11-30-2005, 12:44 PM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm right behind you
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertuzzied
Oh and Plasmas have a life span. Once it starts to go, around 30000-40000 viewing hours you cannot fix it.
|
Is the lifespan really an issue though? Even if you watch 6 hours of television every single day and only get 30,000 hours of lamp life the television will still last you more than 13 2/3 years. At that point I think you'd be ready for a new television, eh?
__________________
Don't fear me. Trust me.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 12:52 PM
|
#62
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertuzzied
Hey did you guys ever goto futureshop back in Feb/March of this year. I went to 3 different ones and each of them setup that Samsung pedestal DLP and all 3 of them looked sooo crappy ass. That was their flagship product but it looked so horrible. It looked like they were using an antenna to get their tv reception. hehe.
|
That pedestal TV was a classic example of form over function. Think about all your components and associated cables and ask yourself if it'll still look "cool" once your crap is hooked up to it.
I just cringe at the price drop in 1.5 years. I could buy a 60" now for what I paid for by 42".
One word of advice if you're leaning towards Plasma - watch for the set being EDTV vs HDTV. (480p vs 1080i) Big difference in resolution and may be a limiting factor in your future. Read here for more: http://www.projectorcentral.com/video_signals.htm
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 01:04 PM
|
#63
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
A good plasma will get you the best picture in the 50 inch range. They are quite a bit more expensive than similarly sized lcd and dlp projection tvs.
Plasmas have a better viewing angle than those tvs (ie you can see them well from the side). And much better blacks than all of them (especially lcds). Thin screen LCDs are not there yet (for bigger sizes), the blacks just don't compare, and there are motion issues. LCDs are said to be better than plasma's in very bright rooms (ie direct sunlight), but in my experience it is not an issue for plasma's under normal conditions.
The only technology that rivals the picture of plasmas are CRT tube tvs and in ideal conditions CRT projection TVs. But they are both big and bulky, and tube tv's don't come larger than 40".
For some reason there are a lot of myths about downfalls of plasma. The short life is a non factor, I believe some are rated at 60,000 hours. I am sure that is longer than most any other kind of tvs last.
Panasonic and Pioneers are pretty much accepted as the best plasma's out there. With Panasonic's being much more reasonably priced.
Last edited by nfotiu; 11-30-2005 at 01:14 PM.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 01:36 PM
|
#64
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Panasonic and Pioneers are pretty much accepted as the best plasma's out there. With Panasonic's being much more reasonably priced.
|
Agreed.
My brother just bought a new 50 inch Panasonic Plasma - 50PHD8UK. We are picking up this afternoon! It is $4700, with tax, local here in Calgary.
The half-life on that plasma is 60K hours. On his current plasma, he runs the brightness at about 25% because the TV is in the basement. Unless the TV is across from your picture window and in direct sunlight, I dont see anyone using a brightness higher than 50%. Even in a bright room, anything brighter than that would make your colors all wonky - the black would be grey, the white would blur, etc, etc.
In short, 60K hour half life is TONS! I am guessing it would be something like 90,000 hours (over 10 years of use at 24 hours a day) before the TV couldnt put out enough brightness.
Like you said, the plasma offers the best picture. But, the cost is greater than a DLP Projection TV. It all comes down wether or not the better picture is worth the extra money to you. Hey, I have met people that dont think HDTV is 'worth' much more than regular TV.
Either way a person goes, they will soon find out that the largest shortcoming of ANY display device is the poor video quality of our broadcasts. Any SD signal looks pretty bad on a 42+ inch display, and even the HD isnt as clear as it once was.
Last edited by Draug; 11-30-2005 at 01:39 PM.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 01:42 PM
|
#65
|
CP Pontiff
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A pasture out by Millarville
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draug
The half-life on that plasma is 60K hours. On his current plasma, he runs the brightness at about 25% because the TV is in the basement. Unless the TV is across from your picture window and in direct sunlight, I dont see anyone using a brightness higher than 50%. Even in a bright room, anything brighter than that would make your colors all wonky - the black would be grey, the white would blur, etc, etc.
|
Funny you would say that because my tv IS in my Sun Room and in direct sunlight - okay, sideways sunlight - and the room itself is bright.
Regular TV works fine in that environment. Am I in peril with one of these new-fangled products?
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 01:48 PM
|
#66
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse
One word of advice if you're leaning towards Plasma - watch for the set being EDTV vs HDTV. (480p vs 1080i) Big difference in resolution and may be a limiting factor in your future.
|
I'm struggling with this very question right now. I've shopping for a ~42" television (I'm flexible on the size, but somewhere in that range), and have decided on Plasma. However, I can't decide whether I should pay the premium for HDTV or pay $500 to $1000 less for EDTV.
Anyone else faced with this decision recently?
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:00 PM
|
#67
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowperson
Funny you would say that because my tv IS in my Sun Room and in direct sunlight - okay, sideways sunlight - and the room itself is bright.
Regular TV works fine in that environment. Am I in peril with one of these new-fangled products?
Cowperson
|
(Non-Projection) LCD TVs would probably be your best bet for that type of environment. Although if your regular tv is fine, a plasma would probably be fine as well. If you are going to be watching movies in the evening though, Plasma would definitely get the edge for its better blacks and contrast. Dark scenes in a movie will look significantly better on a plasma.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:08 PM
|
#68
|
CP's Resident DJ
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the Gin Bin
|
Regardless of what TV you folks end up with, I HIGHLY recommend getting the Video Essentials DVD to set up the picture. It works wonders.
Just looked for the "latest" and it is now called "Digital Video Essentials". Probably about 30 bucks here in Canada.
You spend thousands on a TV, and 97% or more of the time, the picture is set up wrong. It also helps you set up your surround sound as well.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:08 PM
|
#69
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronSJ
I'm struggling with this very question right now. I've shopping for a ~42" television (I'm flexible on the size, but somewhere in that range), and have decided on Plasma. However, I can't decide whether I should pay the premium for HDTV or pay $500 to $1000 less for EDTV.
Anyone else faced with this decision recently?
|
Tough question. Neither actually displays in native HDTV resolution. Both take an hdtv signal (1080i or 720p) and convert it to either 480(ED) lines or 768 (HD) lines. Both will look good for HDTV. There will be a certain distance from the tv that you won't be able to tell a difference depending on your eyes. Basically if you are going to be sitting close, get an HDTV. If you are sitting far, consider the ED. Also, if you are just going to be watching dvds, you probably won't find much difference at all between the two (until you upgrade to HD-DVD I guess).
IMO on a scale from 1 to 10, a regular sd tv would be about a 5, a good ED Plasma 9, and a good HD plasma 10. Keep in mind that a good ED Plasma (ie panasonic) will have a better picture than a bad hd plasma
Last edited by nfotiu; 11-30-2005 at 02:15 PM.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:15 PM
|
#70
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnski
Regardless of what TV you folks end up with, I HIGHLY recommend getting the Video Essentials DVD to set up the picture. It works wonders.
Just looked for the "latest" and it is now called "Digital Video Essentials". Probably about 30 bucks here in Canada.
You spend thousands on a TV, and 97% or more of the time, the picture is set up wrong. It also helps you set up your surround sound as well.
|
Great Recommendation.
Most people never set up a TV correctly.
Another option is Avia: A Guide to Home Theater. Digital Video Essentials is newer, and would be the preferred choice, however.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:24 PM
|
#71
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronSJ
I'm struggling with this very question right now. I've shopping for a ~42" television (I'm flexible on the size, but somewhere in that range), and have decided on Plasma. However, I can't decide whether I should pay the premium for HDTV or pay $500 to $1000 less for EDTV.
Anyone else faced with this decision recently?
|
Like you have no doubt discovered, this isnt too cut and dry.
I would make the decision based on money. How much can you feel good about spending?
I just pulled these prices for the Panasonic's from AVdeals.ca
1. 42" EDTV - Model 42PWD8UK - $2300
2. 42" HDTV - Model 42PHD8UK - $3100
3. 50" HDTV - Model 50PHD8UK - $4300
I would look at is this way: Is $2000ish the most you can spend? If so, the EDTV is the way to go. Can you spend $3000? If so, anyone who can spend $3000 can surely spend $4000 on a product that is twice as good (50" is bigger, true HD, and has square (instead of rectangular) pixels which are way better for PC/HT Gaming).
Basically, its the 42" EDTV or the 50" HDTV. I'd stay way from the middle ground of the 42" HDTV.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 03:10 PM
|
#72
|
Scoring Winger
|
Ok...I too am in the market and need some advice. However, space is an issue and I'd like to wall mount the tv to make as much room as possible.
I think I've settled on the Panasonic LCD 26" - the bigger flat panel LCDs and plasmas are just more than I want to pay. However, I basically want it to watch sports - hockey - on HD. And have read and heard that LCD flat panels do not handle sports well - which was mentioned in this thread. Should I go with another, different type of tv? Or, is watching hockey on an LCD flat panel just bad compared to a plasma - or is it bad compared to every other tv out there including tube? If I should go with another tv, what do you recommend (I'll probably spend around $1500)?
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 03:28 PM
|
#73
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench Warmer
Ok...I too am in the market and need some advice. However, space is an issue and I'd like to wall mount the tv to make as much room as possible.
I think I've settled on the Panasonic LCD 26" - the bigger flat panel LCDs and plasmas are just more than I want to pay. However, I basically want it to watch sports - hockey - on HD. And have read and heard that LCD flat panels do not handle sports well - which was mentioned in this thread. Should I go with another, different type of tv? Or, is watching hockey on an LCD flat panel just bad compared to a plasma - or is it bad compared to every other tv out there including tube? If I should go with another tv, what do you recommend (I'll probably spend around $1500)?
|
You should really try to find a sony. Their LCD's are a step above everyone elses right now, and have the fastest response times (less motion blur). It should be great for hockey. Although Panasonic make arguably the best plasmas, they are not known for their lcds.
You can find this one for under $1000 online in the US. You should be able to find it in your price range in Canada with some searching:
http://www.mpsuperstore.com/Electronics/discr186395.htm
Last edited by nfotiu; 11-30-2005 at 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 03:56 PM
|
#74
|
My face is a bum!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
You should really try to find a sony. Their LCD's are a step above everyone elses right now, and have the fastest response times (less motion blur). It should be great for hockey. Although Panasonic make arguably the best plasmas, they are not known for their lcds.
You can find this one for under $1000 online in the US. You should be able to find it in your price range in Canada with some searching:
http://www.mpsuperstore.com/Electronics/discr186395.htm
|
As of about 10 months ago (I know that is a long time for this stuff) Sharp was by far the leader and was selling their second bests to Sony and Toshiba. Sharps were way more expensive as a result, and Sony's and Toshibas were just about as good, and a little more reasonably priced. This has changed?
EDIT: I should add, I've had many people over to watch hockey (when possible in HD) at my house and I've asked many people if they notice the blur, and so far no one has.
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 07:57 AM
|
#75
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
From what I've read, the Sony Bravia's that came out this summer have a better picture than the Sharp Aquos. That is a somewhat disputed though. They do have a better response time though, which should help alleviate concerns of motion blur. The Sharps are still among the best.
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 08:04 AM
|
#76
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draug
Is $2000ish the most you can spend? If so, the EDTV is the way to go. Can you spend $3000? If so, anyone who can spend $3000 can surely spend $4000 on a product that is twice as good.
|
Thanks for the reply Draug (and NFotiu). You're certaintly right -- it's not cut & dry at all! I guess I'm looking to spend somewhere between $2000 and $3000, but as you said, if I'm willing to spend $3000, why not spend $4000 on something that is that much better? Actually, I'm probably going to end up buying a second television in the next few years (Let's call it "Spousal Argument Insurance")... so I'm leaning towards the lower-priced EDTV now, with the promise of upgrading to in a year or two to a HDTV Plasma... hopefully at a much lower price.
My biggest fear is that I'll be disappointed with EDTV, but that doesn't sound like the case at all...
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 08:11 AM
|
#77
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
From what I've read, the Sony Bravia's that came out this summer have a better picture than the Sharp Aquos. That is a somewhat disputed though. They do have a better response time though, which should help alleviate concerns of motion blur. The Sharps are still among the best.
|
I don't know, I may be wrong but in the comparisons I've done (just in store) between the Sharp Aquos, the Sony Bravia's and the Panasonic Viera's, the Panansonic's picture is by far the best. The Sharp and Panasonic are OK-priced for 26" (around $1450 Cdn) but the Sony is $200 or $300 more at most places - at least. I'm leaning towards the Panasonic but am going to look into the Sony Bravia a little more.
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 03:19 PM
|
#78
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hell
|
I have an EDTV Plasma and i'm happy with it! Couldn't afford the HD version at the time. Got it from Dell.
__________________
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 PM.
|
|