Q. Whats the difference? which is better?
Answer
LED TV is basically just upgraded LCD TV. In LCD TV, at the back there are fluorescent lamps, but in LED TV there LEDs instead. Because of that LED TVs are lighter and thinner. They also produce better colors and deeper blacks. What I noticed is that LED TVs have better viewing angle than LCD TVs. LED TVs also consume less power and last longer than LCD TVs. LED TVs have picture similar to plasma TVs and some even have better.
I would recommend LED TV. One month ago I just bought one. LED TVs are more expensive than LCDs, but the big advantage is that LEDs produce better colors (more natural looking and brighter) and that's very important. In a store when they have LCD besides LED you can see big difference in picture quality.
LED TV is basically just upgraded LCD TV. In LCD TV, at the back there are fluorescent lamps, but in LED TV there LEDs instead. Because of that LED TVs are lighter and thinner. They also produce better colors and deeper blacks. What I noticed is that LED TVs have better viewing angle than LCD TVs. LED TVs also consume less power and last longer than LCD TVs. LED TVs have picture similar to plasma TVs and some even have better.
I would recommend LED TV. One month ago I just bought one. LED TVs are more expensive than LCDs, but the big advantage is that LEDs produce better colors (more natural looking and brighter) and that's very important. In a store when they have LCD besides LED you can see big difference in picture quality.
3D TV question - LED vs. LCD which is the best buy?
Q. I'm a long term electronics tech, so I'm actually fairly knowledgeable about most technologies, but I must admit, a lot of my knowledge base is accumulated from many years of experience and face it, a lot has happened in the past few years I'm just not really on top of.
Historically LCD has had too slow of a redraw rate to be used in TV's, of course that's no longer true, but I truly don't know if the tech still has bugs.
Historically LED wasn't even an option due to lack of blue.
I know modern 3D TV's work just like the 3D technology nVidia and I think even 3DFX before them used in their graphics cards since the mid 90's, shutter glasses with alternating eye draws, the only real difference is they're wireless now.
My question to those of you with real experience:
Should I go with LED or LCD? My instincts tell me LED since historically individual component LED's were one of the few electronic components designed with "forever" in mind and my understanding of how they work tells me they have a higher refresh potential. I've seen LCD's go bad with time, especially the old back lights which have largely been replaced with, get this, LED back lights. To be fair, only the View Sonic monitors here at work have I seen have many problems outside of the back light. (alas View Sonic, the best shadow mask monitors on the market in the CRT days, really good early LCD's, crap for modern LCD's)
I would really like a 600 Hz model since 600 is evenly divisible by 24, 30, 50, 60 and 120 (if you know why that means something great, if not, sorry). Related question, do 600 Hz TV's really run at 600 Hz, or is it like the old CRT monitors that actually adjust their refresh rate and they say 600 to make the math work? 600 seems a bit high, especially for LCD's that don't actually "refresh" in the old fashioned sense of the term. (really 120 Hz model would make me happy)
Finally, suggested models? 44" would replace the height of my 36" CRT perfectly, so somewhere in that range. Sony is off the menu because of their screw the customer DRM/lockout crusade, and Samsung has ticked me off more than once recently with their semi-DLNA support and sluggish Blu-Ray menu's, so bad I don't want to risk it with one of their TV's with the same processor and firmware base. LG, despite having been crappy Wal-Mart offered Goldstar in a previous life is usually at the top of my list these days.
BTW, I don't really understand how Plasma works and the limited lifespan really takes it off the menu. DLP was high on the list a couple of years but I really don't want to jack with lamps and I'm not even sure it's being actively pushed anymore.
Follow up:
I'm a technical person. I'm looking for "why" one is better than the other, not just cheering for what you have. If anyone has links to actual unbiased research or actual comparison reviews I would love to see it. I can find a lot of individual reviews, but nothing comparison.
Wow, the best follow up comes from someone only about as old as the number of years I've been in the tech field.
I'll look into the LED thing, I was of the understanding there's LED back lit, OLED, and I was thinking there were non-organic LED displays now, but I'll have to research more.
I agree with your "faster than the eye can perceive anyways" quote. Frankly I can't discern the judder that I'm trying to eliminate, at least not consciously, but I know a good image when I see it.
Historically LCD has had too slow of a redraw rate to be used in TV's, of course that's no longer true, but I truly don't know if the tech still has bugs.
Historically LED wasn't even an option due to lack of blue.
I know modern 3D TV's work just like the 3D technology nVidia and I think even 3DFX before them used in their graphics cards since the mid 90's, shutter glasses with alternating eye draws, the only real difference is they're wireless now.
My question to those of you with real experience:
Should I go with LED or LCD? My instincts tell me LED since historically individual component LED's were one of the few electronic components designed with "forever" in mind and my understanding of how they work tells me they have a higher refresh potential. I've seen LCD's go bad with time, especially the old back lights which have largely been replaced with, get this, LED back lights. To be fair, only the View Sonic monitors here at work have I seen have many problems outside of the back light. (alas View Sonic, the best shadow mask monitors on the market in the CRT days, really good early LCD's, crap for modern LCD's)
I would really like a 600 Hz model since 600 is evenly divisible by 24, 30, 50, 60 and 120 (if you know why that means something great, if not, sorry). Related question, do 600 Hz TV's really run at 600 Hz, or is it like the old CRT monitors that actually adjust their refresh rate and they say 600 to make the math work? 600 seems a bit high, especially for LCD's that don't actually "refresh" in the old fashioned sense of the term. (really 120 Hz model would make me happy)
Finally, suggested models? 44" would replace the height of my 36" CRT perfectly, so somewhere in that range. Sony is off the menu because of their screw the customer DRM/lockout crusade, and Samsung has ticked me off more than once recently with their semi-DLNA support and sluggish Blu-Ray menu's, so bad I don't want to risk it with one of their TV's with the same processor and firmware base. LG, despite having been crappy Wal-Mart offered Goldstar in a previous life is usually at the top of my list these days.
BTW, I don't really understand how Plasma works and the limited lifespan really takes it off the menu. DLP was high on the list a couple of years but I really don't want to jack with lamps and I'm not even sure it's being actively pushed anymore.
Follow up:
I'm a technical person. I'm looking for "why" one is better than the other, not just cheering for what you have. If anyone has links to actual unbiased research or actual comparison reviews I would love to see it. I can find a lot of individual reviews, but nothing comparison.
Wow, the best follow up comes from someone only about as old as the number of years I've been in the tech field.
I'll look into the LED thing, I was of the understanding there's LED back lit, OLED, and I was thinking there were non-organic LED displays now, but I'll have to research more.
I agree with your "faster than the eye can perceive anyways" quote. Frankly I can't discern the judder that I'm trying to eliminate, at least not consciously, but I know a good image when I see it.
Answer
No offense to Melinda but ignore her answer, read on.
Quite a long question you have there, i'll just provide an equally long answer! :)
...Real experience? Im not sure im considered to have that because im only 14 years old, but i might as well answer them, and yes, i do know why you want that 600hz subfield, coz the numbers 24 30 50 60 and 120 are commonplace framerates being compatible with both broadcast and recorded media(dvds etc), and also 3d is best with 120hz. But of course consider this segment from an article(not sure what country youre in) : "Because our AC power alternates 50 times a second, that's why Aussie TVs are 50Hz - and to match this, TV in Australia is broadcast at 50 frames a second. You can run your TV in 60Hz mode - your NTSC DVDs will look good, but your Aussie free-to-air broadcasts may exhibit some oddities when scrolling text, due to the 50Hz signal being converted to 60Hz by your TV."
Not to insult your intelligence but LED and LCD tvs are the same thing, the ones marketed as "LED" are simply referring to the type of backlight, instead of CCFL backlighting they use LED backlighting, which provides higher contrast, deeper blacks, more even illumination and longer life. If you arent talking about the backlighting then you are referring to OLED tvs(Organic Light Emitting Diodes) , not LED tvs, and OLED tvs are not yet in the market, or if they are, then not widely available. They are still considered experimental, are extremely expensive and unwieldy, and the only ones actually used are AMOLEDS in some new smartphones and in some Sony Walkmans. "Historically LCD has had too slow of a redraw rate to be used in TV's, of course that's no longer true, but I truly don't know if the tech still has bugs." Well, as LCD is a technology that has been around for a long time, and is STILL around, it has been constantly reviewed, remade and improved, so nowdays it should have most possible flaws removed, all we can do is go better and better. But yes, certainly get an LEDTV, as i believe the position of the CCFL backlights in LCDTVS make the contrast bad, illuminate even the "black" areas, have less life, more heat/energy consumption and LEDTVs simply look crisper and more favourable. I also think that currently, backlights dont affect refresh rate.
For the 600Hz topic, the feature marketed as "600Hz Sub-field Motion" is only for Plasma tvs, but yes, you are right that they dont "refresh" at 600hz, as in, they dont actually CHANGE the image/frame at 600hz, they still follow a typical 60hz rate(not sure about this, could be higher say 100-200hz), but they produce the same frame multiple times just to make it seem smoother, and also to stop blurring or ghosting caused by "phosphor lag". Excerpt: "These 600Hz TVs don't actually refresh their image 600 times a second. In fact, they're still 50Hz or 60Hz sets, depending on the country they're sold in.
Plasmas use a system called the 'subfield' where the same image is repeated. In traditional displays, this is done eight times a second. Why? To eliminate 'phosphor lag', or colour artefacts caused by the individual cells in the plasma grid switching on and off.
Until now, most plasmas have had a 400Hz subfield frequency: which is why each image is flashed eight times a second. A 600Hz TV ups this to 12 times a second, for a 50Hz signal."
What i know about DLP so far makes it look very unconventional, so no need to think about that. Long-ish explanation about plasmas up ahead.
Plasmas consume the most energy, and have the very distasteful disadvantage of burn-ins. Plasma tvs sorta might seem like crts in the way they work, at least to me. They dont need backlights, as the pixels emit the light. Basically the pixel cells each contain inert gasses similar to those found in plasma globes, and when those gasses are ionized by electricity, the photons they release, call it uv radiation or wavelength strikes different "coloured" phosphors, causing the phosphors to fluoresce in different colours, thus generating an image.
BTW please make comment on my opinion on this quote, just to show whether im narrow-minded or im right: "A final note: the subfield applies only to plasma displays: you won't be seeing 600Hz LCDs - at least, not in 2009. Next year? Who knows. Kilohertz? Gigahertz? The nightmare continues..." i think that refresh rates any much higher than today's wont be of much use commercially, as it surpasses our eyes' motion threshold.
No offense to Melinda but ignore her answer, read on.
Quite a long question you have there, i'll just provide an equally long answer! :)
...Real experience? Im not sure im considered to have that because im only 14 years old, but i might as well answer them, and yes, i do know why you want that 600hz subfield, coz the numbers 24 30 50 60 and 120 are commonplace framerates being compatible with both broadcast and recorded media(dvds etc), and also 3d is best with 120hz. But of course consider this segment from an article(not sure what country youre in) : "Because our AC power alternates 50 times a second, that's why Aussie TVs are 50Hz - and to match this, TV in Australia is broadcast at 50 frames a second. You can run your TV in 60Hz mode - your NTSC DVDs will look good, but your Aussie free-to-air broadcasts may exhibit some oddities when scrolling text, due to the 50Hz signal being converted to 60Hz by your TV."
Not to insult your intelligence but LED and LCD tvs are the same thing, the ones marketed as "LED" are simply referring to the type of backlight, instead of CCFL backlighting they use LED backlighting, which provides higher contrast, deeper blacks, more even illumination and longer life. If you arent talking about the backlighting then you are referring to OLED tvs(Organic Light Emitting Diodes) , not LED tvs, and OLED tvs are not yet in the market, or if they are, then not widely available. They are still considered experimental, are extremely expensive and unwieldy, and the only ones actually used are AMOLEDS in some new smartphones and in some Sony Walkmans. "Historically LCD has had too slow of a redraw rate to be used in TV's, of course that's no longer true, but I truly don't know if the tech still has bugs." Well, as LCD is a technology that has been around for a long time, and is STILL around, it has been constantly reviewed, remade and improved, so nowdays it should have most possible flaws removed, all we can do is go better and better. But yes, certainly get an LEDTV, as i believe the position of the CCFL backlights in LCDTVS make the contrast bad, illuminate even the "black" areas, have less life, more heat/energy consumption and LEDTVs simply look crisper and more favourable. I also think that currently, backlights dont affect refresh rate.
For the 600Hz topic, the feature marketed as "600Hz Sub-field Motion" is only for Plasma tvs, but yes, you are right that they dont "refresh" at 600hz, as in, they dont actually CHANGE the image/frame at 600hz, they still follow a typical 60hz rate(not sure about this, could be higher say 100-200hz), but they produce the same frame multiple times just to make it seem smoother, and also to stop blurring or ghosting caused by "phosphor lag". Excerpt: "These 600Hz TVs don't actually refresh their image 600 times a second. In fact, they're still 50Hz or 60Hz sets, depending on the country they're sold in.
Plasmas use a system called the 'subfield' where the same image is repeated. In traditional displays, this is done eight times a second. Why? To eliminate 'phosphor lag', or colour artefacts caused by the individual cells in the plasma grid switching on and off.
Until now, most plasmas have had a 400Hz subfield frequency: which is why each image is flashed eight times a second. A 600Hz TV ups this to 12 times a second, for a 50Hz signal."
What i know about DLP so far makes it look very unconventional, so no need to think about that. Long-ish explanation about plasmas up ahead.
Plasmas consume the most energy, and have the very distasteful disadvantage of burn-ins. Plasma tvs sorta might seem like crts in the way they work, at least to me. They dont need backlights, as the pixels emit the light. Basically the pixel cells each contain inert gasses similar to those found in plasma globes, and when those gasses are ionized by electricity, the photons they release, call it uv radiation or wavelength strikes different "coloured" phosphors, causing the phosphors to fluoresce in different colours, thus generating an image.
BTW please make comment on my opinion on this quote, just to show whether im narrow-minded or im right: "A final note: the subfield applies only to plasma displays: you won't be seeing 600Hz LCDs - at least, not in 2009. Next year? Who knows. Kilohertz? Gigahertz? The nightmare continues..." i think that refresh rates any much higher than today's wont be of much use commercially, as it surpasses our eyes' motion threshold.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
