Samsung's 240Hz 3DTVs now in mass production
By Richard Lawler 
posted Jan 26th 2010 4:22PM
posted Jan 26th 2010 4:22PM
posted Jan 26th 2010 4:22PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Hello - something bigger than 55" please? Some of us like watching movies, and 55" just isn't that big anymore.
@(Unverified)
Absolutely. Tired of ready about tv's that max out at 55". Yes Vizio has a 72" coming but nothing between 55 and 72???
Ugh, my current 61" better not die on me soon because there is nothing to replace it with.
@MrMichael
That is there the 65" Panasonic plasma comes into the equation.
At least Sony is doing some 60" LCD's this year.
Yes, I do find something wrong with that. They are still LCD"s compensating for flawed technology that produces problems with motion. Plasma > LCD every...single...time.
@Robert Mechum
+1
@Robert Mechum
+2
@Robert Mechum
Not with power consumption.
@MaxH ...and? If you care about quality HT equipment power consumption is not one of your concerns. If you're a tree hugger...maybe. Then again, if you're a tree hugger you don't count anyway.
@Robert Mechum
Not with brightness
Not with thinness
Not with longevity of maintain brightness levels
Plasmas do still hold an edge in picture quality. LCDs have come a long way though. Hasn't been much innovation in plasmas lately.
@CBHorn Wow...nice try, but a big miss.
1. Yes, LCD's can be brighter. Does it matter? No, it certainly does not. There is a correct level of brightness and Plasmas can go far above it. An LCD can achieve a higher level of brightness, but it is far too bright for even an amateur calibration. The LCD ability of high levels of brightness = FAIL
2. Thinness? Really? Are you serious? 1.2" isn't thin enough for you? As if that even matters anyway. It's a marketing gimmick you fell for. Congratulations.
3. You really are out of your league on this one. Any display (LCD or Plasma) is more likely to fail long before the brightness of a Plasma deteriorates.
Plasmas hold an edge in quality, but I guess that isn't important to you. Just stick with your bargain-bin Vizio LCD.
@CBHorn LCD's have come a long way. Plasma's still rule the roost in terms of picture quality, though. Look at the Pioneer Kuro line (which other Plasma makers are just now catching up with) and the new Panasonic lineup for examples. Even the best LCD's can't compare in real contrast (not the inflated contrast numbers they advertise). Black levels aren't close, either. And when you compare price plasma is generally a better bargain. (of course there are always exceptions to every rule).
@Robert Mechum Give me an LED LCD - or LCD with LED backlighting.. whatever they're meant to call it for legal reasons - any day.
Don't get me wrong, I have a plasma, and an LCD - the LCD is no worse, albeit 16" smaller, but it is thinner, progressive instead of interlaced (Plasmas a few years old) and if I'm about to watch a BD, other than the size difference, LCD every time. (Partly due to 1080p, admittedly. - And if I'm with a few mates, then the 56" is a bonus.)
But anyway, I don't see plasma lasting, not unless they do something really great with, or if it has some sort of edge over LCD with 3D - because LCD has just come so far, and for the most part, it's cheaper.
@FORDY
What are you smoking? LCD's are not cheaper than Plasmas.
@Robert Mechum Power consumption should be a concern. Tree hugger or not, even a "green" plasma burns 2-3x more than a modern LED lit LCD and someone is paying the bill for that.
@Robert Mechum
DLP wipes them all! My 16 month old DLP has 3D and is 1080p24/30/60 with no motion blur except when the provider(s) send down crap. Even then it makes it very nice. Blu-ray and DVD are equally nice. SD and HD are great. All around perfection.
I too have a problem wiht this. "a 20% increase in response time should make even old school 2D HDTV watching a smoother experience." Video is either 30p or 60i frames if broadcast, or 24p frames if off a blu-ray. Who cares if it can refresh 240 times a second, the image will only change at most 1/4 of that rate. What is it refreshing besides the same frame 4 times before it goes on to the next frame? All this Hz talk is just marketing bologna. Give me a 120Hz TV and I'm set.
-Brian
Uhhh, guys... I think you are missing the point here... which is: that girl is hot. Don't you want to buy a TV that you don't need because that girl is hot?
Seriously, though... yes, the ever-increasing refresh rates are a gimmick, but it is doing more than just refreshing the same frame over and over. And it's not compensating for motion problems either. When "motion mode" is turned on, extra frames of image data are generated by interpolation (likely smarter than that, though). So, it produces smoother video and eliminates jitter introduced by a 3:2 pulldown in movies (60fps is not divisible by 24fps, but 120fps and 240fps are -- allowing a smooth transition to happen over 5 or 10 frames).
Also, I doubt we'll see much bigger than 55-60" LCDs. Yield is not good enough at those large sizes to make it cost-feasible to mass-produce. Hopefully (and likely), OLED will scale up better, but we won't find out if that's true until 2012 or 2013.
Awesome! Was going to pull the trigger on a 55" 8500 but I think I'll wait to see how the C8000 performs.
Uh, so, I might be dumb, but, is "a 20% increase in response time" supposed to be good? Doesn't really sound like an improvement to me. Probably just one of those innocent mistakes, sort of like constantly confusing inputs and outputs. I mean, this technology is complicated stuff, who could expect writers too keep it all straight?
The Koreans sure do know how to advertise.