Originally Posted by JackVette
The 80" shows a refresh rate of 240 Hz. The 90" shows a refresh rate of 120 Hz.
Are you saying that they both have the same refresh rate of 75 Hz? Or is the thought that there is no distinguishable difference since source material is only 60 Hz anyway.
The implicaiton from the SHARP site is that the 80" has better specs other than size?
Yes 75 Hz is the max new image refresh rate these displays will support & most if not all source material is @ 60 ( Unless you are using the display as a computer monitor )
I M H O , I feel the 3 color pixel is a superior display , I feel the 632 is a better display over a 844 , BUT , the 632 is not 3D , the 90" is 3D & 3 color pixel .
Not saying that 4 pixel color is bad ..........................
but I can't tell the difference at all & most if not all calibrators say there is no real reason to have the 4th pixel .
My feeling is that the Full Back Lighted Arrays over a edge lit display are a WAY bigger issue , than the 240 480 issue & the 4 color Pixel issue .
All the major Electronics industries these days , the stats are Vague & Misleading ( the marketing dept. is now involved in publishing the numbers ) .
Case in point , how most all of the new AVR's on the listed watts per channel line in their stats pages are a blatant lie .
bench tests have proved that when 5 or 7 speakers are pushed by a modern AVR that the listed wattage per channel drops to near half of the stated watts per channel OR even lower in some of the budget AVR's .Edited by Fastslappy - 11/6/12 at 9:31am