New Technology?

I think your getting some half-truths; and the salesman propbably fully believes them.

I think the new technology being referred to is OLED.  I don't have much knowledge on the technology; but I think it's silly to wait for the next big thing when there are great alternatives right now.  There will always be a next technology; unless it's something right around the corner and it's something you specifically need - buy when you need to upgrade.  Another next technology he may be referrring to is 3D.  3D is out now of course, but the technology is in its infancy and many are staying away until it matures.

As far as LCD vs plasma, in general plasmas can have a better picture due to their black level.  And in general LCDs are better for bright rooms when it's unlikely that the owner will fully correct for lighting.  But those generalities fade when you get down to specific models. 

I'd probably start my seach with an LCD in your case because the prices in that size range are very reasonable and I would err on the side of a brighter picture.  (And I'm too lazy to go out and compare every combination of LCD and plasma; but that's just me.)

Hello Lee Lucas,

Welcome to the forum.

Don't believe for a second you did anything stupid: LED TV's and LCD TV's are basically the same technology. The difference is the way the LCD screen is lit and the price.

"Hz" means how high-pitched a sound is. It stands for the number of air-waves per second, in other words the frequency. 16 Hz is pretty low, and you cannot really hear it, only feel it in your chest. From (roughly) 30Hz on, your ears start to catch the sound - a very low bass. That goes all up to the level where we speak (say 300Hz), up  to the highest children's shrieks (3500Hz), and up for other noises in our environment (including music instruments). When you're young it stops only at 22000Hz or so. When you age, the upper frequencies can no longer be heard by your ears, it may go down to 12000Hz or less.

So: you want an audio system that can process (roughly) 25HZ - 22000Hz to make it almost perfect for the job!

 But if it says 35Hz - 18000Hz, altogether, that's very, very good still.

Cees

I have the same room situation, happy with a year old Sony LED. I'd suggest a high end LED...Sony, Samsung...in-home warranty service..no 3D...120 and 240 hz are both adequate speeds...don't pay for any internet ready crap...compare remotes, important for us older folks, some are easier to use than others....backlit is a big plus. Good luck!

To my eye, the Panasonic plasmas have the best picture that I have ever seen.  I was at Ultimate Electronics a couple of weeks ago.  They had, I think, a 53".  It was fantastic.  I think it was in your price range too. 

Hertz, means cycles per second.  It is commonly used to describe sound pitch, AC electicity or the refresh rate on your computer screen and TV.  The electricity in your house wall outlet alternates at a rate of 60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz.  Older TVs are 60 Hz with the newer ones going up and up, to over 600.  On a TV, the higher the Hz, the smoother the motion and it doen't have trailing artifacts when something moves quickly across the screen.  This is probably not a technically correct explanation but it gives the basic idea.

I believe that any TV with 120 or 240 Hz basically eliminates the problem, pushing it below our threshold of perception.

Nick

With regards to "Hz" for video displays:

The video signal comes in a variety of frame-rates; anywhere from about 24fps to 60fps, interlaced or progressive scan.  Old NTSC was 29.97i; film in the theater is 24(p, although it's not really "scanned.")  Some players output 24p for film-based sources.  And so on.

Then you get to the display.  Some people see the 24fps of the film, or even 29.97/30 of most video as "jerky" on some of the displays.  So the engineers started monkeying around with ideas about creating "inbetween frames."  If you've got a 240Hz display, and feed it a 30fps video source, you'll get 30 "real" frames in a given second, and then seven "between" frames between each of the "real" frames.  This helps "smooth" the motion.

Except when it doesn't work.  Not all sets are as good at this "reality creation" as others.  Some, the "between" frames are only about a quarter the resolution of the "real" frames. Maybe not so noticable if you're looking at 30fps on a 60fps (or Hz) display, where there's only one fake frame per real frame.  But when you've got a 7:1 ratio of fake to real, you get a lot more time to appreciate any flaws that might be there.

But it does reduce the "judder."  (For example, a fast moving baseball bat might swing across the screen in three real frames.  If the shutter speed was too fast, you get three beautifully sharp frames of a baseball bat.  Except it jumps two "bat widths" per frame as it swings.  With the extra frames, the motion is smoothed out.)

Me, I'm used to film, and watch things in their native frame-rates.

Leo

Quote:

Originally Posted by winniw 

 

On a TV, the higher the Hz, the smoother the motion and it doen't have trailing artifacts when something moves quickly across the screen.  This is probably not a technically correct explanation but it gives the basic idea.

 

I believe that any TV with 120 or 240 Hz basically eliminates the problem, pushing it below our threshold of perception.

I wish I could remember in more detail...

But there are three different parameters at play throughout all of this discussion:

Frame Rate: How many different images the source material outputs per second;

Refresh Rate: How many times per second the display "redraws" itself (when it's higher than the frame rate, then as Leo described, the display either draws the same frame multiple times, or "interpolates" new frames which, when done poorly (or at all, according to some folks) can be very distracting;

Response Time: In both phosphor-based and LCD-based displays - how quickly the actual "pixels" can respond to a change in signal sent to them.  Lower response times are largely responsible for "streaking" of images, as the physical display medium can't completely switch from one state to another as fast as the TV starts to redraw the image;

I read a very interesting article (wish I could find it) that discussed how a faster refresh rate won't make much of a difference if the display's response time is relatively slow.  I can't recall the exact specifics, but the main takeaway from the article was that it's a combination of all three of these factors that have significant effect on the final perceived output and boosting one without boosting the other (in the case of refresh rate and response time) doesn't yield much improvement.

I am with Leo - I prefer things as they are intended to be seen.  I have seen the "Soap Opera Effect" and can't stand it.  The ONLY thing I've seen where that really helped was watching tickers scroll across the bottom of the screen, but that does not make up a statistically significant portion of my viewing habits.

Edit: Looking online for more info, and had to make a correction...

Edit2: A wikipedia entry that briefly mentions the relationship between refresh rate and response time for LCD displays.

Plasma TVs use a bit more power than LED/LCD models but they have better black levels.  They have been saying that the "new technology" OLED displays will be here in a year and a half for the past 5 years, so I will belive it when I see it.  Sony had an 11" model for several thousand dollars last year, but at that price point they didn't sell many and I don't consider it ready for prime time.  Sharp is the only company using yellow in thier displays (four color LCDs) and there is a reason the other TV makers aren't.  Its all marketing hype and most of the reviews have blasted them for inaccurate color. 

In summary, you got a fine TV that your mom will enjoy for years to come. My only critisim is you won't have it in time for the Super Bowl

the other "new tech" display I'm aware of would be the Field Emission and compatible type display, which essentially every individual sub-pixel is its own CRT.

I've seen one once.  It was a 19" 4x3 monitor, capable of a genuine 300fps display, and was real close to meeting all of the standards for a master reference monitor in a color-correction suite.  (Peak brightness was about 10% low.)  It was absolutely fantastic. But there was no indication if they were ever going to make any more than the six that they had in the exhibition booth or not.  Or how big.  Or..

which is real disappointing, 'cause the picture combined the best of Plasma, LCD, and CRT, all in the same package.  Which is kind of improbable, I suppose; I guess the down-side is no one is really interested in funding it to bringing it to a production level, given the cost of the monitors on the street.  (I haven't even heard if they were pursuing the high-end color grading studios or not.)

Leo

http://www.oled-info.com

for some reason i can't edit this post. ignore the bottom section.

LG will be able to make 30" OLED TVs be the end of 2011, and (as we know already) plans a Gen-8 fab for 2011. Sony meanwhile seems to be focusing on professional OLED monitors, and doesn't have any active consumer OLED TV program.