42" + LCD Monitor ?

[e73bass]

I am currently in the market for a 42" or larger LCD monitor for general television viewing using my DISH HD receiver. Also some DVD movie viewing.
I have narrowed my search to these 3---also I believe they are the only 3 available right now. Samsung LTP-468WX; Sharp AQUOS LC-45gd6U; MITSUBISHI LT-4260. Quality of product is of most importance.
Does any one have any knowledge of these 3 or any other LCD that are now available or soon to be released?

 

[bbakken82]

which one

I have seen the 32 inch version of the sharp and the 30 inch version of the Mits. The Mits has the best picture I have ever seen on any tv in terms of clarity. I would assume that the same would be true of the larger ones. In general, Samsung is a budget minded company and they will try to cut corners where they can to cut costs and as I have sold Samsung products for 6 years, I would say stay away unless you want a new one in three years or less.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I believe the Sony is also available.

I have seen the 40" NEC and it was really good looking, but in my opinion not worth the extra cash in comparison to plasma.

Why not plasma? Just curious.

 

[e73bass]

42" + LCD

I wanted the less burn-in effect and best clarity.----Should I consider Plasma.---Also will be in higher altitudes above 7,000 ft.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I'm in DC so I have not familiarized myself with recent advancements in altitudes effect on plasma.

Burn in CAN be an issue, but rarely is unless you play a fair number of video games. Plasma is still considered the winner for motion video. Better image quality all around is the verdict with LCD still having a ways to go. LCD will eventually be there, but plasma, in my opinion, is still the way to go, especially with how many options are available to you.

REALLY THOUGH: LCD does look great, just a smidgen worse than plasma, and even that depends a fair amount on what you are watching. As I said though, burn-in is all about LOTS of static images on the screen for hours. We press 'pause' on our plasma for our DVR and leave it there for an hour at a time and it has caused no visible ill effects, so I wouldn't expect people who just watch TV to have issues either.

Lots of videogames... well, then I would think about it a lot more.

 

[e73bass]

42"+ LCD

Truthfully that is what I was first looking at--till I started reading about the
LCD, and hearing about the problems with high altitude problemsand the plasmas. I am along time Mistsubishi fan and looked at the PD-5030 and the new PD-5050 and did not think it looked as good as the various LCD's I've seen. Of course to stay in the ballpark of the Plasmas price wise I have had to look at downsizing the screen to a 40-42". Any help in this decision process would be appreciated. I will be watching alot of sporting events also on this TV.

 

[Duffinator]

I prefer LCD's

But I would not rule out a Plasma. There are pluses and minuses to both but clearly the Plasmas do blacks better. How well a monitor does blacks is probably the most important aspect in generating a life like image. But to my eye the LCD's look brighter and show more detail in the image.

My local Good Guys has an excellent display with a Sharp 45" next to a Pioneer 50" Elite and a Sony 50" plasma and all three sets have a price tag of $7,999. I like the looks of the Sharp better. But another thing to consider is the scaler built into these TV's. The sets I've looked at on several occasions have different native resolutions and thus the scalers and deinterlacers come into play. My specific example above uses a Mitsubishi HD generator (hard drive) with a 1080i output. So the Sony and Pioneer need to deinterlace and scale the image while the Sharp only needs to deinterlace the image. The point here is that there's more going on than just the type of display and varies between manufacturers. BTW, this display has a fair amount of ambient light in the area. Which is much more like my own home where a lot of viewing is done during daylight hours with lots of ambient light.

If you are going to do a lot of gaming then go LCD due to burn in issues. Bottom line is you will probably be happy going in either direction once the set is mounted in your home. One advantage with the Sharp is it's native resolution is 1920 X 1080 which is over twice the information of a 1280 x 720 Plasma. This will be nice once the new HD/BD DVD's hit the market within the next year. If I'm buying a LCD or Plasma today that last point seals the deal for me.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Keep in mind the Sharp ONLY accepts 1080i and will not accept 1080p, which will be an accepted format of Blu-Ray & HD-DVD.

Anyways, I just got out of a meeting with NEC today who let me know that their new 40" and 46" LCD panels will be out in about a month and will now include Faroudja processing on board and native 1366x768 format instead of 1280x768. This makes it a true 16:9 ratio instead of 15:9. Definitely a nice new focus from them, but it doesn't seem like they will really be a 'deal' either.

 

[e73bass]

42"+ Lcd

So will the LT-4260 from Mitsubishi accept the new dvd--1080p and 1080I ?--Now I am totally confused as I will effentially be upgrading my dvd player too.

 

[BMXTRIX]

No, but as far as I can tell, none of the new flat panel displays currently on the market accept 1080p.

There is only a handful of projectors that accept 1080p and display it - I believe this includes the Sony Qualia 004 and the Sanyo HD-10 projectors. Both of which are pricey models for sure.

I guess I just wouldn't spend more to get a 1080p display that doesn't specifically accept 1080p as a resolution. A 1366x768 or 1280x720 display, if the price is better, would be the way that I would go - personally. Actually, I have a plasma, so that's the way I went. I think LCD is about one-two years out from really being in plasmas class.

 

[Duffinator]

So will the LT-4260 from Mitsubishi accept the new dvd--1080p and 1080I ?--Now I am totally confused as I will effentially be upgrading my dvd player too.

Both the Samsung 46" and Sharp 45" have a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 and accept a 1080i image but not 1080P. Why they don't accept 1080P is beyond me since they do deinterlace a 1080i image. Is it that much more difficult/expensive to pass through a 1080P image. I've viewed both sets on several occasions and prefer the Sharp. Neither does a great job with SD but the Sharp does a better job IMO. Plus it just looks like a higher quality piece of equipment.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The goal from most manufacturers right now in the LCD market is to produce screens as good as what Sharp puts out. I heard from a Sony rep at some point that they KNEW their early models weren't as good as the competition, but now they feel their current lineup is as good as what Sharp puts out. Not BETTER, but as good.

You really want to see HD sports on an LCD though - something with a lot of movement to it, and compare that to plasma. Also, a test DVD movie with a lot of shadows and some bright scenes. You likely will get a feel for the display even if it is not perfectly setup.