by either of the plasmas I listed. Not to mention, no possible refurb headaches.

 

[murphy55d]

I have 39.5 inches of space in the cabinet where the TV is going to be and that's with zero play. So I wish I had those .3 inches but I really don't.

Isn't 1080p going to make a difference if I get a blu ray player? I really don't know.

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt using Tapatalk

 

[smitbret]

I have 39.5 inches of space in the cabinet where the TV is going to be and that's with zero play. So I wish I had those .3 inches but I really don't.

Isn't 1080p going to make a difference if I get a blu ray player? I really don't know.

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt using Tapatalk

Fair enough, then. If there was a way to get one of those plasmas in there, though, you really would be doing yourself a huge favor.

1080p vs. 720p will make a difference depending on how far away from the tv you will be sitting. Blu-Ray and console gaming are the only two mainstream ways of getting real Full HD viewing, but you won't see the benefit from a 40" television unless you are sitting less than 5 feet away. Here's a link to the reference chart that most videophiles check:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

 

[JackBurton]

I have 39.5 inches of space in the cabinet where the TV is going to be and that's with zero play. So I wish I had those .3 inches but I really don't.

Isn't 1080p going to make a difference if I get a blu ray player? I really don't know.

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt using Tapatalk

Is this for a bedroom or living room? If it's for a living room, get rid of the cabinet and get the larger TV. Is there a rule that says you have to keep the cabinet?

 

[murphy55d]

Is this for a bedroom or living room? If it's for a living room, get rid of the cabinet and get the larger TV. Is there a rule that says you have to keep the cabinet?

Sort of, yeah. My in-laws bought it for us when we moved in here a few years ago and they paid like $800 for it, so we don't really want to just get rid of it. It's a huge entertainment center, so we can't just move it to another room either, or stoy it away. We are pretty much tied to it for awhile. We agreed when we move in the next few years it's staying with the house, but until then, we will just fit what we can. Its actually really nice but just not built for big TVs.

 

[Matt1970]

Honestly, seeing as how almost every form of media and broadcast on the market right now is 24 frames a second, the point is moot.

 

[smitbret]

Honestly, seeing as how almost every form of media and broadcast on the market right now is 24 frames a second, the point is moot.

What do you mean?

 

[Matt1970]

What do you mean?

That means whatever you are watching, like cable or a DVD or even Blu-ray, is only updating the image 24 times a second. There is some reading you can do on it but it basicly uses 3:2 pulldown method which ends up at 30 frames a second. That is basicly the framerate that your devices will output to your TV. In a one second span there are really only 24 unique images. Then in turn your 120Hz tv is really only updating the same image (each of those 24 images) 4 times or 8 times with 240Hz. 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz, much less 240Hz.

 

[weadjust]

I have a sony 52" lcd 240hz & my dad has the same tv with 120hz. I have watched a lot of sports on both tv and I can't tell any difference.

 

[smitbret]

That means whatever you are watching, like cable or a DVD or even Blu-ray, is only updating the image 24 times a second. There is some reading you can do on it but it basicly uses 3:2 pulldown method which ends up at 30 frames a second. That is basicly the framerate that your devices will output to your TV. In a one second span there are really only 24 unique images. Then in turn your 120Hz tv is really only updating the same image (each of those 24 images) 4 times or 8 times with 240Hz. 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz, much less 240Hz.

I understand the technology, but I guess what I mean is, what do you mean that almost every from of media is 24fps?

Blu-Ray comes in at 23.97fps, but DVD is still 29.97. Standard definition broadcasts are still running in the 29.97fps or 59.94fps. 720p and 1080i standards both call for 30fps (29.97 or 59.94). Video games can have variable frame rates. Unless you are streaming a VOD 1080p/24 or watching a Blu-Ray, odds are that you're not going to be anywhere near 24fps.

The reason that 120Hz and 240Hz televisions have become "necessary" is for BR playback. If you watch a BR on a 60Hz television, the TV compensates by using the 3:2 pulldown and some people will notice the stuttering. Most will not. If the majority of your television viewing comes from other sources, then 3:2 pulldown will not be used. All major broadcasters use 30/60fps which is directly divisible by the 60Hz refresh rate of even the most basic LCD television. The source material may have been 23.976fps, but the broadcaster (DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, OTA, etc.) will have adjusted it up to their native refresh rate before the signal ever reaches your television or receiver.

I would never purchase a television where the 120Hz/240Hz feature cannot be disabled because the resulting look is far less attractive than any judder from the 3:2 effect. Instead, I just go with plasma and avoid having to even think about it in the first place.

 

[Fallen Kell]

DVD of TV shows is 29.97, DVD of film is 23.97.

 

[smitbret]

Sort of, yeah. My in-laws bought it for us when we moved in here a few years ago and they paid like $800 for it, so we don't really want to just get rid of it. It's a huge entertainment center, so we can't just move it to another room either, or stoy it away. We are pretty much tied to it for awhile. We agreed when we move in the next few years it's staying with the house, but until then, we will just fit what we can. Its actually really nice but just not built for big TVs.

You could always just turn the television a few degrees to the right or left to make room for the extra .7". You won't notice the difference because plasma doesn't suffer from image degradation when you view it off angle like an LCD could.

 

[fuzzymath10]

My personal preference is LED/LCD over plasma. Every time I see a plasma (it's obvious side by side), I notice two things - they are brighter and flickery. The bright part is a plus; sometimes I feel I can't turn up the brightness enough on my LED tv. However, the flickering drives me crazy and this was a "600Hz" model. I might be more sensitive, but it is noticeable to me. YMMV. In this situation, nothing beats the constant backlighting.

On some older 720p 32" LCD TVs, I have noticed a bit of ghosting, but on my newer LED TV I notice none that would preclude sports from being watched comfortably (I think it's a 60Hz model with optional 120Hz mode). Again, I'm less sensitive to this; I was happy watching movies and playing games on a 35ms LCD.

The reason I think I don't mind even a tad of motion blur is that I hate what I call "soap opera mode" on any form of media (sports, animation, whatever). When you see it turned on, it makes everything look like a home video (or soap opera).

Also, 720p vs 1080p is not an issue unless you hook up a computer; 720 is hopeless for browsing or anything computer-based, but for movies/TV where you rarely focus on individual elements 720p is fine, but why limit yourself? I went from 32" 720p to 40" 1080p and it was worth it.

I find the colour from plasma screens more vibrant (but not enough to offset the flicker I see), but it might be a byproduct of glossy finish; I find matte LCDs are a bit muted although much improved recently.

LED/LCD - if you are VERY sensitive to flickering but don't mind potential MINOR motion blur
Plasma - if you are VERY sensitive to motion blur but don't mind potential MINOR flickering

 

[Fallen Kell]

fuzzymath10, what you are seeing isn't the brightness of the plasma, it is the contrast. LCD's are actually brighter than plasma TV, that is why they are recommended when you are in a room which you have little to no control of light sources. You are seeing the fact that the LCD doesn't "pop" due to the contrast between light and dark not being as dramatic as the plasma. I do agree with you on the flicker as I see that as well.

The newer LCD's have come a long way in terms of dealing with motion blur, and some (like the new top of the line Sharp) have really come a long way in terms of contrast as well. But you won't see that on a sub $4000 TV....

 

[smitbret]

That's crazy. I've never heard of flicker from plasma tvs. What causes this?

 

[smitbret]

DVD of TV shows is 29.97, DVD of film is 23.97.

You win. I stand corrected

 

[soulcougher73]

Ive never heard of this flicker from plasma either. Plasma for life The contrast is what makes plasma so much more superior. All the old cons of image burn in and power hungry are long gone. Some lower models may get image retention but burn in is almost non existant anymore.

*hugs* his KRP-500M

 

[JackBurton]

Ive never heard of this flicker from plasma either. Plasma for life The contrast is what makes plasma so much more superior. All the old cons of image burn in and power hungry are long gone. Some lower models may get image retention but burn in is almost non existant anymore.

*hugs* his KRP-500M

Some people are very sensitive to plasma flicker. The 60Hz models produce the most flicker (99% of all plasmas). The 72Hz plasmas are better (Pioneer plasmas), however even with 96Hz plasmas (V series Panasonic plasmas) the flicker is still noticeable to some people. I've never noticed the flicker on either one of my TVs (Pioneer 141FD and Pioneer 111FD), but I also don't notice it on the regular 60Hz plasmas either. That being said, if you are sensitive to plasma flicker, you're best going with an LCD. And if you're going LCD, do it right with a Sony HX929 or better yet, a Sharp Elite. Unfortunately they don't make them in a 40" size.

 

[Mark R]

Ive never heard of this flicker from plasma either. Plasma for life

Possibly, on very, very early models it may have been a problem. However, even 4 years ago, a 480 Hz refresh rate was standard for plasmas - 600 Hz is now the preferred rate, as it gives native compatibility with all supported blu-ray frame rates. (480 Hz isn't a multiple of 50 Hz, so you always get some judder due to uneven cadence when playing 50 Hz material).

So, while plasmas do physically flicker (like a CRT) the refresh rate is so high that it is imperceptible. (Note that this is just the frame refresh rate, and not the rate at which new frames can be displayed).

What some people do notice with plasma, and is unique to plasma, are "green flashes" which some people have called "flicker" if they don't know a better word to describe it. In very fast moving scenes, or if you move your eyes across the screen - bright objects on screen may appear to leave a green trail. This is because the green subpixels on the plasma display have an afterglow, whereas the red and blue subpixels don't (and go out almost immediately that the signal stops).

 

[JackBurton]

Possibly, on very, very early models it may have been a problem. However, even 4 years ago, a 480 Hz refresh rate was standard for plasmas - 600 Hz is now the preferred rate, as it gives native compatibility with all supported blu-ray frame rates. (480 Hz isn't a multiple of 50 Hz, so you always get some judder due to uneven cadence when playing 50 Hz material).

Those numbers have nothing to do with refresh rates. Plasmas' refresh rates range from 48Hz to 96Hz. The numbers you are quoting are subfield drive numbers which were used as a marketing gimmick to compete with LCD's artificial refresh rates (120Hz-240Hz). They have nothing to do with refresh rates. People see bigger numbers and they immediately think it means better performance. That is why you see 600Hz on the front of plasma boxes. Notice it never says anything about refresh rates. It just says, "NEW 600Hz TV!"

And yes, the latest greatest plasma still flickers. It is just something inherent to the tech. Most people won't notice it, however there are a few that will and when they do it is very distracting.