TV Question: LCD vs. Plasma

I'm also looking to buy at the mo and have been following magazine reviews closely. It seems that in the Plasma vs LCD battle, LCD is coming out on top, at least on the smaller units. I have my eye on a Panasonic TH-26LXD1. Price is still topy tho' at £2.3 k.

 

http://www.projectorcentral.com/video_signals.htm

 

Darren: I wouldn't waste your money on a plasma tv even if you had a much bigger budget- to my eyes, the image looks artificial. Its often used in spaces with a considerable amount of ambient light, so that critical viewing is not possible- and there, its sort of exaggerated brightness works well. But, under more critical viewing conditions, it looks fake, compared to a properly set up conventional TV or projection system. This assumes, of course, that your objective is to make the screen present an image that looks like film: that means that the color of "white" is not a supernatural blue, and the ability to render dark images, and degrees of dark, is critical.

Ideally, what you'd want is a TV that allows you to adjust certain parameters, including color temperature, black levels, etc. coupled with a test disc to permit some adjustment of the picture. Some people are actually disappointed when a set is adjusted properly- it doesn't "pop" like the displays they see in showrooms, in public venues displaying video images, etc.

The LCD sets are generally less expensive, and have different issues than plasma. One drawback of LCD is off-angle viewing; the picture isn't just distorted, its virtually nonexistent. We have a Sharp Aquos that we use for noncritical viewing in one of our downstairs "parlor" rooms; it looks fine, and is relatively inexpensive. Your best bet is to buy a high quality conventional set for the money you are considering spending, but i don't know your viewing habits, set-up needs, etc. Regards.

PS. As to enhanced definition and high definition, there is alot of misinfo. I wouldn't worry about HD right now. As to "enhanced" you are talking about a set which can display noninterlaced signal; that's what your computer monitor does; it scans every line, not every other one. More lines of video info presumably leads to a higher definition picture. Some DVD players now output a progressive signal. The line doubling that' s used to compensate for interlaced signals, such as regular TV, cable, etc. vary in quality. The king of the line processing companies is Faroudja. It has now licensed its de-interlacing or doubling technology to a variety of TV manufacturers.

 

It seems to me LCD has better picture quality but is more expensive

we've got a 42" panasonic plasma that is quite nice.

 

LCD TV's are much better quality than plasma, but much more expensive.

You get what you pay for.

 

will it make Titanic worth watching?

will it make Friends funny?

does American/Australian Idle become less like sober karaoke?

don't confuse content with delivery... that's what middle-management does.

you know the thing that really peeves me? i go into places that have $5000 plasma/lcd tv's, and they're in the wrong ratio making everyone look fat. you think after spending 3 months of your employees wage on a stoopid TV you'd spend 5 minutes setting it up. sigh.

stuff it, stick with a $150 76+cm CRT, after 3 minutes you don't notice anyway.

 

LCD tv's last like 2-3x longer than Plasma tv's.

 

lol, sounds like you've had some bad experiences. Although I have to say that Adelaide isn't the best place to find products of world-class quality in any area... Generally the best stuff isn't even for sale here.

As an example; You should have seen the setups I saw in Harrod's while in London recently. They had a giant 60 inch Sony LCD TV in there selling for around 30,000 pounds, among other wonders (such as 40,000 pound sound systems, 200,000 pound necklaces, etc)

 

not so much bad experience (been to pubs in north adelaide lately?) i just don't think it matters.

okay, here's my stupid rationalisation.......

how many times have i been to the cinema to see a frickin shyte movie? let's round it off to 200 shall we...

now, what we all want in our lounge rooms is "the cinema experience", but no matter how dam good the cinema has been, it still hasn't made a crap movie any better.

so, for me, rather than spending $5k on a teevee, i can see 350-400 movies AT THE CINEMA, picking and choosing the better ones, which accounts for seeing a movie every week for the next 7-10 years.

the other option, you know all those sports things that are on that need to be seen on a bigger screen, well, pubs have those on too, so rather than spend my hard-earned on a bunch of plastic and glass then sitting on my boring sofa, i can go down the bar and meet up with mates and shout them lagers and watch sport things.

i dunno, if someone can show a BETTER reason for spending several $k on a tv that could go toward a lifestyle instead, lemme know.

 

oh, someone thought i was some uber-geek and once asked me to burn Titanic for them.... the following pic was my response....