A few hdtv questions...

In My Humble Opinion
1

Main use will be gaming and streaming Netflix on my PS3. Maybe a BR rental here and there plus over the air TV.

60hz vs. 120hz? Do I need the higher refresh rate? I’ve googled aroung and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus. Also worried about input lag for gaming.

Name brand vs off brand? $500 budget. Should I pony up the extra cash for a top model. Some of the store brands look like deals but I don’t want to have to buy another tv in a couple years.

Those are my main concerns. Feel free to throw in any additional info.

2

There were about five minutes in the early days of LCD monitors when input lag for gaming was a major issue. It’s not something you should have to worry about these days with any TV that approaches half-decent. 60 vs 120 in general is a little more YMMV, but for most people and applications that’s not going to matter, either.

The big questions right now that will affect what general kind of TV you want are size, 3D, and connectivity/apps. In addition to that, you’ll need to decide your own preference between LCD and plasma, which each have pros and cons.

If you’ve got it hooked up to your PS3, you don’t need any of the big internet connectivity stuff, since you’re getting all of that through your PS3. Maybe it’ll be included in the best deal, but if there’s a great TV at a great price without it, that’s an option for you. 3D is a question that you’ll have to answer on your own. You’re not paying a huge premium to get it as a feature, but it takes you out of the running for a lot of the budget models from the better manufacturers.

I tend to think that there’s no excuse for a main TV smaller than 42 inches these days, if you’re sourcing it with HD material, which it sounds like you are. Brand wise, anything you’ve heard of is probably fine: Samsung, Sony, LG, Toshiba, and three or four others all make acceptable consumer level sets in a pretty similar price range. Stay away from the bottom of the barrel names and you’ll be fine. Anyways, recent sales for moderate feature 42 inch TVs lately have been in the $400-$500 range. We’re not talking super sales here, just the normal “hey, there’s a good deal on that this week”. Why does that matter?

… because we’re about to be talking Super Sales! T minus three weeks to Black Friday! Assuming you don’t need it right away, I’d definitely wait three weeks and take advantage of the single best time of the year to purchase a new TV. Even if you stick to internet deals and avoid the waiting in line, there’s a very good chance you could go to 46, 50, or even 55 inches with a good feature set for under $500 that weekend. You should see 42s in the $250-300 range. Bonus, you have a little time in the interim to figure out which features you really need. Happy shopping!

3

I’ve seen a number of ads over the last month for solid 50" HDTVs for $500. If you can, I’d wait for Black Friday - you’ll have plenty of solid options. Right now, you should do some research on whether or not plasma or LCD is the correct choice for your room. (If you don’t have much light noise in the room (i.e. windows or lamps in the reflection area), I highly recommend plasma - but there are plenty of other factors that might be an issue for you (power consumption, etc.).)

4

Someone with more technical knowledge can correct me, but I was under the impression that high refresh rates (anything above 60hz) are responsible for what’s commonly called the “soap opera effect.” That it, everything you watch looks like it was shot on cheap videotape. And that’s why it’s better to go with either 24hz or 60hz.

But if that’s wrong, someone else can correct me.

5

120Hz plus the “smooth motion” or whatever the TV set manufacturers call it where they interpolate a frame in between the 60 actual frames of data are what make the “soap opera effect”. A 120Hz TV with that setting off just displays every frame twice and looks exactly the same as a 60Hz TV on a 60Hz source.
The advantage of a 120Hz TV is really in displaying film content - 24 frames per second of film divides evenly into 120Hz, so each frame displays 5 times. On a 60Hz TV they have to do what is called “3:2 pulldown” where some frames display twice and some 3 times, and that can lead to some visual issues in some scenes.
Edit to add, or for “3D” - 3D active glasses switch each eye off half the time, so need 120Hz to get 60 Frames per second to each eye.

6

What jacob said. And with the primary uses being gaming and Netflix, I’d say the higher the better.

7

Don’t forget to check out the physical world pieces of the TV…

Is the remote control decent? Or will you have to pay to get a better remote?
How many ports on the back? Swapping HDMI cables is a pain if you are a gamer/computer/Blue-ray user and run out of ports.
Are the ports an easy reach around on the side or bottom? Or will they require Kareem Abdul Jabbar arms to get to?
How heavy/thick is it? Will mounting it on a wall be easy, or an awkward nightmare?
Are the internal speakers decent?
Is the menuing system of the TV settings nice, or a frustrating hack job?
USB inputs for easy slideshowing of photos or videos to keep mother-in-laws entertained on holiday visits?

8

Great questions, Gargoyle! I’ll answer one of them right now:

No. No, they’re not. All internal TV speakers are total shit.

9

I’m slightly out of my depth, here, but I wanted to chime in:

While hunting for TV’s (I’m still in hunting stage) a while ago, my wife and I noticed that a simple sports broadcast on the various displays looked remarkably better on the 120hz and 240hz units. The 60hz units had either dropped frames or poor compensation so that, for instance, a thrown football would either cause the whole scene to lurch-and-pause-and-lurch while the camera followed it to the receiver’s hands or the ball would ‘bleed’ color while arcing across the field.

I’m not much of a sports fan, so I don’t really care how a long bomb is going to look on Sunday nights. However, I like my action flicks and I like my gaming, and I suspect some of that rapid action may be adversely affected in similar ways by lower refresh rates. The 120’s looked fine and we couldn’t see a remarkable different with the 240’s (but that may just be that recording technologies haven’t pushed that limit yet).

Someone correct or confirm my analysis?

—G?

Turn on the tube
What do I see:
A whole lotta people
sayin’ “Don’t Blame Me!”
. --Don Henley (Eagles)
. Get Over It!
. Hell Freezes Over

10

You’ll want a LCD rather than a plasma to avoid burn-in. You should also make sure it’s a 1080p Full HD display, and not merely ‘HD Ready’.

11

Even if there isn’t much difference between looking at 240 and 120, I would think that 240 would be useful if you want 120 quality in 3D so it may still be useful if very smooth 3D is important to you.

How widespread are 3D sports, actions flicks and games?

12

A TV with a full LED backlight rather than edge lit can provide local dimming for better blacks.

13

2 out of 3 all but non-existant, except as a gimmick. Only films on Blu-ray really have any 3d adoption.

To the poster above, depending on what you saw in the football game it could be either motion blur, or judder.
While 120hz can sometimes help, it also is a quality of the LCD panel and the set itself that will reduce these, not just the increased frame rate.

14

Thanks for all the info.

15

I don’t think this would be an issue for gaming. I believe all PS3 games are set for 60 Hz.