Choosing Between 65" TVs

[thewerepuppygrr]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to buy a new TV early next year so I've been having a look around to see what suits best. I've already decided that I'd like an LED/LCD in 65", and I've narrowed it down to three contenders (I'm UK-based, not that I think that matters too much with TV models):

- Panasonic Viera TX65AX802B
- Samsung Series 7 UE65HU7500TX
- Sony Bravia KD65X9005B

Although I like that these are 4K ready, I want something that can still make my blu-rays look the best they possibly can, so that's a massively important factor for me. I don't upgrade often as I am by no means rich, so what I'm looking for is a solid, reliable TV that still has the power to blow me away in the visuals department.

Opinions needed and appreciated.

[Suntory_Times]

If you don't' upgrade often I would wait a bit longer for the uhd standards to be confirmed and tv's actually capable of such standards to be released.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

If you don't' upgrade often I would wait a bit longer for the uhd standards to be confirmed and tv's actually capable of such standards to be released.

But how long will that be? I'm really hoping to buy a TV early next year. In the true 4k department the tech is just too new - I imagine it'll be at least 6+ years until I get my next model, which would probably be an 85" OLED with true 4K.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

But how long will that be? I'm really hoping to buy a TV early next year. In the true 4k department the tech is just too new - I imagine it'll be at least 6+ years until I get my next model, which would probably be an 85" OLED with true 4K.

Well if you must buy now and have the budget, go for the f85000 (yes it is 1080p but it has better pq then the uhd sets currently available provide for). The only time in the current market I would suggest something else is if you are going to have the same image up for extended periods of time. It is the best tv currently available. The f8500 is 64" though, I however do assume that the 1" difference would be moot to you.

How far away do you view your tv?

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Well if you must buy now and have the budget, go for the f85000 (yes it is 1080p but it has better pq then the uhd sets currently available provide for). The only time in the current market I would suggest something else is if you are going to have the same image up for extended periods of time. It is the best tv currently available. The f8500 is 64" though, I however do assume that the 1" difference would be moot to you.

How far away do you view your tv?

I would have to measure when I get home to be sure. I have it written down somewhere. Anyhow, I'm not big on plasmas purely because of the amount of energy they use. Really looking for the best LED one I can find tbh.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

I would have to measure when I get home to be sure. I have it written down somewhere. Anyhow, I'm not big on plasmas purely because of the amount of energy they use. Really looking for the best LED one I can find tbh.

No problem, though if it is energy that your worried about you may want to look at the difference that actually exists between plasma and lcd (it's not very large). The real reason imho to not get plasma is the risk of ir/burn in compared to lcd, which if you only are watching films is moot.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

I would have to measure when I get home to be sure. I have it written down somewhere. Anyhow, I'm not big on plasmas purely because of the amount of energy they use. Really looking for the best LED one I can find tbh.

During normal viewing, plasma use no more than 5% more electricity. The darker the image (such as The Dark Knight or Underworld: Awakening) the closer it is because LCD requires more power to attempt to create black.

Now if you leave your TV in torch mode, then yeah. Plasma will burn 20% more than a torch mode LCD. Creating immense light output is where plasma uses the most.

(For a plasma to use 100%. You have to set it torch. Turn brightness and contrast all the way up. Then put on a blank white screen. How often do you watch that? Otherwise plasma use 40-65% of their rating)

[thewerepuppygrr]

Thanks guys - just not out to get a plasma. Being British we have a lot of tv channels with corner logos, so burn-in is a risk. Yes the TV will be primarily for movies, but it will also be for event TV like Game of Thrones, so I don't want to risk it for that sort of money.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Thanks guys - just not out to get a plasma. Being British we have a lot of tv channels with corner logos, so burn-in is a risk. Yes the TV will be primarily for movies, but it will also be for event TV like Game of Thrones, so I don't want to risk it for that sort of money.

Burn in...

Non-issue since 2007.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by schan1269

Burn in...

Non-issue since 2007.

That's not strictly true. And anyway, it's besides the point.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

That's not strictly true. And anyway, it's besides the point.

Alsso if you watch tv with a static logo it is very much so a risk (even with lcd, but unlikely). As for lcd, I would really be waiting it out for now, we shall hopefully see a jump in the next year or two once the specs for uhd blu-ray are finally unveiled. If you do buy now of course check them all out, but Panasonic lcds (unlike their plasmas) are sub par. Samsung typically is the company that had the most impressive lcd's on a whole, but I couldn't recommend any as I really wasn't satisfied by them.

You really need to make a list of things you want most out of your tv, and things you are happy to deal with (flaws which every tv has). In other words you need to pick your poison and then decide what to go with.

Basically you have to accept mediocre motion which is inherent to every lcd currently available as I have seen, color accuracy, contrast, black levels, brightness, functionality (eg: smart features) and so on. What is most important, and what is least important to you.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Hi guys,

I'm looking to buy a new TV early next year so I've been having a look around to see what suits best. I've already decided that I'd like an LED/LCD in 65", and I've narrowed it down to three contenders (I'm UK-based, not that I think that matters too much with TV models):

- Panasonic Viera TX65AX802B
- Samsung Series 7 UE65HU7500TX
- Sony Bravia KD65X9005B

Although I like that these are 4K ready, I want something that can still make my blu-rays look the best they possibly can, so that's a massively important factor for me. I don't upgrade often as I am by no means rich, so what I'm looking for is a solid, reliable TV that still has the power to blow me away in the visuals department.

Opinions needed and appreciated.

Personally I'd go with: Panasonic TC-P65ZT60

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

That's not strictly true. And anyway, it's besides the point.

I'm not the one that brought up plasma. I stayed away from this thread(typically don't even click on this area and ignore every LCD projector thread) until I happened to see a rebuttal of plasma.

The same, tired, misinformed, crap, reason given...

Burn in.

That has not been an issue since Aug 2007(once all the new pdp were out, starting that year in April). Every plasma has a break in period(LCD of that era...and even new ones do as well) of 50-200 hours.

It is very rare that a properly broken in plasma even gets IR. My crappiest plasma(a $200 find at a pawn shop. 720p Samsung) exhibits flashes of IR that are more extreme than every other plasma I have(9. Oldest being two P50X901). I attribute it to not being broken in properly.

[Suntory_Times]

C'mon guys lets try and help, he has made it clear that he doesn't want a plasma (for good reason if he will have a static logo on screen frequently, and yes plasmas are suspect to IR and burn in still moreso then lcd, as all techs but dlp are).

The OP really does need to answer what he wants in a more precise manner to get more valuable info though.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Thanks man - didn't mean to get into a whole debate about why I don't want a plasma. That's just how I roll.

I'm more going for LED over LCD...(there wasn't a sub-forum for that...or have I missed a trick thinking they have differences?)

Smart content is a nice bonus but it's not a priority. I have a computer and I have Sky TV (which I guess is the UK equivalent of cable) so I'm not too fussed about streaming, especially as I live out in the sticks and my broadband connection is waaaay behind. I don't watch much live sports but I do watch action movies so motion is pretty important.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Thanks man - didn't mean to get into a whole debate about why I don't want a plasma. That's just how I roll.

I'm more going for LED over LCD...(there wasn't a sub-forum for that...or have I missed a trick thinking they have differences?)

Smart content is a nice bonus but it's not a priority. I have a computer and I have Sky TV (which I guess is the UK equivalent of cable) so I'm not too fussed about streaming, especially as I live out in the sticks and my broadband connection is waaaay behind. I don't watch much live sports but I do watch action movies so motion is pretty important.

There is no "LED over LCD".

It is LCD with LED back light.

The back light is either the prefered full array. Or the "hey, over here, I'm super thin...but have picture issues" edge lit.

(Not touching the "motion is pretty important"...)

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

C'mon guys lets try and help, he has made it clear that he doesn't want a plasma (for good reason if he will have a static logo on screen frequently, and yes plasmas are suspect to IR and burn in still moreso then lcd, as all techs but dlp are).

The OP really does need to answer what he wants in a more precise manner to get more valuable info though.

Well for non-plasma's I've always liked Sony's offerings...

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by schan1269

There is no "LED over LCD".

It is LCD with LED back light.

The back light is either the prefered full array. Or the "hey, over here, I'm super thin...but have picture issues" edge lit.

(Not touching the "motion is pretty important"...)

This is something many make the mistake of and you are absolutely correct. When someone tries to charge more for and LED it is really just a mark up based on misinformation unless the tv is otherwise better.

For the OP regarding motion, that is something when your talking about already compromised motion (as its the case with lcd) you really have to see for yourself to see if it is good enough for you. Try and take in some discs of things you have seen many times that you fell will be a good test. Of course turn of frame interpolation on the tv when doing this to see what it's actuall motion is like.

To clarify what I mean by compromised motion on lcd, is compared to plasma (and especially dlp which is the king of motion) you get what is called the soap opera effect. Msot say this is because of frame interpolation, but even when this is set to off it is still noticeable due to how lcds 'draw' their pixels. Some don't notice this, some notice it and don't care, some notice it and do care. Hence why I fell motion is something one has to test for themselves. Whereas something like black levels, color accuracy etc can be measured and give a very good idea of what to expect.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by schan1269

There is no "LED over LCD".

It is LCD with LED back light.

The back light is either the prefered full array. Or the "hey, over here, I'm super thin...but have picture issues" edge lit.

Thanks, I thought so.

Originally Posted by schan1269

(Not touching the "motion is pretty important"...)

I really don't see why you feel the need to be snarky with me. I'm asking for information is all - yes I am a noob when it comes to TVs as, as I've said, I don't upgrade as often as most (five years would be the absolute minimum time for me).

I also know it all comes down to personal preference, but I was curious as to other people's LCD recommendations or if they'd had experience with the models I mentioned.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Thanks, I thought so.



I really don't see why you feel the need to be snarky with me. I'm asking for information is all - yes I am a noob when it comes to TVs as, as I've said, I don't upgrade as often as most (five years would be the absolute minimum time for me).

I also know it all comes down to personal preference, but I was curious as to other people's LCD recommendations or if they'd had experience with the models I mentioned.

OK, snark...

What is LCD "behind" in picture quality?

DLP RPTV (Dead, cause people want bright vivid torchy LCD)

Plasma (Dead, cause people want bright vivid torchy LCD)

CRT (dead, cause people wanted TV bigger than 40" that didn't weigh 400 pounds)