Opinions on "cheap" TV?

[Fitsu]

I was looking at getting a TV for my room as I can now afford it and don't currently own one... I have the space and was planning for the 40 - 50 inch area.

I saw this: http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...er/2267803.htm which for a 50" tv is pretty damn cheap, given that it's a known brand etc... From what I can tell it's cheap because it's just a very standard tv, no smart features etc... Which i'm fine with because it will be plugged into my PC and I have my own hifi system. I'm more making this post to confirm my expectations, are there any flaws that people are aware of when investing in a product like this or can I expect that visually it will look pretty good and it's simply cheap due to a lack of additional features?

Also, if there a forum exists that's is more specific for such questions and one could link it to me that would be grand.. Thanks.

[Deleted]

TVs are getting super cheap, mostly because of manufacturer efficiency. £400ish seems pretty standard, look at the reviews for that particular model first though.

But there's no reason not to buy it if you want a 50" 1080P TV..

[Fitsu]

TVs are getting super cheap, mostly because of manufacturer efficiency. £400ish seems pretty standard, look at the reviews for that particular model first though.

But there's no reason not to buy it if you want a 50" 1080P TV..

Yeah, the reason I ask is when I look at like "recommended" tvs in that size there all £800 - £900 so as I say just wanted some maybe more educated opinions on if there's any faults outside of lack of features for buying the cheaper end of that size.

[PACOX]

The TV linked kind of has a low refresh rate, which would explain the price.

[Fitsu]

The TV linked kind of has a low refresh rate, which would explain the price.

How big of a negative would this be for watching movies/tv and the occasional gaming (console-type games like Far Cry).

[Annoying]

It's because their resolution and refresh rates suck. I can buy a 27" monitor for like 2x as much because it has twice the refresh rate and 4x the pixels. 1080p is technology is 10+ years old. You can get 1440p or 4k monitors now. TVs haven't really caught up.

[ShimmerSwirl]

The world of TVs is a lot more complex that manufacturers would have you believe. They will tout things like 1080p or 4k, screen size, and smart capabilities as the major selling points. The things they won't say much about that are equally if not more important is *actual* refresh rates, 24p processing method, contrast ratio and backlight array.

In a nutshell, a major of weakness of LCD panels is that its very hard for them to achieve deep black colors due to the backlight leaking light where its not supposed to. Areas that are supposed to be black are in fact grey for example. This may sound like a small thing, but contrast ratio is actually the single biggest factor of good picture quality, despite what companies try to tell you about resolution being the be all end all. High end LCDs may have features like 'local dimming', where the backlight is dimmed or shutoff in areas of the screen that need to be black. The placement of backlight matters too, good displays have a 'full array' setup will LED lights behind the entire LCD providing even light. Cheaper displays shine light from the edges, resulting in bright edges and a dim middle of the screen. One note a bout this, while full array lighting is superior, most panel manufactures don't use local dimming with this setup, instead using it on their edge lit models. The ideal combo of full array+local dimming is extremely hard to find.

Another important factor is its motion processor. This is where you see a big difference between brands like Sony/Panasonic and the cheaper chinese TVs. Its a very complex subject, but simply put, LCDs TVs need to use some tricks to play back 24p content (most every movie and most prime time programming) properly. Its a balancing act between motion blur and 'the soap opera effect'. 60hz panels will produce a lot of blur with fast moving objects like action movies or sports. The solution they use is to essentially create extra frames to make the image look smoother. If done well it can produce a nice picture. Done poorly it looks like a soap opera. Nice TVs use a method that involves creating a black frame that goes between each actual frame. This is very similar to the technique used for years for 35mm film projectors, and it is generally considered the better of the two methods. 120hz panels can avoid this problem (120 is divisible by 24, 60 is not...you need to do a lot of research to fully understand this), but many 120hz panels are not actually 120hz, its clever marketing. Im not as familiar with EU setups. I know you use 50hz over there which changes things a bit...you would need to look into that before you buy anything.

If you plan on gaming with this panel, the above problem is that much more important. Look into something called "LightBoost" for more info.

If you like tech stuff, the world of TVs can be pretty fascinating to learn about. Technology choices made a hundred years ago are still having a major affect on TVs produced today. I would suggest digging into that to better understand these things, as I really just skimmed them.

[Deleted]

How big of a negative would this be for watching movies/tv and the occasional gaming (console-type games like Far Cry).

Not a problem at all for movies/tv, can be an issue while gaming.

[Fitsu]

The world of TVs is a lot more complex that manufacturers would have you believe. They will tout things like 1080p or 4k, screen size, and smart capabilities as the major selling points. The things they won't say much about that are equally if not more important is *actual* refresh rates, 24p processing method, contrast ratio and backlight array.

In a nutshell, a major of weakness of LCD panels is that its very hard for them to achieve deep black colors due to the backlight leaking light where its not supposed to. Areas that are supposed to be black are in fact grey for example. This may sound like a small thing, but contrast ratio is actually the single biggest factor of good picture quality, despite what companies try to tell you about resolution being the be all end all. High end LCDs may have features like 'local dimming', where the backlight is dimmed or shutoff in areas of the screen that need to be black. The placement of backlight matters too, good displays have a 'full array' setup will LED lights behind the entire LCD providing even light. Cheaper displays shine light from the edges, resulting in bright edges and a dim middle of the screen. One note a bout this, while full array lighting is superior, most panel manufactures don't use local dimming with this setup, instead using it on their edge lit models. The ideal combo of full array+local dimming is extremely hard to find.

Another important factor is its motion processor. This is where you see a big difference between brands like Sony/Panasonic and the cheaper chinese TVs. Its a very complex subject, but simply put, LCDs TVs need to use some tricks to play back 24p content (most every movie and most prime time programming) properly. Its a balancing act between motion blur and 'the soap opera effect'. 60hz panels will produce a lot of blur with fast moving objects like action movies or sports. The solution they use is to essentially create extra frames to make the image look smoother. If done well it can produce a nice picture. Done poorly it looks like a soap opera. Nice TVs use a method that involves creating a black frame that goes between each actual frame. This is very similar to the technique used for years for 35mm film projectors, and it is generally considered the better of the two methods. 120hz panels can avoid this problem (120 is divisible by 24, 60 is not...you need to do a lot of research to fully understand this), but many 120hz panels are not actually 120hz, its clever marketing. Im not as familiar with EU setups. I know you use 50hz over there which changes things a bit...you would need to look into that before you buy anything.

If you plan on gaming with this panel, the above problem is that much more important. Look into something called "LightBoost" for more info.

If you like tech stuff, the world of TVs can be pretty fascinating to learn about. Technology choices made a hundred years ago are still having a major affect on TVs produced today. I would suggest digging into that to better understand these things, as I really just skimmed them.

Given that you seem to know a lot about TVs, any chance you could recommend a ~50" TV for under £400 mostly for TV/Movie watching... If you were to get one in this price range would u go for the one linked or would you simply not recommend a TV of that size for that price and go for a smaller size?

[ShimmerSwirl]

Given that you seem to know a lot about TVs, any chance you could recommend a ~50" TV for under £400 mostly for TV/Movie watching... If you were to get one in this price range would u go for the one linked or would you simply not recommend a TV of that size for that price and go for a smaller size?

Unless you a lucky enough to find a manufacturer who actually publishes those details specs I mentioned before, its kind of a guessing game when it comes to finding a good one. Best thing you can do imo is find a local store (preferably one that specializes in home theater) and ask a sales rep to show you the type of movie/show you would be watching on it, on a TV that has been properly calibrated as most display models are setup to just look really bright. Look for things like brightness uniformity across the whole screen, how dark blacks are, motion blur when objects move quickly across the screen. Ultimately all these things produce effects that each person will like or dislike differently. Some people really like the 'soap opera effect' for example. So you kind of need to look at a screen yourself and decide what type of image you like.

[oxymoronic]

Given that you seem to know a lot about TVs, any chance you could recommend a ~50" TV for under £400 mostly for TV/Movie watching... If you were to get one in this price range would u go for the one linked or would you simply not recommend a TV of that size for that price and go for a smaller size?

i would just get a 40inch samsung and call it a day or find a way to afford a 60+inch.

why buy the cheap crap is beyond me, tv's last way too long to be cheap and upset every time you turn it on.

[Wildtree]

50Hz is pretty shitty.

in technical terms that is correct... In realistic terms it's fine....
The human eye cannot distinct anything farther than 25 hz...
What does it mean, in regard of watching...

the number refers to pictures displayed per second. Our eyes are too "lazy" to recognize anything beyond 25 pictures per second, anymore.. We simply can't.
The XXhz refers to the refresh rate of the picture you see on the tv/monitor.
Now with electronics influences what not, there might be cases of a so called "flicker effect". To counter this, a higher refresh rate is advised.
But a 50 hz tv is fine for watching movies and tv content.
There's a great deal of money making strategy behind the tech specifications of such products. Companies are highly interested to sell their higher equipped products, since they make em the most money. And they do not lie when they say "this product is better". But they certainly don't tell you "but you don't need that better product".

[Wildtree]

I've bought me this guy a couple month ago as second tv for the bedroom.
Using it for cable tv and streaming from the laptop.
I'm very pleased with it, especially for the price.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/SCEPTRE-X4...ingMethod=p13n

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the human eye works that way and I can tell the difference. My sister has a TV that has low Hz and her picture is much less fluid than mine. When she watches my TV (much higher Hz), she says the picture looks weird.

Yeah, the human eye does work exactly that way Winter.
Biology.... Human nature... We have our limits on seeing as well as on hearing..
We can only see so many pictures per second, we can only see within a certain spectrum of frequencies, and we can only hear within certain spectrum of frequencies.
Over-specified products only make things seem a bit smoother.. that's all.
If you notice irregularities then it's because something is wrong with the piece.
Do you know that movies themselves are shut with 24 - 29 frames per second? Means 24 - 29 hz.
That's also the display standards used.. There are 2 main standards on the planet.
Either PAL or NTSC. in the US we're using NTSC. NTSC content consists of 29 frames/sec. PAL has 25 frames/sec

As for you guys recognizing each others TV picture.
That is also influenced by the settings.. More contrast, less contrast, color balance, sharpness...
That all influences on top.

[Wezmon]

Yeah, the human eye does work exactly that way Winter.
Biology.... Human nature... We have our limits on seeing as well as on hearing..
We can only see so many pictures per second, we can only see within a certain spectrum of frequencies, and we can only hear within certain spectrum of frequencies.

We do have limits but they are far greater than 24fps. The reason we see 24fps in movies as fluid is due to motion blur. Recent movies such as the Hobbit have used 48 fps with less motion blur, which is the reason it causes some viewers to dislike the style. Creates a more realistic effect which takes away from the immersion.

Tests with fighter pilots have shown limit may be anywhere up to 300 fps

[Wildtree]

Read this thread on it

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...nd-60-FPS-quot

I don't need to read this thread.... I have an electronic engineers degree... I know the science behind hertz..
And I am familiar with video tech for decades..
What I said is facts, really...
As for the human eye...
There's no myth to be busted at all by some random gaming forum user...
Instead, I suggest you turn to actual professionals aka Eye doctors.
http://blog.cochranefamilyeyecare.com/

When you read that, keep in mind that I pointed out that there are other determining influences like screen settings.

[Reeve]

It's because their resolution and refresh rates suck. I can buy a 27" monitor for like 2x as much because it has twice the refresh rate and 4x the pixels. 1080p is technology is 10+ years old. You can get 1440p or 4k monitors now. TVs haven't really caught up.

Yeah, I bought a TV to use as a monitor a year ago or so, since it was a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the computer monitor I'd have gotten, and like 10 inches larger. Boy was that a mistake. It was fuzzy as hell and just didn't feel quality at all on anything but Netflix. I returned it and got a 26 inch computer monitor instead, which is a million times better.

[Deleted]

OP, if you really want a 50" TV for such a cheap price, I would recommend forgetting LED & LCD screens and go for a plasma system. Sure the technology is older and the power consumption a little higher, but the display quality is an order of magnitude better than similarly priced low end LED & LCD screens.

I would recommend this one: http://www.tesco.com/direct/lg-50pb5...skuId=155-7864

[Fitsu]

I've found a couple others...

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...26196-pdt.html

This one looked ideal, until I read people saying it's in-fact not a Panasonic but just a re-badged TV which is apparently quite a common thing yet I was unaware even happened... Yet, it's £350 for a 100 HZ full-HD, Direct-Lit so could be worth it?

I've also heard the 5 series of Samsung is very good:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...pdt.html#cat-0

Although £100 more if the quality makes it worth it then I can accept that...

I think as others have said, my best move will be to go down to the store and look at these TVs myself.

/e

For those who may be curious, the reason i'm going for a cheaper one is because this is just a bedroom TV and I expect when I eventually move (a long way away atm) the 4k tvs would have come more available and i'l likely get one of those for my main living room TV.

[Wildtree]

We do have limits but they are far greater than 24fps. The reason we see 24fps in movies as fluid is due to motion blur. Recent movies such as the Hobbit have used 48 fps with less motion blur, which is the reason it causes some viewers to dislike the style. Creates a more realistic effect which takes away from the immersion.

Tests with fighter pilots have shown limit may be anywhere up to 300 fps

Yes, the blur/crisp influences.
And I've already said way in the beginning that we perceive higher frequencies as smoother... But we cannot distinct beyond 24 anymore.
That's been tested.. The testing is easy to conduct... If our eye could distinct beyond 24 frames, it would detect any foreign object within. But it cannot.
Example. You see a person walking... Now you cut into your movie ONE still picture of an object, let's say a banana. The viewer will not notice that banana if the frame rate is above 24 frames/sec.
If it's at or below 24 frames, that banana is noticed.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Yes, the blur/crisp influences.
And I've already said way in the beginning that we perceive higher frequencies as smoother... But we cannot distinct beyond 24 anymore.
That's been tested.. The testing is easy to conduct... If our eye could distinct beyond 24 frames, it would detect any foreign object within. But it cannot.
Example. You see a person walking... Now you cut into your movie ONE still picture of an object, let's say a banana. The viewer will not notice that banana if the frame rate is above 24 frames/sec.
If it's at or below 24 frames, that banana is noticed.

Our brain's 'fps cap' isn't the problem, its the fact that movies shot at 24fps dont play back properly on 50hz or 60hz TVs because neither of those numbers can be divided by 24 evenly. The TV creates extra frames in order for it to play back on 50/60hz TVs. The result is the funny looking pictures that some people like and others dont (the hobbit look).