Choosing a TV type

[bandphan]

He was saying the letters were blurry, so if one TV was a higher resolution than the other, that could account for the blurriness, no?

na, some was afoot.

 

[Panjsheri]

Not really? It sounds lik ethere was more at play here than just the orientation of the tv.

I dont really know what you mean but when I had tried this "Test" if you want to call it that all the TV's were 720p, 1080P was not out yet and I was using a DVI cable. The TV's were a 40 inch Sony LCD and a 42 inch LG plasma. I dont know why it looked blurry but it led me to buy a Sharp 52 and I got a 24 inch LCD for my computer I decided to stay away from TV's as PC monitors. Obviously things are different now with upgrades in the technology but I was just pointing out what I had experienced thats all.

 

[annunaki]

I dont really know what you mean but when I had tried this "Test" if you want to call it that all the TV's were 720p, 1080P was not out yet and I was using a DVI cable. The TV's were a 40 inch Sony LCD and a 42 inch LG plasma. I dont know why it looked blurry but it led me to buy a Sharp 52 and I got a 24 inch LCD for my computer I decided to stay away from TV's as PC monitors. Obviously things are different now with upgrades in the technology but I was just pointing out what I had experienced thats all.

Perhaps an issue with the DVI input on the Plasma?

 

[poutanen]

Another note about TV types, have DLP projection TVs fallen off the radar??? I was pleased with my SD DLP projector on a 76" screen, and there's a 67" samsung 1080p DLP projection TV for $2000-2500 on the market.

Seems to me like a good deal, considering the cheapest DLP 1080p projector is the InFocus X10, which is roughly $2000-2500 also, plus the screen, mount, etc, and the TV will have a better picture in situations with more ambient light. Plus the TV is LED lit instead of needing $300 bulbs every 3,000 hr (FWIW, it took me 2 years to put 1500 hours on my projector, using it as my main TV)...

Am I out to lunch?

 

[Jango2077]

TV for gaming

As an owner of a Panasonic 50 800 THX whatever it's called.
I would suggest getting a LCD with a 120 Hz refresh rate. Why?
Now, I have not see the 120 Hz in action on Video games (On Movies 120Hz sucks!!!) But in theory the LCD should provide sharp edges when doing 360 turns or pans during game play. The plasma......all of them, even though the color accuracy is kick *** still produce a green trail during high contrast, high motion video movement.....which occurs all the time during gaming.

 

[poutanen]

As an owner of a Panasonic 50 800 THX whatever it's called.
I would suggest getting a LCD with a 120 Hz refresh rate. Why?
Now, I have not see the 120 Hz in action on Video games (On Movies 120Hz sucks!!!) But in theory the LCD should provide sharp edges when doing 360 turns or pans during game play. The plasma......all of them, even though the color accuracy is kick *** still produce a green trail during high contrast, high motion video movement.....which occurs all the time during gaming.

As far as I know, DLP is still better for gaming...

 

[Jango2077]

I had a DLP before the plasma.....it was pretty good.....but they say it has a little bit of a delay, which I noticed during Rock Band!

 

[poutanen]

I had a DLP before the plasma.....it was pretty good.....but they say it has a little bit of a delay, which I noticed during Rock Band!

Never played GH or RB on my projector, always my little 20" tube TV. However, some stations I would have to set the sound delay on my AVR to around 20-30 ms to get it to sync up.

That's totally different from trails or motion blur though... I played COD4, SOCOM3, GT4 and GT5rologue, Wiger Woods '08, and Madden '08 on my 76" and the motion blur was non-existant. Artifacts tend to be amplified when you go bigger, I can only imagine how a 76" LCD would look with a game.

I hear the latest generation are better, but still...

 

[Jango2077]

I looked @ a 50 or 46 inch Sony LCD with the 120Hz turned on during Spider-Man 2 it look weird or crappy. Depends on who you talk to.

 

[Panjsheri]

Perhaps an issue with the DVI input on the Plasma?

That could have been the case as now DVI is not offered on any of the new TV's.

 

[eejay]

This debate is quite interesting. I've read here and there that plasma (even LCD) is dead and OLED will be the latest and greatest as it will be thinner, brighter last longer, more energy efficient, etc. I love watching sports and movies so my choice is plasma in a heartbeat. Not a big fan of image blurring. When do you think this new flat panel will hit the market?

My question regarding flat panels is this: 1080p or no 1080p?

I may or may not by a blu-ray and from what I understand no one broadcasts in 1080p. If I'm not a gamer, am I wasting money buying a 1080p?

Looking forward to all the responses.

 

[bandphan]

Could you provide some info on your room, seating distance, sources ect

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

As an owner of a Panasonic 50 800 THX whatever it's called.
I would suggest getting a LCD with a 120 Hz refresh rate. Why?
Now, I have not see the 120 Hz in action on Video games (On Movies 120Hz sucks!!!) But in theory the LCD should provide sharp edges when doing 360 turns or pans during game play. The plasma......all of them, even though the color accuracy is kick *** still produce a green trail during high contrast, high motion video movement.....which occurs all the time during gaming.

Some manufacturers sets are better than others with this.
Also, only a select very small percentage of people are affected by this, much less than say dlp's RBE.

 

[ragged]

For gaming I would get a 1080p LCD with a matte screen. Maybe Sammy LN40A630. If FPS is your main concern, LG has a 47LG90 that has 2.7 ms response time. I would never get a plasma for gaming, even if you're a semi-hardcore gamer. I mean, how many real gamers out there use a plasma?

 

[bandphan]

For gaming I would get a 1080p LCD with a matte screen. Maybe Sammy LN40A630. If FPS is your main concern, LG has a 47LG90 that has 2.7 ms response time. I would never get a plasma for gaming, even if you're a semi-hardcore gamer. I mean, how many real gamers out there use a plasma?

really, for real Other than 1 lcd on the market, which display over 42" in lcd resolves motion better and at an acceptable resolution? I give you a hint, none.

 

[poutanen]

really, for real Other than 1 lcd on the market, which display over 42" in lcd resolves motion better and at an acceptable resolution? I give you a hint, none.

+1 I'm still of the DLP camp for gaming...

 

[ragged]

really, for real Other than 1 lcd on the market, which display over 42" in lcd resolves motion better and at an acceptable resolution? I give you a hint, none.

Uh yeah, for real. It's just my opinion. I'm not a cyborg, I can't tell the difference between 2ms and 6ms. It's all market speak as far as I'm concerned. From Wii tennis, to Socom Confrontation to Rfactor, anything under 6ms is fine for gaming.

There's a reason why computer monitors are LCD. I'm not sure if many plasma owners would feel comfortable falling asleep on the couch while the PS3 home screen is blazing on the screen. All the gamers I link up with every other weekend all have LCD's. And I would take a DLP over plasma for gaming any day too.

 

[bandphan]

Its all good. But there is a reason Computer monitors, under 24 inches are lcd and it has nothing to do with plasma. If you do some gaming on a large display, plasma will give you more than you can ever hope for from a lcd. Also i wouldnt drive a car without oil in it, but hey some abuse their purchases

PS. Ill be back.

 

[MADCOW]

To me, no plasma looks as good as most of the newer 120hz lcds. In motion, I really don't see much a difference even side by side, and the overall presentaion of the lcds just looks superior to my eyes.

Plasmas look much better on paper compared to lcds, but they just don't look better to my eyes, and I know several other people who feel the same way, some of which own a plasma and regret it after seeing buddy's lcd's.

Many people buy plasmas because they did research and the specs look better, or because other people told them to, or because they bought the plasmas, back when lcds sucked, not because they actually think plasmas look better than newer, high end lcds. Maybe better than the old lcds, but not the newer, high end 120hz. Not for overall presentation.

At least to my eyes, plasmas just look fuzzy by comparison. Not nearly as crisp as newer LCDs, non of the plasmas are, not even panny.

I currently own a 60hz lcd, and I game on it. A buddy of mine who owns an Hitachi plasma thinks my Tv looks way better on games than his. He said this himself. I have seen games on his tv, and it's ridiculous how fuzzy it looks by comparison. Still shots are nowhere close to as good as on even a low end lcd, this is way more noticeable than any motion advantage of the plasma. I know not all plasmas are equal, but neither are lcds, and my Toshiba 60hz baby blows away my buddy's and my Dad's plasmas (both Hitatchi Plasmas), for overall presentation.

Not to mention on my Buddies plasma during movies and stuff images go all smudgy. Like when someone is running, the legs look like a big blob. And no, it's not the source, and his plasma is not that old.

Even a good looking plasma, doesn't look as good overall though as the best newer lcds.

 

[bandphan]

To me, no plasma looks as good as most of the newer 120hz lcds. In motion, I really don't see much a difference even side by side, and the overall presentaion of the lcds just looks superior to my eyes.

Maybe so, however the dofference between 500 lines and 900 lines is tremendous

Plasmas look much better on paper compared to lcds, but they just don't look better to my eyes, and I know several other people who feel the same way, some of which own a plasma and regret it after seeing buddy's lcd's.

Its ok, cause it is your eyes

Many people buy plasmas because they did research and the specs look better, or because other people told them to, or because they bought the plasmas, back when lcds sucked, not because they actually think plasmas look better than newer, high end lcds. Maybe better than the old lcds, but not the newer, high end 120hz. Not for overall presentation.

So not true, as matter of fact most sets that have 120hz setting look worse with them engadged.

At least to my eyes, plasmas just look fuzzy by comparison. Not nearly as crisp as newer LCDs, non of the plasmas are, not even panny.

I welcome you to see my display anytime you like, not fuzzy and I guarentee you one of the best pictures you will see in your life, and how do you measure crisp?

I currently own a 60hz lcd, and I game on it. A buddy of mine who owns an Hitachi plasma thinks my Tv looks way better on games than his. He said this himself. I have seen games on his tv, and it's ridiculous how fuzzy it looks by comparison. Still shots are nowhere close to as good as on even a low end lcd, this is way more noticeable than any motion advantage of the plasma. I know not all plasmas are equal, but neither are lcds, and my Toshiba 60hz baby blows away my buddy's and my Dad's plasmas (both Hitatchi Plasmas), for overall presentation.

Ok, model and year on the Hitatchis? Hell im starting to sound like a plasma fanboy

Not to mention on my Buddies plasma during movies and stuff images go all smudgy. Like when someone is running, the legs look like a big blob. And no, it's not the source, and his plasma is not that old.

Even a good looking plasma, doesn't look as good overall though as the best newer lcds.

Maybe you do a review of your buddy's lcd you seem to like it

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-resolution-tests-125-hdtvs.pdf