The new Samsung LED's are 1.2" deep and about $2500 for the 46". Also, they seem to be about 40% more energy efficient. Is the picture any better? I have not seen one in person yet.

http://www.samsung.com/us/productsubtype/led/

 

looks nice!

but i wont be able to make a decision till i see it in person

 

I'm falling behind on this stuff. Are these actually a completely new type of display or are they still LCD displays that are just using LEDs for the backlight instead of CCFLs?

 

I believe these are different than an LED backlit LCD. Illinorge, I haven't seen them in person yet but I would think based on the link provided they are superior. They say the "contrast, color and crispness is unprecedented". Looks like a win win on all 3 size, energy, and picture. Are you considering one?

 

Yes, there is no mercury in the new LCD's.

 

There are apparently a completely new technology, much better than anything out before.

 

Better how? Have you seen it?

 

The automotion plus is a joke though.

 

Only LED set I would consider is the Sony XBR8. Wish it was made in a 40". Price be damned, it is a beautiful display!

 

don't know

no

 

Why wouldn't you consider other LED sets?

 

I've seen some of the Samsung LED tvs side by side with a Sony(?) plasma, so I cant compare LED vs LCD, but the picture on the Samsung was much clearer.

 

Here is how the Sony if different from other LED sets. Go ahead waste 9 minuets of your day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMk3X...layer_embedded

 

Wow, marketing owns this thread.

LED tvs are LCD tvs...

Just the backlight is LED based instead of florescent.

They are LCD TVs.......

Sure there are different types of LED technolgies (techniques used by different manufacturers) for LCD tvs, but they are still all LCD tvs...

Please stop saying I haven't compared a LED to a LCD... it's sounds ridiculous.

 

No, it's a simple marketing ploy.... Nothing more.


There is 3 major different LED methods for the LCD panels.

Side illumination LED
local dimming LED
colored local dimming LED

All of which apply to LCD panels... the LED back lighting tech has been around for awhile now (years). Just they are marketing it so it sounds new....

LED = led backlight on a LCD srceen, nothing more.

OLED is the only new type of LED technology and it's drastically different. I assume the marketing people are hoping the mass population gets confused by the two and it works in their favor. As OLED screens own LCD and Plasma technologies.

Pretty sad LCD panel makers has to come up with crappy marketing schemes like this to push their same gimmicky technology. I find it funny LCD buyers get tricked into their technology; you don't see any of this type of stuff with the plasmas.

 

Is the real benefit to LED backlights the low maintenance costs? Is there really a big difference in how they look vs. a bulb?

 

True.

But to answer the question I think is being answered...Yes, a LCD with LEDs gives better color/contrast and uses less energy and produces less heat than the older technology LCD panels.

The LED back lights have probably become more prevalent in LCD TVs in the last 2 years. But its finally trickling down into the more affordable market and not just the high end units.

 

They offer the ability to perform better contrast and color.

They also use less energy and the TV doesnt generate as much heat.

 

So its OLED and Backlit (or edgelit in this case) LCD? But consumer OLEDs are yet to get introduced?

 

I thought it made a pretty big difference. For example, the Sammy 9 series is LED and it is supposed to be a big improvement over the 8xx and below.

 

Yes, mostly and improved black levels and color (on a multicolor LED unit)

A major draw back to local dimming LED units is uneven wear of the LEDs. Local dimming means there are 100's of LEDs being used to do the backlight. They are used on demand, so if say the upper left portion of the screen is black the unit will not turn those LEDs on, giving you better blacks in that areas. But also know that the LED is not being used, so it'll have a different wear rate than lights in other areas of the screen.

LED's change light output (brightness) and shift color temperature as they age (drastically actually). So while the set is new it'll look great but as it ages a calibration will be needed to keep the color/gray scale close.

Another drawback to them is what the avs forum calls "flash light" effects around Text and other images that are bright. Like a halo almost.

Time will tell with the LED sets.

I'd just skip out on LCD for now and get a G10 or V10 Panasonic plasma, or a Kuro while you still can.

LCD == Teenager in puberty, rapidly changing, always thinks they are right, but then realizes they are wrong and adapts (hence the technology changes all of the time for LCD).

Plasma == Adult 35-45... mature, knows how to do it; already been down that road.

Even the latest AVS forum thread of the latest Samsung compared to G10 Panasonic (plasma) it was clear the Panasonic was better. And it was cheaper. I can post pictures pointing out the differences if you like.... I found it amusing even with photos, some people still thought the LCD looked better. It was quite obvious to me that people really don't know what to look for when comparing. Or a lot of them don't have the eye for it...

People see brightness and think it looks better... but they overlook all of the other (lots) flaws.

 

there is definitely an improvement but its not huge huge.

 

I'd like to see those pictures. I'm one of the people who probably doesn't know what to look for.

 

Honestly, I'd say 80% of the people in the thread missed things that were major to me (and a few others). So I wouldn't feel bad about it; I've been anal about video for awhile so it's just something I look for naturally now.

I'll take a few and circle the major differences in the GIMP.

Give me a bit... (also working)

 

When the time comes I will need to rent a bus to bring all of you with me to the store cause I know I am gonna choose wrong when the time comes to buy a new TV!!

 

Both screen were professionally calibrated...

Samsung UN55B7100 vs Panasonic TC-P50G10

Also, if you are viewing these on a el cheapo LCD and see the difference. In person the differences will be even greater! I bet very few people on here have a high contrast calibrated display for their computer.


Panasonic

Samsung

--------------------------------------------------------------------



Panasonic

Samsung

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Panasonic

Samsung

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Panasonic

Samsung

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(scroll down a bit to the next photo with all of the cut out images)
So I'll point out of some the flaws... I'll go through these on the 1st column top to bottom, then the 2nd column.

Column1, Pic1 (building city at night)
-----------------------------------
Notice how all of the building just washes out into nothing on the samung. You can still see the windows on the panasonic.

Column1, Pic2 (building city at night)
-----------------------------------
Notice how the windows are way dimmer in the samsung, yet easily visible on the panasonic.

Column1, Pic3 (building city at night)
-----------------------------------
Look at the detail you can see in the street on the panasonic, then the washed out street and washed out building on the samsung.

Column2, Pic1 (stars)
-----------------------------------
Samsung lost a lot of stars! It just dropped them from the picture entirely.


Column2, Pic2 (angelina)
-----------------------------------
Color lost in her face on the samsung, lots of dropped details when you look around. Tons of stuff just gone, or way shadowed out.

Column2, Pic3 (ironman)
-----------------------------------
Look at all of the lost details on iron mans arm.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Then we have the side viewing washout problems with LCD, this in person looks even worse. Unless you only have one seat in your house this is a major drawback of LCD technology.

looking straight on


side angle view


I mean the TV is already dropping information, it really goes flat/washed out on the side view. Colors are all off, this in person would be even more noticeable.

If you take the time you can find a bunch of other flaws/dropouts in the samsung/panasonic photos above.

Yes, the Samsung is brighter.
Yesm the Samsung will appear sharper because it uses square pixels. The Panasonic uses round pixels and has a smoother film like appearance to it. They both have identical resolution 1080p (1920x1080)

LCD's square pixels and brightness is just confusing your eye into thinking it's a better picture. When start to compare details the samsung doesn't look so good. LCD just doesn't match Plasma for picture performance. Also remember we didn't compare it to a Pioneer Kuro plasma; if we had the differences would have been even more noticeable.

I myself don't want a TV with inferior color, sub contrast details and or bad off-angle viewing which forces me to only sit in one spot in my room to get a good picture.

Final Nail in coffin...

Panasonic $1,529.99
Samsung $3,419.99

 

I'm actually viewing the pictures on a CRT. I accept that LCD's drop a lot of shadow detail and that the wide angle washes out the picture. Do plasmas wash out at all on the same angle or just not as much?

Maybe it's the square pixelation, but the graphics (timebar and the movie credits) on the screen look sharper with the Samsung.

Thanks for taking the time for the comparison.

 

No plasmas's look the same from all angles.

Honestly unless you have a room with TONS of day light there's no reason to buy a LCD at this point in time. Perhaps one day they'll get better and match plasma quality but by then OLED TV's will be hitting the market...

Some of the photos are out of focus a bit. So it's a wash, but yes LCD panels have a unnatural square sharpness to them, very sharp.

You can accept the shadow detail and video dropouts from it? And the side angle viewing? The dropouts on the side-by-side pics of the building (windows) is drastic on the LCD. In person this would even be more noticeable.

I posted the prices at the bottom of the original post. I'm curious why you would pay *more* for less quality? Plain as day the LCD just drops a lot of details... And we're not even touching on motion resolution, where LCD really suffers and have a whole other marketing side to them to make up for it.

I'm confused... Perphaps I read too much into your statement.

NP, this is a fun hobby for me. I like to see everyone's perspectives on it.

 

I've got a reasonably bright room, but most of the viewing is at night. I watch a lot of sports so an unnatural sharpness is actually preferred sometimes. Obviously I don't view two TV's side by side, so the shadow drop on my TV is not noticeable, given that I never knew it was there to begin with. This also may be the case with motion blur on my 60 Hz set.

As for the rest, you ARE reading too much into my statement. I would never pay over $2k for a 46" set of any kind. I'm just describing the LNT-4665 Samsung I own now. Given a choice between the two 55" in the comparison I would go with the plasma. It's encouraging that plasmas are dropping in heat and power waste, that's the biggest drawback.

I have excellent vision but I'm far from a refined TV viewer. Sort of like being a music buff but only listening to '80s stuff.

 

heh, ya I thought I did

Like anything, it's OK until someone points it out. Then you start to notice is slowly but steadily...

I've found that sometimes.... if your happy ignorance is the best way to go... And nothing is ever perfect.

Ya, I guess it depends on how much your trying to save in electricity. There's not a substantial difference between all of the sets on a per household basis if you do the math. However spread out amongst many (100,000+) screens it adds up.

 

Between my new (2008) LG LCD 1080P 40" in the bedroom and (2005) Panasonic Plasma 1080i 42" in the living room, the colors on the Plasma are still unreal compared to the LCD. I can watch from any angle on the plasma.

If the tvs were switched then I wouldn't be too happy because too much light comes in through the windows in the living room and it would drown out the picture on the LCD. Most of the time the curtains are closed in the bedroom to get maximum viewing pleasure from the LCD.

 

Sigh, I still heavily disagree with you. Unless you are buying a top dollar plasma (see Kuro) most less expensive plasma models have their fair share of problems. Horrible color gradation, noise, soft image, etc. Plasma is not the end all be all format display you and others try and make it out to be.

I've spent my fair share looking at consumer TVs, and I've spent my career looking at professional monitors.

In the end, regardless of what the specs the people in little white lab coats made, its what your eye tells you that matters.

 

While I was under the ban hammer this past week with many others, I happened to see updated Sammy series that are now advertising the LED technology. I guess I didn't know that there were different kinds. From what it sounds like everyone is saying, the updated Sammy's that are only about 1.4 inches thick, isn't using the same LED technology as in the 9 series. I saw the 9 series about 6 months ago, and it's f'ckin incredible. Watched part of one of the Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-Ray, and it was beyond words.

 

Your white lab coat statement might hold some merit if we were comparing specs.... We're comparing actual screen shots of fully calibrated sets.

Does your *eye* not see all of the faults (dropped information) I pointed out? The LCD drops a ton of information. And the image clearly goes to crap if your not straight in front of it. Those are major faults... and clearly visible.

That panasonic isn't a highend, it's significantly cheaper and has a better picture in many ways.

My example shows a less $$ plasma out performing a high end LCD. That Panasonic is no Kuro. It would be even that much further of a comparison if it was.

Most LCD's have horrible color gradients too, as they are 6-bit LCD panels and only *emulate* 24bit with strobing. Only the uber high end ones are decent (non consumer level). This is why they have problems with sub-contrast; because they emulate the deep shades with strobing.

I hate to burst your bubble but honestly only fanboys say LCD is all around better; no professional calibrator or review has ever given the nod that high end LCD has outperformed a high-end plasma all around.

LCD only does 2 things very well today and that's brightness and sharpness. And that's if you like square pixels, I myself find the jaggies a bit unnatural. Real life isn't made up of a bunch of square pixels.

And I don't own either so my input isn't biased :P It's actually very neutral.

And man if we were comparing specs the LCD would win every time, LCD is totally about marketing. Every 6 months they come up with a new marketing scheme to try and sell their stuff. Latest one is confusing consumers into thinking "LED" is some new display technology... Not to mention the ridiculous specs they put on the LCD panels that are so far off from reality.

 

Thanks for the info dude! I am in the market for a 52" or 55" TV, but I've been put off by Plasma due to the heat and energy waste.

What models would you recommend? Looking for a 1080P set from a reputable maker.

 

No, from the pictures I picked up the plasma was much better in shadow detail.

But I hate looking at pictures of pictures. I havent looked up anything about either model, and I have no clue how they were calibrated.

I wont deny in that post, the plasma out performs in most cases. The plasma did not, however, really hold highlights very well compared to the lcd...and that could be how they set the contrast levels. Again its always hard to judge when you arent there in person to see how things are done for yourself.

My LCD is a few years old at this point, so I know I'm watching on outdated technology that I know is "inferior" to the new stuff. But when I saw a Kuro side by side with a Sammy 950...They are so absolutely close in image, I would take the LCD over plasma again.

I have seen very few plasmas in person that have ever impressed me, and the ones that did were always top dollar models, like the Kuro. Most have disappointed me to very a large degree in how they handle color gradation, sharpness, and grain.

Again, this is me and my eyes.

And just an FYI. In the film world. If there isnt a HD CRT monitor on set, its a LCD. Sony, Panasonic, Cine-tel, etc....they all make professionally applied LCDs for productions shooting on HD. None of them make plasmas for pro-use. That is where I'm coming from on that angle.

 

Honestly, it's not that much heat and or energy waste in a plasma. LED LCDs get very warm too. Unless you've seen some specific study showing the BTU outputs I'd dismiss anyone telling you heat is an issue with plasma. Plasma's do use a bit more energy but we're talking $5 a month here if even.

LCD = LED backlight Samsung or Sony. Sony will be pricey, so will the high end Samsung.

The Samsung I posted in here about is one of their latest models; but you'll want to google for a non bestbuy model of the same series.

Plasma = Panasonic, G10 or V10 series or Pioneer (kuro) you can get a killer deal on one now. You can get a 6020 for $3k or a 600M for $3k; pretty much the defacto standard when it comes to picture qualityin the consumer world. But the G10 or V10 series Pansonic's are excellent too.

Good luck...
Honestly the Panasonic unit I posted about in this thread is a fantastic display. For the $$ it's hard to pass it up...

 

LOTS to spend: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ahiGCQH...arch=sony+xbr8

Less to spend: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ahiGCQH...arch=sony+xbr9

Still less: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-GE3wLKr...R7.html?tp=161

 

whats considers panasonics best plasma now a days? im still partial to my panny plasma over my xbr

 

Panasonic 10th gen.

G10 or V10 series

Big improvement from last few generations.