| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 107718 | 2010-02-27 02:48:00 | How did you choose your LCD or plasma TV? | FoxyMX (5) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 862066 | 2010-02-27 11:13:00 | It's also worth noting that full 1080p on a 32" set is pretty much indiscernible from 720p/1080i, so full HD isn't really a concern until you get into the 42"+ range. That is true to a point, however if you watch the TV from a couple of metres from the screen where you can take in the extra detail, you can definitely see a difference. I can see the difference between TVNZs HD (720p) and TV3s HD(Which is 1080) |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 862067 | 2010-02-27 19:17:00 | That is true to a point, however if you watch the TV from a couple of metres from the screen where you can take in the extra detail, you can definitely see a difference. I can see the difference between TVNZs HD (720p) and TV3s HD(Which is 1080) Just remember that TV3 is using 1080i (interlaced): due to the nature of interlacing you're only getting 540 vertical lines. ;) |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 862068 | 2010-02-27 20:03:00 | Did you narrow your choice down to a brand and then pick a size and price? Needed one, went into HN because they were still open and having a sale. I'd looked at what was cheap earlier via online. Had to be Sony or Panasonic. Samsung is supposed to be good but I have a perhaps unreasoned aversion to them for a couple of reasons. Found the cheapest they had (without resorting to cheap and nasty stuff), and it was therefore a 32" Sony, non-HD. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 862069 | 2010-02-27 20:17:00 | Carefully :) | Zippity (58) | ||
| 862070 | 2010-02-27 20:31:00 | I have had a 40" Sony Bravia LCD TV for 2 years and are very pleased with it. Mine dosen't have motion blur and don't see any need for it. I do watch alot of fast action stuff. As for colours they say Plasma produce more vibrant colours and blacker blacks, but the colours on my set are vibrant and the blacks are black. The reason I bought the Sony was that I like Sony products and the Sony 29" Trinitron CRT I had had for 10 years went flawlessly and still is going strong today. Also I got a free portable DVD player with it valued at $350. A year previous to buying my TV, the model I bought was selling for about $5000. I paid $2400. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 862071 | 2010-02-27 20:54:00 | I still haven't learnt that looking at stuff that I had no intention of buying never ends well . Now I'm in big trouble . The old 29" CRT bought for an arm and a leg back in the Ark days is really starting to annoy me with its faulty sound and bad habit of chopping off half the picture on wide-screen movies now that I've had a wee taste of these bigger beasts . :p A certain person has a birthday coming up soon . I'm sure he would just love to be surprised with a nice big 40" (or 42") LCD TV . ;) :D :D I should probably do a bit of a crash course in LCD TVs (don't need plasma) but going from what you people have said I'm not sure that is really necessary . Seems like I can't really go wrong just going and picking the one I like the look of best, providing it is one of the top brands . One thing I did think would be handy is a USB port to plug in a memory stick full of photos but only Samsung and LG appear to have them . Others have a card reader but that's not as convenient as a USB stick . The DLNA that robbyp mentions is something that I haven't heard of . How easy/difficult would it be to view photos from the PC using it? |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 862072 | 2010-02-27 21:09:00 | Another factor that no-one has mentioned so far is running cost; plasma sets cost considerably more than LCD's (side-lit LED are cheaper again) to run, and are a lot heavier too, which may be a consideration for some. I recommend plasma for people who watch a lot of sports, as they give you more bang for your buck than the 100mhz LCD's (that is changing now though). Considering the advantages with true colour and zero lag, I say pay the extra maybe $60 a year running costs for Plasma if I use it like 6hrs a day. As stated Plasma are more green but they are still up to 33% more exspenve to run but that completely depends on your screen brightness unlike LCD. One VERY important point often missed in these discussions is how well TV's up scale poor source, some manufactures do it a lot better than others, most of the material most of us watch is not blue ray 1080P its like freeview. Plasma for the Living room and LCD for bedrooms where picture quality is a little less important, some people cant see motion blur or poor black etc and are happy with LCD, others like me see it a mile away. |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 862073 | 2010-02-27 21:16:00 | I too have been passing time in the TV section of a few shops. :eek: What about the LED LCDs? Would people say the LED LCD screen produces a better quality image than the plasmas? As with all new technology, the LED LCDs are still $$, so I wasn't sure if I should just wait for them to come down in price, or get a standard LCD (or plasma) now. |
Jen (38) | ||
| 862074 | 2010-02-27 21:36:00 | The Samsung LED TV is really a LCD TV. The only difference between it and a ordinary LCD TV is that it uses LEDs to produce the back lite where the rest use florescent tubes to light the pixels you see on the screen. Consumer say quote, We found that while it provides decent picture quality, it still has some short comings that make the $3999 price tag hard to swallow. Unquote. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 862075 | 2010-02-27 21:40:00 | LED is still a from of LCD with a backlight with still largely the same disadvantages. They physically look awesome imo with the $$ tag. Picture quality definitely Plasma still have it. I should have also mentioned LCD is a lot better for consoles. | Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | |||||