AVS Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm thinking about taking back my 64u and maybe getting the 82u based on the fact that it is 120 hz, is the 120 hz that much better? I do watch a lot of sports (football, basketball and baseball sometimes) and I would like to know if the 82u is much better than my 64u. I have also been looking at the sony xbr4's and samsung 71 series.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I'm tossing between these two TVs as well, at the moment, and if anybody has some insight, I'd appreciate it. Right now the price difference between the two sets is about $170. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
I bought the 82U when it first came out last year (I even started the 82U owners thread) and I will start by saying yes, 120Hz makes a huge difference.


Before I bought my 82U I spent almost a year researching TV's and didn't want anything above 42''. I was waiting for the sharp 42D72Us to come in, which was pretty much the same TV just 42'' with no 120Hz but before they arived the 82U came in. I was blown away, I had spent months and months watching Sharp's tech demo video and could point out just about every flaw in it (The lizzard streaks when moving back and forth on the branch, the water gets kind of "Boxy" in the underwater rock scene, the seaweed streaks as well when moving quickly) but this TV displayed everything perfectly, as opposed to the 72U which had the same stat line without the 120Hz. I bought the TV right then and there and haven't regreted it once for the last year.


The 64U is alot slimmer (The 82U is a bit of a beast to move around) but the lack of 120Hz is a HUGE hit. Go for the 82, you won't be dissapointed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven476 /forum/post/13309765


The 64U is alot slimmer (The 82U is a bit of a beast to move around) but the lack of 120Hz is a HUGE hit. Go for the 82, you won't be dissapointed.

you might want to consider the new 94U it's a lot slimmer and its 120 Hz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Thanks for the input, folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven476 /forum/post/13309765


The 64U is alot slimmer (The 82U is a bit of a beast to move around) but the lack of 120Hz is a HUGE hit. Go for the 82, you won't be dissapointed.

But it's not really 120hz refresh processing; it's just 120hz file conversion, as I understand it. Am I wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themajickman /forum/post/13309920


you might want to consider the new 94U it's a lot slimmer and its 120 Hz

I'm trying to stay ~$1500 +/- a little bit. I can currently get the 46D64U for $1405 delivered; the 46D82U is ~$1575 shipped.


Of course, since Sony has discontinued the 80gb PS3, and I can't find NOS 60gb PS3s anywhere, and it looks like there's going to be a major announcement within a month, I'll probably be waiting that long to buy the TV now anyway. Perhaps the 94U will come down a bit by then.


Thanks again!


[edit]


FWIW, the information I can find says both the 82 and 92 series are 4.9" deep without the stand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke W /forum/post/13318855


Thanks for the input, folks.


But it's not really 120hz refresh processing; it's just 120hz file conversion, as I understand it. Am I wrong?


I'm trying to stay ~$1500 +/- a little bit. I can currently get the 46D64U for $1405 delivered; the 46D82U is ~$1575 shipped.


Of course, since Sony has discontinued the 80gb PS3, and I can't find NOS 60gb PS3s anywhere, and it looks like there's going to be a major announcement within a month, I'll probably be waiting that long to buy the TV now anyway. Perhaps the 94U will come down a bit by then.


Thanks again!


[edit]


FWIW, the information I can find says both the 82 and 92 series are 4.9" deep without the stand.

Not quite sure what your asking on the first comment? The 82U displays immages at 120Hz, while the the 64U displays it at 60Hz, and that is what the TV is actually refreshing the immage at. Most content is only 24 or 60Hz which means the TV is filling in the missing frames with it's own algorithms (Which still helps alot). Just as an example XBOX 360 games opperate at 60Hz output, and I think digital cable and normal DVDs are 24Hz (Don't quote me, I may be wrong!).


The nice thing about 120Hz is that 24 and 60 divide evenly from 120, while 24Hz on a 60Hz TV has a more difficult calculation. It's really a minor thing but it helps. But with what some people like to call "True" 1080P, like bluray disks, they actually have the raw 120Hz date so you get a really fluid picture. I personally don't have any native content that has 120Hz of date (Or even 1080P for that matter lol) but even the other stuff gets smoothed out.


The 82 and 92 series are both the same size (And pretty much the same specs just with a bit more contrast on the 92U) however the 64 and newer 94 series are alot thinner and lighter. If it matters great, if not whatever.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again, 120Hz does matter. I will not buy another TV without that feature. Even with 4MS response you will see a bit of ghosting hear and there, especially if you watch sports. The extra frames that 120Hz puts in all but eliminates that. Really the only time I see any ghosting is when someone ices the puck in hockey. And that's a solid black object flying across an almost solid white surface at a speed faster than any object will travel across your TV screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven476 /forum/post/13320083


Not quite sure what your asking on the first comment? The 82U displays immages at 120Hz, while the the 64U displays it at 60Hz, and that is what the TV is actually refreshing the immage at.

I mean this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-net /forum/post/0


Sharp also adds a 120Hz frame rate conversion mode to the spec sheet, which is not the same as a true 120 Hz refresh rate (we mistakenly thought it was for the initial publication of this review). We'll deal with its effects in the Performance section below.

That's what I mean. It does not appear that these televisions actually refresh at 120hz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,233 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven476 /forum/post/13309765


Before I bought my 82U I spent almost a year researching TV's and didn't want anything above 42''. I was waiting for the sharp 42D72Us to come in, which was pretty much the same TV just 42'' with no 120Hz but before they arived the 82U came in. I was blown away, I had spent months and months watching Sharp's tech demo video and could point out just about every flaw in it (The lizzard streaks when moving back and forth on the branch, the water gets kind of "Boxy" in the underwater rock scene, the seaweed streaks as well when moving quickly) but this TV displayed everything perfectly, as opposed to the 72U which had the same stat line without the 120Hz. I bought the TV right then and there and haven't regreted it once for the last year.


The 64U is alot slimmer (The 82U is a bit of a beast to move around) but the lack of 120Hz is a HUGE hit. Go for the 82, you won't be dissapointed.

Ya know I do not get where you assume the 60Hz replicates those events. I've owned the 57" for 16 months and it has NEVER replicated what you report. Your assumption that those events are universal on a 60Hz panel is incorrect as I would not own the 57" if it had and certainly would not have paid $6500 if such a replicated event were part of my viewing experience - you more than likely witnessed split feed and compression artifacts and of course my panel also has Zero banding history. Want to be blown away - view a 57", I went from a 45" Sharp and my viewing became new again with size and the 45" black beauty is also still a great 60Hz that doesn't replicate what you report either, a fantastic Den TV for the wife and no 120Hz or banding.
Egads just noticed how old this OP is and perhaps a wasted post.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top