LCD vs PLASMA?
 

Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

"gecko" wrote in message
...
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

Unless you have a room that is always fairly dark, LCD is the choice. LCD is
also the choice if you watch mostly TV instead of movies (because of burn-in
issues).

LCD quality has closed the gap with Plasma. Consider that Sony does not even
make Plasma any more.

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
They don't make BetaMax anymore either, so I guess that means VHS is
better, right?

Sony is the ****-you of formats; don't ever take their lead.

Sony wants to make money like everyone else. LCD vs. Plasma is not a format
war since there are no compatibility issues. It is purely based on customer
demand. So you need to ask yourself why is that most customers prefer LCD.

Granted, that Sony LCD's are better than average, which puts the comparison
between Plasma and LCD picture quality on a more even playing field than
some other vendors.

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:00:58 GMT, gecko wrote:

Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Could you tell us about the conditions under which it will be used,
e.g. how light is the room? If it will be in the same location as a
previous TV, are you seeing any reflections in the screen of that TV
from windows, lights, etc.
And, though it has been the subject of much debate, some say the
Plasma uses more power than the LCD

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

In article , Mark A says...

"gecko" wrote in message
.. .
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

Unless you have a room that is always fairly dark, LCD is the choice. LCD is
also the choice if you watch mostly TV instead of movies (because of burn-in
issues).

LCD quality has closed the gap with Plasma. Consider that Sony does not even
make Plasma any more.


Was Sony's decision based on what produces the best picture or what the majority
of people are willing to spend? If the latter, where does that leave those of
us willing to pay for the best picture?

Is burn-in really still an issue? It certainly was with early plasmas, but I've
seen several statements saying it's no more of a probelm than CRTs on the new
displays. Setup the TV correctly and you'll never have a burn-in problem. I've
had 3 CRT rear projections which showed no burn-in after 9 to 10 years.

With very large LCD displays is there still an issue with motion artifacts? I
don't see them on my 37" bedroom TV but what about something in the 65" to 70"
range?

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:42:59 GMT, Roy Starrin
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:00:58 GMT, gecko wrote:

Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Could you tell us about the conditions under which it will be used,
e.g. how light is the room?

On the bright side. Nights are dark of course.

If it will be in the same location as a
previous TV, are you seeing any reflections in the screen of that TV
from windows, lights, etc.

Yes

And, though it has been the subject of much debate, some say the
Plasma uses more power than the LCD

I hadn't heard that one.

Gecko

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

"gecko" wrote in message
...
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko



whichever you think looks nicest - really.
LCD would probably have a higher resolution than the plasma and you won't
have to worry about burn in.
some folk think plasma looks nicer though - pay your money, take your
choice.


--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

gecko wrote:
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

I place a lot of importance on how well and how quickly
the set smooths out motion artifacts during sports
programs. If this is you, read-on otherwise skip this
post.

At the lower price points, Plasma does a better job
for my eye. If you go the LCD route get something
with sufficient processing power and refresh rate
to avoid jaggies, slow blurs and moments of reduced
resolution.

Sony calls their high-end processing /motionflow/.
Sharp has a similar scheme for their high-end sets.

Checkout HDGURU http://hdguru.com/. IMO he's a bit
biased toward 1080p in his ratings but he does a good
job describing what the sharpness hit is for LCD
sets.

Your own eye, with the content you like is the best
decision maker.

--
pj

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

On Nov 27, 12:20 pm, pj wrote:
gecko wrote:
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

I place a lot of importance on how well and how quickly
the set smooths out motion artifacts during sports
programs. If this is you, read-on otherwise skip this
post.

At the lower price points, Plasma does a better job
for my eye. If you go the LCD route get something
with sufficient processing power and refresh rate
to avoid jaggies, slow blurs and moments of reduced
resolution.

Sony calls their high-end processing /motionflow/.
Sharp has a similar scheme for their high-end sets.

Checkout HDGURU http://hdguru.com/. IMO he's a bit
biased toward 1080p in his ratings but he does a good
job describing what the sharpness hit is for LCD
sets.

Your own eye, with the content you like is the best
decision maker.

--
pj

PJ is giving you really good advice here gecko - HD Guru is run by
Gary Merson and he has all the professional discs in order to test
these TV's properly.
The only LCD that comes close to Plasma in terms of motion is the new
81 series from Samsung that's LED driven. Other than that though
you'll be hard pressed to find a better picture than the Panasonic 42"
TH-42PZ700U or 77U. They're both 1920x1080 panels with 60Hz in NA.

This line was recently given the Consumer Reports set of the year (the
50" model) and was also reviewed by Gary Merson from www.hdguru.com as
the best set he's ever tested, better than the Pioneer Elite PRO-HD1.

The anti-reflective coating on the Panny's is much better than the
anti-glare coating. Whether or not you have an LCD or plasma you're
going to want to turn off bright lights in the path of the TV and use
curtains on windows - that's just common sense.

One thing a lot of people notice about LCD's when coming from a CRT
set is that the blacks just aren't there. The blacks on the Viera
plasma are not measurable (neither are the new 81-series LED's from
Samsung) which cannot be said of the majority of LCD's.

The only drawbacks with the plasma would be power consumption and
weight. I believe the 42" Panasonic 1080p plasma is over 80lbs.

For break in you can either download a break-in DVD from AVS Forum
(google "Plasma break-in DVD") or just make sure for the first 100-200
hours that your contrast and brightness are not set higher than 50 and
that you don't leave stations with logos on the tv or watch too much
4:3 content without stretching it. Use the break-in DVD (it plays for
24 hours, play it 5 times) and you'll not need to worry about any of
that crap anyway.

LCD vs PLASMA?
 

"gecko" wrote in message
...
Which is choice these days in a 40 or 42 inch?

Thanks

Gecko

Plasma is still a little better at that size than lcd IN GENERAL, but it
depends on the make.