Q. In the market for a new TV. I've never had a flat screen before but man am I getting a headache trying to find the facts on TVs. I don't and won't have cable or Dish...just antenna. I have an XBOX 360 and Wii and a DVD player. I'm happy with the picture on our 27" RCA tube TV but it is going out and am not gonna wait til then. I am looking for between a 42" and 46" LCD for under $800 with at least a 120 Hz refresh rate. My main problem is this...through all the websites and even asking associates at Wal Mart and Best Buy I am not getting the answers for the type of tuner I need so as to just receive the digital signals over the air. Online they say NTSC and the associates say the TVs "should" pick up the signals but nowhere can I get a definitive answer.
I need help with good brands with longevity.
Help?
Also, should I look for a glass screen or a non glare screen?
I need help with good brands with longevity.
Help?
Also, should I look for a glass screen or a non glare screen?
A. To receive on air HDTV signals, you need an ATSC tuner. Almost every TV now comes with this tuner. The NTSC tuner was for the now defunct analog network. You don't need the tuner if you are using an HD box (such as from Comcast). As far as what to look for in an LCD, there are many choices. The backlight that illuminates the screen can be either fluorescent bulb lit, or the newer LED lit. More and more TVs in 2011 are now LED lit. LEDs use less electricity, allow ultralight, and ulra thin TVs. LED TVs also give better contrast. So even though you may hear LED TV, its actually an LCD TV, with an LED backlight.
Other factors to look at are 120HZ and 240HZ. These reduce blurring when viewing fast action and sports, and are a nice feature to have. Many TVs have this feature.
Another feature to consider is internet ready TVs. These allow you to display online content such as Netflix and other content.
You can check this site out, that displays 46-inch TVs side by side.
http://www.smartreview.com/46-inch-lcd-tvs-roundup-and-comparison
3D or not. A 3D TV is just a regular 2D HDTV with some extra features to allow 3D. 3D TVs have a built in Infrared transmitter, that sends a signal to 3D glasses to turn each lens on and off hundreds of times/second to give the 3D effect. Other than that 3D TVs can display regular HD programming just like any other TV.
Other factors to look at are 120HZ and 240HZ. These reduce blurring when viewing fast action and sports, and are a nice feature to have. Many TVs have this feature.
Another feature to consider is internet ready TVs. These allow you to display online content such as Netflix and other content.
You can check this site out, that displays 46-inch TVs side by side.
http://www.smartreview.com/46-inch-lcd-tvs-roundup-and-comparison
3D or not. A 3D TV is just a regular 2D HDTV with some extra features to allow 3D. 3D TVs have a built in Infrared transmitter, that sends a signal to 3D glasses to turn each lens on and off hundreds of times/second to give the 3D effect. Other than that 3D TVs can display regular HD programming just like any other TV.
Best consumer camcorder?
Q. I want to buy a new camcorder. I prefer Canon, but might consider something else. I usually videotape fire scenes for our local dept, and i film trains some. I would probably be doing some indoor shoots too, such as a school Christmas play. Here is what i'm looking for:
* Preferably under 600$
* I want to attach a shotgun mic to it (such as RODE videomic)
* I may want to add a led light for shooting also.
* Preferably under 600$
* I want to attach a shotgun mic to it (such as RODE videomic)
* I may want to add a led light for shooting also.
A. his wahat I was told :
The problem with HD is that it is not a video standard, rather it is a marketing term that describes a frame size only (i.e Full HD is 1920 x 1080).
The quality varies widely, and cameras run from under $100 to over $100,000 (not a typo). Along with normal camera parts and pieces such as lens quality and light gathering, the quality is also dependent on the data-rate, the LESS time you can record on a given size card or hdd, the better the video.
The final nail in HDs quality coffin is the compression. Only a fraction of the 25 or 30 frames per second are from light processed by the sensor. In some cameras MOST of the frames are mathematically calculated based on frames ahead and behind.
So, before the merits of SD, the limits of HD...
Really cheap cameras will get 6 or under gb of data per hour.
Name brand, cheap cameras typically get 8 gigs/hr
About $350 or so, the consumer twinkie cams get 11 gigs/hr. This does not change even into the top of the line, $2000, consumer twinkie-cams.
DSLRs get 20 gigs and approach very good quality, but they do have a host of other issues that make them ill suited for recording long events like a wedding. All over the web and here on "Answers".
Pro cameras start at $3000 and get 25 gigs/hr HOWEVER the compression has improved to 4:2:2 intraframe compression, no frame depends on its neighbors. Quality and cost go way up from here.
SD, MiniDv based cameras for consumers are few new, Canon stopped their last one in January, the ZR960. But this format is still popular for pros and TV field use. Remember this frame size is 1/6th that of HD, yet it gets 13 gigs/hr of data and is 4:2:2 compression. In other words, very good quality.
Your problem is that your fellow consumers gave up quality for ease of use. Your only options now, unless you can find unsold DV cameras, is to go with a used camera or spend the $800 or more to get a HDV camera. (HD version of MiniDv, 1440 x 1080 typically).
The other issue is that for consumers, DV and HDV is actually MORE data intensive than HD for storage (The tapes are a built in archive, though) and editing. You will need a firewire port on your computer.
HD from ANY twinkie camera is fine for small screens, computers, phones, youtube. But even on a moderate HDTV it starts to fail in quality. My SD, Canon GL-2's video can be up-converted to HD and is better than native HD the small consumer cameras.
If you can find on, DV will give you better video in more environments. DSLR may be an option, just know their limits. HDV is very good and the best you can get under $1000 new.
Just depends on budget, specific uses and your intended media...
Scott's answer is spot on, but there's still the issue of editing. As Scott said, the HD formats throw away most of the video data - this is fine for the finished product (Blu-ray, DVD) but not good for editing. Most of the frames you want to edit have to be reconstructed on the fly - this needs a lot of computer power. Another problem is that every change you make is likely to degrade the video quality - if your business is providing good quality video, can you afford to do that? Then there's the final render - this will almost certainly be to a lossy format - this has to involve some loss of quality but it's worse if you're starting with a lossy format.
Someone said that cards are easier for editing - the only thing that's easier is the ability to put the card in a reader - it's a very slim advantage!
new is not the same as better. so the real question depends on whether you need "better" because of intended commercial use, or "newer" because its just for home hobby use.
The reason miniDV can be edited by all computer editors, including the freebie ones, is because it is open source code and has not been messed with for over 15 years. yep, a Windows95 could edit miniDV. further, its low compression of 6:1 greatly reduced the computational power demanded of the CPU to keep up in real time. Contrast that with AVCHD which is a proprietary secret invented by Sony and only available to editing programs that are willing to pay exorbitant license fees. That is why it doesn't come as a freebie. And the code is not fixed, AVCHD has undergone significant changes every year since being introduced, moving from a lousy 200:1 compression to a somewhat respectable 40:1 compression in current top level consumer cameras. So if you buy a discounted older model editor, it might not work at all with a new camera. AVCHD was designed by Sony to be strictly amateur grade, Sony designed XDcam for professional use and the differences are not trivial.
IMHO miniDV will continue to be a viable commercial format as long as movie DVDs remain as the primary distribution media. not everybody wants to view videos on a computer, and that goes double for the mother of the bride, the one paying the bill.
The problem with HD is that it is not a video standard, rather it is a marketing term that describes a frame size only (i.e Full HD is 1920 x 1080).
The quality varies widely, and cameras run from under $100 to over $100,000 (not a typo). Along with normal camera parts and pieces such as lens quality and light gathering, the quality is also dependent on the data-rate, the LESS time you can record on a given size card or hdd, the better the video.
The final nail in HDs quality coffin is the compression. Only a fraction of the 25 or 30 frames per second are from light processed by the sensor. In some cameras MOST of the frames are mathematically calculated based on frames ahead and behind.
So, before the merits of SD, the limits of HD...
Really cheap cameras will get 6 or under gb of data per hour.
Name brand, cheap cameras typically get 8 gigs/hr
About $350 or so, the consumer twinkie cams get 11 gigs/hr. This does not change even into the top of the line, $2000, consumer twinkie-cams.
DSLRs get 20 gigs and approach very good quality, but they do have a host of other issues that make them ill suited for recording long events like a wedding. All over the web and here on "Answers".
Pro cameras start at $3000 and get 25 gigs/hr HOWEVER the compression has improved to 4:2:2 intraframe compression, no frame depends on its neighbors. Quality and cost go way up from here.
SD, MiniDv based cameras for consumers are few new, Canon stopped their last one in January, the ZR960. But this format is still popular for pros and TV field use. Remember this frame size is 1/6th that of HD, yet it gets 13 gigs/hr of data and is 4:2:2 compression. In other words, very good quality.
Your problem is that your fellow consumers gave up quality for ease of use. Your only options now, unless you can find unsold DV cameras, is to go with a used camera or spend the $800 or more to get a HDV camera. (HD version of MiniDv, 1440 x 1080 typically).
The other issue is that for consumers, DV and HDV is actually MORE data intensive than HD for storage (The tapes are a built in archive, though) and editing. You will need a firewire port on your computer.
HD from ANY twinkie camera is fine for small screens, computers, phones, youtube. But even on a moderate HDTV it starts to fail in quality. My SD, Canon GL-2's video can be up-converted to HD and is better than native HD the small consumer cameras.
If you can find on, DV will give you better video in more environments. DSLR may be an option, just know their limits. HDV is very good and the best you can get under $1000 new.
Just depends on budget, specific uses and your intended media...
Scott's answer is spot on, but there's still the issue of editing. As Scott said, the HD formats throw away most of the video data - this is fine for the finished product (Blu-ray, DVD) but not good for editing. Most of the frames you want to edit have to be reconstructed on the fly - this needs a lot of computer power. Another problem is that every change you make is likely to degrade the video quality - if your business is providing good quality video, can you afford to do that? Then there's the final render - this will almost certainly be to a lossy format - this has to involve some loss of quality but it's worse if you're starting with a lossy format.
Someone said that cards are easier for editing - the only thing that's easier is the ability to put the card in a reader - it's a very slim advantage!
new is not the same as better. so the real question depends on whether you need "better" because of intended commercial use, or "newer" because its just for home hobby use.
The reason miniDV can be edited by all computer editors, including the freebie ones, is because it is open source code and has not been messed with for over 15 years. yep, a Windows95 could edit miniDV. further, its low compression of 6:1 greatly reduced the computational power demanded of the CPU to keep up in real time. Contrast that with AVCHD which is a proprietary secret invented by Sony and only available to editing programs that are willing to pay exorbitant license fees. That is why it doesn't come as a freebie. And the code is not fixed, AVCHD has undergone significant changes every year since being introduced, moving from a lousy 200:1 compression to a somewhat respectable 40:1 compression in current top level consumer cameras. So if you buy a discounted older model editor, it might not work at all with a new camera. AVCHD was designed by Sony to be strictly amateur grade, Sony designed XDcam for professional use and the differences are not trivial.
IMHO miniDV will continue to be a viable commercial format as long as movie DVDs remain as the primary distribution media. not everybody wants to view videos on a computer, and that goes double for the mother of the bride, the one paying the bill.
Name Brand HDTV for under $1000?
Q. I'm looking to buy an HDTV by a name brand (Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung) around 50-55" for under a grand. Can anybody tell me who makes the best budget TV's?
so i'm leaning toward a panasonic and i found these two deals i'm considering.
1) Panasonic - VIERA / 50" Class / 1080p / 600Hz / Plasma HDTV
Model: TC-P50G20
about $1200 from bestbuy
2)Panasonic Viera 54" Widescreen 1080p Plasma HDTV - 2,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio
Model: TC-P54S2
about $970 from buy.com
it appears that the only major pluses with #2 are the size and price. it's lacking in many of the extra features (internet capability, USB ports, higher contrast ratio, etc.)
do you think it makes more sense to spend an extra 240 bucks for the better quality tv that's a couple inches smaller?
so i'm leaning toward a panasonic and i found these two deals i'm considering.
1) Panasonic - VIERA / 50" Class / 1080p / 600Hz / Plasma HDTV
Model: TC-P50G20
about $1200 from bestbuy
2)Panasonic Viera 54" Widescreen 1080p Plasma HDTV - 2,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio
Model: TC-P54S2
about $970 from buy.com
it appears that the only major pluses with #2 are the size and price. it's lacking in many of the extra features (internet capability, USB ports, higher contrast ratio, etc.)
do you think it makes more sense to spend an extra 240 bucks for the better quality tv that's a couple inches smaller?
A. You'll have a better chance of maintaining that price with plasma than with LCD/LED. Here are the top rated 50 inch plasma sets from Consumer Reports, in order:
1. LG Infinia 50PK750 suggested price $1050
2. Samsung PN50C6500 $1200
3. LG 50PK540 $780
4. Panasonic Viera TC-50U2 $800
Here are the rankings among LCD/LED sets, and I've eliminated those that are way beyond $1000:
6. Sanyo DP52440 $1000
7. Samsung LN52C530 $1170
9. Hitachi Ultravision L555604 $1100
Note that the above LCDs are in the "budget" category, as they have the fluorescent backlight system, not LEDs.
----------------
Per your Additional Details: as for your two cited choices, you'll have to decide whether those special functions are worth the added cost. How important is that to you?
Another observation: Buy.com is an on-line seller, right? To each their own, but my choice is to only buy a TV from a local walk-in store, so that I can easily and promptly take it back for a refund when I open the box and the TV is unsatisfactory for some reason. (It's happened.) That also avoids shipping damage. On-line sellers, especially Amazon, are ordinarily good about taking care of such problems, but it involves time, bother, reshipping hassle, and maybe expense.
1. LG Infinia 50PK750 suggested price $1050
2. Samsung PN50C6500 $1200
3. LG 50PK540 $780
4. Panasonic Viera TC-50U2 $800
Here are the rankings among LCD/LED sets, and I've eliminated those that are way beyond $1000:
6. Sanyo DP52440 $1000
7. Samsung LN52C530 $1170
9. Hitachi Ultravision L555604 $1100
Note that the above LCDs are in the "budget" category, as they have the fluorescent backlight system, not LEDs.
----------------
Per your Additional Details: as for your two cited choices, you'll have to decide whether those special functions are worth the added cost. How important is that to you?
Another observation: Buy.com is an on-line seller, right? To each their own, but my choice is to only buy a TV from a local walk-in store, so that I can easily and promptly take it back for a refund when I open the box and the TV is unsatisfactory for some reason. (It's happened.) That also avoids shipping damage. On-line sellers, especially Amazon, are ordinarily good about taking care of such problems, but it involves time, bother, reshipping hassle, and maybe expense.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment