Board logo

what tv for a grand
dave r - 27/12/13 at 05:50 PM

ok, so what tv would you buy for a grand ?
looking at around the 50" mark, most likely led backlit

Hellfire - 27/12/13 at 06:09 PM

Panasonic GT50

Phil

mark chandler - 27/12/13 at 06:17 PM

Samsung, you will need to work on the salesman hard

Forget plasma, electric costs will soon overtake the difference in price.

JohnH - 27/12/13 at 06:25 PM

I've got a LG smart 3D tv....... OMG it's amazing. It'll turn 2D tv into 3D tv. You can down load films straight to the tv or onto a memory stick. I got a 42", would love a 50". Best tv I've ever had. I've also got the LG sound bar. If you use the tv for gaming you can get two pairs of glasses and they give each gamer a full screen. Plus the gaming glasses will make a 3D film look like 2D ( for the people that don't like 3D ).......... If you have any glasses from the cinema you can use them on the LG Smart TV. Best TV I've ever had. Go and have a look at currys at them. I got mine online, it was cheaper. Good luck.

Hopley89 - 27/12/13 at 06:31 PM

Iv got a 55inch lg 3d all led tv and it amazing . I found it better that the samsung tv at the time
The picture is like looking out of a window it's so attention to detail . Like JHON H said it brilliant for gaming
I got mine from Costco you will be amazed at the prices and quality of the tv from there

gaz_gaz - 27/12/13 at 06:51 PM

Picked up an LG 55LA660v yesterday from currys for 899
the plan was to stick it in the back room but the picture and sound is far better than my Samsung UE55F8000 so the LG is in the front room and the twice the price samsung is now the back room tv.
straight out the box without fiddling the tv is fantastic and the 3d is blinding.

franky - 27/12/13 at 06:59 PM

Few points....

1: don't bother with 3D, the industry isn't bothering anymore.
2: Do you really need a 50" tv? Are you sitting about 18-22ft away from it?
3: Go and view a few that have a player plugged directly into them, not off any type of DA and see which you like the look of most.

Ben_Copeland - 27/12/13 at 06:59 PM

Just bought the new lg 47 790w LED for £899 at richer sounds.

Amazing quality and 3d is good. 6 pairs of glasses plus you can use the ones from the cinema.

Old Samsung LCD is no match.

[Edited on 27/12/13 by Ben_Copeland]

loggyboy - 27/12/13 at 06:59 PM

Defo Panasonic plasma if you prefer picture quality over skinny design, GT60B gets goid reviews.

madteg - 27/12/13 at 07:15 PM

60" 3D LG from pc world £1000.00.

perksy - 27/12/13 at 07:19 PM

Following this one with interest as we are in the market for new big screen telly.

Was thinking of going Samsung but now i'm hearing good things about LG.

Choices choices, gawd i hate choices

fesycresy - 27/12/13 at 07:23 PM

Panasonic for me too.

joneh - 27/12/13 at 07:25 PM

If you get an LG upgrade the software...

https://securityledger.com/2013/11 /fix-from-lg-ends-involuntary-smarttv-snooping-but-privacy-questions-remain/

Hopley89 - 27/12/13 at 07:38 PM

Don't get plasma .. They are no were near as good as
LED and led will last twice as long

craig1410 - 27/12/13 at 07:46 PM

I'm out of touch with the specific models available today but have been very happy with the LG 50" Plasma we bought a couple of years ago. We also bought it from RicherSounds who were excellent and offer a very cheap 5 year warranty for just 10% of purchase price. I don't normally bother with extended warranties but this was too good to ignore.

At the time I looked at a lot of LED LCD and Plasma TVs, both in 3D and 2D and came to the conclusion that 3D was a waste of time, something that has been confirmed by the non-existent take up of this feature in the domestic market. 3D *can* be made to work well in the cinema (eg. the excellent Gravity movie) but for home use it is really just a gimmick and likely to remain so.

The other conclusion I came to was that Plasma was far superior to LCD if you want excellent black levels (eg. sci-fi films in space) or if you want smooth motion video for sports or gaming. LCD's with 120Hz refresh are getting better in this latter regard but still don't rival the smooth motion and minimal lag of good plasma displays. Also, some LCDs try to improve black levels by turning off sections of the backlight but this is just a crude workaround at best. One area where a good LCD can beat a good Plasma is with regards to power consumption but unless you watch an unhealthy amount of TV then that's not a massive issue. The only other area is with maximum brightness but unless you watch TV outside or have a very badly setup home cinema then again thats not likely to be an issue.

Sadly, Plasma will most likely disappear in the next few years as TV makers can make more money now from LCDs but while Plasmas are still available, I for one will continue to use them. You've still got to do your homework though and find a good one.

Cheers,
Craig.

craig1410 - 27/12/13 at 07:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Hopley89
Don't get plasma .. They are no were near as good as
LED and led will last twice as long


A little bit thin on facts there I'd say.

Here's a nice simple article explaining in balanced terms the pros and cons of each technology. Neither are perfect for everyone so best to make up your own mind.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/lcd-vs-plasma-tvs/

loggyboy - 27/12/13 at 08:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Hopley89
Don't get plasma .. They are no were near as good as
LED and led will last twice as long

Rubbish(.)

JohnH - 27/12/13 at 08:27 PM

The soft wear update on the LG, when it needs it...... Well mine does. I wouldn't be with out it,great for the F1 or any motor sport...

TimC - 27/12/13 at 08:35 PM

A grand for a TV? I'd want it to cook me steak and chips and give me a happy ending for that sort of cash.

big-vee-twin - 27/12/13 at 08:44 PM

LG smart 3D cinema as already said, amazing.

I tried out Panasonic, Samsung and Sony before buying the LG.

IMHO the LG is much, much better in 3D than the others. It so good I'd rather watch 3D at home than at the flicks.

Family is under standing orders to only buy 3D films.

[Edited on 27/12/13 by big-vee-twin]

ASH3 - 27/12/13 at 08:48 PM

LG like buying a Skoda.... would you have one in the garage let alone in the front room.....

mangogrooveworkshop - 27/12/13 at 08:52 PM

Just buy a decent projector and screen ……

daniel mason - 27/12/13 at 08:56 PM

pioneer plasma! truly awesome natural picture. you also dont need to be 22' away to watch a 50"tv. i install them regularly in home cinema setups and 12' is ideal

Scuzzle - 27/12/13 at 08:59 PM

Not sure exactly how good this 47" LG 3D Smart TV is but LG have done a deal with John Lewis to make it exclusively for them so everyone else is heavily discounting it to get rid of their stocks. Asda, Currys etc. all had massive discounts on it.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390712952940&clk_rvr_id=565916558060

Like I say I've no idea what it's like but it's half your budget.

franky - 27/12/13 at 09:06 PM

Not sure why there's so much fuss about having a 3d tv at home.

Hopley89 - 27/12/13 at 09:20 PM

This just shows how good LED'S are in a tv
Brilliant ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-1_9vxBGYQ

bigfoot4616 - 27/12/13 at 09:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by franky
Not sure why there's so much fuss about having a 3d tv at home.


when i first got mine i watched a few things in 3d and then stopped bothering. not even sure where the glasses are now.
i didn't buy the tv for 3d though, just all the decent ones come with it.

mines a 50" panasonic gt50 and i'm yet to see a lcd that looks as good to my eyes.

franky - 27/12/13 at 09:35 PM

Unless you actually know what you're looking for and compare like for like fed off the same source side by side you're better off buying what hifi, sound and vision then getting what they like.

craig1410 - 27/12/13 at 09:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by franky
Not sure why there's so much fuss about having a 3d tv at home.


I agree completely and it seems as if the manufacturers have already accepted the inevitable:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead

Summary of above link is that at the CES 2013 show, the main manufacturers hardly mentioned 3D at all and market penetration has been very low. Even people who have bought TVs with 3D often didn't buy it because it specifically had 3D.

IMAX 3D was very good for Gravity but that was more to do with the clever use of it. Most films tend to distract more than enhance through the use of 3D. Avatar was cute in 3D but every bit as enjoyable (and without the headache) in 2D. Almost all films I choose to see in 2D because I prefer it and refuse to pay extra for a headache.

Fundamentally 3D on a TV or cinema screen will always be fake because the convergence point of the eyes is the only thing that is changing. The focal point is always that same distance away. Linky: http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed

I'll buy a 3D device when I can view the picture in full 3D (convergence + focus) from any viewing angle in my living room and without wearing stupid big glasses. Until that time, I'll settle for a good 2D picture.

[Edited on 27/12/2013 by craig1410]

franky - 27/12/13 at 09:43 PM

4k is the next 'selling point'. only SKY do anything in 3d and they've scaled it back to about 5% of what they did. They're going to knock it on the head.

Funny thing is we're gearing up for 4k but proper HD is still not transmitted/sent to the home from any provider due to the 3gig bandwidth to transmit and the fact its only just being recorded in it.

craig1410 - 27/12/13 at 09:52 PM

In my opinion the next area for significant improvement is in the user interface of the "TV" When I say TV here I mean the whole experience not just the actual electronic device. This is where Apple have been rumoured to turn things on its head like they did with the phone in 2007 and I think it can certainly happen but will require a lot of things to align. The technology itself is the least of the problems as it once was with the music and smartphone industries.

For me 1080p HD picture quality is perfectly good enough but the experience of using a TV is still pretty poor. I use an Apple TV box with things like iTunes and Netflix and that experience is much better than a Sky TV box (which I also own). The Sky User Interface is horrible and buggy and crashy and slow etc. The Apple TV UI is perhaps a bit simplistic but it is very easy to use and fast and the remote control is super-simple. I hope Apple do get involved in this market, if only to get other companies "thinking different". It really can be improved a huge amount IMHO for the benefit of Apple and non-Apple fans alike.

James - 27/12/13 at 10:15 PM

I can't even imagine what is good enough on TV to justify spending a grand to watch it!

Are the cast of Eastenders better looking when they're 4' tall in your room?

Forget the TV and go get on with the car!

Bah Humbug!

James

speedyxjs - 27/12/13 at 11:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by TimC
A grand for a TV? I'd want it to cook me steak and chips and give me a happy ending for that sort of cash.


Now that's a tv Lol! I must admit, i never realized these giant tv's were so popular. Quite happy with my trusty 19" flatscreen

Simon - 28/12/13 at 01:10 AM

I doubt I'll even bother replacing our telly if it dies - we give £800 a year to sky, plus the tv licence and there's nowt to watch on the telly.

Sky will be cancelled soon, and the family can have freeview etc.

As for HD, I'm sure Sky have a degraded standard def transmission as our telly with DVD (not Blueray) is so sharp!

Just me being a cynic perhaps - but if they hadn't wanted so much money for 3D a couple of years back, I'd have had one - which I suspect is the real reason for the lack of market penetration.

We have an 32" LG which has been fine for the last 7 or 8 years.

ATB

Simon

franky - 28/12/13 at 06:32 AM

32" is great size. The reason it never took off is that it doesn't look great and that sport, which drives tv technology doesn't work in it, well the big money ones don't anyway.

Signal quality is varied from show to show and sky's hd box doesn't output as good a pic as a humax freesat box. Although I do a lot of work for sky I don't have it, just a nice simple freesat box and enjoy the £350-400 a year it saves me.

SCAR - 28/12/13 at 09:39 AM

I'm thinking of getting colour

NigeEss - 28/12/13 at 09:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Hopley89
Don't get plasma .. They are no were near as good as
LED and led will last twice as long


I got on the flat screen bandwagon reasonably early, in 2004 I bought a Hitachi 32" plasma for
an eyewatering £2500
It is still working perfectly and the picture is good even by modern standards. And it has decent
speakers, unlike the very thin LEDs which in most cases are crap.

And as for 3D, I spent a lot of money on laser surgery so I didn't have to wear glasses to watch tv

[Edited on 28/12/13 by NigeEss]

NigeEss - 28/12/13 at 09:55 AM

quote:
Originally posted by SCAR
I'm thinking of getting colour


zilspeed - 28/12/13 at 11:11 AM

I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.

Mr C - 28/12/13 at 12:56 PM

The Panasonic GT60 is the TV of the moment, delighted with mine. You don't need to be 22 feet away to enjoy it either!!! Plasma do offer some advantages over LCD particulary the blacks on screen are that much better. It took a bit of fiddling to get the picture settings right, as always factory settings are not great. Its THX approved which is one of the industries highest standards. go for the THX settings and its good to go. Plasma is being phased out because of the easier and cheaper methods of mass producing lcd/led screens, not because its technically inferior, grab one and enjoy it while you can.

http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/vi era-txp50gt60b/pana-txp50gt60b

[Edited on 28/12/13 by Mr C]

Mr C - 28/12/13 at 01:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.


Should you be driving with eyesight that bad??...

jacko - 28/12/13 at 04:25 PM

Have you lot got bad eye sight 50ins tv's

HowardB - 28/12/13 at 06:19 PM

I managed 15 years without a TV, and now I have one I don't watch it,... well less than an hour a week. So spending the money on something else would get my selfish vote.

However as a method of keeping the family quiet so I can vanish and work on the car, or what ever the TV is the best thing ever,..

franky - 28/12/13 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.


I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost of making them..

zilspeed - 28/12/13 at 06:48 PM

quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.


I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost of making them..


The sheer response of a good CRT has taken flat screen technology a long time to catch up with.
Motion blurring isn't even a consideration nor is the thought that a true deep black can actually be achieved.

If I' being honest, I imagine that flat screen technology might be up to speed now, but it's taken a long time to get there.

We all bought into it because it was so space age. If we were honest though, picture quality was a compromise.
If it was better than your old CRT, then that's because your CRT wasn't very good.

In any case, a great deal of the ultimate quality is in the hands of the broadcaster and how much bandwidth they're willing to buy to avoid the blockiness that no amount of high quality set in your room can do anything about.

If that made any sense at all.

craig1410 - 28/12/13 at 07:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.


I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost of making them..


The sheer response of a good CRT has taken flat screen technology a long time to catch up with.
Motion blurring isn't even a consideration nor is the thought that a true deep black can actually be achieved.

If I' being honest, I imagine that flat screen technology might be up to speed now, but it's taken a long time to get there.

We all bought into it because it was so space age. If we were honest though, picture quality was a compromise.
If it was better than your old CRT, then that's because your CRT wasn't very good.

In any case, a great deal of the ultimate quality is in the hands of the broadcaster and how much bandwidth they're willing to buy to avoid the blockiness that no amount of high quality set in your room can do anything about.

If that made any sense at all.



Plasma displays have been up to speed with CRTs for a while now although LCDs have a bit further to go in terms of responsiveness and black levels in particular. I had a very high end 36" Panasonic CRT TV immediately before I bought my Plasma and the plasma is far and away a better picture and performs better in every conceivable way compared to the CRT. Let's not try to kid ourselves that CRTs were perfect. My Dad was a TV engineer for over 30 years before he retired and there were plenty of problems with them. Fortunately this allowed my Dad to make a good living for all those years. Think about geometry, convergence, heat, solder joint failures on the various transformers inside. Burn-in issues, warm-up issues, buzzes and whistles, high-voltage arcing, clipping of the picture due to overscan etc.

Here's an interesting comparison between these technologies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED

Cheers,
Craig.

franky - 28/12/13 at 08:03 PM

CRT's still set the standard in ultimate quality though. We(until last year) would use £13,000 sony 17" monitors for checking ultimate picture quality. The monitors we have to buy now are cheaper(say £5k for a good 17" but still do not match the CRT's and wont for another 5-7 years. Even a nice domestic CRT is at least as good as what we have to buy now.

I've a 32" plasma at home, I'm hoping it lasts until OLED's come down in price.

zilspeed - 28/12/13 at 08:16 PM

We must have been lucky with our Sonys then.
Either that or I must be a fan of the Trinitron tube.

Ultra reliable too.
We had three in our family over ten years and not one of them failed.

We've held onto the KV25.

craig1410 - 28/12/13 at 08:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by franky
CRT's still set the standard in ultimate quality though. We(until last year) would use £13,000 sony 17" monitors for checking ultimate picture quality. The monitors we have to buy now are cheaper(say £5k for a good 17" but still do not match the CRT's and wont for another 5-7 years. Even a nice domestic CRT is at least as good as what we have to buy now.

I've a 32" plasma at home, I'm hoping it lasts until OLED's come down in price.


I realise there are specialist devices out there such as the Sony 17" £13000 monitors you refer to but I don't think these would be viable or desirable as a home cinema TV. Out of interest, what do you use these for?

franky - 28/12/13 at 08:49 PM

we use them for picture matching one camera to another, so say 10 cameras looking at the same object, we make them all look the same colour, check detail levels, focus, dead pixles on cameras etc.

mark chandler - 28/12/13 at 10:09 PM

Voila

Linky

David Jenkins - 29/12/13 at 09:03 AM

quote:
Originally posted by craig1410

I realise there are specialist devices out there such as the Sony 17" £13000 monitors you refer to but I don't think these would be viable or desirable as a home cinema TV. Out of interest, what do you use these for?


I used to work for part of BT that looked after the transmission lines for the BBC - we used to have a monitor like that to keep an eye on things, and the picture was amazing. Even things like the phosphor dots in the screen were much smaller; if you stood back a very short distance you couldn't see them at all. However, it was far too big for domestic use, and far too delicate (it was built for moving around, but there was always a risk of losing its carefully set adjustments if we were clumsy with it). It was also very heavy!