Plasma or LCD?

[ZenGum]

I will soon buy a TV, but I don't know what kind to get.
I will probably get something in the 32 -37 - 42 inch range for about $1000-1500. In this price range there are both plasma screens and Full HD LCD screens.

I've heard that plasmas give better pictures but can have problems with screen burn and other reliability issues.

So, any advice/suggestions/anecdotes/snide remarks?

[HungLikeJesus]

I think plasma screens use a lot more electricity and have a shorter life. This is all rumor and speculation, but that's what the internet is for.

[Elspode]

I prefer plasma, personally. I find them to have more satisfying color saturation and black levels. YMMV.

[glatt]

Before shelling out a lot of money for a full resolution (1080P) TV, take a look at the charts that show what resolution the human eye is physically capable of seeing at different screen sizes and viewing distances. And think about how you are likely going to be using this TV.

I was all gung-ho about getting a 1080P TV until I saw such a chart. I'm now the happy owner of a 32" 720P TV that I view from across the room. It's lower resolution, but I can't tell the difference from my couch, and neither would you.

(Basically the charts will tell you that for a 32" screen it's only at the 4-6 foot range that you can tell the difference between a 1080P and a 720P resolution screen. If you sit further away than that, you can't see the difference.)

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I was all gung-ho about getting a 1080P TV until I saw such a chart.

Since nothing in broadcast in highest resolution, then how would you know? Highest resolution is only displayed by DVDs.

Meanwhile, many HD broadcasters are only broadcasting a conventional low resolution screen in higher definition. We buy TVs today for the resolutions that will be future available. When those better resolutions are broadcast, then the clarity will be obvious.

Currently, most have a widescreen TV that really has no better resolution. But it is a wide screen - therefore it must be better - their reasoning. All that wide screen does in most situations is make faces fatter.

[Undertoad]

DVDs are standard def. Only 1080p content is Blu-ray -- and downloads.

We enjoy many HD channels in this household. Widescreen is better. It offers movies in their original aspect ratio and all HD content in correct aspect ratio. Things are increasingly framed for 16x9 and standard def 3x2 displays will cut off content on the sides.

[SquidGirl]

We did LCD when I was originally all about plasma. The plasma attraction is hanging it on the wall, although they are quite heavy and they do have less of a life. Plasma screens hung on the wall need major reinforcement which may result in additional work on the house, too (my parents are going to put beams held/reinforced with cement before hanging their 47-inch - and because of the lack of reinforced walls in my house, I didn't get a plasma to risk hanging). The burn-in occurs only if you are sitting on a still image for a long period of time, or if you have flashing images for a long period of time (i.e. DVD screen savers). It's relatively inexpensive to replace the LCD lamp, much less expensive for the screen-size in comparison to the Plasma. We went with a 50' Sony Bravia LCD in the end because of cost, weight, and burn in but I do agree with Elspode...I think the plasma is a bit more crisp...but I love our TV (eh, it might be a bit too big, I admit).

I bought my BF a PS3 for his Bday last year so we often enjoy watching Blu-Ray DVDs and damn - the picture quality is amazing!! So, if you buy a HD capable TV, I really recommend getting a Blu-Ray player to go with it!

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by tw

Since nothing in broadcast in highest resolution, then how would you know? Highest resolution is only displayed by DVDs.

Meanwhile, many HD broadcasters are only broadcasting a conventional low resolution screen in higher definition. We buy TVs today for the resolutions that will be future available. When those better resolutions are broadcast, then the clarity will be obvious.

Currently, most have a widescreen TV that really has no better resolution. But it is a wide screen - therefore it must be better - their reasoning. All that wide screen does in most situations is make faces fatter.

There is a distinct difference in quality of a native HD broadcast and a DVD, even on a 720p set like mine...with the HD broadcast content being far superior, I suppose I should add.

[wolfd]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I've heard that plasmas give better pictures but can have problems with screen burn and other reliability issues.

So, any advice/suggestions/anecdotes/snide remarks?

While this may have been the case at one time there have been significant technological improvements for both plasma and lcd. The newer plasmas boast up to 100,000 hours to half life. Even the 60,000 hrs rated plasma will outlast many of its owners.

Plasma TV life span expectancy has long been a hot topic and rightly so. Most early plasma monitor models from 1999 and early 2000 have already been delivered to the electronics graveyard. Manufacturers were doing well to deliver a plasma product that fired up. An early adaptor could purchase a plasma TV that was 6" in depth, was hot enough to fry an egg on, and had fans that sounded like it was going to take off and fly through the roof - all for a modest $10,000.

However, improvements in the longevity of plasma TVs and displays have been rapidly effective. The green phosphors are claimed by some manufacturers as the reason behind the incredible increase. Lower power usage and motion adaptive anti burn-in technology are also contributors.

In fact, many plasma manufacturers boast a life span of 60,000 hours to half life! This is a longer life than a tube based television. The specification is somewhat suspect since the process of determining longevity of the product is based on deductive mathematical calculation of phosphor dissipation, and does not take into account the electronic components and the myriad of problems that can occur. Panasonic was the first to claim the 60,000 hour life span, up from a previous 30,000 just a year prior.

Within months after Panasonic announced this new life span, other manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon announcing that their plasma television is now rated to 60,000.

So how long will a plasma last? The long and short of it is that it depends upon your daily hourly usage as well as how you use the monitor. 12 to 55 years is my new short answer.

more here:

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...-lifespan.html

[Aliantha]

We have a 106cm LCD. We're really happy with it. Have had it for a couple of years now and have had not one complaint with it.

We got LCD because with the kids playing games, we didn't want plasma because of the screen burn, which can be fixed, but it's expensive.

Things probably have changed as people above have mentioned, but I'd probably still stick with LCD in the future.

ETA: It's a panasonic. I've always found panasonic to be pretty good as far as TV's go.

[lookout123]

I watch my programs on a 19" b&w. I feel that is the prudent thing to do so I can redistribute my unneeded wealth to the less fortunate. Obama said I should.

[Aliantha]

You're so thoughtful lookout...and obedient too.

[Bruce 9012]

you can have my pc.....vista

[Cicero]

I'll take it.

[Bruce 9012]

22"hd lcd hp..p I cant look away please stop me..