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

[KOF]

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.


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.

True, LG direct-lits do have better uniformity than edge-lits, ditto for Samsung. It's when people mix brands and panel type and equate both that brings confusion. Take LG full local dimming LCDs for example, depending on how many dimming zones each uses (from 24 to 480 in LG's case) the perceived contrast differs tremendously. For example, last year's LG LM9600 used 24, but it stood no chance against even a Samsung CCFL because 24 dimming zones will not diminish LG's weak contrast ratio (900:1 to 1100:1) against Samsung. (4000:1 to 5000:1)

It was not my intention to imply plasmas are as burn-in resistant as CRTs. But, one sample, especially from a distant past, does not paint entire display type. It was incredibly rare, but a few old LCDs did suffer from burn in (I've seen a few, but they were all really old), but that's no longer the case. I was so used to seeing burn-ins from old Sega Model3 arcade games that used rear projection CRTs. The last CRT RPTVs from the 2000s never suffered from burn-ins either. (Convergence problems were more common) Plasmas were famous for having burn-ins during early 2000s, but also no longer a case. CNET tried to duplicate it but they failed. There are still IRs here and there, but they are temporary and the majority plasmas can be enjoyed with absolutely no IR, I know I was one. (and LG plasmas were notoriously known for having the worst IR) OLEDs will soon improve and reach where plasmas lie today. It's as silly as avoiding flat panels altogether and sticking with CRTs just because some has dead pixels.

 

[Cjail]

You will indeed have to work very, very hard to get burn-in on your plasma nowadays.
Trust me with normal viewing it's practically impossible.

Plasma still suffer for image retention (even whey they tell you they don't) but it's usually not visible with normal content and it goes away as well.
My suggestions: set the contrast not too low nor too high and don't play 200 hours straight at the same game with HUD and you will be more then fine...and if even if you put contrast at max and ply for hundreds of hours IR will still go away.

 

[djskribbles]

@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?

To be honest I can't really give a solid answer as I'm not in the repair business and I haven't owned a TV longer than 3-4 years. I think TVs are not made with the same quality as they used to be. You'd be lucky to get 7+ years in this day and age whereas the old CRTs and even the older flat panels were built like tanks. Depending on usage, something will probably fail before the LEDs do. I think 3-5 years is a reasonable expectation... anything more is a bonus.

True, LG direct-lits do have better uniformity than edge-lits, ditto for Samsung. It's when people mix brands and panel type and equate both that brings confusion. Take LG full local dimming LCDs for example, depending on how many dimming zones each uses (from 24 to 480 in LG's case) the perceived contrast differs tremendously. For example, last year's LG LM9600 used 24, but it stood no chance against even a Samsung CCFL because 24 dimming zones will not diminish LG's weak contrast ratio (900:1 to 1100:1) against Samsung. (4000:1 to 5000:1)

Yup, LGs usually have weaker contrast ratios due to the panels they generally use (IPS vs VA). Newer LGs are very mediocre, even their high-end displays. I bought one of their last good displays (LG LH90) which is a full-array local dimming LCD with I believe 80 dimming zones. Still less zones than some of the other local dimming displays for its time, but enough to have a good picture. Still have it in the living room (ST50 in the HT room though). Due to manufacturing costs, there aren't very many full-array local dimming displays anymore.

It was not my intention to imply plasmas are as burn-in resistant as CRTs. But, one sample, especially from a distant past, does not paint entire display type. It was incredibly rare, but a few old LCDs did suffer from burn in (I've seen a few, but they were all really old), but that's no longer the case. I was so used to seeing burn-ins from old Sega Model3 arcade games that used rear projection CRTs. The last CRT RPTVs from the 2000s never suffered from burn-ins either. (Convergence problems were more common) Plasmas were famous for having burn-ins during early 2000s, but also no longer a case. CNET tried to duplicate it but they failed. There are still IRs here and there, but they are temporary and the majority plasmas can be enjoyed with absolutely no IR, I know I was one. (and LG plasmas were notoriously known for having the worst IR) OLEDs will soon improve and reach where plasmas lie today. It's as silly as avoiding flat panels altogether and sticking with CRTs just because some has dead pixels.

The thing about burn in / IR is it varies year to year and even panel to panel within the same model so you can't just judge based on a single model. For example, it is widely known over at AVS that the older Panasonics (pre 30 series / 2011 models) were actually more resistant. The 2011 and 2012 models generally get IR easier than the older models and the 2013 models are a bit better now. Samsungs were known to be bad pre-2010 (C-series) but since the D-series in 2011, Samsungs are actually very resistant to IR. Cnet recently did an accidental burn in test on the 50 series Panasonics and the E series Samsungs where they left an image on the screen over night. Even after several hours, the image was still faintly visible on the Panasonic. I personally own a ST50 and I know that it's not as good as the older panels.

But again, don't get me wrong... I'm not anti-Plasma. I currently own one as my main HT display and I have owned several in the past. Plasmas are fine for most people and IR is generally not an issue. But it's just my personal recommendation to avoid them if you're someone who doesn't vary their viewing content often. You don't have to take my advice or agree with me.

As I've said before, Plasma easily gives better bang for buck where you would have to spend considerably more for an LCD to get performance even close to a good Plasma. But I still think that there are pros and cons to both technologies and there are certain applications where LCDs excel.

 

[London Geezer]

Call me crazy, but I have a Panasonic GT50 Plasma, 50", and I will never, ever go back to LCD/LED. And it was cheap. Burn-in is not an issue, image retention happened a couple of times but disappeared after a little while.
At the same time the positives on image quality compared to a typical LCD are just too big to ignore. Especially black levels, motion and contract, which are my main interest, are gorgeous.
This screen is simply as perfect as I need, until OLED or whatever tech they'll come up with, becomes as cheap at the same image quality level as plasma, which isn't any time soon.

 

[baten]

The thing about burn in / IR is it varies year to year and even panel to panel within the same model so you can't just judge based on a single model. For example, it is widely known over at AVS that the older Panasonics (pre 30 series / 2011 models) were actually more resistant. The 2011 and 2012 models generally get IR easier than the older models and the 2013 models are a bit better now. Samsungs were known to be bad pre-2010 (C-series) but since the D-series in 2011, Samsungs are actually very resistant to IR. Cnet recently did an accidental burn in test on the 50 series Panasonics and the E series Samsungs where they left an image on the screen over night. Even after several hours, the image was still faintly visible on the Panasonic. I personally own a ST50 and I know that it's not as good as the older panels.

I can attest to IR - I have a Panasonic VT30 and if I watch any channel that has a logo for more than 2 hours - you can see that logo as IR when you swich the channel. Nothing permanent, and is only vizible if you look for it on lite uniform background, but it's there.
However, I would not trade it for any LCD/LED, I've seen a couple of top ones and imo plasma is better IQ.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Call me crazy, but I have a Panasonic GT50 Plasma, 50", and I will never, ever go back to LCD/LED. And it was cheap. Burn-in is not an issue, image retention happened a couple of times but disappeared after a little while.
At the same time the positives on image quality compared to a typical LCD are just too big to ignore. Especially black levels, motion and contract, which are my main interest, are gorgeous.
This screen is simply as perfect as I need, until OLED or whatever tech they'll come up with, becomes as cheap at the same image quality level as plasma, which isn't any time soon.

I wouldn't call you crazy by any stretch of the imagination, because a good Plasma definitely has a big upside, however I can't help but to say that I just sold my GT60 50" plasma and bought one of those edge leds.

Spoiler

The TV is mainly a monitor for me and on top of some retention fears I simply could not deal with the flickering that was present on desktop. While playing a video or movie that didn't bother and most of the time the picture quality was sensational. I'm still pretty happy with this new tv and the black levels actually aren't that bad Not that it's super important, but I also don't mind that the energy consumption went down from 178W to 51W.

Here is a pretty good (favourable ) review of a similar 42" model.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-kdl42w653-201308113237.htm

The Sony KDL-42W653A uses a VA-type LCD panel supplied by Taiwanese vendor AUO (AU Optronics), which translates to deep blacks by LED LCD standards. On a 4×4 ANSI checkerboard pattern, we measured the TV’s black level to be 0.046 cd/m2 which is on par with this year’s VA-based high-end LED televisions like the Sony W9 as well as the Samsung F7000 and F8000. As is the case with most LED LCDs, the W653 dimmed its backlight down to 0.022 cd/m2 when asked to display a full black screen.

Considering its edge LED makeup and svelte build, our KDL42W653 review sample exhibited surprisingly good backlight uniformity, without any sign of clouding or corner bleed. A subtle dirty screen effect (DSE) was visible in the centre of the panel particularly when we put up 20% to 30% stimulus full-field grey patterns, but to be honest this is pretty much unavoidable on all large-sized edge-lit LED TVs due to the way a limited number of LED bulbs (which are placed along the borders) are required to illuminate the entire screen. The DSE on our Sony W6 review unit was extremely mild, and rarely bothered us in real-world content.

Sony’s 2013 Bravias have proven to be superb gaming TVs, and the W65 is no exception. With [Scene Select] set to “Game“, the 42W653A effortlessly smashed through our existing input lag record (held by another Sony – the W8), posting a jaw-dropping figure of 14.6ms on the Leo Bodnar lag tester.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Call me crazy, but I have a Panasonic GT50 Plasma, 50", and I will never, ever go back to LCD/LED. And it was cheap. Burn-in is not an issue, image retention happened a couple of times but disappeared after a little while.
At the same time the positives on image quality compared to a typical LCD are just too big to ignore. Especially black levels, motion and contract, which are my main interest, are gorgeous.
This screen is simply as perfect as I need, until OLED or whatever tech they'll come up with, becomes as cheap at the same image quality level as plasma, which isn't any time soon.

Oh pu-leeeese. You're such a Panasonic fanboy, it's a wonder the mods let you post on this forum. Most of Panasonic's claims are pure bunkum, and the only reason people rate their TVs at all is because they've paid off the retailers to set up the competitors' poorly. Samsung is easily the better brand. In fact at CES this year there were behind the scenes photos of Panasonic taking Sammy TVs and putting Panasonic badges on them, but of course Panasonic covered that up. The Panasonic Kool-aid just keeps on coming and...

...oh, hang on a minute. We don't do that for any other CE device except consoles. All this impartiality is really unnerving.

 

[Arwin]

Good tip on that KDL-653 (655 in my case). I could replace my current TV with one of about the same size for just 400 Euro, that's very doable. Of course I'll be tempted to get a slightly larger one, or one with 3D, but we'll see ... this seems pretty good as it is!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Good tip on that KDL-653 (655 in my case). I could replace my current TV with one of about the same size for just 400 Euro, that's very doable. Of course I'll be tempted to get a slightly larger one, or one with 3D, but we'll see ... this seems pretty good as it is!

42" seems to be the sweet spot with regards to value at the moment. I've had screen sizes ranging from 22" to 100" and these days 42" and 50" feel almost similar to me. I was pretty close to buying the 42" model, but then I stumbled upon this new 50" 3D model W685 and it was discounted to 895€ vs 699€ for the 42" 2D model and I got this instead. Now the cheapest I can see for my TV in Finland is 989€, which would have made it a tough choice. I can change the distance from my TV quite freely so basically anything 40" or over would work for me just fine.

 

[London Geezer]

Oh pu-leeeese. You're such a Panasonic fanboy, it's a wonder the mods let you post on this forum. Most of Panasonic's claims are pure bunkum, and the only reason people rate their TVs at all is because they've paid off the retailers to set up the competitors' poorly. Samsung is easily the better brand. In fact at CES this year there were behind the scenes photos of Panasonic taking Sammy TVs and putting Panasonic badges on them, but of course Panasonic covered that up. The Panasonic Kool-aid just keeps on coming and...

...oh, hang on a minute. We don't do that for any other CE device except consoles. All this impartiality is really unnerving.

You're such a git

 

[Nisaaru]

I'm also considering updating to a new 55..65inch display from my old Panasonic 42inch Plasma but I decided to wait until 4k gets standard in the higher quality LED displays next year.

The new 65inch 4k Sony X9 looks really attractive display wise but without HDMI 2.0(4k only at 24p with HDMI1.4), too high power consumption(200..350W) and boutique/high-end image prices the only sensible option is too wait until they fix the quirks.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm also considering updating to a new 55..65inch display from my old Panasonic 42inch Plasma but I decided to wait until 4k gets standard in the higher quality LED displays next year.

The new 65inch 4k Sony X9 looks really attractive display wise but without HDMI 2.0(4k only at 24p with HDMI1.4), too high power consumption(200..350W) and boutique/high-end image prices the only sensible option is too wait until they fix the quirks.

I rather have a great 1080p OLED than a 4k LCD...

 

[KOF]

I rather have a great 1080p OLED than a 4k LCD...

I agree, but not because I will have to forgo 4k. Downscaling does wonders even on 720p display and once plasmas go to HDMI 2.0, they will also receive a huge benefit. It is one reason I decided not to purchase a new plasma TV this year.

Too bad current HDMI 2.0 is limited to 4:2:0 at 2160p @ 60hz. (according to Joe Kane) Definitely not a pretty picture for PC gamers who have to have 4:4:4. They will have to rely more on Displayport, but how many CE companies will actually accommodate it at 4:4:4?

 

[Cyan]

Good tip on that KDL-653 (655 in my case). I could replace my current TV with one of about the same size for just 400 Euro, that's very doable. Of course I'll be tempted to get a slightly larger one, or one with 3D, but we'll see ... this seems pretty good as it is!

Why 3D? Why not 3D? 3D or not 3D, that's the question. I have pretty much decided which TV I want for the start of the next generation of consoles but I don't know if I should buy the 3D version of my preferred TV for next gen consoles or the regular version, as there isn't any other distinction between the two except 3D support.

Plasma sounded interesting, and after reading some comments here it made me think twice about purchasing one, but I have very little experience with them and it's not like I object to them but I think I'd be more than happy with a LED TV with a fine contrast ratio and image quality.

I think plenty of new TVs aren't worthy of contempt nowadays but choosing one is not as easy as it seems, like a forumer pointed out here already.

Finally, I am not going to be online in the upcoming weeks -so if I don't reply here that's the reason-. Ah, forgot to mention, talking about Shifty is under NDA here. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Mod thy Shifty in vain." Shifty, in your dreams.

 

[KOF]

To make matters even more complicated, there will be a new type of glasses free 3D (but not your typical autostereoscopic 3D a la 3DS) solution next year called Ultra-D. One person who has actually seen it in person has said 'I will never view my TVs in 2D again!" If I wasn't so hopelessly a plasma fanatic, I would surely get one of those next year as I love 3D, but has hated it for its headache inducing discomfort. It would be perfect for those 3D console titles...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

To make matters even more complicated, there will be a new type of glasses free 3D (but not your typical autostereoscopic 3D a la 3DS) solution next year called Ultra-D. One person who has actually seen it in person has said 'I will never view my TVs in 2D again!" If I wasn't so hopelessly a plasma fanatic, I would surely get one of those next year as I love 3D, but has hated it for its headache inducing discomfort. It would be perfect for those 3D console titles...

Cool I hadn't heard about that.

Sounds quite promising.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

3D is in an odd state. It seems to have been dropped, by and large. It comes with a lot of TVs, but it doesn't appear to have widespread appeal, and zero next-gen games have talked about. I'd have thought some devs would be excited at the improved stereoscopic rendering they can do over the early attempts last gen, but it's a total non-issue. And if devs aren't supporting it, and the console companies aren't pushing it, what exactly is the future?

 

[baten]

3D is in an odd state. It seems to have been dropped, by and large. It comes with a lot of TVs, but it doesn't appear to have widespread appeal, and zero next-gen games have talked about. I'd have thought some devs would be excited at the improved stereoscopic rendering they can do over the early attempts last gen, but it's a total non-issue. And if devs aren't supporting it, and the console companies aren't pushing it, what exactly is the future?

Maybe VR?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

VR does make sense, and we hear Sony are going to be trying that. But that's different to 3DTV as it requires a headset. If someone has a choice between TVs and one has 3D and the other not, what exactly will the non-3D TV be missing out on next gen? I'd like to see things like 3D FIFA to help track the ball better, but I get the impression it won't happen.

 

[Arwin]

There will be a crossover effect though - support for VR is basically a superset of 3D support. On Sony's side I think there was a conscious choice that launch wasn't a realistic timeframe for solving the inherent problems of supporting 3D, with games struggling to just look good and next-gen at launch. But there have been lots of suggestions that we'll see another wave of 3D effort into 2014, among others from Evolution Studios for DriveClub, and any game that does VR support will likely support 3Dtv as well.