Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT - TV Info

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

  • OmegaBronco13
    replied
    Originally posted by ScottXray View Post
    Actually, I wouldn't buy ANY set that is only 1080P at this point unless it is a bedroom set for something below 40" in size. 4k sets are now the standard that you will find in almost any tv. Buying 1080P means you likely are buying older models that are being discontinued.

    I recently replaced dual monitor setups on my two PCs in Portland with 40" 4K vizio tvs as the replacement. I am not into gaming, so that may be a reason not to do that if you are into that, but the desktop at 4K allows side by side windows with word or Excel sheets at high resolutions that my side by side 1920 monitors could not approach due to screen height.
    the 40" 4K sets were on sale at 200 a piece. I then sold my monitors on CL for about 80. Since the new monitor/tvs had built in apps for streaming I could also just sit at my desk and watch tv if desired. At 30 Inches distance a 40" 4K set is noticeably sharper.

    I currently have a 9 year old 58" plasma as my main tv in Portland and I will replace it with a 4K 70-75 inch set when I go back there in May. (wife approval factor and the fact the Plasma still has a great image are the only reasons I haven't yet. My view distance there is about 13-15 feet which is too far to actually see the difference but I do want a larger image. )
    I got tired of my dual monitors and went with Samsungs 49" C49HG90. I game a little. It's main knock was the 3840x1080 resolution. However I like it. I noticed on this year's model upgrade they did increase to a higher resolution but went back from 144Hz to 120Hz on the refresh rate.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottXray
    replied
    Actually, I wouldn't buy ANY set that is only 1080P at this point unless it is a bedroom set for something below 40" in size. 4k sets are now the standard that you will find in almost any tv. Buying 1080P means you likely are buying older models that are being discontinued.

    I recently replaced dual monitor setups on my two PCs in Portland with 40" 4K vizio tvs as the replacement. I am not into gaming, so that may be a reason not to do that if you are into that, but the desktop at 4K allows side by side windows with word or Excel sheets at high resolutions that my side by side 1920 monitors could not approach due to screen height.
    the 40" 4K sets were on sale at 200 a piece. I then sold my monitors on CL for about 80. Since the new monitor/tvs had built in apps for streaming I could also just sit at my desk and watch tv if desired. At 30 Inches distance a 40" 4K set is noticeably sharper.

    I currently have a 9 year old 58" plasma as my main tv in Portland and I will replace it with a 4K 70-75 inch set when I go back there in May. (wife approval factor and the fact the Plasma still has a great image are the only reasons I haven't yet. My view distance there is about 13-15 feet which is too far to actually see the difference but I do want a larger image. )

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    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.

    Looking to buy a 50 or 55" TV and wanted to stay with Samsung but some of their UHD TV's are priced more than some of their QLED. I don't need anything more than 4k. We bought a new amp about a year ago and it upscaled our ancient 1080p TV to 4k and made a huge improvement.

    I want something with a refresh rate of at least 120 and I would like to stay in the $500-750 range. It doesn't have to be the best TV ever, just make watching Football and Movies without all the motion blur or soap opera effect crap I have read about. I have done so much research that my head is spinning. 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.

    As far as voice control I don't care, if anything we would rather not have it. As far as smart streaming we have Prime but we also have a PS4 to watch it on. It would be nice to not have to turn on the PS4 to stream prime but it doesn't matter.

    This is the one I am leaning towards:
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NC9XWG5...v_ov_lig_dp_it

    There is this LG TV:
    https://www.amazon.com/LG-55SM8600PU...JQWB3HRC8J2MTT

    There are cheap Toshiba and TCL Tv's that have 55" inch displays with streaming services and 120 hertz refresh rates that are below $500 but they seem too good to be true.

    Again I want to watch movies on Blueray and eventually 4k and football, hockey, and a little baseball.

    Any ideas would be greatly appreciated and I would give you lots of virtual rep.

    Steve
    4k is pretty pointless unless you have a huge screen and/or sit very close. But, if you want the features that do make a difference (better image processing hardware, etc) that pretty much only goes in 'high end' sets now that all use at least 4k. It's like buying a car. To get the feature you want you have to buy pointless **** along with it.

    Since you want to watch sports and movies, you want to make sure you get a set that is easy to turn the motion smoothing on and off. It's called something different by every brand. I think samsung calls it auto motion plus.

    Turning this on (it's usually the default) causes the soap opera effect in movies and TV. It truly is terrible for movies and TV, but it's actually great for sports.

    Don't trust what you see if you walk into a store. They set up the displays to highlight the expensive but low bang for buck (often pointless) features. For example making it easy to get real close to the huge screens so you can see the difference 4k makes in that situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottXray
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • OmegaBronco13
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • OmegaBronco13
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • OmegaBronco13
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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. : )

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Bronco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • OmegaBronco13
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X