Originally Posted by PEI AVR GUY
So I jumped right in with Kandionkhrome settings (thanks) on all my inputs and have been impressed with the quality of this TV. However, once a TV is out of the store and in your house with no TV to Compare to, Hard not to be impressed.
With the tv up and running, I put it through its paces to see how it looked with pictures from different sources (Note I am a "light on" while I watch TV person as I find too much strain on my eyes with complete dark):
1. Satellite TV: Picture was great both in the day (large window to its left) and night. The picture had tons of pop and didn't present any significant blurring. I am an avid sports fan so watched the Masters, NHL game on NBC, and NBA on ABC yesterday and tv presented each of them with great color and no blurring was seen. Was shocked by how real the picture was especially the greens in Augusta. I also decided to watch the Masters in 3d, and i did not notice a drop in resolution from the HD feed to the 3d Feed. I know it has been written about the halving of resolution but I couldn't see it. It was an enjoyable 3D experience and felt as if I was there on some of the greens.
2. PS3: I played NBA2K11 as it is my favorite game that I have. I notice, no lag or blurring when I played. However, I wasn't online so I can't comment on that. I can say the 3D effect was very pronounced and comfortable. Again, the game looked the same from a resolution perspective and was fun to play.
3. 2D-3D: Played with this a little, but can say it does create a good effect with sports games but as expected its not great for every camera shot. However, it does add a nice element for those people wanting to change their viewing of TV. Nice add on.
4. I didn't have a 3D movie so I couldn't test its effect but blu-ray looked great with the dark knight. color tones were real and the film looked fantastic.
5. Audio: I am set up on a Harmon AVR354 so I don't plan to use the TV's speakers.
Overall, I did a lot of research online and read too many articles about TVs to confuse me more about my decision. I weighed plasma versus LED, 120 Versus 240, active versus passive. The decision tree was:
Plasma V. LED: Wife is a energy Efficiency engineer so Plasma wasn't going to cut it plus our room is well lit on a regular basis so LED was the best option.
120 Versus 240: Read a few articles that suggested that 120 v 240 isn't visible to the human eye. I think CNET poled 3 experts and it was 2:1 on unable to see. So I went to the local store and watched lord of rings and notice that the 240 created smoothing effect that made Computer gen objects look transposed on the screen. really taking the illusion away and making it look fake. Another friend of mine turned his new tv down to 120 for watching sports; so I decide on the 120 hz model.
Active vs. Passive: was close to buying the C8000 63 Samsung but didn't like the weight or the "sputtering" in the active glasses. I wanted to future proof my TV a little with 3D but couldn't see why active was so great given its requirement for head position and flickering in the glasses. Saw the passive tv in a local shop and was impressed with the image quality and the lack of "crosstalk". So it made the option much more clearer for me.
I hope this helps someone.