New tv?


Well it looks like the not so old Samsung 50 inch plasma is on its last legs. It has a blue vertical band running down the left side and repair folks are telling me it is likely the display panel which cost as much or more than a new TV to repair. So what are you folks liking these days as the best TV for home theater? This is a set up with an oppo 103 and NAD integrated amp and Sonus fabar toy towers. We are looking for a 55 inch set and are wondering if plasma is still the best way to go? As always thanks for any suggestions.
audiowoman
when I set mine to highest rate (240Hz) movies look like video made by home camera (soap opera effect). There is a reason why movie makers still record exactly 24 frames/s while technology allows for much more

Lets not confuse pseudo higher frame rates with native rates, as in if you can turn it off it is not the native frame rate. IME, my comments only apply to native frame rates.

Also, frame rate, in video terms, and frames per secound, in film terms, are not the same thing. Our eyes can not differentiate between individual still images when the frames per secound are above 16fps or so. Although original movies used a lower FPS it was moved up to 24 FPS. Now if a TV would create an entire still image and then presented them it at 24 FPS or more (read still images per secound) this whole discussion would be moot. The problem arises in how TV images are drawn. If you look up close at a very large flat panel that has a low frame rate you will easily notice how the image will start pixelizing or breaking up, when presented with fast motion. The problem is probably more in the scaler circuit than in the frame rate of a LCD/LED TV but either way the higher the frame rate the faster the scaler.

At this point I will restate that some of my customers were unaffected by any break up or blurring of the image while others find it very objectionable. Not all that different from those who say MP3 files sound just fine while others feel there are issues with them.

For the record most of the newer panels use a psuedo higher frame rate which can actually cause as many issues as they solve. It may be what you mean by a soap opera look. I actually had a customer that was very unhappy with his picture until after much exploration we discovered that the video artifacts created by the pseudo higher frame rate was an issue for him. He turned it off and has been a happy camper ever since.

Finally, I will be tickled pink with either choice the OP makes if they are very happy with it. I was just merely mentioning some of the things an informed buyer should check out before they make a decision.

Enjoy
Bob, That is hard to understand - why to stop making something that was the best. On the other hand quality of all TVs improved so much that any choice would be good for me. Sharpness is so high, without any artifacts, that I can see tiny scratches on football players' helmets. Colors seem very accurate and natural to me, while brightness and black levels are amazing (I use only fraction of the brightness). There might be better TVs, according to tests and measurements, but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Another point is quality of broadcasting. Live sports are often very high quality but movies are pretty bad. Even with just regular DVD quality I can see dramatic difference in sharpness, colors and noise between them. Best are very good (so it is possible) while most of them are less than perfect. Why to even bother with Blu-ray when movie is noisy?
There is plasma and there is LCD. Who makes an LED TV?

LED is really an LCD diplay using a LED to backlight the panel instead of a flourescent tube light bulb. Some of the the newer panels add to the confusion by calling them LCD/LED Tv's which although is more accurate is not anyless confusing.

hth
There is only limited number of frames/s in TV transmission. Many stations like FOX or ABC broadcast everything in 60fps 720p. When 24fps movie is broadcasted they just repeat frames. Digital TV set adds (interpolates) additional frames, so if you set it to 240Hz it will add 3 interpolated frames to each "real" frame. It would be even better if TV would send movies in original 24fps because TV would be able to interpolate, especially at 120Hz that is even multiple of 24fps.

I don't thing that images are "drawn" anymore. Each pixel on the screen of LCD TV has corresponding bit in frame memory buffer and whole frame appears at once. Frames itself are very sharp even with 24fps because shutters in film cameras are very fast. The problem is transition between frames that appear to be jittery with fast motion. If you smooth it up too much, tossing in too many interpolated frames, you'll get "soap opera effect". I'm still trying to find optimal setting for movies on my TV - not too fast and not too slow.
I don't thing that images are "drawn" anymore. Each pixel on the screen of LCD TV has corresponding bit in frame memory buffer and whole frame appears at once.

Correct. I apologize for the over simplification. You are also correct in that there is a conversion that happens when showing a 24fps film on a video screen. The simplest is often called 2:3 pulldown but there are much better versions available.

At this point it seems that we both have a problem with trying to smooth up the image to much. However I believe that happens more with the "psuedo" or an artificially derived higher frame rate, not a display with a very high native frame rate. Again, FWIU, you can turn off any artificially drived higher frame rate NOT a high NATIVE frame rate. Just like there is nothing in a plasma that allows you to turn off their Native 600hz frame rate.

Here's agood article, for those so inclined, on frame rate.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-is-refresh-rate/