So, That means, as a consumer, you have to google the specs whether it's LED back or edge lit since the official specs usually conveniently omit them?
I take it back-lit is the best choice?
| Galaki said: So, That means, as a consumer, you have to google the specs whether it's LED back or edge lit since the official specs usually conveniently omit them? I take it back-lit is the best choice? |
right now "back-lit" is the best choice out of the available LED/LCD TVs, but you need to look up for each set how many diodes there are that produce the back light and whether or not it's processors actually are fast enough to produce good local dimming without introducing a lot of additional TV-lag (time between you pushing a button for example and the result being displayed on the TV)
LED backlit displays tend to display a truer colour gamut than their bulb counterparts, as well as having a backlight lifespan more superior as well.
There are also LCD display methods, such as TN, IPS, S-IPS, PVA (?) etc.
As mentioned, OLED emit the coloured light itself, as opposed to LCD which is more like a "light filter".
There were also other viable technologies that would have been interesting to see, such as Laser and SED.
@fordy: Ahh, SED... I was really hoping those would make their way to the market...
To get the specifics on some of the finer points that Lafiel mentioned, I recommend www.hometheater.com for reviews on top LED sets.
| fordy said: LED backlit displays tend to display a truer colour gamut than their bulb counterparts, as well as having a backlight lifespan more superior as well. There are also LCD display methods, such as TN, IPS, S-IPS, PVA (?) etc. As mentioned, OLED emit the coloured light itself, as opposed to LCD which is more like a "light filter". There were also other viable technologies that would have been interesting to see, such as Laser and SED. |
yea, quite a shame that SED development has been dropped completely from what I heard
| archbrix said: And for the record, as some have mentioned, many videophiles (including myself) prefer the look of plasma TVs because of their gorgeous picture quality, superb refresh rate (without the "video taped" look that a 240hz LCD/LED can cause), and their excellent off-center viewing quality. The downside to plasmas, like Chark said above, is that they run HOT (we are talking about a gas based technology), and don't perform as well in brightly lit environments as LEDs which emit more light. |
As a videophile myself I decided against plasma due to images burning into the screen. For normal people it doesn't matter because they'd have to leave a paused movie on for days to see an effect. With us gamers however a week of nonstop Call of Duty parties would burn in the HUD. Sure higher end TVs are better protected against this but when you spend so much money you become paranoid.
JoeTheBro said:
As a videophile myself I decided against plasma due to images burning into the screen. For normal people it doesn't matter because they'd have to leave a paused movie on for days to see an effect. With us gamers however a week of nonstop Call of Duty parties would burn in the HUD. Sure higher end TVs are better protected against this but when you spend so much money you become paranoid. |
I'd forgotten about burn in.
I'm about to get a new 46"-50" TV, my biggest thing is price and energy efficiency. LED/LCD seems to be coming down in price to match Plasma so I'm tending towards LED/LCD. However the edge-lit, processor speed, and number of diodes things might mean getting a LED/LCD at the same price as a Plasma makes for significantly lesser quailty. But I've also said that there's not much in it below 50" and that plasma really starts to outperform in terms of picture quality at 50"+
Looks like I need to do even more research
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
binary solo said:
I'd forgotten about burn in. I'm about to get a new 46"-50" TV, my biggest thing is price and energy efficiency. LED/LCD seems to be coming down in price to match Plasma so I'm tending towards LED/LCD. However the edge-lit, processor speed, and number of diodes things might mean getting a LED/LCD at the same price as a Plasma makes for significantly lesser quailty. But I've also said that there's not much in it below 50" and that plasma really starts to outperform in terms of picture quality at 50"+ Looks like I need to do even more research |
Maybe plasma tv's also don't stay 'fresh' as long? I have a 50" panasonic plasma that's looking pretty grey by now, black levels are a lot worse then my 1 year older LCD tv. They are older tv's though (Sharp Aquos LCD from '06, Panasonic plasma from '07)
The lcd tv however is starting to display some horizontal and vertical color banding issues, noticeable in large darker areas of the same color.
The biggest issue with the plasma tv was difference in color at the sides when switching between 4:3 and 16:9 content. Switching to 16:9 would clearly show where the black borders were for 4:3 content until they slowly fade away.
My projector is still performing the best, but that thing eats a new $350 bulb every 18 months :/
I'm waiting to see how oled turns out before upgrading, but atm I'm leaning towards backlit LED if my tv breaks.
Lafiel said:
yea, quite a shame that SED development has been dropped completely from what I heard |
1:1 pixel representation AND screen latency as fast as/faster than CRT on a flat panel? Yes please!
I think even if LCD dominates the market, SED would have had a large enough group of video enthusiats to remain a good investment for manufacturers.
| HesAPooka said: Don't worry about it, just buy plasma. |
Agreed! the blacks are so black.
lol
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
