Philips 47' 47PFL7403D 120hz 1080p LCD HDTV listed on Buy.com this morning.

$999.99, it from first look, it seems like a great deal (though I have no experience with HD tvs in the past, nor do I know anything about the quality of philips)

Then I looked at the specs and saw this:

Picture enhancement: Pixel Plus 3 HD , 3/2 - 2/2 motion pull down , 3D Combfilter , Active Control + Light sensor , Dynamic contrast enhancement , Progressive Scan , 120Hz LCD , HD Natural Motion

Video formats: 480i, 60Hz , 480p, 60Hz , 720p, 60Hz , 1080i, 60Hz , 1080p, 60Hz

Under video formats, should that not be 1080p, 120Hz??? Am I missing something?

12/4/2008 8:43:06 AM

(simplified explanation time)

There's really no video format that's 1080p 120Hz. As a 120 Hz TV it can handle 1080p/30Hz, 1080p/24Hz without the need for a pulldown ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown#2:3_pulldown )

A better question is: why does it list 1080p/60, but not 1080p/24 or 1080p/30? And why does it mention a 3:2 pulldown when a 120Hz LCD really shouldn't need one?

[Edited on December 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM. Reason : Buy one of the Samsungs that people are always talking about on here, if you're committed to LCDs]

12/4/2008 9:01:31 AM

philips is getting out of that market as their tvs were shit and couldnt compete. you'd be getting a "good" deal because there won't be any warranty or customer service when it shits the bed. drop the coin on a samsung or sharp 120hz

12/4/2008 9:05:05 AM

cool, thanks for the info...

I guess Ill wait a little while longer for the samsung to come below 1k.

12/4/2008 9:08:32 AM

120Hz is overrated!

12/4/2008 9:11:09 AM

I'm sad to say it, but Philips TVs have bad picture. I would've gotten one for the brand name, if it weren't for this.

12/4/2008 11:54:40 AM

get a sharp! I love my 42" Sharp LCD...made my rents get one for their wedding anniversary a few months back but the 46". Which ironically enough they paid LESS than I did for my 42" that i bought Christmas/Jan. last year.

12/4/2008 11:59:19 AM

Quote :

"120Hz is overrated!"

[no]

12/4/2008 12:43:02 PM

re: ^^
don't get a sharp they are price fixers http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBHgLLGtYy35WBv054ztxo7VmWAAD94DJB9O2

12/4/2008 12:52:55 PM

12/4/2008 12:57:42 PM

47" vizio from costo with the added costco warranty at no cost. Great set.

12/4/2008 3:41:36 PM

120hz is a load of garbage.

12/4/2008 7:01:34 PM

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

12/4/2008 11:52:24 PM

^that guy is a fucking retard. He didn't even use the term correctly.

12/5/2008 2:28:17 AM

so is a 720p 42in plasma worth it for bluray/hd cable/360?

http://www.hhgregg.com/ProductDetail.asp?SID=n&ProductID=22365&BrandStore=All

http://www.hhgregg.com/ProductDetail.asp?SID=n&ProductID=21086&BrandStore=All

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 3:17 AM. Reason : ?????]

12/5/2008 3:17:13 AM

I'd buy a Panasonic, personally, but if you're not obsessed with resolution you can't go wrong with a plasma made by a decent company.

12/5/2008 8:51:53 AM

^^ i've got the second one you listed...i bought it for $50 more back in may from best buy

12/5/2008 11:14:01 AM

if you plan on playing blu-ray why would you purchase a 720p tv?

12/5/2008 11:21:40 AM

Go Panasonic. LOVE my 42" Plasma. Looking to save up enough for the Blu-Ray/Surround Sound system that Panasonic sells that works with Viera link.

And if your worried about 120Hz, go Plasma. LCDs are the only ones that need to worry about the refresh rate.

If you want decent picture quality on Blu-Ray go 1080p. 720p will not display it to its full effect.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2008 11:44:07 AM

^^ Why not?


^^^ How do you like it so far?

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2008 11:45:14 AM

If we're just talking 32" screens, I'm assuming a 720p LCD would be adequate; is that a reasonable assumption? I'm thinking plasma and 1080p wouldn't make much a difference at the smaller screen size, and I would also be watching from about 8-10 feet away.

12/5/2008 12:06:37 PM

^ absolutely correct

12/5/2008 12:07:19 PM

^^^ their point is that blu-ray is 1080p, and using blu-ray on a 720p was "wasted"

i don't particularly agree, because on the same size television, i don't see a noticeable difference...at least, not one worth the premium...42" (for me) is the line at which the 720/1080p argument becomes valid, depending on how close you are to the television...my 720p plasma looks great from 10 feet away where my couch is...1080p would make almost no difference to me, at that point (especially not for the extra $200 the upgrade would cost at the time)...i do wish i had 1080p when i'm playing games, but not so much that i think about it until one of these threads comes up

i love my tv...at the time, i could not find an LCD that had comparable color representation (blacks were my big deterrent), though i understand that the gap is quickly closing...i do wish, at times, that the tv didn't get so hot (it uses more power and generates more heat than an LCD), but that is my ONLY complaint...i use all 3 of my HDMI ports, so that was a big deal for me, as well

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : arrows]

12/5/2008 12:11:26 PM

So if my goal is to have bluray I need to have a 1080p television?

12/5/2008 1:40:59 PM

To get the highest quality picture that a Blu-Ray player outputs, yes. Your Blu-Ray is putting out at 1080p and then having to downgrade the signal to 720p for the TV to output it.

If you are talking small screens, then it will not be a big difference, if any. At the price I paid and discount I got, it was a STEAL for my TV. Something like $650. I was happy as a pig in shit at that price. If its a big range in prices from what you are looking at between 1080 and 720 and you are looking at the smaller end of HD-TVs, then it is a waste of money.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2008 2:07:25 PM

^^ you don't NEED it, but the full potential of HD is "wasted"...here's why i don't care: at 10-11 feet away, on my 42" plasma tv, it makes zilch in the way of difference...i can't tell the difference, and, unless you're an A/V snob with magic eyes (i am not, but there are a few on here), you won't notice the difference, either

all things being equal, or with 1080p only costing slightly more (i'd say ~$100 is my limit), sure, go for 1080p...but at this size and pricepoint, i simply don't see the advantage of 1080p as being worth the cost

no one can tell you, though...you might find out that you have super duper vision and the difference is enough to scar your tender retinas and embitter you for the rest of your life

personally, i'd say take the money you save on going 720p (if you were willing to spend the extra ~$200 in the first place) and put it toward a nice surround setup...because if we're talking about "wasting" the full potential of blu-ray, working with just stereo sound is criminal

*shrug*

12/5/2008 3:20:35 PM

define "small"

12/5/2008 3:44:40 PM

all this chatter about 720p vs 1080p because of price point...is this REALLY any issue? I mean 1080p tvs have become so cheap...infact I'd have to go out of my way to buy a 720p tv and it would be something like 19"-22"

12/5/2008 3:48:35 PM

subjective...i think "small" is 37" and below

42", as a popular size, is probably borderline...everything larger than 42" seems to fall into the "big" category (somewhere in there is a "medium" category...maybe 32" to 46"?)

12/5/2008 3:48:59 PM

Also consider if you ever plan on using your TV as a monitor for a laptop/computer. We use our 42" 1080p with our HTPC and using windows programs (powerpoint/word, etc) are MUCH better at 1920 by 1080, than at 1280 by 720. Plus there's a big difference playing games.

12/5/2008 4:04:09 PM

It will be used for 360/apple tv/digital cable/bluray

Im having a hard time finding a reputable 42'' 1080p tv with 3 4 hdmi inputs for 700-750 bucks.

If I do go bigger it will be a 50 in for the living room when I move in to a normal size apartment and the 42 will become a bedroom tv.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2008 4:08:26 PM

^not sure how much they are now...but 42" Sharp (D64U series) are pretty awesome! I have one in my bedroom and my rents have a 46" of the same series. Looks fantastic with the xbox/ps3/apple tv. Sound quality is good too which was a factor for me since i don't have surround sound in the bedroom.


scratch that...I just looked up the price on amazon.com...shit has gone up by $500+!

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2008 4:10:46 PM

^^^ yeah, that's my only complaint...it's not unbearable by any means, since i sit that same 10-11 feet away and use my bluetooth set...at that point, it's kind of hard to read text on the screen if i'm trying to navigate the computer...1080p would be worse, though, in that particular case

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2008 4:11:40 PM

Quote :

"Im having a hard time finding a reputable 42'' 1080p tv with 3 4 hdmi inputs for 700-750 bucks. "

you could just get an hdmi switch.

12/5/2008 4:54:56 PM

Quote :

"It will be used for 360/apple tv/digital cable/bluray"

Quote :

""Im having a hard time finding a reputable 42'' 1080p tv with 3 4 hdmi inputs for 700-750 bucks. ""

Quote :

"you could just get an hdmi switch."

Do you really need hdmi for all those things? Can't component handle the cable and apple tv? The only reason to go HDMI is for 1080p and for the audio.

12/5/2008 5:46:05 PM

I thought HD cable used HDMI, and if you wanted the better HD content off of iTunes you needed an HDMI connection?

12/5/2008 6:00:31 PM

you don't have to use HDMI for HD

12/5/2008 6:04:32 PM

^^Apple has shit HD, it's all 720p 5mbps bitrate (last time i checked). This is on the low end of HD, and a component cable will do fine.

Use hdmi for 360/bluray.

12/5/2008 6:06:33 PM

Ohhh sweet!

I fell off the HD video bandwagon about 3 years ago. You guys are awesome!

So I really only need 2 component and 2 HDMI then, right?

12/5/2008 6:14:25 PM

Dynex 42" 1080p is 597 bucks at best buy. Has excellent contrast ratio, brightness, plethora of inputs and optical audio output. I'd check it out in store and get the extended warrantee, but it looks like a hella good deal

12/5/2008 10:00:29 PM

my 50" samsung 720p plasma looks great from 10 feet away

12/6/2008 10:24:16 AM

I thought human's couldn't detect differences above 60Hz

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

12/6/2008 2:29:06 PM

some people will tell you that they can

12/6/2008 2:43:08 PM

i could tell a difference between 60 and 120hz on the same tv with scrolling txt at best buy...

12/6/2008 3:23:16 PM

^ see what i mean

12/6/2008 5:25:49 PM

I don't trust 'em. I can hear CRT's. You never know when an LCD might sneak up behind you.

12/8/2008 12:08:08 AM

Quote :

"I thought human's couldn't detect differences above 60Hz"

The advantage to having a 120Hz TV currently is that it can display blu-ray movies at their original 24fps. (120 being a multiple of 24).

120 Hz is supposed to reduce motion blur on LCD's but ONLY if you let the TV interpolate the picture by inserting it's own frames. The result is often hideous.

In summary: buy a 120hz-capable set if you want judder-free blu-rays. Turn AutoMotion Plus or whatever else they're calling it OFF. The correct solution if you're bothered by motion blur is to buy a plasma.

[Edited on December 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM. Reason : f]

12/8/2008 1:44:07 PM