Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB
The difference is that each of the picture quality categories are independent characteristics that do not require balancing their worth against a completely unrelated number just to give them a numerical value. Value requires a comparison of two unrelated things: price and quality. A TV's score in black level should not affect it's score in motion resolution. Likewise, it's score in "price" should not affect it's score in any picture quality category. And yet, most reviews out there do just that. They give a display a higher PQ score than it deserves because it is cheap. And that makes it impossible to determine how much better the PQ on an expensive display is compared to a cheap one.
I'm not saying that price shouldn't be a consideration when purchasing a display. I'd even be ok if there were a "price" category in the shootout, where the displays are ranked on price and that then becomes a factor in determining the overall winner in terms of "bang for your buck". What I don't want to see is people saying, this TV has good black levels for the price so I'm going to give it a 9 in black levels, even though it's not even close to a more expensive display to which you also gave a 9 in black level scoring.
Btw, I think your idea of a buyer's search/comparison tool that allows you to pick the categories that are most important to you is wonderful.
i may have misunderstood what you wanted. i was under the impression you WANTED value to be included... half of your above reply seems to indicate you don't like reviewers taking price into consideration when scoring performance, something i completely agree with. a black level of .002ftl should get the same score whether it's a 500 or 5000 dollar display
i don't believe anything needs to be compared(black level compared to motion). the fact is some ppl will see an mll of .002ftl and lose their minds at how bright it is, while others will be amazed at how black it is. that could be said of every category.
ppl have 'tolerances' to all of these, and the price/value is not special in that regard. for example, if i saw a tv that had 9's across the board, and then a 6 for motion i'd probably be ok with that. if i see one with all 9's except black score, i'm not even going to consider the tv.
to the best of my knowledge, the scores given at the shootout are NOT related to price. and i'm not sure why you'd want them to be(which is how i interpret a 'value' category to be). i don't think anybody needs to do the math for us. give us the performance score, list the price, we can decide the rest. it's bad enough that the market is generally lowering quality in order to hit that 'value' sweet spot. i really don't think we want to crown the 'best display' based on how many corners they can cut.
reminds me of the first time i ran a catapult contest for my physics class, and to stop them from bringing in these war-machines i said their score would be the distance divided by the weight. so one catapult throws 100+feet and gets last place, and another throws 4inches and wins, because it was made of styrofoam and weighed nothing.
i mean do you really want a 300dollar chinese crap tv to win just because it's /20th the price of a tv that's 'only' 15x better? i don't