Korean Monitor TV Equivalent?

[drfish]

I want something in the 47" range that has great image quality, nearly zero input lag and is just dumb as rocks in every other aspect. I couldn't care less about 3D, "smart" features, thinness, aesthetics, inputs beyond one or two HDMI ports, etc... I just want what I got from my 27" Korean monitor, a great picture, no lag and a fair price. Is there such a beast?

[auxy]

I want something in the 47" range that has great image quality, nearly zero input lag and is just dumb as rocks in every other aspect. I couldn't care less about 3D, "smart" features, thinness, aesthetics, inputs beyond one or two HDMI ports, etc... I just want what I got from my 27" Korean monitor, a great picture, no lag and a fair price. Is there such a beast?

Why do you want such a big screen? Low DPI, hot, heavy, and troublesome to move around ... (●__●)

I hate big screens. I don't understand why anyone likes them.

[druidcent]

They are great for watching on a couch from 8-10 ft away... Besides, as I ranted about in another thread, you can't get any broadcast or network channels beyond 1080i anyway, so anything more than 1080p doesn't matter...

[morphine]

I hate big screens. I don't understand why anyone likes them.

He's looking for a TV, not a computer monitor.

[auxy]

I hate big screens. I don't understand why anyone likes them.

He's looking for a TV, not a computer monitor.

I know. Did you think I thought he wanted a monitor for some reason? \(￣□￣)\

They are great for watching on a couch from 8-10 ft away... :)

I guess. Outside the realm of my experience, I guess. I'd never want to sit that far from a display, yech. (⊙﹏⊙✿)

My experiences with TVs have been exclusively terrible. Awful scaling, horrible presentation delay, wretched viewing angles and bad colors, not to mention the inevitable inclusion of pointless features like MP3 playback even on cheap TVs these days. That said, I've never played with a NICE TV; I understand some do come with IPS or VA screens now. Still... (◕︿◕✿)

But I'm not really being helpful to the thread, so I'll shut up now. (ﾟｰﾟ;)

[morphine]

Actually auxy, if you look at it, what he wants is something that excels at the precise issues you mentioned. He wants a TV with a really good panel that doesn't have crappy/unnecessary features. Sounds like something you'd like too.

[auxy]

Actually auxy, if you look at it, what he wants is something that excels at the precise issues you mentioned. He wants a TV with a really good panel that doesn't have crappy/unnecessary features. Sounds like something you'd like too.

Yah, absolutely! But ... I'd just buy a Koreamonitor. (⊙ヮ⊙)

Actually, even those are too big for me really... my girlfriend has one, and sitting in front of it, I feel like I'm looking out a window into space. (*ﾟｰﾟ)ゞ My 24" VG248QE is the biggest I'd reasonably want to go (and the color quality on the panel in that thing is giving me fits; quite good for a TN in 60Hz mode, but it gets progressively worse as you increase the refresh -- at 144Hz the banding is so bad I can't even stand to look at it. 100Hz mode is tolerable tho.)

[cynan]

What you want sounds like the Vizio monitors of yore. Inexpensive, no extra features (not even an OTA tuner), good gaming performance and decent panel for the money. Now, such TVs are becoming harder to find because even the budget brands are loading up on the extra features. However, sometimes they don't have to cost you much if any extra. For example, you can snag a 47" 120Hz 3D Vizio refurb for under $500. This one has a "game" mode that apparently helps with lag. I'm not sure what panel that particular model uses, but I think at least some, if not all Vizios, use IPS, but I'm not sure. Panasonic Vieras are one of the few lines of LCD TVs that advertise IPS panels. I have an older 37" version from 2008 that claims "Super-IPS" and I've always thought the picture has been great and not too far off the IPS panels on the Dell Ultrasharps (both use an LG-made IPS panel and it really looks like it). Input lag on the Panasonic has never been an issue. The only issued I've had with it is it's handling of 720p input signals - it overcans them to the point where I loose some of the borders - not an issue with native 1080p/i input signals. However, Panasonics generally aren't that cheap and I'm unfamiliar with the performance of the current models.

Short Answer: No, I don't think you can find large LCD monitors with good panels for reasonable prices as all companies compete on useless features. I'm sure there are specialty large monitors (ie, for medical imaging or whatnot), but those will cost a fortune. However, you may be able to find a decent set with features that you can just ignore.

[druidcent]

I don't know if he's asking for LCD or just a thin-ish type TV... Plasmas are dirt cheap these days...

[Pettytheft]

I don't know if he's asking for LCD or just a thin-ish type TV... Plasmas are dirt cheap these days...

You can get a very good 50" Panasonic plasma for great prices these days. Unless he is holding out for a LCD I'd go that route.

[auxy]

I don't know if he's asking for LCD or just a thin-ish type TV... Plasmas are dirt cheap these days...

You can get a very good 50" Panasonic plasma for great prices these days. Unless he is holding out for a LCD I'd go that route.

I have to admit, for all I know about LCDs, I don't know a lot about plasma displays. I understand the contrast (and thus the black level) is excellent, but what are the other advantages/disadvantages of a plasma display? Do they strobe like CRTs (or Lightboost LCDs)? Do they usually have significant input latency?

I'm not sure I've ever used a plasma display. °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°

[kumori]

I like some of the lower end Sony Bravias. The panel is generally pretty good and they don't have a ton of extra features.

[Dposcorp]

The ABC Warehouse down the street is the only one in Michigan that has the LG ELECTRONICS 84LM9600 84" UHD LED 3D SMART 4K TV.

http://appliances.abcwarehouse.com/warehouse/Lg-4k

I'd be happy to schlep one over to you when I come to the BBQ, as long as you can live with the crappy 3840 x 2160p resolution

[Waco]

I don't know if he's asking for LCD or just a thin-ish type TV... Plasmas are dirt cheap these days...

This.

You'd have a hard time convincing me to go with anything but a plasma TV for my home theater. Weight? Who cares? Depth? Again, who cares? Picture quality is all that really matters and even the best LCD panels have trouble matching mediocre plasma sets.

[superjawes]

For good value while still keeping prices down, I don't think you can get much better than Vizio. I can't comment on all the features you want, but I've got a 37" (60Hz) from several years ago and a 47" (120Hz) that's about two model years old, and both have been fantastic.

[auxy]

You'd have a hard time convincing me to go with anything but a plasma TV for my home theater. Weight? Who cares? Depth? Again, who cares? Picture quality is all that really matters and even the best LCD panels have trouble matching mediocre plasma sets.

Oh? In what regards? I'm given to understand plasma sets have better contrast ratios but that the colors tend to be oversaturated compared to LCDs and that they have a lot of ancillary disadvantages. I also don't see a lot of plasma displays smaller than 30"; I wonder why?

[JohnC]

You'd have a hard time convincing me to go with anything but a plasma TV for my home theater. Weight? Who cares? Depth? Again, who cares? Picture quality is all that really matters and even the best LCD panels have trouble matching mediocre plasma sets.

Oh? In what regards? I'm given to understand plasma sets have better contrast ratios but that the colors tend to be oversaturated compared to LCDs and that they have a lot of ancillary disadvantages. I also don't see a lot of plasma displays smaller than 30"; I wonder why?

Color saturation is significantly better on plasma displays - especially after the proper calibration (which EVERYONE should do, regardless of display type and size). Same goes for display uniformity (Uneven backlighting? What's that? ). As for disadvantages - the only real one is high power consumption. Image retention is almost a non-issue, even if you use it for console gaming. Size is also not an issue for many people, same goes for weight.

Anyway, if you're interested about the difference between types of TV displays - you should visit appropriate forums more:
http://www.avsforum.com/f/

[auxy]

Color saturation is significantly better on plasma displays - especially after the proper calibration (which EVERYONE should do, regardless of display type and size). Same goes for display uniformity (Uneven backlighting? What's that? :wink: ). As for disadvantages - the only real one is high power consumption. Image retention is almost a non-issue, even if you use it for console gaming. Size is also not an issue for many people, same goes for weight.

Eheh, I've never calibrated *any* display. High power consumption, weight, and heat production are a big deal to me! I guess if you were using one for a home theater or something, though, that wouldn't matter much. (◕︿◕✿)

Anyway, if you're interested about the difference between types of TV displays - you should visit appropriate forums more:
http://www.avsforum.com/f/ :wink:

Well, I'm not honestly all that interested, although I guess it's nice to know in case those sorts of displays should become more common in smaller form factors. Still, in sizes below ~30", it's all LCD and OLED, so that's mostly what I'm concerned about. I don't *like* big displays, and I don't watch movies or TV so I need to sit within manipulating distance of the screen, both because I need to hold my input device (I won't use wireless), and also because I'm constantly adjusting my display settings. Hehe. ┐(￣ω￣;)┌

[Waco]

Color saturation is significantly better on plasma displays - especially after the proper calibration (which EVERYONE should do, regardless of display type and size). Same goes for display uniformity (Uneven backlighting? What's that? ). As for disadvantages - the only real one is high power consumption. Image retention is almost a non-issue, even if you use it for console gaming. Size is also not an issue for many people, same goes for weight.

Eheh, I've never calibrated *any* display. High power consumption, weight, and heat production are a big deal to me! I guess if you were using one for a home theater or something, though, that wouldn't matter much. (◕︿◕✿)

Anyway, if you're interested about the difference between types of TV displays - you should visit appropriate forums more:
http://www.avsforum.com/f/

Well, I'm not honestly all that interested, although I guess it's nice to know in case those sorts of displays should become more common in smaller form factors. Still, in sizes below ~30", it's all LCD and OLED, so that's mostly what I'm concerned about. I don't *like* big displays, and I don't watch movies or TV so I need to sit within manipulating distance of the screen, both because I need to hold my input device (I won't use wireless), and also because I'm constantly adjusting my display settings. Hehe. ┐(￣ω￣;)┌

If you don't care about large screens then you don't care about plasmas.

Also - if you mess with your display settings constantly and have never calibrated your display (even in passing) then I feel sorry for you.

I recalibrate my monitors from time to time (since they get older and change slightly) and never touch their settings till the next time I calibrate them...


EDIT: I don't think I've seen a reasonable OLED monitor yet - am I behind the times or did you just mean LED-backlit LCD?

[JohnC]

Eheh, I've never calibrated *any* display.

You should. "Realistic" graphics in games is more than just high-res textures + high-poly models It doesn't take a lot of $$$ and a lot of time to get something like this and use it to make your games (as well as photos and videos) look more "realistic", especially if you use multiple displays on same PC, and especially if they are a crappy TN models (like BenQ XL2420T and cheaper Asus alternatives).

[auxy]

Eheh, I've never calibrated *any* display.

You should. "Realistic" graphics in games is more than just high-res textures + high-poly models :wink: It doesn't take a lot of $$$ and a lot of time to get something like this and use it to make your games (as well as photos and videos) look more "realistic", especially if you use multiple displays on same PC, and especially if they are a crappy TN models (like BenQ XL2420T and cheaper Asus alternatives). :wink:

Um, well, $170 is kind of a lot of money for me ... it took me five months to save up the $300 I spent on my VG248QE! I guess maybe it's a good "investment", though... hmmh.

Also - if you mess with your display settings constantly and have never calibrated your display (even in passing) then I feel sorry for you.

Well, I don't have any hardware with which to do so ... I mean, I've done the little "software calibration" things, but they're not really ... I mean it's not really the same thing, you know?

I recalibrate my monitors from time to time (since they get older and change slightly) and never touch their settings till the next time I calibrate them..

That does sound nice, but you know, don't different types of content warrant different settings? I usually want high contrast and brightnes for playing web games, while I want considerably lower contrast for playing 3D games. For viewing websites I prefer to lower the brightness so it's not so harsh on my eyes, and for reading manga I use a different color temperature to remove the tint from pages. Do you use the same brightness, contrast, and temperature settings for everything?

EDIT: I don't think I've seen a reasonable OLED monitor yet - am I behind the times or did you just mean LED-backlit LCD?

No, um -- I also use mobile devices a lot, and many phones come with OLED screens now. I'm pretty knowledgeable, in general; just because I'm ignorant about TVs, don't assume I'm ignorant in general! (Not that you did, hehe, just teasing.)

[JohnC]

I use same exact calibration settings (120 cd/m^2 brightness, 6500k color temperature, 2.2 gamma, stock contrast settings) for all content - works perfectly without the need to change anything, regardless if I'm typing up the text in Word, browsing the webpage, watching the YouTube videos or playing some game (browser-based or Crysis 3) You just need to control the room lighting (which is easy to do with window blinds as long as they are not "semi-transparent").

[auxy]

I use same exact calibration settings (120 cd/m^2 brightness, 6500k color temperature, 2.2 gamma, stock contrast settings) for all content - works perfectly without the need to change anything, regardless if I'm typing up the text in Word, browsing the webpage, watching the YouTube videos or playing some game (browser-based or Crysis 3) :wink: You just need to control the room lighting (which is easy to do with window blinds).

120 nits seems ... dark! My monitor is rated at 350 and most reviews put it closer to 400 at max brightness, and my phone is rated at 700; I tend to run both close to max brightness! (Well, the monitor less so, but the phone for sure.) My room is always pitch-black, so that's never a problem. I have super-excellent night vision, so it's not a problem for me.

[cynan]

Color calibration - with sensors that detect light output - is all well and good, but for many (ie, those not using the display for graphics work or video/photo editing), the benefits are minor. That's not to say that a improving the colors on a terribly calibrated display isn't worthwhile, just that getting close enough with visual test patterns is usually good enough.

Furthermore, for many at home, the display is in rooms where ambient light changes markedly (ie, any room with a window). Between day and night, ambient light in a room with a window can go from hundreds or even thousands of lux to only a few. This sort of makes precise calibration a headache, unless you can save different profiles for different times of the day. Most displays can't do this (at least not for low level color correction that involves service menus). At any rate, this makes paying someone hundreds of $ to come over and professionally calibrate your TV during the day when you use it mostly at night quite the exercise in futility (edit: unless you have a theater room with controlled lighting, of course).

If you are lucky enough to have a popular display, you can find calibration profiles on places like AVSforum. Yes, all displays of a certain model are not identical, but these can serve as a good starting point. From there, fine adjustments using visual test patterns get you close enough for most home use.

[JohnC]

I use same exact calibration settings (120 cd/m^2 brightness, 6500k color temperature, 2.2 gamma, stock contrast settings) for all content - works perfectly without the need to change anything, regardless if I'm typing up the text in Word, browsing the webpage, watching the YouTube videos or playing some game (browser-based or Crysis 3) You just need to control the room lighting (which is easy to do with window blinds).

120 nits seems ... dark! My monitor is rated at 350 and most reviews put it closer to 400 at max brightness, and my phone is rated at 700; I tend to run both close to max brightness! (Well, the monitor less so, but the phone for sure.) My room is always pitch-black, so that's never a problem. I have super-excellent night vision, so it's not a problem for me.

It's not, actually - you just gotta adjust to it, after that everything else will look "blinding" Of course, you can always choose a higher brightness point and do a calibration based on that (teh calibration software for Spyder sensor allows you to chose whatever brightness you want to).

Just get it from Amazon, try it out extensively, see the results, and if you won't like them (some people may prefer more "oversaturated" colors or different gamma or whatever, even if it's not quite realistic) - return it back to Amazon for a full refund

[cynan]

You just need to control the room lighting (which is easy to do with window blinds as long as they are not "semi-transparent").

Well, the huge caveat here is that many don't like to work in the dark during the day. (Ask most people if they'd prefer an office with or without a window...) Plus, the sunlight exposure - even if through a window - is probably healthier (to avoid disrupting your biological clock).

[auxy]

Well, the huge caveat here is that many don't like to work in the dark during the day. (Ask most people if they'd prefer an office with or without a window...)

I work in an office indoors after-hours without any windows (it's inside a huge building.) I couldn't be happier, because:

Plus, the sunlight exposure - even if through a window - is probably healthier :P (to avoid disrupting your biological clock).

Aggh! Noo! The sun is evil!
It turns me from the alabaster-hued moon princess I usually am into some kind of leather-skinned jungle creature! Ack! ((((ﾟДﾟ))))
Hehe, in all seriousness, my mixed French-Vietnamese ancestry really does make me turn from paper-white to bark-brown with just a little bit of sun. I hate the way I look tanned, and the sunlight hurts my eyes anyway, so I avoid it like the plague.
^{I take vitamin D supplements, don't worry. And C. And A and B. And a multivitamin. (；￣д￣）}

_{(edit): reduce the obnoxiously huge size of my text}

[cynan]

Well, the huge caveat here is that many don't like to work in the dark during the day. (Ask most people if they'd prefer an office with or without a window...)

I work in an office indoors after-hours without any windows (it's inside a huge building.) I couldn't be happier.

Plus, the sunlight exposure - even if through a window - is probably healthier (to avoid disrupting your biological clock).

Aggh! Noo! The sun is evil!
It turns me from the alabaster-hued moon princess I usually am into some kind of leather-skinned jungle creature! Ack! ((((ﾟДﾟ))))
Hehe, in all seriousness, my mixed French-Vietnamese ancestry really does make me turn from paper-white to bark-brown with just a little bit of sun. I hate the way I look tanned, and the sunlight hurts my eyes anyway, so I avoid it like the plague.
^{I take vitamin D supplements, don't worry. And C. And A and B. And a multivitamin. (；￣д￣）}

French, eh? I guess that explains your username?

Vit D is probably a good idea if you avoid the sun... I was referring to your eyes (as opposed to your skin with the Vit D thing) getting enough bright light exposure during the day (especially earlier in your wake cycle) to keep your circadian rhythm in check. Can help if you have issues sleeping or if you get depressed during darker times of the year, etc. But then this seems to affect some people more than others...

[auxy]

French, eh? I guess that explains your username?

Um, no -- that's a long and stupid story involving Final Fantasy XI and an auto-name generator; PM me if you want to hear it. I'm a 5th-generation Vietnamese-American; I don't actually speak any French at all (and almost no Vietnamese.)

Vit D is probably a good idea if you avoid the sun... I was referring to your eyes (as opposed to your skin with the Vit D thing) getting enough bright light exposure during the day (especially earlier in your wake cycle) to keep your circadian rhythm in check. Can help if you have issues sleeping or if you get depressed during darker times of the year, etc. But then this seems to affect some people more than others...

Huh, I do have a lot of trouble with my sleep schedule being totally inconsistent and irregular. Interesting...

Non-24-hour sleep-wake syndrome and other persistent circadian rhythm sleep disorders are believed to be caused by an inadequate ability to reset the sleep/wake cycle in response to environmental time cues. These individuals' circadian clocks might have an unusually long cycle, and/or might not be sensitive enough to time cues. (...) Circadian rhythm abnormalities are also extremely common in ADHD, especially in the form of delayed sleep (sleep initiation insomnia). It has been genetically linked by findings of polymorphism in genes in common between those apparently involved in ADHD and those involved in the circadian rhythm ... however no specific or further cause-effect relationship has been proven.

Whaa ... (；￣Д￣）I have ADD (though not ADHD as the article suggests). My genetics are all screwy too.

This is all very interesting! Sorry to go so off-topic in your TV thread drfish, but I just wanted to say thanks to Waco for increasing my awareness of this "invisible disability". I always assumed my difficulties sleeping were just the result of my own aberrant behavior, rather than anything biological. (；￢_￢)

[Waco]

Color calibration - with sensors that detect light output - is all well and good, but for many (ie, those not using the display for graphics work or video/photo editing), the benefits are minor. That's not to say that a improving the colors on a terribly calibrated display isn't worthwhile, just that getting close enough with visual test patterns is usually good enough.

Furthermore, for many at home, the display is in rooms where ambient light changes markedly (ie, any room with a window). Between day and night, ambient light in a room with a window can go from hundreds or even thousands of lux to only a few. This sort of makes precise calibration a headache, unless you can save different profiles for different times of the day. Most displays can't do this (at least not for low level color correction that involves service menus). At any rate, this makes paying someone hundreds of $ to come over and professionally calibrate your TV during the day when you use it mostly at night quite the exercise in futility (edit: unless you have a theater room with controlled lighting, of course).

If you are lucky enough to have a popular display, you can find calibration profiles on places like AVSforum. Yes, all displays of a certain model are not identical, but these can serve as a good starting point. From there, fine adjustments using visual test patterns get you close enough for most home use.

I was speaking about calibration as in disabling "torch mode" and trying to at the very least get the contrast, brightness, and gamma curves set up properly. For color calibration I try to follow settings others have used to get a starting point then use calibration images to finish everything up.

My main display at home is set at something like 10% for the backlight - and it's still too bright.