I thin k your still missing one nightghost…
[Mod: Learn to make them pretty for bonus points. There’s a link to a guide in my signature.]
No deal. refurb should be less than $400 before I’d even think about it. Black Friday deals will give you buyers remorse if you get this “deal”.
Ah, these must be the TVs that didn’t “quite” make it into the BOC’s that went out recently. Specifically, mine.
Tricky, tricky woot!
Woot, I love you, but the prices on these midsize tv’s need to come down. This was a good deal a couple of months ago, but I’m in the fortunate position of being in the market for one, and they’re clearly on their way down. Sams, every day, has a 42" for $600 that is: 1)New, 2) 120 Hz, 3) Vizio (not top-o-the-line, I’ll admit, but better than Philips, no?), and 4) locally purchased for easy service. It’s just me, maybe, but I’m going to need at least the same specs and another $100 off to order a Philips refurb over that. Not that I have anything against refurbishment… I highly enjoy saving the money, in fact. But to get a year warranty is another $65…
Bought this from a previous woot and the 60hz refresh rate really does make a difference in how the picture looks. From far away it doesn’t make much of a difference but if you’re up close you can see pixels. If you’re looking for a good cheap tv and don’t care too much about having the best picture this is a great tv.
You can definitely tell the difference at the store, I’ve noticed. I never saw “the blur” on my older TV until I went and saw some others… Oops. But I bet most people would be happy with 60Hz, if they decide the price is right. The biggest problem seems to be for HD sports, when the camera pans quickly across a scene. So if you don’t watch sports, it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot. Unless it matters for video games… (?)
So what is better: 60, 120, or the recent 600Hz? Isn’t it mostly a gimmick especially since our eyesight is a lower Hz and its not truly not noticeable?
As far as large screen TV’s(46-50), what’s everyone’s opinion of what’s better, plasma or LCD?
I really like our LED tv. The picture quality is incredible. It’s also 240hz which is definitely noticeable. Everything looks so much clearer. It takes a bit of getting used to. Can’t really explain how it looks different. You have to see it yourself. 120hz looks great. I would say that’s definitely the minimum. 60hz is just not worth it especially when you can buy a new non-refurbished tv with 120hz for close to the same price
Just so you guys know, if you are planning on playing video games on your TV, you don’t want anything above 60hz, or you want a TV that has a video game mode to switch down to 60hz. It looks great when you are watching TV, but it will ruin your gaming experience when it tries to “smooth things out”.
My purely subjective opinion:
I like stop at local appliance stores and browse HDTVs. One of the most noticeable improvements in LCD’s has been the introduction of 120Hz sets - it’s easy to tell the difference if you watch sports. The difference is not so great for other programming - it can even detract (i.e. look “sort of fake”). 120HZ vs. 240HZ is hard to tell apart - I don’t know if it’s mostly a marketing gimmick, or they haven’t ironed it out yet, but I wasn’t impressed.
The 600Hz rate is for plamsa TVs - they don’t have the motion blur problems of 60Hz LCDs, but I think plasma manufacturers were afraid of losing market share to LCDs because of interest in the faster refresh rates, so they came up with 600Hz. I did not perceive a difference, plasma-to-plasma.
Two months ago, if you had asked me whether LCD or plasma was better, I would have said “plasma” hands down. Now I’m not so sure - LCDs have made tremendous strides, and on my last couple of visits I found that I sometimes didn’t know which type I was looking at until I read the tags (at least with the nicer sets).
There are other factors that also may help you decide which type to purchase. for example, my office HDTV sits on a piece of furniture that is not rated to support the weight of a plasma TV.
Finally, let me state the obvious: you can get a better picture than this Philips has, but not at this price point.
The processor in the TV can wear out or just stop, which means that 60 Hz will wear out faster cause it will burn out from constantly being set at the highest setting. 120 Hz will wear out slower, 240 Hz even slower, 600 Hz is a different thing entirely, but is definitely your best bet for smooth motion in Sports and Movies. So even if you can notice the difference immediately your TV’s motion will look better longer the better Hz you get. Oh and you don’t always see a blur when it comes to motion, the lack of processing speed can show up in coloring. Meaning if the TV can’t process the motion fast enough, the image may not be blurred, but it could be very washed out almost pale. I hope that explanation makes as much sense as I think it does.
Plasma is better, yea it takes up more energy, but that is basically it as far as I am concerned. It has a much deeper blacks and vivid coloring schemes than other TV’s, you never have to worry about the motion rate. It is the perfect Movie theater experience. Burn in isn’t really an issue with the new Pixel Shift technology. And if you go for the 3D Panasonic Plasma it is personally my favorite TV. Not that bad on energy, incredible coloring, very affordable, barely any heat output, and remarkable anti glare features, plus the Half life of the gas bulbs are 100,000 hours. Then again it is all personal preference.
I would have paid $349 to $379 for a refurb
The best TV is a LED/DPL. Just 3 bright colored LEDs. No projection lamp and no
color wheel. No screen door effect, no
harsh image edges and no motion blur.
Lowest price per inch of screen size.
Purchased 63" Samsung 2 years ago for
just $1850. Only con is image brightness
dims at wide viewing angles,
That TV is Energy star 4.1, it only uses 88 watts which is REALLY low. You will quickly save the extra $25/$45 you spent via your electric bill.