3d tv.. or buy lcd tv?

AeR0

what should i do wait for these new 3d tvs to come out or should i just get myself a 120hz or 240hz lcd tv now??


any input?

MANSKITO

LCD 3d tech is not yet ready for prime time. Unless you go all out with LCD glasses and even then you have to look like a **** while watching 3D programing. Wait a few years for the tech to improve.

Take the money saved and buy some good audio Its already 3D!!!!!!

AeR0

haha yeah im working on that too!

dorokusai

If I want 3D I'll dress up like a male prostitute and get drunk in a place I've never been.

leroyjr1

AeR0 wrote: »

haha yeah im working on that too!

Get yourself a nice Pioneer or Panasonic plasma and you'll be set for a while.

I wonder if that 3D stuff is going to be a flop or will it stick around to become the next great viewing experience.

Disc Jockey

MANSKITO wrote: »

LCD 3d tech is not yet ready for prime time. Unless you go all out with LCD glasses and even then you have to look like a **** while watching 3D programing. Wait a few years for the tech to improve.

Take the money saved and buy some good audio Its already 3D!!!!!!

The tech is not going to improve enough in a few years to the point where you don't have to wear glasses.

AeR0

any suggstions between 120hz and 240hz?
or even led?


i need a lcd upstairs b/c its a well lit enviroment.

ScudDawg

240 hz led's are nice samsung makes some nice ones

AeR0

can you really notice a diff from 120 to 240?

MANSKITO

Disc Jockey wrote: »

The tech is not going to improve enough in a few years to the point where you don't have to wear glasses.

How ever when 4k resolutions (4096

MANSKITO

AeR0 wrote: »

can you really notice a diff from 120 to 240?

you really can't notice a difference between 60 and 120 for that matter.

Take it from a PC gamer who plays twitch based shooters. If my video card starts to lag and my PC starts dropping frames I get pissed and my ability to Frag(kill) Noobs gos way south.

Even on the fastest paced PC games ever made you don't really need more then 50-60 frames per second. And more importantly PC games are rendered without motion blur aka each image is crystal clear so FPS(frames per second) is even more important on the PC then it would be on a foot ball game or action movie. The motion blur that you get on Films helps your brain interrupt motion and is why movies can be played and the low frame of 24fps and not be choppy.

When Video games or video is rendered crystal clear from frame to frame and there is no motion blur, the frame rate must be increased so as to again help your brain interrupt the motion as smooth rather then choppy. As a general rule of thumb in the gaming world (which is much more demanding then an action movie will ever be) a MINIMUM frame rate of 30FPS is generally the standard with an average of 60fps making for better play.

After the 60fps mark you run into the law of demising returns.

Also on a side note your TV's Response time is a huge over looked factor in determining how smooth the image is rather then just the refresh rate. Again coming from the gaming world we demand that our monitors have a Minimum of 2ms response time VS your average TV's response time being upwards of 8ms so in that case the added refresh rate DOSE NOTHING.

Seeing the same static image 3 times in a row dose not help your brain interrupt motion better. If your TVS pixels can not keep up with the refresh rate of the set, then the image will not look smoother.

MANSKITO

ScudDawg wrote: »

240 hz led's are nice samsung makes some nice ones

The LED part makes it look better NOT the 240 hz thats marketing BS.

MANSKITO

AeR0 wrote: »

any suggstions between 120hz and 240hz?
or even led?


i need a lcd upstairs b/c its a well lit enviroment.

Go for an LED don't let the refresh rate be a determining factor in which set you buy.

ScudDawg

MANSKITO wrote: »

The LED part makes it look better NOT the 240 hz thats marketing BS.

240hz really only comes into play when you have something moving fast on the screen, seen a demo with a swinging picture that really shows the difference, not sure if this will occur when watching normal broadcasting.

ScudDawg

oh and forgot to mention if you watch blu ray movies look for XV color, not many 120hz panels have that feature unfortunately. XV color gives you 80% more color on Blu Ray movies, nice feature to have.

tonyb

ScudDawg wrote: »

240hz really only comes into play when you have something moving fast on the screen, seen a demo with a swinging picture that really shows the difference, not sure if this will occur when watching normal broadcasting.

But when you enable the 240hz you lose detail. Such is the downside of lcd.

MANSKITO

ScudDawg wrote: »

240hz really only comes into play when you have something moving fast on the screen, seen a demo with a swinging picture that really shows the difference, not sure if this will occur when watching normal broadcasting.

Thats exactly my point, what moves faster then first person twitch shooters?
And in gaming FPS is extremely important for more reasons then just smooth video.

And even in the MOST demanding environment (PC gaming) frame rates higher then 60FPS get diminishing returns and past 100-120fps there is NO point what so ever. TV sets don't even have the response times to make the difference between 120fps and 240fps.

Games have the fastest moving objects you will ever see move on screen and even PC gaming dose not benefit from faster frame rates why would movies or tv shows?

JohnLocke88

MANSKITO wrote: »

How ever when 4k resolutions (4096

Conradicles

Most cable and sat is still 1080i and 720P for hi-def and will be for a long time.
They look very good to me.

tonyb

Look how long it took to get everyone on board with HD. Still not all channels are broadcast in HD. To get them all to move up to 4000 p would take 10 years. Then you would have to buy players that produce that quality, then what ? Buy your movies allover again ? B.S.

MANSKITO

Conradicles wrote: »

Most cable and sat is still 1080i and 720P for hi-def and will be for a long time.
They look very good to me.

Yes well I come form the PC side of things, my source is not limited by what the telecommunications companies have the bandwidth to broad cast. So my resolutions go up as fast as i can earn money to buy a better monitor/graphics card.

Also you think they look good at that comparatively low resolution of 1080/720, think about if it was IMAX quaility, because that what 4k is, its equal to 70mm film.

And in 5 or so years from now I do believe you will being seeing that tech starting to reach the home.

As to wide spread adoption no its not going to happen over night how ever if the question is Buying a nice HDTV and skipping the 3D tech and saving a thousand bucks when you have all those advancements to look forward too the answer is easy. Put your money in what dose not go out of date so fast, good amplification and speakers.

On the sound side of things we are getting very close to reproducing sound accurately enough to fool the human brain into thinking its the real thing. That is on the very high end of audio now only the price needs to come down.

On the video side of things there are so many paradigm shifts that have to take place its not worth it to buy the high end because the high end will be the low end 5 years down the road.

All i m saying is tech is on the way for video that will be like bringing home your first HD set all over again, now is not the time to buy the biggest and the best.

MANSKITO

tonyb wrote: »

Look how long it took to get everyone on board with HD. Still not all channels are broadcast in HD. To get them all to move up to 4000 p would take 10 years. Then you would have to buy players that produce that quality, then what ? Buy your movies allover again ? B.S.

Not true digital distrubation will take care of that. Also remember tech grows exponentially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

So what took 5 years to advance in the past will take 1 year in the future.

People will not be buying new players and optical disc in the future, the information revolution is going to kill the need for that.

All we now have to do is wait for is for internet connectivity speeds to increase to the point where they can handle digital distribution.

cheddar

While I agree that the PC industry has in the past done things Moore's Lawish, consumer electronics just can't keep up with the changes you suggest in ever decreasing time periods. Broadcasters use 720p and 1080i because those were and are the minimum standards released by the Feds when they mandated the digital switchover to HD. Then the broadcasters made all the capital investment necessary to make it happen because they were required to do so. That's why this last HDTV cycle went so quickly.

And although many communications companies have installed fiber/etc. lines in recent years, they stop in distribution nodes and often have plain old copper to the house, often at the limits of its capacity over long lines.

Infrastructure and old standards kept 480i TV around for decades, long after PCs came out with much higher progressive resolutions. And even after 480p became standard on dvd players.

You are right that change is coming. But I think that you may be getting a little ahead of what is realistically possible within a short 5 year time frame, especially since we're still in a down economy, with a lot of major infrastructure upgrades just completed that peg to 720 and 1080 resolutions.

PC gamers can upgrade their equipment continuously, not even waiting a year. Home theater enthusiasts can get the bug every 2-5 years per component? Non-enthusiasts even longer. (I know this doesn't apply to some of the more enthusiastic upgraders...) But upgrading an entire industry all along the chain every 5 years? Just saying required infrastructure upgrades and the lack of standards 'imposed' by the federal government can do a lot to delay the adoption of new consumer technologies.

polktiger

No way the cable companies/consumers will buy off on the cost of 3D anytime within the next 10 years.

Even comcast in my area only has about 25 HD channels with lack bandwidth being the primary excuse. We are still missing some basic channels like the weather channel, nickelodean, we don't have all the multiple HBOs, Starz, etc in HS (not that I subscribe to them anyway) and just got several of the cable news channels and are waiting on others.

Sherardp

I won't buy into 3D for some time myself. I've seen one good movie in 3D and am also wondering if it will be a flop. So I'll wait it out and see how it does. I also don't like wearing the glasses, but we shall see what happens.

As for you OP, get yourself a nice screen now, and go all out on the audio side. You'll be very happy.

cheddar

polktiger wrote: »

No way the cable companies/consumers will buy off on the cost of 3D anytime within the next 10 years.

Even comcast in my area only has about 25 HD channels with lack bandwidth being the primary excuse. We are still missing some basic channels like the weather channel, nickelodean, we don't have all the multiple HBOs, Starz, etc in HS (not that I subscribe to them anyway) and just got several of the cable news channels and are waiting on others.

Not to mention that cable companies regularly compress even their HD signals to conserve bandwidth. That's why I continue to get my over the air channels using an old school antenna. They look better to my eyes even in 720p and 1080i than what can happen when cable gets a hold of the signal.

cheddar

Sherardp wrote: »

As for you OP, get yourself a nice screen now, and go all out on the audio side. You'll be very happy.

+1 Spend a little less on the gimmicks of HDTVs and a little more on getting audio components that complement each other well and you can wait all this other stuff out until it matures. Early adopters in consumer electronics tend to get stuck with the highest bills for the least returns.

mystik610

AeR0 wrote: »

can you really notice a diff from 120 to 240?

Not really.

Without getting too technical, the images we see on a TV are actually a series of flashing images with black frames in between. A 60hz tv will flash 60 images a second...a 120hz screen will flash 120 images a second.

So what you see as a continual image is actually:

1st frame - black frame - 2nd frame - black frame - 3rd frame

The real benefit of 76hz, 120hz, and 240hz sets is with 24fps material, as 24 frames do not display evenly on a 60hz set and causes judder. 24 does not evenly divide into 60, and the frames aren't displayed proportionately. The only real benefit you'll see this is with blu-ray movies in 1080/24p, however, as All US broadcast material is displayed in 60hz.

The difference you see in LCD's with 120hz panels is in the use of frame interpolating modes. LCD's suffer from motion blur because the pixels in the LCD panel don't move quickly enough to produce the black frames as they should. It takes too much time for the pixels to move back and forth from a frame to a black frame. To rectify this, TV manufacturers intoduced frame interpolating technology, which will predict what a hypothetical frame between two frames would look like. To smooth out the picture, the interpolated frames are displayed instead of the black frames..so it would look a little more like:

1st frame - interpolated 1.5 frame - 2nd frame - interpolated 2.5 frame - 3rd frame

Going from a 120 to 240 hz set you're essentially interpolating twice as many frames, but this yields very little real improvement over a 120 hz set. The real benefit is eliminating the black frames and minimizing motion blur, which is already accomplished with a 120hz set. From a video purists perspective, a 120hz might actually be better than a 240hz set as less of the image is subject to artifical rendering.

mystik610

MANSKITO wrote: »

The LED part makes it look better NOT the 240 hz thats marketing BS.

Even the use of LED's in samsungs new sets yield little real benefit in picture quality....in some ways they're DETRIMENTAL to picture quality (poor off axis viewing). They're essentially the same Samsung series LCD panels with edge-lit LED's instead of CFFL backlighting. Samsung sort of took a step backwards with their sets with the release of these thin, edge-lit LED sets from where they were going with their localized dimming back lit LED sets. The older LN55a950 and LNT5281f blow these edge lit sets out of the water.

So yeah don't buy into the marketing hype. We won't see anything revolutionary until large OLED screens become commercial available. Don't mistake "LED" for "OLED" either. It seems Samsung is trying to confuse consumer by labelling these thin sets 'LED TV's'. Their backlit LED set have been out for almost 3 years, and not once were they called 'LED TV's until they brought out the thinner luxia line.

MANSKITO

cheddar wrote: »

While I agree that the PC industry has in the past done things Moore's Lawish, consumer electronics just can't keep up with the changes you suggest in ever decreasing time periods. Broadcasters use 720p and 1080i because those were and are the minimum standards released by the Feds when they mandated the digital switchover to HD. Then the broadcasters made all the capital investment necessary to make it happen because they were required to do so. That's why this last HDTV cycle went so quickly.

And although many communications companies have installed fiber/etc. lines in recent years, they stop in distribution nodes and often have plain old copper to the house, often at the limits of its capacity over long lines.

Infrastructure and old standards kept 480i TV around for decades, long after PCs came out with much higher progressive resolutions. And even after 480p became standard on dvd players.

You are right that change is coming. But I think that you may be getting a little ahead of what is realistically possible within a short 5 year time frame, especially since we're still in a down economy, with a lot of major infrastructure upgrades just completed that peg to 720 and 1080 resolutions.

PC gamers can upgrade their equipment continuously, not even waiting a year. Home theater enthusiasts can get the bug every 2-5 years per component? Non-enthusiasts even longer. (I know this doesn't apply to some of the more enthusiastic upgraders...) But upgrading an entire industry all along the chain every 5 years? Just saying required infrastructure upgrades and the lack of standards 'imposed' by the federal government can do a lot to delay the adoption of new consumer technologies.

well I didn't say wide spread adoption. All I'm saying is it will be available to those with the money (and the amount of money it coast will drop exponentially) and in some respects

http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/Kipnis_Home_Theaters.html

it is already available today even to Home theater enthusiasts.
Moors law is not all i was talking about,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Accelerating_Returns

Moors law and the derivatives has effected every part of your life from brushing your teeth to PC you use to type on this forum.

But no I don't think wide spread adoption will occur just that it will be much like 3D an emerging tech but in this case ready for adoption.

seeing as you can already buy a 4k set up, really the question is will how fast will the price drop occur?

I willing to bet faster then most think possible.

MANSKITO

mystik610 wrote: »

Even the use of LED's in samsungs new sets yield little real benefit in picture quality....in some ways they're DETRIMENTAL to picture quality (poor off axis viewing). They're essentially the same Samsung series LCD panels with edge-lit LED's instead of CFFL backlighting. Samsung sort of took a step backwards with their sets with the release of these thin, edge-lit LED sets from where they were going with their localized dimming back lit LED sets. The older LN55a950 and LNT5281f blow these edge lit sets out of the water.

So yeah don't buy into the marketing hype. We won't see anything revolutionary until large OLED screens become commercial available. Don't mistake "LED" for "OLED" either. It seems Samsung is trying to confuse consumer by labelling these thin sets 'LED TV's'. Their backlit LED set have been out for almost 3 years, and not once were they called 'LED TV's until they brought out the thinner luxia line.

my mistake i forgot about the under preforming super thin sets, how ever my point was that changing the display tech more so then ever higher FPS will lead to much better picture picture quality.