led/lcd tv?

DarthSWNT said:
I have seen lots of panels and samsung are not great in the plasma market. Definitely average. And in the led-lcd market they are better.

I am not comparing them to LG and Sony though. Looking at all the manufacturers like pioneer, toshiba, NEC, etc as well.
Click to expand...

Pioneer doesn't make plasma any more. Not sure about Toshiba and NEC either, I'm sure they pulled out of plasma.

Anyway, point is Panasonic plasma may be better (best plasmas in the world, old Pioneer KURO tech), but at a higher price. So when comparing apples and apples, Samsung vs LG and Samsung wins most of the time. I've advised tons of people and all feel the same after testing.

So I'm wondering what makes you say this?
 
Qrox said:
Getting a tv can be a bit tricky at times. A while back we went out looking for a tv and was surprised to see that some of the LCD versions had better colors than the LED versions of tvs in the same price range. It isn't like that with all of them though, I know one of the LED samsung monitors color is WAY ahead of any other monitor that I can think of, but are unfortunately quite expensive.

The 100hz also makes the picture look a lot smoother. I suggest before you buy, you should go out to the shops and look at the monitors on display. So far I think your best bet is to stick with samsung.
Click to expand...

This is because LED backlit LCD is generally worse at colour production than CCFL backlit LCD. This is due to the brighter LED lighting which washes colours out more. If you are looking for colour accuracy at the entry - mid range, plasma is your best bet.

Unfortunately Samsung has dropped all their 100+Hz CCFL-LCDs. So now only the LED backlit LCDs have 100Hz, and the better engines/colours/blacks/etc. So when someone puts up Samsung's 5 Series LCD (highest CCFL backlit LCD model) vs the 6 Series LED backlit LCD, they automatically think "LED tech" (even though it's LCD tech) is better. This is purely because of the superior internals/engine used in the LED-LCD. They will confuse this with "LED being better".
 
DarthSWNT said:
LEDs are notoriously bad sources of pure white light. The reason why you go LED is consistency, less flicker, brightness, weight and consumption.

Luckily the panel itself can compensate for the LED problem or you can get RGB LED monitors.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
Click to expand...

LED backlit LCD are generally anything but consistent. One only has to Google "LED LCD light spots".

Not sure why it would be the worst source for white light? LED backlit LCDs are brighter and have the highest dynamic contrasts, so surely the whitest whites?
 
Pr⊕phet said:
Thanks for again answering I know I bothered you over at mybb, just wanted a second opinion here too :)

I see that the UA40D6000 is priced around 8K which isn't that bad either, so for led I'm down to either LA40D550 or UA40D6000. The UA40D6000 is quite nice, I played around with it today at newworld, I still need to decently test it at some shop. Only blur I think I saw was small trees moving around and their tops seems to be not in focus for few seconds, I suppose that's the blur we are talking about.

As for the 100hz and sport, well I could see the difference. Just little concerned about old flicks or flicks in general getting "soap" look, but with the UA40D6000 I see that you could turn the MotionPlus off or custom set. Which should remedy that if really an issue. I suppose I have a bit of a stigma towards plasma *shrugs*, it just feels wrong for some reason. Don't they use more electricity than led/lcd ?

Main use is gaming, then flicks, then series. Sport not so much, I'm not big on that.
Click to expand...

Not so much more electricity. Think we worked it out over at MyBb and it was about R20 extra per month compared to the closest LCD size (seeing as the plasma would be bigger, therefore more power hungry). Once you look at the size/power consumption, it's really nothing you should worry about.

What you need to weigh up is whether 100Hz is of more benefit to a gamer, or whether 11" bigger is of more benefit.

I know I'd take 11".
 
HavocXphere said:
Pretty sure Blu-Ray and DSTV are both 24fps sources, so I don't see much of a problem there with a 60hz screen. The benefit there is more likely to come from the motion engine, not the screen refresh rate.

I gather that the refresh rate is absolutely crucial though for 3D because you lose half of it.

I remember there was something weird with the Samsungs on the refresh rate though...they advertize 240hz & the panel only runs at 120 while the 240 refers to the motion engine or something BS like that.

Its weird though...on a PC CRT I notice the refresh even on 85hz, while a 60hz samsung LCD is fine.
Click to expand...

The more people that understand Hz = FPS, the better.

Yup, Samsung's new marketing term - Clear Motion Rate - haven't seen it myself so can't comment. When those ignorant buyers see CMR's higher number, they go insane. I mean we've already had people in this very thread thinking their 50Hz TVs are 100Hz, due to Samsung's clever marketing.
 
DarthSWNT said:
Besides, i never said that lcds produced better dark colours. Plasmas have always had the upper hand on lcds here. LEDs are more localised and dont have the bleed as much but can still have contrast issues in darker images.
Click to expand...

LED backlit LCDs are susceptible to worse light bleed. Not only can your edges bleed, but you can also get "white spots" all over the screen. This has been a severe problem with recent Samsung LED backlit LCDs.
 
PostmanPot said:
LED backlit LCDs are susceptible to worse light bleed. Not only can your edges bleed, but you can also get "white spots" all over the screen. This has been a severe problem with recent Samsung LED backlit LCDs.
Click to expand...

Yeh blame samsung not the technology.

LEDs are bad producers of white. Search that and see.

They can be brighter but contrast is not always better, two related but separate concepts. LEDs produce more localised light which is why they do not bleed into other parts of the screen.

I havent kept up with who produces plasmas in the last year and a bit, so some may have halted production. Why would these companies give up on the better technology which they were good at :/

I might favour LCD technology but I have not said plasma is rubbish. It has pros and cons just like LCD.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
DarthSWNT said:
Yeh blame samsung not the technology.

LEDs are bad producers of white. Search that and see.

They can be brighter but contrast is not always better, two related but separate concepts. LEDs produce more localised light which is why they do not bleed into other parts of the screen.

I havent kept up with who produces plasmas in the last year and a bit, so some may have halted production. Why would these companies give up on the better technology which they were good at :/

I might favour LCD technology but I have not said plasma is rubbish. It has pros and cons just like LCD.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
Click to expand...

Well if you Google you will realise it has been a big problem specifically with Samsung.

Link me to facts that support your argument.

LED light not bleeding, you must be confusing LED edge lighting (99% of "LEDs" on the shops) and full array LED with local dimming (very expensive).

Plasma costs more to produce.
 
I'm owning a ASUS LED PC screen and it's amazing. Much better than my LCD pc screen so I don't know what you all talking about. That's why you get a decent brand
 
DiceAir said:
I'm owning a ASUS LED PC screen and it's amazing. Much better than my LCD pc screen so I don't know what you all talking about. That's why you get a decent brand
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You sir have succumb to marketing gimmick.

Both are LCDs, same LCD matrix, only the back-light differs. You don't have a LED screen, you have a LCD with LED back-lighting.

Let's tackle this shall we. List your "LCD" model number and age.
 
PostmanPot:609685 said:
DarthSWNT said:
Yeh blame samsung not the technology.

LEDs are bad producers of white. Search that and see.

They can be brighter but contrast is not always better, two related but separate concepts. LEDs produce more localised light which is why they do not bleed into other parts of the screen.

I havent kept up with who produces plasmas in the last year and a bit, so some may have halted production. Why would these companies give up on the better technology which they were good at :/

I might favour LCD technology but I have not said plasma is rubbish. It has pros and cons just like LCD.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
Click to expand...

Well if you Google you will realise it has been a big problem specifically with Samsung.

Link me to facts that support your argument.

LED light not bleeding, you must be confusing LED edge lighting (99% of "LEDs" on the shops) and full array LED with local dimming (very expensive).

Plasma costs more to produce.
Click to expand...

My apologies, i thought we were comparing 2 technologies... not a specific branch of technology with a wholr range of others.

If you are looking at a price range, the only thing you can really do is assess your room's light situation. Plasma is usually better in low light and lcd better in higher light situations. Other than that, most mid to low-end stuff is very similar in both technologies, if they have a low-light room this will be great to check out the differences.

When I refer to LED i don't mean LED-TV. Light emitting diodes are a bad producer of white light, which is shone through the LCD panel and is therefore affected by the light source.

Comparing consistency, of course LEDs will be better, they are shining through the same panel but with more accuracy. Dont blame one companies failure on the tech.

Plasmas are more expensive to produce at higher resolutions than LCDs. Mainly due to pixel density issues for plasmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top