TV Technology 2009: Part Two Comments

If LCD manufacturers can get the motion resolution loss problems of LCD eliminated... then I don't think we'll need OLED for big Tv's in the short term. Be interesting to see how much these new 240hz LCDs, which you didn't mention, help with that. Motion smearing is the last problem LCD's have to fix.
However I do think OLED is the future.. it's just going to take a while. For mobile devices switching to OLED is a must, let them improve the technology on a smaller scale, let the economy recover a bit... then we'll be picking up 65" 21:9 OLED screens from supermarkets some time middle of the next decade.

From what I have read, the 200hz Sony Z4500 does not suffer from motion resolution loss when the Motionflow system is cranked up beyond its minimum setting. I suspect the current Philips 9000 series sets might show similar results. More manufacturers are said to be opting for 200hz this year, with Samsung bringing out sets with both 200hz and (edge lit) LED.

Great articles. Thanks for writing!

What chance of buying a tv in 2009 at a decent price with all of the following features included:

Toshiba's fancy upscaling for SD pictures
An ultra thin screen a la Hitachi or JCV
Pioneer's black levels and contrast ratio
Phillips ambilight
etc!???

Seriously though, for those of us who can't afford a Kuro, will it always be a case of compromising here or there? There seem to be so many models which get a good review. What's more important, LED backlighting or 100+hz refresh rates? Extra frame creation technology or a high contrast ratio? A thin screen or a thin bezel? It might be helpful if you could rate the relative merits of these various technologies (especially the ones that directly affect picture quality). I'm sure they all help, but some must be more marginal than others. Once you immersed in a film, will someone who is discerning, but not an AV enthusiast as such, going to notice all of these?

>Bluepork

The problem with rating the relative merits of the different technologies is that it's far too subjective a measurement to do so.

It's the same as the "rainbow wheel" effect on projectors - some people notice it and can't live with it, some people notice it and can, some people don't notice it at all.

The best thing to do is pick a few DVDs/Blu-Rays, and go to a local hi-fi store for a demo. Try different screens, see what you can live with and what you can't.

Don't just rely on reviews!

(also, try to find a store that will let you play with the settings - your average Comet, Currys or Dixons have screens set to retina-sunburn levels and generally tend to set the systems to use too much processing)

Again, some of these features (apart from the media box) are irrelevant to what the main focused should be, picture quality.

The difference in thickness of my Panasonic and Pioneer plasma TVs is noticeable (~13cm versus 6.5cm) but when you're looking at the screen face on it becomes fairly irrelevant. Only when mounting on a wall might this be a serious 'feature' to look for but to be honest the difference between a 1cm and 3cm thickness is unlike to upset anyone, especially if the picture quality is sacrificed.

Bluepork > In my opinion, the single most important characteristic of a good TV panel is its black level response as this sets the base level for all colour reproduction. Poor blacks affect everything else including contrast ratio.

John: On green issues, I work in the environmental policy field and I can assure you stand-by is certainly not the main/only focus here, as evidenced by various announcements on efficiency improvements by various manufacturers (e.g. Panasonics claims of 50% reduction in energy consumption in forthcoming plasma models) and the new EU legislation. It is fortunate, however, that many of the new technologies also benefit from significantly reduced power consumption requirements: LED backlight LCDs, OLED, etc. Even with smaller TVs the stand-by consumption is only a small component, but its an area that is essentially waste and can be tackled more directly/easily. With the increasing trend to larger screen-sizes, there is more significant concern about the impact on energy consumption and of all the technologies, OLED appears to hold the most potential. Lucky for us it also holds much potential for improvement in visual quality!

I kinda agree on OLED, in TV's when OLED is so expensive at larger scales for relatively small gains I don't see the point (who needs a TV ~10mm thick anyway?), however for mobile devices I hope companies start making the switch over, at such small scales OLED is competitive and the gains are obvious and huge when the LCD and OLED are placed next to each other, and the thinner screens will allow companies to build in more hardware or battery.

Just want to say that this set of articles is really informative - well structured and well written. The topical headers for each subsectionare really good as well. Great job and thanks for sharing this with us!

As someone who has been waiting for his 32" Sony WEGA to die (8 years and still going strong), I simply cannot justify spending on a new screen. That being said I still really like the pic quality of my old set and the one single issue I have with all flat screens (KUROs included), is motion judder. CRT is still better. LCD makes me feel ill when the resolution of backdrops kicks in LCD and plazma has judder and they both have unnatural colour movement. It 'all' seems so unnatural compared to CRT! I hope OLED or SED or FED or laser or whatever the next gen is, fixes this because this is the time I will send my beloved WEGA to its maker.