Customer Discussions > Television forum

vizio 32 1080p or a proscan 37 1080p?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-18 of 18 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 13, 2009 1:06:39 PM PST
im looking to et one these.but i need help to diced which would be better.they go for almost the same price at costco
any help?

Posted on Dec 13, 2009 2:16:56 PM PST
Go with Vizio, Proscan is a cheap brand that is at the bottom of the quality pyramid while Vizio is at the top. I worked at an electronics store and the return rate of the Proscan LCD's were a nightmare.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2009 3:03:09 PM PST
thank you getting me a vizio haha
thanks alot

Posted on Dec 31, 2009 6:35:19 PM PST
B. Hughes says:
Proscan had an excellent CRT, lol..........

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2009 9:39:47 PM PST
Steven Eden says:
I will watch 13" black

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2010 1:58:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2010 1:59:12 PM PST
Aaron Bacus says:
I would not get either. If Vizio is better than Proscan it can't be by much. I worked at a Costco for 3 years and Vizio, compared to all the more well known brands, had a ridiculously high return rate. It seemed I was helping people pack their TV's back inside just as often as I helped load them in the cars. I personally have a sony and had a sharp and JVC all were great. If money is an issue I would suggest saving a bit more and getting a better quality TV. You really get what you pay for in this case.

Posted on Jan 1, 2010 3:21:26 PM PST
F.Bergman says:
You get what you pay for. I went through several Vizio's for finally paying more for an LG. The Vizio's kept malfunctioning 45 to 60 days into use. Good thing for Wal-marts return policy. The LG has been working great for couple of years now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2010 5:00:31 PM PST
I had a proscan 32inch 720p. Good TV, but, as the saying goes, it was made in China, so, in my opinion, there is an issue for me of dependability. The Vizio, on the other hand is engineered in California and they're customer service is excellent. A 42 inch Vizio has been on, in my local UPS store for two years, and to me, it still looks has good as a Sony. I would buy the Vizio, hands down.......

Posted on Jan 1, 2010 5:12:04 PM PST
A/V guru says:
The problem with Vizio is they have NO service network. they don't fail at any more a percentage than most, but when you get the one that failed...Total Nightmare.

If you must have cheap...Buy a Haier, they actually have a service network and can be fixed without shipping it somewhere.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2010 1:48:14 PM PST
Navy77 says:
Thanks for the tip...but where do you find a Haier...also what's the difference in having 120 or 240 hertzs....again, thanks

Posted on Jan 26, 2010 1:58:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2010 1:59:16 PM PST
A/V guru says:
Haier is sold in MANY appliance stores. You can also find them on various online stores.

LCD's do a refresh rate...120 and 240 are "math" off of 30hz (broadcast) that meld evenly with 24hz (dvd's and Blu Rays)

the faster (240) a tv refreshes...the less blur. Will you notice the difference?...that is up to your eyesight.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2010 3:34:34 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 28, 2010 7:58:48 PM PST]

Posted on Jan 28, 2010 7:58:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 28, 2010 8:05:59 PM PST
EarlyMon says:
"LCD's do a refresh rate...120 and 240 are "math" off of 30hz (broadcast) that meld evenly with 24hz (dvd's and Blu Rays)"

OK - let's fix this.

Broadcast is not 30 Hz. The NTSC (pre-DTV mandate) broadcast standard was 60 Hz of 480i - meaning "even" and "odd" subfields of 240 lines, that - on average - equates to a 30 Hz series of frames - but your eye-brain did that 30 Hz integration, not the TV.

Today, we have ATSC standards (digital TV including, but not limited to, HD broadcasts). The spec and the broadcast equipment and new cameras allow for a greater range of possibilities than ever before, in the pre-digital days. This fully means that you can receive a 720p broadcast at 60 Hz that has 60 frames per second of material - or it can come in 60 Hz and have 30 frames per second of material. And you can also get 1080i at 60 Hz, again, with all of the resplendent possibilities of those broadcasts.

We also have TV broadcasting movies, originally shot at 24 frames per second, being broadcast at 60 Hz. In the NTSC days, there was a single method for that reconciliation of "24 Hz" vs. "30/60 Hz" - and today, those rules haven't changed in theory, but the final broadcast might, depending upon whether they're sending 720p or 1080i out, as but two examples.

Now - add to this that Blu-rays are at 24 Hz, faithful to the 24 frame per second film standard are ready to output 1080p at 24 Hz to your TV - and they accommodate legacy DVDs.

Oh - by the way, about those legacy DVDs - they were originally intended for 60 Hz interlaced playback - but they could actually contain 30 Hz video or 24 Hz film. And people with home theater PCs (HTPC) playing those DVDs can send either a 24 Hz or 60 Hz signal to the TV from their PC to perfectly accommodate those differences using the PC's software (and software can get nice and tricky and fancy as we all know). (I'm using an HTPC myself.)

And the modern HD TV set has to accommodate all of that.

So, in answer to that, one can honestly think of any of today's NON-60 Hz TVs as simply being the "multi-frequency" type. If you see other "Hz" numbers *besides just 60 Hz* associated with the TV screen, regardless whether its an LCD or plasma, then that TV is designed to cope with all of those inputs.

That's a long story, but I hope for all readers, that it's easy to understand.

Now - what importance do the Hz numbers REALLY have concerning a plasma or an LCD HDTV?

Answer: once you're above 60 Hz, not a whole lot, really.


In the old days, all TVs made light from glowing phosphors on a glass tube (the famous CRT). The glow would die out after they were charged up. That's just how phosphors do - it's just how they are. You have to "refresh their energy" so they could continue to produce light without the picture just dying out.

And in the old days, the NTSC days, they simply refreshed the phosphors at the same rate as the broadcast signal coming into the TV.

So - in the old days, we didn't have to think or talk about Hz, because it just was a constant thing.

And - because it was the old days, we called it the "60 Hz refresh rate" but in reality, it wasn't just doing phorphor energizing at 60 Hz, it was doing that AND simultaneously doing screen updates at 60 Hz in sync with the broadcast signal.

Enter LCD TVs - still talking standard def, NTSC, LCD-TV.

They were cool and all, but the early ones had picture problems - from blotchy colors to blurring. I know - because I owned one.

Enter the earliest LCD HDTV. They were 60 Hz only, just like the earliest plasmas. Still with the blotchy colors and blurring. I know - because I owned one.

Now - the refresh on a plasma or CRT at 60 Hz means we refresh the phosphor and refresh the picture being broadcast.

But - LCDs don't have phosphors, so that part cannot refresh. It still had the same job of updating the picture at 60 Hz to match the broadcast, so we all looked the other way and said that LCD TVs "refreshed" at 60 Hz so people didn't have to be bothered with learning that they updated at 60 Hz.

Because to a viewer - it's all the same thing.

So - how is it that at one time, both plasmas and LCDs were both at 60 Hz but the plasma looked great but the LCD blurred and was splotchy-looking?

That's simple - and it's a different spec, not the Hz spec.

60 Hz means the TV is doing something 60 times a second. 1/60 equals just over 16/1000 of a second for that something to happen - in this case - getting the new info that was broadcast onto your TV screen for your eye-brain to put together.

CRTs and plasmas TV send the signal to the screen at phenomenal speed - let's call it warp speed. And the phosphor charges - even changing to the new color or brightness in less than 1/1000 of a second. That looked great.

But during those same early days, what did the LCD do? Well - it still got that signal from the antenna to the screen at the same warp speed as the other TVs. BUT - and that's a BIG BUT - the LCD pixels would take up to 15/1000 of a second to get the new color or brightness up.

So - the early LCDs needed almost the whole 16-to-17/1000 of a second just to update the picture, using 15/1000 of that time. Leaves you only 1 or 2 thousandths of a second to see a picture before it changes. A great many of those early sets did play two 1/60th second games to do that 30 Hz dance that A/V guru is describing. Not all sets. Some.

Doesn't matter - they had to play a game - because using 15 of the 16 thousands of a second just to make a change would be TOTAL BLUR. So, all they ever got to was MANAGED BLUR.

And under those conditions - no amount of "Hertzing" (I made up that word) can fix that in an LCD.

Remember that whole "multi-frequency" thing I mentioned required - and done today - by the modern plasmas and LCDs?


The plasmas could get there because they didn't have an update-speed problem. Every plasma can update it's pixels in under 1/1000 of a second.

So - with plasmas - they had a different problem in the old days. Burn-in - from games or the like. (This was a phosphor problem, not a brand or plasma problem really - so CRTs had it, too. Super-expensive, super-quality plasma or CRT - much less so - but still an issue.)

So - the plasma guys went to very high frequencies for two reasons:

* First - they invented new phosphor material. We call it "harder" because it literally is a harder material, mechanically. It charges quick, looks great, and dies down quicker than 1/60 of a second. So, modern, great plasmas refresh at much higher than 60 Hz. Not for motion. For color quality and to eliminate burn-in -- and only because that's just what the new phosphors require in their energy-time cycle. Great!

* While they're at it - they add that "multi-frequency" processing so they can do a better than ever job at handling all of the new Hz's that are possible with today's demanding HDTV input sources. Great!

* So, you might even see more than one Hz rating on a plasma or even read that it does "subfield refreshing" and so forth. For plasma, that's just how they solved their problems.

Now - LCD had to go to higher frequencies for one reason only:

* Solve the same multi-frequency situation that plasma faced.

But - without fixing the other, they couldn't get there. Solution:

* Develop panels that respond MUCH faster than 15/1000 of a second.

So, today's better LCDs respond in 4/1000 or even 2/1000 of a second. With high-quality processing, it's MORE THAN sufficient to overcome blurring for all but the most motion-sensitive viewers.

And just like a plasma need only really update at 24, 30 or 60 times per second for the picture - because those are the source possibilities, whether broadcast, DVD or Blu-ray - that the same total required for an LCD TV.

And just like a plasma TV, LCD TVs that are "multi-frequency" capable have high Hertz ratings.

That's the whole part of that story. Now we only have left the "math" and "less blur" part that A/V guru was getting at.

What's up with these new 120 Hz and 240 Hz LCD TVs?

Well - that's kind of simple. It's a two-part question, both parts are simple.

I say - in my opinion - the whole early attempt at LCDs was maybe kinda dumb - technology that spent 90% of its time trying to just display the picture wasn't really ready for TV, but they marketed it anyway. The LCD TV marketing kids really want to play those early mistakes down.

The second easy part is also marketing - but this time, it's about the budget. Even though a 4/1000 of a second LCD should be good enough for (let's make up a number) 90% of the viewers and a 2/1000 of a second should be good enough for (making up) 97% of the viewers - an LCD doesn't have the electronics' complications of a high-energy plasma. So, there's room in the budget to just add some more software for the control section - after all, that's what PCs do.

So - to make up for the fact that the LCD cannot update at less than 1/1000 of a second, they add a feature that can add pixels or frames or fields between the "normal" picture frequencies (A/V calls this conjuring with math - I'm now OK with that). With that conjuring, you can get a bit of extra sharpness on your TV. You can even turn it up (it's adjustable) so that it looks like a soap opera and turns your stomach!

But - you can also turn it off altogether. If you turn that processing feature off on a 120 Hz or 240 Hz TV, the screen does not refresh anyway at 240 Hz. It updates at the same multi-frequency update rates (and rules) as the plasma.

And it - the conjuring - cannot remove blurring - because blurring comes not from the update/refresh speed of an LCD - blurring comes from the update RESPONSE TIME either being too low for your eye-brain - or just being a lousy LCD TV and being too low period.

Now, the marketing guys are publicly saying that it removes motion blur. And they're telling everyone - even their honest reps that talk to A/V guru - who sells this stuff for a living that it's because they refresh at those 240 Hz rates.

But it's a cart before the horse. 120 or 240 Hz wouldn't be possible - and multi-frequency itself wouldn't be possible - for an LCD panel unless the panel could respond quickly enough.

It's the faster responding panels that are removing the blur. And regardless of the Hz, the panel response is a constant - a constant 0.01 thousands of a second (or better) for a plasma or 4 or 2 thousands of a second for an LCD.

But the LCD feature can add sharpness that a plasma cannot (so far...) by doing what the R&D inventors call "frame rate conversion" - in minor cases, it can fool your eye-brain to remove some blur (but by the time you've adjusted it like that, in my opinion, it looks just WRONG overall).

Is frame rate conversion a good thing? On this, I agree with A/V guru - that is up to you. If you don't like it, you can turn it off.

When you turn it off, your LCD screen will literally update visually and measurably at 24, 30 or 60 times per second - just like a plasma.

So - does high Hz on a plasma remove blur? Not really. The high Hz on a plasma supports a superior phosphor that's generating light - that superior phorphor is what makes for the better picture.

Does high Hz on an LCD remove blur? Not really. The high Hz on an LCD supports a superior LCD chemical that's letting light through - that superior LCD chemical is what makes for a better picture.

Will LCDs ever go up to 600 Hz and match that "quality" number that many plasmas have? That's not the point. That 600 Hz number came from the plasma's new type of phosphor, adjusted to multi-frequency TV processing. For all we know, the next generation of phosphors will look even better - and require 120 or 240 Hz refreshing. But just about no one anywhere can even stand the LCDs when cranked to maximum extra conjured frames at 240 Hz - so why even bother?

Now - does every LCD manufacturer's website call me a liar and say outright that their 120/240 Hz feature does "frame interpolation" for "motion processing" to "reduce blur?"

Yep. Every manufacturer's website and every manufacturer's rep says I'm wrong.

So - why do I claim to be right?

Because - upon request - I can point you to the patents and research papers for the processing that the R&D guys came up with, that these 120/240 Hz LCD TVs use - and the R&D guys don't try to simplify, and don't have to.

Nowhere do those sources mention the blurring that DID and DOES occur on a bad LCD panel. They mention sharpness, perceiving blurring (for ANY TV) and they call it "frame rate conversion" - you can google it for yourself.

Will plasmas ever get this conjuring feature? Never say never - because the conjuring is aimed at adding something - not at overcoming a panel limitation. No reason in the world - outside of budget - that they couldn't add the conjuring to a plasma.

I own a Samsung 240 Hz 52" traditional-backlight (CCFL) LCD HDTV.

I am not an LCD fan. I am a quality HDTV fan. I got what works for me. I don't think that plasmas or LCDs are better. I think it's all what's better for you.

But I wrote this because - if you are deciding on an LCD - now you know what the real deal is.

Moral of the story - choose 120 or 240 Hz by choosing the RESPONSE rate - 2 ms is better than 4 ms (and "ms" means "thousandth of a second").

Posted on Jan 28, 2010 8:29:41 PM PST
EarlyMon says:
In other words - the manufacturer marketing departments are telling us that 120 and 240 Hz work for 24 or 30 or 60 Hz TV and Blu-ray and that's why they do it.

Does anyone else remember when View-Sonic CRTs first came out in the PC world? Best color monitor for a PC you get, period?

And they were multi-frequency? You could select on your PC to drive the monitor at 60 Hz or even 72 Hz?

Those didn't operate at 360 Hz to accommodate 60 and 72 Hz. They were simply multi-frequency. And that was the late 1980s.

So - twenty years later - and my common sense tells me that the common-denominator Hertz story is just an easy way for them to explain themselves.

Because - we did not go technologically backwards in video control - especially LCD video control - in the last 20 years.

I'm just not buying the whole common-denominator thing for plasma or LCD.

I am saying, it's kinda unimportant - so long as you get multi-frequency, you're done, now trust your eyes, not the specs - for all TVs, regardless of brand or technology type.

I think they stress 240 Hz on LCD TVs so you don't notice a 2 ms or 4 ms response compared to a plasma's 0.01 ms response.

I think they push it as a marketing distraction, personally.

If you use the conjuring feature- then and only then - and if you crank the conjuring to maximum - then and only then - is your TV at 240 Hz.

So - what does the 240 Hz or 120 Hz tell you besides you're getting a multi-frequency set?

Outside of the conjuring range between the two - in my personal opinion - not a thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2010 8:43:47 PM PST
EarlyMon says:
Special note to A/V guru -

The two posts I've given are really, guaranteed 100% technically accurate on all counts.

I've worked very hard to sort out what's not only technically accurate - but technically relevant to whole situation of:

* the Hz rating for both plasma and LCD

* how plasma and LCD are the same and how different

* the real conjuring story on LCD TVs - how they can sharpen, even reduce blur (blur that should have been there! - By then, you've got the LCD cranked to "soap opera mode!") but not reduce LCD-related blur

* what refresh means and does not mean on an LCD

My facts are not opinions - they are objective facts. Some update your facts.

I personally believe those facts and fact updates may be important.

Here's my challenge to you:

Use your KISS and people skills and experience and reduce my explanation to something short that still keeps the updated and important facts.

Do that - and I'll reference your posts with that, instead of my own.

Perhaps what I make up for in technical accuracy you make up for in lay, clear, communication skills.

Let's work together for the good of the community of folks seeking info and advice.

The ball's in your court.

Posted on Jan 29, 2010 7:14:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 7:51:23 AM PST
Slightly off topic but maybe not.

I watched the NFL playoffs last weekend. One game was broadcast by FOX at 720p and the other game was broadcast by ABC(?) at 1080i. I watched both games on a 1080p Plasma 58".

What was interesting was how much clearer the fox broadcast was and I think this was due solely to the 60HZ true frame rate of the 720p broadcast. The other broadcast was sending out 1080i and while that was also sent at 60HZ (of interlaced odd and even fields) the effective (true) frame rate was only 30 full frames per second.

The differences were quite noticeable. That only makes sense if you consider that in one case all the visual information was updated 60 times per second (720p/60) and in the other case the visual information was updated only 30 times per second and then split into odd and even fields to create 60HZ (1080i/60)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 8:08:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 8:10:25 AM PST
A/V guru says:
here's something to try just for fun...go buy an antenna (a good one) and see what OTA looks like.

I have a postulation here (but it depends how your set is, well, set-up).

The P signal was shown "unaltered" and the I was de-interlaced to be shown in P. I have a Hitachi Director series 50" Plasma. I have it set with its de-interlacing turned off. So if it gets 1080I, it shows that. If your Plasma has a choice to turn the de-interlacing off...I would turn it off. (Hitachi Director series were sold mainly to installers and the menu's and guides in them don't coincide with other, even regular Hitachi, TV's. In that mine actually says "de-interlacing.....on/off" where yours may hide that feature in some other "consumer speak" such as "show all input as received" or up-convert all to 1080P)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 9:13:40 AM PST
EarlyMon says:
In the pre-mandate days ABC published studies that showed 720p was favorable to 1080i for fast motion, 1080i preferable to greater detail on still or slow-moving shots.

As you'd suspect, if the motion isn't challenging, your eye-brain integrates the interlaced signal quite well, and even though both sets would be showing the bitrate at 60 Hz, the 1080i set - especially for source material shot with a 60 Hz video camera and then split into even/odd subfields - gave the performance of, essentially, 1080p.

And, also as you'd expect, if the brain was busier tracking motion, the interlaced signal lacked cohesion compared to the progressive one.

The details of the methodologies were fascinating and really showed a high level of honest and comprehensive engineering thought that went into the experiment's make-up so as to avoid biased results.

I'm guessing that within a year or 18 months prior to the mandate, that web page was sadly taken down. I understand that there's a free web archive service but I don't know the name - if I can find it, I can post the cached web page for that.

BTW - ABC did the study to ascertain the best quality approach for sports - and settled on 720p back then.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Television forum (981 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Television forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  18
Initial post:  Dec 13, 2009
Latest post:  Jan 29, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions