Even the newest plasmas have issues with burning in the first few hundred hours but only if you have a constant source on your screen. Or so I’ve read.
Another thing to keep in mind: A LED IS and LCD television. The only difference is the backlight is an LED bulb rather than flourescent. They consume less power and emit less heat, but ultimately a high end LCD will give you the same picture. The dynamic contrast ratios are advertised as much higher than those on LCD's, but the native contrast is virtually the same.
I’ve read the LED LCD has several benefits in addition to the power benefits:
Local dimming reduces blur.
Better blacks. (an issue for LCD TVs in general)
Lights don’t degrade over time like florescents so you’re picture don’t lose quality over the life of the TV.
IMHO LED TV’s w/ local dimming finally bring LCDs up to an even par with good plasmas.
I will say though that the lights in LEDs are not natural - the picture is good, but to my eyes appears backlit by a non-natural light (it’s a blue tinged very bright white). It can look cartoonish at times, especially paired with non natural colors in the picture. Good example would be Sportscenter’s extremely colorful set design.
The weight thing is really silly unless you are trying to hang from drywall instead of a stud. my 54" plasma isnt that heavy. At 65" it is probably a factor.
[quote=“NovaNiner, post:21, topic:22480”]Even the newest plasmas have issues with burning in the first few hundred hours but only if you have a constant source on your screen. Or so I’ve read.
Another thing to keep in mind: A LED IS and LCD television. The only difference is the backlight is an LED bulb rather than flourescent. They consume less power and emit less heat, but ultimately a high end LCD will give you the same picture. The dynamic contrast ratios are advertised as much higher than those on LCD's, but the native contrast is virtually the same.
I’ve read the LED LCD has several benefits in addition to the power benefits:
Local dimming reduces blur.
Better blacks. (an issue for LCD TVs in general)
Lights don’t degrade over time like florescents so you’re picture don’t lose quality over the life of the TV.
All bs?[/quote]That stuff is correct, but the samsung LED’s have poor local dimming. That is why I recommend the LG LED. The Sharp LED has a good picture as well, but I like the LG LH90 much better. Has great sound quality as well (the samsung ultra thin LED’s have very poor sound). The LG LH90 also has the ability to stream netflix built in, samsung does not. Also, the LH90 is 240hz and typically can be picked up for less than samsungs cheapest model of LED, which is 120hz. Like I said earlier, that really doesn’t make much, if any difference, but if I can get a TV that has better specs for a better price, why not? Samsung does have higher contrast, but keep in mind that manufacturers can pretty much say whatever they want to in that regard. There is no industry standard and everyone measures it differently. If someone came out and said their contrast was 15,000,000,000:1, nobody could really refute the claim.
The only thing incorrect is that colors will still fade over time. The lights don’t create the colors, the liquid crystal does. The panels on the LEDs are still rated at 100,000 hours, just like the LCDs and the plasmas. What they consider the life is when the color on the television has faded by half.
I bought a Samsung LCD 46" last year and a Panasonic 52" Plasma. Both have really good pictures. The Plasma is in a totally dark theater-type room and the Samsung is in my bar.
Neither get a ton of play, but both still have great pictures. No complaints with either.
[quote=“Niner National, post:23, topic:22480”][quote=“NovaNiner, post:21, topic:22480”]Even the newest plasmas have issues with burning in the first few hundred hours but only if you have a constant source on your screen. Or so I’ve read.
Another thing to keep in mind: A LED IS and LCD television. The only difference is the backlight is an LED bulb rather than flourescent. They consume less power and emit less heat, but ultimately a high end LCD will give you the same picture. The dynamic contrast ratios are advertised as much higher than those on LCD's, but the native contrast is virtually the same.
I’ve read the LED LCD has several benefits in addition to the power benefits:
Local dimming reduces blur.
Better blacks. (an issue for LCD TVs in general)
Lights don’t degrade over time like florescents so you’re picture don’t lose quality over the life of the TV.
All bs?[/quote]That stuff is correct, but the samsung LED’s have poor local dimming.[/quote]
They do not have local dimming, if you are talking about the ultra thin UNXXBX000 series sets. [edit - I am wrong - the UNXXB9000 series does in fact have local dimming - only the 9000 series - the most expensive ones) They’re side lit. That’s why they can be so thin. The LG and the Toshiba are backlit/local dimming. They have a more even picture with better blacks, but they still suffer from that intense blue tinged bright white backlighting.
I like them though. There’s no perfect tech yet or it would own the market. And this stuff is pretty trivial on the whole. Once you get one home, you won’t really notice unless you’re being anal.
Got my Samsung st HH GREGG, i ACTUALLY LOVE IT…shopped for some time and confused myself to death…fortunately after a year I have no regrets, great tv, great place to buy from…
Thought I’d bump this, I’m like Moss looking to get a HD/Blue Ray combo in the near future. I can only fit a 37 inch in the entertainment center we have though so that’s what I’m looking at. Can you guys suggest the best 37 inch HD TV, still the Samsung?
37" is going to limit your selections quite a bit. If you want to get a 37" that stacks up with some of the higher end models of Samsung, Sony, LG, Toshiba, or Sharp, you’ll likely have to buy online. Most big box retailer carry low end 37" models and usually have a much smaller selection of that than they do of the 40" + sizes.
If you have 37" of total space, you may be able to find a select few 40" LCD’s that will fit into the space. I know the 40" Sony Z4100 was less than 37" wide, but that was an 08 model and can’t be found new any more.
I bought a Sharp HD/DVD combo and I woould NOT recommend- it’s not a bad TV, but on the full screen mode it’s picture is not what I would expect for a HD TV.
I bought a Sharp HD/DVD combo and I woould NOT recommend- it’s not a bad TV, but on the full screen mode it’s picture is not what I would expect for a HD TV.[/quote]
I guess I didn’t explain that very well, I’m not looking for a HD TV and DVD player in the same unit, just going to get an HD TV and figured I’d buy a new blue ray player while I was at it, I thought I’d see a bunch of deals where you can get both at a good price but have been pretty disapointed.
I think Sony was the only one currently doing a free player, but Samsunga nd panny will be back with their offers if they follow history. Might be another month or so.
You can get a Blu Ray player for $99 these days. Get the best TV you can get for the money and worry about the Blu Ray player later. It’s dead tech anyway.
[quote=“NovaNiner, post:38, topic:22480”]You can get a Blu Ray player for $99 these days. Get the best TV you can get for the money and worry about the Blu Ray player later. It’s dead tech anyway.[/quote]Not dead, but unnecessary really. On demand 1080p streams will continue to grow in the future and probably eventually control the majority of the market, but there will always be people who want to have a physical object they can call their own if they’re paying for it.
If you look at the sales to date compared to prior tech like DVD and VHS players you could say that Blu Ray has never been alive. Not only will on demand grow, but you could still own your movie in a cloud somewhere instead of having a bunch of DVD cases laying around your house.