Plasma's or LCD

[Cinema Face]

I agree with what Kenwoody says. Definitely need to get a 1080P set these days.

However, I think plasma would be well suited to playing a video game because of the faster refresh rates. A fast paced game like a 1st person shooter would look better on a plasma. There would only be a risk of burn in if someone were to pause a game and leave it paused all night.

My original xbox will blank the screen if it’s paused for more than a few minutes. I think the rest of the consoles do the same. I don’t think there is much of a risk of burn in nowadays. The newer plasmas are much better than resisting screen burnin than the old ones.

 

[tboy]

Plasma will have screen burn especially when playing games on it. LCD will not. In terms of durability, LCD is the way to go.

Wait til boxing day to buy your tv, prices are so much better then.

Just for the record:

http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/myths/screen-burn/

 

[poon29]

i disagree that 1080p is a must. it's all marketing and the human eye cannot differentiate between 720p and 1080p unless you have a huge tv and sitting VERY close to it.

 

[tboy]

i disagree that 1080p is a must. it's all marketing and the human eye cannot differentiate between 720p and 1080p unless you have a huge tv and sitting VERY close to it.

LOL have you SEEN the difference between 720 and 1080??? Dude... HD is like life changing.......if you've never watched the opening sequence to PBS's show Nature, you're in for a treat.....Shit, I remember Cameron Diaz getting all worried about HD because she doesn't have the best complexion and you can see her skin condition on HD sets where you couldn't before......

Shit, watch a hockey game in HD. You can see the friggen holes in the athletic knit jerseys!!!

As for big tvs, they don't make plasmas less than 42" (or at least not readily available ones) and if you follow the correct distance (or recommended) sitting/viewing distance you WILL see all the fine details produced by HD over 720......

 

[thewheelman]

As wheel man said, 1080i is best, but I've read that 1080P is better. That's the difference between an interlaced refresh (every second line is refreshed per cycle) and progressive where every line is refreshed per cycle.

What I was trying to explain is...there is no Interlaced picture displayed on a flat panel television. They all display progressive only. You can send it a 1080i source (like your SA 8300HD converter does) but the display buffers the first 540 lines for 1/60th second while the other 540 lines arrive, then draws all 1080 lines progressively every 1/30th of a second. (aka de-interlacing)

Now compare that with 720p, which sends one 720 line frame every 1/30th second. The only difference when the display actually draws the picture is the number of pixels.

1024x768= 786,432 pixels
1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels

 

[Tyler1]

Plasma's require some initial break-in time by turning the brightness and contract down and avoiding static images. After the break-in you can gradually increase picture settings and the duration that static images are left on the screen. Most people that cry about burn in I bet have it set on factory "torch mode" or close to it. I'm sure most people are unaware of breaking in a plasma screen. If done properly you will have nothing to worry about. I've abused the hell out of my Panasonic plasma over he past few years with no problems. I watch hours of 4:3 programs with side bars and endless hours of the same video game and have yet to get even a hint of image retention.

 

[tboy]

Sorry shiek, but here's an example in another forum where someone did experience screen burn it. I will also note that supposedly it can be reversed but still, it happens. (or happened).

 

[tboy]

tboy,

I'm speaking from 1st hand experience. So if you would rather take the advice of someone you don't know, then that is your perogative.

I have 3 LCD's in my house presently, all have been in use for over 3 years, none have screen burn.

LOL shiekie, I don't really know you either lol

Peace out!

BTW: just curious, are you using them for video games ? watching a lot of hockey? football? (where they have like the score header on the whole game)

 

[tboy]

Well closed captioning wouldn't or shouldn't burn because it's constantly changing. For eg: during a football game the team names, and the grid is displayed almost constantly (especially now for those channels that don't have commercial breaks) that's why I'm asking.

Same as if you play one video game for an hour, then another or play the same one for 12 hrs.....for eg: in america's army the crosshairs stay in the centre of the screen for the whole time you're alive.....(which is why I use a coloured one instead of a white one).

 

[beaverboy]

Just wanted your opinion? Which would give you a better picture with either a standard definition cable signal or/non HD satellite signal.

LCD or Plasma?

 

[beaverboy]

Are there any HD tv's that can adjust their display to lower resolutions? To match different signal unputs.

Also, if I use an up-converting DVD player and run my analog cable signal or sat signal, through the player and to the HD set. Will this help?

 

[Cinema Face]

I’ve bought Panasonic plasma tv’s for work. They play nothing but sports about 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. These sports channels have static logos and we play the same ones over and over. We never had a single problem or screen burn in. I didn’t know about the break in period for plasmas.

In my home, I have an LCD because I use a media center pc with it.

I think that plasma is great technology and in many ways, superior to LCD. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the plasma at home for normal tv viewing or video games. I still think that running a pc would risk burn in, even though I’ve heard that they’ve improved to the point that it could be done.


Panasonic claims that plasma has lower power consumption over LCD. Common sense tells me that’s true. LCD’s are constantly consuming maximum power. Plasma’s power consumption varies based on the screen brightness. On an LCD tv, the light source is constantly at maximum output regardless of what’s on the screen. LCD achieves black by filtering all the light, even though the light source is still on.

Plasmas turn the pixels (which are basically little phosphor tubes) on or off to create the image. A black screen on a plasma tv will have all pixels off. The screen consumes the majority of the power on a flat panel tv.

I’ll bet when LCD companies compare power consumption between LCD and plasma it’s at maximum screen brightness which doesn’t reflect reality in normal tv viewing.

 

[Kenwoody]

My subjective ratings:
480i: Standard TV. 4:10
480p: Noticeably better. 5.5:10
720p: Very impressive. Much better than 480i/p 8:10
1080i: Barely noticeable (if at all) improvement to 720p 8.5:10
1080p: Barely noticeable improvement to 1080i, subtle improvement to 720p 9:10

I think with larger screen sizes and better quality content, the more 1080p would shine.[/QUOTE]

You are correct in thinking the larger sets will benefit more from the 1080p. The main reason the HDTV formats are negligable is that a lot of HD programing is upconverted SD productions. HD cameras are hugely expensive right now, to the tune of $80,000 and up/per, and broadcasters are slowly changing over. Your best bet for true HD is on sports casts where the mobiles are mostly fitted with HD cameras.

 

[bogo]

Just wanted your opinion? Which would give you a better picture with either a standard definition cable signal or/non HD satellite signal.

LCD or Plasma?

Man this is my beef, I want to get a new TV but pisses me no end I am going to have to buy $100 a month (aprox) cable signal.