Technical Issues and Questions

[denti alligator]

I say go for LCD over Plasma. Blacks are blacks. They aren't any less "deep" on an LCD than in a theater.

LCD has sharper image, better color, and no burn in (important if you watch a lot of films in their proper AR -- all those black bars).

120hz doesn't make too much of a difference on my Toshiba. I can barely notice when it's turned on. No worries, plus you can always turn it off. Contrast is important, but those are big numbers anyway. Just make sure you do some calibration before you start watching things and you'll be happy.


On my end: a new video card solved my troubles. I'm sticking with WinDVD because it supports HD-DVD playback, and I can't tell any difference between it and PowerDVD.. Plus, PowerDVD is super invasive--it takes over in programs where I don't want it. Got rid'a that fast.

Red Desert Blu-ray looks beautiful!

[subliminac]

I would say go for the 650. It has 24p playback (reducing judder on camera pans) and a range of color tweaking options that allows you to get the TV very close to REC. 709 standard (color fidelity will be damn near perfect). Also you may want to think of going larger. 40" gets small real quick, especially if you watch alot of 1.33 aspect ratio movies.

[Antoine Doinel]

I too will be getting an LCD soon -- quick question: what do you guys use for color calibration?

[foggy eyes]

I've been looking at (smaller) LCD screens recently as well, and it appears that my budget (under £500) won't stretch to anything that looks even remotely watchable - deep blacks are one thing, but the off-puttingly thin image and inability to adequately reproduce motion is another (a lot of cheaper models are only 50HZ, so movement is reduced to a total mess). I can't believe people are buying the 'affordable' LCD screens: they're nowhere near as good as late CRTs of equivalent size. If anybody has some tips, I'm all ears...

[fdm]

I too will be getting an LCD soon -- quick question: what do you guys use for color calibration?

Don't have an LCD (or plasma), but Digital Video Essentials (or equivalent) has been useful for me. I suppose a professional (ISF) calibration would probably eek out that last bit of perfection (given limitations of one's set, and limitations in one's ability to adjust things just right), but I guess I am really lucky as my set seems to be just about spot on with respect to colors (I'm a bit less certain about the blacks and my somewhat recent penchant to notice "banding" (first really noticed it about a year ago, and now it's hard not to)). I've just used the DVD version, but there's a Blu-Ray version as well.

[Donald Brown]

I say go for LCD over Plasma. Blacks are blacks. They aren't any less "deep" on an LCD than in a theater.

LCD has sharper image, better color, and no burn in (important if you watch a lot of films in their proper AR -- all those black bars).

This is all wildly incorrect. The blacks on an LCD are a middling, muddy grey, while the the contrast, color reproduction, and depth of blacks on plasmas are noticeably superior.

[Antoine Doinel]

Anyone have some good advice on appropriate hz rates? What is the "soap opera" effect that might be worrisome at higher rates?

[denti alligator]

I say go for LCD over Plasma. Blacks are blacks. They aren't any less "deep" on an LCD than in a theater.

LCD has sharper image, better color, and no burn in (important if you watch a lot of films in their proper AR -- all those black bars).

This is all wildly incorrect. The blacks on an LCD are a middling, muddy grey, while the the contrast, color reproduction, and depth of blacks on plasmas are noticeably superior.

I don't mean to start a fight with my fellow Wake-fan, but it can't "all" be "wildly incorrect," since what I say about burn-in is definitely true.

Also, as for blacks: I didn't say they were better than the blacks on Plasmas, only that they aren't distracting (for me) in the least.

Looking at a Plasma and an LCD side-by-side shows the differences well enough, and in almost all cases the LCD is sharper, has better detail, and has wonderful colors.

[foggy eyes]

Anyone have some good advice on appropriate hz rates? What is the "soap opera" effect that might be worrisome at higher rates?

Seconded. I'm confused about this as well - surely the higher the HZ, the better? I just returned a Sony LCD which suffered from severe motion blur (it was faulty as well), and would love to know whether 100HZ does actually solve the problem entirely. I do seem to be particularly sensitive to the way movement is reproduced on an LCD, but can't believe it's just a case of switching from CRT and having to get used to the change...

Any thoughts?

[Matt]

There were some recent tests done on 125 different LCD models, with some surprising results.

As for the Samsungs, you can turn the AutoMotion 120 Hz on and off. I have the Samsung LN46A650 (which I love), and I turn it off for movies and back on for regular TV and sports. Also, the blacks on the Samsungs can look pretty fantastic if you set everything up correctly.

For calibration, I just Googled my model + calibration and found lots of recommended settings on Home Theater geek sites. Those, in conjunction with plain ol' NTSC color bars, worked just great. It's a lot of eyeballing, and it took me several days to get it just right for me, but I'm happy now.

[Antoine Doinel]

As for the Samsungs, you can turn the AutoMotion 120 Hz on and off. I have the Samsung LN46A650 (which I love)

I'm looking at buying the 40" model in the same series this week as there is a deal where you can add a Samsung BD player and three movies for $99. Quick question -- does your set have regular coax in for cable? I would imagine it does but some reason the specs I'm looking at say it doesn't (though a couple of customer reviews claim it's there).

[Matt]

It does have a coax in. Here's a pic, in fact. On the spec sheet, it's listed as "RF antenna input."

[Antoine Doinel]

Great, thanks Matt!

It seems I'm in the same boat as Oedipax! I did some more hunting and I'm torn between the exact same two Samsung models. I guess the only deciding factor is: how noticeable or distracting is 60hz for regular TV? Most people it seems are turning off 120hz for DVD watching which is mostly what I'd be using it for. I don't watch a lot of sports (soccer occasionally) and my "regular" TV shows are pretty much The Office, Dexter, and Lost. I guess the question is, will regular TV be watchable? How "blurry" will it get if I get a model with 60hz instead of 120hz option?

[swo17]

I saw this article which discusses, among other things, the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. There are a couple of quotes from here I don't get though:

LCD displays, for example, tend to look better in brightly lit rooms, and in my experience, they deliver smoother, more film-like images than plasma (whether that's a good thing or bad is a matter of taste).

By smoother, does he mean DNRd to oblivion? Can anyone attest to what this guy's talking about?

A more dramatic "benefit" of a 120Hz refresh rate is the "motion-smoothing" effect you'll see on pricier HDTVs, which smoothes out the natural judder in film-based material. Personally, I hate "motion smoothing," especially when it comes to movies shot on film; I happen to think that judder (like film grain) is one of the qualities that makes film look like film, not video.

Isn't judder introduced in the telecine process, and resolutely not a natural element of film?

[Antoine Doinel]

From what I've gleaned from my reading today, the difference between 60hz and 120hz is not very noticeable, and frankly ends up depending on the manufacturer/unit as much as anything else (many manufacturers have their own built in"fixes" to compensate for any lag with 60hz refresh rates). I think I'm going to go with a 60hz TV, as for what I'll primarily be using it for, 120hz won't be required. There are some models that come with 70-75hz settings which some people swear by but I can't believe I would be able to see a difference between 60hz and 75hz.

[fiddlesticks]

I have the Samsung LN40A550, and I love it. I'm no expert (far from it), but I've done some reading and I think the geek consensus seems to be that the 120Hz (which comes in the A650 but not the A550) is not worth the extra cost. I expect most of the technogeeks would suggest using the extra money to get a bigger (46") set rather than a faster (120Hz) set. The only time I've noticed any blurring was during the diving competition in the Olympics; the other sports I've watched (chiefly baseball, Olympics, and some American football) have looked splendid on my set. I also think I read that the A550 got the highest rating from Consumer Reports among 40" LCDs, but I could be mistaken. The blacks are as black as black needs to be. And the color reproduction is beautiful, but since I'm red/green color blind you might want to get a second opinion.

[David M.]

How "blurry" will it get if I get a model with 60hz instead of 120hz option?

When we use benchmark discs, we typically find that LCD TVs without any sort of interpolating system manage around 300 lines of motion resolution. A 120hz TV usually brings that up to around 600, an improvement, but still a far cry from a good projector of Plasma display.

The problem with 120hz, as mentioned, is the fact that it's almost always associated with those horrible motion vector interpolation systems which cause movies to have a more video-camera like appearance. Yuck.

As for the question about judder. Yes, films played back at 24hz or a multiple of that (eg 48, 96hz) should not judder. It is the conversion to US style 60hz that causes the judder, because 24 does not divide into 60. But, some people watch movies and, used to the smooth movement of video-based programs, still say that they look "juddery".

Compressionist/DVD author/hardware reviewer/general video goon

This is all wildly incorrect. The blacks on an LCD are a middling, muddy grey, while the the contrast, color reproduction, and depth of blacks on plasmas are noticeably superior.

Although PDP's blacks are definitely superior in dark environments, LCD can be deceiving. LCDs can be configured (and sadly usually are left configured) in truly sick ways which show all the problems you mention. But good LCDs can have their performance improved considerably with calibration.

For example, the better S-PVA LCD panels (used by Samsung and Sony, and in some high end Toshiba LCDs) can produce very convincing black levels once calibrated. Not Pioneer Kuro quality, but still very good. Likewise, greyscale and colour reproduction can be improved to a ridiculous extent.

By contrast, Plasmas usually come set up to give a less ridiculous looking image. Perhaps it's to do with the fact that they are easier to damage due to incorrect setup, or perhaps it's because the people buying them are generally more appreciative of a high quality picture.

[swo17]

Question: Is there a difference between these two specs?

3:3 Pulldown: Pull down is a technique by which specific frequency signals, usually 60i fields, are brought down to 24 progressive frames. This rate of motion is highly sought after since almost all cinema is shot at 24 frames per second. Most displays perform a 3:2 pull down which results in uneven field reproduction. While this method helps create the desired effect, motion often appears to jitter unevenly. Pioneer has developed a 3:3 pull down technique by increasing the plasmas frequency rate from 60Hz to 72Hz. The increase makes it much easier for the monitor to display images at films native speed of 24 fps. The resultant experience is so close to film, you'll feel like you're in the theater!

24p: Movies are shot at 24 frames per second. Unfortunately, TVs operating at 60Hz can only refresh 20 times per second, which means they must drop every fifth frame. With its 2008 Viera PZ85, PZ800, and PZ850 models, Panasonic introduces 24p native resolution, which means 24 frame per second movie content is reproduced frame for frame exactly, making for true-to-source smoothness of motion.

[Ahti]

They both claim to be 24p compliant - that is being able to reproduce the frame rate of a 24 fps source perfectly, without a 3:2 pulldown a-la NTSC or 4% speedup a-la PAL. To able to do this, the display must have a refresh rate exactly a multiple of 24. A 75 hz display can display a 25 pfs (PAL) signal perfectly, 60 hz for NTSC, 72 for 24 fps film. If you got a high enough refresh rate, you can approximate any frame rate with virtual perfection.

But all this is theoretical, and similarly specced TVs perform differentially. For example, a recent Samsung LCD with 1080/24p specs showed slight combing with all materials. The reason is probably that an interlacing chip was used somewhere in the video processing path. So to be sure: test the TV with a range of discs covering what what you care about and see how it performs - or find a review site that does the job.

Personally I'm stuck with a 32" CRT for various reasons, that's not available most of the time for other various reasons.

-Unemployed dude living with parents

[Antoine Doinel]

It looks like I've settled on the Samsung LN40A550. Next recommendation: home speakers. I'm not going to get them right away, but I'm looking for an affordable subwoofer and two speaker set up (don't have room for true surround). I don't need a particularly crazy receiver either. Looking for suggestions on a simple solution. I'm not much of an audio freak.

[swo17]

OK, I've been looking for a while for an upper-end HDTV that has all the fancy specs I want AND is able to play both NTSC and PAL. So far, everything I've found that has multisystem capabilities has been lacking in the fancy specs department, and/or comes from some retailer I've never heard of at a hefty price. But then today I found this box, which apparently has the effect of turning any TV into a multisystem TV. Does anyone have any experience with this? If this actually does what it says, it could make my life a whole lot easier. I've been wanting to go multi-region for a while now.

[fiddlesticks]

It looks like I've settled on the Samsung LN40A550. Next recommendation: home speakers. I'm not going to get them right away, but I'm looking for an affordable subwoofer and two speaker set up (don't have room for true surround). I don't need a particularly crazy receiver either. Looking for suggestions on a simple solution. I'm not much of an audio freak.

With restrictions on budget and space, I was considering this well-reviewed Sony HT-CT100, which (supposedly) produces faux-surround from a fairly large subwoofer and a single speaker bar that fits in front of the TV...and requires no separate A/V receiver. I eventually opted for a more standard 7.1 setup (got a deal and engineered the space), but I've since wondered how good this Sony is. If it's good, it's a great and cheap solution to a space problem.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

OK, I've been looking for a while for an upper-end HDTV that has all the fancy specs I want AND is able to play both NTSC and PAL. So far, everything I've found that has multisystem capabilities has been lacking in the fancy specs department, and/or comes from some retailer I've never heard of at a hefty price. But then today I found this box, which apparently has the effect of turning any TV into a multisystem TV. Does anyone have any experience with this? If this actually does what it says, it could make my life a whole lot easier. I've been wanting to go multi-region for a while now.

That box has only composite and s-video connections. You want to buy an upper-end HDTV and then feed low quality crap into it?

[swo17]

You want to buy an upper-end HDTV and then feed low quality crap into it?

Well, not intentionally, no. What do I need, HDMI inputs? Does someone make a converter with those kinds of inputs?

Also, by upper-end, I mean something in the $1,500-$2,500 range, if that changes anything.

[fiddlesticks]

There's a lot of weird stuff that goes on in Utah on a daily basis , but I don't think PAL or SECAM TV broadcasts are among them, and that seems to be the point of this box. I'm guessing that what you think you want to do is watch PAL DVDs on an NTSC TV. Your DVD player will very probably do the conversion for you, making this box superfluous. (Furthermore, your new TV will be an ATSC TV, not NTSC, although I confess I get confused about whether ATSC TVs can accept native PAL or must receive converted NTSC input.) More to the point, your new TV will be a digital TV, and this box (as Rufus points out) transmits only analog signals--and low-quality ones at that. You'd sacrifice a lot of picture quality by hooking it up to an "upper-end HDTV." You'd be taking a native digital signal (from your DVD player), degrading it to a low-quality analog signal, converting it to NTSC, and passing that to the digital TV, a process which would defeat almost every advantage the digital TV has (that is, the picture wouldn't look any better than on your current 19" Sylvania, and since you'll probably be spreading that picture out over 46", it'll probably look worse.) This converter box is not intended for use with digital TVs, only analog ones.

I've been wanting to go multi-region for a while now.

Multi-region and multi-system are not the same thing. For multi-region, you'll need a multi-region DVD player, which will overcome the region coding and be able to play PAL discs. And you'll want one with digital outputs (i.e. HDMI) which you can connect to your A/V receiver or TV.