best hdtv picture quality 2010 image
*shyness*
i have a philips LCD HDTV 1080 regular channels suck.and the color goes dark and bright sometimes on all the channels.my spending limit is 1100.and only a 47" and up.are plasmas good?i heard they get hot.whats the best tv to get?i want clear crisp sharp channels.any suggestions?
Answer
SD is 4:3 aspect ratio and 720x480 resolution
HD is 16:9 aspect ratio and 1280x720 or 1920x1080 resolution
So there is a discrepancy on 2 fronts. The resolution one being the more significant of the two. It means that if you play SD content to your HDTV, the HDTV is going to up-scale the SD to its native resolution. That process softens the image quite a bit. There is nothing you can do about it. This is just part of the reality of owning an HDTV in a world where SD is still broadcast. HDTV owners just get used to it, sooner or later; and they start gravitating towards more HD content.
Also, broadcast TV, even HD broadcasts, are heavily compressed. So while HD broadcast will look way better than an SD broadcast, it won't look quite as good as BluRay. BluRay just has way more data/information to work with to deliver you a better picture.
Plasma can deliver you some of the best picture quality in HDTVs at superior prices. This is because inherent to the technology is superior motion playback and superior image quality. So you're not having to pay for extra features.
LCDs need 120Hz or 240Hz refresh rates to deal with motion blur problems. LCDs need to offer your LED LCDs in order to improve blacks, contrasts, and colors (and compete with Plasma). But you, the consumer, have to pay for those features. And those features are basically just trying to make an LCD image match the quality of a Plasma. So why pay the extra amount?
Plasmas do run a bit hotter than LCDs. But we're not talking "if you touch it, it will burn you" hot. Its a few degrees. If a pet or child brushed up against it, it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest of ways. Its more of an LCD fanboy misconception than anything else.
If you do go Plasma, I highly recommend you look at Panasonic first and foremost. They are the leader in Plasmas right now. They have one of the strongest reliability reputations in the industry (if not the single strongest reputation). They deliver amazing quality at competitive prices.
As for specific suggestions,
PANASONIC TCP50U2 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $989 @ ABC Warehouse
PANASONIC TCP50S2 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $1169 @ ABC Warehouse
- the S series simply has a bit higher contrast rating than the U series, but otherwise are very similar quality sets
Panasonic VIERA S1 Series TC-P50S1 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $1,030 @ Amazon.com
Panasonic VIERA U1 Series TC-P50U1 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $962 @ Amazon.com
- the S1 and U1 vs S2 and U2 mean that these are the 2009 models and the "2" ones above at ABC Warehouse are the 2010 models. But if you're looking to save a few extra bucks, these are an option to consider
If you are really set on LCD though, for any reason, I would recommend either a Sony or Sharp series. Look for something that is 1080p and 120Hz (or 240Hz). I think you can find a 46" or 47" model with those specs and within your budget.
SONY KDL46EX500 46" 1080p 120Hz - $989 @ ABC Warehouse
Samsung LN46C630K1F 46" 1080p 120Hz - $990 @ Best Buy
Sony KDL46HX701 46" 1080p 240Hz - $1,440 @ Best Buy (I know above your budget, but is a really nice set/series from Sony, so incase you could increase your budget a bit I thought I'd throw it out there)
Oh but, please don't rely solely on my comments, or any one else's. Please do go into a store and bring your eyes into the equation. Stand back from the TVs the same distance you would be at home. Then take a long hard look at content being played on them. You can use spec sheets and opinions/reviews to help your narrow the selection, but at some point, your eyes need to become part of the decision. If you can't see a difference, go with the cheaper choice and save the $.
SD is 4:3 aspect ratio and 720x480 resolution
HD is 16:9 aspect ratio and 1280x720 or 1920x1080 resolution
So there is a discrepancy on 2 fronts. The resolution one being the more significant of the two. It means that if you play SD content to your HDTV, the HDTV is going to up-scale the SD to its native resolution. That process softens the image quite a bit. There is nothing you can do about it. This is just part of the reality of owning an HDTV in a world where SD is still broadcast. HDTV owners just get used to it, sooner or later; and they start gravitating towards more HD content.
Also, broadcast TV, even HD broadcasts, are heavily compressed. So while HD broadcast will look way better than an SD broadcast, it won't look quite as good as BluRay. BluRay just has way more data/information to work with to deliver you a better picture.
Plasma can deliver you some of the best picture quality in HDTVs at superior prices. This is because inherent to the technology is superior motion playback and superior image quality. So you're not having to pay for extra features.
LCDs need 120Hz or 240Hz refresh rates to deal with motion blur problems. LCDs need to offer your LED LCDs in order to improve blacks, contrasts, and colors (and compete with Plasma). But you, the consumer, have to pay for those features. And those features are basically just trying to make an LCD image match the quality of a Plasma. So why pay the extra amount?
Plasmas do run a bit hotter than LCDs. But we're not talking "if you touch it, it will burn you" hot. Its a few degrees. If a pet or child brushed up against it, it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest of ways. Its more of an LCD fanboy misconception than anything else.
If you do go Plasma, I highly recommend you look at Panasonic first and foremost. They are the leader in Plasmas right now. They have one of the strongest reliability reputations in the industry (if not the single strongest reputation). They deliver amazing quality at competitive prices.
As for specific suggestions,
PANASONIC TCP50U2 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $989 @ ABC Warehouse
PANASONIC TCP50S2 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $1169 @ ABC Warehouse
- the S series simply has a bit higher contrast rating than the U series, but otherwise are very similar quality sets
Panasonic VIERA S1 Series TC-P50S1 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $1,030 @ Amazon.com
Panasonic VIERA U1 Series TC-P50U1 - 50" 1080p Plasma - $962 @ Amazon.com
- the S1 and U1 vs S2 and U2 mean that these are the 2009 models and the "2" ones above at ABC Warehouse are the 2010 models. But if you're looking to save a few extra bucks, these are an option to consider
If you are really set on LCD though, for any reason, I would recommend either a Sony or Sharp series. Look for something that is 1080p and 120Hz (or 240Hz). I think you can find a 46" or 47" model with those specs and within your budget.
SONY KDL46EX500 46" 1080p 120Hz - $989 @ ABC Warehouse
Samsung LN46C630K1F 46" 1080p 120Hz - $990 @ Best Buy
Sony KDL46HX701 46" 1080p 240Hz - $1,440 @ Best Buy (I know above your budget, but is a really nice set/series from Sony, so incase you could increase your budget a bit I thought I'd throw it out there)
Oh but, please don't rely solely on my comments, or any one else's. Please do go into a store and bring your eyes into the equation. Stand back from the TVs the same distance you would be at home. Then take a long hard look at content being played on them. You can use spec sheets and opinions/reviews to help your narrow the selection, but at some point, your eyes need to become part of the decision. If you can't see a difference, go with the cheaper choice and save the $.
Are you getting UHDTV when it comes out?
Matthew
It has over 30 megapixels of video quality in it ALONE. You could buy any camera on this planet and you would still never find a better looking picture resolution. Its 22.2 channel audio, and 7680x4320 pixel resolution. You can't even compare this to the most highest end T.V. out there. It blows everything out of the sky! Too bad it won't be out for the public until at least 2016. Damn, are you gonna get it?
Answer
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 2016 is way too hopeful in my opinion, at least for North America.
A stream that can support a 30 mega-pixel video resolution would take up an absolute enormous amount of bandwidth, likely over 25 times the bandwidth for an HD channel today even when you factor in compression and optimization.
There simply isn't enough bandwidth available on existing Cable or Satellite networks to handle multiple UHDTV channels. Even if we assume we will be able to increase realistic bandwidth throughput over cable, there is a physical limit to the bandwidth of the physical cable itself that can't be overcome. Basically if we used existing networks, under ideal conditions we would only be able to have about 5 UHDTV channels, and even then, it would leave us very little room for any other TV channels.
In other words, we will have to wait until our entire data communications infrastructure has been completely upgraded to the point where direct fiber-to-the-home connections are commonplace before we can consider getting UHDTV.
And that's just the problem with the network infrastructure, then of course there are the issues concerning the actual ability to manufacture a home-theater sized display with that kind of resolution and still make it affordable (I really don't believe this can be done anywhere near 2016). We would also need to completely reinvent HDMI to produce a video connection standard that could support much higher bitrates (higher than than 10 Gbps) which would prove to be fairly difficult. Then of course there is the issue of cameras, and the issue of video editing (you would basically need a super-computer to render any special effects or animations at that resolution, and even basic video editing would prove to be very difficult).
So basically, I do too look forward to the day we can get UHDTV in the home, but quite frankly I don't think you should expect this to be a reality for good 10 years or so. Remember that the HDTV standard was designed in the early 90s with tests broadcasts as earlier as 1994, but it is now 2010 and there are still many people who are only now adopting HDTV in their homes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 2016 is way too hopeful in my opinion, at least for North America.
A stream that can support a 30 mega-pixel video resolution would take up an absolute enormous amount of bandwidth, likely over 25 times the bandwidth for an HD channel today even when you factor in compression and optimization.
There simply isn't enough bandwidth available on existing Cable or Satellite networks to handle multiple UHDTV channels. Even if we assume we will be able to increase realistic bandwidth throughput over cable, there is a physical limit to the bandwidth of the physical cable itself that can't be overcome. Basically if we used existing networks, under ideal conditions we would only be able to have about 5 UHDTV channels, and even then, it would leave us very little room for any other TV channels.
In other words, we will have to wait until our entire data communications infrastructure has been completely upgraded to the point where direct fiber-to-the-home connections are commonplace before we can consider getting UHDTV.
And that's just the problem with the network infrastructure, then of course there are the issues concerning the actual ability to manufacture a home-theater sized display with that kind of resolution and still make it affordable (I really don't believe this can be done anywhere near 2016). We would also need to completely reinvent HDMI to produce a video connection standard that could support much higher bitrates (higher than than 10 Gbps) which would prove to be fairly difficult. Then of course there is the issue of cameras, and the issue of video editing (you would basically need a super-computer to render any special effects or animations at that resolution, and even basic video editing would prove to be very difficult).
So basically, I do too look forward to the day we can get UHDTV in the home, but quite frankly I don't think you should expect this to be a reality for good 10 years or so. Remember that the HDTV standard was designed in the early 90s with tests broadcasts as earlier as 1994, but it is now 2010 and there are still many people who are only now adopting HDTV in their homes.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment