Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by HDTVFreak07, Aug 15, 2008.
You forgot one thing: LCDs use waaay less power..
Hmmm, I think it's the other way around on this one.
Have to agree with you, You need to get a good LCDto get viewing angle.. cheap ones can be realy bad :eek2:
On the oldest LCD TVs, you are correct. These were overglorified monitors. On recent LCDs, the viewing angles are generally between 170 and 180 degrees.
If it's an LCD computer monitor with an extra input, it will suck. If it is a decent LCD TV that is somewhat recent, this should not be the case.
I'm probably getting flamed on this comment but I'm gonna put it out there. I'd don't care if the LCD TV can produce a 1080p 24 fps image, since the PQ overall on most LCDs is crap. I said it. Don't get me started with "motion enhancement" on on the newer sets. Makes me nauseous.
I deal with a lot of different makes and models, and unless I have to, I won't install a LCD TV above 32 inches. The only time I do it is for direct lighting or cabinet size issues (Those Toshiba Regza slim fits are great replacements for older in-cabinet RPTV).
It sucks that most plasma, including my Panasonic 1080p Plasma, won't display 24fps off the DirecTV box, but it looks great at 1080p on Blu-ray anyway. When I have to I'll upgrade to a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.
Anything over 120 degrees or show isn't usable for serious watching.
They also tend to weigh less (try lifting a 60 in. plasma onto a wall mount )
I wouldn't want to try watching outside of 120 degrees myself. I call that putting the TV in the right place. But, just the same, I was merely conveying opinions I have heard a number of times.
Another rule of thumb I have heard was that LCD often is a good replacement for tube TV (similar pros/cons regarding lighting), where plasma tends to be a better replacement for a good projector.
Plasma offers a picture that is most like that of a CRT because it uses the same technology to product the image - electrons hitting a phosphor-coated screen. The electrons are just generated differently and travel a much shorter distance to reach the screen.
Now, back on topic! My take on all this is that it’s all marketing hoo-ha anyhow. This is nothing more than D* and E* playing cat and mouse with their technology in a war of words. It’s doubtful that Joe Sixpack can Joto tell the difference between 720p, 1080i, 1080p/24, 1080p/60, etc. To him, it’s all “high-def”. He bought the 1080p set because it had more pixels, and now D* has “1080p” so it’s all good! H doesn’t bother reading the fine print that mentions it’s only 1080p/24 on select VOD and is not currently support by 98% of the TV’s in American living rooms. Heck, he may even have that 1080p “high-def” connected to his cable box or receiver via S-video.
I think you have both of these backwards. LCDs tend to be more expensive when comparing sets of roughly equal size (which is part of the reason why plasmas still have a pretty decent market advantage in the larger sizes). Also, one of the "knocks" on LCD vis-a-vis plasma is their viewing angle.
Here's my take on it. Please note that this is one man's opinion speaking "in general" about a pretty hotly-debated question (i.e. don't flame me).
LCDs are much more versatile in terms of where you can put them (no need to worry much about ambient lighting since they tend to have matte screens), they're lighter, there's virtually no burn-in risk, and they consume less power. Those benefits come at a price, though. LCDs' motion handling tends to be subpar and, consequently, not ideal for viewing high-motion content like sports (sometimes you see this referred to as "motion blur"; I think some DLP manufacturers ran some ads exploiting this a while back); LCD manufacturers are introducing some nifty enhancements to try and overcome this limitation of the tech (sample and hold), but I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to matching the motion handling of a plasma. Also, the black levels on LCDs also tend to be much worse than on a plasma (which affects the accuracy and depth of all colors); again, LCD manufacturers are trying to address this (and some, like Samsung, are getting pretty close), but it's still not generally as good as it is on a plasma.
Plasmas, on the other hand, although heavier, more power hungry, and potentially "burn-in-able" (although, you'd really have to be trying on a Kuro or a Panny), handle motion nearly as well as a tube (because it's the same basic technology) and have MUCH better black levels which yields a better, truer picture with better more accurate color detail and a deeper picture. You need to be more careful where you put one since they have glossy screens (albeit generally treated with some sort of a/r coating), but I've got one in my very bright living room and it works well most of the time.
So, really, if you consider ONLY picture quality and take all of the other considerations out of the picture, it's a no-brainer, imo; plasma is the winner (and the Kuros, Kuro Elites, and Kuro Signatures are the winner amongst plasmas).
P.S. It's also "conventional wisdom" that off-axis viewing is still a pretty big problem with LCD...again, it's a function of the way the screen "works". This is a non-issue for plasmas. Recent LCDs are getting better in this regard, but still not quite to the level of plasmas.
P.P.S. Although it's always a good idea to get a broad swath of information and data on this stuff, if you have the time and patience to wade through a lot of the crap, there's frequently some good info here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=40. Here's a thread discussing the relative merits of what is considered to be the best of the best plasma (Pioneer Kuro) and what should represent a marked step forward in terms of performance for LCDs (Samsung 950s) -- both represent really the bleeding edge of what their respective technologies have to offer, so it might be helpful: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1056710
Thanks for your thoughts. No flames from me, only appreciation for another person's opinion.
I'll second everything this guy said. Now, back on topic. Oh yeah, I abandoned the topic.
True. I mounted my 58" Panny plasma on an articulating wall mount in my living room. For those of you keeping track at home, that's a 140 pound TV on a mount that itself weighs nearly 60 pounds. If that sucker comes down, they'll hear it two counties over.
I can accept viewing angle. I have never once seen where the difference in viewing angles would matter to me. I tend to put seating in front of the screen.
My opinion on pricing is based on the terribly empirical model: I priced both for myself and found the LCDs to be several hundred to a thousand dollars cheaper for any size and quality I would consider in my home. YMMV.
EDIT: As I look now at similarly spec'd plasma and LCD displays, I am not seeing a huge difference in price. What was there when I was shopping for one is no longer. But even before, with the price difference I saw, I decided to wait it out a while before picking up the next set.
Does that come with the flying buttress do-it-yourself wall support kit, mav? You should be commended to your dedication to having HDTV, regardless of the amount of work.
This may well be a YMMV thing, since I can [right now] look over at my TV at about 170 degrees, and see "a sliver" of the screen, but what I can see looks "about right".
Same here.. can't see the picture because of angle before I loose the quality
Newer LCDs have made major leaps in many regards..
Ok, back to the original topic: 1080p VOD.
(I knew I shouldn't have diverted the thread...)