TV HELP

[UberVIIX]

I have been researching LED TV's and am ready to make a purchase. I know most everything I need to know, but the LG Trumotion120 VS. Samsung Clear Motion 240. Which would be the better picture?

The two models I'm stuck deciding on are:

LG 47LM4600 $599

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16889005378

Samsung UN46EH6030 $649 + $15 shipping...

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...247573&csid=_61

The Samsung has Clear motion 240 whereas the LG has Trumotion120. Which is going to be the better 2D HD picture?

 

Other notes: I'm not sure how much I will be using the 3D, but the LG has passive and the samsung had active.I'm thinking I would rather have passive, but like I said, I'm not sure how much I will even use 3D. I'm more focused on the best for 2D picture quality... The Samsung is also 65 dollars more, but if the picture quality difference would be substantial I would pay it.

 

I'm a big PS3 gamer as well so game quality is HIGH on my list along with low input lag.

If you had to choose base on these factors which would you choose? I am strapped for cash but , if the difference is great enough 65 bucks isn't bad. THANKS IN ADVANCE!

 

Sorry if this is in the wrong section.....

[Wolf68k]

I like both LG and Samsung. My dad has an LG while I have the Samsung.

I could be wrong and I'm making this guess before even reviewing the product pages, the 120 and 240 are the refresh rates. The higher the refresh rate the better for fast action video like high action movies, sports. Gaming I'm not too sure about. If the game or in this case the console locks down the FPS then it doesn't really matter too much what the TV's refresh rate as long as it at least matches it.

 

As for the 3D passive or active. I think that's still up in the air as to which is better. Passive means you can go into a movie theater and watch a 3D movie there and keep the glasses and should be able to use them at home with your TV as well. The passive glasses are very cheap to get. But then some people get headaches when uses them very easily.

Active 3D is less stress on the eyes, but cost a lot of money for the glasses...you can't just take the ones from the movie theater. Because they are active it means you have to be sitting in the range of the active 3D sensor on the TV which is what remotely controls the glasses.

Of course if you don't have a 3D Blu-ray player then none of this really matters anyway because there is so little cable/satellite broadcasts that are in 3D I think the only ones I've heard of are the rare sporting events and even then you have to pay extra for from your provider.

 

If at all possible try to go look at these TVs in person at a local store, even if you don't plan to buy from them. And don't be afraid to dive into the menu settings and nose around.

Check out the maker's product page, some times you can download a PDF of the manual which can help give you a heads up on what the TV can and can't do so there are fewer surprises when you get it home. From what little I looked at the links pages they both look good.

If I was to get either one of these I might go with the LG but that's only because it has 3 HDMI ports while the Samsung only has 2. I have 3 HDMI devices connected to my current Samsung which has 4 HDMIs. They both have an ethernet port which should mean they both support DLNA (they might call it something else) again this is good because it means I can stream media directly to my TV from anything connected to my network (I have an app on my iPad that I do which with all of the time to watch Youtube videos...that is when YT or the app wants to work correctly) and Windows 7 (and I believe 8) can stream directly to any DLNA device (in this case the TV or even your PS3) without any extra software installed. The only downside, for me, on the LG is there is no composite video at least from the way Newegg lists it and I have a Wii. Now on my Samsung I've tried component cables from the Wii and it didn't work very well, however on my dad's LG and his Wii the component works just fine so that might not be an issue.

Now I know, you didn't mention a Wii and you might not care about DLNA, but remember I said at the start, "If I was to get either one of these...." My point is think about your needs and really dig into what each TV can and can't do and weight that against what you need and even would like to have and go from there.

 

I would also check out any reviews online, text articles and even check YouTube maybe has a video review. Also check Amazon, not just for prices but also for reviews.

[CCPD]

I'd go for Samsung.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

Icould be wrong and I'm making this guess before even reviewing the product pages, the 120 and 240 are the refresh rates.

 

I thought that too, but they are both 120hz panels though, it's Samsung marketing, it's to do with backlight strobing.

 

Anyway I am the first person to recommend Samsung, they are leaders in the TV market, their TV has A higher.contrast radio, other than that, they are both the same spec wise, like wolf said, compare them, see which one looks the best, the LG.is a nice chunk cheaper so I would lean towards that despite my Samsung fanboyism.

 

[CCPD]

It only cheaper by $50 and with Samsung you get 2 pairs of ACTIVE 3D glasses.

[Finn 7 five 11]

It only cheaper by $50 and with Samsung you get 2 pairs of ACTIVE 3D glasses.

75 actually.

 

Two pairs of glasses is actually a bargain, they cost a few hundred each of memory serves correctly, then again active 3D is only a little bit better., $75 is a big difference when you're pushing a budget though.

 

@Wolf,I thought it was active 3D that have headaches because of the constant shuttering by the glasses.

[CCPD]

@ finn4life - I missed the shipping cost and it would be $64 actually.

 

@ UberVIIX - I have Samsung and I never used 3D. I watch movies online, none of which are in 3D. Unless you buy Blurays or planning to play games in 3D, which is very slim, then you won't be using it at all. It's just another "cool" selling feature.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

@ finn4life - I missed the shipping cost and it would be $64 actually.

 

@ UberVIIX - I have Samsung and I never used 3D. I watch movies online, none of which are in 3D. Unless you buy Blurays or planning to play games in 3D, which is very slim, then you won't be using it at all. It's just another "cool" selling feature.

Oh yeah derp, 50 + 15 is 65 haha!

 

Okay now that I am home, I did some research and here are summaries of the two from reviewers and a few points of difference I put together myself.

 

Samsung

- Samsung has Slightly Higher Contrast Ratio, one person said colours were very vibrant.

- Samsung has Active 3D, as outlined, this causes sickness in many people, and extra glasses are f*cking expensive.

- The Samsung TV is actually 120Hz in 3D and 60Hz in 2D, they deceptively advertised it, it also uses the Backlight strobing, one person complained of blur on one site.

-Several said the picture was very clean and crisp, great for sports and had great blacks.

- Samsung Only has two HDMI ports. (LG has three)

- A backlit remote control.

- Wifi ready, which I think means no Wifi, but can get it with USB.

-Sound was slightly cruddy on one review, good on another.

-No reflective screen

- Neat little Screen-fit feature, which automatically fits all input to the screen.

 

 

LG

- Many reviewers say they experience blur with the LG TV and the refresh rate is not as fast as LG claims, It's a 60Hz with Backlight strobing that technically makes it 120Hz, but like Samsung it's a marketing gimmick.

- Viewing angles are bad, when sitting below the TV (on the couch, even slightly) the colours dim, not significantly, but enough to dull out scene changes of varying contrasts.

- LG repair service were good when a different model broke down (twice), they repaired it, then returned later and replaced the TV at the house, promptly.

-Good sound.

- Blacks aren't very black.

-Many people said colour and picture was great.

- Many said there was no blur.

 

i'll Edit some more If I find more reviews, it took me a while to compile this.

Edited May 19, 2013 by finn4life

[UberVIIX]

Thanks very much everyone!

[Wolf68k]

finn you could be right. I know myself and my gf have some eye strain after a while with the passive, but then I get eye strain from the old red/blue or green 3D glasses. Reading some articles between the 2, some say that people get sick because of the active shutters but also that the active seems to be more dim.

 

I never really understood the big deal with 3D anyway. It's a nice gimmick for a little while, after that it's just annoying as hell.

I will say it was funny as hell to go see Up in 3D and watch the 3D previews before the movie of Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs and watch people duck and dodge out of the way of the meatball flying at them.

[Finn 7 five 11]

finn you could be right. I know myself and my gf have some eye strain after a while with the passive, but then I get eye strain from the old red/blue or green 3D glasses. Reading some articles between the 2, some say that people get sick because of the active shutters but also that the active seems to be more dim.

 

It could vary from person to person I suppose, I think any 3D will give you a headache after long enough.

 

 

I never really understood the big deal with 3D anyway. It's a nice gimmick for a little while, after that it's just annoying as hell.

I will say it was funny as hell to go see Up in 3D and watch the 3D previews before the movie of Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs and watch people duck and dodge out of the way of the meatball flying at them.

That is funny, People are retards sometimes, for a lack of eloquent wording.

 

One of my friends hates 3D and I asked him why, and he explained how they had to film the whole movie differently for 3D and this wrecks some of the cinematic qualities that could have been there in place of things flying at the screen. 3D is a gimmick for sure, I do like it in some occasions, like where it's not actively trying to throw stuff at you and it just adds a little extra depth, but then again it becomes dimmer in colour, unless you're watching active 3D which is supposedly very bright, but theatres don't have that, or in those crazy action movies, not going to lie, I love seeing those in 3D.

 

I don't see 3D becoming a big thing and replacing 2D films at any point in the future.