Sony Bravia V Series - Are there any problems out there?

[LordG]

That's not an uncommon opinion. If you can see it and it bothers you, better not buy it.......

It the source, Plasmas arent as sharp and have bigger pixels thats why it doesent show up.

If you watch a decent source it will look great on both, Plasmas are good for poor SD sources

[Drizt]

It the source, Plasmas arent as sharp and have bigger pixels thats why it doesent show up.

If you watch a decent source it will look great on both, Plasmas are good for poor SD sources

I concur. *nods head like one of those bobbly head dolls*

[JCT]

It the source, Plasmas arent as sharp and have bigger pixels thats why it doesent show up.

If you watch a decent source it will look great on both, Plasmas are good for poor SD sources

Given that most sporting telecasts are not in HD, does this mean that plasmas are the only way to go if you mainly watch sport?

Alternatively, is there any way that AFL telecasts can be made to look acceptable on an LCD such as the Bravia? I had presumed that watching channels 90 and 12 on a HD box would have been OK.

[Drizt]

Given that most sporting telecasts are not in HD, does this mean that plasmas are the only way to go if you mainly watch sport?

Alternatively, is there any way that AFL telecasts can be made to look acceptable on an LCD such as the Bravia? I had presumed that watching channels 90 and 12 on a HD box would have been OK.

Dont know what you were watching, as AFL on channel 90 HD always looks exception on my dads Bravia.. Channel 10 sometimes has dodgy coverage.. but mostly looks brilliant.

Maybe you were watching it though a RF connection or composite ???

[Hussla]

It the source, Plasmas arent as sharp and have bigger pixels thats why it doesent show up.

If you watch a decent source it will look great on both, Plasmas are good for poor SD sources

Are we comparing orange to apples here?

SD Plasma vs HD LCD?

[samps]

I'm just struggling to see why people are spending $4000+ on 40" LCDs when they can get a 42" HD plasma for a thousand less? Better for fast motion movies and sports, darker blacks, and the issue of "bigger pixels" is purely technical unless you're sitting 30cm away from the screen. The Hitachi 8800 is 1024 vertical pixels so its only cropping 28 scan lines at the top/bottom for 1080i, which is worst case.

Am I missing something here folks?

[Hussla]

I'm just struggling to see why people are spending $4000+ on 40" LCDs when they can get a 42" HD plasma for a thousand less? Better for fast motion movies and sports, darker blacks, and the issue of "bigger pixels" is purely technical unless you're sitting 30cm away from the screen. The Hitachi 8800 is 1024 vertical pixels so its only cropping 28 scan lines at the top/bottom for 1080i, which is worst case.

Am I missing something here folks?

No sense going through this debate again:

There are two camps-

1. LCD Camp

&

2. Plasma Camp

Each have their own views and opinions on each, I for one am a member of the plasma camp. However both technologies are good and both technologies have their pro's and cons. To top that off most people have differing opinions on what does and doesn't look better, no sense debating it just buy whatever you think looks the best to YOUR eyes as it'll be you and not me that will have to watch the TV every day.

[JCT]

Are we comparing orange to apples here?

SD Plasma vs HD LCD?

I was comparing a 40" V series Bravia LCD (1366x768) with a Panasonic 42PV60A (1024x768), i.e. both are "high definition ready" displays.

Both sets were using component video (not composite or RF) driven from an HD set top box selected to channel 90 or 12 (1080i HD channels 9 and 10). In fact, in one test both sets used the exact same type of HD set top box (LG).

Why then do some people (e.g. Drizt) say that the footy looks fantastic on the Bravia when others appear to be able to pick noticeable differences in fast moving sports transmissions? I just wish there was some standard set up that I could use to settle this argument once and for all. For brightness and "wow" factor however the LCD wins hands down in my opinion, it's just this apparent fast movement problem that lets it down.

Is there noticeable smearing/pixellation on the reportedly faster responding 37" JVC LCD display?

[Drizt]

*When watching a good source the LCD works excellently.... when the source is poor, it just amplifies the deficiencies in the signal. Thats about as much as need to said i think.

Buy what you think looks the best.

Some poor quality source material are responsible for the blur you maybe seeing, not the TV. The fact that the LCD is sharper just highlights the percieved blur more.

*denote personal opinion

[retro]

No sense going through this debate again:

There are two camps-

1. LCD Camp

&

2. Plasma Camp

3. CRT camp.

...................... I see quite a lot of that pixel blocking (through Foxtel) when I am watching sport on my CRT TV so it must be coming from the tv station....any thoughts...

[Hussla]

3. CRT camp.

...................... I see quite a lot of that pixel blocking (through Foxtel) when I am watching sport on my CRT TV so it must be coming from the tv station....any thoughts...

What on Earth is a CRT?

*When watching a good source the LCD works excellently.... when the source is poor, it just amplifies the deficiencies in the signal. Thats about as much as need to said i think.

Buy what you think looks the best.

Some poor quality source material are responsible for the blur you maybe seeing, not the TV. The fact that the LCD is sharper just highlights the percieved blur more.

*denote personal opinion

I just can't see any dramatic difference in sharpness between 1024x768 and 1366x766 I have to admit. But naturally when your comparing a 40" screen to a 42" the smaller screen is always going to look sharper, methinks.

But as I was saying to you in the PM, I think the gloss factor of the LCD vs Plasma is what makes a MAJOR difference in picture quality. We got a 43cm Samsung LCD tv with a glossy screen and it looks absolutely mint, same goes for the glossy Benq LCDtv's, but once you add the gloss then you have the same issues most plasmas and crt's suffer with glare.

[Drizt]

What on Earth is a CRT?

I just can't see any dramatic difference in sharpness between 1024x768 and 1366x766 I have to admit. But naturally when your comparing a 40" screen to a 42" the smaller screen is always going to look sharper, methinks.

But as I was saying to you in the PM, I think the gloss factor of the LCD vs Plasma is what makes a MAJOR difference in picture quality. We got a 43cm Samsung LCD tv with a glossy screen and it looks absolutely mint, same goes for the glossy Benq LCDtv's, but once you add the gloss then you have the same issues most plasmas and crt's suffer with glare.

yeap definately agree that glossy can equal better picture, but at the expense of glare. We went through this with Jens laptop we bought, we thought the glossy screen looked awesome compared to the non glossy. For the laptop glare was never going to be a problem, but for a tv of this size i think they would.

C MJT... just curious on your take regarding the bravias motion capabilities... i dont recall reading your thoughts regarding this.

[Hussla]

yeap definately agree that glossy can equal better picture, but at the expense of glare. We went through this with Jens laptop we bought, we thought the glossy screen looked awesome compared to the non glossy. For the laptop glare was never going to be a problem, but for a tv of this size i think they would.

C MJT... just curious on your take regarding the bravias motion capabilities... i dont recall reading your thoughts regarding this.

I have to admit i've struggled to see motion blur on most newer model LCD's, including the Bravia.

Motion blur doesn't really seem to be a noticeable issue on most screens i've seen lately, ie we've had the xbox 360 hooked to the Benq 3250, a Celestial 37", etc and there wasn't any issues with motion blur.

It's just things like black levels, colour which just aren't there for me, yet.

[JCT]

I have to admit i've struggled to see motion blur on most newer model LCD's, including the Bravia.

If there is negligible motion blur, what then is required to get a first class reproduction of live AFL footy on channel 90?

From what I can gather, it seems that the LCD versus plasma issue is due to the LCD being less forgiving of an SD outside telecast that has been upscaled to 1080i. Would a "true HD" transmission solve the smearing/pixellation problem on an LCD?

Unfortunately I don't see routine HD sporting telecasts on the horizon so it probably looks like we are faced with having to choose the technology that best copes with what is being offered by the TV stations.

[optusman]

I was just about decided on a 40" V series Bravia until I saw how poorly AFL/VFL football telecasts compared with an HD plasma, such as the Panasonic 42PV60A. Despite its 8 msec response, the Bravia seems to be prone to smearing and pixellation on fast moving footy action whereas there is no similar problem with the plasma display.

Because I have now observed this phenomenon at several different Melbourne stores for live telecasts from channels 2, 9 and 10 (each using HD set top boxes), I can only conclude that it must be an inherent problem with LCDs, or is there something I am missing in all of this?

This limitation is a real pity as otherwise the Bravia seems to me to be the ideal TV.

I tend to agree with you, especially with Camera panning. One LCD which I thought was outstanding for watching AFL was the JVC 37 " DX5 NOT SX 5. I watched it side by side with the Bravia V and other LCD's and I thought it won hands down for motion. BUT, and there's always a but, the Bravia V beat it in every other aspect, PQ, sharpness, contrast performance, blacks etc. My search continues, maybe the new Bravia series due for release later this year

[Garincha]

PS. Does anyone know a great price form the Bravia-V series, is 2640 good.

Thanks

Hi I would also like to know where you got that price, is it ex tax?, even if it is it's still quite good.

cheers

[Hussla]

If there is negligible motion blur, what then is required to get a first class reproduction of live AFL footy on channel 90?

From what I can gather, it seems that the LCD versus plasma issue is due to the LCD being less forgiving of an SD outside telecast that has been upscaled to 1080i. Would a "true HD" transmission solve the smearing/pixellation problem on an LCD?

Unfortunately I don't see routine HD sporting telecasts on the horizon so it probably looks like we are faced with having to choose the technology that best copes with what is being offered by the TV stations.

LCD's generally still as I said aren't winning me over in:

1. Colour

2. Contrast

3. Handling of non-HD signals

4. Pricee

BUT the new Samsungs and Bravia's have really impressed me, that been said I still just prefer the image of the plasma, it just stands out more to me. As I don't watch tv much during the day glare isn't really much of a concern for me.

Since I started selling tv's there's been a massive quantum leap in LCD's, especially over the last 12 months where the prices have plumetted and quality has really improved to a point wher they are almost totally competitive with 42" HD plasmas.

Providing LCD technology keeps improving and prices come down I can quite possibly foresee LCD taking over plasma down the track, if it happens I personally think another 1-2 years.

However I personally feel that OLED is the future, providing they can solve lifetime issues, etc I believe OLEDtv will be the way to go, ultra light weight tv's that can be manufacutred cheaply and achieve high contrast, excellent colour. I think SED is a total waste of time and money! THERE I SAID IT!!!!

[sephiaya]

Hi, the price i got was from a shop on eBay.

i also got the price 2120 for the samsung LA32M61b (which is just below cost here in mel).

Now i got the Good Guys to match that, so i am sure that i could get the GG's to match the bravia price.

Just go there break balls, try and get the best price you can, then go to another shop ang haggle more.

Good Luck,

ohh and expect a price drop after the world cup, there is speculation the the Bravia X-Series (1080p) will come out then.

[Redmist1503559903]

The 40" Bravia's a good display but is it $1000 better than a 42" plasma...Hell no!

[sephiaya]

Hey man do not rag on SED. that will be the thing of the future, it will easily beat OLED. it will take years for them to get at least 20,000 hours life time, and that is pretty poor.

SED quality wise will be close to CRT

between 50" and 100" (man 2.5 metre TV)

Plasma contrast

full HD

and much more, plus i will have close to INFINATE life time, like CRT.

it is also being said that the 50" models will become withing the 2500 range (that would prob be after a few years)

GUYS CHECK THIS OUT, this is of an SED

SED

and THE COLOUR of this panel and it's richness

SED COLOUR

[Hussla]

Hey man do not rag on SED. that will be the thing of the future, it will easily beat OLED. it will take years for them to get at least 20,000 hours life time, and that is pretty poor.

SED quality wise will be close to CRT

between 50" and 100" (man 2.5 metre TV)

Plasma contrast

full HD

and much more, plus i will have close to INFINATE life time, like CRT.

it is also being said that the 50" models will become withing the 2500 range (that would prob be after a few years)

GUYS CHECK THIS OUT, this is of an SED

SED

and THE COLOUR of this panel and it's richness

SED COLOUR

Infinite lifetime my ass, all displays have a limited lifespan, CRT is 30,000 hrs half-life if I remember correctly.

Full HD resolution? well 1080p plasmas at 42"-50" are already on their way.

SED has glare issues like plasma (so no great advantage there) I saw a photo of a screen and it was like a mirror almost....

Nothing has been said about image retention/burn on SED

By the time SED comes out Plasmas at 50" size will already be far superior and more than likely priced around $2500 price. 50" Plasmas are already hitting $3999 mark and below already........

Black levels? PDP's are streadily improving black levels, the new Panasonics blacks look pretty black to me, this will only get better.

SED thing of the future? my ass it is, there's nothing really revolutionary about the technology, it's more like a variant of plasma if you ask me. OLED now there's cool technology, paper thin light weight screens, very low manufacturing costs as they can be practically printed using the inkjet process. That's far more revolutionary than SED.

IMHO SED will is already too late and has missed the bandwagon, for the average consumer who just forked out on a PDP or LCD I doubt any of them will see any reason they should apparently upgrade to a SEDtv which offers more of the same.

On top of that if they brand them Canon TV's, how many average Joes you think will buy them? most people associate Canon with printers and Cameras, but TV's? well no .

[sephiaya]

SED will be the cheapest TV to produce. it cost nothing, drastically cheaper than LCD and Plasma, and it is coming at the end of the year.

Nothing New, This is going to be the next big thing. a combination of CRT (which is the best) and Plasma.

CRT does not even have a lifetime, they last about 40 years. i do not know what you read, my grandparents still have there CRT from about 1965 and it works fine (looks like **** though black and white lol)

and even though new plasma is making better black it is not pure blakc and you can notice it. SED is using CRT technology of Phosphor which means pure black. and it will have the quickest responce time like CRT.

plus you are going to have in excess of 40,000:1 Contrast for models to buy. i would prob say that the first models would have 30,000:1

it will take yers for OLED to become reliable. and i am sure people would sacrife space if it meant quality was 100X better.

and canon makes unreal colour and they found a way to use some form of ink in SED, making it rich and vibrant.

Want a REVOLUTION go and buy a WII

ps. i already pre-ordered mine

[Drizt]

end of 2007 is not the end of this year...

the life span refers to half life... when it will be half as bright ..... not when it will die..

SED is only as good as its manufacture is claiming at this point. ALL SPECULATION

SED will be the cheapest TV to produce. it cost nothing, drastically cheaper than LCD and Plasma, and it is coming at the end of the year.

Nothing New, This is going to be the next big thing. a combination of CRT (which is the best) and Plasma.

CRT does not even have a lifetime, they last about 40 years. i do not know what you read, my grandparents still have there CRT from about 1965 and it works fine (looks like **** though black and white lol)

and even though new plasma is making better black it is not pure blakc and you can notice it. SED is using CRT technology of Phosphates whihch means pure black. and it will have the quickest responce time like CRT.

plus you are going to have in excess of 40,000:1 Contrast for models to buy. i would prob say that the first models would have 30,000:1

it will take yers for OLED to become reliable. and i am sure people would sacrife space if it meant quality was 100X better.

and canon makes unreal colour and they found a way to use some form of ink in SED, making it rich and vibrant.

Want a REVOLUTION go and buy a WII

ps. i already pre-ordered mine

[sephiaya]

Nah man the date was changed to late 2006 for US and JAPAN. here is an article

SED article

[Hussla]

SED will be the cheapest TV to produce. it cost nothing, drastically cheaper than LCD and Plasma, and it is coming at the end of the year.

Nothing New, This is going to be the next big thing. a combination of CRT (which is the best) and Plasma.

CRT does not even have a lifetime, they last about 40 years. i do not know what you read, my grandparents still have there CRT from about 1965 and it works fine (looks like **** though black and white lol)

and even though new plasma is making better black it is not pure blakc and you can notice it. SED is using CRT technology of Phosphates whihch means pure black. and it will have the quickest responce time like CRT.

plus you are going to have in excess of 40,000:1 Contrast for models to buy. i would prob say that the first models would have 30,000:1

it will take yers for OLED to become reliable. and i am sure people would sacrife space if it meant quality was 100X better.

and canon makes unreal colour and they found a way to use some form of ink in SED, making it rich and vibrant.

Want a REVOLUTION go and buy a WII

ps. i already pre-ordered mine

You drongo, CRT's DO have a limited lifespan, like all displays they progressively fade over time. Phospors as they are used eventually wear out and electron guns also eventually die.

And before you make yourself sound even more silly you might want to look at the different between Phospors and Phosphate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphates

Phosphorus comes from Phosphate rocks!

Surely you are on drugs.

What's a WII?

Pre-ordered an SEDtv? funny we sell Toshiba & Canon and nobody seems to know anything about them here. SEDTV's aren't expected till sometime in 2007.

Too top that off where is the pre-release publicity? early marketing etc?

It may be great technology but to be honest most people beyond the niche market don't really care.