Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here

Contrast Ratio VS Refresh Rate

6302 Views 6 Replies 3 Participants Last post by DBLASS, May 14, 2007

Icebreaka

Discussion Starter · May 11, 2007

Hi all,

I'm brand new to the forum so my apologies if this has been covered already. I looked around a bit and didn't see it.

Last weekend without doing a lot of research I bought a Samsung LNT5265 52 Inch LCD. I was thinking about it for a while and decided to just take the plunge based on some incentives and having some money right now. I was trying to decide between that set and the Sharp Aquos LC52D82U. They both looked nice but the Samsung was a better price and had the 15000:1 contrast ratio compared to the 10000:1 of the Sharp.

I don't get the TV for about a month still so I started checking around a bit more and looking at the TVs again and found that the Sharp has the 120 Hz Refresh Rate compared to the 60 Hz of the Samsung. On my second time to the shop the guy showed me a demo on one unit where the text in a box moves across the screen. One side is at 60 whlie the other is at 120. The text was near impossible to read at 60 hz but quite clear at 120.

Now I'm suffering from a little buyers remorse. Is the Hz more important than the contrast. What's the general opinion on those two sets?

Any help would be appreciated, I'm quite a newbie in this arena of A/V

Save

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

bigblaze

· #2 · May 11, 2007

One thing that I have learned from reading these forums is that there isn't a standard on how companies come up with their contrast ratios, making it difficult to tell which is "better" by the specs.

I looked at an 82U today and was pleasantly surprised by the difference 120Hz can make.

Save

Icebreaka

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 11, 2007

Now you've definitely got me rethinking heh. I can still change my mind on the whole thing so that's why I'm fishing for thoughts.

Save

DBLASS

· #4 · May 11, 2007

The contrast ratio number listed is absolutely MEANINGLESS. If you want, I can scientifically explain it to you but sufice it to say, they are worthless numbers.

120Hz vs 60Hz will improve motion burring, but it will come at a price, big $$$. If you are not affected by blurring on the set, save the money.

Save

Icebreaka

Discussion Starter · #5 · May 11, 2007

Okay so basically if you had to choose contrast ratio vs Hz there would be no question you'd go for the Hz? THere was a sale on recently where it was only about $100 more for the Sharp so I might be able to beat them into giving me that. I guess 60Hz doesn't suck really though just compared to 120 Hz.

Save

Icebreaka

Discussion Starter · #6 · May 14, 2007

Hate to be a thread bumper but I'm still agonizing over this decision a bit. I went in and looked again today and tried to watch for motion blur on the demo screens going on for Casino Royale. I really can't say I could notice it so maybe I'm overthinking it. I will play a lot of games on it so that might make the big difference. Does viewing distance make a difference in noticing motion blur though? I'll be about 12 feet back so maybe its more forgiving at that distance?

Save

DBLASS

· #7 · May 14, 2007

If you are not having any issue with motion on a standard display, buy one now and enjoy it. If you are bothered by it or fear buying an inferior product, wait until the second year 120Hz is out. In high tech, the first year of any "real" technology comes with a price. 120Hz sets will cost more than 60Hz sets.

Save

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month