Fully Equipped

Hz so good: The marketing of 240Hz TVs may rely heavily on test patterns.

(Credit: Akihabara News)

Every year it seems there's a new catchy spec in the HDTV realm everybody likes to talk about. A few years back it was 1080p resolution. Then we heard about 120Hz, which is supposed to reduce motion blur in fast-moving images on LCD TVs. Well, this year, the latest and greatest spec is 240Hz, which is supposed to do what 120Hz does, but better.

Not too long ago, our video guru David Katzmaier gave his initial impressions on 240Hz in a post titled "Is 240Hz worth waiting for?" When he wrote that piece, he'd just seen his first 240Hz TV in action and wasn't sold on the new technology. Now that he's reviewed four 240Hz HDTVs and has a fifth review (the LG 47LH55) in the works, he's still not sold, but he admits the verdict isn't totally clear-cut.

Part of the problem is that there's a difference between what your eye sees in everyday material you watch and objective testing done with test patterns. As Katzmaier notes in his post, "Standard LCD and plasma TVs refresh the screen 60 times per second, or 60Hz, which is plenty fast enough to eliminate flicker and create the illusion of motion from a series of still images. In fact, most sources sent to your display arrive at the nominal rate of 30 frames per second, and each frame is repeated once by the television to achieve 60 total fps."

240Hz LCD HDTVs compared

For most people, including me and Mr. Katzmaier, it's very difficult to see the impact that "faster" LCD sets have on picture quality. We spent some time in our AV lab watching various source material from 120Hz TVs and 240Hz models and it's really hard to detect any difference (it's hard to detect any difference between 120Hz and 60Hz models, too). To be clear, I'm referring here to motion-blur reduction because of faster refresh rates, not to dejudder processing, which smooths out motion and makes film-based material shot at 24fps look more video-like. When dejudder is engaged, you can easily spot its impact on the picture. (It's also worth mentioning that the dejudder processing on the 240Hz TVs we tested so far wasn't any better--or worse--than than the dejudder on 120Hz TVs).

'Save me Panasonic, you're my only hope.'

(Credit: Panasonic)

With Pioneer and Vizio recently announcing their exits from the plasma market, there's been a lot of chatter about the technology's short and long-term viability. Some of plasma's problems are PR related. Lingering questions--justified or not--about burn-in and energy efficiency have become part of the public conscious and remain a stumbling block at point of sale. Ultimately, however, there are more simple economics at play. Far more factories are available to produce LCD displays than plasmas, which haven't been able to maintain their price advantage as margins have eroded and the performance gap between the technologies has narrowed.

But let's not dwell on how we got here. The key question is how can plasma survive? And for better or worse, the answer is really in the hands of Panasonic, the brand that has most closely linked its TV fortunes to the technology. Yes, Samsung and LG make lots of plasmas--and some good ones, too--but both are also well-committed LCD and well hedged should plasma go away (Panasonic makes some LCD TVs as well, but nothing larger than 37 inches, while plasma starts at 42). Alas, with Pioneer's departure--a sad day for those who value great TV picture quality--Panasonic is left to carry the plasma mantle largely on its own.

Can it keep plasma from perishing? Well, I hope it can, because the TV space is already commoditized enough and it would be shame if we went down to one flat-panel technology (sure, OLED is being hyped as the display technology of the future, but it's years away from mass-market adoption). However, Panasonic's got to take make some key moves to keep plasma from running out of gas. Here they are:

We've been keeping an eye on prices for Blu-ray players and it appears that a handful of budget-brand models are starting to crack the $150 barrier. The other day Woot.com had the Memorex MVBD2510 player at $139.99 for a one-day sale and now TheNerds.net is selling it for $146.99 (shipping included) and Buy.com has it at $149.99. That's on top of both the Samsung BD-P1500 and the Sony BDP-S300 slipping in and out of sub-$200 territory at Amazon and other outlets.

The Wall-E Blu-ray costs $10 more than the DVD: Is that too big a premium in a tight economy?

(Credit: Amazon)

While $150 isn't bad, I think we're going to see $99 fairly soon, with a couple of stops at $129.99. As we found out with HD-DVD players, $99 really is a magic price point, though it is worth pointing out that these budget Blu-ray players are only profile 1.1, while the $99 HD DVD players were fully up to spec and allowed for firmware upgrades via Ethernet (the cheap Blu-ray players can't be updated and sometimes simply can't play certain movies). Profile 1.1 players aren't BD-Live enabled, which means you won't be able to access certain interactive features--for better or worse.

BD-Live issues aside, I'm betting we'll see $99 for a Blu-ray player inside of four months, if not sooner, the way the economy is going. We can debate exactly when it will happen (feel free to comment), but in the near future the initiation fee for entering Club Blu-ray will be relatively negligible--or at least not a serious stumbling block.

That said, the bigger problem is prices for Blu-ray movies compared to DVDs. For example, if you take a look at Wall-E, which currently sits atop Amazon's Blu-ray bestseller list, it costs $24.95 versus $14.99 for the DVD. Granted, the Blu-ray version comes with three discs (there's a two-disc version for 50 cents less, but why bother?) and the DVD is only a single disc. The fact is the majority of blue-chip Blu-ray titles cost around $25, with some, like Iron Man, coming in at $20. (It's also worth noting that you don't get the free shipping on Amazon on anything less than $25, which makes you understand the price has been set where it is for a reason).

I realize that manufacturers, retail outlets, and studios want to preserve margins as long as they can and they've made an effort to present Blu-ray as a premium format that deserves to be marked up. But asking people to pay 50-75 percent extra when everybody's cutting back already is going to crimp sales of both Discs and players.

The smart people are opting to rent rather than buy (Netflix charges an extra buck for Blu-ray rentals, but it's still a good deal, especially when you consider you get its free movie streaming service thrown in). That said, I know folks who say they'll only consider switching to Blu-ray when players are $99 and the price gap between DVD and Blu-ray movies is minimal. Of course, others will never switch, preferring instead to download zero-cost illegal pirated flicks or stream legal free content from Hulu, Netflix, and others.

What do you guys think? At what point is Blu-ray really going to take off (if ever)? Is one of these stripped-down, cheap players worth buying? And are Discs too expensive?

Around the holiday season we get a lot of e-mails from readers agonizing over what TV to buy. With the economy the way it is, consumers aren't completely shying away from buying new TVs, but they're on tight budgets and appear to be predominantly interested screen sizes 52 inches or smaller. The big problem with going bigger is that you jump into a whole new price class when you start looking at the Panasonic 58-inch plasma--and it gets worse when you check out Pioneer's 60-incher. The exception to all this is DLP-based rear-projection HDTVs, where Samsung and Mitsubishi are the only real remaining players. Remarkably, Best Buy is selling our editors' choice Samsung HL61A750 for $1,600 and the 67-inch inch model in the same line goes for $2,000. Meanwhile, Best Buy has the 65-inch Mitsubishi WD-65735 for a mere $1,500.

Baby got back: On the surface, Samsung's 61-inch 1080p LED-Powered DLP HDTV looks like a plasma or LCD--but it's not.

(Credit: Samsung)

But rear-projection is a dying breed, right? Or, as one reader commented, "Everyone seems to be getting out of the rear-projection market. What happens if Samsung completely kills it? What happens then? Will they service my TV?"

Yes, most pundits agree that rear-pro is indeed on its way out. I've said as much in earlier columns. And in his review of the Samsung HL61A750, senior editor David Katzmaier wrote, "The way things are going, 2008 or 2009 may be the last year for rear-projection, lasers notwithstanding." As for lasers, he was referring to Mitsubishi's Laser TV, which, at $7,000 is a whole other beast we won't get into (Mitsubishi hasn't sent as a unit for review, but we hope we get our hands on one at some point). But with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi, and others exiting the rear-pro market, things look pretty bleak. We used to have three technologies to choose from in this category (LCD, LCoS, DLP) and now we're down to DLP (the aforementioned Laser TV is actually a laser-powered DLP set).

Ironically, the bad economy may save rear-projection. That Samsung HL61A750 is one of the most popular products on CNET and it would appear that many people are willing to give up the whole thin factor of plasma and LCD for more screen size at a lower price point. The Samsung solves a couple of problems inherent to rear-pro DLP: it uses LEDs instead of a conventional bulb, which eliminates the rainbow effect (some people can see brief streaks of color with bulb-based DLP). The LEDs also last much, much longer than bulbs--they give you about 20,000 hours of life.

Rear-projection still has its disadvantages, aside from the obvious fact that it's not flat and so usually can't be hung on a wall. RPTVs lose brightness and picture fidelity when seen from off-angle--to either side or especially above and below. Than again, so do flat-panel LCDs. RPTVs can also be subject to geometry errors, where some lines that should appear straight, such as the bars to either or above and below the screen, are instead subtly curved. The middle of the screen on DLPs is usually brighter than the edges, and other uniformity problems can be seen on some models.

In reality however, most of these picture quality issues are subtle and well worth the savings to big-screen shoppers. So, the big question simply is, if the manufacturers jettison the remaining rear-pro TVs, will they keep servicing them should they break down?

I'm not in the business of making guarantees, but if you look at Sony, they've continued to support and provide parts for their LCoS-based SXRD TVs in the field (there are plenty of them), so I think that's a pretty good indication that Samsung and Mitsubishi will do the same. All I know is that I'll soon be in the market for a new large-screen TV and unless 58-inch and 61-inch plasmas get a whole lot more affordable over the next 6 months, I'm strongly considering rear-pro. It's hard not to at these prices.

Anybody agree or disagree? Please comment.

This year still has several weeks left on the calendar, but it's not too early to look back at the past 10 months and evaluate how we've progressed on the consumer tech front. Rather than look at the best products of the year, however, I decided to focus on the ones that were the most cutting-edge. As such, I've looked back at everything we've covered this year, and I've done my best to winnow down the list and come up with 10 products I think are at the cusp of... something. They may not be fully baked, and they may be overpriced, but they're at the forefront of their respective categories. Of course, I've surely missed some worthy products, so feel free to agree or disagree and add your own selections in the comments section below.