TV, Games & Entertainment

Re: Plasma or LCD??

peacelover — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:10:07 GMT

intelguy:

personally, i prefer LCD.

there are some reasons:

1.less power consumption and long longevity.

2.no screen burn-in

3. lighter

but plasma has its own advantages.

Agree.. however, it is a personal choice.. ask yourself what you like more.. lol..

Re: Plasma or LCD??

zx10guy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:44:21 GMT

AMDGuy64:
this is a bit off topic but if it's too low for you then why even comment and waste his time. He wanted help and ideas for his dads price range not to know about your doubts of tv manufactures. All companies lie and exaggerate but they still give you a basic set of info to go by and compare and as i said b4 even if they are a bit different 4 times the standard tv is a bit impressive. You mention sources yet you do not provide him with a link to help him find the right tv. You have been no help at all you just read a small miss type and rambled about your paranoia of company fabrications instead of helping. So once again. both tv have there own pros and cons just pick what is best for you depending on tv use, lighting in the room, glares, location, and price.

I'm sorry if you feel I have to stroke your ego and I don't give out false information like you have.

Here's a link which has an actual test of contrast ratio. Happy now?

http://hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/508apana58pz/

I can provide others if you would like or how about you?

Re: Plasma or LCD??

AMDGuy64 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:29:12 GMT

this is a bit off topic but if it's too low for you then why even comment and waste his time. He wanted help and ideas for his dads price range not to know about your doubts of tv manufactures. All companies lie and exaggerate but they still give you a basic set of info to go by and compare and as i said b4 even if they are a bit different 4 times the standard tv is a bit impressive. You mention sources yet you do not provide him with a link to help him find the right tv. You have been no help at all you just read a small miss type and rambled about your paranoia of company fabrications instead of helping. So once again. both tv have there own pros and cons just pick what is best for you depending on tv use, lighting in the room, glares, location, and price.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

8IronBob — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:22:18 GMT

Imho, I would definitely say that it's too close to call, since both technologies are narrowing the gap in features, pros and cons to each other. However, LCD does tend to be a little better, especially if you are using it as a combination PC monitor/television (especially if it's 1080p, that's the only resolution that will actually look good). My recommendation would be in the form of a Samsung, especially the newer models like the A550, which does appear that the 40" is within your price range, maybe a slight bit over, but this is one of the TV options which is close to the size you want, and the quality that matches up with it.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

zx10guy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:54:28 GMT

AMDGuy64:
zx10guy you posted a lot of info yet didn't suggest a tv and most likely only confused anyone. If you don't trust numbers and you don't tell us what you go by then what should we go by? I didn't literally mean lamp life just the life of the tv. 100,000 is far more than any tv on the market and 480Mhz may be exaggerated but it is still the most and I have seen the tv myself it is beautiful and even better than my Toshiba "32 LCD which is a bit dark b/c its an LCD but it has an amazing picture!!!

I see no confusion by what I posted. I have issues with how many people have perpetuated false information about plasma display technologies. I've heard everything from plasmas wear out to you need to recharge a plasma TV after a number of years. So yes, I'm a bit touchy on the subject. My post was to correct the wording you used which is lamp that implies some sort of bulb behind the glass which is incorrect.

As far as who's numbers I trust, there are various review sites and magazines which actually do measure the contrast ratio among other things with actual test equipment. I would trust those number sooner than I would a manufacturer's and especially numbers quoting dynamic contrast ratio. Dynamic contrast ratio varies from one manufacturer to another in what it actually means. This is the same as dynamic power output in power amps which get flaunted around a lot but don't really have any real world practical meaning.

And as far as me recommending a TV, others have posted good options in the Panny panels. The price point is lower than what I normally shop for so I don't have much to recommend given the budget.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

AMDGuy64 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:19:55 GMT

zx10guy you posted a lot of info yet didn't suggest a tv and most likely only confused anyone. If you don't trust numbers and you don't tell us what you go by then what should we go by? I didn't literally mean lamp life just the life of the tv. 100,000 is far more than any tv on the market and 480Mhz may be exaggerated but it is still the most and I have seen the tv myself it is beautiful and even better than my Toshiba "32 LCD which is a bit dark b/c its an LCD but it has an amazing picture!!!

Re: Plasma or LCD??

MeiLing — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:20:46 GMT

I got a nice Olivia 42" 1080i LCD from the egg with free shipping a few weeks ago. The picture quality is great with both std DVD and HD-DVDs and the unit is light, just 55 lbs. I think I remember it being on sale for just 800. Good luck with your purchase.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

zx10guy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:28:45 GMT

AMDGuy64:

I have a friend who works at REX. He says if you're looking for the best bang for your buck and only want to spend $1200.00 taking into account resolution, life span, quality, lack of reapair issues...the only tv to get is the Panasonic Model # TH42PX80U 100,000 hour lamp life. 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on 720p model. 480Mhz refresh rate 4 times faster than any other tv. On sale $1099.99 but $1299.99 retail. Hope this helps you out!!!!

I have a small nit with something in your post. To clarify, plasmas don't have lamps. Plasmas work like CRTs where a high voltage excites an electron emission which strikes the phosphor coating on the glass. Only LCDs have lamps called fluorescent back lights which is why LCDs have poorer contrast and black levels than plasmas. Also, don't believe any manufacturer advertised contrast ratios...especially figures quoted for dynamic contrast ratios. In actual practice, the measured contrast ratio performance is a bit lower than what the manufacturer publishes.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

Ziggles — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:13:47 GMT

Hm, well all of this is really appreciated. Thank you all very much. We'll see what we come up with.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

Freezrburn — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:20:20 GMT

I recently went w/ a Plasma from Panasonic. I love it. My father in law has a Sony LCD. Both mine and his are 50". Personally, I like the Plasma better. I found his LCD picture to be dull. My plasma shows a much brighter from what I can see better and more vibrant picture. I'm perfectly happy w/ my purchase and would recommend it to anyone. I also got it for around the same price range that the original poster mentioned as budget.

Happy shopping!

Re: Plasma or LCD??

AMDGuy64 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:41:24 GMT

very true most say they can not see the difference in 1080p but I can!!1 only in video games though no point if you're just watching HD cable or HD movies you will need blu-ray to get the full 1080p or an up converting DVD player. My cousins 46" Aquas makes Gears of War look phenomenal in 1080p!! Much more detail to the environment and water. It all depends on what your main purpose for the tv is!!! But I agree with aso3 I would cough up the extra cash for the 1080p!!! =)

Re: Plasma or LCD??

aso3 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:48:01 GMT

AMDGuy64:
I have a friend who works at REX. He says if you're looking for the best bang for your buck and only want to spend $1200.00 taking into account resolution, life span, quality, lack of reapair issues...the only tv to get is the Panasonic Model # TH42PX80U 100,000 hour lamp life. 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on 720p model. 480Mhz refresh rate 4 times faster than any other tv. On sale $1099.99 but $1299.99 retail. Hope this helps you out!!!!

Agree...but for a $100~200 more, i would get the TH42PZ80U, 1080p native resolution. Plasma = true black on black.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

AMDGuy64 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:07:16 GMT

I have a friend who works at REX. He says if you're looking for the best bang for your buck and only want to spend $1200.00 taking into account resolution, life span, quality, lack of reapair issues...the only tv to get is the Panasonic Model # TH42PX80U 100,000 hour lamp life. 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on 720p model. 480Mhz refresh rate 4 times faster than any other tv. On sale $1099.99 but $1299.99 retail. Hope this helps you out!!!!

Re: Plasma or LCD??

zx10guy — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:08:08 GMT

Power consumption comparisons between LCDs and plasmas need to be put in context with the type of picture being put on the screen at the moment of measurement. Plasmas don't consume as much power as many people think they do. Especially those panels whicha re calibrated properly.

Longevity is also a dangerous word. Plasmas last much longer than people think. Typical plasma rated life spans are 60,000 hours. This figure is when the panel reaches a point where its output luminosity is half of what it was new. So there's much more life beyond the rated life span.

Re: Plasma or LCD??

intelguy — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:43:14 GMT

personally, i prefer LCD.

there are some reasons:

1.less power consumption and long longevity.

2.no screen burn-in

3. lighter

but plasma has its own advantages.