Effects of next gen consoles on you to buy a new HDTV?

[Deleted member 13524]

I would have preferred to buy a much cheaper 32" TV with just a good panel and adequate response times, and spend the rest of my budget in a reasonable 2.0 or 2.1 sound system.
A $75 self-powered 2.0 sound system from Logitech or Creative would be worlds apart from whatever gets out of the TV.

WiFi, DLNA and the Smart TV features will all be redundant once you connect the TV to a next-gen console.


The SDTV->720p->1080p transitions are already almost over to anyone who can afford a $200+ TV, IMO. I don't think the new consoles will make much of a difference.

FWIW, the people with 720p TVs should still notice a considerable difference in IQ with the next-gens. Higher-polygon models, better lighting, shader effects, etc. aside, the fact that the game is internally rendered at a much higher resolution and then downscaled to 720p should make quite a big difference.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

You can use both remotes on either TV and they are more or less the same. Back then I followed the advice of people recommending me a Samsung but deep down I always liked Philips TVs too, and now that I matured a little I am beginning to think for myself when it comes to these decisions.

I have just bought a Samsung 22" HDTV, and those samsung remotes and system menus must be the worse in the whole industry. Only to set the sleeping timer it is a chore. My previous LG had a simple button in the left bottom that i could press without tourning the light on.
And calibrating the TV is another chore to avoid red faces. I think this is a problem with the no full-led tvs.

In my living room i still have a Panasonic Viera going strong, Hd ready, but i would say that such an ancient panel looks far better that most of the sets sold today.

 

[AzBat]

Looks like there is still some question over burn in. I had thought plasma was the worst, but wasn't sure about LED or OLED. It's my biggest & only gripe. Could care less about anything else like lag or SmartTV functions. I just need something that is about 50" 1080p & will not have burn in. BTW, I think Sony is out of my budget. Samsung might be too. In fact, I may not be able to find anything in my budget with my requirements. LOL

Tommy McClain

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Looks like there is still some question over burn in. I had thought plasma was the worst, but wasn't sure about LED or OLED. It's my biggest & only gripe. Could care less about anything else like lag or SmartTV functions. I just need something that is about 50" 1080p & will not have burn in. BTW, I think Sony is out of my budget. Samsung might be too. In fact, I may not be able to find anything in my budget with my requirements. LOL

Tommy McClain

LED is the only one without burn-in problems, but is the one with worst contrast. Oled is still too expensive ( there are two LG models and one Samsung, being two of them curved, that makes manufacturing easier ). If you go for a LED make sure you buy a full-led panel, not one with leds only in the edges ( edge-led ) as contrast in these is very uneven and worse in the central area.

 

[AzBat]

Thanks. Looks like making the determination between the 2 might be hard & the ones I did find that are full LED look expensive too. Oh well.

Tommy McClain

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Thanks. Looks like making the determination between the 2 might be hard & the ones I did find that are full LED look expensive too. Oh well.

Tommy McClain

Trust your own eyes. Go check out sets in your price range with preferably the type of content that you intend to run them. Purist comments such as:

"If you go for a LED make sure you buy a full-led panel, not one with leds only in the edges ( edge-led ) as contrast in these is very uneven and worse in the central area"

Likely won't serve any useful purpose for you. Those edge-leds are good enough for most people and I'm 98% sure you fall in to them.

Something like this would probably serve you well. a 39" LG 1080p for $359 (must be put in cart to see price)

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...ref=sr_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1380744680&sr=1-2

42" is also only $399. The higher end models that are by "purist approved" have much worse value for money.

No offense Love_In_Rio

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Trust your own eyes. Go check out sets in your price range with preferably the type of content that you intend to run them. Purist comments such as:

"If you go for a LED make sure you buy a full-led panel, not one with leds only in the edges ( edge-led ) as contrast in these is very uneven and worse in the central area"

Likely won't serve any useful purpose for you. Those edge-leds are good enough for most people and I'm 98% sure you fall in to them.

Something like this would probably serve you well. a 39" LG 1080p for $359 (must be put in cart to see price)

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...ref=sr_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1380744680&sr=1-2

42" is also only $399. The higher end models that are by "purist approved" have much worse value for money.

No offense Love_In_Rio

As i already have said i have an old LCD pana that gives better image that the last samsung edge led i bought.I find very disturbing the difference in contrast between borders and center. If i was Azbat for the money i would buy a Plasma, with care burn in will not be a problem.

 

[djskribbles]

Considering Azbat got burn in on an LCD (which is VERY hard to do), I would stay away from plasma. Plasma has gotten better, but it is still (and always will be) far more susceptible than LCD due to the nature of the display.

I'm more of a casual gamer so I currently have a plasma as my main HT display (Panasonic 60" ST50) and have no problems. I get some image retention after a few hours of gaming but it goes away with equal use. If you can vary your viewing a bit, then plasma is fine for gaming. But if you're the type of people that use their display mainly for gaming or PC use, I would lean towards an LCD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of plasma displays... they offer far better value. To get similar performance you usually have to spend significantly more on an LCD. But I will always recommend LCD if you're a hardcore gamer that doesn't use their display for much else.

Trust your own eyes. Go check out sets in your price range with preferably the type of content that you intend to run them. Purist comments such as:

"If you go for a LED make sure you buy a full-led panel, not one with leds only in the edges ( edge-led ) as contrast in these is very uneven and worse in the central area"

Likely won't serve any useful purpose for you. Those edge-leds are good enough for most people and I'm 98% sure you fall in to them.

Something like this would probably serve you well. a 39" LG 1080p for $359 (must be put in cart to see price)

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...ref=sr_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1380744680&sr=1-2

42" is also only $399. The higher end models that are by "purist approved" have much worse value for money.

No offense Love_In_Rio

Unfortunately full-array LED displays are pretty rare these days. They make a relatively new type of LED display called direct-lit which have a strip of LEDs (not a full-array) behind the liquid crystals which gives better uniformity, but will have a less variable backlight because there are fewer LEDs.

Edge-lit LEDs have somewhat gotten better over the years. Entry level or mid-range edge-lit displays are usually crap or mediocre at best, but higher-end models like the Samsung F8000, Sony W900, or Sony HX850 from last year are edge-lit but with decent local dimming technology which significantly reduces uniformity issues, if not eliminating them. In this day and age, it simply costs too much to make a full-array display with local dimming and be profitable... they would have to sell it for too much and not many would buy it. That's why there are only a small handful left on the market.

 

[KOF]

Do not assume direct-lits are always superior to the edge-lits, Samsung has made a quite stride on uniformity this year, so those LG global dimming direct-lits will actually have worse uniformity issue than the Samsung edge-lits. Samsung has somehow managed to enclose LEDs this year, so they have better uniformity than last year's Samsungs. Unfortunately, Samsung has a far more serious problem with auto-dimming.

And may I add burn-in problems for plasmas are way overblown? I once had an LG plasma. I did not run any slides. I did not run any orbitor. I used it exclusively for gaming and PC 24 hours with many hours of stationary breaks in between, and had ZERO IR let alone a burn-in. Yes, they are still more susceptible to burn-in than LCDs, but so are CRTs and I do not baby my Trinitrons ever. Plasmas has made a huge strides with burn-ins and IRs and whatever IR you will get from gaming session will go away eventually. But, you will never get rid of those poor blacks and uniformity on your LCDs. The input lag was terrible so I eventually got rid of it, but never because of IR. I also have a 2 years old Samsung Galaxy2 smartphone which recently has developed a burn-in. The burn-in really doesn't bother me and still is a far superior alternative than going to LCD phones with terrible blacks and viewing angle.

 

[Cyan]

Haha, of course, things have got much better since the day Sony XEL-1 was released. Samsung OLED smartphones are getting more resistant to burn-in as time passes.

This is still the unfortunate reality. Not to mention the shorter life blue phosphor has compared to red and green ones.

The Samsung OLED TVs try to address that problem by having blue subpixel twice as large as red and green ones.

That's the main reason why OLEDs have been taken off my preferences. Aside from LED I could be only interested in a plasma TV, but after much consideration I've made my decision and I am going to buy a Philips TV later this month.

I am going to look for a Full HD plasma of the brand though, but input lag bothers me somehow, along with burn-ins.

I just purchased a new Sony 50" W685. I sold my plasma and 27" monitor and the new TV is my only display. I got a pretty decent price on it 895€, cheapest at the time in any web store across Europe I could find due to a special campaign discount. Black levels are surprisingly good and it has a very low input lag.

You are a lucky boy. Still... it would be too large for my study desk but I wouldn't mind having it.

The world's full of envious people

There is nothing about hdmi 1.4 that improves sound quality. Shitty speakers will sound shitty no matter what. Good speakers will sound good, even if they are 30 years old.

Anyway I hate all those truemotion, realcinema or whatever they call it "improvements". I tried getting used to it but I just don't like the fast and "unrealistic" motions.

First thing I did was turn off all processing by the TV and label all my hdmi ports as PC.

Anyway a completely irrelevant number of people will buy a new tv for the next gen consoles. If there ever was any reason to buy a new tv it was around the time when ps3 and xbox360 launched. Nowdays pretty much everyone has a HD tv and I think the amount of people with a 720p set is pretty small. Even if you have a 720p tv I doubt there is a really big difference in IQ. Certainly not a 800 euro difference.

True, but as I said it's not a priority for me, at least until I purchase a decent audio system. Good headphones are something I fancy but I'd rather prefer a proper 5.1 or 7.1 system. Again, not a priority.

Well, I would instantaneously buy this Philips HDTV if I had the money right now, but the price is steep, which is quite normal for a full LED with Local Dimming and especially after winning the 2008/2009 EISA European Imaging & Sound Association award. :smile:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1057485/philips-9803-led-lcd-w-local-dimming

 

[Jedi2016]

60", 120Hz, LED, 3D... I think I'm good.

 

[Cyan]

I would have preferred to buy a much cheaper 32" TV with just a good panel and adequate response times, and spend the rest of my budget in a reasonable 2.0 or 2.1 sound system.
A $75 self-powered 2.0 sound system from Logitech or Creative would be worlds apart from whatever gets out of the TV.

WiFi, DLNA and the Smart TV features will all be redundant once you connect the TV to a next-gen console.


The SDTV->720p->1080p transitions are already almost over to anyone who can afford a $200+ TV, IMO. I don't think the new consoles will make much of a difference.

FWIW, the people with 720p TVs should still notice a considerable difference in IQ with the next-gens. Higher-polygon models, better lighting, shader effects, etc. aside, the fact that the game is internally rendered at a much higher resolution and then downscaled to 720p should make quite a big difference.

I was interested in something similar at first. My initial priority was to buy this 22" Samsung, which is affordable and has Smart TV features that I fancied and all that jazz, then perhaps some nice headphones or high quality speakers.

http://www.onyougo.com/samsung-ue22f5400-led-tvs-specs_pi1954217e2

As I pointed out already, I have 2 Samsung TVs at home right now and I wanted a Philips because of personal preferences and brand quality.

Regarding what you mention about the sound system... it is food for thought, 'cos I was thinking about a 5.1 or 7.1 surround system, but I lack the space and the room isn't fitted for it. It certainly gave me an idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

The SDTV->720p->1080p transitions are already almost over to anyone who can afford a $200+ TV, IMO. I don't think the new consoles will make much of a difference.

Agreed. Even so, I think game consoles were the driving force of many major TV purchases in the last 8 years. :smile: Specifically with Sony stating that they wanted EVERY game to support 1080p and the Xbox 360 initial 720p fever. 1080p support in TVs has become a very common thing.

Looks like there is still some question over burn in. I had thought plasma was the worst, but wasn't sure about LED or OLED. It's my biggest & only gripe. Could care less about anything else like lag or SmartTV functions. I just need something that is about 50" 1080p & will not have burn in. BTW, I think Sony is out of my budget. Samsung might be too. In fact, I may not be able to find anything in my budget with my requirements. LOL

Tommy McClain

I have been actively searching for a new TV during the last month and I think the problem is that around 99% of the TVs whose size is 46" or more tends to be a top of the line TV, which means that it is going to cost 900$/€ in a minimal basis.

You could start by taking a look at Philips website -same with Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, etc etc- (5000, 6000, 7000, 8000 and 9000 series might be interesting for you)

http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisions/33092/cat/#/why-philips/smart-interaction

I have just bought a Samsung 22" HDTV, and those samsung remotes and system menus must be the worse in the whole industry. Only to set the sleeping timer it is a chore. My previous LG had a simple button in the left bottom that i could press without tourning the light on.
And calibrating the TV is another chore to avoid red faces. I think this is a problem with the no full-led tvs.

In my living room i still have a Panasonic Viera going strong, Hd ready, but i would say that such an ancient panel looks far better that most of the sets sold today.

As I said I shall probably consider a plasma TV, preferably from Philips, not to break the tradition.

You have something to compare them to, I didn't, so I am used to them. Both remotes of the Samsung TVs at home are just the same -the remote of the largest panel has an extra button, but both are controllable using either remote so you get the idea.

In regards to the " and the HD Ready thing. I think the Full HD TVs will look fantastic with the new consoles, especially given the fact that when I play games I sit pretty close to the screen --and I have had a HD Ready TV for 6 years now (the other Samsung is Full HD but I barely played games on it, just with some friends).

I think I might go for the higher rez.

 

[Cyan]

Considering Azbat got burn in on an LCD (which is VERY hard to do), I would stay away from plasma. Plasma has gotten better, but it is still (and always will be) far more susceptible than LCD due to the nature of the display.

I'm more of a casual gamer so I currently have a plasma as my main HT display (Panasonic 60" ST50) and have no problems. I get some image retention after a few hours of gaming but it goes away with equal use. If you can vary your viewing a bit, then plasma is fine for gaming. But if you're the type of people that use their display mainly for gaming or PC use, I would lean towards an LCD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of plasma displays... they offer far better value. To get similar performance you usually have to spend significantly more on an LCD. But I will always recommend LCD if you're a hardcore gamer that doesn't use their display for much else.


Unfortunately full-array LED displays are pretty rare these days. They make a relatively new type of LED display called direct-lit which have a strip of LEDs (not a full-array) behind the liquid crystals which gives better uniformity, but will have a less variable backlight because there are fewer LEDs.

Edge-lit LEDs have somewhat gotten better over the years. Entry level or mid-range edge-lit displays are usually crap or mediocre at best, but higher-end models like the Samsung F8000, Sony W900, or Sony HX850 from last year are edge-lit but with decent local dimming technology which significantly reduces uniformity issues, if not eliminating them. In this day and age, it simply costs too much to make a full-array display with local dimming and be profitable... they would have to sell it for too much and not many would buy it. That's why there are only a small handful left on the market.

I think Edge-lit LEDs look almost perfect nowadays. The Philips 32PFL4258 that I want to buy features Micro Dimming technology. It's not Local Dimming -full LED- but even the most expensive Philips LED TV, which costs about 5000€ features Micro Dimming technology, so it never bothered me tbh.

Top of the line Samsung TVs also have Micro Dimming technology, and as you can see in this QAA that's how they define it:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1298534082

1. Edge LED + a software controller that analyses the picture in 4000 different zones and adjusts accordingly. It’s not a local dimming hardware function but instead a software picture circuit analysing with the pixel areas.

 

[Davros]

I think the problem is that around 99% of the TVs whose size is 46" or more tends to be a top of the line TV, which means that it is going to cost 900$/€ i

Small lcd panel + overhead projector = super modded 60inch screen

 

[Cyan]

60", 120Hz, LED, 3D... I think I'm good.

Congrats, I hope you enjoy it! I guess you invite a lot of friends to watch TV at your home.

Aside from considering a plasma, I am currently torn between the aforementioned 4258H http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisi...BF91685F4B32D847.app102-drp2?t=specifications

and the 4508H...

http://www.tvstore.nl/product/305349/philips-32pfl4508h.html

They are exactly the same model, and the only difference between both TVs is that one has 3D support and the other doesn't, but I wonder if the 3D alone is worth it considering that it is going to cost me 100€ extra. It's seductive, considering that it is a one time purchase..., but I don't know....

Tough decision. :/

 

[AzBat]

Great advice Dr Evil. Thanks.

I agree that I'm not stickler for the details like some purists here. So you're right that the latest LED TVs will be definitely be good enough.

Trust your own eyes. Go check out sets in your price range with preferably the type of content that you intend to run them. Purist comments such as:

"If you go for a LED make sure you buy a full-led panel, not one with leds only in the edges ( edge-led ) as contrast in these is very uneven and worse in the central area"

Likely won't serve any useful purpose for you. Those edge-leds are good enough for most people and I'm 98% sure you fall in to them.

Something like this would probably serve you well. a 39" LG 1080p for $359 (must be put in cart to see price)

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...ref=sr_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1380744680&sr=1-2

42" is also only $399. The higher end models that are by "purist approved" have much worse value for money.

No offense Love_In_Rio

Thanks for the suggestion. Wished they had it in a 50" model though. I already have a 32" & going to 42" just doesn't seem that big. In addition to LG, I've also been looking at Vizio, Sharp, RCA, Westinghouse & Samsung.

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

If i was Azbat for the money i would buy a Plasma, with care burn in will not be a problem.

I didn't take care of my LCD, so I'm not sure I could take care of plasma.

Considering Azbat got burn in on an LCD (which is VERY hard to do), I would stay away from plasma. Plasma has gotten better, but it is still (and always will be) far more susceptible than LCD due to the nature of the display.

I'm more of a casual gamer so I currently have a plasma as my main HT display (Panasonic 60" ST50) and have no problems. I get some image retention after a few hours of gaming but it goes away with equal use. If you can vary your viewing a bit, then plasma is fine for gaming. But if you're the type of people that use their display mainly for gaming or PC use, I would lean towards an LCD.

You seem to differentiate between burn-in & image retention. I thought they were the same thing. So I guess my problem isn't so much burn-in, but image retention instead. My problem usually happens most with reds. Usually after a while it goes away, especially if I turn it off. However, retention has been getting longer it seems like. I use my TV most for Netflix & Hulu with a little bit of gaming. As I've gotten older I've been playing one or two big games a year. And I don't connect to a PC ever.

The more I think about it I think I'm going to try a LED TV this time around, but I'll double check store models to see which ones are having burn in issues before I drop some coin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of plasma displays... they offer far better value. To get similar performance you usually have to spend significantly more on an LCD. But I will always recommend LCD if you're a hardcore gamer that doesn't use their display for much else.


Unfortunately full-array LED displays are pretty rare these days. They make a relatively new type of LED display called direct-lit which have a strip of LEDs (not a full-array) behind the liquid crystals which gives better uniformity, but will have a less variable backlight because there are fewer LEDs.

Edge-lit LEDs have somewhat gotten better over the years. Entry level or mid-range edge-lit displays are usually crap or mediocre at best, but higher-end models like the Samsung F8000, Sony W900, or Sony HX850 from last year are edge-lit but with decent local dimming technology which significantly reduces uniformity issues, if not eliminating them. In this day and age, it simply costs too much to make a full-array display with local dimming and be profitable... they would have to sell it for too much and not many would buy it. That's why there are only a small handful left on the market.

That's what I've been finding out(re: full-array w/ local dimming). The cheap entry levels may be crap, but my eyes are getting worse(never wore glasses in my life, but now I need them all day). So I'm thinking the higher price needed for the higher quality wouldn't be worth it in my case. I think I'll go cheap & if it's not any good I can take it back & get something a little better. If it turns out good, then I saved some money.

Tommy McClain

 

[Cyan]

Great advice Dr Evil. Thanks.

I agree that I'm not stickler for the details like some purists here. So you're right that the latest LED TVs will be definitely be good enough.



Thanks for the suggestion. Wished they had it in a 50" model though. I already have a 32" & going to 42" just doesn't seem that big. In addition to LG, I've also been looking at Vizio, Sharp, RCA, Westinghouse & Samsung.

Tommy McClain

In trying to put myself in your place I would do a quick search in a website of a large international hypermarket which operates there where you live. I tried that with in the webpage of a local hypermarket and these are the results.

The Panasonic TX-l50b6 cost 750€ here.

http://alatest.com/reviews/tv-reviews/panasonic-tx-l50b6/po3-198760610,33/

You can find the LG 50LN5400 for 799€ here.

http://www.lg.com/ca_en/tvs/lg-50LN5400-led-tv

This can be found for 849$ in the US, and I've seen it priced at 700€ here.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-50LN5700-led-tv

Dr. Evil has a point there, trust your eyes. I am sure a lot of people are in exactly the same position as us, and sometimes you can find what you want just by looking at it --that's how I fancied the TV I am most likely to buy. Still undecided -3D or not 3D, plasma...,but there are only three considerations in my potential list as of now-

 

[djskribbles]

Do not assume direct-lits are always superior to the edge-lits, Samsung has made a quite stride on uniformity this year, so those LG global dimming direct-lits will actually have worse uniformity issue than the Samsung edge-lits. Samsung has somehow managed to enclose LEDs this year, so they have better uniformity than last year's Samsungs. Unfortunately, Samsung has a far more serious problem with auto-dimming.

True.. it was not a general statement across all brands. But when you compare direct-lit vs edge-lit on a specific brand, particularly in the entry level or mid-range bracket, uniformity is generally better on direct-lit. Every direct-lit Samsung I've seen has had almost perfect uniformity, and every review I've read of their direct-lit LCDs have said the same thing.

And may I add burn-in problems for plasmas are way overblown? I once had an LG plasma. I did not run any slides. I did not run any orbitor. I used it exclusively for gaming and PC 24 hours with many hours of stationary breaks in between, and had ZERO IR let alone a burn-in. Yes, they are still more susceptible to burn-in than LCDs, but so are CRTs and I do not baby my Trinitrons ever. Plasmas has made a huge strides with burn-ins and IRs and whatever IR you will get from gaming session will go away eventually. But, you will never get rid of those poor blacks and uniformity on your LCDs. The input lag was terrible so I eventually got rid of it, but never because of IR. I also have a 2 years old Samsung Galaxy2 smartphone which recently has developed a burn-in. The burn-in really doesn't bother me and still is a far superior alternative than going to LCD phones with terrible blacks and viewing angle.

I've been a frequent poster at AVSForum for over 7 years with over 3500 posts, plus I have experience with dozens of displays because I upgrade almost every 2 years. Burn in or image retention varies from panel to panel, but it is more likely to happen on a plasma compared to a CRT in my experience. It is still rare, especially if you vary your viewing content a bit. Again, I just advise people not to go plasma if you're the type who plays hours and hours a day without viewing anything else. Considering AzBat got burn in on an LCD, I just can't recommend plasma.

I think Edge-lit LEDs look almost perfect nowadays. The Philips 32PFL4258 that I want to buy features Micro Dimming technology. It's not Local Dimming -full LED- but even the most expensive Philips LED TV, which costs about 5000€ features Micro Dimming technology, so it never bothered me tbh.

Top of the line Samsung TVs also have Micro Dimming technology, and as you can see in this QAA that's how they define it:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1298534082

Yes edge-lit displays have gotten better, but unless there's some kind of local dimming, uniformity is usually not great. I should note that I'm a pretty big videophile so when I say something is mediocre, it's still good enough for most people. I usually spend close to $3k on a TV so my standards aren't exactly typical.

I didn't take care of my LCD, so I'm not sure I could take care of plasma.



You seem to differentiate between burn-in & image retention. I thought they were the same thing. So I guess my problem isn't so much burn-in, but image retention instead. My problem usually happens most with reds. Usually after a while it goes away, especially if I turn it off. However, retention has been getting longer it seems like. I use my TV most for Netflix & Hulu with a little bit of gaming. As I've gotten older I've been playing one or two big games a year. And I don't connect to a PC ever.

Some people call burn in permanent image retention. But to most people, image retention is a temporary retained image that will go away immediately or viewing something else to 'wash' it away, whereas burn in is permanent damage. Burn in or image retention is far more likely to happen on a phosphor based display, like Plasma or CRT due to uneven aging. OLED is also susceptible. Other things can cause image retention, but that's usually the cause.

 

[baten]

@djskribbles - a noob question: given LED is stated for around 50000hr, what is your opinion on the longevity of LED backlit panels? Do you think it is possible that in 6-7 or 10 years some of the LEDs might stop working and render the TV useless?