TV - Samsung or Sony, and does refresh rate matter?

[gareth_r]

A blown speaker and an ever darker picture mean it's time to pension off the old Panasonic CRT, so I need to buy a replacement with a budget of £600, maybe £700.

Narrowed it down to Samsung (48 inch 3D) or Sony (50 inch 2D).
Not bothered about 3D.
Both 400 Hz processing rate.
Sony is c. £100 more expensive.

First question - Samsung or Sony?

Second - How important is the processing rate? As an ordinary viewer (not a home cinema enthusiast ), will I actually notice the difference between 400Hz and 200Hz or even 100Hz? Could I lose a couple of hundred hertz and save a few quid without spoiling my viewing pleasure?

[OldSkoolRS]

Try watching some fast moving sport and see if the higher refresh rate option looks any better to you. Particularly on fast panning shots. If you don't notice the difference, then save your money. It will also depend on whether any 'frame creation' setting is switched on and whether it's set high/meduim/low if it has these options. Personally I find frame creation looks false to me and makes films look 'odd'.

I saw a high end TV at a dealer display at Goodwood FOS this year and they showed 'Bullit'. It looked really sharp, but the picture looked more like it was a documentary about the film. Initially impressive (so good for pulling the punters in), but once you watched for a while and saw beyond the sharpness it just seemed un natural and fake looking.

Oh and 'get a Panasonic plasma' before someone else suggests it.

[JimbobVFR]

Personally I'm not a fan of the effect these modes give, like RS said they make stuff look unreal almost CGI.

Bear in mind most stuff you'll watch will be 60Hz Max I'd suggest a 120Hz display might be good for football or possibly gaming but you'd probably want to turn it off for anything else.

This is quite a good article.

http://uk.pcmag.com/feature/11612/hdtv-refresh-rat...

[piers1]

I have just gone with the Samsung 48, following having had a similar Sammy 50 for a couple of years and been so impressed with it, wanted the same in a different room.

I was told the naked eye cannot see above 100hz, not sure how true this is though!

Older one is 100hz, this is 400hz, can I tell a difference....not sure I can. Picture is beautiful, and it is so thin for wall mounts, that is job done for me

[Mr E]

But the one that looks the best to you.

(And yes, Panasonic plasma)

[JustinP1]

The Hz means something different to plasma than LED.

It makes a lot more difference on an LED screen. OP, I would really recommend going to Currys and having a look. In short, the lower the processing rate the more jagged, blocky, and unrealistic movement looks. That's bad enough when it's a person walking, but watching anything fast paced or sports it borders on being unwatchable.

Have a look and you'll see what I mean. It was the case that even a cheap plasma would handle motion well. That's not the case with LED.

[Flip Martian]

Earlier this year I went to John Lewis and had an interesting chat with the sales girl there about Sony and Samsung. I was taken with the Samsung - but she said Samsungs are set up to look great in the showrooms under harsh lighting. They don't always look so hot at home. Sonys were more "cool" in their colours she said but this translated to a better picture at home for most people. I was told if I watch a lot of sports I would notice the difference between 400hz and 200hz but not so much otherwise. Price was similar for both makes - I went with the Sony (and got a free bluray thrown in, which got sold).

Once I spend a while setting it up at home, I've been very happy with it. Superb picture.

[gareth_r]

Thanks all.

Leaning towards the Sony as it looks like delivery will be quicker.

I'm going to try paying for TV for a year, since (in theory, at least) adding TV to my current Virgin broadband and switching the landline from BT will cost about the same as I currently pay for broadband and phone, so I'd like to have the new television installed before October 1st.

[toon tvr]

This makes interesting reading when thinking about getting 2D or 3D.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765862/Wh...

[JustinP1]

toon tvr said:

This makes interesting reading when thinking about getting 2D or 3D.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765862/Wh...

It's entirely right.

I was an early adopter of 3D. I've had it for the last 4 years. I've watched 3D films, Football, Cricket, and a 3D game on the PS3.

The best experience was actually on the PS3 when you actually wish to be immersed.

For the rest I was ho-hum.

I've actually just got a 4K TV, and the first thing I did was do a test. I watched a 3D blu-ray and the same film on a 2D blu-ray, certain sections back to back.

OK, there was a sense of space behind the 3D objects, and the background looked suitably blurry, but everything was a bit blurry, and the motion looked 'forced'.

Then, when I watched the 2D blu-ray upscaled to 4K everything fell into place. The overblown sense of 3D wasn't there, but things actually looked real and super-sharp and naturally in 3D simply due to the quality and resolution of the picture.

I am sorry to say from being an rely adopter and supporter, even a 1080p blu-ray upscaled to 4K is a better experience, and on the limited 4K things I've seen it simply blows 3D away.

[Flip Martian]

My Sony TV mentioned above is 3D but apart from watching a few of the 3D short films on the Sony channel, I haven't really bothered up to now. I did just buy Dredd on 3D very cheaply though to see how that compared to me seeing it in 2D. Didn't feel like paying yet more money to Sky for the "3D experience" to be honest.

[gareth_r]

Ended up with the 50" Sony and an Orbitsound T12v3 soundbar (discontinued model, but £129 seemed cheap enough).

All up and running, and connected to the wireless hub, so I can even watch Motors TV.