recommendation for TVs ( specific requests stated! )

[savvyguy]

what was the model of his TV? was it the NX700 series?

to be honest, i didn't know anything about Samsung's QC problems till i read the posts here..

I'm pretty sure it was an EX500, it's 120Hz, and not an LED model, Bravia Engine 2. (So not the latest and greatest, isn't that the Bravia Engine 3?). He got it at Wal-Mart. Sony calls their motion interpolation "MotionFlow".

There have been threads from time to time on Samsungs, and a recent thread on problems with them. I'll see If I can find it for you.

[EDIT] Here's a couple, one from a week ago, one from a year ago:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/322155-Headsup-on-Samsung-LCD-TV-screens

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/samsung-lcd-tv-32-quot-fullhd-won-t-turn-on-t374268.html

hmm, it seems that there's only EX700, NX700 in my area. not sure if ex700=ex500. recalled the price tag was pretty hefty for a non-LED backlit TV, which was why i didn't take a second look.

yup i read the responses already. ahh

[fritzi93]

I should explain a bit more my impressions on motion interpolation. That is, comparing my buddy's Bravia and my Philips (which is ~ 1 year older).

With my Philips, motion interpolation is okay for SDTV, DVD and some Blu-Rays. But scenes with a lot of motion and high-contrast edges, well, the edges kind of flicker occasionally. Very annoying.

With the Bravia, I deliberately played one Blu-Ray that had a lot of that sort of artifacting on my Philips (Band of Brothers episode 1). No sign of flickering at all. And no problem with anything else I tried.

As to automatic image processing, I, again deliberately, tried Fellowship of the Ring Blu-Ray. On my Philips, automatic contrast, color, etc, produce orange-ish skin tones for some scenes in that movie. Now, that's easily fixed by turning that junk off and manually calibrating. The Sony looked perfectly fine. Changing to manual settings and calibrating made no difference I could see. I'm no expert, mind you, just a hobbyist.

I'm perfectly happy having motion interpolation turned off on my set, but I confess one could easily get used to the Sony with it turned on.

[savvyguy]

thanks for the mini review.

interestingly i've also looked at Philips sets, and am quite pleased with its performance when the movie Avatar was played on it. The good part was the price, but my family didn't like the design of the TV itself. haha.

i'm no videophile also, but can easily identify one which has good video processing.

btw, just curious - why do people calibrate their HDTVs? for PC monitors maybe, because its used for colour-critical jobs like photography and graphic editing - but HDTV? what's the benefit other than reproducing faithful colours?

[fritzi93]

I've been using the term "calibrate" somewhat loosely, before someone points that out.

I have a DVD that I downloaded for roughly calibrating a TV, I forget where from. One could also use a DVD with the THX optimizer, quite a few of those around. Or the Wall-E Blu-Ray for instance. That will get you close enough for an HDTV, but obviously not good enough for serious video work.

Anyway, for some movies (for example the LOTR movies), if your HDTV is too far out of adjustment, you'll notice it all right. Most members here would, at any rate.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Here are some free calibration downloads that go beyond the THX Optimizer:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=948496


To get the hue and saturation(color) correct you need a blue filter.

[sanlyn]

btw, just curious - why do people calibrate their HDTVs? for PC monitors maybe, because its used for colour-critical jobs like photography and graphic editing - but HDTV? what's the benefit other than reproducing faithful colours?

What's wrong with "reproducing faithful colors?" If that's not what you want, get the SONY. No way to give it a thorough calibration, not with that screwy color gamut, neon blues, and pushed reds. Seems to be what many people like, though. I can say that the newer SONYs you're looking at are closer to natural color than previous ones.

If you wanna know why people calibrate tv's and something about the way it's really done, go here:
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457
Unfortunately SONY doesn't give you all the features for this kind of calibration. Most Samsungs do, and you don't have to know secret codes to get into the service menu. SONY has some of the settings mentioned in that calibration site, but they're limited.

You mentioned earlier something about viewing 4:3 images. There's no way you can fill a 16:9 screen with a 4:3 image without either stretching or cropping it. If it's stretched, you see the whole frame but people look fat. If you zoom in (all HDTV's have this feature, including Samsung), you fill the screen but you crop the image. Picture resizing menus use different names on different tv's, but no tv that I know of refers to it as "CROP". It's usually a "ZOOM" setting of some kind.

[lordsmurf]

What's the point of watching TV if not to watch the art medium as it was intended?

I'd have to say my Sony SXRD has accurate color, and it has an impressive array of color options to alter. I will admit to pushing saturation higher sometimes, but it's not set there 24/7. There's nothing worse than watching a muted, muddy TV show just because the network copies are degraded.

Options on calibration really varies by dollar level. The lower the cost, the more "uncalibratable" it's going to be.

[sanlyn]

I'd have to say my Sony SXRD has accurate color, and it has an impressive array of color options to alter.

Agreed, ls, and thank for catching me making another one of those "blanket" statements.

The XSRD was indeed one of SONY's better efforts. Their competitors haven't had a much better average, when you take all their models into account. Yep -- pay less, get less. Some things don't change.

[sum_guy]

All I'm gonna say is, check out DLP TV's, I'm on NTSC but thrilled with mine, your screen can't die on you, a bulb can, and you can change that yourself, the downside to DLP is it isn't flat, on the other hand, it isn't fat either. In the USA, they are substantially less money for screen size than other types of displays.

[savvyguy]

btw, just curious - why do people calibrate their HDTVs? for PC monitors maybe, because its used for colour-critical jobs like photography and graphic editing - but HDTV? what's the benefit other than reproducing faithful colours?

What's wrong with "reproducing faithful colors?" If that's not what you want, get the SONY. No way to give it a thorough calibration, not with that screwy color gamut, neon blues, and pushed reds. Seems to be what many people like, though. I can say that the newer SONYs you're looking at are closer to natural color than previous ones.

If you wanna know why people calibrate tv's and something about the way it's really done, go here:
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457
Unfortunately SONY doesn't give you all the features for this kind of calibration. Most Samsungs do, and you don't have to know secret codes to get into the service menu. SONY has some of the settings mentioned in that calibration site, but they're limited -- Still, it's more than you get with most of their competitors, and it's better than results from a DVE disk.

You mentioned earlier something about viewing 4:3 images. There's no way you can fill a 16:9 screen with a 4:3 image without either stretching or cropping it. If it's stretched, you see the whole frame but people look fat. If you zoom in (all HDTV's have this feature, including Samsung), you fill the screen but you crop the image. Picture resizing menus use different names on different tv's, but no tv that I know of refers to it as "CROP". It's usually a "ZOOM" setting of some kind.

nothing wrong at all. but what i know is, monitor makers often exaggerate the colors so as to make their demos look "wow", which of course doesn't do justice if you want the colors in their original flavor.

as for the cropping part, you ought to try out the settings for toshiba vs samsung. OTHER than zoom, there is another option called "super live" which is very much different from zoom. can't describe it in words - once you see it, you'll understand what i'm talking about. ( the online descriptions don't really explain it well either )

[savvyguy]

What's the point of watching TV if not to watch the art medium as it was intended?

I'd have to say my Sony SXRD has accurate color, and it has an impressive array of color options to alter. I will admit to pushing saturation higher sometimes, but it's not set there 24/7. There's nothing worse than watching a muted, muddy TV show just because the network copies are degraded.

Options on calibration really varies by dollar level. The lower the cost, the more "uncalibratable" it's going to be.

then you're one of those video purists perhaps

i don't really mind when watching movies ( which also explains why i rather have the soap opera feel than film-ic look )

it only matters when i edit photos on my monitor..

[savvyguy]

All I'm gonna say is, check out DLP TV's, I'm on NTSC but thrilled with mine, your screen can't die on you, a bulb can, and you can change that yourself, the downside to DLP is it isn't flat, on the other hand, it isn't fat either. In the USA, they are substantially less money for screen size than other types of displays.

DLPs in my area are almost obsolete. think big and heavy. nowadays, nobody even wants to take my 105KG sony CRT for a trade-in. sigh

[jagabo]

as for the cropping part, you ought to try out the settings for toshiba vs samsung. OTHER than zoom, there is another option called "super live" which is very much different from zoom. can't describe it in words - once you see it, you'll understand what i'm talking about. ( the online descriptions don't really explain it well either )

Super Live is a non-linear stretch. The edges of the picture are stretched more than the middle. This is sickening on panning shots. Some examples:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/303174-Can-anything-undo-disproportional-stretch-o-...=1#post1970610
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/307957-a-new-program-that-converts-videos-to-16-9-w...=1#post1895809

[sanlyn]

then you're one of those video purists perhaps

i don't really mind when watching movies ( which also explains why i rather have the soap opera feel than film-ic look )

it only matters when i edit photos on my monitor..

What ho, savvyguy, a most interesting comment. Really. For some reason I find it fascinating, especially since I've often heard people make similar statements describing their preferences with a/v gear.

It's interesting in several respects. It implies that you have two opposing preferences, one for film/tv and another for pics on your PC. Let me state emphatically that I'm a firm believer in the freedom to buy or use whatever anyone wants, period, whether they're purists or not. People see a picture in a museum; some say it's art, others say it's garbage. Many are sensitive to low-quality color and enhancement gimmicks. They don't want to pay good $$$$ for careless work. Others pay plenty for a TV that lights up the neighborhood played with torch mode settings. But you're right: a properly obsessive purist wouldn't buy an LCD to begin with. Pro engineers still master Blurays and HD football broadcasts using CRT's, so I guess that makes them purists. But let me prod a little and ask, why does it "matter" when you edit pics on your monitor? That doesn't seem to match up. Your TV and your PC monitor use the same technology -- compared to other machines, LCD's are inherently "innaccurate" in similar ways whether calibrated or not.

But, hey, everyone does their thing. Most people don't notice or don't care. So be it. What I found odd, or maybe just confusing, was this:

You used the terms "sopa opera look" and "film-ic". I don't know exactly what you mean by those terms, but it's true that film and what we call (digital) video sources do have a different look. Video has higher resolution and (in theory) less medium noise. Film has lower resolution but a wider and more accurate tonal range and higher overall acutance. Film has more visual info per pixel, so the two can't look exactly alike.

But your comparison kinda hooked me. The soap opera look you mention had its visual formula set in the early 50's. Except for adding color in the 60's and some technical improvements, it's usually adhered to its old visual formula. Heck, the formula sold tons of soap and toothpaste, so it became a production staple. That "look" is even part of TV/Film training. It's such a standard that Geico made a commercial a few years back that looked exactly like a bonafide soap opera broadcast.

The soap opera look is based on low-key lighting, many soft-focus techniques, lots of closeups with telephotos and the slight haze from long-focus coma and astigmatism, color temperatures below 6500K (most film is shot at 6500 and looks slightly "cooler" and brighter), coupled with lowered gamma and softened contrast in the final output. This makes s.o.'s look less contrasty, less raw and more "dreamy" thru the overly pumped settings on the average TV. So, it seems unusual to describe a high-contrast, high-gamma, high-saturation, edge-enhanced LCD image as having a soap-opera look. Seems a Vizio or LG with lower black levels would be preferable to the TVs you say you like. On top of that, most LCD's have problems displaying the low-density soap-opera look cleanly.

Anyway, personal preference rules. Many prefer that their TV and their PC adhere to the same SD and HD defined standards, which is what most purists usually mean when they refer to "accuracy". A purist wants the output to look more like the input. But not everyone wants that.

[savvyguy]

then you're one of those video purists perhaps

i don't really mind when watching movies ( which also explains why i rather have the soap opera feel than film-ic look )

it only matters when i edit photos on my monitor..

What ho, savvyguy, a most interesting comment. Really. For some reason I find it fascinating, especially since I've often heard people make similar statements describing their preferences with a/v gear.

It's interesting in several respects. It implies that you have two opposing preferences, one for film/tv and another for pics on your PC. Let me state emphatically that I'm a firm believer in the freedom to buy or use whatever anyone wants, period, whether they're purists or not. People see a picture in a museum; some say it's art, others say it's garbage. Many are sensitive to low-quality color and enhancement gimmicks. They don't want to pay good $$$$ for careless work. Others pay plenty for a TV that lights up the neighborhood played with torch mode settings. But you're right: a properly obsessive purist wouldn't buy an LCD to begin with. Pro engineers still master Blurays and HD football broadcasts using CRT's, so I guess that makes them purists. But let me prod a little and ask, why does it "matter" when you edit pics on your monitor? That doesn't seem to match up. Your TV and your PC monitor use the same technology -- compared to other machines, LCD's are inherently "innaccurate" in similar ways whether calibrated or not.

But, hey, everyone does their thing. Most people don't notice or don't care. So be it. What I found odd, or maybe just confusing, was this:

You used the terms "sopa opera look" and "film-ic". I don't know exactly what you mean by those terms, but it's true that film and what we call (digital) video sources do have a different look. Video has higher resolution and (in theory) less medium noise. Film has lower resolution but a wider and more accurate tonal range and higher overall acutance. Film has more visual info per pixel, so the two can't look exactly alike.

But your comparison kinda hooked me. The soap opera look you mention had its visual formula set in the early 50's. Except for adding color in the 60's and some technical improvements, it's usually adhered to its old visual formula. Heck, the formula sold tons of soap and toothpaste, so it became a production staple. That "look" is even part of TV/Film training. It's such a standard that Geico made a commercial a few years back that looked exactly like a bonafide soap opera broadcast.

The soap opera look is based on low-key lighting, many soft-focus techniques, lots of closeups with telephotos and the slight haze from long-focus coma and astigmatism, color temperatures below 6500K (most film is shot at 6500 and looks slightly "cooler" and brighter), coupled with lowered gamma and softened contrast in the final output. This makes s.o.'s look less contrasty, less raw and more "dreamy" thru the overly pumped settings on the average TV. So, it seems unusual to describe a high-contrast, high-gamma, high-saturation, edge-enhanced LCD image as having a soap-opera look. Seems a Vizio or LG with lower black levels would be preferable to the TVs you say you like. On top of that, most LCD's have problems displaying the low-density soap-opera look cleanly.

Anyway, personal preference rules. Many prefer that their TV and their PC adhere to the same SD and HD defined standards, which is what most purists usually mean when they refer to "accuracy". A purist wants the output to look more like the input. But not everyone wants that.

hey chill man. it was just a passing remark.

my answer is very simple - i'm a photographer by profession. there is a need for the colors on my monitor to match that of my prints, that's why it matters for monitors. as for HDTVs - well, i use it simply for entertainment and nothing else. so the accuracy of the colours really doesn't matter to me.

for the soap opera thing, i was merely referring to the motion characteristics ( 60fps video feel ) and nothing else.

cheers

[sanlyn]

Gotcha, savvyguy. No big thing. Good luck on the photo work -- hopefully it's not as mind-boggling as trying to fix old VHS tapes and get them onto DVD for my fussy customers. Frankly, I use screen captures in Photoshop to help with those corrections, and had to program my video processing software to use the same monitor profiles (wasn't easy). I even have a VirtualDub gradation filter that works like Photoshop's and can import Adobe's correction settings (thank the saints for that one!)

My TV has to demonstrate what the video looks like, so I guess I'm picky in both matters. Uh-oh, I think that makes me a double-dyed purist ? . Can't fight your genes, man.

[DarrellS]

My brother went to Best Buy a couple of days ago to get a 32" Sony Bravia (KDL-32EX400) to use for a monitor and TV in his bedroom for $499 but it was $539 and the Samsung LN32C530 that was $539 a week ago was on sale for $499 so he got that instead. It's a pretty good TV for that price. It has a USB connector for playing movies, viewing pictures and listening to audio files so he doesn't need to buy a media player to play movies from My Book or thumbdrives.

I have a 40" Samsung that I've had for over a year and a 23" Samsung monitor and I've had no problems with them.

I read that Samsung and Panasonic are the two best LCD makers the last couple of years so I don't know what all the negative posts are about.

[edDV]

Keep in mind the image processing quality and other features will improve as you move up the Samsung line to the 6/7/8/9 series. That is why Samsung has eleven 40" LCD models that range in "list price" from $849 to $1999 in their 2010 line.

IMO the best picture for the price model is the UN40C6300 ($1399 list). Next would be the LN40C630 ($899). These are US models.

[DarrellS]

I bought the LN40A550 a year ago. I wasn't really looking for an LCD TV at the time but it was $100 cheaper at Bestbuy than both newegg and Walmart so I couldn't pass it up. I believe it was around $800 after taxes.

On limited income, I'll never be able to afford anything of higher quality but I was very impressed at what I got for the price.

My brother had bought a Philips 52" plasma three years ago and not only did the picture quality suck but the chip was shot. He took it to the warranty repair shop but it still had the same problem so he returned it and got his money back. Hopefully Philips has gotten better (at the time, I thought they were the best) but from his experience, I'd be afraid to buy one.

[savvyguy]

Keep in mind the image processing quality and other features will improve as you move up the Samsung line to the 6/7/8/9 series. That is why Samsung has eleven 40" LCD models that range in "list price" from $849 to $1999 in their 2010 line.

IMO the best picture for the price model is the UN40C6300 ($1399 list). Next would be the LN40C630 ($899). These are US models.

hey, i bought the LA-46C630 eventually. the asian variant i guess. ( OT : i think i saw Amazon US list the 46c630 at an amazingly cheap price tag of 900 odd USD. :S )

to be honest i couldn't see much difference between the different series of samsung models - i bought the c630 purely because of the interpolation.

however after its arrival, i was a little disappointed with its performance. in some complicated scenes, the processing seem to lag a little, which really diluted my viewing experience. ( i set max 10 for blur + judder reduction - objective is to be smooth and i don't mind artifacts )

also, its black levels were pretty poor imo - tried playing The Book Of Eli (720p), a lot of dark scenes where shadow detail wasn't so good.

the consoling part was that the SDTV performance is one of the best among the LCDs, and i'm glad i choose a matte screen for my brightly lit living room.

cheers

[savvyguy]

I bought the LN40A550 a year ago. I wasn't really looking for an LCD TV at the time but it was $100 cheaper at Bestbuy than both newegg and Walmart so I couldn't pass it up. I believe it was around $800 after taxes.

On limited income, I'll never be able to afford anything of higher quality but I was very impressed at what I got for the price.

My brother had bought a Philips 52" plasma three years ago and not only did the picture quality suck but the chip was shot. He took it to the warranty repair shop but it still had the same problem so he returned it and got his money back. Hopefully Philips has gotten better (at the time, I thought they were the best) but from his experience, I'd be afraid to buy one.

Philips is dirt cheap in comparison to similar Samsung models in my area. was really tempted to buy that actually. the 47PFL5609 only costs approx USD600 and i bought my 46C630 for almost double the price..

[fritzi93]

Philips is dirt cheap in comparison to similar Samsung models in my area. was really tempted to buy that actually. the 47PFL5609 only costs approx USD600 and i bought my 46C630 for almost double the price..

The Philips LCDs are okay, I have the 47PFL7403. The picture is fine, so long as you turn off any automatic picture settings, and calibrate it.

I ran across an article not too long ago (didn't bookmark it, sorry), and it essentially said the actual manufacturers of LCD panels could be counted on one hand (Samsung is a major maker). The panels, not the completed HDTV sets. The real difference between HDTV brands is in the processing electronics. I wonder what the members here think of that statement? Accurate or not?

[edDV]

The real difference between HDTV brands is in the processing electronics. I wonder what the members here think of that statement? Accurate or not?

Mostly accurate assuming you are using it as an HDTV not as a computer monitor. If you are feeding it progressive off an NVidia or ATI display card at the TV's native resolution, then the TV's processing is mostly bypassed. You would be using the processing of your computer's tuner, playback software and display card in that case.

Likewise if you feed the TV off a set top box, DVD player or Blu-Ray player in progressive mode (480p, 576p, 720p, 1080p), then the TV has little to do but re-scale to the native display resolution.

But if you are feeding the HDTV with interlace (480i/1080i) or using the TV tuner, then the HDTV is taking on the full processing load including deinterlace, inverse telecine, scaling and image processing.

The above assumes a 50/60Hz low end HDTV. If the HDTV is a 100/120/240 Hz. etc. model, then a progressive or interlace feed is futher processed with frame repeats or intermediate frame interpolation to the higher refresh rate. The quality of intermediate frame interpolation will vary widely model to model even within in the same brand name line. Generally quality correlates to price but serious reviews may find differences between brands and models within a brand.