LCD or Plasma help!

[dannynguyen3573]

I need help to buy a tv from 46"- 52" but I don't what is a goood choice Plasma or LCD, 720 or 1080? Privce range under $1000. Please help.

Thanks

[Woochifer]

Generally speaking, plasmas have the advantage with color accuracy, contrast, and motion resolution. Image retention is not much of an issue with the newer plasma TVs, but manufacturers still recommend that you avoid leaving static images (such as video game start up screens) up for long periods of time. The primary shortcoming of plasma is its lower light output.

LCD's primary advantage is light output, which is something to consider if you have a bright room. The primary shortcoming is with motion resolution. 120 Hz LCDs handle motion better, but they are more expensive than comparable plasmas and still have lower motion resolution.

I went with plasma because I felt that it renders a more natural looking image, especially with film sources, and it's noticeably smoother with moving backgrounds. I would also recommend 1080p, so you can maximize your picture quality with 1080p sources.

Right now, Costco has the Panasonic 46" 1080p plasma (model TH-C46FD18) going for $949, so it meets all of your specs. This model is the same thing as the Panasonic TH-46PZ80U, and the reliability of Panasonic's TVs has been the best in the industry.

Nightflier just bought this TV (likes the picture quality but thinking about returning it because it might not output 5.1 Dolby Digital out of the digital audio output -- irrelevant issue for you if you use a satellite receiver or cable set-top box), and I have the 50" version (so does RoadRunner6). You can read our posts about the TV. For picture quality, the Pannys are great, but their entry level models lack the more comprehensive picture controls found on their higher end models. So, if you intend to do a lot of fine tuning with the picture calibration, the range of options is more limited here.

[RoadRunner6]

Hi Danny and welcome. I agree on the Costco Panasonic TH-C46FD18 46" 1080p Plasma. I don't think you will find any set within several hundered dollars that will match this display. An outstanding set for SDTV, HDTV, DVD and Blu-Ray. Don't judge by what you see with the super bright lights in Costco. You have 90 days return.

RR6

[natronforever]

I too bought the TH-C46FD18 46" Panasonic plasma from Costco. It's awesome, and I recommend getting plasma over lcd, for the reasons listed from woochifer above. If you buy from Costco, and you don't like it, you can just return it. They never hassle you about that kind of stuff.

[blackraven]

Danny, If you have a bright room or there will be a lot of reflections off the TV screen, then definitely go with an LCD, otherwise a Plasma would be a good choice and it would save you some money. I have a 52" Sony LCD in a very bright room facing a huge window and we have no problems with glare or reflections, but a plasma would be difficult to watch.

[pixelthis]

There are no "motion" issues with curent LCD tv sets.
If you want a decent TV get a LCD, if you want a paperweight get a plasma.
Plasma sets use phospers, which can get burned in with whatever image they display,
just like a CRT.
Plasma fanboys like wooch and RR will tell you that its not a problem.
THEN they will tell you that you have to set your new plasma set at half brightness
for 100 hours, and make sure that the "anti burn in" circuits are on!
And forget watching news channels or playing games or anything with a static image.
Otherwise its not a problem.
GET a LCD, they have no burn in issues, no glare issues, and no throb issues.
THATS RIGHT, a plasma set will fade in and out, get darker and then lighter, you cant see it with the naked eye, put a camera on one and watch it on an LCD screen.
Its some kind of anti burn in feature that has the effective result of reducing overall brightness.
GET an LCD, they LAST 20+ years, then you can change the backlight and use em another 20+ years.
AND get 1080p, the only alternative these days is 720p, which cant compete,
not even close.
As for 120 hz, I saw such a set, and it was an amazing picture, but I dont have enough expeerience with one to know, really.
Just stay away from plasma, trust me on this.

[RoadRunner6]

Sorry Danny for the interruption. There is only one thing we can say about Pixelthis:

người ngu dại



RR6

PS: The current models from Panasonic have a very effective non-reflective screen and are significantly brighter than previous year's models.

[GMichael]

I only count one fanboy on this thread. Who could that be?


LCD's and plasmas both have their pros & cons. Wooch laid those out for you very well. I'll add that LCD's are lighter and generally use less power.
Think about what conditions you'll be watching in. If this is going into a bright room with lots of windows, then LCD may be better for you. If you have more control of your lighting, then Plasma will give you a better picture.
1080p over 720p/1080i is the way to go. Nothing wrong with 720, but 1080 is worth the extra cash if you have it available.

[Woochifer]

Danny, If you have a bright room or there will be a lot of reflections off the TV screen, then definitely go with an LCD, otherwise a Plasma would be a good choice and it would save you some money. I have a 52" Sony LCD in a very bright room facing a huge window and we have no problems with glare or reflections, but a plasma would be difficult to watch.

The newer plasmas from Panasonic and Samsung have greatly improved anti-glare screens that significantly reduce the reflections. On the LCD side, several of the newer Samsungs now come with glossy screens that reflect a lot more than the matted ones. You already see LCD computer monitors moving towards glossy screens, and the same thing has started happening on the HDTV side.

[Woochifer]

I only count one fanboy on this thread. Who could that be?

Never knew that a fetish for sawing LCDs in half qualifies someone for fanboy status ...

[GMichael]

Never knew that a fetish for sawing LCDs in half qualifies someone for fanboy status ...

Everyone needs a hobby.

[Woochifer]

There are no "motion" issues with curent LCD tv sets.

The only LCD TVs that can render more than 480 lines of resolution with moving images are 120 Hz. I'd say it's an "issue" if a LCD TV that claims to be HD cannot even render SD resolution on a moving image.

If you want a decent TV get a LCD, if you want a paperweight get a plasma.

Plasma fanboys like wooch and RR will tell you that its not a problem.

Because it's not.

THEN they will tell you that you have to set your new plasma set at half brightness
for 100 hours

Which is not all that different from the calibrated settings. (picture: 60%, brightness: 45%)

And forget watching news channels or playing games or anything with a static image.
Otherwise its not a problem.

Like I said before, if image retention is such a problems, then how come the plasmas at my local sports bar don't have the ESPN logo permanently emblazoned on them? Recycling old talking points does not make them relevant to what today's TVs are doing.

GET a LCD, they have no burn in issues, no glare issues, and no throb issues.

Just issues with sub-SD motion resolution, color accuracy, and contrast levels.

THATS RIGHT, a plasma set will fade in and out, get darker and then lighter, you cant see it with the naked eye, put a camera on one and watch it on an LCD screen.

Irrelevant point given that everybody else watches TV with naked eyes -- not video feeds from cameras pointed at other TVs.

GET an LCD, they LAST 20+ years, then you can change the backlight and use em another 20+ years.

Got any 20-year old LCD TVs to show us? Or are you still looking for a sawed-in-half LCD TV to demonstrate for us?

[nightflier]

P.S., I've been watching HD and SD on my new Costco plasma and I am extremely happy with it. My DVD player only puts out 480p and it still looks great, a little softer, but otherwise great - not noticeable unless you watch them side-by-side with true HD. We sit about 8-10' away and we can't see any of the pixelation and motion blur issues we noticed on LCDs. Truly an amazing picture and setup could not be easier.

The other night I played around with another feature of this TV: I plugged my laptop's PC output into the TV and while it's certainly not HD quality anymore, I was able to play a couple of rounds of Civilization IV w/o any problems. From 10' away, it's about as good as being 15" away from a computer monitor. I haven't tried any action/racing games yet, but the picture so far is simply astounding.

For the record, I was making my comments tongue-in-cheek about returning it because of the digital audio output. I would have to find something else really wrong with it before I did that, and so far I haven't. The TV is just that great. Besides, where else will you find that much TV for $950, 90-days no-questions-asked returns, and with a 2-yr warranty?

Pix makes some points about plasma that I simply cannot concur on. I will be buying a smaller LCD for the living room in the near future (plasmas seem to be only available in larger sizes), and I'll compare the two side-by side, but for now, I don't see any reason why someone would spend 20% more on an LCD that looks worse. It just doesn't make sense. I had some concerns about power consumption & heat as well, but after doing more research I found that these issues have more to do with how it's used and that's something I can control. The Panasonic 46" actually stays remarkably cool, cooler than many LCDs I've compared it to.

Buy the plasma, you won't be disappointed.

[RoadRunner6]

Vizio now makes a 32" plasma.


(whoops, does this mean I'm spamming for Vizio?)

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE]

The only LCD TVs that can render more than 480 lines of resolution with moving images are 120 Hz. I'd say it's an "issue" if a LCD TV that claims to be HD cannot even render SD resolution on a moving image.

MY LCD is 1080p and renders full resolution moving images with no problem.
If this isnt the case then get some of your govt wonk buddies to file a lawsuit with LCD makers for misrepresenting themselves.
BUT you wont do that because this is another totally BS lie.
LCD screens have outperformed plasma for some time





Because it's not.

Which is not all that different from the calibrated settings. (picture: 60%, brightness: 45%)

The point is that you cant run a plasma much higher than those "calibrated" settings,
you will ruin it.
I have seen RPTV sets using CRTS with burn in running at just half brightness,
and they were nowhere near as bright as plasma.
Phosper tech is horse and buggy, phosper tech involving tubes (which is what a plasma screen is) is horse and buggy squared

Like I said before, if image retention is such a problems, then how come the plasmas at my local sports bar don't have the ESPN logo permanently emblazoned on them? Recycling old talking points does not make them relevant to what today's TVs are doing.

Just wait. BTW have you ever seen those sets turned off?
Nice to know where you are getting all of your info, A SPORTS BAR.
Explains a lot.

Just issues with sub-SD motion resolution, color accuracy, and contrast levels.

A totally made up lie

Irrelevant point given that everybody else watches TV with naked eyes -- not video feeds from cameras pointed at other TVs.

ITS RELEVANT because it cuts the brightness of any plasma by 50%
If you knew anything about anything you would know this

Got any 20-year old LCD TVs to show us? Or are you still looking for a sawed-in-half LCD TV to demonstrate for us?

They were making portable LCD sets twenty years ago, and mine still worked a few years ago when I sold it.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN "plasma" set that lasted much beyond five years, that still worked halfway decently.
I did see the inside of a Fujitsu that was several years old, the 30,000 volt power supply had a lot of crud encrusted on it, and when you cranked it there was a green line running down the side of the pic, and this was an ED set, nowhere near as hot as one of the newer ones.
I have seen about a dozen of these things, they look like hell after five or six years,
if they last that long.
Just keep spewing your lies and BS THO , you cant escape from reality, which you will have to face when you get up some morning and find out that new toy has gone the way
of all badly engineered things, mainy, as the Brits say...
TITS UP

[audio amateur]

Get a videoprojector

[Duds]

go with plasma, and put pixelthis on your ignore list...

I need help to buy a tv from 46"- 52" but I don't what is a goood choice Plasma or LCD, 720 or 1080? Privce range under $1000. Please help.

Thanks

[Feanor]

I need help to buy a tv from 46"- 52" but I don't what is a goood choice Plasma or LCD, 720 or 1080? Privce range under $1000. Please help.

Thanks

If my old CRT broke today I'd be looking for a 46-50" 1080p set. Since I'm a poor person raw price is a big factor for me. Nevertheless the sage advice is that plazma is better. So I take a quick look around here & now and this is what I see, (Cdn$) ...

• Insignia 1080p 47" LCD (NS-LCD47HD-09) $900
• Sharp Aquos 1080p 46" LCD (LC46D64U) $1100
• Insignia 1080p 50" Plasma (NS-PDP50HD-09) $1100

No brainer in this case. I'd go with the Insignia, (BestBuy house brand), 50" plazma.

[Woochifer]

MY LCD is 1080p and renders full resolution moving images with no problem.
If this isnt the case then get some of your govt wonk buddies to file a lawsuit with LCD makers for misrepresenting themselves.
BUT you wont do that because this is another totally BS lie.

Actually, you're the one pitching the heaping piles of BS if you claim that your LCD renders "full resolution moving images", given that EVERY TV loses resolution on moving images. Just happens that LCD loses more resolution on moving images than ANY OTHER screen tech, and this has been confirmed on multiple benchmark tests by reputable publications such as Home Theater magazine.

Every 1080p TV can display 1,080 lines on a still image, but 60 Hz LCDs can't even maintain SD resolution (480 lines) on a moving image. Even the 120 Hz models fall way short of rendering 600 lines. Contrast this with 1080p plasmas, which can display over 800 lines on a moving image (Panasonic is claiming 900 lines with their current models).

Tell me how this is a lie if it comes up repeatedly on benchmark tests?

LCD screens have outperformed plasma for some time

Aside from light output, there are no other picture performance measures where LCD outperforms plasma.

The point is that you cant run a plasma much higher than those "calibrated" settings,
you will ruin it.

Why would anyone want to run it higher than the calibrated settings, given that's the optimal picture quality? And running a plasma on the Vivid setting won't "ruin" it -- it will just look like crap, y'know like bad LCD playback.

I have seen RPTV sets using CRTS with burn in running at just half brightness,
and they were nowhere near as bright as plasma.
Phosper tech is horse and buggy, phosper tech involving tubes (which is what a plasma screen is) is horse and buggy squared

And yet, your "advanced" LCD tech still can't maintain HD resolution with moving images.

Just wait. BTW have you ever seen those sets turned off?
Nice to know where you are getting all of your info, A SPORTS BAR.
Explains a lot.

Yep, I've seen those plasmas turned off -- no image retention, no burn in. What does going to a sports bar explain-- that I get out and have friends with whom to hang out?

At least the info that I present is factual and relevant, unlike all the debunked decade-old nonsense that you keep recycling over and over.

A totally made up lie

Not a lie if it's confirmed by objective third-party sources. Something that cannot be said about the inane ramblings that you keep posting.

ITS RELEVANT because it cuts the brightness of any plasma by 50%
If you knew anything about anything you would know this

It's irrelevant because you even admit that this is invisible to the naked eye. Why would anyone other than a freak like you who stares at a video camera pointed at a video monitor even care?

They were making portable LCD sets twenty years ago, and mine still worked a few years ago when I sold it.

Portable LCDs?! Yeah, the picture quality on those sets is oh-so-close to HD resolution, and oh-so-close to the average home screen size, right?

Comparing the durability of a PORTABLE LCD TV with a screen size of less than 5" and crappy as f*ck picture quality is about as relevant as comparing the motion resolution of a LCD TV with a LCD watch (though it does suck with both)!

I HAVE NEVER SEEN "plasma" set that lasted much beyond five years, that still worked halfway decently.

My in-laws' 8-year old Fujitsu plasma works just fine.

had a lot of crud encrusted on it, and when you cranked it there was a green line running down the side of the pic, and this was an ED set, nowhere near as hot as one of the newer ones.
I have seen about a dozen of these things, they look like hell after five or six years,
if they last that long.

Crud encrusted? Yeah, sounds like it was installed in an "ideal" operating environment! And what was it displaying? Static images 24/7? Hardly an example worth noting, given that nobody on this board uses their TV as a public message display.

And do actually think that the plasma technology of today is same as it was 5 or 6 years ago? The LCD sets of that vintage looked even worse. But, let's not bring TODAY'S reality into the discussion, since your comfort zone seems to end at turn of the century.

Just keep spewing your lies and BS THO , you cant escape from reality, which you will have to face when you get up some morning and find out that new toy has gone the way
of all badly engineered things, mainy, as the Brits say...
TITS UP

More wishful thinking and fantasizing on your part given that the recent Panasonic plasmas have a failure rate about 3X lower than the Vizios of your vintage. If anyone needs a reality check, it ain't me!

[pixelthis]

Every 1080p TV can display 1,080 lines on a still image, but 60 Hz LCDs can't even maintain SD resolution (480 lines) on a moving image. Even the 120 Hz models fall way short of rendering 600 lines. Contrast this with 1080p plasmas, which can display over 800 lines on a moving image (Panasonic is claiming 900 lines with their current models).

Tell me how this is a lie if it comes up repeatedly on benchmark tests?

lets see a link.
AND for the LAST TIME, not all video monitors "lose res" when theres movement, just those with an interlaced picture. Get your facts straight.

Aside from light output, there are no other picture performance measures where LCD outperforms plasma.

They are even in most cases, I am constantly staging my own experiment, and I am always coming across people who cant tell the (very) slight differences in picture
between plasma and lcd, and that is what your "specs" represent, a very slight difference.

Why would anyone want to run it higher than the calibrated settings, given that's the optimal picture quality? And running a plasma on the Vivid setting won't "ruin" it -- it will just look like crap, y'know like bad LCD playback.

AND it will really look like crap after you run it awhile and burn in occures.
AND that may be "you're" "optimum" image but most wont be happy with the dim image and turn it up, had that conversation with the great unwashed many times over.
Not to mention that plasma, like any other phosper tech will get dimmer over time and require steady inching up of the brightness to "optmum", until you dont see a pic at all, just like a CRT

And yet, your "advanced" LCD tech still can't maintain HD resolution with moving images.

There is really no way to measure res with moving images, but progressive does a lot better than interlaced, otherwise there is no difference

Yep, I've seen those plasmas turned off -- no image retention, no burn in. What does going to a sports bar explain-- that I get out and have friends with whom to hang out?

AND I have seen plasmas with extreme burn in, what does that explain, that I have more experience than you?

At least the info that I present is factual and relevant, unlike all the debunked decade-old nonsense that you keep recycling over and over.

That "decade old nonsense" is going to bite you in the ass sooner or later

Not a lie if it's confirmed by objective third-party sources. Something that cannot be said about the inane ramblings that you keep posting.

Then lets see some confrimation

It's irrelevant because you even admit that this is invisible to the naked eye. Why would anyone other than a freak like you who stares at a video camera pointed at a video monitor even care?

I dont care because I dont own a piece of crap that has to cycle between on and off to keep it from getting serious screen damage, which is why LCD is so much brighter,
IT STAYS BRIGHT

Portable LCDs?! Yeah, the picture quality on those sets is oh-so-close to HD resolution, and oh-so-close to the average home screen size, right?

NOT EVEN CLOSE, BUT ITS AN INDICATOR OF HOW LONG THIS TECH LASTS

Comparing the durability of a PORTABLE LCD TV with a screen size of less than 5" and crappy as f*ck picture quality is about as relevant as comparing the motion resolution of a LCD TV with a LCD watch (though it does suck with both)!

iTS EXTREMELY RELEVANT, just like the toxicity of a virus in a petri dish is relevant
to its leathality in the real world.

My in-laws' 8-year old Fujitsu plasma works just fine.

And its ED right?

Crud encrusted? Yeah, sounds like it was installed in an "ideal" operating environment! And what was it displaying? Static images 24/7? Hardly an example worth noting, given that nobody on this board uses their TV as a public message display.

Ther is no way that something with a 30,000 volt power supply will be as reliable as somethinng that doesnt have one

And do actually think that the plasma technology of today is same as it was 5 or 6 years ago? The LCD sets of that vintage looked even worse. But, let's not bring TODAY'S reality into the discussion, since your comfort zone seems to end at turn of the century.

If you think plasma tech has improved significantly over the last six years I have a bridge
I would like to sell you.
Most research in plasma tech has been on the reliability side, trying to get one to last more than five years.
Early plasmas were so fragil that they had to be shipped in metal cases, gas escaping from the tube was a serious issue, and black level(something fanboys brag about) was so bad it was mentioned in every review of one.
And they were so expensive that mainly ED models were sold, because they were cheaper and could compete, and last longer for that matter

More wishful thinking and fantasizing on your part given that the recent Panasonic plasmas have a failure rate about 3X lower than the Vizios of your vintage. If anyone needs a reality check, it ain't me!

[/QUOTE]

More "statistics", and we all know what Mark Twain said about those.
But I am not going around and round on this with you, you will find out the hard way
in a few years , like groundbeef did when his plasma died with a 2700$ "circuit board"
(tube) repair. You will go the way he did, brag about it until it breaks, then clam up.
But I will know, things built in a similar fashion tend to act in a similar fashion.

[GMichael]

Pix,

I love reading your posts. No one make me laugh the way you do. Thanks.

[Woochifer]

AND for the LAST TIME, not all video monitors "lose res" when theres movement, just those with an interlaced picture. Get your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Yours obviously were never facts to begin with.

Although I do take back my point about all video techs losing resolution. Apparently, HDTV Test now shows some of this year's Pioneer and Panasonic plasma models displaying 1,080 lines on their motion resolution tests.

They are even in most cases, I am constantly staging my own experiment, and I am always coming across people who cant tell the (very) slight differences in picture
between plasma and lcd, and that is what your "specs" represent, a very slight difference.

Difference between 900 lines of resolution and 300 lines (which is what the HDTV Test site averages with 60 Hz LCD TVs) on a moving image are readily apparent. Talking to random strangers at WalMart and watching crappy test signals on torch mode TVs doesn't fit any valid definition of "experiment" that I'm aware of. (Obviously bias control is a concept that eludes you).

AND it will really look like crap after you run it awhile and burn in occures.
AND that may be "you're" "optimum" image but most wont be happy with the dim image and turn it up, had that conversation with the great unwashed many times over.

And those same clueless people will be pinching their pennies, buying the cheapest set they can find, and running SD sources in the stretch mode thinking that they're watching HD. People who actually care about picture quality will take the time to adjust their set properly, which is already pretty close to reference with the Pannys' Cinema preset. Anybody with any clue of how a picture is supposed to look won't leave their TV in the torch mode.

Not to mention that plasma, like any other phosper tech will get dimmer over time and require steady inching up of the brightness to "optmum", until you dont see a pic at all, just like a CRT

Dim until you don't see a pic at all? I've never seen a CRT do that. You sure that this "dimmed to nothing" CRT was plugged in and powered on? Sad, but your fleeting grasp of reality has descended down to pure bizarro world delusion.

There is really no way to measure res with moving images, but progressive does a lot better than interlaced, otherwise there is no difference

Yuh, LCD TVs perform poorly on monoscoping motion resolution tests, so you deny that those tests even exist! Pix can't deal with reality, so he denies -- or just makes it up. These test results are out there for anyone else to see for themselves, so you might be the only person who actually believes that "there is really no way to measure res with moving images."

And if there's no difference other than progressive vs interlaced, then how come all of the 1080p 60 Hz LCD TVs that I've seen tested by Home Theater, HD Guru, and HDTV Test measure under 400 lines of resolution on that test, while all of the 1080p plasmas measure over 800 lines on that same test (this year's Pioneers and Panasonics now measure over 900 lines on those tests)?

AND I have seen plasmas with extreme burn in, what does that explain, that I have more experience than you?

And how long ago were those TVs made, and what were they displaying?

Like I said, if burn in is such a widespread problem, as you are claiming, then how come I don't see any evidence of it on plasma TVs that are tuned to ESPN and other sports channels (all of which have stationary images and news crawls galore) upwards of 12+ hours a day?

That "decade old nonsense" is going to bite you in the ass sooner or later

Only if you believe that plasma TVs have not changed at all over the last 10 years.

Then lets see some confrimation

Be careful what you ask for ...

I've posted last year's Home Theater results many times, but obviously your reading comprehension hasn't improved any in the past year. Just for fun, I'll repost this with some newer test results for your further reality checking. The LCD results have improved only because most of the tested sets now have some form of motion interpolation (such as 100 Hz/120 Hz modes), but still fall short of maintaining HD resolution with motion. And they still fall way short of what the plasmas display. Don't say I didn't warn you, but I'm sure you'll find some new way of denying the truth or otherwise manufacturing an alternative reality!

MOTION RESOLUTION RESULTS (All sets are 1080p)

Link to last year's Home Theater roundup

PLASMA
Panasonic TH-50PZ-800B - 1,080 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panas...0080907128.htm

LG 60PG7000 - 800 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-60...0081019133.htm

Pioneer PDP-LX5090 - 1,080 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Pioneer-PD...alibration.htm

Panasonic TH-42PZ80 - 1,080 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panas...0080514109.htm

Panasonic TH-42PZ85B - 1,080 lines (IFC off), 950 lines on
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panas...0080514109.htm

LCD
Sony KDL40V4000 - 300 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...0080822127.htm

Samsung LE55A956 (LED backlit) - 650 (with 100 Hz MotionPlus), 300 without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsu...0081106134.htm

Samsung LE40A786 - 600 lines (with MotionPlus), 250-300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsu...0080922131.htm

Sony KDL40W4500 - 650 lines (with MotionFlow on), 300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...0081116135.htm

Sharp LC42B20E - 550 lines (Action Mode engaged), 250-300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sharp...0080715122.htm

Samsung LE40A559P - 300 lines (with MotionPlus), 300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsu...0080618120.htm

Toshiba 40ZF355D - 450 lines (ActiveVision on), 250-300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Toshiba-40...alibration.htm

Samsung LE40A656 - 650 lines (with MotionPlus), 300 lines without
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Samsung-LE...alibration.htm

Panasonic TX37LZD85 - 600 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Panasonic-...5/Calibration/

Sony KDL40W4000 - 300 lines
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Sony-KDL40W4000/Calibration/

I dont care because I dont own a piece of crap that has to cycle between on and off to keep it from getting serious screen damage, which is why LCD is so much brighter,
IT STAYS BRIGHT

Of course you care, otherwise you wouldn't obsess over something that can't be seen with the naked eye! I certainly don't care because my TV is calibrated and it renders an outstanding image.

NOT EVEN CLOSE, BUT ITS AN INDICATOR OF HOW LONG THIS TECH LASTS

Unless you were watching that portable LCD TV for 4 hours a day over the last 20 years (and if you were it says a LOT about your picture quality standards!), it says absolutely nothing about LCD reliability.

iTS EXTREMELY RELEVANT, just like the toxicity of a virus in a petri dish is relevant
to its leathality in the real world.

I think the padded room is getting readied for you ...

If you think plasma tech has improved significantly over the last six years I have a bridge
I would like to sell you.

I don't buy bridges, and it looks like you don't like news about real world product improvements to intrude on your decade-old talking points. Sorry, but just because you choose to ignore/deny the changes over the past six years doesn't mean that they didn't occur. Time moves on, reality is what it is -- deal with it.

Most research in plasma tech has been on the reliability side, trying to get one to last more than five years.

And the plasma reliability on the latest reports is now equal to or better than LCD.

Early plasmas were so fragil that they had to be shipped in metal cases, gas escaping from the tube was a serious issue, and black level(something fanboys brag about) was so bad it was mentioned in every review of one.

Let's see. Mine came shipped in the same kind of cardboard container that you see with any other TV ... and waddya know, it worked right out of the box! You gotta stop with these ridiculous stories -- they merely confirm my assertions that your information is old and irrelevant.

More "statistics"

Yep, and they trump your delusional observations because reliability data is based on thousands of cases, not just conversations with strangers at WalMart.

But I am not going around and round on this with you, you will find out the hard way
in a few years , like groundbeef did when his plasma died with a 2700$ "circuit board"
(tube) repair. You will go the way he did, brag about it until it breaks, then clam up.
But I will know, things built in a similar fashion tend to act in a similar fashion.

Like I said, for every chance I get at drawing the short straw, you have to take three turns because of the higher failure rate on your Vizio. Personally, I like my odds a lot better.

[RoadRunner6]

Boom-Boom Wooch Wins In First Round Knockout!

(photo below of knockout punch)

[pixelthis]

Of course you care, otherwise you wouldn't obsess over something that can't be seen with the naked eye! I certainly don't care because my TV is calibrated and it renders an outstanding image.

AND the Titanic was breaking the speed record before it hit the iceberg.
Give it a few years, give those phospers a chance to degrade, go off color, get good and burned in.

Unless you were watching that portable LCD TV for 4 hours a day over the last 20 years (and if you were it says a LOT about your picture quality standards!), it says absolutely nothing about LCD reliability.

The record for LCD reliability goes back 20 years, Plasma six.
They took the whore from the bowling alley and put her in a nice dress, doesnt change
anything.

I don't buy bridges, and it looks like you don't like news about real world product improvements to intrude on your decade-old talking points. Sorry, but just because you choose to ignore/deny the changes over the past six years doesn't mean that they didn't occur. Time moves on, reality is what it is -- deal with it.

Tech doesnt change that much over six years.
You govt wonks are all the same, "talking points" and other nonsense.
YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT REALITY THO, unfortunatly you have no understanding
that one day you will be removing "realities " foot from your ass.

And the plasma reliability on the latest reports is now equal to or better than LCD.

You have no way of knowing.
We will have a better idea of plasma reliabiliy when more sets hit the ten year mark,
that is if any ever do.

Let's see. Mine came shipped in the same kind of cardboard container that you see with any other TV ... and waddya know, it worked right out of the box! You gotta stop with these ridiculous stories -- they merely confirm my assertions that your information is old and irrelevant.

Do some research, oh thats right, you dont research, you make stuff up.
Go back in the archives of that HT mag you worship at the feet of(and that is wrong about
testing for resolution during motion) and read some of the stories about early plasmas.
Even after shipping them in a stel container they still lost half before they got to the store.
Most of that "research" you talk about has been getting plasmas to last longer than the warranty.

Yep, and they trump your delusional observations because reliability data is based on thousands of cases, not just conversations with strangers at WalMart.

Plasma hasnt been around long enough to have "reliable" reliability data.
Like being a lab rat?

Like I said, for every chance I get at drawing the short straw, you have to take three turns because of the higher failure rate on your Vizio. Personally, I like my odds a lot better.

I like your odds better too, because they are not mine.
Yours are about as good as your average mutt stuck on a freeway in L.A
WHICH YOU WILL FIND OUT .
My set is solid state, yours is the same basic tube / phosper tech that is used in CRT's.
And the best of those last ten years, and the design parameters , while close, are not nearly as close as your plasma.
GOOD LUCK, YOU'LL NEED IT.

[falcondan95705]

Pixelthat... Here are the parameters for LCD VS PLASMA... LCD wins for BRIGHTNESS!! Kinda like a speaker who is LOUDER... as you know, loud is NOT necessarily BETTER. LCD Wins for NON reflectiveness of backround LIGHT... But this is about as far as LCD wins OVER PLASMA... The most Difficult Color for a TV to reproduce is BLACK.. If a tv can do black well then all is GREAT!.. Plasmas excell at producing Black.. Plasma also can do fast motion without pixelation or bluring.. Plasma Wins here.. The best colors are reproduced with plasma not lcd because of their problems with blacks.. Sitting off center is a problem with LCD and NOT with PLASMA.. Plasmas will go over 30 years of 8 hours per day use before they get half as bright as new.. So if one has no control over light and does not want reflections on the screen, go with LCD, however, if one wants the BEST PICTURE REPRODUCTION, and can control the light, then it is the PLASMA!!!!