U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Consumer Electronics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2012, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,880 posts, read 6,226,267 times
Reputation: 1231

Advertisements

Hey everyone,

I know the conventional wisdom for the past few years is that there isn't much picture quality difference to the eye for TVs under 40 inches.

Does this still hold true now? I'm looking at getting a 32 inch Emerson LCD from Walmart.
I plan on using the PC input to watch a lot of Netflix, hulu, etc, and have an XBOX 360. I watch a good bit of football as well. Should I be concerned about resolution?

Also, does LED make a big difference to the eye at this size? Going to Best Buy, the LEDs look better than the LCDs-but considering LEDs are just LCDs with improved technology I'd be surprised if there is really that much of a difference.

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:28 AM
 
40,212 posts, read 41,799,403 times
Reputation: 16754
Quote:
Originally Posted by destinedtodave View Post
Hey everyone,

I know the conventional wisdom for the past few years is that there isn't much picture quality difference to the eye for TVs under 40 inches.

Does this still hold true now?
That will never change unless you get a bionic eye, your eye can only see so much resolution. There is some variables here like viewing distance etc.

I like to use images as an example for this because I know the numbers. For images your eye can see detail up to about 250 DPI at a standard viewing distance for images, standard viewing distance is holding it in your hand and looking at. If you had an image that was printed at 600 DPI right next to it you're not going to see any difference between the two. You'd have to bring them closer to see the detail in the higher DPI image. If you were going to place that image on wall where the viewing the distance is much farther you can print at a lower DPI.

Where the TV sizes and those viewing distances fall into that equation I don't know. The best thing to do is get two TV's of equal size and compare them side by side at the distance you expect to be watching them at in your house. Most certainly the 1080 is going to look better at near distances but that detail becomes less effective as you move backwards.





Quote:
Also, does LED make a big difference to the eye at this size? Going to Best Buy, the LEDs look better than the LCDs-but considering LEDs are just LCDs with improved technology I'd be surprised if there is really that much of a difference.
I don't know if there is necessarily a huge difference in quality but they use less electric. I know we got a LG LED about 2 years ago and it's fantastic compared to most of the standard LCD's I've viewed but these are older models I've compared it too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:39 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
LED screens are brighter, thinner, and use much less electricity. Dynamic LED Array TVs provide much improve contrast over LCD. LCD backlight provides much more accurate color reproduction.

1080p for a 32-inch TV only comes into play if you plan on sitting within 6-ft of the unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:54 AM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,374 posts, read 11,278,666 times
Reputation: 4210
What makes a bit more difference in the viewing is the refresh rate.
At 60 Hz, whatever is playing, moves really fast across the screen, it might get blocky ...
At 120 Hz, you do not have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 01:11 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
What makes a bit more difference in the viewing is the refresh rate.
At 60 Hz, whatever is playing, moves really fast across the screen, it might get blocky ...
At 120 Hz, you do not have it.
This is probably not an issue for a 32" TV and for someone who's looking in the price range as the OP. There's only three brands that can pull off 120Hz (Samsung, Sony, and I believe LG). The OP is looking at an Emerson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 02:43 AM
 
40,212 posts, read 41,799,403 times
Reputation: 16754
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
At 60 Hz, whatever is playing, moves really fast across the screen, it might get blocky ...
You can't display what doesn't exist and 60hz can effectively display all the information available from the standard source that is 30FPS interlaced material.... Blockiness or macroblocking has nothing to do with refresh rates, that's caused by low bitrates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 07:16 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
30,856 posts, read 56,232,507 times
Reputation: 32842
Unless you have a blu-ray player or often watch pay-per-view movies from a satellite system there is very little you can watch in full HD 1080p anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,880 posts, read 6,226,267 times
Reputation: 1231
It sounds like the 720p 32 inch will suit my needs. It's a black Friday deal for $148.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:56 AM
 
Location: The Berk in Denver, CO USA
14,385 posts, read 21,053,836 times
Reputation: 23873
Default Amazing

Quote:
Originally Posted by destinedtodave View Post
It sounds like the 720p 32 inch will suit my needs. It's a black Friday deal for $148.
$148 in 2012 prices or $16.95 in 1952 dollars when color TVs first came out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 11:33 AM
 
8,402 posts, read 20,663,341 times
Reputation: 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by destinedtodave View Post
It sounds like the 720p 32 inch will suit my needs. It's a black Friday deal for $148.
That Emerson at Walmart is the lowest of the low end. There is much more than resolution to consider when buying a TV. If there wasn't, no one would buy a real name brand. I have no doubt that the picture quality on that Emerson is disappointing.

As I've said many times, a 1080P TV will have features and performance enhancements that a 720P TV does not. Resolution isn't the only reason to go with a 1080P TV. And the argument of limited 1080P content isn't logical. There will be more, 1080P makes pretty much any source look better, and why buy something that is already behind in technology?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Consumer Electronics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top