Sony LED - thoughts ?

I did read the numbers before I posted, PP ... I do understand the massive 0.012 difference between the two. It's almost exactly the way you have described in your posts

They're peak measurements. Nothing about real world performance of the entire screen during many types of viewing.

But carry on showing your ignorance in thinking you have a point...
 
Yes, because peak measurements are never hit in the real world, eh ... ?
 
Here's some real world for you Postman ....

http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/plasma/samsung/f5500
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/f5500

I remember you had an issue with the last site than pointed our your inaccuracies - let me know how you feel about this one? Perhaps I'll keep searching and we'll find one that at least agrees with your views and findings

EDIT : Perhaps read the review at the start of this thread (you can close your eyes when they mention it's the dimmest ever tested though ...)
 
Here's some real world for you Postman ....

http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/plasma/samsung/f5500
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/f5500

I remember you had an issue with the last site than pointed our your inaccuracies - let me know how you feel about this one? Perhaps I'll keep searching and we'll find one that at least agrees with your views and findings

Did you perhaps miss the uniformity ratings? You know what uniformity means, right?

I'll give you a hint.

EDIT : Perhaps read the review at the start of this thread (you can close your eyes when they mention it's the dimmest ever tested though ...)

?
 
Don't waste your time Dolby. You can't argue with someone who's not openminded :banghead:
He'll tell you a R5000 plasma beats a R30000 led, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary.
He's not so much an expert as he is a fanboy.
 
Ah yes - almost forgot how you argued your point. Pick the areas that suti you and ignore the rest as if they don't even matter...
 
Ah yes - almost forgot how you argued your point. Pick the areas that suti you and ignore the rest as if they don't even matter...

No other points were being argued besides that of uniformity, because you were the one who brought up black levels and incorrectly thought you had a point. Yet all you showed were peak ratings of an LCD with its backlight shut off, vs peak ratings of a plasma. Nothing about real world performance, which the Uniformity comparison proves. The LCD gets hammered because in order to light up the cross, its backlight has to be on. Where as the plasma lights up only the pixels required.

This is TV basics 101 and one of the main reasons why plasma is better in this area. I suggest reading through this - http://www.rtings.com/info/what-is-the-contrast-ratio.

If you want to now bring up more than black levels and uniformity, then it is a fact that the 5 Series plasma has superior picture quality to the 5 Series LCD. I've compared myself, and so have others on this forum. I can even see in the pictures in the review that the colours are far better (perhaps my IPS LCD 2560x1440 monitor helps pick that up).
 
Last edited:
You are right zeb ... Quite painful :/
 
You guys... :p

Plasma is awesome, and so is LED - you won't be disappointment with any of them.

LED is brighter during the day and doesn't reflect as much, Plasma is supreme with blacks and color if you have some curtains, and has wider viewing angles (the colors don't turn to sh*t at a 45 degree viewing angle for example)
Plasma uses a little more power, but has better motion handling and a lot better SD Quality. LED is better for Static Image viewing.

Choose what you need and don't trash the other tech whether it be LED/LCD or Plasma.
We don't need a flame war, it's just a TV!

Plasma, LED...bleh, who cares - you will be happy with both.
Even all the specs you guys bring up.. 0.051 cd/m2 or 0.039 cd/m2 who gives a shlt?

I'm thinking you will be a lot more chuffed with a 60 inch beast over a 50" in the end though, even without the "Micro-Motion-Crystal-LED-flux-capacitor-proton-quality-performance-boost-chip" the Sony might claim to have... but that's just me.

Size matters and don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
 
As much as I agree with that, does it have 10" bigger worth of quality?
This is R15K you're spending here, don't just brush this off lightly with that "I prefer quality!" bullshlt. Think about this properly.

It's not my money nor my TV set... but a day after you've installed the TV you're gonna get that "Man... I should have gone bigger!" thought.

We all want quality, but be sure it's REALLY a lot "better quality" because 50 inch vs. 60 inch is a lot bigger than you think man.

Yes to some people quality is everything.

Case in point I bought a 51-inch and almost took it back to rather get a higher quality 42 or 46 inch because it mattered that much to me.

But after testing a few days I got it setup just right and I was quite happy with it.

And 50-inches is already pretty huge unless you are planning to sit 3.5-4m away from the TV which most people don't I would imagine.
 
How would a HD projector compare to the tv considering that if you want that big, a projector might be better. Maybe a uhd?
 
I had the choice of getting a 51" but in the end decided to go for 60". Viewing distance is about 2,5m. You got used to the size very quickly. I'm glad I went bigger...
 
I had the choice of getting a 51" but in the end decided to go for 60". Viewing distance is about 2,5m. You got used to the size very quickly. I'm glad I went bigger...

Great stuff! Congrats! :D
 
To some people, screen real estate isn't always everything.

You can get a 46" Samsung at R8k, R10k, R15k and R17k
You can get a 50" Samsung at R13k, R15k, R17k and R28k
You can get a 60" Samsung at R15k or R22k
You can get a 65" Samsung at R30k or R40k

So at a R20k I've got the top of range 46" or bottom of range 60" - and you do actually get people that prefer quality over quantity. I'm somewhere in the middle and in this hypothetical situation I'd go for a mid 50"

EDIT : If the difference between low, mid and high end was only features - like Smart TV or number of HDMI connections - I'd go the larger screen for sure. But there is image quality differences between the Series
 
Last edited:
Hell I'm sitting 4 meters away from my 47" and it's burning my eyes already. My PC is also connected to it so browsing the internet in the dark is not a good idea, unless I dim the screen or find a way to have a black background on my chrome background.
 
To some people, screen real estate isn't always everything.

You can get a 46" Samsung at R8k, R10k, R15k and R17k
You can get a 50" Samsung at R13k, R15k, R17k and R28k
You can get a 60" Samsung at R15k or R22k
You can get a 65" Samsung at R30k or R40k

So at a R20k I've got the top of range 46" or bottom of range 60" - and you do actually get people that prefer quality over quantity. I'm somewhere in the middle and in this hypothetical situation I'd go for a mid 50"

EDIT : If the difference between low, mid and high end was only features - like Smart TV or number of HDMI connections - I'd go the larger screen for sure. But there is image quality differences between the Series

Lol, it's hilarious how you weigh things up about quantity and quality when you are comparing a superior vs inferior tech. Fact.

Want quality? Include high end plasma.

I'm afraid you just won't be able to hang onto your LCD misconceptions anymore.
 
Lol, it's hilarious how you weigh things up about quantity and quality when you are comparing a superior vs inferior tech. Fact.

Forget about him PostmanPot, if he thinks his 'better quality' 46" or 50" LG LCD @ R20K will give a better experience than a Samsung 60" Plasma at R15K then let him have it.

Don't waste your time, let him waste his money.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X