Samsung 55'' or Sharp Aquos 60''

My professional (former computer engineer and photographer) and personal opinion is that Samsung LED HDTV is a better choice. They have a superior image (black retention) and stay trouble-free and out of the repair shop far longer. I'd also advise looking at Sony, as well.

Don't misunderstand. I think Sharp Aquos are good, but dependability-wise and picturewise Samsung is superior. In a showroom, there is no guarantee they are calibrated accurately. I use my eyes..and compare the 2 units back-to-back and make sure that each that you compare are same size.

Once more, be sure to include Sony in your search too. Try to ignore price differences of $100-$200. Many times as you like to bitstream on the 'Net, Samsung and Sony are superior at Net access. '

Also understand that with LED technology (as opposed to LCD), youll save a lot of money annually in electrical costs. Another benefit is that even with the 55" or 60" screens, LED tech is cheap to run and has incredible cool running. Movies and sports look amazing with lights low or off completely. Go for 120 Hz refresh rate. Most models in this category are enabled with that these days.
In fact, some are 240 Hz ratea. However, what many aren't aware of is that the built-in computer and it's software are superior in Sony and Samsung.

Thanks for the input. Very helpful.

Our friends did a lot of research before they bought the Panasonic with 3D. They claim it's the best of the two or three competing tv's of that size.

I have not seen 3D TV.

I wonder if the 3D picture is in High Definition





David

I own a Sharp and have absolutely no issues at all. That said, the Samsung's get pretty high marks. I don't think you will see much size difference between 55 and 60". Sports will look insane on either set - I think sports are almost the perfect HDTV show to watch with the bright colors and typically outdoor lighting so let your pocketbook decide.

3D tech TVs are high definition. It's the newer technology; however, you can save a chunk of change (approx 20%) on purchase of a 55" - 60" TV by NOT buying 3D.

I 've not seen a 3D TV yet. Is the picture worth it ?

There's a term in the electronics industry called 'early adopters'. Historically, when color TV became popular in late '50s and early '60s, that early trend allowed electronics companies and broadcast networks to get financial returns so that early color TV technology became THE way to which TV and networks eventually converted over their equipment. There had to be enough early adopters to sustain the changeover.

That wave of early adopters make techy-gadget companies, networks and movie makers quite happy. As regards 3D, the early adopters think it's worth it. So far, most of the big mfr think it's worthwhile, profit-wise. Now add to the mix RPG and gaming industry added to TV, movie and sports watchers. 3D is a no brainer.

As for me personally, 1 year ago I bought an HDTV (46 in) and avoided paying another $500 for 3D. I'm not a big game player, my movies are fine in HDTV (with surround sound) and sports are fine for me to watch as HD. When I wanted to see a 3D movie (like Avatar), I was happy to view it in a theater with their Surround Sound or ThX enhancement to sound. I've no need to personally own the technology myself. Its worth $10-$12 per ticket to see one or 2 movies per year, IMHO.

I 've seen 3D in the theaters.
I remember in the 195Os,
thay gave us cardboard & celofane 3D glasses to wear.
There were also 3D comic books.

My Samsung HDTV renders a superbeautiful picture; takes my breath away sometimes.
I said to my pal Marty, over dinner: "u don't look as real as my HD TV."


Maybe 3D HDTV is like Virtual Reality ???
with the headset ?





David

It might be me but your reply confuses me. Once again, 3D HDTV has been here in the consumer market for about one year. It's not virtual reality and NOT like the old style 3D; however, and there should be no confusion there.

What 3D HDTV technology offers the viewer IS is a more realistic experience that is a perceptible improvement over the already awesome HDTV perfromance of HDTV. They have specs of 120 Hz and 240 Hz refresh rate sets that use LED (not LCD). That sort of improvement renders a very real experience - particularly for movies and action sports.

I feel that it's still way too early FOR ME (and anyone who asks me for advice) to adopt at this point as there are only a handful of movies and programming available to watch. Note that this is practical matter and not due to problems with the technical.

Be aware that last year's Superbowl was broadcast in 3D and there were people who watched it in their homes and were astounded by the impact. No technical difficulties to speak of either; however, at that time everyone had to be tethered to wearing the glasses -not everyone's idea of heaven.

This is not like watching the early '60s movie 13 Ghosts in 3D with those funky red-blue cellophane glasses. These glasses are high tech! LOL! I think that Samsung or someone may have put out a 3D HDTV now that doesn't use glasses but I might be wrong there.

This just in...more 3D HDTV performance research:

Apparently the problems with HOME 3D HDTV is the glasses you need to wear can have a bit of troublesome flicker.

As a side-note, LG 3D HDTV manufcacturer uses NEW 3D glasses that claim to be flickerless. I'm not sure whether or not you have to sit to view within a very narrow viewing angle ...dead-on axis.

On 3D HDTV tech without Glasses:
"As of April 2011, none of the methods of delivering no glasses 3D TV have been perfected and picture quality cannot currently rival that of the 3D glasses technologies. The problem is that we need to be able to watch TV content from multiple different positions and still get the 3D effect, and with the no glasses models seen so far there's a requirement to sit at an optimal position (height and distance from the display) or the 3D effect is lost.

But all is not lost. Manufacturers continue on research and development in the search for the holy grail of 3D TV and an autostereoscopic display manufacturer known as 3DFusion have recently demonstrated a significant breakthrough with their 3DFMax 3DTV technology. This allows you to adjust the depth of the 3D images and watch in 3D at the level of your personal preference - without glasses.

It's pretty much guaranteed that the major manufacturers will find a way to give us without glasses 3D TV within the next few years - at a price that's affordable and a quality that makes it all worthwhile. In particular developments in mobile 3D TV might deliver the first truly successful options for watching without glasses. "

Thanx, Ragman! Very good of u.





David

Ragman, Thanks for sharing that info on no-glass 3D tv. We'll wait for it.

Ragman did not say that it is a "no-glass 3D tv."
The TV probably will have glass IN it.

His point is that u don 't need to wear GLASSES to watch it.





David

WOW! You provide all the necessary info of a 3rd grader. Thank you!

Well, I have no information as to your grade, but u r WELCOME !





David

Sorry, David but I just assumed CI knew that it was viewing glasses (or glasses-less) and he made a typo. How else can you watch TV presently without the Monitor/TV having a screen of glass or some solid surface. We're not quite there technologically for holographic TV ...YET! That's a whole different level of tech. But when it does come affordably, these 3D HDTVs will be obsoleted.

Agreed.
I have attended a movie theater
at which we were all given something like holographic headsets
(or 3D headsets) and we watched a very spectacular movie.

I look forward to the availability of holographic TV. I 'm an optimist!

Thanks again for the information, Ragman.





David

I must've read this wrong.