PCMag asks: Which HDTV Type is Best? – Answers a Different Question
I can’t disagree with the author’s assertion that LED backlit displays are better than their older sibling, but any article that puts “screen thickness” first in the list of important factors when choosing a display then neglects much more important things that actually affect picture quality – like color accuracy, the number of local dimming zones and video processing capabilities has a lot of ground to make up.
LED LCDs are very nice, and there are many good reasons to select one over a similarly priced plasma, but when it comes to picture quality – PDP technology still rules.
Several factors can be influenced by the type of HDTV display you choose. Among them, the most prominent are screen thickness, brightness, darkness, energy efficiency, and price. Ideally, you want an HDTV that’s affordable, paper-thin, can get face-of-the-sun-bright and black-hole-dark, and consumes less than a watt. That’s currently impossible, but LED-backlit LCD HDTVs can come closer than the other two technologies.
Just another reason why I
Just another reason why I dumped my subscription to PC Mag years ago. They should just stick to computers and software and let the Home Theater mags review HDTVs and related hardware. The sole parameter to judge an HDTV should be picture quality, period. Feature sets and bells and whistles are all secondary. Thickness of the display falls under the 2nd category, not the first.
Wow was there even a mention
Wow was there even a mention about refresh rates?
After I read this article, I
After I read this article, I don’t find the comments about screen thickness to be necessarily incorrect. The author only seems to reference it as one of the many aspects that affect a purchasing decision.
The commentary about peak white levels is a bit misleading. While I can agree that the higher the peak level, the better; it is not all that useful for most situations unless you’re watching in a bright showroom or with a great amount of sunlight.
I agree that some important criteria of purchasing a TV were left out of the article. Many of those absent aspects are some of the major reasons why many people choose plasma displays.
swoon wrote:After I read this
[quote=swoon]
After I read this article, I don’t find the comments about screen thickness to be necessarily incorrect. The author only seems to reference it as one of the many aspects that affect a purchasing decision.
[/quote]
I agree that they aren’t necessarily incorrect and he even states that it’s not the most important feature. That said, looking at the amount of text dedicated to it, energy usage and the conclusions drawn at the end in contrast to PQ where only luminance is discussed; and that only cursorily – it’s clear that the question he was answering wasn’t “what is the best HDTV type” but “what technology enables the thinnest and most power efficient panels”.
Right on Andy! I read that
Right on Andy! I read that article and thought what others thought “why don’t they stick to PCs”. My biggest complaint about TVs in general these days is screen uniformity, be it flashlighting, floating blacks, clouding, dirty screen effect (DSE), etc. Real reviews and discussions about TVs should always include screen uniformity in the discussion.
Did he just say “darkness”
Did he just say “darkness” instead of “black levels?”
I would argue that thickness matters very little. 90% of customers place their TVs on a stand making thickness important for only 10% of customers. LED lit TVs can be very nice, but Panasonic Plasmas still have the edge unless you have direct sunlight behind the TV.
Thinness is overrated. Going
Thinness is overrated. Going from a CRT to LCD was a big deal. But going from a 2″ thick Plasma to a 1″ LED LCD is fairly meaningless. If he really wanted to get into it, he should’ve mentioned OLED screens. Sure, they’re expensive as all hell and not very big(yet), but they are super thin(some are less than 2mm) and power efficient.
I user to say the samething
I user to say the samething but as for astetics there is something nice about a really really thin tv on the wall and some people do care. looks thinner than most picture frames 😉 (wifes care ;)).
PLUCKYHD wrote:
(wifes care
[quote=PLUCKYHD]
(wifes care ;)).
[/quote]
Heh, that’s why I don’t have a huge pull down screen and projector mounted on the ceiling anymore. =)
How thin a TV is, is last on
How thin a TV is, is last on my list. Picture quality, reliability, followed by energy usage are my big 3. Who has a list like that?