• On mySimon: Genuine BMW Baby Racer
October 12, 2009 9:29 AM PDT

LED TVs: 10 things you need to know

by David Carnoy
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 63 comments

I've written articles in the past explaining various TV technologies, including the differences between 720p and 1080p and 120Hz and 240Hz LCD TVs. But with Samsung, LG, Sony, and other manufacturers pushing so-called LED TVs these days, it's high time that I--with an assist from our resident video guru, David Katzmaier--sort through all the marketing mumbo jumbo and provide some insight into just what an LED TV is. Here goes.

1. An LED TV is not a new kind of TV.

I appreciate a good marketing ploy as much as the next guy, but an LED TV is just an LCD TV that's backlit with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of standard cold-cathode fluorescent lights (or CCFLs). And while they've become best-known this year with Samsung's ultrathin models, LED-backlit LCDs have been on mainstream store shelves since 2007, when Samsung's LN-T4681F debuted.

Unlike plasma and OLED, which are emissive technologies where each pixel is its own discrete light source, LCD is a transmissive technology where each pixel has to be illuminated from behind, or backlit.

2.There are two types of LED backlighting.

Initially, LED-based displays like the Samung LN-T4681F were backlit by what's referred to as a "full array" of LEDs behind the LCD across the back of the panel. But to create superthin TVs, engineers needed to eliminate that extra layer of LEDs and move it to the sides of the display. With this form of backlighting, the LEDs are affixed to all four sides of the TV and light is projected inward to the middle of the TV via "lightguides." These types of TVs are commonly referred to as "edge-lit" LED-based LCDs.

Samsung is the main maker of such sets this year with three series of edge-lit sets, although Sony did release one model earlier this year, the KDL-40ZX1M, and has another flagship series, the KDL-XBR10 models, waiting in the wings. Samsung, Sony, Sharp Toshiba, LG, and Vizio all have non-edge-lit, or "full array" models, available today. See our comparison of edge-lit vs. local dimming for more info.



3. Of the two, local dimming can produce deeper black levels, but also creates "blooming."

Local dimming LED backlights can dim or turn off individually as needed.

The type of backlighting can impact how deep a shade of black a TV can produce. All current LED-based LCDs with rear-placed, "full-array" LED backlighting--except the Sharp LC-LE700UN series--feature a technology called "local dimming." With local dimming, specific areas of the backlight can be dimmed or brightened when different areas of the picture get darker or brighter.

With fluorescent backlighting and edge-lit LED backlighting, by contrast, the entire backlight dims or brightens at once, if at all.

Being able to dim specific quadrants helps reduce the amount of light that leaks through to darkened pixels, and the end result is blacks that appear darker and more realistic. Since black levels are crucial to contrast ratio, the deeper the blacks, the more the picture--and colors--appear to pop. Also, the image as a whole will seem crisper. A great example of local dimming done right is Samsung's UNB8500 series, which is one of the best-performing TVs we've ever tested.

One downside to local dimming is an effect called "blooming," where brighter areas bleed into darker ones and lighten adjacent black levels. This effect varies widely from model to model; it's pretty noticeable on the Toshiba 46SV670U, for example, and much more difficult to notice on the Samsung 8500. Incidence of blooming is directly related to how many local dimming LED elements ("dimmable zones") are behind the screen, but some manufacturers won't divulge that information. Blooming isn't an issue on other kinds of displays, including edge-lit models.

4. Edge-lit TVs are really thin, but uniformity suffers.

As I said, the key benefit to an edge-lit LED backlighting scheme is that manufacturers can make thinner TVs. However, the downside is that the backlighting isn't quite as uniform. With edge-lit displays, if you put a white image up, you may notice that the outer edges of the screen appear brighter or "hotter." Also, when you put up an all-black image, the edges of the screen will appear lighter (grayer).

5. LED backlighting of either variety doesn't improve LCD's poor off-angle viewing.

One of the big downsides to LCD TVs is that the picture degrades if you're sitting off to the side or the TV is placed too high or low, based on your eye level. LED backlighting doesn't change any of this and, in some cases, may actually make things worse.

The Samsung 8500, for example, currently offers the best black levels of any LCD we've seen--so long as you're sitting in the sweet spot, with the middle of the screen between your eyes. But move a few feet to the left or right and you'll notice that the picture doesn't look as good. Why is this so apparent? Well, the problem is that you're starting with such a good picture, you're more apt to notice the difference when you move to the side or stand up and look down at the TV. With a TV picture that doesn't look as good to begin with, the difference doesn't look as stark when you move off axis. Make sense?

6. LED backlighting is even more efficient than standard fluorescent backlighting.

It's definitely true that LED backlighting can cut down on power use, and some LED-backlit LCDs are, inch for inch, the most efficient flat panels available. Samsung's LED-based, 46-inch UN46B6000, for example, costs just $18.73 per year to run (after calibration to equalize light output).

On the flip side, standard fluorescent backlighting is getting more efficient itself. To make a comparison, Samsung's same-size CCFL-based LN46B650 costs $25.96 per year. That's about 28 percent more than its LED brother--but the overall numbers are so low to begin with, we're talking about less than $8 total annually. In other words, it's not really enough to affect anyone's purchasing decision between CCFL and LED flavors of LCD TVs.

On the other hand, it's also worth noting that LCD TVs of both varieties continue to be significantly more energy efficient than plasma TVs. For example, Panasonic's 46-inch TC-P46G10 costs $60.69 per year after calibration, making the LED model more than three times as efficient. Check out our TV power consumption guide for more info.

7. LED backlighting will get better--but how much better is debatable.

While it's true that manufacturers' backlighting schemes will continue to improve with time, we've heard from industry insiders that the real advancements will be in edge-lit technology. With consumers seemingly smitten with super-thin TVs, engineers are trying improve edge-lit backlighting to the point where it equals or even surpasses full-array LED backlighting.

One of the issues with full-array backlighting (that features local dimming) is that to truly perfect it would require 2.1 million LEDs to individually light 2.1 million pixels (in a 1080p TV). Adding that many LEDs simply isn't cost efficient, and sources tell us that for the foreseeable future, engineers have maxed out the number of LEDs they can add to a panel without making the end product prohibitively expensive.

8. LED=higher price tag.

While we're on the topic of expensive, as you're probably aware, LED-powered LCD TVs cost more than non-LED models. On average, an "LED TV" costs at least $400 more than its non-LED counterpart. And top of the line models will run up to $2,000 more, depending on screen size (example: Samsung's 46-inch 8500 costs $3,500, while the non-LED LN46B750 costs around $1,700).

While many of these high-end sets are certainly excellent performers and slick to look at, the premium you pay for them usually doesn't measure up to how much better they perform on a percentage basis. In other words, a TV may cost 25 percent more but only have a picture that's 10 percent better.

Eventually, of course, as LED backlighting becomes a more universal feature, you won't have to pay the same premium as you do now.

9. Top-of-the-line LED TVs deliver as good a picture as plasma TVs--with one caveat.

LCD TVs have long been knocked for not producing the deep blacks of plasma TVs. Well, with the introduction of LED backlighting, blacks on high-end LCD TVs can go toe-to-toe with the blacks on some of the best plasmas and the picture is outstanding. Also, as noted, LED-backlit LCD TVs are more energy efficient than plasmas and weigh less. But off-angle viewing on LCDs remains a sticking point. With plasma, by comparison, you can sit to the side of the TV and the picture won't degrade.

10. If you don't have your picture settings correct, LED or non-LED won't make a difference.

You can have the best LCD TV in the world with the latest and greatest technology, but if it's not set up correctly, it can look pretty run of the mill. Luckily, with every TV David Katzmaier reviews here at CNET, he posts his optimal settings in the HDTV picture settings forum.

As always, feel free to add your own comments.

Additional reading:

Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
Recent posts from Fully Equipped
Top 15 Black Friday tech deals
Top 40 must-have Blu-ray Discs
Does the new Kindle have better contrast?
LED TVs: 10 things you need to know
15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15
Is this your Kindle?
Will PSP Go keep pirates at bay?
Keyboard for Apple tablet already here?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (63 Comments)
by CatalepsicFox October 12, 2009 9:41 AM PDT
Very educational article. I thought all LED LCD-TVs are full-arrays.
Reply to this comment
by jaguar717 October 12, 2009 4:56 PM PDT
I'm curious just how many "backlight pixels" the local dimming models are up to.

David, you mentioned that having an LED per pixel wouldn't be cost effective (hopefully that's just for now), but what range are current models in? Are there just a couple hundred zones, is it more like an LED for every 5 or so pixels (say a 640x480ish grid), etc?
by chrkeller October 13, 2009 4:39 AM PDT
I agree, interesting article. The take home message I received was LED is no better than plasma, but costs a lot more. Until the prices or LED drop, I will continue to be a plasma owner. I can't get over how amazing ps3 games look on a Panasonic plasma.
by blusky08 October 13, 2009 6:19 AM PDT
Not only is LED no better than plasma, it's actually worse because the black levels are ruined by extremely poor backlight uniformity. CNET gives these sets great scores for black levels, but black levels with flashlights and clouds and blooming equals poor black levels. Backlight uniformity issues make LCD/LED a poor option right now.
by chrkeller October 13, 2009 8:49 AM PDT
I believe in time LED and/or OLED will be superior to plasma, but right now it just isn't the case. I was hesitate to buy plasma because of all the burn in issues, which turned out to be a non issue. I couldn't recommend plasma more. Recently I have been playing Resident Evil 5, it looks fantastic.
by Michichael October 12, 2009 11:08 AM PDT
Yeah, very well written and informative article. thanks!
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by ender21 October 12, 2009 11:15 AM PDT
My supposition is that the borderline false advertising "LED TV" by Samsung is just their marketing department preparing for the OLED category in the coming years.... How much better can LCD TVs get? As a transmissive technology, at best the LED with local dimming is just trying to eek out every last drop of potential from tech that has maybe only a few more generations of improvements to be had before making a significant shift.

Samsung LED TV now.... but in 5 years...Samsung OLED TV. Then the transition from one to the next is easier for an easily confused marketplace to deal with. But again... all speculation on my part.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by ikramerica--2008 October 12, 2009 12:12 PM PDT
It may actually make it harder to market OLED in the future, and this false advertising should be STOPPED by the feds. They are often simply called LED TVs, when as explained above, they are LCD TVs. It would be one thing if LCD TVs of the past were known as CCFL TVs. But they weren't.
by Mr_fleabite October 12, 2009 12:20 PM PDT
my thoughts exactly.

good article learned some stuff.
by Mergatroid Mania October 12, 2009 3:00 PM PDT
Pure bunk. Although calling them backlit LCD may be better it's nowhere near false advertising.

When OLED TVs come out, they will be called OLED or zero backlight or something. Simple as that. When Sony finally comes out with large screen OLED TVs, you can be sure they will let everyone know they are not "LED TVs".
by jaguar717 October 12, 2009 4:54 PM PDT
"should be STOPPED by the feds"
Yes, please, won't someone think of the children? There oughta be a Law!

Lol. Because the utopia of authoritarianism is just one more ban away...
by ikramerica--2008 October 12, 2009 5:03 PM PDT
Yes, it is false advertising.

If they were called LCD with LED backlighting, that would be one thing. But companies are marketing them as "LED TV" because of the hype about LEDs and OLEDs. It is intentional market confusion, and any time a company purposely tries to create market confusion, the FTC gets involved, or state attorney's general. Eventually, companies are forced to stop their "deceptive marketing" but until then, consumers get confused.

It ain't the first time TV manufacturers tried to confuse customers, and won't be the last. Why were TV tube sets called 19" when they had a 19" viewable area but 19" monitors had 17-18" areas? Because long ago, TV manufacturers were taken to task for deceptive marketing like PC monitor companies did, so a consumer protection law was created to call a spade a spade in the TV world. Monitors were not considered TVs, so they weren't covered by this law (nor was the same TV sold in Canada, so if you got a model with dual market labeling, you'd see it listed as 20").
by cohensan October 12, 2009 12:00 PM PDT
Hmm, wasn't aware of the edge-lit LED TVs, so thanks for the new (to me) info!

Just would like to bring a thought to point #9. While plasmas do have a great horizontal viewing angle, the problem is the vertical viewing angle. Even if you are in front of a plasma TV, standing up vs sitting down can make a difference in the picture quality. Also, with LCD TVs (LED and non-LED), you can easily pivot the TV. For instance, if i'm making a meal, and want to continue watching the TV in the living room, I can pivot my LCD TV so it is pointing towards the kitchen opening. If i'm sitting at the table in the kitchen, I get the same option. This would be much harder to do with a plasma. And again, the standing and then sitting would change vertical viewing angle. This is why I chose LCD 2 years ago (when my Samsung cost 3,500 and is now dirt cheap) and why I will continue to invest in the LCD technology.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by ikramerica--2008 October 12, 2009 12:13 PM PDT
LCDs also have horrible vertical angles, and while it's nice if you are single to pivot your TV, try doing that with a family. ;)
by stuntman_mike October 13, 2009 8:48 AM PDT
I don't know what plasma you have looked at, but the plasmas I have seen have the same image whether I am above or below the set. Nice try though.
by gugion October 28, 2009 1:45 PM PDT
I have no idea what you are talking about. Plasma TV's keep their picture quality when off-axis both horizontally AND vertically. You are spreading nonsensical information. There is absolutely no reason to currently purchase LCD TV's when balancing total value. Yes, the Samsung UN8500 is an AMAZING TV...it's also 2x as expensive as Panasonic's best plasma in similar size. Only now does LCD finally come up with blacks and natural-looking color that can compare to plasma, but it still has horrible off-axis viewing and is quite prohibitively expensive. By the time economies of scale kicks in, OLED will be out, and in that transitive stage plasma's will continue to enhance its contrast ratio with higher brightness and lower blacks. Pioneer was in the development stage of a similar technology whereby the pixels can shut off to have absolute blacks. This technology will leak into plasma production and plasma will continue to be the best value and picture until OLED is perfected and not so expensive.
by biggstuu October 12, 2009 12:12 PM PDT
This is the most informative thing I have read on CNET in months, thank you so much! Please continue providing readers with useable information and not the gossipy opinion and nonsense that has taken over CNET as of late. Again, thanks.
Reply to this comment
by dynamited777 October 12, 2009 12:18 PM PDT
You article did not address the reliability question, or life time expectations. I recently had a laptop CCFL display go partially dead and now can only be effectively used as a desktop. I do not know what the failure rate is with CCFL on LCD TV's, but I am hoping my new LED LCD TV will last forever and can be willed to the next generation. Beside, a 46inch TV now only weighs 40 pounds!
Reply to this comment
by Bill_I October 12, 2009 12:23 PM PDT
I will stay with my paid-for Sony Trintiron CRTs until they burn out. --- NTSC is good enough for me.
Reply to this comment
by tech_crazy October 12, 2009 1:07 PM PDT
It's not the CRT vs Plasma/LCD/OLED etc. or the size of the screen but by sticking with NTSC you will be missing the inherent advantages of HD content vs. non-HD.
by galeso October 12, 2009 1:41 PM PDT
Use 4 Sony Trintiron CRTs & a video wall controller and you will have your 1080P.
by ikramerica--2008 October 12, 2009 5:04 PM PDT
Your Sony's are already very dim. Enjoy eyestrain and poor vision. :)
by hakeis1 October 12, 2009 10:25 PM PDT
Yes and keep burning 300 percent more electricity than an Lcd TV.
by tech_crazy October 12, 2009 12:27 PM PDT
Good article, though personally I have known all the points mentioned. That is why i felt it reeked of false advertising to call them LED TVs when, unlike true LED techonology (LED arrays or OLED) they were just LCDs backlit by LEDs rather than CCFLs. Another gimmick of such proportions it the 120Hz and now 240Hz TVs. Granted it can smooth some motion but if the original picture frame rate isn't higher than 30, anything more is actually interpolation and basically a form of eye candy. I speak from professional experience having done design work for a major imaging company.
Reply to this comment
by cjwall67 October 12, 2009 1:40 PM PDT
I have a 47" LG with CFL backlighting. Compared to our old TV, it has an awesome picture. We have it sitting on top of a 42" high cabinet, and the only place you can't get a good view is when you are almost straight sideways from it. I must not be very video-savvy, because I think that the blacks on it look...well, BLACK. It does a pretty good job of compensating for variances in ambient light on its own, and the picture presets work fairly well too. I went with the LCD because plasmas in the same size and price range don't compare well at all (most aren't even 1080p). It's like Blu-Ray: in a few years when my reliable old Panasonic DVD dies, I'll probably pick one up...in the meantime, I can live with upconverted DVD on a TV that makes it look pretty good. They can upmarket the technology all they want, I won't be biting for some time yet.
Reply to this comment
by tektaktyks October 12, 2009 1:44 PM PDT
$18 per year when its on 24/7?
Reply to this comment
by hakeis1 October 12, 2009 10:28 PM PDT
Your Numbers are way off Dude. An LED Tv uses 45 percent electricity, try more like $120.00 a year saveings, add that up for 8 years and it's paid for just by electricity alone.
by katzmaier October 13, 2009 6:23 AM PDT
Not 24/7. We use 5.2 hours on and 18.8 hours off--based on a 2007 PG&E study cited by the California Energy Commission--along with 11.35 cents per kw/Hr, the average residential electricity cost for 2008. "Your mileage may vary."

We employ the same methodology as Energy Star to test TV power use, and in addition we equalize for light output in our calibrated tests, which this article cites and which appear on all of our TV reviews.

More info:

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-test/
by tektaktyks October 13, 2009 1:35 PM PDT
thank you
by TomMariner October 12, 2009 2:09 PM PDT
So what are the clowns now calling their devices "LED TV"s going to call a TV that really is LED as in OLED or some variant? How about "Real LED TV"?

A year ago I had a local sales guy tell me a 55 inch Samsung was "OLED".and cost the same as the plasma next to it. On the other hand, I am looking forward to a Samsung OLED purchase soon -- in my phone.

By the way -- informative article.
Reply to this comment
by Mergatroid Mania October 12, 2009 2:46 PM PDT
OLED Tvs will be called OLED TVs of course. And since there are no other forms of LED TVs in the works, I really don't see a problem here.
by tech_crazy October 12, 2009 9:11 PM PDT
@Mergatroid Mania
There are many types of LED technologies for displays, OLED is just one of them. Here is a link to a recent CNET article on another LED display technology that should help you/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10314889-76.html
by setjeff15081947 October 12, 2009 2:24 PM PDT
Executive Editor David Carnoy, may I most respectfully suggest that you "Get-Laid". Even "Contemplating-Your-Navel" may improve your ability to cease writing about the mundane and extraneous; there are one, or two, of We-Humans still reading C-Net.
Or is it your desire to relegate this Web-Site to Techno-Nerds and Bit-Chasers who spend days dissecting the esoterica of the World of Technology?
I wonder if Berlitz has a language course on speaking, and writing, in Human-Ese?
Reply to this comment
by dcarnoy October 12, 2009 4:13 PM PDT
Setjeff, I usually get accused of writing crappy, link-bait fluff pieces, so I consider your comment props. Gotta flash the Techno-Nerd side from time to time for the street cred. As for getting laid, I don't think it will help my writing.
by DarrenPillans October 12, 2009 11:37 PM PDT
Setjeff, you are a complete tool.

If you're not interested in the article, why did you click on it?

You utter moron.
by tektaktyks October 13, 2009 6:02 AM PDT
its a good article
by UltraGeek1111 October 13, 2009 2:15 PM PDT
maybe if manufacturers didn't intentionally try to manipulate customers David Carnoy wouldn't have to write this article in the first place! ******.
by Mergatroid Mania October 12, 2009 2:46 PM PDT
Wow, what a large article for such a simple concept. I've had to explain LED backlighting to multiple customers over the last couple of years, and I believe I did it with half the words. You guys get paid by the word?
Also, a couple of points here. The off angle viewing degradation has been vastly improved over the last few years. The intensity of the problem is directly related to how much the TV costs. LCD TVs with the biggest problem in this area are those running under $500, and mostly off brands with cheap a$$ LCD panels in them. I have a 46" Sony with florescent backlights in my living room, and no one has ever complained about picture degradation at off angles. It performs very well at off angles.

I think perhaps an article could be written about just how much a waste of money calibrating an LCD TV can be. I notice in your calibration article you do the calibration for a dark room, which is perfectly fine if you always watch TV in a dark room. Unless you have the TV in a room with covered windows, and never have any lights on while watching, hiring someone to calibrate your TV or purchasing calibration tools can be a complete waste of money.

The only way around this is to use the predefined settings in the TV and adjust each one for the differing conditions under which you watch TV. Of course, this will only work if your TV will remember the adjustments for each predefined setting.

Lastly, something that is NEVER mentioned in any article regarding calibration. Just about every single video you will be watching will be different from the calibration disc. You can go out and buy 50 DVDs and Blu-rays and find the TV needs a slight adjustment for every one. The age of the movie, whether it was filmed in digital or not, and even the actual cameras that were used to film the movie can all make a difference to the picture you're viewing. Some movies might appear too dark, making a slight brightness adjustment necessary, some movies might appear too faded, or with poor colour. Anyone who pays money for calibration (pros or tools) should be aware that the one calibration is not a be all and end all for every movie they watch.
Reply to this comment
by dcarnoy October 12, 2009 4:20 PM PDT
Wrote that calibration article back in 2004: http://homeinstallation.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5153490-1.html Of course, we don't talk too much about pro calibrations anymore. The Katzmaier settings are for those who don't want to pay for a calibration. They are our gift to CNET readers.
by stuntman_mike October 13, 2009 9:06 AM PDT
You obviously have no idea of what a calibration is. Calibration is to set your TV to reference. There is no such thing as reference in any other environment than a dark one. Don't want to watch the TV in the dark? You don't have to. Will the TV still be reference? No, but it will still be closer than you could do by adjusting it with just your eyes. You need a light meter to get the picture accurate. Based on your comments it would not surprise me if you, like the rest of the masses, had your TV set on Vivid and a color temp that was on cool or normal. In other words, a picture that is too blue, terribly inaccurate, and typical of a novice.

As far as your point about having to adjust for every DVD or Blu-ray. No you don't. Every film is filmed for reference. By having your TV calibrated properly, you are seeing exactly what the film maker wanted you to see. That is the only goal. If something is red, you should see it as red. Not a purplish red. If it doesn't look right to you and you feel that you have to adjust it, again, it's probably because you are used to seeing everything wrong, so reference actually doesn't look correct to you.

As for your point about viewing angles on LCDs. They have gotten better on CCFL LCDs, but David is talking about local dimming LED LCDs, which have much worse viewing angles.

In summary, you have no idea what you are talking about on any of the points that you have made, and should refrain from repeating this mistake in the future by doing even a minimum of research in advance.

Thanks
by jmorfd October 12, 2009 4:32 PM PDT
cohensan said that viewing plasma tvs vertically changes the quality of the picture. I disagree. I have had a samsung plasma for 5 months and I will tell you that no matter what viewing angle you watch a plasma, the picture does not change. It is just like a CRT tv. I don't know where he gets this info. but it is not my experience with the plasma. LCD, on the other hand do have picture quality issues if you are not viewing in the sweet spot. I also have 2 LCDs and the picture quality is not as good as the plasmas. I would have all plasmas if they came in smaller sizes. My LCDs are both samsung and 22" and 24".
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 October 12, 2009 5:10 PM PDT
The only time it can happen is if there is a polarized antiglare coating. But that's not a plasma problem, that's the manufacturer's problem.

LCD is different, as you well know. Because the crystal has to twist and light has to come through it to your eye, at off angles, it distorts. This is why dark colors or certain colors only can invert while light don't. You see the reflection of light off the twisted crystal in those, while the other parts still show the light and color that was meant to pass through to you in the first place.

170 degree claimed viewing angles don't help here that much. They are usually bogus, but it does mean the display is better than one with a 140 degree claimed angle.
by Zakynthos October 12, 2009 5:36 PM PDT
fantastic article. i am now an expert on LCDs. Top stuff CNET
Reply to this comment
by MRPysnik October 12, 2009 6:37 PM PDT
Thanks for the article. Great breakdown.
Reply to this comment
by mpitogo October 12, 2009 7:47 PM PDT
I replaced an aged Plasma for my family home theater recently with a 55" Samsung. Its color calibrated with our main video devices and its by far the best screen money can buy.
Reply to this comment
by sting7k October 12, 2009 11:20 PM PDT
I don't know what LCD panels cnet is looking at, 2005 models? But any LCD I've seen in the past 2-3 years has perfectly fine viewing angels. I move all around mine and you can't see any difference really. Same with just about every non junk brand I've seen. I didn't know a 178 degree viewing angel was bad. Where are you trying sit when you watch TV?
Reply to this comment
by DarrenPillans October 12, 2009 11:42 PM PDT
Thanks for the excellent article David.

I pretty much knew most of it, but it was nice to get a comprehensive explanation to fill in any gaps.

Any idea if Sony will release a local-dimming model this year? Or have they given up and just sticking to edge-lit?
Reply to this comment
by the_iceman October 13, 2009 12:06 AM PDT
LED tech is impressive, a nice LCD improvement, I look forward to seeing it mature. I wont be buying however until prices come way down.

I still wish we'd leap into the 2.40:1 ratio HDTVs instead and say goodbye to black bars.

OLED is still 10-15 years out from becoming reality (ie. large sizes/affordable) isnt it?
Reply to this comment
by griz_fan October 14, 2009 11:32 AM PDT
So, when you finally go out and buy that 2.40:1 what are you going to do with all the 16:9 TV programming? Maybe you can talk everyone into re-shooting all the TV shows, movies, etc.. to match the aspect ratio of your new TV? You will never say goodbye to letterboxing of some type. Your 2.40:1 solution would only trade in letterbox bars for pillarbox bars. 16:9 aspect ratio is a compromise, but so would any other aspect ratio. Until you convince all the content providers/makers to recreate everything in the same aspect ratio and never stray from that again, you will have black bars. So, stop worrying about black bars, it is completely pointless, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Showing 1 of 2 pages (63 Comments)
advertisement

About Fully Equipped

Executive Editor David Carnoy has been covering electronics for CNET since 2000, arriving at the company just as "that whole Internet bust thing" happened. Early on, he launched CNET's cell phone coverage, earning him the nickname "Wireless Dave," then moved on to bigger and broader things. Hunkered down in New York City, he oversees CNET's Home and Hardware reviews, which includes all things related to home theater, PC, and digital imaging. Fully Equipped covers the gamut of gadgets and gizmos and, to keep things lively, Carnoy likes to alternate between writing useful, advice-oriented pieces or thought-provoking columns with inflammatory headlines designed to elicit commentary from readers. Fully Equipped is the longest continuously running column on CNET.com.

For older columns, read the Fully Equipped archive (2002-2008).

Add this feed to your online news reader

Fully Equipped topics