# Best TV to view fast moving images



## Scouser (25 Sep 2008)

I was in PC world the other day watching a demo Bluray disk they had setup on a HD LCD TV. I wasnt very impressed with the picture, it was brilliant when the image was stationary, but when there was any moving objects or camera panning it was terrible, not very sharp at all. 

Is plasma better for moving images? My 10 year old CRT actually looked better than the HD.

X.


----------



## Leo (25 Sep 2008)

CRT will beat them all, but plasma is better for moving images than LCD.
Leo


----------



## rmelly (25 Sep 2008)

Leo said:


> CRT will beat them all, but plasma is better for moving images than LCD.
> Leo


 
Does a higher hertz LCD e.g. 100 Hz make any difference?


----------



## gebbel (25 Sep 2008)

rmelly said:


> Does a higher hertz LCD e.g. 100 Hz make any difference?


 
Indeed it does. The latest LCD technology incorporates 100 hz processing (Sony are also about to release a 200 hz model) which delivers smoother motion. 100hz produces more images per second which means action is smoother than ever before. Especially good for sport etc.


----------



## rmelly (25 Sep 2008)

gebbel said:


> Indeed it does. The latest LCD technology incorporates 100 hz processing (Sony are also about to release a 200 hz model) which delivers smoother motion. 100hz produces more images per second which means action is smoother than ever before. Especially good for sport etc.


 
So would a 100 Hz LCD be on a par with a standard CRT?


----------



## gebbel (25 Sep 2008)

rmelly said:


> So would a 100 Hz LCD be on a par with a standard CRT?


 
I have a 50 hz LCD rmelly and the picture quality is excellent, even with fast moving images. A good 100hz LCD will be even better. The latest A656 models from Samsung, W4500 series from Sony and ZF series from Toshiba all incorporate 100hz processing and are highly recommended. Personally speaking, I wouldn't bother with CRT anymore.


----------



## rmelly (25 Sep 2008)

gebbel said:


> I have a 50 hz LCD rmelly and the picture quality is excellent, even with fast moving images. A good 100hz LCD will be even better. The latest A656 models from Samsung, W4500 series from Sony and ZF series from Toshiba all incorporate 100hz processing and are highly recommended. Personally speaking, I wouldn't bother with CRT anymore.


 
Have a 100 Hz Sony LCD myself.


----------



## Scouser (26 Sep 2008)

Im still waiting to be impressed by flat screen technology, i would love a nice big 50 inch TV but am holding of until somthing looks better than the CRT. 200hz sounds good though.

X.


----------



## Leo (26 Sep 2008)

xabi said:


> 200mhz


 
So is that 0.2 Hz?


----------



## RMCF (26 Sep 2008)

Some are talking of 100Hz as if its some sort of new technology.

There has been 100Hz TVs around for many years, and it is absolutely no guarantee at all of blur/smear free images. CRTs/LCDs/Plasmas - 99% of these made in the last 5 or 6 years will be 100Hz.

With TVs you have to remember that most manufacturers take standard panels made by a few of the big makers and then add their own tweaks/software processing to help the picture. So 2 different TVs with the same panel (say for example manufactured by LG or Philips) may produce difference picture qualities due to how the data is processed.

I have seen some excellent TVs with fast moving pictures, and others that are very average at best. And both can be 100Hz.

Obviously technology is improving as the years go by and we will always (hopefully) be getting better and better quality. However, its not promising to read that you saw a BluRay demo on a flat HD panel and weren't impressed!! Now imagine taking that TV home and watching standard definition TV (or God forbid terrestrial TV) on it, which 95% of the general public will be doing.

I agree about some of the latest panels - they are stunning with still pictures like Sky News, but try watching football or an action film and they often become a let-down.

Thats why I'm sticking with my 36" CRT in the meantime.


----------



## Scouser (26 Sep 2008)

Leo said:


> So is that 0.2 Hz?


 
No, that would be 200000000 Hz.


----------



## davidoco (26 Sep 2008)

I've a JVC 32DP8BJ LCD with 100Hz Clear Motion Drive and it's the business for sports (involving a ball) and action DVD.

I especially notice the difference with sport when I visit friends or the pub. Sometimes on the cheaper sets it's like watching a spear instead of a football.


----------



## Leo (26 Sep 2008)

xabi said:


> No, that would be 200000000 Hz.


 
'm' should have been 'M' so.... God, I'm being very pedantic for a sunny Friday!


----------



## gebbel (26 Sep 2008)

xabi said:


> I was in PC world the other day watching a demo Bluray disk they had setup on a HD LCD TV. I wasnt very impressed with the picture, it was brilliant when the image was stationary, but when there was any moving objects or camera panning it was terrible, not very sharp at all.





RMCF said:


> However, its not promising to read that you saw a BluRay demo on a flat HD panel and weren't impressed!! Now imagine taking that TV home and watching standard definition TV (or God forbid terrestrial TV) on it



Some of the electrical superstores obviously spend no time at all in optimizing the picture quality on the flatscreen TV's that they have on display. To get the best picture, settings need to be carefully tweaked. The "out-of-the-box" settings on some TV's can be horrendous. Also, the quality of cheaper scart or HD cables can be suspect to say the least. I was in DID electrical last week and saw a Samsung LE40A656 LCD TV displaying a Blu-Ray demo of Sydney, Australia. The picture quality was so bad I flagged it to one of the sales people. He just shrugged his shoulders. This is a TV that got 5 stars from What Hi-Fi magazine and load of rave reviews from other sites (including many glowing user reviews from the gurus at AVforums.com). If stores like this want to entice consumer impulse buying of these flatscreens, they better wake up and improve the PQ!!


----------



## RMCF (26 Sep 2008)

gebbel said:


> Some of the electrical superstores obviously spend no time at all in optimizing the picture quality on the flatscreen TV's that they have on display. To get the best picture, settings need to be carefully tweaked. The "out-of-the-box" settings on some TV's can be horrendous. Also, the quality of cheaper scart or HD cables can be suspect to say the least. I was in DID electrical last week and saw a Samsung LE40A656 LCD TV displaying a Blu-Ray demo of Sydney, Australia. The picture quality was so bad I flagged it to one of the sales people. He just shrugged his shoulders. This is a TV that got 5 stars from What Hi-Fi magazine and load of rave reviews from other sites (including many glowing user reviews from the gurus at AVforums.com). If stores like this want to entice consumer impulse buying of these flatscreens, they better wake up and improve the PQ!!



Then it makes you wonder how exactly the manufacturers set these TVs up BEFORE they leave the factory.

Perhaps they should spend a bit of time themselves setting them up for shop displays so that they look decent in the likes of Currys etc.


----------



## Towger (26 Sep 2008)

gebbel said:


> I was in DID electrical last week and saw a Samsung LE40A656 LCD TV displaying a Blu-Ray demo of Sydney, Australia. The picture quality was so bad I flagged it to one of the sales people.


 
There is/was a firmware problem in the early models of this TV (Samsung 6000 series), which effected the pricture quality (contrast, colour etc).


----------



## gebbel (26 Sep 2008)

Towger said:


> There is/was a firmware problem in the early models of this TV (Samsung 6000 series), which effected the pricture quality (contrast, colour etc).


 
True, but that had very little to do with the rubbish images I saw last week. It was simply badly set-up.


----------



## aircobra19 (26 Sep 2008)

Some people are more fussy about what they see. I've had people swear they get a fantastic picture, on a PC monitor, or TV but when you see it, its actually brutal. They just can't see it. I'm very unimpressed with most of the LCD's I've seen. Though a friend just bought a 42" Sony and from I saw its on a par with a CRT.


----------

