|
|
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any
thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
"John Mason" wrote in message ... Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... check the resolution... a lot of older plasmas are 1024x768 which isnt able to full display 720p - let alone 1080i or 1080p. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
There's a bullet point comparison of the various technologies at the
bottom of the page I linked previously: http://tinyurl.com/5srngy .... standing in for ... http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi.../ChooseTV.html As stated there, it is generally considered that Plasmas are hot and have shorter life expectancies, and are prone to burn-in. On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:18:07 +0100, "John Mason" wrote: I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
"John Mason" wrote in message ... Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... I can't speak for Samsung but I have had a 43" Pioneer plasma for 5 years (the first set available in UK with hdmi and HD) as well as a Sony Bravia LCD. The Pioneer picture is significantly superior to the Sony LCD with SD, and the HD pictures are amongst the best I have ever seen. It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Certainly plasmas can consume more power than LCD and can suffer from screen burn if badly mistreated but, on balance, I am convinced that plasma gives the superior picture quality. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
People I know describe Plasma screens as 'less cold' than lcd. I suspect
this may be due to the back light colour balance in lcds though. Brin -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Malcolm H" wrote in message ... "John Mason" wrote in message ... Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... I can't speak for Samsung but I have had a 43" Pioneer plasma for 5 years (the first set available in UK with hdmi and HD) as well as a Sony Bravia LCD. The Pioneer picture is significantly superior to the Sony LCD with SD, and the HD pictures are amongst the best I have ever seen. It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Certainly plasmas can consume more power than LCD and can suffer from screen burn if badly mistreated but, on balance, I am convinced that plasma gives the superior picture quality. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
In article ,
Malcolm H wrote: It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably be disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is far smaller than 42". -- *Few women admit their age; fewer men act it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
"John Mason" wrote in message ... Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... It depends on the size you are wanting to buy and what primarily you will be using it for - SD, HD, gaming, hooking a HTPC up to it? If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD. Power consumption is greater with a plasma AFAIK. A friend of mine has a 42" LG plasma and has awful screen burn where he left his PS3 on!!! I believe one of the best (but far from cheap) plasmas is the Pioneer Kuro. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Malcolm H wrote: It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably be disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is far smaller than 42". I'm glad that someone's brought this up. I just don't understand this resolution lark at all and your statement above, Dave, has just confused me altogether. I use a 17" "traditional" (4:3) LCD monitor for my computer and it's excellent running at 1024 x 768. How can a 43" telly use the same resolution?? |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
On 15 Oct, 20:18, "John Mason" [email protected]
000 wrote: Im sure this has been discussed before somewhere, but does anyone have any thoughts on the current Samsung LCD TVs vs their Plasma range? *I have considered buying a 37 or 40" LCD.. *But today I popped into a local currys shop and saw the Samsung PS42A456P2D and was well impressed with the picture quality. *I really did think it was better than the LCD equivalents in the shop. * It also said it was 100Hz. I want to know if there are any downsides to plasma TVs when compared to LCD models. *For example, lifespan, heat build up, screen burn etc. *Basically is there any reasons to avoid Plasma screens and in particular is this model any good? *It looked good to me, but would like to hear from anyone who has Plasma experience with modern plasma sets. Thanks a lot.... I'ev got a samsung 42" Plasma and I couldn't be happier. Had it for about 6 month now and it doesn't suffer from any of the problems people are quoting below. I picked it because the picture is so much better than the LCD equivalents. LCDs are backlit so when you stand at the side you see noticable light 'bleed'. The Plasma I have reacts extremely well to fast moving scenes and SD input material (i.e. pretty much everything that I watch) look far superior to its LCD brethren. yes it is 1024 x 768 but until such a time as HD is the defacto broadcast standard for all material I won't be worrying for a while. DVDs look excellent BTW whether via HDMI or RGB SCART. it even does a good job with my network media player and DIVX movies. No screen burn no funny smell just a very good picture. I paid £670 but just seen it here http://www.froogle.richersounds.com/...d=SAMS-PS42Q97 £469 ;_; an utter bargain. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
"John" wrote in message ... Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Malcolm H wrote: It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably be disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is far smaller than 42". I'm glad that someone's brought this up. I just don't understand this resolution lark at all and your statement above, Dave, has just confused me altogether. I use a 17" "traditional" (4:3) LCD monitor for my computer and it's excellent running at 1024 x 768. How can a 43" telly use the same resolution?? Bigger pixels! Sorry to sound flippant but that's basically it. Look closely at your TV, you can see individual pixels. Now try with your computer monitor - spotted any yet? Of course your eyes at distance can't spot the difference and were you to put, say, 132 columns x 25 rows of text on the TV screen, from the couch you might be OK but try getting closer and it will be illegible. And you certainyl can't put lots of text on the TV just because it's 42inches wide! Paul DS. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
Paul D.Smith wrote:
"John" wrote in message ... Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Malcolm H wrote: It is true that the Pioneer is only 1024 x 768 but, at normal viewing distances, the HD picture quality is still outstanding. Many modern plasmas, e.g. Pioneer and Panasonic, have full 1080p but I believe the improvement only becomes noticeable with screens much larger that 42". Totally depends on the viewing distance. For example you'd probably be disappointed with only 1024 x 768 on a computer monitor that is far smaller than 42". I'm glad that someone's brought this up. I just don't understand this resolution lark at all and your statement above, Dave, has just confused me altogether. I use a 17" "traditional" (4:3) LCD monitor for my computer and it's excellent running at 1024 x 768. How can a 43" telly use the same resolution?? Bigger pixels! Sorry to sound flippant but that's basically it. Look closely at your TV, you can see individual pixels. Now try with your computer monitor - spotted any yet? Of course your eyes at distance can't spot the difference and were you to put, say, 132 columns x 25 rows of text on the TV screen, from the couch you might be OK but try getting closer and it will be illegible. And you certainyl can't put lots of text on the TV just because it's 42inches wide! Paul DS. Ah, brilliant - all becomes clear now. Thanks Paul |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
Slider wrote:
If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD. Eh? How does that work then? Andy |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
"Andy Champ" wrote in message . uk... Slider wrote: If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD. Eh? How does that work then? Andy i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -( 1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
In article ,
Mike Henry wrote: In , "The dog from that film you saw" wrote: "Andy Champ" wrote in message t.uk... Slider wrote: If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD. Eh? How does that work then? i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -( 1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280. Quite a few plasmas are 768p not 720p i.e. 1024x768. You'll also find a number of LCDs that are 1366x768. Also note however that the combination of the way Tv is broadcast and human percieve the result make horizontal resolution less important than vertical resolution. And therefore not square pixels either. Which is irrelevant for TV. Possibly relevant for computer use. Finally note that resolution is relatively unimportant compared to contrast ratio and colour accuracy |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
In article , Yannick Tremblay wrote:
Also note however that the combination of the way Tv is broadcast and human percieve the result make horizontal resolution less important than vertical resolution. And therefore not square pixels either. Which is irrelevant for TV. Possibly relevant for computer use. Finally note that resolution is relatively unimportant compared to contrast ratio and colour accuracy And programme quality of course. If the programme is rubbish, it doesn't matter how many pixels there are, and they can be pentagonal for all I care. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
I think you would care, actually. If you've ever been to the Alhambra
in Granada, you will have seen no pentagonal tilings: http://www.coolmath.com/tesspag1.htm On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:17:11 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: it doesn't matter how many pixels there are, and they can be pentagonal for all I care. |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
In article ,
Mike Henry wrote: In , (Yannick Tremblay) wrote: In article , Mike Henry wrote: And therefore not square pixels either. Which is irrelevant for TV. Not in the HD age it isn't. The theorical best results for 1080P HD material should be to display it on a 1080P screen. However, if two screens need to scale, it is totally irrelevant if they scale to square or rectangular pixels. HD is oversold. Humans don't have the visual accuracy to distinguish between a 1920x1080 picture and a perfectly scaled 1280x720 one at 12' on a 42" screen. Bad scaling is more important. In a perfect world, you want no scaling at all. Downscaling is a lot easier than upscaling. So taking material that is 1920x1080 and scaling it to 1280x720 or 1024x768 is relatively trivial. If you are going to downscale because the display is not 1920x1080, it is totally irrelevant if you downscale to square pixels or dowscale to rectangular pixels. It is quite possible that a 1024x768 screen give you better results than a 1280x720 one because there are more vertical lines (which are more noticeable)despite having less total pixels. but the overall result will depend far more on a lot of other display quality factors than purely the resolution. In practice a 1920x1080 panel dispaying a blue ray 1080P movie will not necessarily give you a better picture than a 1280x720 panel. It depends of a lot of other far more important factors than resolution. Yannick |
Samsung TVs - LCD vs PLASMA?
Yannick Tremblay wrote:
In article , Mike Henry wrote: In , "The dog from that film you saw" wrote: "Andy Champ" wrote in message . uk... Slider wrote: If you are getting a 720p plasma, the resolution will be lower than a 720p LCD. Eh? How does that work then? i think what he meant is, the plasma will probably not truely be 720p -( 1280x720) - the horizontal resolution may be 1024 rather than 1280. Quite a few plasmas are 768p not 720p i.e. 1024x768. You'll also find a number of LCDs that are 1366x768. Haven't looked at the horizontal res - I just asssumed the pixels were square. But which LCD TVs *aren't* 768? All the ones I've looked at are. Andy |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com