backtop

Print 66 comment(s) - last by wired00.. on Sep 10 at 3:08 AM
Samsung says it will outperform the LED HDTV market in 2010

When the global economy tanked, the market for many popular consumer electronics goods declined significantly as well. Among the hardest hit segments were the computer industry and TV markets. Demand was so weak for LCD TVs and notebooks that many makers of LCD panels were selling their products at less than the production cost.

In May 2008, Samsung reported that it planned to outperform the LCD TV market with a bold plan to push new LED HDTV technology onto the market. Its LED plans worked well for the company and it quickly gobbled up about 59.8% of the global LED LCD TV market in 2009 reports Reuters.

Samsung reports that it expects to sell at least 2 million LED LCD TVs in 2009 and it has even more lofty goals for its LED sets in 2010. Samsung has its sights set on a five times increase in LED HDTV sales in 2010 with at least 10 million units sold.

The potential fly in the ointment for Samsung is that competition in the LED HDTV market is expected to be much fiercer in 2010 than it has been and will be this year. The big draw for consumers to LED equipped HDTVs is that the sets are significantly thinner than CCFL backlit LCD TVs common today and consume less power. The benefit extends further than looks and the green factor though with LED sets having better color, contrast and picture quality.

The overall LED TV market is expected to be about 4.3 million units in 2009 notes Reuters. Following behind Samsung in the market is Sharp, which is expected to hold about 27.9% of the LED HDTV market this year.

Samsung president Yoon Boo-keun said that Samsung plans to vastly outperform the LED TV market next year. Yoon also spoke on AMOLED TVs at a conference ahead of the IFA show this week. He said more time is needed before commercialized models are profitable. He continued saying, "Right now, LEDs are the leading force."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Still priced out of the market
By randomposter on 9/4/2009 4:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the market for a new 46" flat panel just a month ago. Ended up getting a conventional CCFL LCD set because I simply couldn't justify spending 2.5x the price on LED LCD.




RE: Still priced out of the market
By amanojaku on 9/4/2009 5:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Just give it a few months. In April the 55" Samsung UN55B6000 debuted at $3,400. After about a month most places were selling it for $2,900-3,000. Today, five months after it first hit the market, that TV is going for as low as $2,400, with an average price of $2,650. I think it's safe to say the prices are on their way down, because of both the economy and competition. Once these things sink below $2,000 they're worth every penny. But you got a damn good TV, anyway, and in two-three years you'll definitely have an LED TV.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By JediJeb on 9/4/2009 5:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
It amazes me how people talk about $2000-$4000 TVs as being a good buy. I need something in the $300-$500 range before I can even consider it right now. Is there even anything deceint out there at those prices?


By headbox on 9/5/2009 4:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
32" 720p LCD at K-Mart for $360 new. If you're looking at an old tube TV, this will be a massive improvement.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By psychobriggsy on 9/6/09, Rating: -1
By Zirconium on 9/7/2009 12:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, he never writes that he needs a TV. Before you get high on a soap box, maybe you want to learn to read (maybe too much time spent in front of the boob-tube for you). His actual comment states that in order for him to even consider a television, it needs to cost $300-500, which is not the same as him saying that he requires a TV for life as you seemed to infer. BTW - I saw 1080p 42" TVs in the $800 range during last year's holiday season, and would not be surprised if this year, there are a few for $600 or less. It won't be a Sony Bravia, but most people won't notice. Heck - in the Auzentech sound card article, Anand tries is with the Westinghouse LVM-42w2, a budget TV that has received quite a following, and I inferred from the article that this was actually Anand's personal TV.


By dagamer34 on 9/4/2009 11:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen it at $1800.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By StevoLincolnite on 9/4/2009 9:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Australia we don't usually get your pricing, however Christmas of 2008 the Government gave away Billions of dollars to the people, most people then spent that money on HDTV's.

I grabbed myself a 32" LG 720P LCD TV for only $850, my neighbour yesterday bought a 32" LG 720P LCD TV for $959, besides a slightly re-designed front bezel, the quality difference of the picture is almost exactly the same after tweaking the Color/Brightness/Backlight etc'.
I actually find it pretty hard to find a 32" LCD now days for under a grand here, and it's easy to spend $700 on a decent 26" panel.

My one hope for LED LCD is for lower pricing in the future, especially in 12 months time when I start looking to upgrade my current panel. :)


RE: Still priced out of the market
By althaz on 9/5/2009 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Most of that is because our dollar tanked. Even though it recovered almost immediately every company pumped up their prices.

It's easy to get a 32" LCD under $1000, but even no-name brands won't be Full HD at that price.

And 26" TVs are more like 800 still, which is why it's not a very popular segment of the market here.


By wired00 on 9/6/2009 9:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
yah i remember all retailers announced the prices were about to go up ~20% because AU dropped against the US dollar rapidly at end of 2008. Of course the prices all went up but haven't recovered even though our dollar has been back up over 85US cents for months


RE: Still priced out of the market
By afkrotch on 9/10/2009 1:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...at 32" a TV doesn't need to be "Full HD". You're eyes can't see the difference. Hell, I'd like to see your eyes tell the difference at 50" or less.

Course only stuff to even make use of 1080p is some games, blu-ray, and HD-DVD. Broadcast HD doesn't come in 1080p.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By wired00 on 9/10/2009 1:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I'd never pay for a full HD 32" tv


RE: Still priced out of the market
By afkrotch on 9/10/2009 2:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
If a 32" tv came with 1080p capability, didn't cost extra, and was comparable with other 32" TVs, then you'd be foolish not to get it. Course you wouldn't be foolish to get a 32" tv that doesn't have 1080p either.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By wired00 on 9/10/2009 3:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
oh well yeah of if a 1080p TV was released as at the same price as a 720p then i'd grab it. But i'm used to being ripped off on TV's in Australia so thats never gunna happen ;)


RE: Still priced out of the market
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2009 5:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
My dad got one of these new led tv's. It says 20,000 hour life on the side of the box, very cool.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2009 7:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
As a point of comparison, my Panasonic 58" Plasma purchased about 1.5 years ago has the screen rated 100,000 hours.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By 67STANG on 9/8/2009 1:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
They still make plasma TV's? Interesting. Last time I was at Best Buy, they had no plasmas on display-- only LCD.


RE: Still priced out of the market
By afkrotch on 9/10/2009 1:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
Bestbuy in my hometown says they have plasmas. Well, at least on the display it's labelled as such. Course, upon investigation, nothing there was actually a plasma.


By blueboy09 on 9/4/2009 7:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've been hearing some reports and rumors about some of the smaller LCDs (26" and smaller) overheating and actually damaging some of the innards of the LCD TVs. Don't know how relevant this is, but I heard from a friend that has a brother big into the electronics field, and said to be cautioned about this. Was considering to buy 26", but after hearing this, I'm thinking twice about it now. Other than that, LED, when it is PRICED RIGHT, will take off and become the new force to be reckoned with.




By GaryJohnson on 9/4/2009 9:09:07 PM , Rating: 5
I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, and I think you should do your own first hand product research and keep in mind that these things come with warranties.


By sieistganzfett on 9/4/2009 9:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
lol! May the schwartz be with you!


By Avatar28 on 9/6/2009 5:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate

Well what does that make us?


By grath on 9/7/2009 9:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
Evil twins separated at birth


By V3ctorPT on 9/7/2009 5:48:40 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Samsung T260 (26") as a pc monitor, and this thing doesn't get hot, at all... Maybe your friend got a bad tv with a malfunction, that's why we use warranties.


So...
By kb9fcc on 9/4/2009 5:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hum... Five times the sales, so cut the price to 1/5. That would do it.

Right. Like that would ever happen. Not.

Well, not in a year's time. But 46" sets in the $250-$500, new, would be the range to hit. Maybe when the bleeding-edged-ness (ya, not a word) wears off a bit more, and when manufactures stop cramming "features" of minimal value to keep the prices high.




RE: So...
By MindParadox on 9/4/2009 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
LOL yeah, like Picture in Picture, which doesnt work with a cable box :P

altho, a button that makes your remote beep so you can find it would be awesome :) (the button being on the TV itself)

and actually, cutting the price to a lower profit point per item to sell more is a valid selling strategy as long as the item is something that will be in demand for long enough(such as a TV) to justify the lower margin per unit


RE: So...
By KnightBreed on 9/7/2009 9:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
altho, a button that makes your remote beep so you can find it would be awesome :) (the button being on the TV itself)

That's all well and good until you lose your TV. Then how do you find the remote?


RE: So...
By atlmann10 on 9/7/2009 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you want Pip to work get a 1/2 splitter, then connect one from the TV out to two (other side of the splitter) coaxial cables to two of the TV's inputs. Picture in Picture will then work. It will probably cost between5 and 10 dollars. I really cannot believe I have to post this to a tech forum. Oh and make sure you get a high bandwidth splitter, especially if you want HD signal. However; remember that now that all TV must now be digital that includes everything. So make sure you don't go cheap and get a splitter rated at 800-900 mhz top end.


LED-backlit TV, not LED TV
By Visual on 9/5/2009 4:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is actually talking about LED-backlit LCD TVs, not real LED TVs... right?

I'd love it if we could have actual reasonably-priced large-size OLED panels in 2010... but that's not gonna happen. Damn, I hate the slow rate of progress in this field.
I get the feeling capitalism isn't having the best effect on it in this case, with only a couple private companies doing the R&D and no pressure to bring it to market before they've milked the old tech to the max first.




RE: LED-backlit TV, not LED TV
By Josh7289 on 9/6/2009 4:08:53 AM , Rating: 4
Correct.

I wish DailyTech, of all places, would stop using the term "LED TV". It's just Samsung's confusing marketing BS.

Use "LED-backlit LCD TV" instead.


By inperfectdarkness on 9/7/2009 5:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
as awesome as the prices for LED lit LCD tv's are...i'm not buying.

samsung should start pushing for LED lit 1080P LCD front projectors. bulb life is a historical achilles heel for projectors. i don't know if current LED technology is up to the task (enough lumens, enough durability, etc) but i'm sure it will eventually get there soon.

a nice stopgap would be to offer a 1080p front projector with an LED bulb--rather than true pixel-pixel LED lighting. the heat and energy consumption reduction alone would make it an incredibly potent offering.


By nofumble62 on 9/4/2009 9:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait.




By tenchymuyo2 on 9/6/2009 11:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
They'll most likely sell it below everyone else...you just have to do a side-by-side visual comparison, and a specs comparison.




Misleading article
By 91TTZ on 9/6/2009 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In May 2008, Samsung reported that it planned to outperform the LCD TV market with a bold plan to push new LED HDTV technology onto the market.


Dailytech writers, when will you write decent articles?

The article makes it sound like these TVs aren't LCD TVs. However, these TVs are in fact LCD TVs, the only difference being the backlighting (LED vs. cold cathode fluorescent). The article is *not* talking about LED TVs (where the colors are produced by LEDs instead of a liquid crystal display)




Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By bkslopper on 9/4/09, Rating: -1
By crimsonson on 9/4/2009 6:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
LED lighting can significantly increase the color and contrast range of LCD TVs.


By tuteja1986 on 9/5/2009 2:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
Plasma is the way to go still :! Panasonic V10 best deal i would say for arround $2K.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2009 3:50:17 AM , Rating: 2
except they're hot, power-hungry, and have a greater chance of burn-in than LCDs (although they have improved all of those points in recent years).

Of course, as soon as LED HDTVs have become the norm in the market, there will be another technological improvement manufacturers can use as a premier (read high-priced, high-margin) product. My money's on OLED.


By wired00 on 9/6/2009 9:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
yeah like higher res ;) super HD etc


By crimsonson on 9/4/2009 6:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just to add-
The eco advantage is just an added bonus.

Also, LED lighting can also lower the depth and weight compared to traditional CCFL LCDs.

But yes I agree on the price. It needs to go down. What is good price? What ever the mass is willing to spend. Right now $2500 is spent by a select few. Half of that would be my price range.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By bkslopper on 9/4/2009 7:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I see where you're getting at, there's lots of small incremental advantages. But until an equally sized/featured LED-LCD is within $100-200 of a CCFL-LCD, it doesn't make much sense.

Manufacturers tout the increased brightless of LED's, even though many CCFL's are too bright as they are. At 50%, my CCFL TV can hurt my eyes. Now I can permanently blind myself. =D


By GaryJohnson on 9/4/2009 8:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the increased brightness, it's the increased contrast.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By bkslopper on 9/5/2009 9:17:59 AM , Rating: 1
Except the main factor in contrast ratio is the LCD's themselves, not the back light. Keep in mind, LCD technology is akin to a fancy LiteBrite. Changing the bulb doesn't equal magic.

I understand that some LED-LCD panels can lower portions of the backlight to increase the ratio somewhat. But it would really only work well on a completely black screen, or a scene with very little detail. It would be worthless for increasing the ratio on let's say... the text you are currently reading on this screen.

Until they can get 1 LED backlight for each pixel, the point is moot. Besides, once they get to that point where they can stick millions of LED's in the backlight, they may as well use OLED instead.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By Starcub on 9/5/2009 9:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I understand that some LED-LCD panels can lower portions of the backlight to increase the ratio somewhat.

How do you figure reduced brightness = better contrast ratio? You should be aware that LED lighting does in fact increase the contrast ratio, and most specically for text, as text relies primarily on brighter, richer colors to contrast with black. Next time you go to Best Buy, check out the LED backlit notebooks (if they don't have any LED backilt TV's on display) and you'll see the difference between LED and CCFL backlit LCD displays.


By bkslopper on 9/5/2009 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
LED 101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_TV

Not the greatest source, but I'm done fighting the retards.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By mmnno on 9/8/2009 3:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you figure reduced brightness = better contrast ratio?


It's called local dimming. You turn off the backlight in the parts of the picture that are supposed to be black, and the minimum brightness falls. Reducing the brightness of black (minimum brightness) very obviously increases contrast ratio.

quote:
You should be aware that LED lighting does in fact increase the contrast ratio, and most specically for text, as text relies primarily on brighter, richer colors to contrast with black.


What the hell is this? Text is black on white. White does not change if you increase the gamut of the display. D65 is D65.

Increasing the gamut of the display (what undereducated buyers call brighter, richer colors) does nothing but make the colors displayed more inaccurate than ever. Sure if you're a pro photographer showing off your own pictures that properly use the gamut of the TV it looks nice (and that wouldn't be an easy feat even for a pro.) But for actual HD content, Rec. 709 will be the intended gamut for a very long time. So if you buy a wide gamut TV to watch movies, you're probably the kind of person who turns up all the brightness, color and vibrance sliders up to the max and thinks it looks good.

And lord help you if you buy an edge-lit TV. Then you get none of the benefits of LED local dimming, plus the dreaded X or cross shaped uniformity defect. But it's really thin, that makes it a great TV right???


By bkslopper on 9/10/2009 1:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, someone who gets it. I see too many people here who think LED backlighting is the greatest thing ever, and are more than happy to throw away their perfectly good 1-year old TV's.

Someone here wrote to look at LED-LCD's in person, and since I happened to be at Nebraska Furniture Mart (makes Best Buy look like a Radio Shack) I obliged to take that Pepsi challenge.

After viewing about 100 LCD TV's with about 1 in 5 being LED-backlit, I didn't see much difference between the two types. If anything, a couple of the LED TV's didn't look so hot because the backlight was a bit too blue-ish and a few were set too bright. (Which could be easliy fixed with proper calibration.)


By Starcub on 9/5/2009 9:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
In practice, it depends on the impliminentation used, but in terms of power efficiency, LED wins. Thus given the same amount of power used, you would expect LED to be brighter. There are additional advantages, contrast appears to be better as the light is also distributed more uniformly across the surface of the display. All of these benfits can be seen in quality laptop displays for which LED backlighting is now becoming the new standard.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By KentState on 9/4/2009 9:31:56 PM , Rating: 3
I was looking at the 55" Samsung LCD sets and the LED are already within a couple $100. For example on Best Buys site, the comparable Samsungs are $2399 vs $2299.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9293...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9234...


By dgt224 on 9/5/2009 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was looking at the 55" Samsung LCD sets and the LED are already within a couple $100. For example on Best Buys site, the comparable Samsungs are $2399 vs $2299.

Unfortunately (perhaps), those are sale prices that greatly reduce the price difference - the regular prices are $3399 and $2799, respectively. Also unfortunate (for me, anyway) is that the sale prices don't come close to narrowing the price gap so much for 40-inch sets. Comparable 40" Samsung 1080p 120 Hz sets are $1599 vs. $999 on sale, $2099 vs. $1299 regular prices, so LEDs still command a hefty price premium (60%) at smaller screen sizes.

Just for comparison, a Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma set is currently on sale for $799 ($999 regular price).


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By 2thdec4y on 9/7/2009 3:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought a 46" Samsung LED TV for $1559. Very competetively priced IMO.


By liquidaim on 9/7/2009 9:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm looking at buying one of those.

Where did you find such a good deal?

Please, please tell us.


By StevoLincolnite on 9/4/2009 9:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
There is an Eco advantage from moving from a CRT to an LCD TV as well, unfortunately because of the extra size of the panels and the need for the additional energy to drive the larger screen the energy savings are misplaced.


By wired00 on 9/6/2009 9:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
yah... its the same with fridges. As the years go by and advancements in technology reduce the power usage of our beloved fridge, instead of sticking with a equal sized, more power efficient device... we go and buy a fridge 3x the size with multi doors,ice maker, water cooler, lcd display, internet functionality etc! So now instead of a more efficient unit...we're STILL using the same power we did 10-20years ago!

Same thing with cars... as the engines became more efficient since the 70 and 80s instead of sticking with a equal sized car which now uses less petrol what do we do? we buy a larger car which has the same milage as a carburetor vehicle 20years in the past just so on the off chance we might be able to toe 5 cars, a caravan and transport 10 people around... but in the meantime we use that 10MPG 5+litre gas guzzler to sit in bumper to bumper traffic on the way to work and back. heh.


By rippleyaliens on 9/4/2009 8:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Soo true.. its cool. that TODAY, one can get a 40" lCD 1080 p, etc.. yet back in 2002, that same tv was 10k Today it is 1k. and of Excellent Quality..
I have sceen some of the led tv,'s and wow, they are indeed thin.. A HUGE difference from my 36' sony xbr vega, which the cony tipped the 250 lb area..

What the tv manufactures need to do is get current, first there was 60hz, then 120 now 240.. blah blah blah..
How about making price value ...

It is a shame that the smallest lcd tv, of 1080p is 36' and still over $500.. Still a GREAT deal for what ya get, yet even i have to say, DAMNNNN $500 just to watch TV, rofl.. $2000 for a really good 46" tv, and i mean GREAT not just good.. still $2000 just to watch TV, is hard to swallow..


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By jkostans on 9/4/2009 9:14:08 PM , Rating: 1
240Hz is suck a joke. I personally can't see a difference above 100Hz. I've done experiments with maxfps in many games with a 160Hz CRT refresh vsync off, and anything over 100fps is unnoticeable both in terms of visuals and mouse response. Obviously this is user dependent, but I find it extremely hard to believe someone would be able to tell the difference between a 120Hz and 240Hz LCD in an ABX trial. Unless there is some drastic decrease in ghosting......


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By KentState on 9/4/2009 9:39:08 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that the refresh rate has more to do with being compatible with both 24 and 30 fps video content than actually refreshing that screen that quickly. 120Hz is divisible by both frame rates and doesn't require 3:2 pull down for movies. Unlike computer games, the frame rate for tv and movies is fixed.


By dark matter on 9/6/2009 2:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't actually answered his question. Can you see the difference between 120Mhz and 240Mhz? Honestly?


By hadifa on 9/6/2009 7:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't checked both at the same time so I can't say if practically it's possible to see the difference. In theory, you should look for an action packed scene in a movie, a scene where there is a lot of camera movement and many things change on the screen, maybe a football scene. check it on both of these Tvs and then, in theory, you should be able to see the difference easily.

I have checked some 120hz and 200hz screens and still can notice flickering, but that can be due to the back-lit.


By tygrus on 9/6/2009 9:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Just saying LED backlight still leaves a lot of variation in the features, performance and costs.

LED can lower consumption if they use white LED's. If you use RGB LED's then you can efficiently control the color and color saturation but it uses more power. They can easily light the whole screen with a few LED's or more expensively light regions independantly for boosting local contrast.

They use the higher frame rates to enable motion compensation. They wait for another frame or two and analyse what moves and tries to create intermediate frames where the objects are moving from known A to known D using calculated points B and C.

They can also use a virtual frame to turn off backlight between major frames to reduce ghosting and increase contrast. They claim improvements but it's hard to evaluate.

Why fix the refresh rate ? Why not alter the refresh rate between 24p and 120p depending on the source frame rate ?
That way you don't have to worry about 3:2 pulldowns etc.

Eg.
24p, 30p, 50i, 60i, 50p, 60p, 75p, 48 or 72Hz or 120 (24p with interpolated frames), 100Hz (50 with interpolated frames), 120Hz (60 with interpolated frames).

It's hard to find a decent panel below 36". The top features and specs are being aimed at the 40" or greater with a few at 36". The average size screen may have the panel and backlight make up more than 50% of the cost. The smaller panels then have more of the cost made up by the electronics and other design/business overheads which are harder to recoup on a per unit sale. They use older technology, fewer inputs, fewer features, less capable image processer to reduce costs in proportion to the size of the panel.


By The0ne on 9/9/2009 1:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
You can't see any difference if you don't know what too compare in the first place. It's like what most consumers do when shopping for a TV. The sales guy put on a sports game or a nature show on both TV and ask them to decide. Well, no one is going to be able to determine whether the 60/120/240 or a billion Hz is good or not because the source is inappropriate to begin with!

So generally the rule of thumb is that your eyes can only detect so many fps that really going way overboard means little or nothing. Those higher frequencies, at least in my view, are for those special people that can actually tell when compared properly. Kinda like gifted people with an ear for music. Most of us can't hear the stuff their hearing.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By tastyratz on 9/5/2009 12:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
who cares?
The human eye doesn't have enough *perceivable* resolution to accurately detect the difference between 1080p and 720p at those sizes. Most videophiles couldn't pick the panels in a lineup under 50 inches.
Resolution is not the #1 perceived quality visual regardless of what companies push in the ads.
Contrast ratio is the #1 identifiable trait. Color saturation #2 and resolution #3 .
Spend your money on a high end quality 720p instead of the same price for a more mediocre 1080p set at those small sizes.


RE: Is LED backlighting even that big of a deal?
By 91TTZ on 9/6/2009 9:23:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The human eye doesn't have enough *perceivable* resolution to accurately detect the difference between 1080p and 720p at those sizes.


This is bullshit. I have a Sony 30" CRT HDTV and the difference between 1080 and 720 broadcasts is obvious. How can you say that the human eye can't see the difference when it's so easy to tell?


By tygrus on 9/7/2009 12:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
High compression of digital TV broadcasts give digital TV a bad name. They try to conserve bandwidth (last link to consumer), storage(in camera or studio) and transmission (from source to point of broardcast eg. minimise required link from sporting ground to studio).

I've seen 720p and 1080i transmissions that that are very blocky and don't look good for fast action. I've also seen analog TV affected by digital compression (recording or in studio) or <30 fps. Consumers are 2nd class citizens that can be fed any junk because we'll just take it sitting down.


By tastyratz on 9/8/2009 10:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
at normal viewing distances. If you sit 6 inches away from the tv (like your mother told you not to do) then you might notice it. Lots of people think x is better because

x signal is encoded at x resolution - running 720 @ 1080 or 1080 @ 720 wont look as good because of rescaling.

x channel gets a higher bandwidth priority vs another channel and has less compression so you get a better quality signal.

etc.


By The0ne on 9/9/2009 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 1
It is not bullshit lol. It is science. You have to realize of course this does not apply to everyone but it does apply for the vast majority of people out there. There are many variables that may have you think you saw a difference,

1. compression of the signals as someone stated below. My 1080P HD from TWC sucks really bad sometimes and are not consistent from channel to channel.

2. Your eyes might be better than the norm?

3. The TV's your using are not the same and might display the same HD differently? Use the same TV for the same good HD source and then come back and tell us.

4. You have little gnomes inside your TV that fixes the bad stuffs on the HD stream.

5. Go to the retail store and have them feed the same signal into various TV's for comparision. Oh wait, that's already being done! Don't you see people just staring the the TV's confused? They're confused, often, because they really can't tell shit and that's partly because of the crappy saleperson that doesn't calibrate the tv's, use the appropriate source, etc etc.

6. Visit AVS forums if you don't already know about it. Read up.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki