LCD TV is the extra 50MHZ worth £200?

virgin_moneysaver

narrowed down between Sony KDL-40V4000 50MHZ & Sony KDL-40W4500 100 mhz

the salesman at Sony tried to tell DH that you needed the extra 50MHZ offered by the latter TV to really appreciate the sport - at a difference of about £200

is it worth the extra money?

aliEnRIK

Well yes and no

the 4500 is the better quality tv (regardless of the 100Hz screen) so yes, its worth it. But thats got next to nothing to do with it being 100Hz

jd87

Personally I think it is worth it. It means the screen refresh rate is twice as fast, so fast moving objects (a cricket ball, a footballer far from the camera running) will move much smoother when watching an HD broadcast.

i8change

Somebody (4743hudsonj) was questioning the reliability of 100Hz on this thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=21491239&highlight=100hz+lcd#post21491239

"i must say though, unless normal 60hz tv annoys you then dont buy 100hz again, from stuff ive read and heard its nowhere near as reliable as standard 60hz."

I could not find anything to confirm his suggestions when I Googled for it, but you could check yourself just to be sure.

virgin_moneysaver

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Well yes and no

the 4500 is the better quality tv (regardless of the 100Hz screen) so yes, its worth it. But thats got next to nothing to do with it being 100Hz

now, I'm confused even more - in what respect is it better when they said the only difference between the 2 was the extra 50 mhz, & if that only comes into play for the occassional footie game he watches can i justify the, now it turns out, 25% more - since posting my question the cheapest price inc delivery for the w4500 is £1000 & the other I can get for £750

RobTang

the problem is everyones eyes are different and some people might easily be able to tellt he difference others might not.

Try to view both playing the same picutre at the same time so you can compare and contrast, personally I think the extra refresh makes a difference on everything.

If you can't do that pop down to comet/currys and take a look at the differences between 50hz and 100hz sets.

totalsolutions

V, hi please stop confusing MHz you mean Hz.

100Hz there are even 200Hz screens

Manufactures refer to the screen refresh rate. Movie film shown at 25 frames per second and tv refreshes at 50 times a second. LCD technologies require a little more as fast moving objects blur on screen. Plasma is better in this respect as there are no shutters involved just little light sources.

timbim_2

Come on LED!

BenL

Are you a tv buff/technology kind of person with a full on surround sound setup, PS3, blu ray, Sky HD, HD media streaming over a network system?

If so, you may appreciate any difference.

If not, probably not worth the extra.

4743hudsonj

i see someone has already included a previous post by me but like its been said.

100hz tv's are sold as some people look at normal tv's and find the refresh rates straining on the eye and can see the refresh rate, so 100hz solves this problem, but some people, me included cant watch 100hz as its straining on the eyes(like looking at a strobe lights - hard to explain)

so you need to know if 100hz is comfortable to watch for you before you buy, if not stick with standard models

And as somebody quoted me on, i have heard a lot of problems with 100hz and 200hz models. probably because its less developed, everything is more unreliable when its new.

aliEnRIK

virgin_moneysaver wrote: »

now, I'm confused even more - in what respect is it better when they said the only difference between the 2 was the extra 50 mhz, & if that only comes into play for the occassional footie game he watches can i justify the, now it turns out, 25% more - since posting my question the cheapest price inc delivery for the w4500 is £1000 & the other I can get for £750

It doesnt cost 200 quid or more to make a tv 100Hz so theres better quality components in the 4500 than the other one.

As an easier to understand example lets look at cd players. Ones 50 quid and the others 10 grand. They both do EXACTLY the same job so why the price difference? The 10 grand one is pure hifi and tries to recreate the original recording as much as possible, the 50 quid one just 'works'.

So im trying to say the 4500 is better quality (if only a little)

Also, not all 100Hz tvs are better than 50Hz ones (FAR from it in fact)

Whats happening is the tvs taking 50Hz SD content and attempting to 'fill in' the gaps. If it does this poorly then it ends up WORSE than a 50Hz tv!