well the old 26" in the bedroom is starting not to power on sometimes. I'd like something bigger. Any brands you recommend? Any to avoid? What should I look for in a new TV?
Last edited by a moderator:
Recommend me a new tv
- Thread starter Bird222
- Start date
iRONic
Diamond Member
- Jan 28, 2006
- 8,554
- 3,848
- 136
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
disappoint
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2009
- 10,132
- 382
- 126
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
What size are you looking for? What features are you interested in (ie., 3D, HDMI inputs, do you prefer excellent picture quality or large size, extra thin for wall mounting, etc.)? What's your budget?
I would like maybe a 36" or so. Don't need 3d. I would like HDMI inputs. I would like a LCD TV. I would prefer a better picture over size. Depending on cost I might actually go down to a 32" but I would like a 36-40"
yes, goto your local B&M Sears, I got a Samsung un32eh5000 there last month for $249 in store unadvertised special order only clearance, when everyone else was selling at $349 or more.
The difference in price to go from 32" to 40" and above is significant. Also, at 32" and below, it adds almost nothing to go from 720p to 1080p, unless you intend to use it as a computer monitor.
Generally speaking, I like Samsung and Panasonic as the best combination of value and quality. There are exceptions, of course, but that's a good place to start. Sony is also equal in quality but usually more expensive for the same features (if you find an exception to that, consider it as well).
Vizio is usually a bit cheaper and is of reliable quality, but I find their scaler(for standard definition channels) is usually not as good as Samsung or Panasonic. So if you are going through a cable box anyway, let the cable box send an upscaled signal and save some money by getting a Vizio as one way to stretch your budget.
Smart tv's are an interesting feature, but they usually don't add much that you can't get from a 60 dollar blue ray player, so don't get caught up demanding that feature and paying hundreds more for it.
Good luck.
Generally speaking, I like Samsung and Panasonic as the best combination of value and quality. There are exceptions, of course, but that's a good place to start. Sony is also equal in quality but usually more expensive for the same features (if you find an exception to that, consider it as well).
Vizio is usually a bit cheaper and is of reliable quality, but I find their scaler(for standard definition channels) is usually not as good as Samsung or Panasonic. So if you are going through a cable box anyway, let the cable box send an upscaled signal and save some money by getting a Vizio as one way to stretch your budget.
Smart tv's are an interesting feature, but they usually don't add much that you can't get from a 60 dollar blue ray player, so don't get caught up demanding that feature and paying hundreds more for it.
Good luck.
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
I have one of the last years high end 70" Aquos and I couldn't be happier with it. I heard this years models were cheaper, but I haven't seen one to say if the picture quality was any worse or not.
Also, the whole 60hz,120hz, 240hz, ect. don't worry about it. You'll shut off all that anyway and go 60hz.
poofyhairguy
Lifer
- Nov 20, 2005
- 14,612
- 318
- 126
You are talking about two different things.
120hz is very nice to have. That means that 24p content can play on the TV without 3:2 pulldown. This will make panning scenes and motion much nicer.
What you are confusing that with is frame interpolation (aka the Soap Opera Effect), which is unfortunately called things like "120hz Smooth Motion."
This first thing can't be turned off, and shouldn't be. The second can be turned off and should be.
TV makers purposefully confuse the two because once you start taking away pulldown you are able to see the natural 24p judder (because honestly 24fps is really low). TV makers didn't want people to blame the judder on the TV. So they launched with 120hz TVs a way to interpolation a 24fps source into 30fps (or higher). This gets rid of judder, buts adds the unwanted Soap Opera Effect.
Fallen Kell
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,249
- 561
- 126
Well, it depends. A true 120Hz will accept a 120Hz input signal. Not many do that. But for the ones that only do 120Hz internal processing, it still gives a nice benefit in being able to properly display the various video frame rates properly without changing the video cadence. The three main video frame rates are 24 fps (film/movies), 30 fps (well technically it is 29.97, but correcting for 1 frame every 33.33seconds is not typically noticed by a human eye), and 60 fps. The important thing about 120 Hz refresh is that you can evenly play 24fps material (120/24=5), 30fps (120/30=4), and 60fps (120/60=2) without resorting to strange frame doublings (in other words everything plays smoothly at the same effective rate that it was originally intended to be viewed, as the 120Hz refresh panel will simply show each frame of 24fps material for 5 refreshes, 30fps frame for 4 refreshes, and 60fps material for 2 refreshes).
A 60 Hz panel can not play back 24fps material properly because there is no easy way divide 60/24 evenly. So they resort to using 2:3 pulldown, in which the film material is first change from 24fps to 23.967fps. 23.967/29.97= 4/5 (a whole ratio). Four frames of the film are then stretched, with the first frame shown for 2 refreshes, the second by 3 refreshes, the third by 2 refreshes, and the fourth for 3 refreshes ( 11:222:33:444, with a nice pattern of 2frams:3frames:2frames:3frames, or 2:3 for short). These 4 frames of film displayed in that manner allow you to then create 10 interlaced frames which are really 5 real frames (getting us back to the 4/5 ratio). This is then doubled on a 60Hz display with each frames shown 2 times before moving to the next frame (the original algorithm was invented for converting film for TV format with was 29.97hz). Someone who has sensitive eyes will be able to notice the slight flickering/stuttering of the video as certain frames are shown longer than other frames, it is particularly noticeable on high contrast, fast motion action sequences (a good example is an explosion at night).
Last edited:
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
Thanks for the info, but actually, my assumption was he was talking about the 2nd thing, because most people asking about it on TV's are not talking about 24p. If he'd been asking about a computer monitor, I would have assumed differently. The general populous has no clue of the difference and almost no TV's even advertise anything OTHER than frame interpolation with their big numbers.
I would go so far as to say the videophiles going into detail here are over complicating the question (but maybe I'm wrong), not that the information isn't good to have. Anyone walking into a store asking this question is going to get the "oh this does 240hz faster is better" answer.
Last edited:
I am interested in the 'first' example. So are you saying that these tv's I am seeing that say 60 hz or 120 hz (120 hz being more expensive) are not talking about the 'first' example? How can I be sure I am getting the 'real' 120 hz?
Anubis
No Lifer
slightly over 300$ in savings. prob a decent deal pricewise but display model TVs are something i personally would not purchase
any particular reason why? It looks pretty good. Still comes with manufacture's warranty.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter