Topic

[Borys]

`

[Raban]

Contrast is important, and that TV has it in spades. Average for LCD televisions is like 2,000:1, so you're good. I'd mention response time but most HDTVs don't list it among the specs and most 1080p televisions have it good enough so that you don't have to worry about it.

Barring those two things, having an assload of ports is good too.

Not sure on LG televisions. I've never bought an actual HDTV (I keep using PC monitors) so I don't have a lot of experience outside of hearsay.

[Raban]

The multiple HDMI jacks are good, but the fact that it lacks multiple component/composite input is kind of shit.

You have to decide for yourself how many different devices you want hooked up to this thing at once, and if it has sufficient room.

EDIT: I'm not knocking it down, for less than $800 that's probably the best deal you're gonna get.

[brawndolicious]

Well that TV's definitely a good bargain.  I know there are some plasma's in that price/size range so you should probably do some research on the performance of those models and of course go to the store to see if you can actually notice any differences.  They each have their advantages.

[brawndolicious]

Well that TV's definitely a good bargain.  I know there are some plasma's in that price/size range so you should probably do some research on the performance of those models and of course go to the store to see if you can actually notice any differences.  They each have their advantages.

Aren't plasmas legacy technology now? I can buy a 50" plasma for that price but I don't want to. And aren't plasmas ending their lives significantly faster than LCDs?

They do still have better picture quality I believe (but LCD's are getting better) and they don't have that short lifespan problem anymore.

[Raban]

So would you rather buy a 40-42" Bravia from Sony than this 47" LG (for exact SAME price)?

For the same price I'd roll with the Bravia. However, I'm not fond of physically large televisions.

[Beezy]

We don't really need a 47" one, 42" should be enough. But from what I talked to with EVERYBODY who has an HD TV set they say the same thing: "too small, would have bought a bigger one now".

I got a 42" and I say the same thing. Especially since 50" HDTVs now cost the same amount that I paid for my TV.

[bork]

Forget hooking up your PS2 to that thing, Borys.  It will look like shit.  Keep it hooked up to an SDTV.

[Herr Mafflard]

post the specs of the 50" plasma you're interested in you whore.

[Raban]

Hmmm... decisions decisison.

We don't really need a 47" one, 42" should be enough. But from what I talked to with EVERYBODY who has an HD TV set they say the same thing: "too small, would have bought a bigger one now".

We have 3.5m distance from couch to TV. 42" won't cut it I'm afraid :'(

at that distance, go with 47". I sit like a foot away from my gaming monitor.

[Bildi]

I'm 3.5 metres from my TV.  I had a 42" Samsung plasma and it was good size-wise - that's the smallest I would go at that distance.  I then gave the 42" to mum and bought a 50" Pioneer and really like it from that distance.  I've had it for about a year and a half and never wished I would have gone bigger.

For LCDs Sony and Samsung are the leaders at the moment, and for plasmas Panasonic and Samsung.  Sony and Samsung use the same LCD panels, but different circuitry, so they are pretty close to each other.

TV specs are sometimes totally useless, and published contrast ratios are definitely utterly useless as there is no standardisation of measurement - one TV can be 1,500,000:1 and another can be 2000:1 and they will be identical.  Some review sites provide real contrast ratios.

Most videophiles will agree that of more importance is the black levels that the TVs can achieve (which does affect contrast ratio of course).  Plasmas have historically been ahead but LCDs have closed the gap a fair bit.  LCDs still have off-axis problems so the further you get from central viewing, the more washed out blacks will get.  There are a lot of additional things that are important as well though.

If I were forced to buy a TV now I would go a plasma, and probably lean towards a Samsung even though Panasonic are often championed as "the best".

If you are willing to wait there are new Panasonics which should finally achieve a picture that can compete with the old Pioneer Kuros.  If it were me, that's definitely what I'd do.  Not sure when these new TVs come out, it could be a year or so but it might only be a few months.

It is a good idea to get to a store where they have lots of TVs on display.  Bear in mind their settings will be awful so it's pretty much impossible to compare colour and sharpness, but it should give you an idea about whether you prefer LCD or plasma pictures at least (if they allow you to tweak settings, generally put them in a "Movie" mode, adjust sharpness to zero, turn colour down, turn contrast down, and turn brightness down until you reach the point where absolute blacks stop decreasing in brightness).  And since there is so much to what makes a decent TV, if you feel like reading reviews this site is the best I've found: www.hdtvtest.co.uk.  Processing lag is also important for gaming and they talk about that in most of their reviews, especially if it's especially terrible.  I drag consoles into the store to test when buying TVs.

[brawndolicious]

I drag consoles into the store to test when buying TVs.

I actually got a LCD and a plasma, put them in the same room, and tested them with Assassin's Creed.  I went with the plasma (price/size were basically the same).

edit: AC numba DOS.  the lcd looked slightly washed out but this was a side-by-side comparison and might not be noticeable in real life.

[Joe Molotov]

Forget hooking up your PS2 to that thing, Borys.  It will look like shit.  Keep it hooked up to an SDTV.

Enter the Matrix in 1080i, bitches!

[ch1nchilla]

Bravia Sony Sony Sony OR Samsung Panasonic

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Man up and buy a Pioneer Elite, dude.

[close]

[demi]

Why do you care? You still play PS2 games. It wont matter for shit what you get.

[ch1nchilla]

Nice write up Bildi, thanks.

The review for this TV said it has really crap darks (washed out) and viewing angles so yeah, pass. I will have to get Bravia now I think.

Is "ghosting" more visible on plasmas or LCDs? And do plasmas draw more power?

I don't think ghosting is a problem with newer TVs. Wouldn't the best solution be going to the store and looking at the picture quality, seeing if it ghosts, etc.?

If you're going Bravia ghosting will not be a problem.

[Smooth Groove]

What do you intend to use this TV for and what's your budget?  

I've owned plasmas and LCDs and I generally prefer the picture quality of plasmas.  I watch a lot of films and they simply look more "cinematic" on plasmas.  However, plasmas are also more sensitive to environmental light.  If you can't control the light in the viewing room, you might be better off with a LCD.  

Also, if you intend to game often on the display or use it as a PC monitor, you should probably pick a LCD.  Even though plasmas have gotten much better at dealing with image retention and burn-in, they still suffer a little.  No plasma is completely safe from this issue despite what some plasma supporters might say.  It's simply a limitation of the technology.  Even the high end plasmas will have some burn-in if you watch 4:3 too much on it or play a game with a constant UI.  With a LCD, you won't ever have to worry about burn-in.  

If you decide to go with LCD, try to get one with LED backlights.  The LED models have much better contrast and higher color accuracy.  

[Smooth Groove]

I forgot to mention that you should also consider DLP TVs if size is more important to you than picture quality.  The best DLPs look about 80% as the best LCDs but they're much cheaper.  A local store was recently selling a 65 incher for less than $1000. 

[Beezy]

ghosting is a LCD problem

[Bildi]

Ghosting was a big issue with LCDs - I think it has been virtually eliminated now by higher refresh rates (eg 200hz), but best to check the particular TV.  If you see a plasma advertising a higher refresh rate it's largely marketing so they don't look inferior to LCDs - they didn't have the ghosting problem to begin with and don't benefit like LCDs from the higher refresh rate.

Some plasmas can suffer from colour flashes eg Be aware they look much worse in the vids than reality, I think it's the process of filming the screen that makes it worse.  Compared to LCD ghosting which most people can see, only a small number of people are susceptible to the plasma colour flashes hence it's seldom mentioned.  If in doubt, go to a store and look at the screens and reviews should also mention any major ghosting or colour flashes.

Power draw depends on the particular model, although historically plasmas have drawn more power and that is still generally the case even if it's closer.  LCDs draw their rated power constantly whereas plasma power draw varies with the brightness of what is on screen so proper power consumption tests have to be done while viewing consistent source material eg: http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/

I agree with Smooth, image retention and burn-in is a reality of plasma technology even though it has been greatly diminished.  If you use it as a PC monitor I would never use a plasma because it will almost certainly suffer burn-in (the gas in each pixel ages over the life of the plasma (say 60,000 to 100,000 hours until the pixels reach half-brightness) and if one pixel displays white all the time the pixel will age and go darker quicker than a pixel displaying black).  So if you watch 4:3 constantly, you would end up with bands.

If you do a bit of everything (say 1/3 gaming, 1/3 movies, 1/3 fullscreen) it won't be a problem.  Otherwise go LCD no question.

Also, you may like to get an extended warranty.  I never used to get warranties on anything but quality has dropped extraordinarily on all electronics in the last 10 or 15 years.  My personal experience is that LCD and plasma TVs break down pretty often, and reading on forums for a while those people "in the know" state that quality is pretty rubbish as evidenced by how much TV you get for your money nowadays.

[Bildi]

Gee whiz.