Black Friday!!

ryan s · Nov 18, 2009

roy's looking for "the cheapest one you got" :lawl:

DarkSideAccord · Nov 18, 2009

ryan s said:
roy's looking for "the cheapest one you got"

werd

i'm a photography noob.. dun need anything fancy... i want a pentax, but those are still kinda pricey... maybe a D40 or canon XSI?

SykVSyx · Nov 18, 2009

I have been doing alot of reading/research on www.kenrockwell.com and would recommend you take some time to research on there as well.

DarkSideAccord · Nov 18, 2009

heard of the guy, but i'm very lazy when it comes to research :lawl:

i'm more of a "pls recommend me something" kinda guy :lawl:

SykVSyx · Nov 18, 2009

Guess it comes down to the budget and what you have seen on here that people seem to be happy with.

Wildman · Nov 18, 2009

ryan s said:
why not save and get a good tv? 60hz lcd's dont cut it, imo...little tv's are fine but the bigger they get, the more apparent the motion blur.

actually I think 60hz lcdtv's look the best. with a decent response rate (5-6ms) there's not going to be any motion blur / ghosting

the 120/240hz tv's, a lot of them get image stutter from the processor which I think looks a lot worse than the motion blur from the older generation 8ms+ response 60hz lcd's. the 120/240 tv's are just a big sales gimmick and completely unnecessary once the pixel rate itself is fast enough to keep up. they sell it for home theater because people will spend money on it but all your desktop monitors are running at 60-75hz and look great assuming their response rate is quick enough

imo a good lcdtv is the best way to go right now (for an actual tv), until OLEDs become affordable. plasmas are so reflective, the glare would drive me nuts. and LED tv's are just a stepping stone to lasers or oleds anyways

SykVSyx · Nov 18, 2009

This is good, keep up the discussions.

Thanks for the insight as well, Cody.

DarkSideAccord · Nov 18, 2009

yeah... 120hz/240hz seems to make the picture look fake rite? at least that what i've read... lots of plasmas going on sale too... but i'd prefer an LCD since it will be partially used as a monitor aka streaming online movies :rock:

Wildman · Nov 18, 2009

DarkSideAccord said:
yeah... 120hz/240hz seems to make the picture look fake rite? at least that what i've read... lots of plasmas going on sale too... but i'd prefer an LCD since it will be partially used as a monitor aka streaming online movies

kind of... they are basically splicing in extra picture frames. the reason why was because the technology was being developed when ghosting was a big problem. if you think of it like this:

60hz:
Frame 1 ----> Frame 2

120hz:
Frame 1 --> Frame 1.5 --> Frame 2

the original reason was by minimizing the change in picture from frame-to-frame, they could also minimize the ghosting or image blur caused by higher response rates. problem is, response rates got better. so it was unnecessary. but they can still sell it, so now we have 5ms tvs running at 120+hz. some processors can't keep up and stutter, or guess wrong on what the in-between frames should look like. when it works like it's supposed to, you have more frames being processed without any motion blur at all. and then that looks weird, because things aren't supposed to be perfectly crisp. old tv's were exaggerating motion blur, new ones are almost eliminating it when in reality it's natural for the background to be out of focus or whatever in a sweep shot

kind of off-topic, but that was a gripe I had about Public Enemies too. They shot it in digital HD instead of film and it looked weird, everything was way too clear. there wasn't the same kind of depth to shots imo.