 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
143.101.232.51
In Reply to: RE: New LED flatscreens disappointing posted by sprucemoose on March 10, 2010 at 08:03:40
I love my Panny 700U Plasma! That's a 2/3 generation behind what's currently available, and I still don't have any complaints with it's picture quality - in fact it impresses me every time. LCD's on the other hand, I only liked as computer screen, crisp and bright - that's all.
After seeing first 120Hz Bravo sets making movies look like daytime soaps, I can't fathom why would somebody hate themselves so much to a)suffer through watching movies in that manner and b)Pay extra $$ for 120Hz.
Follow Ups:
I still use an ancient CRT for a number of reasons, none of which are relevant here. I could not reliably tell a difference between a 1080p LCD with 60 and 120Hz refresh. I was happy that I couldn't tell a difference because that would save me money. However, in my fidgety way of not letting go of the shopping part of video, I recently went to a boutique shop and saw LCDs with 60, 120 and 240 hz refresh rates. The 240 was clearly better and in fact was easier to see as better in a video with a slow pan of a solid surface. I'm now disappointed because I can clearly see a difference. Having determined for myself that 240Hz is a technology worth paying for, at least for me, I also saw a Vizio LCD with 240Hz and back lit LED (not side lit), and that's the best I've seen from LCD. Is it better than Plasma? I don't know but Plasma is a no go for me in a bright room with lots of reflections. Just my $0.025 cents worth.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
