Blackbird Rush
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
Plasma or LCD
Plasma or LCD
Looking at upgrading the tube telly to a 42" flat panel, are plasma better than LCD??
Not really sure what i'm looking at as there are so many to choose from....
Steering towards Panasonic any recommendations?
Cheers
ash
|
|
|
|
|
oily85
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
http://www.somucheasier.co.uk/ed-plasma-lcd-tv-difference.html
It basically says plasma used to be better, now the LCDs have caught up in most areas, but plasma is still better for displaying moving images, LCD
might not have quite as good colour saturation and as dark blacks as plasma, but they're generally ok.
LCD is also lighter, thinner, and generally lasts about twice as long. I think plasma TVs still have to be recharged every so often, I think about
every 5 years.
|
|
|
jake_truck
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 10:13 PM |
|
|
The recharging is an urban myth. Try watching football or motor racing on lcd, you will hate it. If you want fast moving images, it must be plasma,
response times are the same as crt. Panasonic have a new range of plasma at good prices, but if you want the absolute best then look at pioneer
plasma.
regards
john
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 10:31 PM |
|
|
I have a panasonic, its really very good and that's a pre HD.
I got a commercial unit, just the screen and a yamaha surround amp which takes multiple feeds and freeview box, DVD etc plug into this.
The panasonic screen has slots in the rear that you can plug various tuners in so I saved £££ by not duplicating stuff.
That said I did purchase when these things were very expensive, it looks like you get better for 1/4 the price these days, but it may be worth having
a look at these if you already have a tuner. Commercial are better quality
Regards Mark
|
|
|
bigfoot4616
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 10:33 PM |
|
|
cant fault my panasonic plasma. picture quality is very good
|
|
|
AdamR
|
| posted on 22/7/08 at 10:33 PM |
|
|
Plasma without a doubt.
Even the latest LCDs look rubbish when displaying standard definition/fast moving images - i.e. 90% of what most people watch.
I recently got a Panasonic 37PX80 and love it to bits. The 42" model can be had for a tad over £600 and is very well rated.
Go for it. 
|
|
|
ChrisW
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 01:31 AM |
|
|
I went the other way and chose LCD, in 42" Philips form with a 720p native panel.
My main reason was that there seemed very little between the equivalent plasma and LCD versions of the same TV, and because plasma can burn quite
easily, in the same way that CRTs can, if displaying a static image. Many say it's an urban myth that plasma can burn, but I've
experienced it first hand, and can tell you for sure that they do, and there is nothing that can be done about it. This experience is from (around) 5
years ago, however, so modern units may be better.
As I intended to use my TV to display PC output, using a DVI to HDMI adaptor, I was concerned about burning in a 'start' bar, and so went
for LCD. However, for the amount of times I've actually done it, I suspect I'll go for plasma when the desire for 1080p fights it's
way to my wallet!
Chris
|
|
|
phoenix70
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 06:04 AM |
|
|
Most modern plasma get around the burn problem by power saving when a static image is displayed for too long. The lifespan of Plasma and LCD is same
these days
The reason I went Plasma, is mainly due to the brightness. If you look at a LCD under normal home lighting, it looks a little sharp, in fact a friend
of mine bought a samsung LCD and I couldn't watch it for long, as it bgan to hurt my eyes. The LCD's look great in the shop under their
bright lights, but it's too much in the home.
I've got a panasonic 42" Plasma so I would recommend Panasonic.
[Edited on 23/7/08 by phoenix70]
|
|
|
saigonij
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 07:13 AM |
|
|
Samsung 32inch lcd.
Great tv. not too big so it over powers the room ( like my uncle in law who has a 60 inch telly ).
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 07:47 AM |
|
|
Got a 37" Panasonic arriving this morning - very excited!!
Had really great reviews and won lots of awards:
Plasma
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
paulbeyer
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 07:50 AM |
|
|
You wont go far wrong with the following...
Plasma,
1080p
Panasonic (Best make plasma by far)
I've got all the above and very happy.
Take a look at AV Forums for all the info you'll ever need.
7 out of 10 people suffer with hemorrhoids. Does that mean the other 3 enjoy them?
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 08:34 AM |
|
|
Another vote for Panasonic here.
I went for a 32" LCD and have been very pleased with it all round. I spent a lot of time looking and researching, but found the high street
shops were the absolute worse place to look at the tvs and get advice. The web is your friend 
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
I was talking to the panasonic service guy at my local dealers - he reccomended LCD, because they have had a lot of problems with thunderflys getting
under the front glass on plasmas.
Regards
Hugh
|
|
|
Rob Bartley
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
Interesting debate.
I have both. The plasma is a better, cleaner picture with more depth.........................but no matter what people say plasmas still get screen
burn! With careful monitoring it can be fine but if you have kids who love cbeebies on for hours then be very,very careful.
Other comments are generally true like watching footy or motor racing on a LCD or action films with lots of explosions as they have slight issues with
juddering.
As for manufacturers Pioneer are in my opinion the best for plasma but are pretty expensive & Panasonic coming a close 2nd.
In a perfect word you would have the best plasma for your films & sport then a decent LCD for everyday use.
Either ways, do your research & dont always get suckered in by the cheapest price.
Rob
I WILL get out again!!
I have a little bit......need more......
|
|
|
paulbeyer
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 12:04 PM |
|
|
Screen burn can be an issue on a plasma screen but if you or your kids are watching TV long enough for this to happen you deserve it.
Switch it off once in a while and get out of the house.
7 out of 10 people suffer with hemorrhoids. Does that mean the other 3 enjoy them?
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 04:43 PM |
|
|
Just connected up the new Plasma with a new upscaling DVD plater (only £45) and the picture quality is awesome with a regular DVD movie, certainly
much better than the regular DVD player, a good step on towards complete HD.
So well worth getting an upscaling DVD player if your not ready to spend £££ on a Blu-Ray player.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
bigfoot4616
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
from the research i did before getting mine there is a much greater risk of screen burn in the first 200ish hours of use. so i just made sure i was
carefull about static images for a bit.
i also read that its best to let the tv do any upscaling instead of the dvd player. apparently the tv's are much better at it
|
|
|
Blackbird Rush
|
| posted on 23/7/08 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the info chaps, all really helpfull.
Been looking on the web and in the stores and i've narrowed it down to a few.
Some of the cheeper ones (circa £700) have poorer built in sound, is there much difference between these and higher spec models (circa £1000)??
Ash.
[Edited on 23/7/08 by Blackbird Rush]
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 24/7/08 at 09:50 AM |
|
|
If you're gonna spend an extra £300 to get better sounds you are MUCH better getting a surround sound system .... SO much better than any sound
generated by a TV.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
 (WinCE).JPG)
