When you're shopping for a new LCD screen for the media room, you'll have numbers flying at you left and right. If you're the average consumer and have no idea what a pixel response time is, you'll probably just go for the latest, priciest model thinking that cost equals value. But if you consult this New York Times' article, that's not the best M.O....
The article, which you can read here, features the results of a study by Raymond M. Soneira, president of the DisplayMate Technologies Corporation, that found most of the "advanced" specifications that are touted highly on the stores helves don't actually mean you're getting a significantly better picture.
Buy an LCD TV with higher refresh rates, faster pixel response times, and more sophisticated motion enhancement technologies, and the only thing you’re accomplishing is that you’re emptying your bank account faster, thanks to those sets’ higher prices. You’re certainly not getting a better picture, according to Mr. Soneira.
So what should you go by when making your selection? The best idea is just to go after a time-tested reputable brand.
(Image: Flickr user changeiam under license from Creative Commons.)
Comments (2)
Yep. I have a similar argument with my "non-tech" family and friends who are convinced that more megapixels is better but they've never made a print larger than 5x6.
Same people who will boast about their 3.0L V6 while they slowly make their way home on some congested roadway.
yes, I also tried to explain to friends and family that you don't need the 12MP camera when the exact same model is way cheaper at 8MP unless you are planning to blow it up and cover an entire wall.
And don't get me started on 60Hz vs 120Hz vs 240Hz...how much fast-paced motion is there when watching talk shows or gossip girl?