12 replies to this topic

[Burned_Follower]

Ok, i'm in the proccess of shopping for a 42inch, LCD, HD 1080p TV that i'll be using for a PC gaming system for MWO.

But as i was walking around places such as Walmart and Best Buy and any other store where i can see these TVs in person(cuz i'm purchasing a TV the end of this month) i've notices that some screens are kind of dark and hard to see images while the more expensive ones are brighter and have clearer images. For a long time i just interpreted that observation as "you get what you pay for" until i decided to mess with these TVs abit.

For example, i walked up to a cheap 42inch tv that costs just under 400 bucks at Walmart that seems out of focus and I adjusted the TV screens settings to be a bit brighter....and what-a-ya-know? The image on the TV is just as clear and bright as the other 42inch tv next to it that is 200 bucks more!

It just looks like people are intentionally turning down the gamma settings on cheaper TVs in order to get unknowing customers to purchase the more expensive ones, haha.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sounds a bit too much like theory to me, the supermarkets actually make more profit from selling their cheaper sets than the more expensive ones, they purchase said cheaper sets in a bigger bulk than they do a Sony/Samsung etc as this costs them considerably more.

Its more likely the person who set it up did so incorrectly, or that some other customer has done like you did and fiddle.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 15 April 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[Aidan]

The new generation of IGZO displays are being ramped up for production now. They will be pricey at first but as volume production kicks in, the price will come down. They will provide much more resolution. Keep your eye out for these products in the future.

http://www.engadget....ablets-laptops/

[Catamount]

To the first two posters, actually, if my half dozen years in retail outlets selling these things means anything, neitherof you completely have it.

It's not that incorrect setup just happening to be used on all the cheap sets (which would just be too convenient), or that stores intentionally set them up incorrectly, because truthfully, we don't have time most of the time to mess with picture settings in the first place (and most employees don't care enough one way or the other).


In my experience, the problem is that TVs tend to run on their default picture settings, and it's the default settings that suck really badly on cheap sets. They always set them up with the worst possible settings; colors are off, highlights are blown out, blacks are washed out, brightness is out of whack. It used to bother me so much that working for Target and Staples (my particular Staples sold several TVs back in '06-'07), that I actually would go through and fix up the settings on the cheap sets, or when customers brought up image quality differences when looking at particular sets, I would point out that many of the cheaper sets really were a lot better than they looked, but just had lousy settings (and would show them by quickly fixing them up). The expensive sets still look better, absolutely. I've noticed that almost all Samsung TVs that I see, for instance, are IPS displays, while your typical $499 Phillips/Magnavox usually seems to be a TN panel, so the blacks are lousy on the latter compared to the former.

But the differences are not night and day. My parents have a cheaper Phillips screen from a few years back, 42', and it looks absolutely fine. The picture is sharp, the blacks are adequate, and the color is quite good. Sound sucks (another consideration with cheaper sets), but they have a home theater system, so, meh.

As an aside, my own computer monitor suffers this issue. So it's not just my imagination here. I have a Gateway FHD2401, which has/had wildly mixed reviews, because the default settings are TERRIBLE. The reds are exaggerated beyond all reason (they're literally blinding), and the general brightness is off the charts, and not in a good way. It took me nearly two hours, but once I actually got it set up correctly, balanced the colors more reasonably, etc, I got a real cheap 24' display with a middling image quality (not great, but very competent, and more than good enough for gaming/movie watching, if definitely not for photo editing)

Edited by Catamount, 15 April 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[Vincent Vascaul]

Aidan, on 15 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

The new generation of IGZO displays are being ramped up for production now. They will be pricey at first but as volume production kicks in, the price will come down. They will provide much more resolution. Keep your eye out for these products in the future.

http://www.engadget....ablets-laptops/

Thats really interesting! I was going to order a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor tomorrow but if that might be on the horizon I may just wait it out with my 23 inch monitor and 1080p 42 inch TV. Hrm now I have some thinking to do.

[Catamount]

Hmm, when it comes to gaming, I can't really imagine ever wanting to go above 1080P anyways. Most setups have a hard time pushing 60fps in certain titles at 2560x1600; I can't imagine what kind of setup would be needed to double that resolution (Dual GTX695s here we come?)

[Vincent Vascaul]

its not for gaming its for workspace more pixels= more productivity

[LordDeathStrike]

the base sound sucks on any tv. go get yourself some surround sound gear (reciever and 5.1 speakers min, 7.1 if you got money to light your cigar with)

[Burned_Follower]

LordDeathStrike, on 15 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

the base sound sucks on any tv. go get yourself some surround sound gear (reciever and 5.1 speakers min, 7.1 if you got money to light your cigar with)

Agreed. I'm actually planning on getting a 7.1 surround sound gaming headset from logitech here. I could purchase a surround sound system but i don't want to disturb other people living in my apartment building while i'm busy killing my friends online, hehe.

[Catamount]

Yeah, given the modest price of home theather systems (Certainly compared to TVs), I think that in most cases they're definitely a must, though limited budget provided, I wouldn't necessarily trade TV quality for one as opposed to just getting it down the road, especially since it's looking like TVs might be a longer term purchase than they once were (there's not much to break in an LCD, even less than before now that we've ditched the CCFLs). I certainly don't see 1080P as a standard going anywhere; TV bandwidth is barely able to keep up with that resolution, and only on a few services. So I don't see replacing TVs as something we'll be dealing with much once we get a suitable set.

[Aegis Kleais]

Normal for TV's out on a showroom floor to be messed with. People adjust their settings and just factory resetting them doesn't always give the best results.

Thing is you have to be careful. There's a reason why 30" LCD monitors cost $1000 and 30" TV's cost $300. Most TVs cannot replicate dark colors well and you get effects like banding, ghosting and other issues especially when being used for gaming.

At work, they went the other way around, and spent $1000 for 30" Dell Monitors, but then they just use them for browsing, etc; something a TV would have handled just fine. Ugh.

[Sporklift]

I just buy 99$ 20'' Acer monitors, at that price I'll have my wall covered by the end of the summer.

[Deathz Jester]

Sir I believe you should get you're electronics and such at Newegg.


I took the liberty of providing a link to some LCD TVs ranging from 32" to 42"

32 inch to 42 inch LCD Televisions