poos, just when I convince the missus to splash out on a flatscreen tele, the LED ones start getting nearly affordable so I feel like waiting again!! Maybe I should just stop reading trusted reviews, that would help.
Maybe I should just stop commenting on every second article, i'll shut up for a bit now, i promise.
The quoted 4,000:1 'modest contrast ratio' is so because it's the static contrast figure and not the dynamic one like the 7,000,000:1 on the Samsung.
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Geoff Richards.Show DetailsHide Details
I haven't seen the launch material myself, but I'll go with Beaky69's assumption - Sharp has presumably used edge LEDs for the backlight to replace the traditional CCFLs. This allows much a much thinner chassis, and lower power consumption too.
Local dimming fills the entire screen with a grid of LEDs, and is therefore much more expensive, however the results are simply astonishing compared to regular LCD. Naturally there's always something better around the corner, but it remains to be seen when large, affordable OLED screens become available.
I'm ready to upgrade to Sky+HD and get myself a new set to go with it but I keep putting it off. LED TV's seem to have been "on their way" forever and the results dont seem all that wonderful compared to a Kuro or NeoPDP Panasonic.
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Geoff Richards.Show DetailsHide Details
Seems I spoke (slightly) too soon. I have just read that the Sharp LE700UN-series is a curious third type of LED backlit TV; not edge-lit at all, it features LEDs behind the screen but does not support local-dimming... I'm sure our John Archer will take a look under the hood when review samples become available
Can I ask a stupid question? Of course I can - this is the internet!
When a TV says it is 100Hz I assume that is to do with UK electricity running at 50Hz, so does that mean if you use a 60Hz input (e.g. a games console) would the TV be able to run at 120Hz? I wonder this as I assume it is the same TV they release around the world.
The 50hz signal is derrived from the Pal video format used in the UK, rather than the AC frequency you refer to. Pal displays 25 frames / second interlaced, which results in 50Hz, whilst the USA uses the NTSC video format, which displays 30 frames / second at 60Hz. The problem with a 50Hz signal is that some people can see a distinct flickering of the tv picture, especially if viewed out of the corner of the eye. Doubling the picture frequency to 100Hz (UK) & 120Hz (USA) results in much more stable, smoother video.
Incorrect. The reason the UK (and Europe) use a 50hz picture (and the US 60hz) was indeed originally down to the mains frequency. Made the electronics a lot simpler and way cheaper. I may be wrong but I think someone somewhere in the world uses a variety of PAL with a 60hz refresh rate.
All this became fairly irrelevent when the ubiquity of multisync monitors for PCs and some new integrated circuits drove down the prices of the electronics.
The stuff that's in todays TVs and (some) LCD monitors is pretty much all done digitally through comparatively cheap chipsets. They can do a wide range of frequencies due to the digial processing - it just depends on what the manufacturer implements. My Toshiba can go to 120hz and displays each frame of a 24hz Blu-ray five times to get a rock-steady image.
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.
Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.
Comments