Need a new television

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Feb 2008, 18:15

Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.

Well my Toshiba 47Z3030 LCD seems to handle games flawlessly. The motion just seems perfect to my eyes. So yes, you may be right.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Feb 2008, 18:29

saltysam wrote:It's all subjective imo. neither plasma or lcd are perfect but clearly the consumer has chosen LCD.

The public picked LCD because of price, plasmas still cost a bomb. IMO both are very good and do the job just fine.

saltysam wrote:Panasonic are the plasma specialist aren't they?

Yes I don't make many LCDs.

Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.

Video games are for kids

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Feb 2008, 18:54

gasteropod wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.
Well my Toshiba 47Z3030 LCD seems to handle games flawlessly. The motion just seems perfect to my eyes. So yes, you may be right.

That tv is pretty damn expensive though

Nice buy!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Feb 2008, 18:55

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.
Video games are for kids

Yeah.... I tried being mature like you, Brad... but it just wasnt any fun...

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 07 Feb 2008, 00:04

saltysam wrote:it's all subjective imo. neither plasma or lcd are perfect but clearly the consumer has chosen LCD. Panasonic are the plasma specialist aren't they?

Again, rubbish. Who says the consumer has clearly chosen LCD? I bet its pretty much even. There was an independent survey done not so long ago where a group of people were asked to watch the same stuff on different screens & rate which they thought were better for different aspects of the picture.

They didn't know at the time whether they were viewing plasmas or LCDs but the overall consensus came back that the consumer prefers the more natural image on a plasma screen. It was something like 70:30 in favour of plasma, with no bias from the testers as they weren't aware of what type of screen they were watching.

Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.

I've said it before like & I'll say it time & time again until someone actually listens. LCD screens do not cope as well with motion as plasmas do. That is a FACT.

Fast movement, reaction time, all that jazz is better on plasma. FACT.

The only area where LCDs may have a slight advantage is with image retention. They are slightly less prone to image burn-in than plasma screens are. Having said that, I've played Call of Duty 4 for 7 hours straight on my plasma & haven't had any burn in.

It is a common misconception that plasmas burn like crazy if you leave a static image on them for like, 5 minutes, whereas LCDs can't burn at all. EVERY SCREEN TECHNOLOGY EVER MADE CAN SUFFER FROM IMAGE RETENTION AND IMAGE BURN-IN.

Again, this is FACT. Yes, LCD can suffer burn issues. I've seen it with my own eyes. LCDs also feature more "stuck" pixels than plasmas, on a FAR more regular basis.

saltysam wrote:Panasonic are the plasma specialist aren't they?

Yes & no. They do have massive plasma screen plants but they also produce lots of LCDs. They don't have a bias for either really. They do screens from 26" to 37" in LCD & from 37" to 150" (3840x2160p!) in plasma. There is a crossover with the 37" models as I've stated before, & the plasma screen is far better than the LCD.

bradavon wrote:The public picked LCD because of price, plasmas still cost a bomb. IMO both are very good and do the job just fine.

I don't agree with that either. Size for size, you'll probably find plasmas are cheaper. For example, we sell the Panasonic TX-37LZD70 LCD for £999 whereas the Panasonic TH-37PX70 plasma is £899.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 07 Feb 2008, 00:11

IronMonkey wrote:
Again, rubbish. Who says the consumer has clearly chosen LCD? I bet its pretty much even.

so i go in the likes of currys and for every plasma there is probably 7-8 LCD's on sale. if sales are even that means 1 make of plasma sells as many as 6-7 equivalent lcd's then surely?quite a few people in work have been buying new tv's over the last few months and all have bought an LCD screen.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 07 Feb 2008, 00:26

IronMonkey wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:...but isnt LCD better at handling videogames? That's what I read, not too long ago. It's supposedly better for the fast movement on screen etc, reaction time and all that jazz.
I've said it before like & I'll say it time & time again until someone actually listens. LCD screens do not cope as well with motion as plasmas do. That is a FACT.

Fast movement, reaction time, all that jazz is better on plasma. FACT.

The only area where LCDs may have a slight advantage is with image retention. They are slightly less prone to image burn-in than plasma screens are. Having said that, I've played Call of Duty 4 for 7 hours straight on my plasma & haven't had any burn in.

It is a common misconception that plasmas burn like crazy if you leave a static image on them for like, 5 minutes, whereas LCDs can't burn at all. EVERY SCREEN TECHNOLOGY EVER MADE CAN SUFFER FROM IMAGE RETENTION AND IMAGE BURN-IN.

Again, this is FACT. Yes, LCD can suffer burn issues. I've seen it with my own eyes. LCDs also feature more "stuck" pixels than plasmas, on a FAR more regular basis.

So you're saying, that for gaming, LCD is the way to go, right!?

Nah man, I hear ya. I just said that I read in a techy maggy that LCD IS better for gaming than plasma. So you say 1 thing and the maggy says another thing. Ofcourse, I trust a master ninja over a maggy, but still...

However, I do believe that Full HD plasmas, at least here in Holland, are still way too expensive.

I can get a fullHD Toshiba or LG for 1200 euro or so. I believe there is already a FullHD Samsung and some other brands which are below the 1000 euro...
Still ALOT of money ofcourse, but compared toa FullHD plasma, it's wayyy cheaper.

...if only we would already have Oled screens...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Feb 2008, 00:55

I have to agree with Salty. I don't know anyone whose bought a Plasma "except for web" people (aka - Techies). It's all LCD. I do know this: The super deal are always LCD too.

IronMonkey wrote:Size for size, you'll probably find plasmas are cheaper. For example, we sell the Panasonic TX-37LZD70 LCD for £999 whereas the Panasonic TH-37PX70 plasma is £899.

That is the higher end of the market which many people don't go to. I'd seriously have to think about spending that much now. I did when I got my LCD TV in 2005 but they were considerably more expensive generally back then.

I don't think you can even buy Plasma's that are under 37" too.

p.s - Both are excellent! Lets all hug and get along

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 07 Feb 2008, 00:58

bradavon wrote:
p.s - Both are excellent! Lets all hug and get along

Actually, both are still far from excellent. OLED seems to be the way to go

Let's fight more! More I say!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Feb 2008, 01:02

And what will happen when that comes?

. Something else will come that beats it. Both are still excellent!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 07 Feb 2008, 01:14

bradavon wrote:And what will happen when that comes? . Something else will come that beats it. Both are still excellent!

I'll be happy with OLED, from what I've heard about it.

I doubt TV's can become even better. Or better said, I doubt there will be a need to make them even better.

It's an exciting time to live in, although we'll have to see how the economy will keep developing, cause maybe we in the west wont be able to afford such luxury product in the future anymore, as wealth etc moves to other areas of the world....

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Feb 2008, 01:20

Yi-Long wrote:I doubt TV's can become even better. Or better said, I doubt there will be a need to make them even better.

I cannot see them stopping at that.

Yi-Long wrote:It's an exciting time to live in, although we'll have to see how the economy will keep developing, cause maybe we in the west wont be able to afford such luxury product in the future anymore, as wealth etc moves to other areas of the world....

While it's definitely clear China will become more powerful. It's still got some way to go to be as economically powerful as America or Germany, France or The UK.

That and while America has overtaken all European countries Europe is still a strong continent (by world figures). You cannot erase 300 odd years of colonial power that quickly.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Feb 2008, 11:01

full hd 37' £399.99

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Qu ... escription

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Feb 2008, 11:20

Excellent price... but who the hell are Digimate?

You have to worry about the sacrifice of quality.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Feb 2008, 16:31

Agreed but if you're on a budget that is a stonkingly good price. I guess FULL HD is going to become more of the norm. with 37" and above than I was expecting.

YPbPr means Component.

The brightness is only 500cd/m2. I'm pretty sure Samsung's now run 5,000 or even 10,000.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Feb 2008, 19:10

looks pretty decent for £400 imo

http://www.digimate.co.uk/product/LTV-3708D.htm

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Feb 2008, 21:05

toshiba 32' lcd with freeview £430 & a free stand worth £130

http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electro ... oduct.html

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Feb 2008, 21:30

I wish distributors and e-tailors would give some decent prices on 23" and 26" TVs.

All the big deals are 32" or 37" but both are way to big for my Mum's TV needs. Her living room is small and even if it wasn't she is so used to very small TVs she could never live with anything even as big as 32". She thinks my 32" TV is huge. I happen to think 26" would be the perfect size for her.

She currently has a 14" 4:3 Mono TV (that is truly hideous) and is interested in getting a new TV but 26" is absolutely the largest she'll go. It's likely she'll get a 23" LCD TV but those don't cost much less than many 32" LCD TVs.

You should be able to get a 23" LCD TV from the likes of Samsung for well under £300 but it's barely possible, if at all. Even during January Sales the best I could find was around £300. That's very expensive for what is just a 23" LCD TV.

saltysam wrote:looks pretty decent for £400 imo

It won't win any awards for looks but agreed it does look pretty decent.

It has 2 HDMI ports and is Full HD but doesn't look to have Freeview. That's a pity. If I was buying a TV today I'd insist it had Freeview, even for Sky/Cable users.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Feb 2008, 21:40

a freeview box is pennies these days,i wouldn't think it mattered whether it ws built-in or not.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Feb 2008, 21:43

26' lcd with freeview £289

i have a 27' minus freeview of this in my bedroom-decent set for the price

http://www.intekx.com/product_info.php? ... cts_id=197

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Feb 2008, 22:00

Thanks.

That is a very good price. AOC make decent computer monitors too. That TV also has two HDMI connections and is HD Ready too, not that my Mum will ever need that.

saltysam wrote:a freeview box is pennies these days,i wouldn't think it mattered whether it ws built-in or not.

Agreed when it comes to cost but when it comes to simplicity and efficiency it's so much nicer being built in. I'd never recommend getting a DVD Player built in as they're usually pretty rubbish but there isn't much to Freeview other than maybe a decent EPG.

My Mum's TV has one scart connection meaning the amount of cables needed to connect her Freeview box, VCR and DVD Player to the TV is just madness. That and the fact it means 4 remote controls.

When she can finally afford it I am planning to take all this and replace it with a Freeview LCD TV and a Freeview Hard Disk/DVD Recorder. This will reduce it to just one box and two remote controls *. It will also mean literally just the two cables to the TV (RF cable + HDMI cable).

That will be so much nicer for her.

* This will also mean the same remote for both turning the channel over and volume/TV On/Off too. I appreciate this is something you could get used to with Sky but Freeview you don't have to. Having it built in also frees up a scart connection too. If you already have a perfectly good TV then I'd say just buy a Freeview box but when you're buying one anyway it makes sense to get a Freeview TV.

While I'd insist upon a TV I bought now having Freeview I doubt in reality I'd use it much when I have a Freeview HDD/Recorder and Twin Tuner PVR. Unless I could replace the PVR for a LG type TV with a built in PVR, that would be nice.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Feb 2008, 00:14

Now you have a super duper TV Salty, are there any plans to upgrade your Amp to support Lossless Audio too?