LED or LCD

[SandrA9810]

Well that is a nice bit of information there.

I want a TV to use for gaming as well as viewing. Not to mention I watch a lot of shows that are "dark", aka, always seems to be night (science channel and supernatural stuff).

Thank you to the OP for this thread. We are in the market for a TV.

For gaming, plasma is the best because of the refresh rate is more like a CRT. It prevnts blurring and lag.

First off, plasmas have a glass screen. It will weigh more than an LCD or LED. But the screen is less likely to be scratched or messed up. Still lighter than an old tube. It can be easily moved by two people which is a ggod idea for a tv that is 50" or bigger.
Secondly, they are more expensive than some of the low end counter parts, but you can still get one for about $900. It doesn't have to cost $3-4,000.

 

[wiigirl]

This is from the CNET review site.
I have a lot of electronic junkies in my house so this is sort of like their on line bible.
Neither they or I are "experts".

This is their 3 rules for buying a tv.

1. Picture quality is not determined by the published specs
As a rule of thumb, the main purpose of a TV's specification sheet is to bombard you with confusing numbers in an attempt to get you to "step up" and buy the more expensive version. Just about the only worthwhile numbers are found under Inputs and Weight/Dimensions. Contrast ratio is basically a lie, refresh rate (120Hz, 240Hz, 600Hz, etc.) is complex and ultimately subjective, seemingly related numbers like "CMR," "TruMotion," MotionFlow," SPS" and the rest are fake, viewing angles for LCD and LED-backlit LCD TVs are bunk, and LED does not mean a better picture (while we're at it, all HDMI cables are the same).

Rather than rely on the spec sheet to provide hints on which TV will perform better than another, our advice is to simply ignore it. The sheet can help when trying to differentiate a TV based on features, such as whether it has Smart TV or a fancy remote, but it's useless at best and outright misleading at worst when used as a tool for divining picture quality


http://reviews.cnet.com/tv-buying-guide/

 

[Shutterbug]

I disagree about the refresh rate. It does matter. Especially if you are into sports. The faster the better to prevent blur. Yes I have noticed it on slower refresh rates. Just make sure you chose 120 or higher. If you get a plasma the refresh rate will be good.

The problem with glass screens is reflection. My parents have one and have lots of problems with reflected light whether it be sunlight or other light sources.

Also go with at least 1080p which most are.

Find out how how many inputs you will need. HDMI ports for DVR, Blu Ray, Xbox/PS4/Wii etc. Also USB ports for USB sticks.

What can help is a copy of consumer reports that rates the tv's. Usually your local library carries them.
For HDMI cables go to monoprice.com Don't buy the way overpriced ones from any of the box stores.

 

[mill4023]

Brand really doesn't mean anything anymore. Generally speaking these days, all the TV's of a certain size are made by the same company, no matter the brand name on the front. Vizio is one of the biggest makers of flat screen TV's, not matter what the brand name is on the front.

I'm not sure where you got this information, but it isn't true.
There are lots of different manufacturers of TV's and a lot of different manufacturers of the components, such as the actual LCD panel. Some companies (Sharp, LG, and Samsung for instance), make their own LCD panels. Some (Vizio, Sony and others) do not. For the companies that don't make their own LCD panels, they come from a variety of other manufacturers. And even for those companies that do make their own LCD panels, there is no guarantee that the TV you buy has their own panel in it. For instance, Samsung makes LCD panels and makes TV's. But not all Samsung TV's have Samsung LCD panels in them. They recently partnered up with Sharp as a supplier of LCD panels for Samsung TV's.

In addition to the company's you've heard of, there are a number of other companies that make LCD panels and supply them to the TV manufacturers.

Trying to figure out who made the components for a certain TV is almost impossible.

So your best bet is just to take a look at the reviews for the TV's you are interested in, that have the features you want, and use that to help decide.

 

[bcla]

Moderns TVs are not "LED" pere se as noted here. They use LCD technology with some sort of back light. LCDs are more or less electronically controllable filters, but provide no light on its own. Most still use cold-cathode tubes for backlighting, while some newer ones use more efficient LEDs.

The other alternative is a plasma display, which actually generates light.

It is possible to make an LED video display. A lot of these are found in stadiums. If you get up really close, you can see little dots.

 

[bcla]

It really depends what you're using it for. Either is fine for regular tv watching. If you're a gamer or watch a lot of dark shows/movies, plasma produces better blacks.

If you want the best blacks:

It's a Dolby PRM-4200 professional reference studio monitor. It's used for video mastering in a studio setting. I remember talking to someone on the design group there, and it apparently has tens of thousands of LEDs backlights that can be independently controlled to provide the truest black in the industry. One of these will set you back about $50,000. It's nearly a foot thick and has a bunch of fans to keep all the electronics (that control the backlights) from overheating. I think the LCD panel is just a pretty standard one from one of the major manufacturers, but the difference with this one is that it syncs the brightness of the backlights to the video signal.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professi.../prm-4220-professional-reference-monitor.html

 

[Domo]

I used to work for Bang & Olufsen and let me tell you, though their audio equipment is all about the image, their TVs are the BEST you can get. The only brand that came close was Loewe.

 

[bcla]

I disagree about the refresh rate. It does matter. Especially if you are into sports. The faster the better to prevent blur. Yes I have noticed it on slower refresh rates. Just make sure you chose 120 or higher. If you get a plasma the refresh rate will be good.

The problem with glass screens is reflection. My parents have one and have lots of problems with reflected light whether it be sunlight or other light sources.

Also go with at least 1080p which most are.

Find out how how many inputs you will need. HDMI ports for DVR, Blu Ray, Xbox/PS4/Wii etc. Also USB ports for USB sticks.

What can help is a copy of consumer reports that rates the tv's. Usually your local library carries them.
For HDMI cables go to monoprice.com Don't buy the way overpriced ones from any of the box stores.

Refresh rate doesn't necessarily overcome the limitations of the video source.

The thing I really can't stand is 1080i source material with any kind of fast motion, where it turns into "fuzz". Doesn't matter what the display does - it's can't overcome the issues. This is an exaggeration that CNET did to show what it more or less looks like, but if you see sports on TV, it's pretty apparent whenever there's fast motion. NBC and CBS both broadcast in 1080i. Looks OK for slow moving stuff like dramas, but for sports it has serious issues. ABC, Fox, and ESPN broadcast in 720p.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

For gaming, plasma is the best because of the refresh rate is more like a CRT. It prevnts blurring and lag.

First off, plasmas have a glass screen. It will weigh more than an LCD or LED. But the screen is less likely to be scratched or messed up. Still lighter than an old tube. It can be easily moved by two people which is a ggod idea for a tv that is 50" or bigger.
Secondly, they are more expensive than some of the low end counter parts, but you can still get one for about $900. It doesn't have to cost $3-4,000.

Apparently after research, I cannot find one that is smaller that 39". Rats. I have a large armoire that it needs to fit into, UNLESS I can convince Dh to move it.

 

[tvguy]

I'm not sure where you got this information, but it isn't true.
There are lots of different manufacturers of TV's and a lot of different manufacturers of the components, such as the actual LCD panel. Some companies (Sharp, LG, and Samsung for instance), make their own LCD panels. Some (Vizio, Sony and others) do not. For the companies that don't make their own LCD panels, they come from a variety of other manufacturers. And even for those companies that do make their own LCD panels, there is no guarantee that the TV you buy has their own panel in it. For instance, Samsung makes LCD panels and makes TV's. But not all Samsung TV's have Samsung LCD panels in them. They recently partnered up with Sharp as a supplier of LCD panels for Samsung TV's.

In addition to the company's you've heard of, there are a number of other companies that make LCD panels and supply them to the TV manufacturers.

Trying to figure out who made the components for a certain TV is almost impossible.

So your best bet is just to take a look at the reviews for the TV's you are interested in, that have the features you want, and use that to help decide.

We just upgraded on TV's at work, about 100 in all. Many are in areas where we want the audio disabled. We bought 13", 32 " and 60 inch, a variety of brands, Samsung, Vizio, Sony, and Element and when our engineers opened up the backs to disable the audio, when you set different brands of the same size side by side, none of them were made by the company whose name was on the front, it for the 60's inch Samsung and Sony's they were made by some company I don't remember nor have I heard of before. I just know the engineers said they don't sell TV's under their own name.

 

[Imzadi]

I disagree about the refresh rate. It does matter. Especially if you are into sports. The faster the better to prevent blur. Yes I have noticed it on slower refresh rates. Just make sure you chose 120 or higher. If you get a plasma the refresh rate will be good.

The problem with glass screens is reflection. My parents have one and have lots of problems with reflected light whether it be sunlight or other light sources.

Also go with at least 1080p which most are.

Find out how how many inputs you will need. HDMI ports for DVR, Blu Ray, Xbox/PS4/Wii etc. Also USB ports for USB sticks.

What can help is a copy of consumer reports that rates the tv's. Usually your local library carries them.
For HDMI cables go to monoprice.com Don't buy the way overpriced ones from any of the box stores.

I just picked up a Samsung smart TV tonight. It's an LED and back-lit instead of edge-lit. I did get a 1080p TV. But, it's only a 60Hz refresh rate.

I don't watch sports. Only the U.S. Open Tennis once a year. No gaming. Mostly movies & TV shows. I do watch spaceships flying at warp speed/hyperspace that I don't want to see all blurry like that elephant picture another poster posted.

Right now, I don't even have a digital or an HD TV. I still have one of those old, huge, heavy TVs that are about 18" deep. It served my purpose. Except, a couple weeks ago, I was down in my building's coin laundry room, watching the cheap, HD TV installed down there. And I saw the picture quality is like 500% better than what I have. I realized it's about time for me to get a TV of this century.

Should I exchange the TV I got? The next one of a similar price range with the 120hz is a Vizio. I've never heard of that company. The Samsung is double the price of the one I got.

 

[sam_gordon]

Refresh rate doesn't necessarily overcome the limitations of the video source.

The thing I really can't stand is 1080i source material with any kind of fast motion, where it turns into "fuzz". Doesn't matter what the display does - it's can't overcome the issues. This is an exaggeration that CNET did to show what it more or less looks like, but if you see sports on TV, it's pretty apparent whenever there's fast motion. NBC and CBS both broadcast in 1080i. Looks OK for slow moving stuff like dramas, but for sports it has serious issues. ABC, Fox, and ESPN broadcast in 720p.

When you have problems seeing the "fuzz", what's your source? OTA? Satellite? Cable? Although the source material (as broadcast from the nets) might be 1080i (1920 x 1080 interlaced), by the time you see it, it's been compressed, so you're not seeing full resolution.

For those who don't know, 720p is 1280 x 720, but progressive.

Interlace means the picture is drawn using all the odd rows (1, 3, 5, 7, etc) of a screen, then going back and showing the even rows (2, 4, 6, 8, etc).

Progressive draws each line in sequence (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc).

Yes, in general, progressive will be better than interlace, especially if you have the same number of lines (1080i vs. 1080p). However, I personally like more resolution (1080 vs. 720). With the exception of some VOD (video on demand) content and blu-ray, there is no 1080p source material available currently.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I just picked up a Samsung smart TV tonight. It's an LED and back-lit instead of edge-lit. I did get a 1080p TV. But, it's only a 60Hz refresh rate.

I don't watch sports. Only the U.S. Open Tennis once a year. No gaming. Mostly movies & TV shows. I do watch spaceships flying at warp speed/hyperspace that I don't want to see all blurry like that elephant picture another poster posted.

Right now, I don't even have a digital or an HD TV. I still have one of those old, huge, heavy TVs that are about 18" deep. It served my purpose. Except, a couple weeks ago, I was down in my building's coin laundry room, watching the cheap, HD TV installed down there. And I saw the picture quality is like 500% better than what I have. I realized it's about time for me to get a TV of this century.

Should I exchange the TV I got? The next one of a similar price range with the 120hz is a Vizio. I've never heard of that company. The Samsung is double the price of the one I got.

Congrats for stepping into this century. I will do it eventually as well.

Not sure if you should exchange it, as I am not the person to ask.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

When you have problems seeing the "fuzz", what's your source? OTA? Satellite? Cable? Although the source material (as broadcast from the nets) might be 1080i (1920 x 1080 interlaced), by the time you see it, it's been compressed, so you're not seeing full resolution.

For those who don't know, 720p is 1280 x 720, but progressive.

Interlace means the picture is drawn using all the odd rows (1, 3, 5, 7, etc) of a screen, then going back and showing the even rows (2, 4, 6, 8, etc).

Progressive draws each line in sequence (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc).

Yes, in general, progressive will be better than interlace, especially if you have the same number of lines (1080i vs. 1080p). However, I personally like more resolution (1080 vs. 720). With the exception of some VOD (video on demand) content and blu-ray, there is no 1080p source material available currently.

So to sum up....

Look for a 720 with a refresh rate of 120 or higher?

 

[sam_gordon]

So to sum up....

Look for a 720 with a refresh rate of 120 or higher?

Actually no (IMO). If I was shopping now, I'd be looking for a 1080p with a refresh rate of 120hz or higher. Not because of what I'm watching now, but what I might be watching in 4-5 years.

Another fact... the cameras that shoot sporting events (whether 1080 or 720) are doing so at less than 60hz (the ones doing 1080 are actually 59.94, I believe 720 are the same). So if the signal is originating at 60hz, does a 120hz display make that much of a difference? I'd like to see a 60hz display and a 120hz display side by side showing the same content and see if I see a difference.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Actually no (IMO). If I was shopping now, I'd be looking for a 1080p with a refresh rate of 120hz or higher. Not because of what I'm watching now, but what I might be watching in 4-5 years.

Another fact... the cameras that shoot sporting events (whether 1080 or 720) are doing so at less than 60hz (the ones doing 1080 are actually 59.94, I believe 720 are the same). So if the signal is originating at 60hz, does a 120hz display make that much of a difference? I'd like to see a 60hz display and a 120hz display side by side showing the same content and see if I see a difference.

I want to play video games on this TV as well. Does that make a difference?

 

[SandrA9810]

I want to play video games on this TV as well. Does that make a difference?

What games are you playing? Fighters, FPS, the occasionaly slow RPG? Are you planning on getting a PS4? The PS4 is in 1080 now, while the xbox one is still 720. Do you have a blu ray collections with a good player?

Most gamers will still say Panasonic's Plasma is best for video games, but these are also people that play games a lot. It really depends on what you do with your tv. If you just like watching over the air channels for a couple prime time shows and the news, then it doesn't really matter. If you have a large blu ray collection (especially if you like the Criterion collection), plan to get a PS4, play graphic intense games, watch sports then it's a good idea to invest in a TV that will serve you well for the next several years.

 

[bcla]

When you have problems seeing the "fuzz", what's your source? OTA? Satellite? Cable? Although the source material (as broadcast from the nets) might be 1080i (1920 x 1080 interlaced), by the time you see it, it's been compressed, so you're not seeing full resolution.

For those who don't know, 720p is 1280 x 720, but progressive.

Interlace means the picture is drawn using all the odd rows (1, 3, 5, 7, etc) of a screen, then going back and showing the even rows (2, 4, 6, 8, etc).

Progressive draws each line in sequence (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc).

Yes, in general, progressive will be better than interlace, especially if you have the same number of lines (1080i vs. 1080p). However, I personally like more resolution (1080 vs. 720). With the exception of some VOD (video on demand) content and blu-ray, there is no 1080p source material available currently.

I understand the basics. I have an engineering background and certainly can read through a detailed description of the process.

However, the material I was mentioning was on Comcast cable - either directly or through an HD cable box. CBS and NBC show sports like football or basketball. Any kind of fast motion streaking across the screen or any kind of quick pan will cause noticeable interlacing artifacts because it can't refresh fast enough. Here's a screenshot someone had of an NFL broadcast on CBS, which uses 1080i. The static parts like the score and the text overlay don't have to refresh. The movement just turns into a blur because of deinterlacing artifacts. It not only looks jittery, but there's a noticeable loss of information because of bandwidth limitations. It looks a lot like a JPEG image set for a reduced file size.

The primary reason why ABC, ESPN, and Fox chose 720p to broadcast was for their sports programming. I do remember watching Olympics coverage on NBC, and the issues with fast motion were pretty easy to spot.

 

[mill4023]

We just upgraded on TV's at work, about 100 in all. Many are in areas where we want the audio disabled. We bought 13", 32 " and 60 inch, a variety of brands, Samsung, Vizio, Sony, and Element and when our engineers opened up the backs to disable the audio, when you set different brands of the same size side by side, none of them were made by the company whose name was on the front, it for the 60's inch Samsung and Sony's they were made by some company I don't remember nor have I heard of before. I just know the engineers said they don't sell TV's under their own name.

None of those companies manufacture every component in their televisions, but that doesn't mean they don't make the TV's. And it doesn't mean that they are all the same.
As I said, there are a number of companies that make LCD panels (Samsung, LG, Sharp, and a bunch of companies you've never heard of). And most television manufacturers source their LCD panels (and other components) from more than one supplier. So the Samsung TV you see at the store was indeed assembled by Samsung, but even sticking to one model, the components could actually be made by a number of different sources.

To say that all TV's are made by the same company is just wrong.

 

[sam_gordon]

I understand the basics. I have an engineering background and certainly can read through a detailed description of the process.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I figured you understood what you were talking about, but I wanted to educate others who are reading this thread.

However, the material I was mentioning was on Comcast cable - either directly or through an HD cable box. CBS and NBC show sports like football or basketball. Any kind of fast motion streaking across the screen or any kind of quick pan will cause noticeable interlacing artifacts because it can't refresh fast enough. Here's a screenshot someone had of an NFL broadcast on CBS, which uses 1080i. The static parts like the score and the text overlay don't have to refresh. The movement just turns into a blur because of deinterlacing artifacts. It not only looks jittery, but there's a noticeable loss of information because of bandwidth limitations. It looks a lot like a JPEG image set for a reduced file size.

What I was trying to point out was what I bolded in your response. What is Comcast doing to the signal received from the local broadcaster? What's the local broadcaster doing to the signal received from the network? Does the local have subchannels? Each subchannel takes away from the bandwidth originally provided. Every cable/satco compresses the signals even further.

I have seen compression artifacts (on local and national feeds) and have also see the 'pure' 1080i or 720p signals right out of the camera (before any compression is done).