Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Which of these TVs will give an overall better viewing experience at just 10-12 feet?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ez bake" data-source="post: 1346815" data-attributes="member: 229"><p>The 600Hz on a Plasma is not better than the 120Hz on a (good) LCD or LED/LCD.</p><p></p><p>Plasma's are much faster to produce (switch light/color) a pixel and when they do, they switch on/off very quickly (around 2ms or less), and typically are working at 60fps (standard TV signal), so they re-pulse the same signal up to 10-times - which yields 600fps, but you're really seeing the same pixel 10x in a row and then on to the next one - its just showing up lightning fast so there's no "flutter" effect like on an old 60hz TV.</p><p></p><p>The LCD 120Hz processors (specifically Samsung's) are doing a bit of processing in between each pixel they show and in my opinion, it truly looks much better for motion (again, with a good processor - Samsung is nice, I've seen others that were not so much). </p><p></p><p>LCD is actually slower at producing a pixel than Plasma for the most part (around 4ms), so a lot of the arguments out there for Plasma being "better" really tend to focus on which produces a faster pixel up front and then the processing afterward is a secondary debate. I honestly think that good-processor in an LED/LCD 120hz tvs look better.</p><p></p><p>240Hz gets into a little bit of ghosting and other issues that people tend to complain about, and I've not found a 240Hz TV that I was just overjoyed with enough to spend the extra money on vs what I have.</p><p></p><p>I will say this - mine is an LED/LCD which does speed up the pixel switching some and produces a pretty good contrast ratio - to me the contrast ratio is one of the most important things if you're interested in a "good picture".</p><p></p><p>Historically, Plasma's have always looked better with less contrast ratio than a typical LCD, but LED/LCDs are making good headway in that you can get a 6-8million to one contrast ratio with 120Hz and LED-lighting to increase the speed and overall brightness of pixel production.</p><p></p><p>Plus LED/LCDs use less electricity, last longer, and are lighter-weight.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ez bake, post: 1346815, member: 229"] The 600Hz on a Plasma is not better than the 120Hz on a (good) LCD or LED/LCD. Plasma's are much faster to produce (switch light/color) a pixel and when they do, they switch on/off very quickly (around 2ms or less), and typically are working at 60fps (standard TV signal), so they re-pulse the same signal up to 10-times - which yields 600fps, but you're really seeing the same pixel 10x in a row and then on to the next one - its just showing up lightning fast so there's no "flutter" effect like on an old 60hz TV. The LCD 120Hz processors (specifically Samsung's) are doing a bit of processing in between each pixel they show and in my opinion, it truly looks much better for motion (again, with a good processor - Samsung is nice, I've seen others that were not so much). LCD is actually slower at producing a pixel than Plasma for the most part (around 4ms), so a lot of the arguments out there for Plasma being "better" really tend to focus on which produces a faster pixel up front and then the processing afterward is a secondary debate. I honestly think that good-processor in an LED/LCD 120hz tvs look better. 240Hz gets into a little bit of ghosting and other issues that people tend to complain about, and I've not found a 240Hz TV that I was just overjoyed with enough to spend the extra money on vs what I have. I will say this - mine is an LED/LCD which does speed up the pixel switching some and produces a pretty good contrast ratio - to me the contrast ratio is one of the most important things if you're interested in a "good picture". Historically, Plasma's have always looked better with less contrast ratio than a typical LCD, but LED/LCDs are making good headway in that you can get a 6-8million to one contrast ratio with 120Hz and LED-lighting to increase the speed and overall brightness of pixel production. Plus LED/LCDs use less electricity, last longer, and are lighter-weight. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Which of these TVs will give an overall better viewing experience at just 10-12 feet?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
