[iliveinalaska]

Hello everyone,


I will most likely go 40-42", but 46-47" is not out of the question.


Glare is a huge concern. The Tv will be facing South with southern windows only 13' away. Would like to stick with a matte screen if possible.


Sitting 8 to 10 feet away. Angled viewing. HD TV though cable and a few movies (no gaming).


I don't need the best, but will not stand for cheap build quality. This will be an interim TV for the next few years and nothing more.


Thanks!!

 

[Matt L]

Tough call. Issues with off angle and glare, you'll have to decide which is more important, a decent image sometime with plasma or reduced glare and a poor image off angle all the time. BTW. most LCD sets are using glossy screens now too.


My current favorite budget set is the 50" 720p plasma from Panasonic. Very good image and running just a bit over 500 for the holidays...

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

also keep in mind that around here, a lot of people's idea of "poor viewing angle" is pretty askew. Glare can make a tv practically unwatchable. Off-axis issues usually just drop the contrast a bit. On most modern LCD's its not even noticeable unless you specifically look for it.


For example; to notice any drop in contrast on my tv I had to turn out all the lights, drop the backlight to 1 and go over 70 degrees off axis to notice any change at all and the change was very slight. It was only noticeable because I was looking for it. I normally keep my backlight at 6 and watch TV with at least a single light on behind me (high enough up that there is no glare from the screen, but even so the matte screen on my tv defeats glare like a champ) and under those conditions, off-axis degradation is completely unnoticeable.

 

[iliveinalaska]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L /forum/post/19543644


Tough call. Issues with off angle and glare, you'll have to decide which is more important

Assume glare is more important because a nice wall mount could negate the majority of my off angle concerns.


What brand and/or model should I be looking at for glare issues?

 

[NuSoardGraphite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by iliveinalaska /forum/post/19543674


Assume glare is more important because a nice wall mount could negate the majority of my off angle concerns.


What brand and/or model should I be looking at for glare issues?

Samsung A550


Matte screen and good picture quality. Solid viewing angle. It is a 2008 model and hard to find though.


Matte screen is going the way of the dodo. Most of the new Samsung models are glossy screened. Maybe LG has some nice matte screened models. Vizio does, but I wouldn't recommend anything but their best models.

 

[chinee]

Sony EX500 or EX700

Samsung C650

... and a few LGs and Vizios


The matte screens differ in their effectiveness, so it's best to see them in person yourself.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by chinee /forum/post/19544342


Sony EX500 or EX700

Samsung C650

... and a few LGs and Vizios


The matte screens differ in their effectiveness, so it's best to see them in person yourself.

Samsung C650 is matte? I thought it was glossy. If that's the case, I would recommend that set, but I only have experience with the A650 which while a GREAT set, has a glossy screen, so glare and reflection are a strong possibility with this set (it handles ambient light like a champ though)

 

[QZ1]

No, C650 is glossy; C630 is matte.

 

[neoshredder27]

Yeah get the C630.

 

[Matt L]



Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite /forum/post/19543659


also keep in mind that around here, a lot of people's idea of "poor viewing angle" is pretty askew. Glare can make a tv practically unwatchable. Off-axis issues usually just drop the contrast a bit. On most modern LCD's its not even noticeable unless you specifically look for it.


For example; to notice any drop in contrast on my tv I had to turn out all the lights, drop the backlight to 1 and go over 70 degrees off axis to notice any change at all and the change was very slight. It was only noticeable because I was looking for it. I normally keep my backlight at 6 and watch TV with at least a single light on behind me (high enough up that there is no glare from the screen, but even so the matte screen on my tv defeats glare like a champ) and under those conditions, off-axis degradation is completely unnoticeable.

No, I would not say my idea of a poor viewing angle is askew. I own a 40" Samsung B650 and straight on the picture is Ok, but if you move off to the side or stand up the image is milky and the colors fade. That is just a simple fact of life with any LCD based unit. True, some more than others, but true of every LCD based product. This set was relegated to a bedroom use since viewing there is pretty much fixed. I found it unacceptable in a normal viewing situation where people are at random places in relation to the screen.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L /forum/post/19547447


No, I would not say my idea of a poor viewing angle is askew. I own a 40" Samsung B650 and straight on the picture is Ok, but if you move off to the side or stand up the image is milky and the colors fade. That is just a simple fact of life with any LCD based unit. True, some more than others, but true of every LCD based product. This set was relegated to a bedroom use since viewing there is pretty much fixed. I found it unacceptable in a normal viewing situation where people are at random places in relation to the screen.

That's very odd then. I have an A530 and the picture never looks "milky" from the off-angles. I know the exact effect you are describing because my girl friend's laptop panel does this when you go even just a few degrees off center. My LCD never does this. I have a friend who owns an A650, and it doesn't do it either. I've tried to get both my own TV and my friends A650 to degrade while sitting in an extreme angle. It took what I described above to notice even a slight drop in contrast on my own set and even so, that "milky" look never appeared.

I have another friend who owns a Vizio LCD. Not sure which model number. I'm pretty sure he watches it in dynamic mode because the colors are off quite a bit. Under normal circumstances, his tv doesn't do it either, however the other day they had a program paused and while I was standing in the kitchen probably about 70 or so degrees off axis, I noticed that milky quality. When the image was unpaused, it disappeared though. I thought that was very strange. I tested my own TV later, but still didn't notice the effect, even with a still image on screen.


Could this be an eyesight issue? My eyes aren't very good, but I'm close to 20/20 with my glasses on. I honestly don't understand why some people continue to talk about how bad LCD viewing angles are when I can't see very much degradation at all (I see some slight degradation on a few LCD models, on most I don't see any unless I take great pains to do so). I do see the effect people are talking about on many computer monitors, but not often at all on HDTV's. I have noticed degradation while observing some of the newer Edge-lit LED models, but on modern CCFL sets it's a non-issue for me.


Guess we'll have to chalk this one up to differences in perception yet again.

 

[HTguru3]



Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite /forum/post/19547814


That's very odd then. I have an A530 and the picture never looks "milky" from the off-angles. I know the exact effect you are describing because my girl friend's laptop panel does this when you go even just a few degrees off center. My LCD never does this. I have a friend who owns an A650, and it doesn't do it either. I've tried to get both my own TV and my friends A650 to degrade while sitting in an extreme angle. It took what I described above to notice even a slight drop in contrast on my own set and even so, that "milky" look never appeared.

I have another friend who owns a Vizio LCD. Not sure which model number. I'm pretty sure he watches it in dynamic mode because the colors are off quite a bit. Under normal circumstances, his tv doesn't do it either, however the other day they had a program paused and while I was standing in the kitchen probably about 70 or so degrees off axis, I noticed that milky quality. When the image was unpaused, it disappeared though. I thought that was very strange. I tested my own TV later, but still didn't notice the effect, even with a still image on screen.


Could this be an eyesight issue? My eyes aren't very good, but I'm close to 20/20 with my glasses on. I honestly don't understand why some people continue to talk about how bad LCD viewing angles are when I can't see very much degradation at all (I see some slight degradation on a few LCD models, on most I don't see any unless I take great pains to do so). I do see the effect people are talking about on many computer monitors, but not often at all on HDTV's. I have noticed degradation while observing some of the newer Edge-lit LED models, but on modern CCFL sets it's a non-issue for me.


Guess we'll have to chalk this one up to differences in perception yet again.

I know you have said this several times on this forum, but being an owner of the exact same model of yours, I can attest that the colors do fade when viewing from the side and not just a slight degradation. Enough to wear it's obvious. Fortunately in my situation it's in a small family room with viewing pretty much straight on and used mainly by my wife (who likely wouldn't see the issue anyway as she thought our old JVC CRT had a great picture (it wasn't HD and awful). It's not just mentioned by people in this forum but almost every test done by reputable sources constantly point out viewing angle as an issue with an LCD panel. Why would they do that if it isn't an issue?

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HTguru3 I know you have said this several times on this forum, but being an owner of the exact same model of yours, I can attest that the colors do fade when viewing from the side and not just a slight degradation. Enough to wear it's obvious. Fortunately in my situation it's in a small family room with viewing pretty much straight on and used mainly by my wife (who likely wouldn't see the issue anyway as she thought our old JVC CRT had a great picture (it wasn't HD and awful). It's not just mentioned by people in this forum but almost every test done by reputable sources constantly point out viewing angle as an issue with an LCD panel. Why would they do that if it isn't an issue?

I know that it used to be a major issue. When I worked at Best Buy and LCD's first started to be used as monitors and TV's, they had some of the most gawd awful viewing angles I've ever seen. Even worse than the old front projection tv's from back in the day (and those had such awful viewing angles, I won't touch any kind of projection tv to this day) But when I started seriously shopping for TV's back in 2007, I found that LCD's had improved a thousandfold in this department. I looked at all the LCD's in the store and thought "oh, they've fixed it" and I haven't looked back since. Sure, I saw a few low budget models (Westinghouse, Dynex etc) that still had crappy viewing angles, but they were models I would never consider purchasing anyway. Starting around 2008, I don't recall seeing any LCD's with (what I would consider) poor viewing angles. Thats why it puzzles me as to why people still say they still have them. I think a more appropriate statement would be that they have "poorer viewing angles than plasma or CRT".


I understand that very nearly the whole of the videophile community thinks that LCD's have poor viewing angles, and this is backed up by testing and various measuring devices. But regardless of all the testing and data, I simply cannot see this viewing angle issue, and on the rare occasions I do see it, it is so slight as to be a non-issue. This is coming from a guy who as a kid, got stuck watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time on a Front Projection CRT from a very bad angle, bad enough to where I couldn't really tell what was going on and on the spot, decided never to own a TV that had poor viewing angles like that one...and here I am 30 years later with an LCD in my home. I still refuse to own any kind of projection tv because of that (and other) experience.


I liken this to the whole "Motion blur issue". C-Net did testing on a bunch of TV's and determined which TV's resolved the most number of lines during scenes with high amounts of motion. The data they acquired showed some pretty drastic differences between varying display types and models, but when they sat back and watched the various displays with the naked eye, they couldn't really tell the difference between them. They could discern no noticeable blurring in the scenes. The data said the differences should have been obvious, but they weren't. Viewing angle issues with LCD's are like that for me. Despite what all the experts and hobbyists say, I just don't see the problem with my own eyes, and for me that's the experience that counts in the end.

 

[HTguru3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite I know that it used to be a major issue. When I worked at Best Buy and LCD's first started to be used as monitors and TV's, they had some of the most gawd awful viewing angles I've ever seen. Even worse than the old front projection tv's from back in the day (and those had such awful viewing angles, I won't touch any kind of projection tv to this day) But when I started seriously shopping for TV's back in 2007, I found that LCD's had improved a thousandfold in this department. I looked at all the LCD's in the store and thought "oh, they've fixed it" and I haven't looked back since. Sure, I saw a few low budget models (Westinghouse, Dynex etc) that still had crappy viewing angles, but they were models I would never consider purchasing anyway. Starting around 2008, I don't recall seeing any LCD's with (what I would consider) poor viewing angles. Thats why it puzzles me as to why people still say they still have them. I think a more appropriate statement would be that they have "poorer viewing angles than plasma or CRT". I understand that very nearly the whole of the videophile community thinks that LCD's have poor viewing angles, and this is backed up by testing and various measuring devices. But regardless of all the testing and data, I simply cannot see this viewing angle issue, and on the rare occasions I do see it, it is so slight as to be a non-issue. This is coming from a guy who as a kid, got stuck watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time on a Front Projection CRT from a very bad angle, bad enough to where I couldn't really tell what was going on and on the spot, decided never to own a TV that had poor viewing angles like that one...and here I am 30 years later with an LCD in my home. I still refuse to own any kind of projection tv because of that (and other) experience. I liken this to the whole "Motion blur issue". C-Net did testing on a bunch of TV's and determined which TV's resolved the most number of lines during scenes with high amounts of motion. The data they acquired showed some pretty drastic differences between varying display types and models, but when they sat back and watched the various displays with the naked eye, they couldn't really tell the difference between them. They could discern no noticeable blurring in the scenes. The data said the differences should have been obvious, but they weren't. Viewing angle issues with LCD's are like that for me. Despite what all the experts and hobbyists say, I just don't see the problem with my own eyes, and for me that's the experience that counts in the end.

I understand that many of these flaws are viewer dependent but I also think you are doing a disservice to the people coming to this forum looking for advice when you have stated over and over again that it doesn't exist or isn't an issue. It is definitely something someone needs to be aware of and should check out on their own as I know that it's an issue with mine (same set as yours) but not a deal breaker since it's in a small room with pretty much all seating areas pretty close to straight on. If it were in a room where it was more open and some of the viewing areas were off to the side, I would disappointed.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HTguru3 I understand that many of these flaws are viewer dependent but I also think you are doing a disservice to the people coming to this forum looking for advice when you have stated over and over again that it doesn't exist or isn't an issue. It is definitely something someone needs to be aware of and should check out on their own as I know that it's an issue with mine (same set as yours) but not a deal breaker since it's in a small room with pretty much all seating areas pretty close to straight on. If it were in a room where it was more open and some of the viewing areas were off to the side, I would disappointed.

I don't think I'm doing anyone a disservice. If anything, I'm simply encouraging people to view both technologies with an open mind and to pick whichever one they find most appealing, which is pretty much what I did when I went HDTV shopping.

 

[jakkim]

I had a similar issue in that I have a lot of windows so I was concerned about glare. I ended up purchasing a Samsung LN630A about 2 years ago, which at the time was basically the equivalent of the 650A but with a matte screen.


The screen on the 630 did a great job of reducing glare from lamps ect, and the TV was always watchable. However, during the right conditions even the matte screen wasn't enough and it made playing games or watching movies, or watching any dark screens almost impossible.


If I had a due over I would personally get the best pq possible rather than getting a TV just for it's matte screen. As mentioned above even with the matte finish there were still issues so I would let overall pq be the deciding factor.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakkim /forum/post/19555802


I had a similar issue in that I have a lot of windows so I was concerned about glare. I ended up purchasing a Samsung LN630A about 2 years ago, which at the time was basically the equivalent of the 650A but with a matte screen.


The screen on the 630 did a great job of reducing glare from lamps ect, and the TV was always watchable. However, during the right conditions even the matte screen wasn't enough and it made playing games or watching movies, or watching any dark screens almost impossible.


If I had a due over I would personally get the best pq possible rather than getting a TV just for it's matte screen. As mentioned above even with the matte finish there were still issues so I would let overall pq be the deciding factor.

I have yet to find a situation where my TV's matte screen didn't defeat the potential glare. And I used to have direct sunlight coming into one of my windows in the evening and it would shine directly on to the tv (from about 30 degree angle) and the tv powered through even that. I would rather not have had the light shinning on the tv as it did wash out the picture somewhat, but it was far from unwatchable. With my old CRT, a single bulb lamp was enough to make that sucker unwatchable (bright white orb perfectly reflected on the screen which obscured the picture partially) but with my current LCD, I have a 5 bulb chandelier style lamp hanging in between the couch and the TV. On a glossy screened tv, the bulbs would be reflected by the screen. Not so with my LCD's matte screen. Zero glare issues here.


Matte screen. When absolutely, positively must have every light on in the room.....accept no substitute!

 

[Tbyrne]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ditto ditto ditto ditto