JustAnEngineer wrote:I've been very happy with my Sony XBR television
My current television is the Sony XBR-55HX929.
tanker27 wrote:The future of 3D technology is not in 3D. I've seen someone demo this on Youtube, but playing "split screen" on a 3D TV is much cooler, and a much smarter application. I'm not sure what else you might get from that, but if might be a use for your 3D capability if you have a console that can do it.Coincidentally, I still think 3D is a fad but this Tv does have that capability. I dont know if I will ever use it though.
JdL wrote:As others have suggested, I would also add a "120 Hz" requirement to that list.
Additionally, I would also suggest finding one with the lowest input lag possible.
ludi wrote:The very first thing you want to do is calibrate the screen for your home theater room's typical viewing level. Plasma will always have true blacks but can still be set too bright, leading to eye fatigue and premature wear-out. TVs are often set by default to a demonstration mode intended to overpower the extra-bright lighting of a typical retail floor...which, ironically, may have driven you away from the LCD offerings. Since your home theater room probably doesn't have several kW of metal halide lighting running at all times (unless you're growing some movie snacks you'd rather not talk about), the TV may need to be dialed down.
tanker27 wrote:Yeah thats what I am currently trying to do. Its hard to get something that looks good with HDTV, Netflix, Blu Rays, and Digital Media. Some Netflix stuff is too dark, while Sports in HD looks washed out. Now the Blu Ray and Digital Media stuff I have look excellent.
tanker27 wrote:Yeah it has Standard, Movie, and a third one (I forget what its called). Eveything I read from the Av forums Is I should start with Movie preset and then go from there.
tanker27 wrote:Play back a Blu-ray at 1080p24 and you'll appreciate a 120Hz display that can do it with almost no annoying telecine judder.JdL wrote:I wont get into the argument that 120Hz is pure bunk. We all know that the current standard for HDTV is 60Hz and movies are 24 FPS (rounded to 30).As others have suggested, I would also add a "120 Hz" requirement to that list.
JustAnEngineer wrote:JdL wrote:I wont get into the argument that 120Hz is pure bunk. We all know that the current standard for HDTV is 60Hz and movies are 24 FPS (rounded to 30).As others have suggested, I would also add a "120 Hz" requirement to that list.
tanker27 wrote:JdL wrote:As others have suggested, I would also add a "120 Hz" requirement to that list.
However, I wont get into the argument that 120Hz is pure bunk. We all know that the current standard for HDTV is 60Hz and movies are 24 FPS (rounded to 30). And we all know that you cant add whats not in the source material. But thats all semantics.
Enhanced refresh rates like 120Hz, 240Hz, and various other speed-boosting features on modern HDTVs, on the other hand, push the concept too far............Actually, this effect can produce a distinctly artificial, unnatural feel to video.
1080p60 is the current high-end standard for HDTVs, and no commercial media exceeds that resolution or frame rate. In fact, many movies on Blu-ray even turn the frame rate down and display 1080p24, or 1,920-by-1080 video at 24 frames per second, to make the footage look as close to film as possible.
JdL wrote:tanker27, I am aware of, and certainly don't disagree with any of that. But to blanket-call 120 Hz + "bunk" is not fair.
JdL wrote:(a) that the high refresh feature can be used TODAY with many great applications - game consoles and games that support 3D, Roku, PC / Apple TV / Mac, etc. 120 Hz + makes the pictures sharper, animations smoother, etc.
JdL wrote:(b) that you can turn off the enhanced refresh rate for standard content such as Bluray, DVD, etc.
JdL wrote:I guess I'm paranoid that I'll never get to see a desktop LCD go above 60 Hz I know there was an ASUS model at one time that had GREAT reviews, but unfortunately that whole push has been negated by "bad press".
2. Human perception. 24 FPS isn't choppy to the human eye, so even though 48 FPS, 120 Hz, and greater refresh rates look "better," you've already met the human needs met, so the value of higher refresh rates is lower to most people, and likely will be until video gets to 60 Hz/FPS and higher.
ludi wrote:And did I say 24 FPS was smooth? Optimal? No, I did not.
24fps is not visually optimal, is the visual minimum. It was not chosen to meet human needs, but to meet film industry needs at a time when both film and equipment was very primitive and incredibly expensive. The use of a dark theater room allowed the shutter transition between frames to be masked by retinal afterimage, and also prevented the audience from seeing any real-world motion around them that would give comparative reference, helping preserve the illusion of fluid motion.
It was maintained in the age of television and home video because first, the existing stock of filming and editing equipment was built for it and second, it can be efficiently converted to both 50Hz PAL and 60Hz NTSC systems via telecining with 2:2 or 3:2 pulldown. Television rapidly adopted its own set of camera and broadcast standards but home video converted from cinema still uses these legacy techniques and will continue to do so until both the production and the consumption markets have fully embraced the potential of HD.
(a) that the high refresh feature can be used TODAY with many great applications - game consoles and games that support 3D, Roku, PC / Apple TV / Mac, etc. 120 Hz + makes the pictures sharper, animations smoother, etc.