What is the difference (human terms) b/w
HPT5044
HPT5054
HPT5064
(Googled, but couldn't find a difference that really mattered, but the HPT5064 is less expensive one place & I'm puzzled)

1/4/2008 12:58:14 AM

I don't see a lot of difference (note I'm not an expert) but the first thing I notice is that its a 50" TV with a native resolution of 720p. A lot of people will argue that over 37" - 42" or so you will want 1080p.

http://tinyurl.com/2usbh5

1/4/2008 1:19:20 AM

yeah, i don't have a hard on for the whole HD revolution thing like so many others, but even i would suggest going 1080p above 42-46"

1/4/2008 10:49:53 AM

Haha i thought this was going to be a plasma physics question. And here I was about to bust out some multi-species dispersion relations.

1/4/2008 10:58:12 AM

def 1080p for a 50"

1/4/2008 11:16:51 AM

Helpful - Gracias!

1/4/2008 3:34:22 PM

i have the 5054 and i love it. i have a 1080p upstairs and i can't tell the difference between the two.

i would recommend going with the 5054 if you don't have a huge budget.

1/4/2008 3:49:44 PM

Not worried about budget - just would like to know what, to the normal human, matters the most. These lil techie geeks in the stores talking language that mimmicks jibberish does me no good - I really couldn't care less about the specs as long as the picture is pretty to my eyes.

Understanding that, if anyone has other suggestions, I'm totally open (aside from LG - I don't like the way it looks)

Oh yea, and I want Mario to be like 2 inches tall on the Wii.... That's all....

1/4/2008 4:05:40 PM

no budget? go in a store and look at a 120Hz LCD tv. sure, i could explain what that is, but you have to see it to decide if its worth it to you or not. it is much more expensive than standard (60hz), but its amazing how much more fluid the picture is. these tv's (in the 40-50" range) go from $2500 and up though.

1/4/2008 4:17:18 PM

No Big deal w/$.... I'm just not going to pay it if I can't tell the difference ( or at least without having the 2 tv's nose to nose)

I have looked at LCD vs Plasmas and to me (again, everyone's eyes are different) the contrast of dk/lt makes the LCD look almost foggy in comparison....

Yay? Nah? Just again, based on visual observation.....

1/4/2008 4:41:09 PM

1080p really isnt an issue here unless you'll be watching movies on it mostly via HDDVD or Bluray

Television programming is probably a decade away from broadcasting in 1080p


I would go for the best price

1/5/2008 4:22:12 PM

Quote :

"I have looked at LCD vs Plasmas and to me (again, everyone's eyes are different) the contrast of dk/lt makes the LCD look almost foggy in comparison...."

Plasmas do tend to have more vibrant color, but throw in some ambient light (i.e. a well lit room, especially in sunlight) and there tends to be glare (which you may or may not be annoyed by). This can be avoided by selecting your TVs location so that light doesn't shine directly onto it.

That said, don't trust what you see in stores. 99% of the time, they don't adjust the picture settings on the TV at all, and if they do, they certainly don't optimize the picture.

There are a couple of important specifications to look at when buying a TV. At the top of the list are resolution, contrast, and possibly brightness (brighter TVs are better in environments with a lot of ambient light).

Resolution:

Depending on what you're viewing, you may or may not be able to see the difference between 720 and 1080 lines of resolution. Low motion video (especially stuff filmed with an analog source like old movies put on HD DVDs or Blu-Ray) will look essentially identical at either resolution. Newer movies on HD DVD and Blu-Ray will be noticeably (but not substantially) sharper at 1080p, especially on larger displays. The difference is most noticeable on text, on-screen menus and other things with hard edges (like if you hooked up a computer).

There's no such thing as an interlaced LCD or Plasma TV. Cable TV and satellite broadcast interlaced signals though. The TV will have a native resolution which is probably 1024x768, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1360x768, or 1920x1080. All source signals will be converted to the native resolution of the TV (a 720p signal is 1280x720 and 1080p is 1920x1080). If the TV "supports" 1080i or 1080p, that does not necessarily mean its resolution is 1920x1080. Many lower resolution displays will process high resolution signals and scale them down to the native resolution. For a TV in the 42-inch+ range, most people would recommend a native resolution of 1920x1080 (these sets are commonly labeled "Full HD" or "Full 1080p" or something similar).


Contrast:

The contrast ratio is a measure of how wide a range of grays the display can show at once. Plasmas typically have good contrast ratios. The difference between a contrast ratio of 10,000:1 and 15,000:1 will not be noticeable most of the time. Higher contrast ratios mean better color representation in very dark scenes. LCDs typically have a number called the "Dynamic" contrast ratio. LCDs used to have much worse contrast than plasmas. Many modern LCDs can adjust backlighting ("dynamic" backlighting) to produce contrast on par with plasmas. LCDs with LED backlighting have been manufactured that produce far better contrast than plasmas, but I don't think they're available as of yet. A bare minimum contrast ratio for acceptable viewing would be in the neighborhood of 1000:1. Greater than 3000:1 is preferable. Many really cheap TVs (especially LCDs) have low contrast ratios, and as a result the picture looks washed out in dark scenes.


I typically recommend LCDs because they give you a lot of bang for the buck at mid-range sizes. If you want huge, I say go for 1080p plasma. Don't trust the people who insist "you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080i". Look at a 720p and a 1080i source on a 1080p native TV yourself and see if you can tell the difference. You may notice it and not care, or you may think it's significant. I know DirecTV HD receivers allow you to change the output from 720i/p to 1080i. If you have a friend with DirecTV HD and a 1080p TV you can switch between 720i/p and 1080i modes with the same source picture (look at something that typifies what you will be watching), which is an excellent way to compare the two. I assume you can do the same with digital cable set top boxes.

My brother got one of these Sony LCDs and the picture is exceptional:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8412096&type=product&id=1181347723980

Browsing Best Buy's online catalog a good 50" display (though probably not the best price):
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8501711&type=product&id=1186004963437

1/5/2008 9:00:39 PM

I just bought the 5054 on New Year's day. I love it. Best buy has a pretty good deal on it right now too. It's still debatable that you really need 1080p on a 50 inch TV. Cnet says you don't need it until you get upwards of 56 inches. And unless you get a PS3 your TV will just be processing a lower resolution source. By the time input resolutions catch up with 1080p TV resolutions the TV you buy now will be completely obsolete anyway. But go to a store where you can see all three and make the decision for yourself. Just make sure you compare them under the same picture settings.

The only major difference between the 5054 and the 5064 is anti-glare finish on the 5064, which you may or may not need depending on where you want to put it. Reflections are a bitch on plasma screens if you aren't in the right room. It's much more of a problem for plasmas than LCDs.

Here's the Cnet review for the 5064. http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-hp-t5054/4505-6482_7-32369006.html?tag=pdtl-list

1/5/2008 9:01:49 PM

Thanks!

P.S. My TV goes in a corner of my den with no windows, no windows close & none that shine in within 15 feet - if that helps on the glare factor.....

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2008 11:33:51 PM

If you're ever going to get a bluray player, then go for the 1080p. I'm surprised the person at Best Buy didn't show you what a 1080p picture looks like. They can also show you a 1080 and 720 TV and see if you can tell the difference (which you should on a 50").

Also, I would pretty much ignore the listed contrast ratios on TVs. It's way too easy for manufacturers to distort or embellish this number, and considering there's no way to measure this, they often do (especially Samsung). Just look at the picture, but know what you're looking for.

If you haven't see one as well, see if you look at a 50" Pioneer plasma that's 1080p (the Best Buy at Crabtree for sure has one). I can guarantee you'd be able to tell a difference between that one and other TVs.

1/6/2008 12:10:56 AM

If price is no matter, I'd look at an LED TV. They are very new so you'll pay the premium for them, but their colors is just as vibrant as Plasma with just as high contrasts, offer faster response times, use less power, and even thinner than lcd's. They area probably a good 1-2 years away from hitting the masses, but that technology is very promising.

1/6/2008 4:23:27 AM

OLED or LED backlit?

1/6/2008 11:26:57 AM

Quote :

"And unless you get a PS3 your TV will just be processing a lower resolution source. By the time input resolutions catch up with 1080p TV resolutions the TV you buy now will be completely obsolete anyway. But go to a store where you can see all three and make the decision for yourself. Just make sure you compare them under the same picture settings."

Most HDTV is broadcast in 1080i. The picture is 1920x1080. You will not get the full benefit of this unless you have a TV in that resolution. Since there's no such thing as an interlaced plasma or LCD TV, it will be a 1080p TV. If you buy a lower resolution TV the 1920x1080 signal will be downsampled to match the native resolution of the display and quality WILL BE LOST. Yes, there are only a few ways to get a progressive scan 1920x1080 image, but the only way to get the full benefit of a 1080i signal on a flat panel (plasma or LCD) is to get a 1080p TV.

How much quality will be lost? Roughly half!

The only interlaced TVs I know of with capability of displaying 1920x1080 resolutions are CRT rear projection TVs and tube (CRT) HDTVs.

1/6/2008 12:30:29 PM

The point isn't how much detail is lost with a lower resolution. The point is you don't benefit from the extra resolution at a normal viewing distance. Sure, you may be able to notice some lost details if you're a looking at 1080p and a 720p TVs right beside each other, but that's when you're standing in the store no more than 5 feet away from the screen. Step back a bit, to whatever distance you'll be watching from at home, and see if you can tell then. If you can, it may be worth it to you to spend the extra money for 1080p. I couldn't, so I couldn't justify the extra expense.

What you need to take home from all of this is that yes, there's plenty of science you can learn and get caught up in while trying to buy the best TV on the market, but at the end of the day it comes down to YOUR personal preference is and what you can see with YOUR own eyes. The problem with this is that you won't be watching TV in the same conditions as those in a big box store. But control what you can in the store (picture menu settings, video source, viewing distance) to get as fair of a comparison as possible and see which one you like.

Good luck!

1/6/2008 1:16:06 PM

Quote :

"Television programming is probably a decade away from broadcasting in 1080p"

SkyOne is available in 1080p

1/6/2008 1:22:41 PM

I have a hard time believing anyone with reasonable vision would not notice a 56% reduction in resolution on a 50" screen from normal viewing distance (5 to 10 feet). Walking through best buy I have no problem identifying which TVs are 1080p and which aren't from > 10 ft. The biggest issue is the doubling in size of compression artifacts (those strange blocks that appear in high contrast -- sharp edges or changes in color -- regions). The artifacts are blended with neighboring pixels during downsampling. Instead of a sharp artifact the size of a few grains of sand, you'll get a blurry artifact the size of a peppercorn. At normal viewing distance, you probably won't notice any compression artifacts on a high resolution display, but you will notice them on a 720p display. Of course, this only applies to compressed video signals.

Signals generated by computers and video games are never compressed and so the images are much sharper. The difference is probably least noticeable during video game play as long as the console is set to the native resolution of your TV. On-screen menus and text will be less sharp, but probably not enough to be bothersome. Playing the Wii on a LCD or plasma will look pretty bad, but it won't look any different at all switching from a 1080p TV to a 720p TV, since it's a low resolution (480i or p) signal to begin with.

The difference will be most noticeable displaying the image from a computer, because computer desktops use a lot of fine detail.

You may not think the difference justifies additional cost, but to say it's not noticeable on a 50" screen is really silly.





The most important determining factor of what you should buy is what you intend to display. If you're watching standard-definition TV and DVDs and playing Wii and you aren't getting HDTV service or HD consoles or movie players, then you could get away with an EDTV (480p) and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a 1080p TV.

If you intend to connect a media center PC to it, then the difference between 720p and 1080p is enormous.

Don't take my (or anyone else's) word for it.

A lot of best buy stores have 1080p displays hooked up to media center PCs or apple computers. If you intend to connect a computer, go to one of these stations and switch the resolution between 1080p and 720p and see the difference.

A lot of best buy stores now have a little nook somewhere with a whole home theater set up with an HD DVD or Blu-Ray player connected to a 1080p TV. If you're using one of these sources, grab the remote for the player and switch between 720p and 1080p and see the difference.

If you're just going to play the Wii and want a huge TV, the difference will not depend as much on the native resolution of the TV as it does on the video scaler it uses.


Buy your TV at Costco, they give you a free 2-year extended warranty and they have a grace period in which you can return the TV with no penalty. (Costco membership is $50 for a year, and this is probably worth the $50 especially since TVs are more than $50 cheaper there).

If I still lived in Raleigh I'd go ahead and show you all the differences, but I don't so I can't. If you want to be completely future-proof, then go with a 1080p 120Hz TV (aka 1080p/120). In the distant future (10+ years) signals are expected to be in this format or possibly 1440p/120.


I agree with innova that you need to see for yourself and make the decision based on what YOU see at normal viewing distance. Don't stick your nose up to the screen if you can't see a meaningful difference from 5 feet away. Odds are you aren't going to be watching a 50" TV from that close. We (the rest of Tech Talk) can argue with each other all day long about what you should buy, but you haven't told us what you're connecting (besides a Wii), how far you'll be viewing from, what you're watching or anything else. There's obviously a lot to consider and there's only so much help we can give you without any details.

1/6/2008 2:10:38 PM

i have one of the 'shiny' lcds, and have had 0 glare issues

1/7/2008 12:08:55 PM

Quote :

"I have a hard time believing anyone with reasonable vision would not notice a 56% reduction in resolution on a 50" screen from normal viewing distance (5 to 10 feet)."

Uh... you shouldn't be sitting 5 feet away from a 50" screen.

1/7/2008 12:17:46 PM

^ exactly what i was thinking...though at that distance, he's probably right

1/7/2008 12:21:19 PM

1/7/2008 12:27:11 PM

Ah fuck, 1440p, really. Shit.

1/7/2008 2:32:03 PM

^^ & ^^^ & ^^^^ maybe I sit closer than some people. When I play video games I sit ~5 ft away so I can see everything that's going on. If I'm watching TV or a movie, I'm no more than 8 ft away. I've never been to anyone's house or apartment that did not have seating within 10 ft of the TV, even it it was a huge one.

^^ the above plot is just one person's opinion. while I'd say it's about right, I think that applies to someone with less than perfect vision. it says to notice the difference between 480p and 720p (roughly a factor of 4 increase in resolution) at 10 feet, you'd need a ~32" display. In reality I'd say it would be more like 27". The blue and green lines are probably a bit too shallow.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ^]]

1/7/2008 2:46:49 PM

Ok, then your issue is just that you sit way too close.

1/7/2008 3:02:56 PM

maybe so.

once again, it's that personal preference thing. that and the only way to get more than 10 feet from it in my bedroom is to stand in the closet..

1/7/2008 3:47:32 PM

you have a 50" television in a bedroom that's less than 12-13 feet wide/long? holy crap, what do you have in your living room???

1/7/2008 3:58:39 PM

after watching tv on my 1080p lcd

my parents 27" looks fuzzy as hell @ 480p and mine is only a 40".
(but then again my vision is corrected better than 20/20)

1/7/2008 3:59:08 PM

^^ nothing i moved back in with my parents cuz i'm doing an internship in wilmington. and the room is 12' x 15', but there are bookcases across the room from the TV and the tv sits about 1-2 feet from the wall on a TV stand.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM. Reason : c]

1/7/2008 4:07:02 PM

ok - correction....



"Television programming is probably a decade away from broadcasting anything worth watching in 1080p"


when the major networks support 1080p (and or 10+ good cable/dish channels), that will be the time to switch for me. Buying 1080p now is simply a waste of money unless you're constantly watching bluray/hddvd or using a pc at full resolution. The little you gain isn't worth the premium until you actually use it fully.


Assuming you keep a current 1080p television long enough to benefit from that extra investment ($1000+ in this case) for broadcast television worth a damn - everyone around you will have probably purchased a newer, better, thinner, cheaper TV for less than half of what you paid originally . Then again if you're baller - you've probably already ignored my post by now

1/7/2008 8:21:44 PM

^ No one here is arguing about 1080p content except you. My arguments are based almost entirely on 1080i content, which is what the overwhelming majority of cable and satellite HD channels are offered in. I know plenty of locales have OTA 720p signals, but if you purchase HDTV service, then you will be watching 1080i on HD channels most of the time.

On 720p (native 1280x720) panels, the 1080i signal is deinterlaced and downsampled, losing more than half of the graphical information. On a 1080p panel, the signal is only deinterlaced, which does not result in a loss of graphical information.

On 720p panels, a 1080p signal is downsampled, again losing more than half of the graphical information. A 1080p panel does not have to modify the video signal at all to display it.

It is already possible to buy 1080p TVs for $1000 around 40".

Quality 1080p plasma (50") $2300:

1/8/2008 4:58:06 PM

^There's a link in that white box, but I have no idea why the text is invisible. Click the box to open the link.

1/8/2008 5:03:49 PM

^^ http://tinyurl.com/2yh5rp

tinyurl ftw

1/8/2008 8:51:56 PM

I just got a 50" Plasma and right now the 1080 version wasn't worth it. $500 more for higher resolution i cant use for a couple of years.
First of all i have cable which can only put out 720p or 1080i and since i watch alot of sports there is no way im going to deal with the interlacing
Also until movies are filmed in HD its not like i lose any resolution so really as of Right now unless you have Direct TV or feel like paying more then 720 is just fine

1/8/2008 10:24:00 PM

my girlfriends parents left 4:3 cnn on their plasma tv in vibrant color mode while at work every day for the week (the dog watchs tv, i wish i was joking)

still no sign of image retention. i didnt really believe in burn in on modern day plasmas, but this had me a bit floored.

1/9/2008 8:28:42 AM

yeah, after a few dozen hours or so the threat of burn in fades, you just dont want it on one channel right out of the box for hours on end

1/9/2008 9:59:39 AM

LCD ftw, plasma is a dying technology

1/9/2008 10:39:12 AM

I've yet to see an LCD that you could mistake for a plasma.

I dont know why people are so up in arms over pixel count, but could care less about actual image quality.

Well I do know why....people are idiots

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/10/2008 8:02:11 AM

^ marketing

1/13/2008 11:25:40 PM

Quote :

" I dont know why people are so up in arms over pixel count, but could care less about actual image quality. Well I do know why....people are idiots"

and to note - yes i did argue against 1080p - but then again I do have a plasma.... not even gonna open that box of worms

[Edited on January 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM. Reason : rthfgh]

1/13/2008 11:27:36 PM

plasmas, just seem fuzzy to me for some reason... i dunno why.... that and life fade and a finite life of the actual screen (not just replacing backlighting).... meh. i wouldnt turn one away...

1/14/2008 10:40:07 AM

LCDs also fade over time, and also have a finite life.

THe only reason not to get a plasma is that you don't like the way they look.

In terms of picture quality, they are technically superior to LCDs (a good plasma anyway)>

1/14/2008 10:41:22 AM

52" 1080p LCD on sale at costco.com

1/14/2008 12:06:24 PM

Quote :

"I've yet to see an LCD that you could mistake for a plasma. I dont know why people are so up in arms over pixel count, but could care less about actual image quality. Well I do know why....people are idiots"

call me an idiot all you like, i've yet to see a plasma i prefer over a high quality LCD

it's a matter of personal preference, but my original statement still stands -- plasma is a dying technology

1/15/2008 6:49:58 AM

Just wait until you have a backlight up and die in your LCD (I've seen this happen multiple times).

It's at that point you will wish it had slowly faded over 15 years.

1/15/2008 7:31:28 AM

i'll have replaced it after a few years in favor of an OLED display, or something similar

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 8:33 AM. Reason : american spelling]

1/15/2008 8:33:32 AM

^^ LCDs and Plasmas both use a wide variety of backlighting technologies. The performance of the backlight depends on what is actually installed.

1/15/2008 3:12:09 PM