# Buying my first HD TV.. How important is 120hz?



## ufauxreal (Sep 16, 2008)

OK... I've done a lot of research on buying my very first HDTV, and I'm almost sure I've decided on getting this one:
Sony Bravia XBR-Series KDL-37XBR6 37-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV

The only feature this TV does NOT have that was on my list was 120hz. Just how important is this feature on a TV this size? I am not a gamer, am not particularly interested in sports, use the TV for just general TV programs. I've been watching DVD's on my computer (24" monitor) but that may change if I can figure a way to transfer them over to a new TV.

Does anyone have experience with this model?

Thanks!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

That's not on topic for this site. I think this on avsforum.com is more
relevant.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=9/


----------



## ufauxreal (Sep 16, 2008)

I apologize... I'm new here! I will check out your link. 

Thanks!


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

Tivo HD's highest resolution is 1080i. A 120 hz just is too new for tivo, basically its a refresh rate thats twice normal rates around. Perhaps a blu-ray player will handle 120 hz.


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

ufauxreal said:


> The only feature this TV does NOT have that was on my list was 120hz. Just how important is this feature on a TV this size?


How did this feature make your list if you didn't understand its significance?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ThAbtO said:


> Tivo HD's highest resolution is 1080i. A 120 hz just is too new for tivo, basically its a refresh rate thats twice normal rates around. Perhaps a blu-ray player will handle 120 hz.


Hay the 120 Hz vs 60Hz is refering to the back lighting for the LCD HDTV, has nothing to do with TiVo or the refresh rate of the TV picture that is set at 30 frames/sec in P mode or 60 frames per sec at i mode, (Some TVs have 1080P at 24 FPS or 30FPS but that not a broadcast standard it's only used for Blu-Ray DVDs and maybe some games)


----------



## tommy275 (Jun 8, 2003)

ebockelman said:


> How did this feature make your list if you didn't understand its significance?


magic.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, if I saw a feature I didn't understand, I'd sure want to know if it was important before I made a decision!


----------



## webin (Feb 13, 2008)

lessd said:


> Hay the 120 Hz vs 60Hz is refering to the back lighting for the LCD HDTV, has nothing to do with TiVo or the refresh rate of the TV picture that is set at 30 frames/sec in P mode or 60 frames per sec at i mode,


Your first statement isn't entirely accurate, as you describe in your second statement. While I don't know much about the frequency of the LCD light, the 60Hz vs 120Hz is referring to the refresh rate of the picture.... how many frames per second it shows.

Basically, broadcast television, which is what OP is using the HDTV for, is mostly of the 1080i variety, which runs at 60 frames per second (or 60 Hz). For this purpose, a 60Hz television will be sufficient (and a little cheaper?). When you watch a 60 frames per second signal on a TV that runs at 120 Hz, the TV will either render each frame twice, or attempt to interpolate between one frame and the next frame (creating a brand new "tween" frame). Believe it or not, they are now starting to develop HDTVs that run at 240Hz.

As a first HDTV, a 60Hz model will make you perfectly happy.


----------



## ufauxreal (Sep 16, 2008)

ebockelman said:


> How did this feature make your list if you didn't understand its significance?


A week ago I didn't know ANYTHING about HDTV's. I'm trying to educate myself before I make a purchase, which is why I came to this forum of more experienced folks.

Thanks so much to the others who made helpful posts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Ufauxreal: I'll add my 2 cents move up to 42inches and look at Plazma instead of LCD - Panasonic's Vera TH-42PZ800U is about as good as you can get. 

Good Luck,


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

lessd said:


> Hay the 120 Hz vs 60Hz is refering to the back lighting for the LCD HDTV, has nothing to do with TiVo or the refresh rate of the TV picture that is set at 30 frames/sec in P mode or 60 frames per sec at i mode, (Some TVs have 1080P at 24 FPS or 30FPS but that not a broadcast standard it's only used for Blu-Ray DVDs and maybe some games)


A 120Hz refresh is a useful thing to deal with the differences between film and video. As you mention, video is 30 fps progressive or 60 fps interlaced. Conventional 35 and 70 mm film is shot at 24 fps. Traditionally, we have used techniques such as 3:2 pulldown to turn 24fps film into a video format. The 3:2 pulldown process has its downsides, including motion judder effects.

The new breed of 120Hz displays solve the problem in a relatively simple way - find a multiple of the formats you wish to display.

24 * 5 = 120
30 * 4 = 120

In theory, this should give us smooth display of both film and video. As owners of some of the earlier sets can attest, the video processors that are built into the displays are not always optimally processing the video, and this can lead to suboptimal performance.

So far I've seen 1080p/24 content available on Blu-Ray and Directv VoD.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ufauxreal said:


> . I've been watching DVD's on my computer (24" monitor) but that may change if I can figure a way to transfer them over to a new TV.
> 
> Does anyone have experience with this model?
> 
> Thanks!


I think they make some kind of hardware to do that 

and the blu ray DVD player is the reason to look a little bit harder at 120Mhz refresh rate as nicely pointed out in other posts


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

ufauxreal said:


> OK... I've done a lot of research on buying my very first HDTV, and I'm almost sure I've decided on getting this one:
> Sony Bravia XBR-Series KDL-37XBR6 37-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV
> 
> The only feature this TV does NOT have that was on my list was 120hz. Just how important is this feature on a TV this size? [...]
> ...


*120 Hz does refer to the refresh rate, and it allows the TV to double the input frame rate.* Other posters have mentioned the Blu Ray use, but 120 Hz can also be used to improve lower frame rate sources.

_To me 120 Hz gives you a viewing experience that is far superior to 60 Hz models._ When I was shopping for our TV, my wife and I spent an hour in Best Buy looking as all of the sets. All of the sets that we were attracted to turned out to be 120 Hz, and the others were 60 Hz. I then checked out user reviews on Amazon.com. All of the 5-star rated TVs were 120 Hz; the best 60 Hz models only got 4.5 stars.

I am not sure what Sony does, but *here is how Samsung uses 120 Hz:*

Samsung has a feature called Automotion Plus 120Hz image interpolation technology.

The TV firmware compares consecutive frames. If there is an area of the two images that is significantly different across two adjacent frames, the TV dynamically creates an additional, intermediate frame, that splits the location difference between the objects in the two frames, and displays it between the two broadcast frames. The result is much smoother motion, and thus subjectively a sharper, clearer, visual experience.

Take 120 Hz seriously. Go to a store that has a large wall of various brands and models, and compare for yourself.

*Regarding TiVo:* I suspect that TiVo will support the 60 Hz refresh rate, but that your 120 Hz TV will generate intermediate frames in between the frames that TiVo sends to it. Thus it is the TV, rather than the peripherals, that require the 120 Hz feature.

_ - David_


----------



## Lensman (Dec 22, 2001)

ebockelman said:


> So far I've seen 1080p/24 content available on Blu-Ray and Directv VoD.


It's probably also worth mentioning that on film content broadcast or otherwise transferred via an interlaced process, you can detect and remove the 3:2 pulldown via some inverse telecine technique (sometimes called "reverse 3:2 pulldown"). This will reconstruct a progressive 24 fps video signal, which you can then display on a 120hz monitor using 5:5 pulldown. Note that you do all this despite the fact that the signal was broadcast to you and recorded on your Tivo in 1080i format.

Do all 120hz sets do this? No way! Are there any? Yes. The latest Sony XBR sets do this. Is it perfect? No, there's some artifacting as the set tries to detect the cadence of the signal - that is, as it tries to determine whether the material was originally shot in 60i or 24p and processed using 3:2 pulldown.

Note that other 120hz sets may do this. I'm certainly not 100% familiar with all brands. Samsung and Sharp are certainly candidates for having this kind of sophisticated processing.

I remember back when inverse telecine for 60hz TVs was an "advanced" feature and you see it in just about every 1080p set nowadays. I'm sure that it won't be long before we see reverse 3:2 pulldown to 24p and 5:5 pulldown to 120p as a standard feature on every 120hz set.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

ufauxreal said:


> OK... I've done a lot of research on buying my very first HDTV, and I'm almost sure I've decided on getting this one:
> Sony Bravia XBR-Series KDL-37XBR6 37-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV
> 
> The only feature this TV does NOT have that was on my list was 120hz. Just how important is this feature on a TV this size? I am not a gamer, am not particularly interested in sports, use the TV for just general TV programs. I've been watching DVD's on my computer (24" monitor) but that may change if I can figure a way to transfer them over to a new TV.
> ...


I think 120hz is only for 3d. On my bothers tv two people can watch 2 shows on one tv (60 hz per person). You need to buy the 3d kit and glasses for it to work.

I you can also use 120hz to watch 3d shows. Maybe in the future all shows will be hd and 3d


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

tootal2 said:


> On my bothers tv two people can watch 2 shows on one tv (60 hz per person). You need to buy the 3d kit and glasses for it to work.


umm so two people in one room with glasses and headphones on, simply so they can watch two diferent shows  I thought my geek wore thin on my family at times.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

I've read many comments that basically said that current 120Hz technology makes film-based sources look worse, and makes *some* video sources look better. I guess the manufacturers are on the second generation of 120Hz tech now, but I'd still be skeptical of it at this point.

Oh yeah - making a judgment based on what you see in the store is almost entirely pointless since the different TVs are almost *certainly* not adjusted properly. You may like one more than the other, but that doesn't mean it's better. The other model might seem better to you once it's set up properly.


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

tootal2 said:


> I think 120hz is only for 3d. On my bothers tv two people can watch 2 shows on one tv (60 hz per person). You need to buy the 3d kit and glasses for it to work.
> 
> I you can also use 120hz to watch 3d shows. Maybe in the future all shows will be hd and 3d


Some TVs can do PIP (picture-in-picture), PAP (picture-and-picture, pictures side by side), but they have to be 2 different sources, like hdmi and tuner.


----------



## mbhuff (Jan 25, 2004)

No. The sole purpose of 120hz as mentioned before is to provide an even multiple for both film (24 frames per sec) and video (30 frames per second). On TVs that don't support 120hz, they use 3-2 pull-down or inverse telecine to add extra frames. Because of that you get motion artifacts. 

Most, but not all, Blu-Ray discs that are mastered from film are preserved in 1080p24. Since 5 x 24 = 120, then TV can just add 5 x frames as needed with no artifacts. I've got the 52" Sony XBR6 and the Denon 2500 blu-ray. The results are amazing.


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

Mars Rocket said:


> Oh yeah - making a judgment based on what you see in the store is almost entirely pointless since the different TVs are almost *certainly* not adjusted properly. You may like one more than the other, but that doesn't mean it's better. The other model might seem better to you once it's set up properly.


Heh heh! That would indeed be foolish. The first thing that I did was adjust the hue, contrast and saturation of the sets that were in the running, to level the playing field. It is good to do that anyway, even if you are looking at a single set, to determine the range of the product's settings, and to see the TV the way that you personally would like to see it.

I played with basic adjustments in the store, but I haven't even begun to explore the multitude of parametric adjustments that my TV has. (And I haven't needed to. I have already optimized the TV image to my and my wife's personal taste).

This TV is has some additional features, also, one of which I am already using regularly. I stuck a flash drive in the edge of it and it plays downloaded MPEG4 videos, full screen, at incredible quality (and of course that interface also supports music files, photo files and a built-in slide show capability). I haven't tried its ethernet connection yet for weather, RSS feeds, and PC configuration of the TV. Nor have I had a chance to try its various PC video inputs yet. The TV firmware can also be upgraded via a flash drive.

But the main thing is that the TV picture quality was significantly superior to everything else we compared it to.

And the Samsung 120 Hz interpolated-motion in-between frames makes a huge difference in clarity when there is movement on the screen. I didn't know about a 3-D application, but I will welcome it if it arrives.

- David D.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dddiam said:


> And the Samsung 120 Hz - David D.


model#


----------



## Lensman (Dec 22, 2001)

mbhuff said:


> No. The sole purpose of 120hz as mentioned before is to provide an even multiple for both film (24 frames per sec) and video (30 frames per second).
> 
> 
> > That should really read: "The sole good purpose". Most manufacturers of 120hz HDTVs actually taut their frame interpolation which actually creates intermediate frames to smooth out motion. It looks good in the demos but many have serious doubts about its real-world performance. I think Sony calls this technology "Motion Enhancer"
> ...


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> model#


Sorry. I have the Samsung LN46A850. Some of the lesser models also have the interpolated motion feature.

BTW, Another improvement over last year's models is 4ms response time (last year's models had 8ms response time).

- David


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I could swear that on the HD & Home Theater podcast, they have done reviews and said the 120 Hz TVs were good.. but maybe I'm misremembering. (I know absolutely they have mentioned the 100 Hz feature..)


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

You may want to look for a built in DVD player which is available on some reasonably priced sets up to 32". Generally, you can't really notice much improvement on a 1080p set versus a 720p set at under 42 inches, so you might save some money by backtracking to 720p. Check out Consumer Reports over the last year for their very good short and long pieces on HDTVs.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

You guys should take a look at Tekzilla.com, they where talk about 120hz Tvs.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (May 17, 2007)

chicagobrownblue said:


> You may want to look for a built in DVD player which is available on some reasonably priced sets up to 32". Generally, you can't really notice much improvement on a 1080p set versus a 720p set at under 42 inches, so you might save some money by backtracking to 720p. Check out Consumer Reports over the last year for their very good short and long pieces on HDTVs.


And Cnet's top rated TV last year was a 720p plasma


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Plasma wins every time among image perfectionists. 

Judge for yourself!


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> Plasma wins every time among image perfectionists.
> 
> Judge for yourself!


I guess that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the high end LCDs are crisper, clearer, sharper, and with better color and contrast than any plasmas that I have seen. And the 120 Hz with motion interpolation mitigates blurring caused by moving images. They are also lighter weight than plasmas.

Plasma image quality does not impress me.

Plasmas are the better choice for commercial applications, like sports bars, where they are played continuously. They are durable and won't burn in like LCDs can, and they are more cost-effective.

But for the home, I will go for a high-end LCD, like my Samsung LN46A850, rather than a plasma. And I expect that next year's LCD models will be even better.

- David


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *dddiam*
> I guess that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the high end LCDs are crisper, clearer, sharper, and with better color and contrast than any plasmas that I have seen.


Then you haven't seen a Pioneer Elite PRO-111FD.

There are some variables (viewing habits and the TV's physical location) that would indicate a person should purchase a LCD over a Plasma or a Plasma over a LCD. But for the most part at various price points it comes down to personal preference.

As far a picture quality goes at the Samsung LN 46A850 price point of around $2000 (low cost on line) I would compare it to the following plasma TVs:


Samsung PN50A650 at around $1600 (low cost on line)
Samsung PN50A760 at around $2000 (low cost on line)
Panasonic Viera TH-50PZ800U at around $1900 (low cost on line)
Pioneer Kuro PDR-5020FD at around $2400 (low cost on line)

I would also put the Sony Bravia KDL-46XBR6 LCD in the same quality/price point as the above (around $2200 low cost on line).

My money would (and did) take the Panasonic I prefered the 50 inches over the 46 inches the picture quality on all these sets after they are properly setup is very good to excellent and does really just come down to personal preference.

Thanks,


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> [...] I would compare it to the following plasma TVs...


Nice list of options for everyone to consider.

Thanks for taking the time to create a list and share it.

_ - David_


----------



## wedenton (Jun 13, 2002)

dddiam said:


> Plasmas are the better choice for commercial applications, like sports bars, where they are played continuously. They are durable and won't burn in like LCDs can, and they are more cost-effective.


Isn't that backwards? I thought that plasmas are subject to burn in and LCDs are not.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> Plasma wins every time among image perfectionists.
> 
> Judge for yourself!





dddiam said:


> I guess that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the high end LCDs are crisper, clearer, sharper, and with better color and contrast than any plasmas that I have seen. And the 120 Hz with motion interpolation mitigates blurring caused by moving images. They are also lighter weight than plasmas.
> 
> Plasma image quality does not impress me.
> 
> ...





atmuscarella said:


> Then you haven't seen a Pioneer Elite PRO-111FD.
> 
> There are some variables (viewing habits and the TV's physical location) that would indicate a person should purchase a LCD over a Plasma or a Plasma over a LCD. But for the most part at various price points it comes down to personal preference.
> 
> ...


Yes, it finally comes down to personal preference.

I'm not an 'image perfectionist'. I've got a couple of Westinghouse LCD's (37"and 42") which cost $900 and $1200 respectively, and a bottom of the Sony line 46" LCD which was a warrantee replacement for an earlier 42" Westinghouse which originally cost $1500. All are rated '1080p' (which doesn't matter as I don't have a 1080p source) and none are 120hz.

The Sony has the best specs and by far the greatest number of user accessible adjustments but I can't state with certainty that it offers a better image than the Westinghouse, especially when all sources both standard and hi-def, are compared.

My favorite is actually the 37" Westinghouse, the oldest model with the worst specs. A feature it shares with the Sony is the ability to ZOOM (4 way equal stretch) hi-def, while the 42" Westinghouse only has 'FILL' (horizontal stretch) capability.

All of the sets offer better than 'good enough' pictures. By good enough I mean good enough so that when viewing hi-def programs there's no distraction caused by their less than absolutely perfect images.

I don't have (nor want) 'Home Theater'; I like to watch TV in a casual setting in which, during daytime, there's often imperfect ambient light. I don't want a TV larger than 50" because of (1) available space and (2) the ability to single-handedly move the damned thing if I have to. In the showroom, not surprisingly I couldn't discern image differences between 120hz and 60 hz sets, but could easily see that some sets reflected bright ambient lighting most annoyingly while others didn't.

Some reviews have rated the Pioneer Elite KURO PRO-111FD plasma set the best that flatscreen technology has yet achieved. I was curious what I'd think of it but the closest location for viewing one is over 50 miles away. Paradise lost!

One significant thing about LCD's has been critically disappointing:

The earlier 42" Westinghouse was used as both a TV and computer monitor, often in its 4x3 mode. It developed what looked much like 'burn in' when displaying in 16x9 mode, which, unlike dddiam, I thought LCD technology didn't suffer from. (Am I wrong?) That was why, after a service tech evaluated it, the earlier 42" was replaced at no cost under warrantee by the Sony.

Now the newer 42" Westinghouse, also used as a computer monitor, is developing the same flaw. Is this an LCD problem, a Westinghouse problem or what? Neither the 37" Westinghouse nor the Sony is used as a computer monitor and neither has developed the problem.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> My favorite is actually the 37" Westinghouse, the oldest model with the worst specs. A feature it shares with the Sony is the ability to ZOOM (4 way equal stretch) hi-def, while the 42" Westinghouse only has 'FILL' (horizontal stretch) capability.


It helps that the 37" Westinghouse is only 37 inches. The smaller the TV, the less you can see image quality issues. That is why I would never over spend on a 37" or less HDTV. You simply can't make out much difference from a normal viewing distance between a high end tv and a lower end tv. The larger the TV though, the easier it is to see differences in picture quality.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Some reviews have rated the latest $5000 Pioneer KURO 50" 88# plasma set the best that flatscreen technology has yet achieved. I was curious what I'd think of it but the closest location for viewing one is over 50 miles away. Paradise lost!


Getting to properly view an HD TV is difficult for most people - there are very few HD TVs on display that have been properly calibrated and are in properly lit rooms. When you look at TVs on display in a box store under the store's bright lights you really can not tell how it's going to look in your house. For people getting their first HD set it doesn't matter much the new sets look so much better than what they have that they will be happy no matter what. But for people getting their 2nd, 3rd, etc. set it would be really disappointing to find out the new set you just purchased doesn't look as good as your old one once it got setup in your house.

Thanks,


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

wedenton said:


> Isn't that backwards? I thought that plasmas are subject to burn in and LCDs are not.


My Samsung displays an "X" in a red box to indicate that "Mute" is on. It moves the box to a new location every few seconds to avoid burn in. Even text displays, like "No signal found" are subtly shifted every few seconds.

One thing that I have noticed is that truth does not stand still. As technology advances, plasma and LCD may leapfrog each other with regard to clarity, contrast, motion, color, viewing angle, and features over time. Each year, the differences between new and older models is significant. And he who waits for the ultimate will never enjoy the present.

So find a TV that you really like, and enjoy it! Don't stress over whether or not there may be one that you might like even better *;-)*

_ - David_


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

wedenton said:


> ...I thought that plasmas are subject to burn in and LCDs are not.


From ProjectorPeople.com whom you'd think would be equally biased against both:

http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/lcd-plasma-projector.asp

*Burn-in or Stuck Pixels*

_Plasma TVs can suffer from burn-in produced by static images. After extended periods, stationary images "burn in" and produce an after-image ghost which remains permanently on the screen. With technologies such as 'pixel orbitor,' new plasma TVs have addressed burn-in and significantly reduced the issues of older models.

LCD TVs do not suffer from burn-in, but can have a "retained pixel charge" which may also produce ghosting. Stuck pixels are also possible with an LCD display.

There is no clear winner here. Manufacturers of each technology have worked hard to minimize issues. If stuck pixels or burn in are major concerns for you, check the manufacturer warranty for their return or repair policies. Some manufactuers offer a 'zero dead pixel policy' and others will repair or replace products with pixels out in the 'sweet spot' of your picture._

From my own personal experiences related in Post 34, whether it's 'burn-in' or 'retained pixel charge' both plasma and LCD technologies can present display artifacts which look like 'burn in' to a layperson.

Pioneer's Elite KURO PRO-111FD 50" plasma set is available for under $4000 including shipping from online sources. Wonder what I'd think of it if I bought one in a sealed box sight unseen and adjusted it to my preferences without further calibration, exactly as my other sets are? Probably would be an extravagance not worth the more than two-to-one price difference.

Still, in the next year or two, closeout models of the PRO-111FD won't be any worse than those available now and will probably be priced a lot lower considering the current bad economy. Maybe it'll be time to replace the 42" Westinghouse, and spring for a $300 ISF calibration as the icing on the cake!


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Does any Forum member have experience using the ISF HDTV Calibration Wizard DVD displayed at the bottom of the ISF site? Is it worth $30?

http://www.imagingscience.com/


----------



## dddiam (Sep 15, 2006)

tootal2 said:


> I think 120hz is only for 3d. On my bothers tv two people can watch 2 shows on one tv (60 hz per person). You need to buy the 3d kit and glasses for it to work.
> 
> I you can also use 120hz to watch 3d shows. Maybe in the future all shows will be hd and 3d


Which brand and model has these two features?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

dddiam said:


> I guess that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the high end LCDs are crisper, clearer, sharper, and with better color and contrast than any plasmas that I have seen. And the 120 Hz with motion interpolation mitigates blurring caused by moving images. They are also lighter weight than plasmas.
> 
> Plasma image quality does not impress me.
> 
> Plasmas are the better choice for commercial applications, like sports bars, where they are played continuously. They are durable and won't burn in like LCDs can, and they are more cost-effective.


The guys at http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii.html would totally disagreewith you, esp. when it comes to contrast. Plasma can definitely burn in (it has phosphor to burn in, just like CRTs) but as someone else mentioned, LCDs can also apparently get image retention that resembles burn in. For plasma, it would be very bad to have them display continuous fixed patterns or images like for signage or stock tickers.

FWIW, I'm not fan of either, esp. plasma (due to burn in). I have a LED powered DLP RPTV.

Samsung talks about the mechanism of LCD image retention in their manuals. Unfortunately, Samsung's site seems to having some problems. Hopefully the link at http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/200711/20071115165716234_BN59-00565F-04Eng.pdf works. They should talk about this on page 11.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

cwerdna said:


> FWIW, I'm not fan of either, esp. plasma (due to burn in). I have a LED powered DLP RPTV.


Do you feel the micro-mirror will survive with good longevity compared with Plasma and LCD? Moving parts seem like a bit of a worry to me. Since all three devices can drop pixels as they age, it would be interesting to see the expected pixel loss per year graphs for all three. Does such a comparison exist anywhere?


----------



## Wiz33 (Mar 31, 2006)

Well, I must be getting old. I stared at a Panasonic 42" set at a distance of 4 ft running the split screen demo using Planet Earth HD and I honestly cannot see much of a difference.


----------



## moonscape (Jul 3, 2004)

dddiam said:


> Plasmas are the better choice for commercial applications, like sports bars, where they are played continuously. They are durable and won't burn in like LCDs can, and they are more cost-effective.


isn't plasma an energy hog?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

CuriousMark said:


> Do you feel the micro-mirror will survive with good longevity compared with Plasma and LCD? Moving parts seem like a bit of a worry to me. Since all three devices can drop pixels as they age, it would be interesting to see the expected pixel loss per year graphs for all three. Does such a comparison exist anywhere?


I've not seen stuck or dead pixels crop up over time on LCDs nor DLPs.

I was using an Infocus X1 DLP front projector from mid 03 until mid 08 when its bulb blew out. Although the projector had problems (flickering light output) which never seemed properly fixed despite multiple warranty repair attempts, I never had any stuck or dead pixels.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

moonscape said:


> isn't plasma an energy hog?


Not all of them. Some LCDs are terrible in this department too. Take a look at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx. One can also buy a cool device like a Kill-A-Watt to measure for yourself.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

moonscape said:


> isn't plasma an energy hog?


A common misconception with plasmas - the energy use quoted by the manufacturer is the max rating with a full bright white screen. Most plasmas will use half or so of that rating for normal viewing. Same with LCDs - the rating is the max with full backlight enabled, but you don't have to crank it all the way up.

Using the Kill-A-Watt over a day's viewing is the way to go if you want to know for sure, you can't compare them fairly otherwise.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

cwerdna said:


> I've not seen stuck or dead pixels crop up over time on LCDs nor DLPs.
> 
> I was using an Infocus X1 DLP front projector from mid 03 until mid 08 . . . . I never had any stuck or dead pixels.


Thanks, I had always wondered and it is good to get a first hand report. I have seen dead pixels on store display model Plasmas and DLPs (only two out of many store visits, but still not zero) and have a dead pixel on my digital camera's back display (pics are OK). So I know both those technologies could have that happen. I still have not found any sites with comparison data, but I guess that is not surprising if the overall occurrence is actually very low.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

CuriousMark said:


> Thanks, I had always wondered and it is good to get a first hand report. I have seen dead pixels on store display model Plasmas and DLPs (only two out of many store visits, but still not zero) and have a dead pixel on my digital camera's back display (pics are OK). So I know both those technologies could have that happen. I still have not found any sites with comparison data, but I guess that is not surprising if the overall occurrence is actually very low.


I've seen dead/stuck pixels out of the box for LCDs but never personally seen any crop up over time.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

Media people are saying that anyone who buys a 1080 HDTV receiver should consider getting one that has 120 Hz for the best picture possible. That's what's being said everywhere I turn. Therefore, in all likelihood, that is how and why the person who started this thread brought up 120 Hz as a question and consideration toward his decision.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

'Media people' also get a lot of ad money from consumer electronics manufacturers. It's how they make a living, you know. If you want the real scoop, trust the reviews and info over at avsforum.com before you listen to the media about what TV to get.


----------

