LCD v LED TV

scarr

I want to buy a new TV in the coming days and i'm torn between LCD and LED.

I want a 40"/42" TV, 1080P HD & 100Hz Motion (minimum). The LEDs seem to be more expensive than LCDs.... are they worth it????

There is a deal in DID at the moment for a 40" Philips LED TV c/w a TV stand and blu-ray player for €999. This seems like good value but I've heard that Philips are not very good.....

I would be gratefull for any suggestions, recommended models, good deals available at moment etc...

Ranicand

scarr wrote: »

I want to buy a new TV in the coming days and i'm torn between LCD and LED.

I want a 40"/42" TV, 1080P HD & 100Hz Motion (minimum). The LEDs seem to be more expensive than LCDs.... are they worth it????

There is a deal in DID at the moment for a 40" Philips LED TV c/w a TV stand and blu-ray player for €999. This seems like good value but I've heard that Philips are not very good.....

I would be gratefull for any suggestions, recommended models, good deals available at moment etc...

I hate to say this but it is true you get what you pay for.

Edit taken from the net.




An LED tv uses light emitting diodes ad its source of light for the television. An LED tv uses these diodes to create a much more vibrant and colorful image. The blacks are truly black (not dark gray) and the colors are more realistic vs an LCD tv. LED tvs can achieve a contrast ratio of up to 500,000:1. They also in general have a higher refresh rate which will help when watching shows with motion such as sports or movies.

zilog_jones

LED-backlit LCD TVs (they're not "LED TV", it's a load of marketing bollocks) can have much better contrast and colour reproduction than standard CCFL-backlit designs.

100Hz "Motion Plus", "MotionFlow", etc. stuff looks awful IMO, it's trying to making something (more frames) out of nothing. It makes films look wrong and can cause strange artefacting.

I don't know how good Philips are right now.

Also, this is the wrong forum.

scarr

Thank you. Which forum should I be on?

Ranicand

scarr wrote: »

Thank you. Which forum should I be on?

This one here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=864

Tea 1000

HE Video Displays & Projectors is the correct forum for this.
As said above, LED vs LCD isn't really the correct question, seeing as LED TV's today are actually LCD TV's.
The difference is that "normal" LCD TV's are back-lit with what looks like small flourescent bulb at either side normally. They use the black ink on the screen to blacken out dark areas in the image (very crude explanation) hence the back lighting comes through.
LED TV's are actually LCD TV's which have LED's providing the backlight. Some are side lit, as before, and these give a small advantage in that they can dim certain areas along the vertical array of light, giving a small amount of localised dimming for dark scenes, which improve the traditionally poor black levels of LCD's. They also allow much thinner panels.
The best ones however are the LCD TV's which have LED back lighting. This means that the LED's are arranged directly behind the LCD panel, and these allow localised dimming for dark scenes. These can achieve similar to Plasma levels of blackness, however sometimes they can be a little behind regarding detail in dark scenes.

ciaran75

if you want above 40" go with a plasma, LCD's are really bad above 40", black levels are crap.

have never had an LED but from what i read they are still some way off the plasma's, but will get there and replace them but just not yet.

since pioneer have pulled out of tv market, your best bet is the panasonic's, i hear they bought a lot of the pioneer R&D and their new tv's really are showing much improvment now.

d8player

ciaran75 wrote: »

if you want above 40" go with a plasma, LCD's are really bad above 40", black levels are crap.

have never had an LED but from what i read they are still some way off the plasma's, but will get there and replace them but just not yet.

since pioneer have pulled out of tv market, your best bet is the panasonic's, i hear they bought a lot of the pioneer R&D and their new tv's really are showing much improvment now.

LEDs (or LED backlit LCD screens to be correct) are about 15-25% more expensive than an equivalent Plasma. Also remember that LCD/LEDs have more vibrant colours so will look better in a show room but Plasmas will do better in your living room.

I found that for Pixar type stuff (Toy Story, Up etc) LCD/LEDs are better, for sports and action movies (such as bourne etc) or anything with dark imagery (Batman etc) then Plasma is better.

LCD/LEDs use less power and are slimmer (especially the LEDs) but can suffer from backlight bleeding into the image.

Freddie59

d8player wrote: »

LEDs (or LED backlit LCD screens to be correct) are about 15-25% more expensive than an equivalent Plasma. Also remember that LCD/LEDs have more vibrant colours so will look better in a show room but Plasmas will do better in your living room.

I found that for Pixar type stuff (Toy Story, Up etc) LCD/LEDs are better, for sports and action movies (such as bourne etc) or anything with dark imagery (Batman etc) then Plasma is better.

LCD/LEDs use less power and are slimmer (especially the LEDs) but can suffer from backlight bleeding into the image.

Get a Viera Plasma. You'll never look back (no pun intended).:)

belmulletman

If I could say one thing in this forum, it would be DO NOT GET A PLASMA.
From what I know, most companies don't make plasma's any more (For a reason) and all but the panasonics consume too much power and do not meet EU power consumption regulations!

Other downsides to plasma are: Heavy, generate a lot of heat, burn-in (while this has been largely remedied, it's still an issue to be aware of), Glass Screens (so glare issues), don't have the life span of LCD (regular or LED lit).

As long as you calibrate your tv correctly with a calibration tool, you'll get the best picture possible from the set. I'm more than amazed at the picture of my current TV (Philips 42PFL9664). It's regular Backlit (not LCD as I don't think they are there JUST yet and I'd only go for Backlit, not side lit).

That's just my 2 cents

belmulletman

Just found this interesting thread that talks about the pro's of Kuro Plasma (noted to be one of the best Plasmas out there) vs the Philips that I have.

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/326949.aspx

Appleblossom42

Plasmas use so much power but they are so much cheaper than LCD's or LED's. I was in the same predicament in March, couldn't decide between LCD and LED. In the end I chose the LCD as the LED was too new on the market. I got this...

http://www.samsung.com/ie/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/lcd-tv/LE40B650T2WXXC/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&tab=feature

I am so happy with it and the 100hz and 3D combing really does make everything pop. The colours are amazing and HD is absolutely stunning. After having the 40" about a week I was kicking myself I hadn't got a 42". Then I consoled myself when told Samsung don't do LCD's in 42".

Pat Gleeson

belmulletman wrote: »

If I could say one thing in this forum, it would be DO NOT GET A PLASMA.

Did you have a plasma ? I have a Pioneer, and I can say that I've yet to see any TV* give a better picture - especially on SD sources. No LED or LCD compares. Plasmas are by far the best for rendering movement, having faster response times, and much better contrast ratio.

I lost count of the number of LCD's sent back to the shop looking for a replacement / refund after connecting Chorus or an aerial.

*CRT's are best for SD.

Kristopherus

"*CRT's are best for SD. "
+ 1

The old CRTs are still by far the best for SD satellite reception via the av channel. I'm surprised that no-one, apart from Samsung, have made any effort to slim down the CRT. Last model that I'm aware of came from Sammy in 2007. The big advantage with the CRT is that a channel such as MSK that some people here are saying is pixillated on their LCDs is picture perfect on a CRT !!!!

zilog_jones

Yes, CRTs are much more forgiving with blocky or noisy pictures, and much better with interlaced content. And they still can't be beaten for contrast and brightness.

Those slim Samsung CRTs are shíte though! Geometry and convergence is the worst I've ever seen, even the cheap generic fake brands are better. I was in South Africa buying a new TV for the grandparents there and 4:3 CRT TVs are still widely available there - the non-slim LG sets were miles ahead in picture quality compared to the Samsungs.

Pat Gleeson

Kristopherus wrote: »

The old CRTs are still by far the best for SD satellite reception via the av channel. I'm surprised that no-one, apart from Samsung, have made any effort to slim down the CRT.

The Samsung Slimfit CRT's had reliability problems because of the slimmed down rear cabinet - hence the name 'Slimfit'. The picture quality was excellent. The set had a HDMI connection and the screen was HD 720p resolution. It's a pity they broke down too often.

zilog_jones

Oh yeah, forgot about that HD model. I was talking about the SD sets above, which were terrible.

The Cush

zilog_jones wrote: »

I was talking about the SD sets above, which were terrible.

I agree, my brother still has one. An obvious display problem with his set is when the Sky box is switched on via scart the picture is degraded with rolling lines which is resolved by exiting AV and then returning.

ciaran75

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

Did you have a plasma ? I have a Pioneer, and I can say that I've yet to see any TV* give a better picture - especially on SD sources. No LED or LCD compares. Plasmas are by far the best for rendering movement, having faster response times, and much better contrast ratio.

I lost count of the number of LCD's sent back to the shop looking for a replacement / refund after connecting Chorus or an aerial.

*CRT's are best for SD.

+1

i've one of the Pioneer Kuro 50" also and the picture is amazing quality.

watty

LED backlight LCD can be better or worse than CFL backlight LCD.

Compare properly adjusted models in showroom with similar lighting to your home, with "dynamic contrast" and other marketing widgets that make picture worse turned off.

You need an "Full HD" or "HD Ready" LCD or Plasma for SD TV to have same quality as good CRT. Really. There is a mathematical proof as to why and your eyes will confirm it.

fryup

i've got a philips 28" widescreen CRT, and the picture quality is way ahead on SD compared to my brother's LCD philips, esp when watching football