Hello I am shopping for a flat screen LCD TV. I plan on it being at the smallest a 46 inch TV on up to (I hope) a 55 inch screen. I really want it to shine when playing DVDs and mostly my play station 3. What do I want this TV to have as far as 120 Hz or 16:1 something or other. In other words what do these numbers mean and what do I want at the minimum numbers wise. Am I making myself clear as mud? I am a little confused myself.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889102270

this

I have last years 40" model.  It is beautiful!  Blu-ray movies are unbelievably clear.  Sports are great, and even standard def programming still looks good. Plus connecting it to the internet, it shows the weather forecast and news headlines

I have Samsung's A550.  I love it.  I'd buy it again.  I play games on it and watch movies, I dunno what 120 hz would get me that 60 doesn't.

One warning - bigger is not necessarily better.  The nature of a pixel-based device like an LCD screen demands that the screen size be appropriate for the viewing distance and the program's resolution.



http://www.dtvcity.com/lcdtv/lcdscreensize.html

Contrary to the advice above.

If you are sitting 8 or more feet from the TV get the biggest quality screen you can afford. Before you get in to screens that are to big (65+ inches) for 8 feet and out the cost will become prohibitive.

Get the biggest quality screen you can afford… you will not regret it, but you very well may if you do not.

Why is that contrary to the advice above?  You get a 65" LCD or plasma, and sit 8 feet away watching a 480i, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p program, and I guarantee your viewing experience will be worse than if you had a 50" or even a 42" set.  If you think otherwise, then you are just the kind of person the Best Buy salesmen LOVE to see walk in to their store.



My company has been selling broadcast video equipment for 18 years - I know what I'm talking about.

Reading problem? Understand 8 feet or more? Understand Before you get in to screens that are to big (65+ inches) for 8 feet and out the cost will become prohibitive?

Ohhhhh... selling broadcast video equipment. Well Mr. broadcast video equipment salesguy  I spent 20 years editing broadcast video and so I actually used the equipment and my opinion of those that sell broadcast video equipment ... well lets just say people who sell broadcast video equipment should not make snide remarks about Best Buy sales people, that would be a pot-kettle thing.

I know salesguys need pictures so if you can understand pictures try and figure out what this chart means. Follow the red line up to about eight feet and guess what that is about dead on 65 inches huh. Now follow the read line to its end where it says “Full benefit of 1080p is visible”… Do you understand what this means? Well if you cannot understand I will explain, it means at eight feet 60-65 inch is primo for 1080p.

The horizontal width difference between a 65 screen (measured diagonally) and a 55 inch screen is around eight inches or less or in other words less than two man sized fists wide… where the human eye is concern this a insignificant difference when taking in the screen for viewing.

At eight feet and out 52-55 inches screens are probably optimum due to lesser cost. Now if he wants to spend $20,000 on a 70" Sony and sit at eight feet he may have a problem, but not ten and out.

I'm sorry, did I start a snide-fest?



Well, you win that battle, Snidely. Now tell me exactly how many times you (as a video editor) sat in front of a 65" monitor at 8 feet.



Wait...wait...I'll tell you. NONE! You know the reason as well as as I do. At 8 feet (which is what your original point was about (despite your pathetic retroactive reading lesson) a 42" screen is far better for critical viewing. in fact, a 37" monitor is ideal for critical 1080p at 8 feet.



Oh, and equating a person who works with broadcast video equipment with someone who works at Best Buy is just plain ignorant. I apologise if I insulted you by equating you with the dumbasses who walk into retail stores and buy the line of crap the salespeople are selling them about "bigger is better."  But too many people buy pixel-based monitors that are TOO BIG for their viewing distance.  And 65" is TOO BIG for 8 feet.

Well Snidely Jr. the reason we do not use 65” monitors is not because we do not want to but because six of them will not fit in an editing truck, or the wall in the studio. And we generally sit 18 inches not 96 inches away from the screen… DUH. But hell what has real life experience got to do with it, the salesguy always knows best.

And Snidely Jr. I see you cannot read a chart or you might have notice a 37" inch screen at 8 feet is outside the area to even discern 1080p, that is hardly ideal matter of fact 37" is clearly toooooooo small.

Again 65” is fine at 8 feet for viewing TV.

Snidely Sr. off.

For the record, I'm not a salesguy. I integrate NLE's and train people like you on how to use them.  Your chart is just one of many, and it doesn't even deal with optimal screen size at different viewing distances. It describes the size/distance at which it benefits the viewer to have 720p, 1080p, etc. Read the part where it says "starts to be noticable..."



What that chart shows is most people, with the optimum sized screen for their viewing distance, can't see the difference between a 720p monitor and a 1080p monitor.



Look, I'll make it simple:  The front row in a movie theater is the minimum distance at which the film grain can't be seen.  That doesn't mean it's the best place to sit.  You want to sit 8 feet away from a 65" screen?  Give me your chiropracter's name - I want to buy stock in his clinic.



I know what I know, based on 15 years in this industry. You believe what you want to believe.

Sony Bravia Z-Series

- 1080p
- 120 hz

All the bells and whistles of the XBR series at a much better price.

For goodness sake if at eight feet you cannot discern 1080p from 720p on a 37” screen (which you just admitted the chart shows) how in the hell can 37" be possibly ideal at eight feet.

Well then trainerguy... you were the one who decided it might be a good idea to ridicule people expertise, if you cannot take then don’t start. Say what you will I am secure in my experience.

And now that you have brought up NLE… I use a 24” but you teach and you do not know anyone doing NLE and using 30” and 32” monitors to edit. You do realize sitting two feet from a 32” inch screen is much closer in relation than sitting eight feet from a 65 inches screen.

Here is another chart from one of the biggest sellers of TVs Amazon… Notice it pretty much backs up what I have been saying... but hey we know Amazon don't know squat either.

Vizio. They are supposedly releasing their 55 inch 120hz led at a price point of $1995 soon.

I really love my 42 inch 1080P LCD Vizio that I bought at Costco for $599

I have a Samsung 46' (1080p), with that said if I could go back I would've waited for a Pioneer Kuro. I know it's Plasma, but many critics feel the Kuro is tops in terms of overall quality.

The Kuro is damn fine TV one of a handful of the very best but with Pioneer getting out of the business you are probably better off the way it is.

Really? That's a damn shame, I was hoping they'd pump out a 3rd gen Kuro in the near future.

Good lord, you sound like a child.

Nevermind

Everyone thanks for the help, but please don't get my thread locked.

I'm done here.  I sincerely hope that you get a monitor that makes you smile every time you watch a good movie.

I picked up a Samsung 55B7100 from Best Buy as a replacement for a junked out 1st gen 1080P DLP.  It has a great picture, but the LED backlight system has some problems with a "flashlight effect".  I've read about easy fixes on other forums, but haven't done it yet.  Even with that, I'm happy with the set.

btt

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN52A650-52-Inch-1080p-Touch/dp/B001413DF8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1245037831&sr=8-1

for the money, there exists no better TV currently.

ar-jedi