Plasma versus LCD televisions

[mfacey]

No I agree. Our big (CRT) TV blew up last year and we've been using my crappy 14" portable, with a vague eye on getting a new one, but as we're moving in a few months another great beast of a CRT is out, and frankly any (affordable) LCD we've seen just looks like a really bad picture quality. When you can get a decent flat screen CRT for £100, I'm not about to spend £300-400 on an LCD, with a far worse picture quality than aforementioned CRT. As long as we move into somewhere with a reasonable amount of space, i thnk we'll just get another CRT, and by the time that one blows up, LCDs will be more affordable and better quality.

With all due respect, you can't compare a 300-400 pound lcd to the good lcds and plasmas on the market today. If you're in the market for a nice LCD you have to be looking at least in the 1000 pound range (for something with a decent 32inch screen). You can't even buy a decent size Apple Cinema Display for 300-400 GBP!

 

[bousozoku]

Is it just me, or do others think that most of the plasma and LCD TVs they've seen look really, really awful? Honestly, I'd like to get excited by this technology, and like nearly everybody else, I've spent quite a bit of time ogling them in consumer electronics stores. But do they really display broadcast signals any better, or even as well, as a conventional CRT? Not from what I've seen.

Broadcast t.v. always looked terrible. Low resolution sets always hid most of the mess because they couldn't really display it reliably. My old Magnavox t.v. did a decent job when it was new and it would display 500 lines from the video input so it looked better with laserdisc.

New t.v. sets need to interpolate--they guess at what the adjacent pixels should be and it doesn't always look so good. Remember, you're taking a very poor signal that's better at 320x240 than 720x480 or 1366x768.

HDTV broadcasts obviously are a lot better. I've found that SDTV is okay on my t.v. but not always good. Any flaw is worse than it was on the old t.v.

 

[blackfox]

To the OP,

might I suggest a projector? Either LCD or DLP-based.

Large flat-screen TVs, whether Plasma or LCD, have definite limitations in terms of contrast, color accuracy, pixel response and uniformity.

Granted, projectors have their own limitations, but if you are primarily going to use this for video games and DVDs, as opposed to TV - you money will go a long way with a projector. If you need to watch TV, you can always connect via a digital cable box or a computer-based solution (eg: eyetv).

Check out projectorcentral.com - a great resource. You will need to think about mounting/placement options, cabling, a good screen and eventual replacement bulbs (most projectors' last 2K-5K hrs).

Good luck whichever way you decide to go.

 

[student_trap]

a question to supermacdesign, do you use sky or watch much TV that has icons in the corners? if so, plasma is a bad idea, as plasma technology uses gas cylinders which burn out, so if they display an icon all the time that area will burn out, leaving an impression of the logo even when your watching another side.
Recently, my uncle got a 40ince sony HD LCD TV, and to be honest, i don't rate it all that much either. Its big, granted, but it just doesn't seem as sharp as an old tube telly! If it was me i'd probably go for a projecter, but then again, i don't watch all that much TV!

 

[Lau]

With all due respect, you can't compare a 300-400 pound lcd to the good lcds and plasmas on the market today. If you're in the market for a nice LCD you have to be looking at least in the 1000 pound range (for something with a decent 32inch screen). You can't even buy a decent size Apple Cinema Display for 300-400 GBP!

Heh heh! No, I know. Sorry, I wasn't being that clear. When I get dragged into a shop to look at the TVs D) it seems as if it's only the really high end ones (ie at least £1000-2000) that look any good. And a new flat screen CRT (for £100-200 or so) looks to me as good as these fabulous big TVs, but obviously the disadvantage being that they've got a huge arse and are a lot heavier. I was saying that it seems like a better deal at the moment to buy a flat tube CRT and then wait until the LCDs, etc. come down in price. I mentioned the £300-400 ones because we couldn't/wouldn't spend more than that, and so LCDs aren't really happening for me at the moment.

I guess I'm just not the kind of person that would ever spend £1000 on a TV - especially when there's one with equally good picture quality for £100-200 with just a space disadvantage.

 

[supremedesigner]

Why not CRT?

Why not CRT? They're cheaper, last longer, and more color. My personal favorite CRT (for now) is Sony Wega (27 to 35 something) and I like the look of it but they're so heavy! If I were you, I'd go for LCD.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Broadcast t.v. always looked terrible. Low resolution sets always hid most of the mess because they couldn't really display it reliably. My old Magnavox t.v. did a decent job when it was new and it would display 500 lines from the video input so it looked better with laserdisc.

New t.v. sets need to interpolate--they guess at what the adjacent pixels should be and it doesn't always look so good. Remember, you're taking a very poor signal that's better at 320x240 than 720x480 or 1366x768.

HDTV broadcasts obviously are a lot better. I've found that SDTV is okay on my t.v. but not always good. Any flaw is worse than it was on the old t.v.

Right, exactly -- you're facing the dreaded analog to digital problem, which is inherent with non-digtial broadcasts displayed on digital monitors. Some digital TVs deal with this issue better than others, but I haven't seen any that display analog signals as well as an old-fashioned CRT. Unfortunately, the vast majority of broadcasts are still in analog format.

The other big issue is displaying a 4:3 image on a 16:9 display. People seem weirdly comfortable with the distortion and hardly anyone seems to notice that it looks absolutely retched. This suggests to me that these digital displays are selling mainly because they're hip and sexy and not because the pictures they display are better than a CRT.

 

[supermacdesign]

Is it just me, or do others think that most of the plasma and LCD TVs they've seen look really, really awful? Honestly, I'd like to get excited by this technology, and like nearly everybody else, I've spent quite a bit of time ogling them in consumer electronics stores. But do they really display broadcast signals any better, or even as well, as a conventional CRT? Not from what I've seen.

This is the question I always seem to leave the store, it is my hope that this is just an internal signal or braodcasting problem. I will see a basketball game or movie they claim is in HD but all I see are little staircases of pixels and aliasing everywhere. What I am really, really after is playing my new Xbox 360 and PS3 (nov.) in pristine HD quality. After reading a lot of these posts I am leaning towards LCD.

Right, exactly -- you're facing the dreaded analog to digital problem, which is inherent with non-digtial broadcasts displayed on digital monitors. Some digital TVs deal with this issue better than others, but I haven't seen any that display analog signals as well as an old-fashioned CRT. Unfortunately, the vast majority of broadcasts are still in analog format.

The other big issue is displaying a 4:3 image on a 16:9 display. People seem weirdly comfortable with the distortion and hardly anyone seems to notice that it looks absolutely retched. This suggests to me that these digital displays are selling mainly because they're hip and sexy and not because the pictures they display are better than a CRT.

That completely cracked me up. My friend bought some wide screen set a couple of years ago, he seemed so proud of it I didn't have the heart to say are ****ing kidding, it looks like *****! Look at the picture everyone is all stretched out and pixelated! Can't you see that?? Ha!

 

[IJ Reilly]

That completely cracked me up. My friend bought some wide screen set a couple of years ago, he seemed so proud of it I didn't have the heart to say are ***** kidding, it looks like *****! Look at the picture everyone is all stretched out and pixelated! Can't you see that?? Ha!

Widescreen TVs have a setting on the remote for displaying the accurate image ratio, but for anything but HDTV broadcasts or DVDs, that leaves a black letterbox bar on the left and right sides of the screen. But hardly anybody chooses that setting -- not in any restaurant, bar, airport terminal, home, or consumer electronics store, have I ever seen it used. The picture is always stretched. The theory seems to be, "I paid for 16:9, I'm going to use 16:9, no matter how bad it looks!"

One Sony I looked at recently offered an even worse compromise -- a setting that both crops and stretches!

 

[bousozoku]

Right, exactly -- you're facing the dreaded analog to digital problem, which is inherent with non-digtial broadcasts displayed on digital monitors. Some digital TVs deal with this issue better than others, but I haven't seen any that display analog signals as well as an old-fashioned CRT. Unfortunately, the vast majority of broadcasts are still in analog format.

The other big issue is displaying a 4:3 image on a 16:9 display. People seem weirdly comfortable with the distortion and hardly anyone seems to notice that it looks absolutely retched. This suggests to me that these digital displays are selling mainly because they're hip and sexy and not because the pictures they display are better than a CRT.

Sure, of course they are. People bought Edsels, didn't they? (A neighbour somewhere else had 5.) I doubt that more than 5 % of people owning a flat panel t.v. have it mounted on a wall, which is a real reason for having one. ShopNBC sells a really nice swivel mount for this one and maybe down the line, I'll have it on a wall. Anyway, it's all about people's own image. Why does anyone shop at Gap when Old Navy sells practically the same thing at a lower price? (Considering that they're all three the same company, you'll see more expensive versions of some of the items at Banana Republic.)

In my experience with this t.v., the 4:3 image is handled reasonably well but many have much better processing. I was watching a DVD that had black bands top and bottom, something that I never thought I'd see on an LCD t.v.

 

[supermacdesign]

Dlp

After reading many posts and articles if you can believe it I am leaning towards a nice DLP set. It seems I can get proven technology, impressive size, fantastic picture and high resolution for less costs.

Is this the way to go?

I mean the flat panels are like sexy thin super models but I can have much more high-def Halo 2 on my screen (ha!) for less moeny.

 

[Sdashiki]

Keep the Tv you have now.

Wait until the only thing you can buy is an HDTV set.

Then the money you would spend on DLP now, could go towards a bigger, most likely higher resolution than current models, and better TV for he same amount of money.

When all TVs are HDTV, the cheapest TV will still be better than todays best SDTVs.

Feel me?

as said above, yeah HDTV is chic. but if you got nuffin HD to watch, why bother.

this is all my opinion because im not the type of person to want the newest and best TV, because my current 32" CRT is 10yrs old, and I expect another 10 out of it.

 

[supermacdesign]

TV version tracker

Is there such a thing as a TV version tracker. I guess any website or source that might keep people advised of hardware revisions. Say I want a new Samsung television, I would like to know how old the technology/version/model is I am buying or maybe have a heads up when the new vesion is coming out.

 

[mfacey]

Is there such a thing as a TV version tracker. I guess any website or source that might keep people advised of hardware revisions. Say I want a new Samsung television, I would like to know how old the technology/version/model is I am buying or maybe have a heads up when the new vesion is coming out.

When looking for reviews for the set, see what the review dates are. You can usually find the latest reviews. Those tend to be the newest technology. Also you can look through the archives of company press releases to find when it was announced, though that is a lot more work.

 

[mfacey]

For those interested, I got my first LCD HDTV today. Its a Sony KLV-V32A10E. A 32 inch LCD with 1366x768 resolution, HDMI input, etc. etc. The picture quality over the regular cable isn't very good, but I knew that ahead of time. We have a weak signal in the house, which was even noticable on my 10 year old CRT. I have my Pioneer DVR/DVD player connected through a component cable to the component input on the TV. That allows 576p resolution which is pretty damn amazing compared to anything I've ever had before! Its amazing how much better progressive scan is compared to the regular interlaced picture.

Needless to say I'm a happy man. Its my biggest TV yet and was a good buy sofar!

 

[Aztechian]

I have the previous (last years) 32" sony LCD. I've been really pleased with it also. My only gripe so far is the lack of HDTV channels. Once tweaked, the color looks pretty good - although there will always be black issues. But hey, at least the Godfather is watchable

Whatever you do stay away from the Phillips Ambilight...
http://news.designtechnica.com/article9797.html

 

[mpw]

I think I'll pick up one of the new 100" LCD's LG Phillips just announced!

 

[Espnetboy3]

This is a very informative thread. Basically what I get from talking to people at the store and here is that no one really has any clue hahah. My friend just bought a 50inch LCD and I must say its cool cause its big but its just a waste of money. He is only about 5 feet away from the set in his apartment and when we play ps2 on it it looks terrible. So does Standard Def. His new flat screen(not flat panel) crt looks great with ps2. Also most shows are cropped on the left and right side. Its people getting caught in the hype of it all. I belive its like over 90 percent of poeple still have SD tv's. As fast as people thing its changing, its still years until the conversion is full blown.
My other buddy has a 60 inch DLP sony on the way. Its the newest model, sorry I dont know what it is but it looks pretty cool. I just cant bring myself to spend over 4 grand on a tv especially when the technology isnt tweaked.

Can anyone post some good sites on tv reviews and such?

 

[drlunanerd]

Completely agree. Don't believe the hype with LCDs and Plasmas. If you haven't got a hi-def model fed by a HD signal don't bother. The number of times I've watched TV at friends' houses biting my tongue because the picture looks so ****!

In time when HD broadcasting becomes the norm then it'll be worth it. And then panel costs will have tumbled down - yes, thanks to the early adopters buying into the hype. Cheers!

 

[zap2]

played Halo 2 on xBox on my grandmom's 42'' Plasma, let say thats the TV i want!

 

[superfunkomatic]

frankly any (affordable) LCD we've seen just looks like a really bad picture quality. When you can get a decent flat screen CRT for £100, I'm not about to spend £300-400 on an LCD, with a far worse picture quality than aforementioned CRT.

maybe you should read the posts again. i don't think there are many LCDs or plasma displays that are available in the £300-400 range - try about 2500-4500 CAD/USD. comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Lau]

maybe you should read the posts again. i don't think there are many LCDs or plasma displays that are available in the £300-400 range - try about 2500-4500 CAD/USD. comparing apples and oranges.

Maybe you should read my post you quote, the subsequent reply by mfacey, and my subsequent reply again. Just to clarify again, I was not saying I want a good LCD for £400, I'm saying that I don't see the point of spending £400 on a crappy LCD (there are a fair few, but they're dreadful) when CRTs offer a good picture for £100, and I've got a hell of a lot of better things to spend £2500 on than a TV.

Please ignore my post in this thread everyone! It seems to be getting everyone's hackles up, and it was just an offhand comment. To be honest, I don't think I belong in this thread, as I see a TV as something you bung in the corner of the room and watch the odd film on. I think I may have wandered into unfamiliar territory....

 

[IJ Reilly]

Please ignore my post in this thread everyone! It seems to be getting everyone's hackles up, and it was just an offhand comment. To be honest, I don't think I belong in this thread, as I see a TV as something you bung in the corner of the room and watch the odd film on. I think I may have wandered into unfamiliar territory....

Not to worry. One thing everybody knows is TV. You are certainly entitled to your opinion!

 

[Electro Funk]

Not sure if this is the right forum to ask but what is better? I am ready to make the big purchase for the home theater but after tons of reading I am just as confused as to which way to go as I started. I plan on purchasing a PS3 (with the new DVD technology, and the ability to display 1080i/p) in the future as well. I play a lot of games like on a Xbox 360 so I want the screen to refresh fast and be nice and crisp. I am just lost. I am looking at 42" and up to 60" possibly. Preferribly a 50" I guess. Not sure what to buy, or brand for that matter.

Will I be able to plug my Imac in to a big screen like that?

Thanks

go do some research @ www.avsforum.com/

you will be glad you did

 

[mpw]

...I'm saying that I don't see the point of spending £400 on a crappy LCD (there are a fair few, but they're dreadful) when CRTs offer a good picture for £100, and I've got a hell of a lot of better things to spend £2500 on than a TV. ...

I agree the best picture I've seen (non HD) has been on either a Phillips Pixel Plus II or Toshiba Picture frame models both CRT's where you get 36" for under £700.