|
||||||||
LG 42LA620V - Is it any good? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 1,241
|
LG 42LA620V - Is it any good?
Hi people. I'm looking to get myself a 3D smart TV and have spent a bit of time looking around. I have had a 42" Full HD LCD for nearly 4 years and it is still in excellent condition so I'll give that to my girlfriend when I buy a new 1.
The TV I've been looking at is an LG 42" LED 3D Smart TV and can be seen Here. I've done a bit of reading but I would like the opinion of the knowledgeable on here please. It seems that passive is better than active and has a better refresh rate but some claim it can cause headaches, not to mention the expensive glasses. Are all plasma 3D TVs passive? That's what I have found. The one mentioned is active meaning much cheaper glasses which people appear to be able to view without issue, although it is claimed that the 3D experience isn't as good by some. Some articles I've read give the specs as 100Hz refresh rate and others say 200Hz refresh rate. Does anyone have 1 of these and can confirm? Regarding the refresh rate, I've seen some TV's with 600Hz or 800Hz refresh rate which I can only think would be similar to the contrast ratio that was referred to when full HD TV's were the new thing. Is this correct? It appears that plasma had the upper hand regarding contrast ratio too. With a refresh rate of 100Hz or 200Hz would it still be a much clearer HD picture than the Toshiba full HD TV I have at the minute? What would the 3D picture be like? I can't really afford to go any higher than £600 so I'm hoping that the difference between the refresh rates isn't really noticeable to the naked eye. I should mention that I have viewed 3D before and I like it so I would definitely go for 3D and a smart TV. I like the documentaries and sports in 3D and I'm sure before long I'll check out movies. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Regarding the refresh rate, I've seen some TV's with 600Hz or 800Hz refresh rate which I can only think would be similar to the contrast ratio that was referred to when full HD TV's were the new thing. Is this correct? It appears that plasma had the upper hand regarding contrast ratio too. With a refresh rate of 100Hz or 200Hz would it still be a much clearer HD picture than the Toshiba full HD TV I have at the minute? What would the 3D picture be like? I can't really afford to go any higher than £600 so I'm hoping that the difference between the refresh rates isn't really noticeable to the naked eye. In a shop full of TV's I couldn't pick out which ones might have higher refresh rates - go try it your self
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Hi people. I'm looking to get myself a 3D smart TV and have spent a bit of time looking around. I have had a 42" Full HD LCD for nearly 4 years and it is still in excellent condition so I'll give that to my girlfriend when I buy a new 1.
The TV I've been looking at is an LG 42" LED 3D Smart TV and can be seen Here. I've done a bit of reading but I would like the opinion of the knowledgeable on here please. It seems that passive is better than active and has a better refresh rate but some claim it can cause headaches, not to mention the expensive glasses. Are all plasma 3D TVs passive? That's what I have found. The one mentioned is active meaning much cheaper glasses which people appear to be able to view without issue, although it is claimed that the 3D experience isn't as good by some. Some articles I've read give the specs as 100Hz refresh rate and others say 200Hz refresh rate. Does anyone have 1 of these and can confirm? Regarding the refresh rate, I've seen some TV's with 600Hz or 800Hz refresh rate which I can only think would be similar to the contrast ratio that was referred to when full HD TV's were the new thing. Is this correct? It appears that plasma had the upper hand regarding contrast ratio too. With a refresh rate of 100Hz or 200Hz would it still be a much clearer HD picture than the Toshiba full HD TV I have at the minute? What would the 3D picture be like? I can't really afford to go any higher than £600 so I'm hoping that the difference between the refresh rates isn't really noticeable to the naked eye. I should mention that I have viewed 3D before and I like it so I would definitely go for 3D and a smart TV. I like the documentaries and sports in 3D and I'm sure before long I'll check out movies. Thanks In regards the TV, if you can, go to a independent retailer who can give you a good demo of the set you are interested in, one that can provide a demo room which can get closer to the home environment, much better than brightly lit showrooms. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 1,241
|
Quote:
Don't you mean 'active'. As far as I know there are no passive 3D plasma's.
In regards the TV, if you can, go to a independent retailer who can give you a good demo of the set you are interested in, one that can provide a demo room which can get closer to the home environment, much better than brightly lit showrooms. ![]() Yes, I did mean active. Was a long day lol |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:56.


