The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

If you have the money or the motivation, you can get your TV 'tuned.' It's a couple hundred bucks if I recall and I've been told it can really bring your TV to life. I've never felt that my TV was inferior enough to spend the money, but it could be something to look in to. As for the field, it wasn't a really bright green in person, and the boards were really bright. The pic on the boards were sharp, though, in person.

Good luck with a solution!

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

??? @thread

2 pages??????? Are y'all kidding????

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

I completely agree plasma is better than LCD, but I was talking about LED. Nothing is better than LED 1080p. It's science...

Coworker was the game and said he couldn't keep his eyes off the screen. Said it was the clearest thing he's ever seen in his life. Dude's like 50 so that must be saying something!

crazyhorse1 wrote:My old TV is pretty much garbage and I didn't know about or care about the screens or the color of the grass. I loved the game. I'm sixty-six and consider money wasted on a new TV to be be money wasted. What I didn't like was Theisman yammering his stupidities and the camera switching to interviews with semi-literates while the game was in process. Something has to be done. It also ticked me off that the guys in the booth sometimes didn't bother to give the name of the tackler.

At risk of getting a little more off topic, those cameramen must have been rookies - there were having a hard time following the ball and at times seemed completely lost.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

I completely agree plasma is better than LCD, but I was talking about LED. Nothing is better than LED 1080p. It's science...

I am looking at it from a price/performance ratio. LED looks nice, but is not worth the extra $$$ in my book to spring for one over a plasma. And from what I understand, LED is just the back lighting and the panel is still LCD. Nothing matches the refresh rate of plasmas.

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

The 720 vs. 1080 difference isn't all that noticable until you get to larger sizes, roughly 50" or so. Put the two side by side on a 42" and you won't see much difference. Put them both side by side on a 72" and you'll see it.

SnyderSucks wrote:

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

The 720 vs. 1080 difference isn't all that noticable until you get to larger sizes, roughly 50" or so. Put the two side by side on a 42" and you won't see much difference. Put them both side by side on a 72" and you'll see it.

Ok, so this is pretty accurate. I was looking into bigger TV's so to me it was noticeable. For some reason the plasma looks like there are trails. I am looking at upgrading my 48" Samsung LCD 1080p to a 55" Samsung 1080p LED. 2k @ best buy, not all that bad. Samsung also gives you one free replacement part (not sure what it is but i needed it) if you like to leave the TV on all day and night like I do.

ATX_Skins wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

The 720 vs. 1080 difference isn't all that noticable until you get to larger sizes, roughly 50" or so. Put the two side by side on a 42" and you won't see much difference. Put them both side by side on a 72" and you'll see it.

Ok, so this is pretty accurate. I was looking into bigger TV's so to me it was noticeable. For some reason the plasma looks like there are trails. I am looking at upgrading my 48" Samsung LCD 1080p to a 55" Samsung 1080p LED. 2k @ best buy, not all that bad. Samsung also gives you one free replacement part (not sure what it is but i needed it) if you like to leave the TV on all day and night like I do.

Native resolution also plays a part in how good (or bad) it looks. Plasmas also run hotter and use more power, don't they?

VetSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

The 720 vs. 1080 difference isn't all that noticable until you get to larger sizes, roughly 50" or so. Put the two side by side on a 42" and you won't see much difference. Put them both side by side on a 72" and you'll see it.

Ok, so this is pretty accurate. I was looking into bigger TV's so to me it was noticeable. For some reason the plasma looks like there are trails. I am looking at upgrading my 48" Samsung LCD 1080p to a 55" Samsung 1080p LED. 2k @ best buy, not all that bad. Samsung also gives you one free replacement part (not sure what it is but i needed it) if you like to leave the TV on all day and night like I do.

Native resolution also plays a part in how good (or bad) it looks. Plasmas also run hotter and use more power, don't they?

You are correct on all accounts. Native resolution plays a critical role in how good any kind of HDTV or monitor will look. Plasma's tend to run a little hotter and draw more power, but have gotten better with on both accounts with the newest models that have come out. They also used to be known for "burn in" problems, but that has been minimized over the years as well.

Cappster wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:

Cappster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:LED > plasma or anything

Plasma offers the greatest value out of all flat panel tv's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 0&x=9&y=10

Plasma, IMO, also looks better than LCD's and do not have a problem with motion blur like LCD's due to the high refresh rate. Also, 1080p is a scam as I, myself, cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080...especially not for the price premium.

The 720 vs. 1080 difference isn't all that noticable until you get to larger sizes, roughly 50" or so. Put the two side by side on a 42" and you won't see much difference. Put them both side by side on a 72" and you'll see it.

Ok, so this is pretty accurate. I was looking into bigger TV's so to me it was noticeable. For some reason the plasma looks like there are trails. I am looking at upgrading my 48" Samsung LCD 1080p to a 55" Samsung 1080p LED. 2k @ best buy, not all that bad. Samsung also gives you one free replacement part (not sure what it is but i needed it) if you like to leave the TV on all day and night like I do.

Native resolution also plays a part in how good (or bad) it looks. Plasmas also run hotter and use more power, don't they?

You are correct on all accounts. Native resolution plays a critical role in how good any kind of HDTV or monitor will look. Plasma's tend to run a little hotter and draw more power, but have gotten better with on both accounts with the newest models that have come out. They also used to be known for "burn in" problems, but that has been minimized over the years as well.

Altitude is also an issue for Plasmas. To use them where I live you have to upgrade their transformer so they use even more power. I think LED's with their refresh rate and low power requirements will eventually replace everything. Next TV - 3D LED!

I'm sure you need to adjust the brightness on your TV. Stores jack up the brightness to make the TV "pop" and seem more appealing. You need to adjust it if you haven't already, it's just shortening the life of your TV.

I appreciate all the input. After a day of researching I purchased a LG 50" 1080p with 600hz refresh rate and 3,000,000 to 1 color. It was the highest numbers for each I could find. Sam's Club for $898 plus a $35 membership fee.

I set the picture to the Sport setting. Replayed the game. The grass is bright green now on the field. The players look better with less blur on the distance action shots although not perfect unless it's a close up. The endzone paint is less dull. The HD boards look better but still not good if grass is in the scene on the screen.

I guess that's as good as it can get.

well.........i am glad that is settled.






















since this really has nothing to do with the washington redskins, i'm gonna move this out of the stadium and into the lounge forum.





please continue.

BJPrice wrote:I appreciate all the input. After a day of researching I purchased a LG 50" 1080p with 600hz refresh rate and 3,000,000 to 1 color. It was the highest numbers for each I could find. Sam's Club for $898 plus a $35 membership fee.

I set the picture to the Sport setting. Replayed the game. The grass is bright green now on the field. The players look better with less blur on the distance action shots although not perfect unless it's a close up. The endzone paint is less dull. The HD boards look better but still not good if grass is in the scene on the screen.

I guess that's as good as it can get.

You never said what light source.

It's a plasma. My original set was LCD.

"since this really has nothing to do with the washington redskins, i'm gonna move this out of the stadium and into the lounge forum.
"

What could be more about the Redskins than what you view them on? If it wasn't for the Redskins the original set was great for everything else. Video games, blue rays, normal programming and my computer hook up through the RGB all looked great on it.

crazyhorse1 wrote:What I didn't like was Theisman yammering his stupidities and the camera switching to interviews with semi-literates while the game was in process. Something has to be done.

Totally agreed. I've been a bit spoiled over the offseason, watching the Six Nations tournament, the Super XIV, and international rugby friendlies, for which the announcers are pretty good.

Theisman's unbelievable stupidity was a bucket of cold water poured over my head, waking me back up to the reality that is NFL color commentary. Now I remember why my dad and I always turn the volume down so that we can barely hear the crowd roar — and can't understand a word the announcers say.

Irn-Bru wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:What I didn't like was Theisman yammering his stupidities and the camera switching to interviews with semi-literates while the game was in process. Something has to be done.

Totally agreed. I've been a bit spoiled over the offseason, watching the Six Nations tournament, the Super XIV, and international rugby friendlies, for which the announcers are pretty good.

Theisman's unbelievable stupidity was a bucket of cold water poured over my head, waking me back up to the reality that is NFL color commentary. Now I remember why my dad and I always turn the volume down so that we can barely hear the crowd roar — and can't understand a word the announcers say.

I agree as well. The game was on again this morning, and I watched for a while. Theismann actually said, "What people forget is that McNabb played in Philadelphia for 11 seasons, and is now having to learn a new system here in Washington." Really, Joe? People forget that? And Kenny Albert is just as bad. How that guy keeps his job is beyond me.

Does anyone know if the game was actually broadcast in HD? I'm hooked up to Dish Network with a HDMI cable from the reciever to the set. All the local channels are HD channels but I can tell a huge difference between stuff like the local news stations which advertise they're broadcasting in HD and other stuff on the same channel. Blue Ray movies pop off the screen, the news pops but other stuff like switching from MGM HD to MGM regular makes almost no difference. A couple years ago I had two Vizio 37" sets, 720 and 1080 and had almost the same results. HD looked better on the 1080 for movies and the news but other stuff looked the same that I expect wasn't broadcast in HD even though the channel itself was suppossed to be HD.

Yes, the game was broadcast in HD. Often commercials are not shot in HD, so you will see a change between the programming and the commercials, even on an HD channel. Blue-Ray discs are going to look better than a signal that gets compressed such as satellite or even cable. Get yourself an HD antenna to watch local programming, and you will see the difference in the uncompressed signal.

Deadskins wrote:I agree as well. The game was on again this morning, and I watched for a while. Theismann actually said, "What people forget is that McNabb played in Philadelphia for 11 seasons, and is now having to learn a new system here in Washington." Really, Joe? People forget that?

Yeah, I heard that and thought, "Oh, crap that's right, he played in Philadelphia for the last 11 years!"

There were some other amazing one-liners, and I mean "amazing" as in I couldn't believe I had just heard him say that. Although my favorite moment might have been when he called a punt return "another interception" after he failed to see the first half of the play.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I agree as well. The game was on again this morning, and I watched for a while. Theismann actually said, "What people forget is that McNabb played in Philadelphia for 11 seasons, and is now having to learn a new system here in Washington." Really, Joe? People forget that?

Yeah, I heard that and thought, "Oh, crap that's right, he played in Philadelphia for the last 11 years!"

There were some other amazing one-liners, and I mean "amazing" as in I couldn't believe I had just heard him say that. Although my favorite moment might have been when he called a punt return "another interception" after he failed to see the first half of the play.

You've been on this board long enough to know that there are people without the capability of critical thought and think their is no proficiency and there is no context. It may be common sense to you (you seem at least semi-intelligent ) but I've talked to some people that I just have to shake my head at...