Help needed in deciphering HDTV specs

[gtrshow]

I'm planning to replace my aging Mitsubishi Diamondvision HDTV sometime within the next year, and have started to do some research.

Apart from the inevitable plasma vs. LCD decision, I'm currently comparing two models of identical size from the same manufacturer. Features aside, the key differences in technical specs are as follows:

Colour Gamut 96% 92%
Contrast Ratio (Dynamic) (http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/glossarydisplay.asp?sku_Id=0770HDS0010100091%2C077 0HDS0010096455&logon=&langid=EN# Contrast Ratio (Dynamic) ')) 27,000:1 10,000:1
Contrast Ratio (True) (http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/glossarydisplay.asp?sku_Id=0770HDS0010100091%2C077 0HDS0010096455&logon=&langid=EN# Contrast Ratio (True) ')) 3,000:1 2,000:1
Refresh Rate 120Hz 60Hz

The more expensive of the two models also has 960p input capability.

Can any one shed any light on how significant these differences are? The price differential between the two models is substantial (almost double).

Thanks in advance.

[VCuomo]

Color gamut refers to the ability of the TV to reproduce accurate colors (the higher the better).

Contrast ratio refers to how much brighter the TV produces white than pure black (again, the higher the better).

Refresh rate is the number of times per second that the screen is "painted" (and, again, the higher the better). LCDs have, until recently, had slower refresh rates which will give a less-fluid look to objects moving quickly on the screen. At 60Hz you'll likely see this, at 120Hz you won't.

When it comes to LCD HDTVs, pay attention to the contrast ratio and refresh rates. I would only go with 120Hz sets, and I wouldn't go any lower than a 20,000:1 contrast ratio. Although, as always, use your own eyes and decide what looks better to you.

From looking at the specs you've provided, I'd guess that the more expensive TV is a recent model and the other one is an older model.

[gtrshow]

Thanks! That's perfect. Exactly the kind of advice I needed.

[Old Tele man]

...1080i and 1080p are high-definition (HD) resolution, all others are just "digital" resolution (ie: 720i or 720p); and the "i" suffix means "interlaced" (same as current old TV's, just OK) while "p" suffix means "progressive"-scan (best).

...FWIW--the new Blue-Ray™ players only use 1080p.

[amigo30]

While you are trying to compare 2 different sets from the same manufacturer, you can use specs as a guide to a degree.

Many people however try to buy sets based on specs. In general, specs tell you almost nothing about how good of a TV you are trying to buy is.

There is never a published spec about the sets power supply. There is almost never any information about the sets scaler, and the software used to drive the scaler. They don't publish specs about the build quality. These things have a significant impact on the quality of the picture, and the quality of the set that you end up buying.

The best way to sort your way through all the TV's out there is to look at them. A good one will give you natural colors and brightness rather than exaggerated, oversaturated images. A good one will look like you are looking "into" a picture rather than "at" a picture.

Or you could just go out and get a Pioneer Elite and be done with it.

[VCuomo]

Color gamut refers to the ability of the TV to reproduce accurate colors (the higher the better).

Contrast ratio refers to how much brighter white is than pure black (again, the higher the better).

Refresh rate is the number of times per second that the screen is "painted" (and, again, the higher the better). LCDs have, until recently, had slower refresh rates which will give a less-fluid look to objects moving quickly on the screen. At 60Hz you'll likely see this, at 120Hz you won't.

When it comes to LCD HDTVs, pay attention to the contrast ratio and refresh rates. I would only go with 120Hz sets, and I wouldn't go any lower than a 20,000:1 contrast ratio. Although, as always, use your own eyes and decide what looks better to you.

From looking at the specs you've provided, I'd guess that the more expensive TV is a recent model and the other one is an older model.And I should have added "Go for a 1080p set"...

Also, don't make the mistake of comparing a plasma HDTV's static contrast ratio to an LCD HDTV's dynamic ratio - they aren't the same thing.

So, here's what I'd be looking for in an LCD HDTV: 1080p, 120Hz refresh rate, contrast ratio greater than or equal to 20,000:1. IMHO, check out Sony (Bravia) and Samsung - very nice sets and right now there are good deals out there.

[gtrshow]

More great info. I'm looking for a "65 set to replace the one I already have, so that limits the choices somewhat. I'm not fixed on either LCD or plasma yet. Should I be?

[icarusi]

The more expensive of the two models also has 960p input capability.

960p is an odd figure. Most current TVs are 1080p with a 'Full HD' sticker rather than 'HD ready' of lower resolutions.

This site has some good info of what to look for when checking:-

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/

The models are EU/UK spec so 50/100Hz rather than 60/120Hz refresh rates and PAL rather than NTSC SD, but otherwise there are similar US models with different model numbers identifiable by similar other specs.
I bought a Canon HV20 HD camcorder and took my own footage to various shops to audition TVs. I got a Samsung Series 6 which was a good price/performance buy, in fact it's also my current PC monitor. Also does PIP so I'm also watching ABC US news via satellite in the UK, on it as I type this.

Some TVs have slow response times, not much problem for other than gaming where it shows as sluggish reaction to controller input.

[gtrshow]

960p is an odd figure. Most current TVs are 1080p with a 'Full HD' sticker rather than 'HD ready' of lower resolutions.


Seemed odd to me too, which is why I mentioned it. It has all the other expected resolutions as well, from 480i through 1080p.

[madsr]

once the thing is in your house and turned on it's gonna look great, whichever unit you choose. I saw a guy at the store looking at 20 screens lined up on the wall trying to figure out which picture was best and told him those exact words. Unless you buy both and put them next to each other you'll never know the difference. Quality is more important to me .. that the unit will last for a long time, rather than having the best possible picture, because truthfully you won't be able to tell the difference once it's on the wall.

[VCuomo]

960p is an odd figure...

Seemed odd to me too, which is why I mentioned it...

IIRC, I think some video game systems (Playstation?) use 960p.

[VCuomo]

More great info. I'm looking for a "65 set to replace the one I already have, so that limits the choices somewhat. I'm not fixed on either LCD or plasma yet. Should I be?Yes, if you're looking for a 65" set, that does limit your choices (and, hopefully, your pocketbook is not limited :D).

And generally speaking, with current plasma and LCD technology, you can't really go wrong either way. But you're definitely going into "expensive gear" territory - for example, Sharp makes a 65" Aquos LCD set with 120Hz refresh rate and 1080p resolution, and it's in the $7K price range. Equivalent plasma HDTVs seem to be in th $5K - $7K range these days. So, given what you're likely to have to spend to get the type of set that you've said you're looking for, make sure that you really do your homework before plunking down all that cash.

One other thing that's important with a screen that large - the anti-glare properties of the screens that you're considering, coupled with the lighting conditions at the physical location that the TV will be placed.

[neastguy]

is there any new technology coming out for screens.. I'm not ready to buy yet.. but probably this summer.. any word on anything coming out that will be any better?

[gtrshow]

Yes, if you're looking for a 65" set, that does limit your choices (and, hopefully, your pocketbook is not limited :D).

And generally speaking, with current plasma and LCD technology, you can't really go wrong either way. But you're definitely going into "expensive gear" territory - for example, Sharp makes a 65" Aquos LCD set with 120Hz refresh rate and 1080p resolution, and it's in the $7K price range. Equivalent plasma HDTVs seem to be in th $5K - $7K range these days. So, given what you're likely to have to spend to get the type of set that you've said you're looking for, make sure that you really do your homework before plunking down all that cash.

One other thing that's important with a screen that large - the anti-glare properties of the screens that you're considering, coupled with the lighting conditions at the physical location that the TV will be placed.


I've had my Mits 65" HDTV for ~9 years now (I was an early adopter), so I'm pretty familiar with HD (albeit fist gen technology) and large screens in general. The new set will sit right where the existing one is, so that angle is covered.

As for price, I'm well aware of what I'm in for, and I'm not looking forward to it. However, at this point, I'm not willing to compromise image size for price.

Funny you should mention the Sharp Aquos. The specs quoted in my original post are both 65" Aquos. The first is $9K CAD, and the second is $5K CAD.

Based on what you said above, it seems like plasma is the cheaper alternative?

[jammybastard]

Here's the thing about whether or not you need to blow the bucks on 1080p—it depends on your big your TV is, and how far away you're sitting. Under 40 inches you usually cannot tell the difference unless your nose is pressed up against the glass, and your mama told you never to do that. Bigger than that, it depends on how far away you're sitting. The average viewing distance from a TV in an American home is nine feet. At that distance, it takes at least a 46-inch TV to see all the details of a 720p picture. For a 1080p set, you would need a 70-inch set! If you buy a 42-inch 1080p set, you should place it within six feet to make the most of it, seven feet for a 50-inch 1080p set. If you measure your living room and the distance is much greater, you should seriously consider buying the last of the 720p sets available at serious cheapness. Lest you think I'm making all this up, HD Guru's got a PDF chart with distances and the right TV size for each resolution (http://hdguru.com/?p=21).

Read this and learn...
http://gizmodo.com/5099489/how-to-buy-an-hdtv-today-or-any-day

[gtrshow]

Here's the thing about whether or not you need to blow the bucks on 1080p—it depends on your big your TV is, and how far away you're sitting. Under 40 inches you usually cannot tell the difference unless your nose is pressed up against the glass, and your mama told you never to do that. Bigger than that, it depends on how far away you're sitting. The average viewing distance from a TV in an American home is nine feet. At that distance, it takes at least a 46-inch TV to see all the details of a 720p picture. For a 1080p set, you would need a 70-inch set! If you buy a 42-inch 1080p set, you should place it within six feet to make the most of it, seven feet for a 50-inch 1080p set. If you measure your living room and the distance is much greater, you should seriously consider buying the last of the 720p sets available at serious cheapness. Lest you think I'm making all this up, HD Guru's got a PDF chart with distances and the right TV size for each resolution (http://hdguru.com/?p=21).

Read this and learn...
http://gizmodo.com/5099489/how-to-buy-an-hdtv-today-or-any-day


Interesting stuff.

We sit 16' back from our 65". Reducing viewing distance isn't an option due to room configuration (ie. fireplace location), so image size is a greater consideration than discernable resolution in this case.

[VCuomo]

I've had my Mits 65" HDTV for ~9 years now (I was an early adopter), so I'm pretty familiar with HD (albeit fist gen technology) and large screens in general. The new set will sit right where the existing one is, so that angle is covered.

As for price, I'm well aware of what I'm in for, and I'm not looking forward to it. However, at this point, I'm not willing to compromise image size for price.

Funny you should mention the Sharp Aquos. The specs quoted in my original post are both 65" Aquos. The first is $9K CAD, and the second is $5K CAD.

Based on what you said above, it seems like plasma is the cheaper alternative?Not necessarily - like I said, you've really got to do your homework. I spent a few minutes googling and found

http://www.fotospirit.com/showdetails.asp?prodid=LC65SE94UProKit

which seems like a good deal.

[Structo]

Viewing distance is another factor to consider.

If you have too big a screen for the viewing distance it may look a bit distorted, especially for non HD content.

I have an older Toshiba rear projection HD set that is 51".

If I were to replace it, I would definitely get one with 1080p.

That is about the only future proof thing right now.

I was really impressed with the new Toshiba Regaza that I saw in a show room.

Also, looking at the TV's in a store showroom is not really objective since they are usually not adjusted correctly for the black level and contrast.

And, unless they are feeding a blu ray or HD signal you won't see the true resolution of the set.

[gtrshow]

Not necessarily - like I said, you've really got to do your homework. I spent a few minutes googling and found

http://www.fotospirit.com/showdetails.asp?prodid=LC65SE94UProKit

which seems like a good deal.


Man, I'm jealous of the pricing you guys in the U.S. have available to you. Even without the extras, and factoring in the very unfavourable exchange rate right now, that set is priced $2.2K less than it is here.

[jammybastard]

on a related note...

I bought my 80yr old mother a Philips 32" HDTV today.
$589 at Target. Last one they had in stock.
Heck of a deal.
Picked up a set of rabbit ears, and now she's got 23 OTA HD channels to watch (Chicago area).
Talk about a "cable killer".

[VCuomo]

Man, I'm jealous of the pricing you guys in the U.S. have available to you. Even without the extras, and factoring in the very unfavourable exchange rate right now, that set is priced $2.2K less than it is here.Wow, that'll put a dent in the wallet!

Good luck on your search!

[VCuomo]

on a related note...

I bought my 80yr old mother a Philips 32" HDTV today.
$589 at Target. Last one they had in stock.
Heck of a deal.
Picked up a set of rabbit ears, and now she's got 23 OTA HD channels to watch (Chicago area).
Talk about a "cable killer".Wow, that's cheap - good deal!

[908SSP]

Toshiba makes a 65 inch DLP 1080p set I have one amazing picture for the money.

[gtrshow]

Okay, I've been doing my research, both in terms of features and price and have narrowed it down to two models...

Panasonic TH-65PZ850 (Plasma)
Sharp LC65SE94U (LCD)

The price difference is only $100 between the two. I'm leaning towards the Panasonic, but would appreciate any input from those who own either one, or have compared the two.

Thanks!

[usc96]

Are there any HDTV's that can act as a remote computer? Meaning it has the ability to pick up your router signal and allow you to surf the web? I guess it would need a wireless keyboard, but I don't see why that would be difficult.

Maybe something like this, but less expensive:

http://shopper.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln46a950/4014-6482_9-33182079.html?info=specs&tag=contentBody;compare#info-5

[djem]

Okay, I've been doing my research, both in terms of features and price and have narrowed it down to two models...

Panasonic TH-65PZ850 (Plasma)
Sharp LC65SE94U (LCD)

The price difference is only $100 between the two. I'm leaning towards the Panasonic, but would appreciate any input from those who own either one, or have compared the two.

Thanks!

Keep us posted on what you decide. I've just started looking for a TV, probably 58-60" for our basement. I'm also from Canada, so I'll be interested in where you buy from. It sucks that our big store options are a limited to Future Shop and Best Buy.

Good thread; I've learned a lot so far.

PS - are you running satellite? If so, what provider andwhat receiver are you using.

Thanks,

Doug

[Flux]

... or should a guy wait for OLEDs...?
Any insights?

[gwr]

Okay, I've been doing my research, both in terms of features and price and have narrowed it down to two models...

Panasonic TH-65PZ850 (Plasma)
Sharp LC65SE94U (LCD)

The price difference is only $100 between the two. I'm leaning towards the Panasonic, but would appreciate any input from those who own either one, or have compared the two.

Thanks!
If you watch alot of sports and movies go for the panny,if you have game player or just watch shows that dont change much,i.e. news,weather channel,go for the sharp.