Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT - TV Info

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by broncosteven View Post
    Since the Bronco season is over I figured it would be a good time to talk about current TV spec's.

    It is easy to go out and get a great TV if you spend over $1500 but if you want to stay at the lower end it is hard to sort out what TV has what.
    Just went through a similar purchase 3 months ago, was surprised to learn that there are two new brands throwing the whole industry off balance. TCL, which you mentioned, and Hisense. Their pricing for the quality was a MAJOR head-turner:

    https://www.pcmag.com/roundup/256493/the-best-tvs



    OLED TVs are great, but they're very expensive and they wear out fairly quickly.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ghwk View Post

      Uh no, it’s a thing a real thing. Brain prediction or not so bite me with the literally in your head ****. Maybe people who see it have better more advanced brains. I’ve stood side by side with tv’s and seen or not seen it. If you want a good test watch an F1 or motorcycle race. Maybe refresh rate is the issue too

      Once you get the TV home the comparisons go away. As long as it’s 4K you’ll love it. Then it’s a matter of what signal your provider is giving you.
      I'm not following. If you look for it you can see blur on my 75", especially during live games. My new 85" with a better processor and HDR,..much better. The way I understand it, blur is because the brain is faster than the frame rates.

      Comment


      • #18
        I have a samsung UN 65... very happy with it replaced a sony that was top of the line in 2005.
        I can see every pimple, nose hair and blade of grass also not very "needy" as to light or viewing angle.
        good luck, hay viewing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post

          I'm not following. If you look for it you can see blur on my 75", especially during live games. My new 85" with a better processor and HDR,..much better. The way I understand it, blur is because the brain is faster than the frame rates.
          To a point. That point is well below 120 fps. And at times and with certain media, that fact works against you. (The blur sometimes helps)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

            To a point. That point is well below 120 fps. And at times and with certain media, that fact works against you. (The blur sometimes helps)
            I don't think anything in mainstream is above 60 fps. (The reason Sony still list their panels at 120 Hz) My new processor is somewhere around 100% faster than the old one. Whether it's in the rendering or tricking my brain back the other way,...picture on the new 85" is a lot better. Not that the old one was terrible by any means. But there is a noticeable difference if you look for it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

              Just went through a similar purchase 3 months ago, was surprised to learn that there are two new brands throwing the whole industry off balance. TCL, which you mentioned, and Hisense. Their pricing for the quality was a MAJOR head-turner:

              https://www.pcmag.com/roundup/256493/the-best-tvs



              OLED TVs are great, but they're very expensive and they wear out fairly quickly.
              I recently got two TCL 6 series TV's and have been really impressed for the price.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post

                I don't think anything in mainstream is above 60 fps. (The reason Sony still list their panels at 120 Hz) My new processor is somewhere around 100% faster than the old one. Whether it's in the rendering or tricking my brain back the other way,...picture on the new 85" is a lot better. Not that the old one was terrible by any means. But there is a noticeable difference if you look for it.
                No arguments really. Just agreeing with others that really even thinking about refresh rates in this context is marketing gobbledygook. There's a case for it in 3d, but sans that, the 60 min you'll see on any modern TV is faster than your eyes will notice.

                Like I think you're alluding to though, the behind the scenes hardware and processing is usually an unsung hero. Also people understanding their setups and applying the right settings to the right scenario is another.

                Almost hate watching movies at other people's houses nowadays cause almost none have figured out to turn off motion smoothing for movies. I wish these people were stuck with 30fps hardware... if only for their own protection. : )

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                  No arguments really. Just agreeing with others that really even thinking about refresh rates in this context is marketing gobbledygook. There's a case for it in 3d, but sans that, the 60 min you'll see on any modern TV is faster than your eyes will notice.

                  Like I think you're alluding to though, the behind the scenes hardware and processing is usually an unsung hero. Also people understanding their setups and applying the right settings to the right scenario is another.

                  Almost hate watching movies at other people's houses nowadays cause almost none have figured out to turn off motion smoothing for movies. I wish these people were stuck with 30fps hardware... if only for their own protection. : )
                  I think that was me. Like Samsung and their 240 Hz refresh rates. My understanding is they just use a modified 120Hz panel in an attempt to get something they call motion 240.

                  It was difficult to find out much about the processing power during my search. The best I could come up with is that Sony was basically doubling the processing power per model jump. And that was $1000 per jump in the 85" class.

                  UltaHD might be the savior for us all. Throw so much hardware and awesomeness at it that settings will be a thing of the past.
                  Last edited by OmegaBronco13; 12-18-2019, 12:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                    Even thinking about refresh rates in this context is marketing gobbledygook. There's a case for it in 3d, but sans that, the 60 min you'll see on any modern TV is faster than your eyes will notice.
                    You mean 60 Hertz? Really so the flashy 120 hertz specs are pointless?


                    Speaking of pointless, I do recall 4K is the highest resolution you wanna consider Steve. That super higher-res has next to zero programming now and next to zero in the pipeline. And on the other end, 1080 sets are basically a waste of money now, as the 4k prices have really come down. But you probably knew all that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post

                      I think that was me. Like Samsung and their 240 Hz refresh rates. My understanding is they just use a modified 120Hz panel in an attempt to get something they call motion 240.

                      It was difficult to find out much about the processing power during my search. The best I could come up with is that Sony was basically doubling the processing power per model jump. And that was $1000 per jump in the 85" class.

                      UltaHD might be the savior for us all. Throw so much hardware and awesomeness at it that settings will be a thing of the past.
                      There's so much subjective stuff in the panel design itself though that you can't simply spec things into sameness. UHD source protocol. Backlight design. Viewing angles. So many things you can't really account for without looking at the final setup and delivering a personal verdict.

                      There's no measure of processing speed that will tell you about the quality of upscaling algorithm. At the end of the day on stuff like that, the companies design the approach they think works best and consumers (and reviewers) make subjective calls about what looks best in what scenarios.

                      Honestly for 50" and down, 4k doesn't even make much difference. 1080p is the best most people will notice.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                        You mean 60 Hertz? Really so the flashy 120 hertz specs are pointless?
                        I think around 60 is arguable. But I don't remember seeing any modern sets sporting that rate. I think 120's the floor at this point. And nobody's going to notice the jump to 240 from there. Not based on that factor alone. And again, not counting 3d (which is mostly dead now anyway)


                        Speaking of pointless, I do recall 4K is the highest resolution you wanna consider Steve. That super higher-res has next to zero programming now and next to zero in the pipeline. And on the other end, 1080 sets are basically a waste of money now, as the 4k prices have really come down. But you probably knew all that.
                        It's getting hard to even find TVs that aren't 4k. But I wouldn't pay even 10% more, pound for pound, for a TV (in this size range) that's spec'd beyond 4k. From normal viewing distances, it's impossible to see, and mostly a bandwidth sink on the media you have to feed it, assuming you can even find credibly mastered and delivered 8k content.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post

                          I don't think anything in mainstream is above 60 fps. (The reason Sony still list their panels at 120 Hz) My new processor is somewhere around 100% faster than the old one. Whether it's in the rendering or tricking my brain back the other way,...picture on the new 85" is a lot better. Not that the old one was terrible by any means. But there is a noticeable difference if you look for it.
                          The thing is, set to set, there are so many other differences that it's almost impossible to say what's the product of the actual panel refresh, and what's the product of image processing and upscaling (when required which is most the time w/ 4k+)

                          People will often see a newer TV that looks nicer and say "Must be the 4k" or "Must be the 240hz refresh" but in reality, it's the processing hardware driving the panel, or the pixels/backlighting itself that they're seeing a difference in.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                            There's so much subjective stuff in the panel design itself though that you can't simply spec things into sameness. UHD source protocol. Backlight design. Viewing angles. So many things you can't really account for without looking at the final setup and delivering a personal verdict.

                            There's no measure of processing speed that will tell you about the quality of upscaling algorithm. At the end of the day on stuff like that, the companies design the approach they think works best and consumers (and reviewers) make subjective calls about what looks best in what scenarios.

                            Honestly for 50" and down, 4k doesn't even make much difference. 1080p is the best most people will notice.
                            Agree. That is why I went with Sony. Besides making awesome TVs, they also control the movie market. To some extent they also dictate the technology. Atmos comes to mind.

                            One impact I might be overlooking is HDR. The contrast could be covering some sins from my previous set. Other than that, I'm attributing the upgrade to processing speed.

                            8K is going to be photography driven.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Not sure if OP is looking to pair with a new receiver...I highly recommend Sony Strdn1080. Absolutely packed with all the features at a great price point. $399 Sounds fantastic to these old ears.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                There are several sets in the price range that have what you want . The new TCL sets (
                                625
                                versions ( not 615 which are 2018 models) are QLED and have
                                dolby vision
                                HDR (there are several versions of HDR and D Vision is the best right now. Samsung sets do NOT have it). Hisense9F is another. (f Any set claiming HDR also has to have adequate brightness when doing it and many cheaper sets ( low end vizios and lower TCLs ) don't have enough. Virtually any 4K set will upscale all the video it receives to 4K so the quality of the engine matters too. At correct seating distances the difference between 4k and 1080P is minor. Only Close up can you see it and that is because the pixels become visible. At 55" and 6 feet distance you won't see it.

                                I have been doing all streaming since June. Currently I have Netflix, YouTube TV, and Prime. Prime and Netflix are the best for 4k sources ( I feel) .
                                Use Rtings.com to check Tv ratings

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X