[Jumpem]

I returned two Vizio 70 P's. The FALD was excellent, but the viewing angles were terrible.


Now I have a LG UF8500. The viewing angles from the IPS panel are great, and the colors seem more vibrant the Vizio. However, the light bleed in the corners is a major negative. Dark scenes also don't look quite right. Likely due to the lower contrast of the panel.


I am seriously considering just sticking with my DLP for a while longer hoping something problem free comes along. It is dumbfounding to me that in the eight and a half years since I got it, that the TV offerings are in this state.

 

[mattg3]

My 13 year old Pioneer 433cmx plasma still looks better than any LCD out there.Come on OLED hurry the hell up and drop those prices.

 

[wxman]

LCD is a mature technology. If they haven't been able to fix it's flaws by now, they probably never will.

 

[Jumpem]

LCD is a mature technology. If they haven't been able to fix it's flaws by now, they probably never will.

Exactly. So then why are all of the TV manufacturers (minus LG) so stuck on it? Why not start looking for something better? Why not improve on plasma and DLP?

 

[sytech]

I returned two Vizio 70 P's. The FALD was excellent, but the viewing angles were terrible.


Now I have a LG UF8500. The viewing angles from the IPS panel are great, and the colors seem more vibrant the Vizio. However, the light bleed in the corners is a major negative. Dark scenes also don't look quite right. Likely due to the lower contrast of the panel.


I am seriously considering just sticking with my DLP for a while longer hoping something problem free comes along. It is dumbfounding to me that in the eight and a half years since I got it, that the TV offerings are in this state.

Sounds like you need an OLED.

 

[bpmurr]

Sounds like you need an OLED.

To only get overly aggressive ABL that isn't needed? Lets not pretend OLED is without flaw.

 

[sharok]

I went to BestBuy today and looked at the new Samsung (I think it was a JS9000) and I wasn't impressed with it at all. To be honest with you, I think we need to wait at least until CES 2016 to see a very good TV set (which I bet it will be an OLED) with a reasonable price.
Sony claims that it made the thinnest TV, what about the picture quality???
LG's 2015 OLED has not been reviewed yet which is very expensive.


Nothing else is worth mentioning

 

[bpmurr]

I went to BestBuy today and looked at the new Samsung (I think it was a JS9000) and I wasn't impressed with it at all. To be honest with you, I think we need to wait at least until CES 2016 to see a very good TV set (which I bet it will be an OLED) with a reasonable price.
Sony claims that it made the thinnest TV, what about the picture quality???
LG's 2015 OLED has not been reviewed yet which is very expensive.


Nothing else is worth mentioning

I bought the 55EC9300, but the JS9000 is a sweet set. I'll probably go with the flat JS8500. OLED has a lot of promise, but needs some more time.

 

[wxman]

Exactly. So then why are all of the TV manufacturers (minus LG) so stuck on it? Why not start looking for something better? Why not improve on plasma and DLP?

I agree, but plasma is dead. 4K plasma would be ridiculously expensive. Doubling the plasma cells would not only consume a lot of energy, thus failing energy standards, but the heat and buzzing would be a lot worse.

 

[zgeneral]

I returned two Vizio 70 P's. The FALD was excellent, but the viewing angles were terrible.


Now I have a LG UF8500. The viewing angles from the IPS panel are great, and the colors seem more vibrant the Vizio. However, the light bleed in the corners is a major negative. Dark scenes also don't look quite right. Likely due to the lower contrast of the panel.


I am seriously considering just sticking with my DLP for a while longer hoping something problem free comes along. It is dumbfounding to me that in the eight and a half years since I got it, that the TV offerings are in this state.

Why would anyone be really? LCD has always played second fiddle to plasma. 4K doesn't really get you anything. The vast majority of media is NOT 4K in any way shape or form. The advantages you do get from 4K media are pretty minor for that media that is made in 4K natively.

Find a used plasma or ante up for an OLED.

 

[tgm1024]

4K doesn't really get you anything. The vast majority of media is NOT 4K in any way shape or form. The advantages you do get from 4K media are pretty minor for that media that is made in 4K natively.

Nonsense.

 

[Ken Ross]

Why would anyone be really? LCD has always played second fiddle to plasma. 4K doesn't really get you anything. The vast majority of media is NOT 4K in any way shape or form. The advantages you do get from 4K media are pretty minor for that media that is made in 4K natively.

Find a used plasma or ante up for an OLED.

You can keep posting this nonsense, but it won't make it any truer the 1st time or the 50th time.

 

[sytech]

To only get overly aggressive ABL that isn't needed? Lets not pretend OLED is without flaw.

OLED has many minor flaws, especially for so high a price, but he clearly stated he needed large viewing angles and does not like light bleed. So the best solution for his needs would probably be an OLED display if he can afford one.

 

[henrich3]

4K is worthwhile upgrade, but only if you sit close enough for your eyes to resolve the higher resolution. For example, if you have a true 4K source and a 65" 4K display, that means a viewing distance of less than 7 feet. If your viewing distance is further, there's no picture quality benefit that would justify paying more for that feature. The people who will benefit most from 4K aren't the TV watchers, they're the folks running projectors with 100" or larger screens.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ -

 

[SledgeHammer]

4K is worthwhile upgrade, but only if you sit close enough for your eyes to resolve the higher resolution. For example, if you have a true 4K source and a 65" 4K display, that means a viewing distance of less than 7 feet. If your viewing distance is further, there's no picture quality benefit that would justify paying more for that feature. The people who will benefit most from 4K aren't the TV watchers, they're the folks running projectors with 100" or larger screens.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ -

I know you didn't make this chart, so I'm not blaming you, but its really quite idiotic. I have a 50" 1080P plasma right now and I sit around 13' - 15' away and I can assure you I can tell the difference between SD and 1080P or 4K LOL. According to this chart, I should barely be able to appreciate 480P.

You really need to stop taking this nonsense as gospel as use those two little white things in the front of your head .

 

[WarpedTrekker]

4K is worthwhile upgrade, but only if you sit close enough for your eyes to resolve the higher resolution. For example, if you have a true 4K source and a 65" 4K display, that means a viewing distance of less than 7 feet. If your viewing distance is further, there's no picture quality benefit that would justify paying more for that feature. The people who will benefit most from 4K aren't the TV watchers, they're the folks running projectors with 100" or larger screens.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ -

More nonsense. A lot of people can easily see the difference between 720p/1080p/4K at 15+ feet distance, on smallish 50-60" screens. Hurry up 4K and get more affordable! And really movie theaters with their Gigantic screens could benefit from even greater resolution, 10K+. 4K/6K on movie theater screen still doesn't look sharp.

 

[tgm1024]

I've been around and around the reasons why the CB chart fails; I'm not going to do it again. It's a matter of the initial premise the calculations were based upon.

 

[henrich3]

I have a 50" 1080P plasma right now and I sit around 13' - 15' away and I can assure you I can tell the difference between SD and 1080P or 4K LOL. According to this chart, I should barely be able to appreciate 480P.

Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance -
The human visual system has a fixed capacity to detect detail from a distance. Our understanding of limitations with regard to visual detail recognition and identification from a distance is primarily based on the work of Dr. Hermann Snellen. Dr. Snellen developed the eye examination chart that bears his name (Snellen Chart). From his findings and the work of others over the last hundred years, one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified by a person with normal vision. An arcminute is an angular measurement, which is equal to 1/60 of one degree of a circle. Normal vision is referenced as 20/20 in North America. The visual acuity threshold has been identified as a constraint factor in the recommendations on the optimum viewing distance for HDTV, and also in formal research that comment on the subject of television and angular resolution. Assuming display is flat, with 1 arcminute as the constraint for seeing critical detail, in order not to miss any detail a viewer would need to be situated at a position where their view angle to a 1080p HDTV is approximately 31.2 degrees or greater, and for 2160p HDTV approximately 58.37 degrees or greater...

A 50" display viewed from 14' would provide a 15 degree viewing angle. According to the research, your viewing distance isn't close enough to fully resolve 1080p, let alone 4K. I suspect that your testing methodology differs from Dr. Snellen's...

 

[SledgeHammer]

A 50" display viewed from 14' would provide a 15 degree viewing angle. According to the research, your viewing distance isn't close enough to fully resolve 1080p, let alone 4K. I suspect that your testing methodology differs from Dr. Snellen's...

*shrug* So stick to VHS . Everybody else can tell the difference. Doesn't mean we can pick out a green pixel next to a brown pixel.

 

[tgm1024]

Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance -
The human visual system has a fixed capacity to detect detail from a distance. Our understanding of limitations with regard to visual detail recognition and identification from a distance is primarily based on the work of Dr. Hermann Snellen. Dr. Snellen developed the eye examination chart that bears his name (Snellen Chart). From his findings and the work of others over the last hundred years, one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified by a person with normal vision. An arcminute is an angular measurement, which is equal to 1/60 of one degree of a circle. Normal vision is referenced as 20/20 in North America. The visual acuity threshold has been identified as a constraint factor in the recommendations on the optimum viewing distance for HDTV, and also in formal research that comment on the subject of television and angular resolution. Assuming display is flat, with 1 arcminute as the constraint for seeing critical detail, in order not to miss any detail a viewer would need to be situated at a position where their view angle to a 1080p HDTV is approximately 31.2 degrees or greater, and for 2160p HDTV approximately 58.37 degrees or greater...

A 50" display viewed from 14' would provide a 15 degree viewing angle. According to the research, your viewing distance isn't close enough to fully resolve 1080p, let alone 4K. I suspect that your testing methodology differs from Dr. Snellen's...

Wikipedia. {sigh} Again we see this referred to as an authority. Please use the references of the citations (if indeed there are any) and read those. Those are the links we need.

Wikipedia is not an authority of itself. I've found many errors in wikipedia pages, and wikipedia is not peer-reviewed. Peer review means review by peers only and not by peers and a bunch of 19 year olds in college who think they know what they're talking about.