Looking into buying a new HDTV. Need Advice.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

I'm also about 90% sure that 120Hz sets can play 24fps (would it be 48fps 3D?) 3D content. I feel like they could simply play it same way as a 60Hz monitor would play 24fps, but doubled for each eye. I don't know why that wouldn't work but you might.

They might be able to. But 24fps content has a strange cadence when played back on a 60 Hz set.

it basically goes like this:

AABBCCCDDEEFFFGGHHIIIJJKKLLL

I think, anyway. So the glasses would have to be able to detect this unusual pattern and alternate the LCD shutters on the glasses appropriately in time.

I'm absolutely 100% positive, however, that 120Hz became popular as a result of the 3D craze and not because purist film connoisseurs whined about pulldown.

120 Hz has existed for years, LOOOOOOOOOONG before 3DTV was actually a realistic possibility. It came about because of Blu-ray's native support for 24p playback.

You'd be surprised what film purists demand. For example, I got Back to the Future on Blu-ray recently and it looks ****ing amazing. But some people want to complain about visual anomalies that are only visible in stills and is completely invisible in normal playback. Some have even refused to buy it because of this... even though the alternative option of DVD is WAY worse.

Anyway, 60 Hz is already enough to display 30 fps content in 3D using alternating frames. Higher hertz rates could only serve two possible functions: different frame rate support as I said, or smoother video using frame interpolation.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

They might be able to. But 24fps content has a strange cadence when played back on a 60 Hz set.

it basically goes like this:

AABBCCCDDEEFFFGGHHIIIJJKKLLL

I think, anyway. So the glasses would have to be able to detect this unusual pattern and alternate the LCD shutters on the glasses appropriately in time.


120 Hz has existed for years, LOOOOOOOOOONG before 3DTV was actually a realistic possibility. It came about because of Blu-ray's native support for 24p playback.

You'd be surprised what film purists demand. For example, I got Back to the Future on Blu-ray recently and it looks ****ing amazing. But some people want to complain about visual anomalies that are only visible in stills and is completely invisible in normal playback. Some have even refused to buy it because of this... even though the alternative option of DVD is WAY worse.

Anyway, 60 Hz is already enough to display 30 fps content in 3D using alternating frames. Higher hertz rates could only serve two possible functions: different frame rate support as I said, or smoother video using frame interpolation.

Yeah nevermind I just went and did some research and my findings fit with what ya sayin about this. Although 60Hz is not nearly enough for 3D, 30fps will give you headaches in minutes.

SO I WAS WRONG

ARE YOU HAPPY AFROMBEAM

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

SO I WAS WRONG

ARE YOU HAPPY AFROMBEAM

No. Why would I be glad when other people are wrong?

ps good video about hertz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ur9IF5OmU

[justaguy]

afrobean you are so weird dude wtf

[darkshark]

Originally Posted by justaguy

afrobean you are so weird dude wtf

How is he weird? Weird in the fact that he doesn't gloat about being right? I think FFR needs more of this.

[justaguy]

Originally Posted by darkshark

How is he weird? Weird in the fact that he doesn't gloat about being right? I think FFR needs more of this.

No...

[ninjaKIWI]

3D is a stupid gimmick and looks terrible in my opinion, just like touch screens.

[darkshark]

Originally Posted by ninjaKIWI

just like touch screens.

Touch screens are anything but a gimmick. They've opened up a whole new world when it comes to mobile technology and efficiency. Not to mention it's not like making a screen into a touchscreen reduces the screen's quality by any perceptible amount.

If you wanna stick with a mouse and trackball, by all means do so, the rest of us can enjoy this new technology. (Not that touchscreen technology is new, but its uses are)

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ninjaKIWI

3D is a stupid gimmick and looks terrible in my opinion, just like touch screens.

Whenever I hear someone say "3D is a stupid gimmick", I can't help but imagine that some moviegoers in the 1930s must have been saying things like "color is a stupid gimmick."

Or moviegoers in the 1950s saying things like "widescreen is a stupid gimmick."

Sure, 3D can be a stupid gimmick, but so can almost anything which can be a legitimate tool in filmmaking. We just need quality cinematographers and directors to get on board with it and show us what can kind of artistic designs can be pulled from it. Throwing things out of the screen is terrible, but using and manipulating to add depth to a picture can be an amazing artistic value. There is nothing that can add depth the way a stereoscopic picture can.

[ninjaKIWI]

Originally Posted by darkshark

Touch screens are anything but a gimmick. They've opened up a whole new world when it comes to mobile technology and efficiency. Not to mention it's not like making a screen into a touchscreen reduces the screen's quality by any perceptible amount.

If you wanna stick with a mouse and trackball, by all means do so, the rest of us can enjoy this new technology. (Not that touchscreen technology is new, but its uses are)

Touchscreens may be fine for mobile stuff like cell phones and the such, but I'm talking PC monitors.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Sure, 3D can be a stupid gimmick, but so can almost anything which can be a legitimate tool in filmmaking. We just need quality cinematographers and directors to get on board with it and show us what can kind of artistic designs can be pulled from it. Throwing things out of the screen is terrible, but using and manipulating to add depth to a picture can be an amazing artistic value. There is nothing that can add depth the way a stereoscopic picture can.

Well, I don't know what to say. You're right, but I haven't enjoyed it at all so far.

[darkshark]

Originally Posted by ninjaKIWI

Touchscreens may be fine for mobile stuff like cell phones and the such, but I'm talking PC monitors.

Not a Gimmick.

http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/cintiq-21ux.php

And yes it's worth the price. It explodes your productivity and work pace. This is for artists...now think about the medical field, nearly all of their computers are touch screen, or think about last night when you went to the drive through at Taco Bell, all of their inside computers are touchscreen. Efficiency is everything.

Simply because YOU have no use for it (yet) doesn't mean it's useless.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

No. Why would I be glad when other people are wrong?

ps good video about hertz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ur9IF5OmU

I'm joking, btw

ps touch screens are awful on everything except my DS. I hate iPhones, I hate androids without keyboards, and I hate my iPod touch

pps actually they're nice on restaurant comps, much easier than a keyboard to fill out orders

ppps and tablets

okay so they're nice on everything except phones

[ninjaKIWI]

Originally Posted by darkshark

Not a Gimmick.

http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/cintiq-21ux.php

And yes it's worth the price. It explodes your productivity and work pace. This is for artists...now think about the medical field, nearly all of their computers are touch screen, or think about last night when you went to the drive through at Taco Bell, all of their inside computers are touchscreen. Efficiency is everything.

Simply because YOU have no use for it (yet) doesn't mean it's useless.

I guess you're right. I hate to fold so easily, but I guess I need to be more open minded.

[Nyokou]

-ignores drama-

I suggest a Vizio TV. My dad has bought 3 so far, all with really great quality. 40"+ we have in the living room has lasted for 2+ years so far without any problems at all. I have my PS3 hooked up to it, and it looks amazing. Others are 30"+ in my bro's and parents' room and they both cost under $800, and are great for a bedroom imo.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Nyokou

-ignores drama-

I suggest a Vizio TV. My dad has bought 3 so far, all with really great quality. 40"+ we have in the living room has lasted for 2+ years so far without any problems at all. I have my PS3 hooked up to it, and it looks amazing. Others are 30"+ in my bro's and parents' room and they both cost under $800, and are great for a bedroom imo.

For "under 800" you should have 40+ inches, ESPECIALLY from a "namebrand" like Vizio.

Anyway, 2 years is nothing for a TV to live. You can't really say a TV is good because it lasts 2 years. Vizio isn't that bad, but it's far from the best. They're generally less expensive, and sometimes you really do get what you pay for.

[Nyokou]

40"+ we have was more than $1000 2 years ago. Price HAS dropped by now most likely.

Dad didn't feel the need to buy anything that big for my bro's or his own room, so whatev. Before Vizio we didn't have any HD flat screens so that's all I can recommend lol. From what I've heard people get flat screens as big as the one in our living room and they don't last past a year and a half for some reason. Maybe overuse?

I can't really say which ones are the "best" but I'll definitely consider other brands once my bf and I go shopping for a new TV next year.

[darkshark]

I have to design TV mounting systems to be implemented into entertainment stands at the company I work for, so we get a crapload of different TV's shipped in and out of here on a regular basis, and we test out all of them.

From what I've seen, Samsung's TV's are generally much sharper and have great contrast, and are really fluid and smooth, especially their LED line-up, the next best is Sony. Vizio TV's that we've tested kinda have whacked out contrast issues, where the dark areas are TOO dark, and it's not just the settings. Vizio is just pretty average imo.

We don't get to test a whole lot of 3D TV's though, so I can't give much of an opinion on those.

[MrGiggles]

While, I'm at it, I bought a 650$ Vizio, 47". It has these horizontal dark stripes across the middle, two of them, at approx 4/10 and 6/10 of the way up the screen. It looks like the backlight is faulty, or sucks, or idfk. Is this pretty standard for vizio? Is there a fix or should I send it in? 1 Year warranty still active, have the receipt, etc.

It's usually only irritating when displaying a mostly solid screen but certain games just seem to exaggerate the effect. SM64, for one.

[who_cares973]

my friend and his family collectively have like 14 vizio tvs and none of them have given them problems. so from personal experience its rare

[jump_the_bullet]

thanks guys for the help. after reading everyone's posts and doing a little research i have more knowledge on the situation. we're probably gonna wait till black friday to get one.

anyone know if Zenith is a good brand for HDTV's?