LED TVs - 50 vs 100Hz

Forums › Home Theatre (incl HTPC) › LED TVs - 50 vs 100Hz

1 | 2

dacraka

571 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 92

Trusted

Reply # 862075 19-Jul-2013 12:26

I was comparing a 50Hz and 100Hz TV's next to each other in the store and you can definitely notice the difference.
I purchased a 50Hz TV because I couldn't afford a 100Hz TV. I've had the 50Hz TV for nearly two years and because I don't have a 100Hz TV sitting next to it, I don't notice the difference!
Basically any is fine if price is a concern, otherwise if you have extra money to burn then go for the 100Hz.

Bung

2666 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 410

Reply # 862128 19-Jul-2013 13:30

dacraka: I was comparing a 50Hz and 100Hz TV's next to each other in the store and you can definitely notice the difference.

Was that recently or 2 years ago when you bought your TV?

I was looking at some mid range 50Hz LCD TVs this week and the sales guy started to launch into the up sell "even if you don't want 3D you get a better screen" but then he had to admit that he couldn't demonstrate much improvement. The response of the screens may be faster now.

Dunnersfella

3495 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537

Reply # 862460 20-Jul-2013 07:12

As TV's have become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper... some of the entry level 42" models are really dungers. There's next to no inputs, some have no audio outputs (as in no analogue RCA's / headphones or digital (optical) outputs).
Seriously cheap, rubbish.
Hz ratings are one thing, but overall picture quality is another. Check out the TV's on standard TV, not BluRay's (they all look okay at worse playing full HD sources). Get the sales person to put channel U or Prime on via Freeview, so you can see a lower quality feed, similar to what your parents will get at home.
Oh yeah, take a listen to the TV's sound quality, some of them sound worse than my cellphone...

33coupe

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 36

Reply # 863536 22-Jul-2013 13:13

Just to let you know you should be able to get a pretty good tv for that kind of money.

I'm sure I saw my 2012 Panasonic 50ut50 (3d, usb or sd recording, built in media player / freeview etc) for $800-900 not that long ago.

When I was in Harvey Norman, I could clearly see the difference between the 50-60hz lcds to the 600hz plasma. I think its most noticeable on sports. Down to preference though I guess.

mattwnz

14533 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1926

Reply # 863545 22-Jul-2013 13:23

Bung:
dacraka: I was comparing a 50Hz and 100Hz TV's next to each other in the store and you can definitely notice the difference.

Was that recently or 2 years ago when you bought your TV?

I was looking at some mid range 50Hz LCD TVs this week and the sales guy started to launch into the up sell "even if you don't want 3D you get a better screen" but then he had to admit that he couldn't demonstrate much improvement. The response of the screens may be faster now.

WHat some may do is stick two differnet brands next to one anohter, eg a no name brand and a premium brand, and then show you the difference so it is more visiable. I have noticed that with many of the cheap no name brands, the picture is definitely poor compared to the branded models. eg poor viewing angle, more washed out picture, and streaky with viewing fast moving pictures, even when both were apparently non motionflow models. I think many of the no name brands use older generation panels which have slower response times.

1 | 2