Big TV lust (split)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

- just bought a big plasma TV (not really important in my life, but I wanted to brag a little ) 106 cm one.. :-)

Let's see.... I'm a confirmed Yank, so.... 106 cm divided by 2.54 equals approximately 41 inches?

You'll note I focused in on teh Shiny.

 

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Dam, when you say 41 inches, it doesn't seem that big and glorious anymore. I'll stick too 106 cm. :d

Sounds like you're doing great all the way around! I am delighted to see you here.

Yes Opsa, everything seems to be working out at the moment, knock on wood.

And trust me, I'm delighted to be here!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Dam, when you say 41 inches, it doesn't seem that big and glorious anymore. I'll stick too 106 cm. :d

Are you daft, man?

41 inches is huge....most folk don't even have the room to hang it. 

Unless, of course, they are renting in a really crappy neighborhood, and then?  If your TV is less than 60" plasma, that is worth more than the car you drive?  You are nobody.... of course, these folk rarely pay "retail" if you knowwhatImean...



(you see a lot of stuff, if your job involves fixing recalcitrant furnaces and broken-down A/Cs...)

[Aggie]

I just bought a new "TV" too (Samsung monitor with built-in digital TV tuner, although I haven't picked up any stations yet ), whopping 22".

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

- just bought a big plasma TV (not really important in my life, but I wanted to brag a little ) 106 cm one.. :-)

Let's see.... I'm a confirmed Yank, so.... 106 cm divided by 2.54 equals approximately 41 inches?

That's about as big as the one in my livingroom (which is a 720p LCD). When laser projectors become bright and affordable enough I might get one. 

Still I'd love to have a bigger TV.

In my home office.

As the monitor*!


*currently I have a 24" 1080 capable ws but no TV card. I only receive local channels in digital so it rarely make a difference.

[Aggie]

I didn't have a TV at all for a while there (and no cable or other signal-source for years), so this is a step up from our 16" CRT monitor (which was fulfilling TV duties).  Still need an antenna for the digital signal pickup, I think.

I also bought the 22" as a trial for maybe picking up a 25.5" version of the same unit, primarily as a TV but with the flexibility to kick it back to monitor duty in the future if/when a bigger TV is purchased.

[Griffin NoName]

<unhumble> It's a good job Zan never made it into this thread /Meeting Hall. Not just quite appalling topic drift, but outright topic disobedience <end unhumble>

[Aggie]

S'why we keep it away from those who might not be used to the ebb and flow of the Monastery tides.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Dam, when you say 41 inches, it doesn't seem that big and glorious anymore. I'll stick too 106 cm. :d

Are you daft, man?

41 inches is huge....most folk don't even have the room to hang it. 

I know. It's just playing with numbers, 41 looks less glorious than 106.

Just kidding, I like the huge TV, even though I try not to spend too much time watching it.. And it's also a shame that there are not many programs that I could fully enjoy, as I have no cable (but this might change soon enough,  I hope), so the offer on programs in HD is very limited.

But I'm thinking about getting a Blu-Ray, once the prices drop a little.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Get a DVD with HDMI upscaling, you'd be surprised how good it works (and how little is the difference with Blueray). Unless you watch your movies at 30cm from the screen AND the TV is 1080 AND the source is 1080p (and not excesively/badly compressed*) you won't find a significant change in quality (compared with upscaled DVDs).

I'm not getting into the BR wagon until the media prices match DVDs and there is a relatively easy way to copy the disks.

*for instance, I read complaints that the first BR of the Fifth Element looked like sh!t because it was badly mastered in it's BR incarnation.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Get a DVD with HDMI upscaling, you'd be surprised how good it works (and how little is the difference with Blueray). Unless you watch your movies at 30cm from the screen AND the TV is 1080 AND the source is 1080p (and not excesively/badly compressed*) you won't find a significant change in quality (compared with upscaled DVDs).

I'm not getting into the BR wagon until the media prices match DVDs and there is a relatively easy way to copy the disks.

*for instance, I read complaints that the first BR of the Fifth Element looked like sh!t because it was badly mastered in it's BR incarnation.

Hmmm... one more reason to wait.

As for me?  I'll get a PSx console-- whatever # it is by then-- for my player.  I've heard that's the way to go anywho.  I refuse to pay for high-end components, when I don't possess high-end ears and/or eyes. 

And as a bonus, I get a nice gaming console, if I want.   Used, of course-- what else?

Have they fixed The Fifth Element?   One of my favorite flicks...

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Get a DVD with HDMI upscaling, you'd be surprised how good it works (and how little is the difference with Blueray). Unless you watch your movies at 30cm from the screen AND the TV is 1080 AND the source is 1080p (and not excesively/badly compressed*) you won't find a significant change in quality (compared with upscaled DVDs).

I'm not getting into the BR wagon until the media prices match DVDs and there is a relatively

Didn't know there was something like that, guess I have a lot to learn.. Any tip on which one to get?

And, btw, I'm also not getting on the BR wagon yet, I still find the discs too expensive, so are the players IMO (although their prices are getting somehow lower..).


PS: sorry about the topic thread Grif. If you want, you can move this part somewhere else, in order not to disturb the silent monks..

[Bluenose]

I got all excited when I read above that The Fifth Element was a movie  - then I realised I was thinking of The Fifth Elephant - bummer!

BTW, I quite enjoyed The Fifth Element, but any Terry Pratchett stuff will always get me going!

   <<<<--------- for sensitive silent types.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Kiyo, most brands have HDMI 1080i/p capable DVD players nowadays. I currently own two cheap Philips (mainly to have interchangeable remotes) which do the job quite well (and are DivX capable too). In the States you can get one for ~$45. Dunno in CZ though.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Kiyo, most brands have HDMI 1080i/p capable DVD players nowadays. I currently own two cheap Philips (mainly to have interchangeable remotes) which do the job quite well (and are DivX capable too). In the States you can get one for ~$45. Dunno in CZ though.

Now that you mention it, I've been using my X-box console as a DVD player for quite some time, now.   It has HDMI output, which is how I have it connected.  So I suppose that's upscaled too?  I should check it out-- my TV has a slow CPU in it, and it takes 2-3 seconds to switch between HDTV mode and the "regular" TV mode--- (very irritating, if I'm surfing the tv schedule at random-- I have to wait 2-3 seconds between format shifts).

In any case, I can set the TV into HD mode, then turn on the console w/movie in, and see what happens.  Shifting back-and-forth (between the movie being played and cable HD) ought to expose a format-shift in the TV due to the 2-3 second delay inherent in the TV itself.

I'll report back what I find.   X-box 360s, used, can be had on the very cheap these days.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I watch netflix on my xbox only that it just entered the statistics and had a RRoD and will be shipped for repairs as soon as I get back home. The xbox isn't too efficient with is energy use either so using a standalone should save 100+ watts easily (although it's certainly convenient).

For the same reason stated above I wouldn't suggest an used xbox (1st gen had lots of reliability problems).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I watch netflix on my xbox only that it just entered the statistics and had a RRoD and will be shipped for repairs as soon as I get back home. The xbox isn't too efficient with is energy use either so using a standalone should save 100+ watts easily (although it's certainly convenient).

For the same reason stated above I wouldn't suggest an used xbox (1st gen had lots of reliability problems).

The most common issue with those is heat, or so I've read.

Mine's vertical-- that's supposedly the coolest way, and there's nothing to either side, and *certainly* not lying on the dusty floor-- it's up in a roomy shelf.

So far, I've had no issues with it in the least.

[Aggie]

Any recommendations for tv antennae? Preferably cheap but effective, I don't watch TV but would like to get the hockey game once in a while.

We live just south of downtown and are one of the taller buildings on the block (our floor is above most roofs).  I probably want both VHF and UHF.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The most common issue with those is heat, or so I've read.

Mine's vertical-- that's supposedly the coolest way, and there's nothing to either side, and *certainly* not lying on the dusty floor-- it's up in a roomy shelf.

So far, I've had no issues with it in the least.

Mine worked somewhat* for 2 years and 10 months. Lucky for me they still cover the damage before 3 years.** As for ventilation, mine was horizontal but on one of those metallic stands with plenty of ventilation above and below.

*I had to change the Hard Disk because it was giving me an E74 error. Then the disc drive started to scratch the disks. Finally the graphic engine died about 3 weeks or so.

**The first iteration of the console had a failure rate of 33% or one in three. Heat may have been a factor in the abysmal failure rate, although bad engineering sounds more accurate as a culprit.
---
Aggie

Can you install an aerial antenna? If not I've seen some antennas with an amplifier which help a bit but those don't do miracles. Try to place it close to a window in the general direction of the transmitter for best results. Oh and get some coaxial cable... 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well, I certainly won't fault your opinion about crappy engineering-- that does seem to be the consensus. 

But, I've also seen Microsquish advocating vertical orientation, so I'm going with that.   I've not installed any external fans, though... mayhap I should.  Easy enough, and I'd power'em with an external dongle, so that they'd be running *after* turning off the console, to eliminate heat-soak.   Gotta think about this-- I may just build an extension from the exhaust ports to a high velocity, but quiet external fan powered by a wall-wart... 

And now that you've got me thinkin' on it, I will return to my new game (to me-- Gears of war 1)...  (yes it's old-ish, but I wait 'til the games go below $20.... )

[Aggie]

Zono:  Can't do an aerial as we're in an apartment (and it's actually owners in here primarily, not renters, so the standards are a bit higher.  Might be able to put something small and discreet out on the balcony, but there's no way to wire it indoors (can't drill holes in the wall, I don't own the place).

Have lots of co-ax around, though.   

Really, I'm only looking for 2 or 3 channels, provided one has hockey and p'raps the local news.  My exposure is not great for picking up signals from downtown (where the actual TV studios are) but transmitters might be elsewhere.   Might start with a coathanger and work up from there.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've not installed any external fans, though... mayhap I should. 

Whatever you do DO NOT USE THE USB ONES! By draining more power it generated more internal heat that wasn't dissipated by the fans (who would've thought that placing a fan would overheat your console?).

Your plans sound good although channeling the airflow into those holes is tricky. Take pictures of the end result! 

Might be able to put something small and discreet out on the balcony, but there's no way to wire it indoors (can't drill holes in the wall, I don't own the place).

Bummer!

My exposure is not great for picking up signals from downtown (where the actual TV studios are) but transmitters might be elsewhere. 

Figure out where are the transmitting towers, then you have to take into the account that radiowaves bounce from concrete buildings. If you don't have a direct sight in the direction of the tower try to calculate where it would be bouncing from. That might help.

[Aggie]

All this depends on getting an antenna in the first place, that's the bit I'm wondering about.

[Lindorm]

Is this the wrong thread to point out that I haven't had a TV since 1993? Yep, last millennium. 

By the way, aren't those huge flatscreen TV sets supposed to use an ungodly amount of power? We are actually sort-of-maybe-thinking of gettign a small wallmounted flatscreen TV, but we don't want to buy something that requires it's own dedicated hydroelectric power plant.

[Griffin NoName]

I have a small-medium size (26 inch) LCD screen and it uses about 0.03 amps. I don't know about plasma.

I always had tiny TVs on grounds of superiority and cultural nicety, but my 26 inch one has changed my attitude. Of course, it could be due to my deteriorating eyesight.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

LCD screens (specially those with LED backlighting which BTW have far better contrast) are actually more efficient than the old CRTs.

Plasma eats more power possibly than CRTs of equivalent size, but nothing ungodly (unless you're thinking on a 60").

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Wot Zono said... the new'uns are not power-hungry like the old vacuum-bottle TV's were.

And they weigh considerably less, too-- even the largest weighs less than the medium-sized CRT types.

And, if you go back to *my* childhood?  Where you had a huge, honkin' flyback transformer that all by itself weighed 50 pounds... then there was the electron-gun transformer, 20 pounds, then the heavy steel chassis and all those glass vacuum tubes, and finally, the CRT itself.   All that inside real wood casing which alone weighed in at 20-30 pounds...

By the 80's the transformers and steel chassis had been replaced by switching electronics circuits and plastic cases were the norm, but the heavy CRT was still used.

Today?  No vacuum, no steel chasis, no transformers.  Sure, there's glass in an LCD or plasma, but it's pretty thin compared to the 1/4" thick glass on a CRT.

For a LCD?   The biggest consumer of power is the backlight-- typically electroflorescense, which are quite efficient.   The LCD pixels could easily be powered for days, with a simple 9v battery.  The graphics engine, which must decode the compressed digital picture is somewhat power-hungry.    Still, I'd be surprised if even the largest screens used more power than an average 60 watt lightbulb, or perhaps 2.

[Aggie]

Is this the wrong thread to point out that I haven't had a TV since 1993? Yep, last millennium. 

By the way, aren't those huge flatscreen TV sets supposed to use an ungodly amount of power? We are actually sort-of-maybe-thinking of gettign a small wallmounted flatscreen TV, but we don't want to buy something that requires it's own dedicated hydroelectric power plant.

If you are thinking smallish, I'm happy so far with my TV/monitor combo - as computer users you might appreciate the dual-use and could always retire it to monitor duty if you are not using it as a TV.  Admittedly, I haven't been using it as a TV yet, except for watching TV programs through the interwebz. There's a 25.5" model at a reasonable price, and larger versions may exist.

[ivor]

You can get newer graphics cards with an HDMI output.  That's what I use for my 42" flat screen.  It's great for NetFlix.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Or they come/you can get a DVI to HDMI adapter/cable (it is the same protocol). True, cheap/old computers only come with a VGA output but even then most flat panel TVs come with an VGA input too.

[ivor]

I have one of those too.  Make sure you get the right gender and put everything on a surge suppressor.  I had to have my TV fixed once already.  Fortunately it was under warranty.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I have a surge suppressor at the wall, a UPS and a power strip (in theory with some surge protection) before the TV, consoles and amplifier (this is lightning happy FL after all).

[Aggie]

Big TV question:  What are the disadvantages of going with a (cheaper) plasma TV instead of LCD? We are apparently in the market for a large TV _{(contrary to popular stereotypes it's the husband here who's reluctant)}  .

I'm not overly concerned about watching anything in HD, if that makes a difference.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Big TV question:  What are the disadvantages of going with a (cheaper) plasma TV instead of LCD? We are apparently in the market for a large TV _{(contrary to popular stereotypes it's the husband here who's reluctant)}  .

I'm not overly concerned about watching anything in HD, if that makes a difference.

Well, I know a tiny bit about that-- I had always assumed plasma was superior-- and it appears initially, this was true.

But LCD has continued with incremental improvements since it's inception in the TV market, whereas plasma is essentially the same as it was.

About 6 months ago, my old vacuum-bottle TV finally died, and I was in the market for a new flat screen.  My criteria:  Name-brand, clear picture, around $500US, HD-width (may as well) and excellent color.  I have off-the-scale color perception, so this was important to me.

I did my initial homework on-line, naturally, and discovered I could purchase locally (my desire) a plasma TV at WalMart (I know-- so beat me up later).   The TV I selected fit the above, and in plasma-- a technology I thought superior (at the time).

I thought it had richer colors, and faster response of pixels.

I was wrong:  the LCD I eventually purchased had the same pixel response-time as the plasma (a fast-moving picture is the only way to test this, such as foot-ball match, or auto racing, where the image is changing rapidly-- you're looking for smearing or pixelating, in a slow-response screen, whereas a fast one does not do this).

And?  The colors in the LCD was superior to the plasma!  That was a surprise to me-- but LCD's have continued to improve as I said-- blacker-blacks, richer colors and so forth.

What made me purchase the LCD over the plasma was this:  the back of the plasma set (in the store-- plenty of open space for ventilation, too) was HOT, HOT HOT.  Almost too hot to touch, in fact!   The LCD, by contrast, was 'baby-fever' warm.   A glance at the amp-rating of each?  I was convinced...the LCD used less electricity, ran cool, had equal pixel-speed and superior color.

Your mileage may vary, with regards to pixel speed and color-- these are brand-dependent.

Bottom line, however is the same:  plasmas run hot, and use more electricity than a same-sized LCD.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Agreeing with Bob I can also tell you that the best image after OLED (for which there are no big screens in the market) is LED backed LCD. Those not only eat even less electricity but are thinner than the average LCD screen. The downside is that those are more expensive.

As for plasma they do have one advantage over most LCDs and its related to Standard Definition TV. Given that you have more pixels in the screen than those in the signal (in plasma you usually get 720 lines) SDTV with 480i needs to be upscaled by the set and the signal is usually analog, any bit of noise in the signal will be more visible. Plasma TVs behave more like CRTs and the bleeding from one pixel to the other smooth out the image while LDCs by not doing so will show more of that noise. The general result is that LCDs have a cleaner image as long as the signal is digital and preferrably HD while plasma's will look better in SD but not as good in HD as an LCD.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting, Zono, I did not know that bit.

As for the OLED's?  I can't wait-- those have even higher efficiencies-- you don't need a separate backlight, unlike LCD's.

The LED-backed LCD's are too new, and these were not available in my area when I was shopping-- or else so exotic the were only on the very highest-end.

I suppose a word about all these letters is in order:

LCD = Liquid Crystal Display*.  These rely on light passing through the device from behind, typically this is a fluorescent or luminescent lamp(s) to either side, with reflective back behind the whole panel, re-directing that output through the display elements.  The color temperature of these lamps is essential to the final color output of the LCD itself.   The individual pixels are colored with a filter, which makes them into whatever color they need to display.  "black" is made by "closing" the pixel itself, and is dependent on the matrix's black color-- originally a serious problem with LCD panels was black appeared more grey-like than black.  Long since fixed in moderate-to-high priced panels.

A point of interest:  90% of the failures for LCD screens (including PC monitors) is the lamp(s) fail, not the display itself.  Replaceing the lamp(s) is not usually designed into the stupid thing-- they want you to just buy a whole'nother set.  Idiots:  it ought to be illegal to design it that way... for the lamp, sooner or later, is *going* to fail.  LCD technology has been around since the 70's and are quite reliable-- there ought to be a simple user-accessible panel in the back, where you could remove & replace the lamps on these things, instead of taking the whole thing apart.  *bleah*

LED = Light Emitting Diode.  OLED = Organic Light Emitting Diode**.  These two are similar items, in that the individual pixels, like plasma, emit light directly, rather than allowing light to pass through.  This means a thinner panel, as you don't need to allow space for the lamps' to shine through the panel.  LED's are more efficient than florescent or luminescent lamps, too, but the lifespan of LED's is about the same as flouro.  Once an individual LED or OLED pixel dies, that's it-- it's done.  Enough dead pixels makes the panel annoying to watch.

Plasma utilizes the "neon" effect:  if you put high voltage through a gas, it turns into plasma, and emits light.  The color of emitted light is highly dependent on the gas mixture itself, with the now infamous neon being a familiar orange-red, and xenon being the familiar too-blue "white".  Mixing different gasses, you get different colors, and you can use filters, too. 

Combine all these, and you can get the requisite Cyan, Magenta and Green of the emmissive color wheel.  Black is the same as the others, the pixel is off, and the glass is tinted black.  For a plasma display, you have thousands of individual cells, behind color filters (I think-- it's been awhile since I looked into the tech of plasmas).  The heat should be obvious-- it comes from two sources, the individual plasma cells themselves are not 100% efficient, not by a long shot, and some of the waste energy comes off as heat.  The second source is the massive power-supply to convert mains volts into super-high volts for the cells'.  I think these are still too new to understand really long-term reliability, although nothing individually about it is new-- far from it. Neon is one of the oldest techs we know.  High volt power supplies are pretty mature, too. 

LED backed LCD's is just what you'd imagine:  instead of the flouro lamps to the sides, you have clusters of white LED lamps shining through the LCD pixels.  I would imagine these are always on, so long as the set is on, and that a single LED would illuminate a group of LCD pixels-- indeed, why not?  They are just being used as a light-source.  Longevity is too new to be established, but LED's are quite a bit more efficient than fluorescent lamps, so these ought to be the most efficient of the lot.

___________________

* an interesting bit, to the science geeks:  LCD's work by twisting polarized light through 90 degrees.   There is a polarizing back-filter behind the transparent LCD pixel oriented, say North-South.  There is a front-filter oriented 90 degrees from that, say East-West.  For light to get all the way through, it must be twisted.  This is where the liquid crystal does it's magic:  if there is no current, the polarized light is blocked by the front filter, and you have a black pixel.   If you apply a minscule voltage to the pixel element, the liquid crystal "untwists" and rotates the polarized light through 90 degrees, allowing it to come through the pixel and out the front.  The color of the pixel is determined by a final filter, just before the light exits the device itself:  Cyan, magenta or green.  Classic emmissive color wheel.

** Light emitting diodes are amazing solid state thingys, that if you pass electricity through, emit an extremely narrow-band color-- very narrow frequency spectrum.  The efficiencies approach 90% or more-- meaning little heat, mostly light.  To get broad-spectrum color, needed for rich screens, you simply mix different agents into one device, so that each microscopic "fragment" emits it's specialized frequency, but the over-all emits over the desired color frequency.  White is just a mix of several colors on the same device-- but you trade efficiency for color.  Organic just means that the material that does the work is not silicon or germanium, but some exotic mixture of organic molecules instead.  These are easier to manufacture than doped silicon/germanium-- you essentially paint the organic chemicals onto the substrate, rather than bombard them with electron-gun/plasma beam dopant chemicals.   One of the cooler things about OLED's is that, being painted on, instead of super-high voltage in a vacuum, you can paint them onto low temp plastics or flexible materials.  You don't need a very sturdy backing, like with traditional LED's.  Flexible displays could be printed onto fabric, for example.... 

Imagine walking around with a 'leather' coat that changed it's logo at the touch of a concealed panel inside...  the power for it, could be a piezoelectric device in your shoes, so that by walking about, you created power for your jacket's logo....

...a whole 'nother meaning to the sandwich-board adverts.  No?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Actually the beauty of LED backed LCDs is that you can create an algorithm to use them as a low resolution black & white display, the result is that the black areas of the screen have no back lighting making the blacks as black as they can possibly be having a very nice contrast. OLEDs are obviously superior but the biggest screen (15" I think) was sold by Sony in Japan for a humongous price. In five years the manufacturing of large screens should be economical to have affordable big OLED TVs in the market.

For now you can get OLEDs in cellphones (with the obvious advantage of less power and higher resolutions).

[Aggie]

Why I'm asking is that for the size of the TV the wife wants, plasma seems to be cheaper, and consumer reviews give me the impression that the picture quality may be better for plasmas (which as the old technology on the block, seem to mean that the sets remaining on the market are towards the top end) than for LCDs at comparable (slightly higher) prices. I don't see useage being high enough to make energy efficiency a factor, and in any case we are using a portable heater in the room where it will be living (so extra heat is appreciated!).

Part of the dilemma is that I'm trying for an LG or Samsung; however, I just found a deal on a Toshiba that at first glance might meet criteria and is priced acceptably at a local dealer:
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/toshiba-40rv525u/4505-6482_7-33248762.html

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That Toshiba is LCD and a nice thing is that its 1080p (remember that most but the bigger plasmas are 720p) so its future proof.
---
I imagine you don't want me to depress you on the price of a similar TV I saw on Target this past black Friday (I didn't got it because I really didn't need it but was quite tempted).

[Aggie]

Y'all get much cheaper electronics - I know.   I am trying to decide if it's worth waiting until after Xmas for some Boxing Day deals (we do it backwards here).

Problem is though, I'm not so much concerned about future-proofing as 'past-proofing'!


Will need to physically get to a store and look at a few sets to see how they rank, and get some demos of SD performance.  _{Feeling a bit grumbly about this purchase, I think TVs are a waste of money so the less I can spend the better, but I'm also very big on value rather than just a low pricetag (i.e. best quality for the money spent).}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The internet to compare basics is fine.

But the personal experience of looking at the various sets, is a 100% must, in my opinion.

I eventually went to 9 or 10 different outlets, before settling on the WallyWorld purchase.

If you can, look for displays that are showing action-shots.  Those soothing displays of scenery do not show the real differences between the el-cheapo sets and the better capable ones.

For all flat screens have a graphics card inside (yes, exactly like a PC or Mac has). **All** image content these days has to be decrypted and processed in one or more ways, and your set has to be able to do this in 'real time'.

Some of the el-cheapo sets have a slow graphics processor, and you can see noticeable pixel-lag on really fast action scenes.

Some store displays will let you change channels into something with more actions, if you ask nicely.  I know I did.... and after explaining why, the sales reps were too happy to help, 'cause it would mean an up-sale.



(Except for walmart, wherein the "sales rep" wasn't old enough to shave, and hadn't a clue how the TV's even *got* their display picture, let alone how to change it.... but with some patient waiting, the scene eventually gave way to some sports clips, with lots of action... patience was the key, here...)