[Question] Possible new TV

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems like an excellent choice. Good reviews pretty much all over the net. 120hz and LED are specs I look for in a TV. LG is also a great and solid brand. All in all I don't see a problem with it.
 
Awesome, thank you for having a look. The guy has been really nice and has even arranged for me to have it in a few days if that's what we go with.
 
Walmart has it for $70 cheaper if you can find a store near you with stock (four stores within 50 miles of me had it in stock) and don't mind walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/LG-47LS4500-47-1080p-120Hz-Edge-2D-LED-HDTV-1.4-ultra-slim/21693003

Or they have the 3D version of that TV for the same cost at walmart as your price.

However, that price is still a good price. It's not a good deal, but it's reasonable for that TV. I suspect that if you shop around and wait on it you can probably find a slightly better deal, but the savings if you wait is going to be under 10%, so it may not matter.

The TV is a nice model, and reviews are good: http://www.amazon.com/LG-47LS4500-47-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B0096FB9K0

I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.
 
This should be a great TV for you. Should do everything you want and more while being reliable.

(Just for the love of all that is good please turn off the Trumotion frame interpolation) ;)
 
May I ask why? I don't know if my TV has it, but if it's something I need to worry about I'll check.

Oh it's a newish feature that originated on LCD televisions to help compensate for the relatively low refresh rates compared to CRT and Plasma televisions. Almost all LCD televisions have it now (and some plasmas for some reason). It takes whatever footage you have coming in (let's just say 30fps to make calculations easy) and makes up frames to make things "smoother" See, at 120hz you are getting 120 images a second. With motion interpolation turned off the TV will just show frame one 4 times, frame two four times, frame three 4 times (4*30=120). However with motion interpolation on, the TV will actually create 3 distinct new frames between each original footage frame. This results in hyper real smooth footage with next to no motion blur and sometimes full of interpolation artifacting. Some people love it. I absolutely f#$%ing hate it so it is a preferential thing. It really pulls me out of the movie/show and drives me bonkers. We see motion blur in real life... and removing it makes look super fake to me.

My honest take... it does look pretty neat for sports coverage where that super fluid motion actually works pretty well. When you're watching a movie where the director has used things like shutter speed and camera exposure to evoke mood... it completely and utterly ruins it and makes it look like garbage.
 
May I ask why? I don't know if my TV has it, but if it's something I need to worry about I'll check.
Remember how many people hated the 120 FPS Hobbit version? That was why. It basically makes everything look like it's on a high def camcorder. I turned it off on mine as well.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Remember how many people hated the 120 FPS Hobbit version? That was why. It basically makes everything look like it's on a high def camcorder. I turned it off on mine as well.
Oh for goodness sake, while those two issues are related, they're not the same thing at all. The Hobbit was shot in 48fps, while frame-interpolation is created on the fly, and usually with cheap hardware. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom in cameras. (Optical zoom is fantastic, assuming you're using a tripod or image stabalization, while digital zoom sucks.) Frame interpolation is a gimmick like bass boost on stereos, some people think it looks/sounds better, but mostly it's just using cheap tricks that will introduce odd artifacts as often as it does anything helpful, probably more often. Actually shooting in 48fps is not just a gimmick, even though some people don't like the choice artistically. There are real benefits to higher frame rate, and it's ignorant statements like yours that are keeping cinema from moving forward.
 
Oh for goodness sake, while those two issues are related, they're not the same thing at all. The Hobbit was shot in 48fps, while frame-interpolation is created on the fly, and usually with cheap hardware. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom in cameras. (Optical zoom is fantastic, assuming you're using a tripod or image stabalization, while digital zoom sucks.) Frame interpolation is a gimmick like bass boost on stereos, some people think it looks/sounds better, but mostly it's just using cheap tricks that will introduce odd artifacts as often as it does anything helpful, probably more often. Actually shooting in 48fps is not just a gimmick, even though some people don't like the choice artistically. There are real benefits to higher frame rate, and it's ignorant statements like yours that are keeping cinema from moving forward.
People hate the way it looks. You can dislike that as much as you want, but they hate it.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
People hate the way it looks. You can dislike that as much as you want, but they hate it.
Some people hate the way it looks. Some people hate the way HDTV looks. Some people hate the way digital music sounds. Some people probably hated color when it was first added to movies.

That doesn't mean that HDTV looks worse than an SDTV. That doesn't mean that Vinyl sounds better than a CD, or even a more advanced form of digital audio. That doesn't mean that color in movies is something that will never catch on.

Personally I like the potential that higher frame rate has. I think it's still got some issues to work out in terms of how it's used; but when it works, it looks amazing and is a definite improvement. Just because you don't like it is no reason to be blatantly wrong in your stating of the facts. The Hobbit was not 120fps, and it was not frame interpolated either.
 
Oh no, I got numbers wrong. It's still the same issue that bothers people.

So, did you just ignore the backlash that the Hobbit had over this issue?
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Oh no, I got numbers wrong. It's still the same issue that bothers people.
No, it's not the same issue. As I explained it is a similar issue. It is no more the same issue than "bass boost" and "T-bass" are the same as the point-one in 5.1 surround sound. Both may end up with people complaining about the low-end rumble, but one is a cheap trick to try to disguise poor equipment, or a poor source, while the latter actually has higher fidelity.

So, did you just ignore the backlash that the Hobbit had over this issue?
No, I didn't ignore that. I noticed a lot of cinema snobs were all butthurt because their preconceptions were being challenged and someone was asking them to get used to something new and different. Yeah, the way fabric moves in 48 fps can bring up memories of "shot-on-shitteo" or stage productions, but that's like condemning animated films as "kid's stuff" because of their visual similarity to Saturday morning in the 80's. While there may be similarities, and film snobs may have difficulty in challenging their prejudices surrounding the smoother motion of 48 fps film, that does not mean that everyone, or even a majority, actually hate the new technology. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's the same thing as frame interpolation.
 
As I said when this was discussed back when the Hobbit came out, I think having a framerate that high hits the uncanny valley. People perceptually don't like things that aren't real to look too real. You may personally like it, but so far the reaction to it has been poor.
 
At least with someone filming in a higher framerate they can compensate for motion blur and colour saturation and the like on the set and in post production with professional level tools and personnel.

Interpolating frames on your $700 television is always going to look goofy unless they modify the hardware significantly to not eliminate motion blur. Human perception is capabale of detecting far more than the cinema standard of 24 frames per second... but we DO see motion blur (look at fast spinning wheels, helicopter blades... hell just swing your arms around in front of your face... you'll see it). Eliminate motion blur and things look creepy (and very UNREAL).
 
Hi guys, based on the discussion we had in the other thread, does this look like a good one? I have negotiated a discount on the price from what's posted on line.

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...spx?path=0c011fc5b8fde0010731f80c66455107en02
I have the LCD version of that TV in my bedroom. It has more HDMI jacks and is considerably cheaper. Honestly, the difference between the LCD and LED version of that set is nearly unnoticeable, having seen both in action at the local Futureshop.

And I see that you had already purchased it so I will slink away quietly.
 
He gave me a really good buy on it so the price difference between the two isn't an issue. I had gone in looking for the LCD version of it (based on reviews and seeing it in action) but they didn't have any that they could get me before Tuesday so that's why we went with this one.

I do have a few questions if you don't mind though.

What is the difference in the number of HDMI jacks?
Do you find the size of the TV large for your room? In the store it looked pretty normal. In our room, its looking a bit massive.
Do you use a playstation or other consoles with yours?
Did you have to turn off the setting they mentioned above?
 
My room is pretty big and it's opposite of my bed. It's perfectly suitable for me. More jacks means I can plug more shit into it. Right now I have a digital box and my PS3 hooked up to it but having 3 jacks instead of 2 means I can toss something else on without having to juggle what's hooked up. Just a mild convenience.

I have the trumotion crap turned off because like most of the people in this thread, I also can't stand it. It makes everything look bad.
 
As I said when this was discussed back when the Hobbit came out, I think having a framerate that high hits the uncanny valley. People perceptually don't like things that aren't real to look too real. You may personally like it, but so far the reaction to it has been poor.
The local Best Buy had motion control on on their display models, and they had the first Rocky movie on. A 1976 movie just SHOULD NOT LOOK LIKE THAT. :hide:
 
That's what he does... disagrees without clarification. I don't even pay it any attention anymore.
Name a time outside of this thread I've done that. Please, I'll wait. I can assure you I've actually been the one to get after people for disagreeing without backing up their position, the only reason I did that here, was because I logged out for the night after being distracted from the computer when I hit the disagrees but before I could get to the text.

I disagreed with all complaints about frame interloption on new TVs being shit and making the movies/TV look terrible. I think it makes them look more realistic, like I'm looking at a live feed of something happening to real people instead of a fake cinematic experience. Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.
 
Name a time outside of this thread I've done that. Please, I'll wait. I can assure you I've actually been the one to get after people for disagreeing without backing up their position, the only reason I did that here, was because I logged out for the night after being distracted from the computer when I hit the disagrees but before I could get to the text.

I disagreed with all complaints about frame interloption on new TVs being shit and making the movies/TV look terrible. I think it makes them look more realistic, like I'm looking at a live feed of something happening to real people instead of a fake cinematic experience. Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.

Oh I suppose I'm being a bit obnoxious about the disagree thing... but you do have a habit of disagreeing and then responding after the fact/later ;).

You're mixing your stuff up too because I didn't say anything negative about the Hobbit in 48fps. In fact I believe I mentioned something about film makers being able to compensate for reduced motion blur when shooting natively in a higher frame rate. When they are shooting at a particular frame rate and you view it at the intended frame rate things look great!

When you make up frames, everything goes to hell. I'm sorry but frame interpolation will always look like fake crap to me. Until they can make up frame interpolation that retains motion blur and doesn't create all kinds of garbage artifacting I will not change my position. Simple as that.
 
Yeah well, my wife proved more distracting than my ability to post a reply quickly.
Oh I suppose I'm being a bit obnoxious about the disagree thing... but you do have a habit of disagreeing and then responding after the fact/later ;).

Correct, but I do respond to why I disagree. Sometimes my wife/three kids/work interrupt me before I can.

You're mixing your stuff up too because I didn't say anything negative about the Hobbit in 48fps. In fact I believe I mentioned something about film makers being able to compensate for reduced motion blur when shooting natively in a higher frame rate. When they are shooting at a particular frame rate and you view it at the intended frame rate things look great!

You're not the one I was referring to about the negative Hobbit comments

When you make up frames, everything goes to hell. I'm sorry but frame interpolation will always look like fake crap to me. Until they can make up frame interpolation that retains motion blur and doesn't create all kinds of garbage artifacting I will not change my position. Simple as that.
Don't know what to tell you other than, Sorry your TV sucks? I get zero artifacting and my TV/Movies look like live feeds of actual people instead of fake cinema.
 
Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.
This is actually untrue. It's hugely divisive.
 
Don't know what to tell you other than, Sorry your TV sucks? I get zero artifacting and my TV/Movies look like live feeds of actual people instead of fake cinema.

My TV doesn't have any motion interpolation options (and it's most certainly not crappy). I see the motion artifacts in friends televisions and especially TV's at retail stores when I'm browsing. I can pretty much see artifacting in almost any television that uses frame interpolation. The vast majority of people can not... I can and do and it drives me crazy.

Honestly it's going to be personal opinion anyway. Neither way looks real. 24fps with lots of motion blur... not how we perceive the world. 120fps with no motion blur... also not how we perceive the world. I'll keep my fake cinema and you can have your hyper-real live feeds. (hint: there's no right answer here as far as preference goes).
 
My TV doesn't have any motion interpolation options (and it's most certainly not crappy). I see the motion artifacts in friends televisions and especially TV's at retail stores when I'm browsing. I can pretty much see artifacting in almost any television that uses frame interpolation. The vast majority of people can not... I can and do and it drives me crazy.


Most TV stores at retail are splitting their display connection, resulting in much poorer quality signals.
Honestly it's going to be personal opinion anyway. Neither way looks real. 24fps with lots of motion blur... not how we perceive the world. 120fps with no motion blur... also not how we perceive the world. I'll keep my fake cinema and you can have your hyper-real live feeds. (hint: there's no right answer here as far as preference goes).
You're right, I disagreed with your opinion and stated my own.
Most cinephiles can't stand motion interpolation. That's just how it is.
They tend to quote that it makes the shows/tv look too -real and prefer a more -cinematic- experience. I prefer a realistic viewing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top