Support NeoGAF

[Freshmaker]

When I can't see where the black bars end and the bezel begins, a couple of days of break in, which really is a drop in the bucket of the lifetime of the TV, is more than worth it. What difference does it make that you had the TV a week longer?

Honestly I'm just not enough of a video nut to care. I have a 1080p Westinghouse LCD for cripe's sake. (Which works great. Especially since I don't have any phosphor flicker which really does annoy me.) If I don't notice motion and resolution issues, they might as well not exist, and the blacks are black enough as it is.

 

[Why For?]

I personally prefer LCD for anything HD. Considering LCD was BUILT for HD and plasma wasn't.

But Plasma is the preferrence when SD is involved.

I'm buying a 42: Panasonic Plasma for my gamign room since it's going to have a PSWii60 AND a Dreamcast running on it.

 

[JayDub]

I personally prefer LCD for anything HD. Considering LCD was BUILT for HD and plasma wasn't.

But Plasma is the preferrence when SD is involved.

I'm buying a 42: Panasonic Plasma for my gamign room since it's going to have a PSWii60 AND a Dreamcast running on it.

So, what say you? Plasmas are good for SD? Does it replicate a wii on SDTV good enough?

 

[rollingstart]

Can't someone just invent better flat screen tech so both Plasma and LCD nerds can shut up?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Honestly I'm just not enough of a video nut to care. I have a 1080p Westinghouse LCD for cripe's sake. (Which works great. Especially since I don't have any phosphor flicker which really does annoy me.) If I don't notice motion and resolution issues, they might as well not exist, and the blacks are black enough as it is.

Well, ignorance is bliss and I really do mean that. When you know too much about something, or heck know where there is a dead pixel, that stuff can be annoying. Plus people care at different levels.

See to me, when I'm watching movies in the dark, and the aspect ratio isn't 16:9, the black bars that illuminate on my older HDTV are a bit annoying cuz they stand out. Where as on my Kuro, you seriously can't tell in complete darkness where the screen ends and the bezel begins most of the time. That to me is a sign of how deep the blacks are where it's hard to tell they're there unless it's a really dark scene.

 

[Why For?]

So, what say you? Plasmas are good for SD? Does it replicate a wii on SDTV good enough?

Wii on Plasma < Wii on CRT (I currently have my Wii on a Sony WEGA Widescreen CRT (non HD))

But Wii on Plasma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wii on LCD (not sure about LED though)

 

[Magnus]

Most relevant thread to ask in I guess:

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodd...85&catid=24558&logon=&langid=EN&test_cookie=1

What's wrong with this television? Sony 46" 1080p LCD at only $999 CDN. Seems too good to be true?

Or better off with Samsung or Panasonic plasmas of similar size and identical price?

 

[Chrono]

I was thinking again about this quote:

Regarding motion blur, I CAN say that this is NOT a problem for modern LCDs when viewing television or film. For this reason, I doubt very much that the press will even notice these issues. They've essentially reached the point of "good enough"...

How could this be? Unless by televison or films you mean sitcoms or slow shows/movies with rarely any fast sequence, there isn't really much of a difference with games. For games are you only talking about FPS? Or 60 fps games (I have no idea if that would worsen blur or not)? That post really made me think about just upgrading my LCD with another better one.

Dammit I only have two options here (Panny 720 Plasma, Sony 32" 1080p LCD) and it's only getting harder deciding. Watching 1080p blu-rays on the Sony sounds really good.

The biggest problem with 1024x768 resolution is that it is a major pain in the ass to get it to work properly with PCs. 42" 1080P Panasonic plasmas are selling for $700 or less, so it isn't worth it to save a few $ with the 42" 720p set. For the same $700, you can get a 50" 1366x768 Panasonic plasma which is a much better resolution for PCs.

50" is way too big. 42 is already more than I want. =\

The reason I'm asking about that resolution though is because the particular Panny I'm looking at is really cheap. It's very tempting.

Edit: about 600Hz on plasmas...

http://www.cnet.com.au/videos/pleas...rceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=600Hz+Sub-field+Drive

Blah, it's just how plasmas work and not a new feature - just marketing. :lol

I thought it was something you turn on/off like 120Hz.

 

[Applesauce]

Dammit I only have two options here (Panny 720 Plasma, Sony 32" 1080p LCD) and it's only getting harder deciding. Watching 1080p blu-rays on the Sony sounds really good.



50" is way too big. 42 is already more than I want. =\

Then you should go for the 32". I wouldn't buy a TV that was too big just because of the price. Sony makes good displays, so either way you are getting quality.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Phospher lag and image retention are the two things about Plasma that I still take issue with. That said, it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be years ago, but unless you go high-end, it's still something to consider.

In the end, plasma has a much more natural image, compared to the 'processed' PQ that LCDs have. LCDs are bright as fuck though. I like that.

yeah, a good tv should have accurate picture and colors, most top plasmas are closest to that standard. But it seems that a lot of people are into the high contrast, crushed whites and blacks, and lots of edge enhancement and excessive sharpness. I used to be one of those, but once I saw my friend's Kuro Elite, I realized just how "off" my LCD looked and i fell out of love with it. A kuro plasma was like looking at a beautiful painting, while my LCD looked liked a CG or videogame.

 

[NekoFever]

I never was aware it was behind Plasmas. I've always preferred LCD over Plasma hands down.

Wait... so you've apparently never compared the two but you prefer LCD hands down?

In any case, I've had my Panasonic plasma for pushing two years now, and I wouldn't go back to LCD. It's just got a beautiful picture, and it wipes the floor with my housemate's Sony LCD, which is two inches smaller (42 vs 40) and cost a few hundred more.

My friend who originally turned me on to plasmas when I was looking for a new TV has the 50" Pioneer and it has a staggeringly good picture. If I had the money to spend on a TV that he does I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat. Just flawless.

I'm hoping that it can last me until OLED TVs in a similar size range are affordable so I can see how that holds up, but if I need another one for any other reason it's going to be plasma every time.

yeah, a good tv should have accurate picture and colors, most top plasmas are closest to that standard. But it seems that a lot of people are into the high contrast, crushed whites and blacks, and lots of edge enhancement and excessive sharpness.

Seriously. I actually calibrated one of the TVs at work with the DVE Blu-ray and it looked passable, and within a couple of days it had the sharpness and contrast turned way up again. It looked soft, apparently D:

 

[Chrono]

Then you should go for the 32". I wouldn't buy a TV that was too big just because of the price. Sony makes good displays, so either way you are getting quality.

I can push back my sofa and make 42" work, and maybe even 50" but I just don't want a TV that big.

So it seems now the difference in motion isn't as big as I thought (I really hope that means the LCD I have now is really crappy because I want a big improvement in motion), have non-LED LCDs made significant improvements in contrast ratio too? Plasma is still king here, but maybe the gap has narrowed.

Edit: I remember early in the LED days an argument against them was that they can offer deep blacks, because the LEDs can just be turned off, but not the same degrees of detail and graduation as a plasma. So a scene with shadows for example would still have the plasma as a winner and LCDs still won't close the gap in black levels.

The reviews for the top LCDs now though don't say things like it has great black levels but still not plasma level or so. As I posted in the OP I thought cnet possibly sucked because they didn't recognize that LCDs still haven't overcome their motion problems but that extreme tech link showed that they have. Maybe everybody's stuck in old arguments and the differences in plasma and LCD these days aren't that big...

 

[JB1981]

No. But I'm sure you'll see it anyway.

Man, you make a lot of good points about AV enthusiasts clinging to old tech, but LCD screens (particularly the larger variety) do have serious issues handling motion. Last year I owned a 52" Sony XBR6 for a few weeks and traded it in for a plasma. The motion handling on the plasma was night and day. LCD tech is great for still imagery, it produces eye-poppingly sharp images but a lot of that resolution gets thrown away when things start to move. Chrono - don't get fooled into thinking that automotion or cinemotionplus makes anything better because all it does it make material look like it's being played back at 2x speed or something. It's terribly unnatural looking ... it's like watching all film content at 60fps .. fucking weird. It might be good for 3D or something but it's not good for regular 2D movie viewing. Now plasma does have image retention and phosphor trails (which could be worse than LCD blur depending on how badly it affects you) so there are things to consider there as well.

Overall, though, plasma has less deficiencies than LCD IMO so it gets the nod as the better technology available today

 

[bionic77]

To me almost everything in HD looks great on a set that can handle it, whether it be LCD or Plasma. And the bigger the screen the better. SD and low res shit is where you tell the difference between a good LCD set and a cheap one, and generally plasma handles it MUCH better.

My sister got me a cheap ass LG LCD a few years ago and I use it in the bedroom and HD looks great on it, but anything less than HD looks like total shit. Last year I upgrade my 9 year old 46" Sony HD projection set to a brand spanking new 52" Samsung 7 series LCD and everything I throw at it looks amazingly good. I personally went with LCD because the projection had some burn in on some weird channel my dad left on for several hours straight (the jackasss left their logo in the corner the whole time, even during commercials), so even though burn in is supposedly almost impossible I didn't want to take a chance. Plus the room is pretty bright and I felt a good LCD was the better choice.

 

[Sapiens]

Called Samsung about a backlight bleed/clouding issues on my <1yo 40" 5 series 1080p set and they're sending someone out tomorrow.

Hopefully, it's a firmware fix.

 

[suffah]

LCD tech is pretty good now, but c'mon, Kuro's are regarded the way they are for a reason.

I almost grabbed a G10 earlier this year but I asked myself a simple question:

Would I think somewhere down the line, "Man, I wonder how this image compares to a Kuro?"


I went with a Kuro and it was the right choice.

 

[Naked Snake]

I've wished to own a Kuro for years but unfortunately they were not sold anywhere in this country, so I settled for a Panasonic plasma and I'm very happy with it. No image retention, vastly superior viewing angle and I much prefer the picture quality over LCD.

 

[Raistlin]

I was just taking a look at this cnet review and found this interesting:



OK, that pretty much means that LCD has better black levels than all plasmas, including well-reviewed ones, except Kuros. I guess that also includes non-Kuro Pioneers which were also highly praised.

The problem is you're assuming black level is the only advantage Plasma has over LCD. Also, you are discounting the problems the set in question has with its black level. While halos are reduced over previous local-dimming LED-lit models, it still is an artifact that doesn't exist on Plasma.

This.

Though I haven't followed the plasma/lcd debate lately, that statement holds true.

I wouldn't go that far. Their metrics are generally accurate. One could argue with the weighting though.

I never was aware it was behind Plasmas. I've always preferred LCD over Plasma hands down.

I'm sorry to hear that.

It's irrelevant. Annoying AV fans don't like it when technology becomes available to the masses. So if LCDs shoot past Plasmas, they'll find some obscure subjective reason why some shitty old tech is better at this one vital thing, and cling to it so they can cling to their smug sense of superiority.

See also: CRT.

Considering Plasma is cheaper and measurably better than LCD in many respects ... this may be the dumbest post of the thread so far. Admittedly, I've only gone through a few posts.

 

[Everdred]

I recently purchased a 46" Panasonic G10 plasma after deliberating what to get for the month beforehand.

After so much research, so many discussions, it came down to the fact that expensive LCDs are still only trying to replicated what Plasmas already do.


The G10 is cheaper, looks better, has a better viewing angle, and refreshes faster than any Samsung LED-backlit LCD will do. That's why I went with it. The extra power usage isn't significant enough to make up for the price difference IMO.

THIS GUY!

I have the 54" G10 and it is amazing. Only paid $1550 on Amazon.

 

[Raistlin]

No. But I'm sure you'll see it anyway.

lol

So for those of us who aren't videophiles, but normal people, which type would be best as a general use tv in a living room/den area?

Would be used for tv, movies, and games

If you have decent light control, Plasma. If not, LCD.

If it's a cheap piece of shit sure. Good quality LCD and you won't notice.

Price / 'quality' has nothing to do with it at this point.

That has nothing to do with motion blur :lol

Actually, yes it does ... at least for what they use it for.

People are saying image retention is no longer a problem, but I don't know about phosphor lag, I hope it's been improved at least.

Image retention still exists (though it matters the model, and in general is nowhere near what it used to be). Image burn-in is what is gone on the majority of modern PDP's.

 

[Raistlin]

Does anything come close to my 9G Kuro?
No.

So no LCDs have not caught up.

Matters what parameter you are talking about

Because there isn't any.

simple maths really. T=20ms is f=50Hz. So anything less than 50Hz on screen CANNOT physically result in ghosting. The only possiblity is if you have a source that will give you higher refresh rate than 50 Hz, which there is virtually none in HD TV/HD games on console, and some more on PC, and then you're limited by the 60Hz(sometimes 75Hz) input buffer on the LCD. So on the PC side, there isn't any blurring if all of the pixels can change from any to any level faster than 16.6ms. Most 2ms computer monitors have a response characteristic below 16ms, some even under 11ms. Heck, even turbochared PVA 6ms is well below 16 for 95% of transitions.

The blurring people witness is no longer related to response time ... this is true ...

... however, our perception of blurring due to LCD's sample-and-hold display mechanism still exists, and was always the main issue.

LCDs don't have motion blur, it's possible it's present on some really low-end cheap sets and definitely really old sets but I've never seen it. I own three LCD HDTVs personally and have many friends who own LCD TVs as well and have never seen motion blur on any of them - one of my friend even has a cheap dynex TV from Best Buy and it doesn't display any problems like that.

sample-and-hold, look it up.

 

[elohel]

is the S1 better than the G10?

 

[Raistlin]

Plasma isn't exactly perfect either in this regard as there is also detail loss present, but I feel it is still faster than the fastest LCD.

True, though the current Panasonics are claimed to have 1080 temporal resolution. The Kuro's, while still argued to be the best overall display can't make that claim.

The most insulting thing are those piece of shit PC monitors that claim things like 2ms response time (a load of shit).

Actually, it's not a load of shit. There is a difference between response-time artifacts and the artifacts our brain perceives from sample-and-hold displays.

I think the problem now is that we've reached a time when R&D money is slim and consumers are not interested in spending big bucks on TVs. Most of these companies are focusing on slim panels with a small energy footprint and pricetag. Nobody cares about picture quality at this point. When most consumers don't notice the flaws, why even bother? Pioneer aimed to please the high-end crowd and look where it got them.

We've had this argument before. While I'm sure R&D pots may be a bit lower right now, it is factually incorrect to state the CE's are not improving picture quality based on what we know is coming next year.

Unless a company takes a big hit and actually scraps current projects mid-stream, R&D is actually a lagging indicator. The stuff being finished up now was started, in many cases, well before the recession. I can see an argument that future R&D projects may be harmed given the current economy, but that doesn't mean we won't see IQ gains in the coming model years. This is also before considering unreleased techs that are still coming (OLED, and contrary to popular belief ... SED is not necessarily dead).

LCDs have seen the most strides as of late, I suppose, but they seem to be hitting the limits of the technology.

Actually, they're just starting to hit their prime. With UV2A coming, and a trickle down of 240Hz (with better and better algorithms for de-juddering and lowered hold times) and improving local dimming (and alternatives), there is a TON of room for growth.

 

[Zhengi]

I just bought a Panasonic plasma TV from Amazon last night. It's scheduled to come on Monday. I can't wait.

As to the OP, I think plasmas are still better than LCD, but LED gives LCDs a competitive edge, although they're not quite there yet with plasmas. There's also the price point to consider. LED TVs are super expensive. If I'm going to blow that kind of cash, I would just go with a Kuro.

 

[Raistlin]

Regarding motion blur, an Extreme Tech article from just last week tackled the issue: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2356393,00.asp

lol ... what the hell.

I can switch modes on my TV (and have done blind testing) and can see the difference like night and day.


Granted, temporal resolution is a person-to-person thing (just look at the number of people that don't notice frame drops in games) ... but holy shit it's obvious as hell in my testing.

I heard Plasmas had the best scalers. I'm considering getting a new HDTV with a good scaler so that I could keep all my consoles on 1 TV. Right now, my Wii is on an my tube SDTV because it looks MUCH better, not as fuzzy or jaggirific.

Basically, my question is, which HDTV has the best scaler or shows SD content as accurately as an SDTV?

You have to take it on a model-by-model basis. The theory (plasma having better scalers) was true in the past ... but not necessarily now. The problem is that people were not comparing apples to apples. They were comparing plasma (which at the time where expensive, high-margin items) to lower-end, smaller LCD's. Back then, scalers where expensive (at least the good ones), and obviously weren't making it in to low-end LCD's.

In this day and age, the margins difference isn't huge between LCD and Plasma ... and commodity-priced scaling of good quality is readily available.

My panasonic plasma has the 600hz sub-whatever and it looks nothing like the 120hz crap on LCDs. It doesn't give things that hideous soap opera look.

The two Hz measurements are comparing unrelated things. As far as the 'hideous soap opera look', that is not a universal issue with de-judder algorithms. It matters the algorithm, and the settings (most are configurable).

Since RPTV is gone, Plasmas display SD content the best of the large screens out there.

That is not a universal truth.

Would you say it displays SD content 100% accurately? If it was on a percentage scale, what would you give it?

Nothing can display SD content '100% accurately', except an SD display. None of the resolutions HD TV's are offered in are an integer multiplier of SD resolution. Therefore data must be extrapolated. And even if they were, few would want the TV to simply multiply the pixels.

They are advertising it dishonestly, which is not the same thing as advertising it incorrectly.

And 120Hz does reduce "blur", in a way... but not display response time blur. It reduces the image manipulation artifacts that develop as either your TV or your Blu-Ray player's image processing algorithms manhandle a 24Hz source.

It's much more complicated than that.

 

[Raistlin]

I personally prefer LCD for anything HD. Considering LCD was BUILT for HD and plasma wasn't.

Okay, I was wrong earlier.

No offense, but this is the dumbest post of the thread

Can't someone just invent better flat screen tech so both Plasma and LCD nerds can shut up?

Well, SED got fucked to near death from lawsuits. It may yet rise from the ashes, but who knows if and when it will happen. There are some similar techs (FED, etc) being worked on that had similar potential ... but SED was/is further along.

 

[Unknown One]

Is anyone else's LCD degrading.

I bought a Samsung earlier this year and the clouding effect is starting to spread. Is this normal?

The one I got has clouding definitely it use to have awful image retention until I changed the settings.

 

[George Claw M.D.]

Well, ignorance is bliss and I really do mean that. When you know too much about something, or heck know where there is a dead pixel, that stuff can be annoying. Plus people care at different levels.

See to me, when I'm watching movies in the dark, and the aspect ratio isn't 16:9, the black bars that illuminate on my older HDTV are a bit annoying cuz they stand out. Where as on my Kuro, you seriously can't tell in complete darkness where the screen ends and the bezel begins most of the time. That to me is a sign of how deep the blacks are where it's hard to tell they're there unless it's a really dark scene.

This is exactly what I experienced when I first watched a movie on the Pioneer KRP-500M that I bought a few weeks ago. I was watching I, Robot, which has a greater aspect ratio than the monitor's 1.78. It tripped me out, and I had to turn on the lights to see if my display was really that narrow, vertically, even though I knew it wasn't. I didn't realize that the movie was letterboxed. I couldn't differentiate the black bars from the bezel.

You're also right about ignorance being bliss. High quality HD material on my set has an almost 3-dimensional look to it. It's so life-like, and unlike anything I've ever seen on any other HDTV. I don't ever want to settle for anything less, now. Before getting this monitor, all the praise that I read, sounded like hyperbole. But I've learned that the praise is well-deserved.

 

[TheHeretic]

Thread Summary:

>42" Value Concious: Panasonic Plasma's

>42" Best TV's around: Pioneer Plasma's

<42" LCD, or save up enough to get a decent sized TV and get a Plasma anyway

I have a 58" Panasonic high end Plasma for 2009 and my only encounter with burn in was in the first 20 hours playing on my 360, which went away after 20 minutes of TV or so. Since then I haven't encountered any problems and the image quality is phenomenal.

 

[surrogate]

I can push back my sofa and make 42" work, and maybe even 50" but I just don't want a TV that big.

How small is the room you're putting the TV in? I sit about 8.5 feet away from my 42" and while it seemed big at first, over time I have realized that a 50" or 54" would be more appropriate. I have a 32" LCD that I use mainly for a PC monitor and watch movies/TV when I don't feel like sitting downstairs, but I sit less than 3 feet away.

 

[MWS Natural]

This is exactly what I experienced when I first watched a movie on the Pioneer KRP-500M that I bought a few weeks ago. I was watching I, Robot, which has a greater aspect ratio than the monitor's 1.78. It tripped me out, and I had to turn on the lights to see if my display was really that narrow, vertically, even though I knew it wasn't. I didn't realize that the movie was letterboxed. I couldn't differentiate the black bars from the bezel.

You're also right about ignorance being bliss. High quality HD material on my set has an almost 3-dimensional look to it. It's so life-like, and unlike anything I've ever seen on any other HDTV. I don't ever want to settle for anything less, now. Before getting this monitor, all the praise that I read, sounded like hyperbole. But I've learned that the praise is well-deserved.

Honestly, even though I love my Kuro's motion resolution, deep blacks and accurate colors the thing that amazed me most was that I couldn't see where the movie ended and the bezel began :lol There really is nothing like it that I have seen so far; quality biased lighting makes the effect even better.

 

[pj]

The two Hz measurements are comparing unrelated things. As far as the 'hideous soap opera look', that is not a universal issue with de-judder algorithms. It matters the algorithm, and the settings (most are configurable).

I have yet to see an lcd with dejudder that did not make everything look like a soap opera. Obviously the settings matter, the typical settings are:

"Make my picture:
How it should look
A bit like a soap opera
Somewhat like a soap opera
Exactly like a soap opera
Demonstrate how this shit makes my picture look like a soap opera"

Even my stepsister, who is about the most tech-illiterate person in the world, said the dejudder on a recent mid range samsung made everything look like "old bbc shows".

 

[Raistlin]

I have yet to see an lcd with dejudder that did not make everything look like a soap opera. Obviously the settings matter, the typical settings are:

"Make my picture:
How it should look
A bit like a soap opera
Somewhat like a soap opera
Exactly like a soap opera
Demonstrate how this shit makes my picture look like a soap opera"

Even my stepsister, who is about the most tech-illiterate person in the world, said the dejudder on a recent mid range samsung made everything look like "old bbc shows".

:lol

I haven't really looked much into the Samsung's, but that isn't the case with the Sony's I've tested (and the one I own). The low setting doesn't cause the soap opera look ... though being a 1st gen MotionFlow product (60A3000 SXRD), it has more artifacts than I'd like :\

The Panasonic front projector I'm considering also seems to have a nice setting that doesn't introduce obvious motion goofiness, though I haven't had nearly enough time to test it (PT-AE4000U). Just gave it a quick look a few weeks back. I'll have to do a lot more testing before I give it my 'blessing'


Obviously though, it matters the implementation. Some have artifacts, some cause the soap-opera look to varying degrees, etc.

 

[dLMN8R]

THIS GUY!

I have the 54" G10 and it is amazing. Only paid $1550 on Amazon.

Look at the Amazon page for the 46" ASAP: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001UAB40E/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Going for $1024. Being sold by the 3rd-party "Home Theater Store" distributor, which has amazingly high ratings. It also says "only 2 left in stock".

It was crazy - I saw the exact same thing Saturday night - being sold through Home Theater Store for $999, and only 2 left in stock. So that's when I ordered it, and not 10 minutes later, it was back to selling straight from Amazon instead of Home Theater Store, and for $1150 instead.

Weid how that works!

 

[dark10x]

Not really adverse myself, but I don't really like 'em just because I hate the flicker. (CRT's had the same problem and it's always bugged me.)

Also any tech that has wierd setup rules tends to annoy me. Store it in this position for an hour, encourage it with happy tales from your childhood, get a special DVD that displays nothing but random colors, and run that for 100 hours straight, it will operate differently at high altitudes.... It's like you're nailing some bizarre living creature to your wall.

All that for better blacks? Pfft.

I did not follow any such rules. The phosphors are pre-aged in the factory and ready to go at home. That isn't necessary at all.

Plasmas do not flicker in the same way that CRTs do. It's simply impossible to due to the difference in technology. I'm not suggesting that you can't see such an effect, but it definitely isn't the same as CRT flicker.

As Marty said, it's well worth it for good blacks. Having blacks dark enough that they blend in with the bezel is really something special. Not even my Sony CRT can pull that off with content on screen (the black level floats on a CRT due to a lower ANSI contrast ratio).

I'm this close to getting a Kuro Elite, but this exact thing is what worries me. If something goes wrong, even when still under warranty, does Pioneer's situation simply mean I'd be fucked and left with a useless object in my living room?

Do it! Even if mine were to die today, I would turn around and start hunting for another one. It's absolutely worth it. There is nothing else out there that can compare at the moment. Get one while you still can!

and the blacks are black enough as it is.

If you saw a Kuro in action (in a home environment), I don't think you'd agree. It really is a tremendous difference. You definitely do not need to be a videophile to notice. It is NOT a subtle difference.

How could this be? Unless by televison or films you mean sitcoms or slow shows/movies with rarely any fast sequence, there isn't really much of a difference with games. For games are you only talking about FPS? Or 60 fps games (I have no idea if that would worsen blur or not)? That post really made me think about just upgrading my LCD with another better one.

Dammit I only have two options here (Panny 720 Plasma, Sony 32" 1080p LCD) and it's only getting harder deciding. Watching 1080p blu-rays on the Sony sounds really good.

Get a 1080p 42" Panasonic plasma. It will be absolutely worth it.

Also, while you may think a particular size is too large, I can tell you that your opinion will change once you get it in there. Everyone always thinks this way at first (including myself). I had a 42" at one point thinking a 50" was too large, but ultimately upgraded to a 50". Now, I wish I had a 60". Basically, the screen will seem to shrink as you get used to it. 42" sounds like a good fit for your environment. Spend a bit more and get the 1080p Panny.

As for motion, well, you can still see blur on higher framerate broadcasts. I was more referring to stuff like Blu-ray movies which run at a lower framerate. With 60 fps content, the image still turns to soup.

Also, Sony TVs are pretty awful when it comes to motion. I guarantee that the TV you're looking at will blur like crazy. Only the absolute top end LCDs are able to handle motion reasonably well. Still not perfect, but a far cry from where we were.

Actually, it's not a load of shit. There is a difference between response-time artifacts and the artifacts our brain perceives from sample-and-hold displays.

I say this in that many of these PC LCDs use overdrive techniques to reach their response time numbers. On the Samsung P2370 I'm using, enabling the overdrive (which reduces blurring in motion) introduces severe banding artifacts that destroy the image. Disabling RTA solves this issues, but the image becomes very blurry in motion once again.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

It's irrelevant. Annoying TECHNOLOGY fans don't like it when technology becomes available to the masses. So if A shoot past B, they'll find some obscure subjective reason why some shitty old tech is better at this one vital thing, and cling to it so they can cling to their smug sense of superiority.

Changed for the general truth.

 

[Chrono]

Also, Sony TVs are pretty awful when it comes to motion. I guarantee that the TV you're looking at will blur like crazy. Only the absolute top end LCDs are able to handle motion reasonably well. Still not perfect, but a far cry from where we were.

Well that settles it, definitely going plasma now. I think I'll regret not paying extra for a 42" 1080p set so that's what I'll be getting now.

The Sony LCD I was looking at was not high-end it was a V-series one. It's 32" though so I thought the smaller size would help with blur, but reading what you posted on Sony sets changes that. Do the high-end sets you consider acceptable include Sony ones though? Considering how much they cost I'd be shocked if they don't at least match their competition.

 

[MWS Natural]

Well that settles it, definitely going plasma now. I think I'll regret not paying extra for a 42" 1080p set so that's what I'll be getting now.

The Sony LCD I was looking at was not high-end it was a V-series one. It's 32" though so I thought the smaller size would help with blur, but reading what you posted on Sony sets changes that. Do the high-end sets you consider acceptable include Sony ones though? Considering how much they cost I'd be shocked if they don't at least match their competition.

Good choice man. It's good you took the time to research and wade through all the mis-information out there.

 

[Naked Snake]

Get a 1080p 42" Panasonic plasma. It will be absolutely worth it.

Also, while you may think a particular size is too large, I can tell you that your opinion will change once you get it in there. Everyone always thinks this way at first (including myself). I had a 42" at one point thinking a 50" was too large, but ultimately upgraded to a 50". Now, I wish I had a 60". Basically, the screen will seem to shrink as you get used to it. 42" sounds like a good fit for your environment. Spend a bit more and get the 1080p Panny.

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Rur0ni]

Everyone goes PP.

Spoiler

Really. Panasonic Plasma.

 

[Chrono]

Everyone goes PP.

Spoiler

Really. Panasonic Plasma.

Well not this guy:

In my experience with this model the phosphor trails are so bad they create blur and smearing on fast motion far worse than a typical LCD. I completed break in and saw no improvement, so I ended up returning it. It was not as big an issue for me in video content as it was in games, which were unplayable. And I was coming from a budget LCD set, so it's not like it'd have taken much to impress me. It was that bad.

There are a lot of opinions and reviews out there. It's always a good idea to listen to GAF though. Well not always, heh, when it makes sense.

 

[captive]

I personally prefer LCD for anything HD. Considering LCD was BUILT for HD and plasma wasn't.

I popped back into this thread to see how its progressing...
holy cow how come only onix has quoted this.

 

[captive]

Get a 1080p 42" Panasonic plasma. It will be absolutely worth it.

Also, while you may think a particular size is too large, I can tell you that your opinion will change once you get it in there. Everyone always thinks this way at first (including myself). I had a 42" at one point thinking a 50" was too large, but ultimately upgraded to a 50". Now, I wish I had a 60". Basically, the screen will seem to shrink as you get used to it. 42" sounds like a good fit for your environment. Spend a bit more and get the 1080p Panny.

Absolute truth.
I think you should always buy bigger than you think you need/want as long as its in your budget.

everyone, and i do mean everyone the first time they see my 50" pioneer says its huge and im like i want a 60" now. :lol
It really does seem smaller.

 

[Jill Sandwich]

Which are the more annoying pricks, audiophiles or videophiles?

 

[SUPREME1]

I popped back into this thread to see how its progressing...
holy cow how come only onix has quoted this.

I thought it was a joke post and lulz'd at it.

 

[captive]

Which are the more annoying pricks, audiophiles or videophiles?

whats more annoying people who enjoy high fidelity video and sound or the people that call them pricks for it?

 

[pj]

Which are the more annoying pricks, audiophiles or videophiles?

audio. At least the anal shit videophiles care about can be measured.

 

[surrogate]

Well that settles it, definitely going plasma now. I think I'll regret not paying extra for a 42" 1080p set so that's what I'll be getting now.

Smart move. Sears has the TC-P42S1 for $700 and the TC-P46S1 for $900 on sale until 12/12. Even if you don't want to buy at Sears, bring their ad and get wherever you go to pricematch.

 

[dark10x]

Well not this guy:



There are a lot of opinions and reviews out there. It's always a good idea to listen to GAF though. Well not always, heh, when it makes sense.

The yellow trails can be noticed (I noticed them when I first started looking at plasma 5 years ago), but they still resolve much more detail than an LCD in motion.

I don't think the high-end Sony sets are that great for motion either, to be honest. They are better than the lower end models, but still not at the top. Samsung seems to be doing the bets right now.

 

[blu]

no.

LCD has a power consumption advantage, but that's about it. and it's not much either if your're not after 1080p. for instance, i have an wEDTV 42" plasma at home which is rated at 120W, and that's before power-saving mode (reduced brightness - still beats the crap out of my lcd monitors) .