The best type of TV?

[Ciclismo]

Plasma and LCD aren't too far apart when properly calibrated. If you want them in torch mode as if they were competing with a retail stores bright lighting, then sure.. plasma will use more energy than LCDs.

...

Regarding movement, content is going to be 24 or 30 fps. LCDs are trying to bandaid poor motion performance by artificially creating frames that don't exist in the source. While this does help to alleviate blur that is the result of sample and hold, it also serves to introduce motion artifacts that many find bothersome or unacceptable.

A plasma uses more power than an LCD in equivalent size http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ - click on "Calibrated Settings" then "Screen Size" to sort lowest to highest power use after calibration by screen size and you will see that Plasmas feature predominantly at the bottom of every size category.

As for refresh rates, there is always the possibility that someday (preferably soon) that will be more media available that is at 60 interlaced frames per second, which requires a refresh rate of 120Hz I was told by a technician for a post-production company that animates at very high framerates to make motion look more real - something that apparently the PS3 already makes use of.

Unfortunately Hollywood et al likes 24Hz as it is the lowest number of frames they can get away with whilst still giving the impression of motion, thereby saving considerable production costs as you pay for film, then film processing and then digitizing (e.g. Telecine) by the foot. So to make a film with more realistic motion at 60Hz would require 2.5x (24x2.5=60) more film, and therefore 2.5x more film costs.

 

[brentsg]

A plasma uses more power than an LCD in equivalent size http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ - click on "Calibrated Settings" then "Screen Size" to sort lowest to highest power use after calibration by screen size and you will see that Plasmas feature predominantly at the bottom of every size category.

As for refresh rates, there is always the possibility that someday (preferably soon) that will be more media available that is at 60 interlaced frames per second, which requires a refresh rate of 120Hz I was told by a technician for a post-production company that animates at very high framerates to make motion look more real - something that apparently the PS3 already makes use of.

Unfortunately Hollywood et al likes 24Hz as it is the lowest number of frames they can get away with whilst still giving the impression of motion, thereby saving considerable production costs as you pay for film, then film processing and then digitizing (e.g. Telecine) by the foot. So to make a film with more realistic motion at 60Hz would require 2.5x (24x2.5=60) more film, and therefore 2.5x more film costs.

Regarding power, the post to which I responded went on about plasmas sucking every ounce of power, melting power cords, etc. That's a sensationalist statement that doesn't reflect reality. Yes they are higher, but we're talking a minimal expense even on an annual basis post calibration.

And there's nothing inherent in the 120Hz or 240Hz LCDs that will allow them to input and process anything superior to the 60Hz which you can input into a plasma. They will accept up to 1080p@60Hz and fabricate the rest. Anything beyond that is fiction.

The thread you linked to is discussing how to setup the PS3 for 24p output with Blu-ray. Feed the display 24p and have it repeat each frame 5 times to get the panel's 120Hz. Similarly, Pioneer plasma models can accept 24p and display it at 72Hz to avoid any issues. None of this has anything to do with high refresh rates, it's simply a method of avoiding tecline judder from trying to display 24Hz content at 30Hz.

 

[MythicFrost]

Hi everyone, thanks for all your replies. I managed to find the TV that I own:
http://www.sharp.net.au/product-archive/products/LC32PD5X/

If you look at the specifications tab you see all its specs? Is it a relatively cheap quality TV?