in the 40in to 50in range what is the consensus? is LCD the way to go or Plasma? What are pros and cons for each?

 

I bought a plasma and returned it the same day. The glare was so bad I couldn't see shit. Picked up an LCD instead, looks fantastic.

 

That depend on where you put it. No control over light = LCD; control over light = plasma. Plasma has the best picture.

 

so the light issues with plasma is due to glare on the screen?

 

A lot of LCDs above 40" have a bad viewing angle compared to my 50" plasma

 

What is DLP?

 

The only time I have issue with glare on mine is if the sun shines on it. I fix that by closing the window shade. In spring-fall, the direct sunlight never gets in because of my trees.

Lighting from lamps in the room has never effected mine.

 

Don't LCDs generally have a longer life-span than Plasmas?

 

^ From http://www.plasma.com/classroom/LCD_..._plasma_TV.htm

LCD
Expect 30 to 50,000 hours bulb life according to Sharp ( Please note that the picture can fade over time on a LCD TV. I would expect prime performance to last closer to 20 to 30,000 hours maximum ( 13 years at 6 hours per day). Expect substantially less on a no name.

Plasma
the average name brand plasma TV will last 50 to 70,000 hours to half life ( brightness is 50% of original, it will still be 2 to 3 times brighter then a regular TV) This is around 20 years at 6 hours per day. Expect substantially less on a no name

 

LCD... it was a no brainer for me. I can't stand the glare of a Plasma. Also, Plasma didn't offer 1080p when I bought my LCD. They are out now but they cost big bucks and there is still the glare problem.

The viewing angle on my 46" Samsung is spectacular and better than my 61" DLP.

 

so far it definately seems like there is no clear cut winner...if i plan to use the TV for gaming does that change things at all?

 

what you guys think about this one?

PDP-5071HD

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1142299476010

 

I have a Panny plasma (nearly 3 yrs old now) and IMHO LCD's (even 1080p) don't compare. The one exception would be the Bravia series from Sony. They are NICE!!!

I do get glare on a really bright sunny day, but only for the few minutes that the sun misses our window treatments in our 2 story family room (w/3 levels of windows). All in all, a no brainer compromise to get the PQ that plasma provides.

 

go LCD because of burn in problems that don't exist on plasma.

I put that in red because first the plasma people will say "burn in is no longer a problem". Then they will give you a paragraph on how to prevent it. If its not a problem why do I need to know how to prevent it? BTW my Noggin Logo burn is now 98% gone. I think another 2-3 hours of white screen will cure it.

It does seem that plasmas are much more prone to burn when new. So I wouldn't even attempt to play games on it before 6 months of use.

 

I asked myself the same questions when shopping for a TV. Posted on this forum and received a lot of great information. Yesterday, after over a year of looking at virtually everything, I purchased a 42" Sharp AQUOS LC42D62U 1080p. As mentioned I looked for a very long time at both formats and most manufacturers. The picture is amazing, even at different viewing angles. I generally found the glare less with LCD than plasma. I think both formats have their pros and cons, and its best to spend some time looking at both to see which one you prefer. Interestingly, when I started looking over a year ago, there seemed to be an equal amount of sets offered in both LCD and plasma. Throughout the months I noticed a definite increase in the amount of LCD sets offered.

Terry

 

Yeah, I think LCD is fast becoming a trendy alternative to plasma. LCD typically has less glare because the actual picture is brighter, the colors more vivid and intense. I like the bright, sharp colors and lines of an LCD, but it's probably a less realistic reproduction than a plasma.

 

For picture quality, plasma is the best. There are negative things about it. My family has a panny 65" 1080p and the picture is stunning! Nobody watches it in the morning. Took us 3 months to get it from Magnolia. Sister, Mom, and Dad was going to cancel the order. My brother and I wanted it because we like the whole theater experience.

Back to topic, if you use your display to play games, get an lcd. If you want to watch movie, get a plasma. If you can control lighting, get a plasma; if you cant, get a lcd. There's just too many variable involve. I dont care if plasma is going to be outdated a few years from now or how long it will last. My brother and I enjoy it the most.

 

I had to get both...

I have a 42" HD plasma and a 32" HD LCD

Plasma has more pixelation. You'll notice the color doesn't fade if you are looking at plasma from an angle.

LCD has less pixelation than plasma but still puts out a kick ass color.

Some of the newer plasma's like Panasonic...their pixels in the TV move when there is a still screen so the picture doesn't get burned into itself.

 

i do alot of gaming and can also control lighting...i am thinking about getting this bad boy..

Pioneer Elite PRO-940HD Plasma

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/t...lite-pro-940hd

 

If you don't need 1080P, then you are probably wasting about $1000 to $1500 going with the Elite. The regular PDP-4271HD. They basically use the same screen, look pretty much the same, and will save you a lot of money, as I said.

GreenMachine, what brand and model tv's did you go with that you are experiencing more pixelation on a plasma then your lcd?

 

with high end plasmas like the pioneer do i still have to be worried about burn in?

 

greenmachine, with the higher end sets i definately noticed more pixalation with LCDs so its strange to hear you saying the opposite...

 

I believe the new Pioneer's have an orbiter setting that will shift the image slightly, so much so that you won't really notice. I use this feature on my LG plasma and play ps2 on it with no burn in or image retention at all. Just wait at least 100 hours of normal watching use before playing any games.

 

thanks for the advice! after seeing the picture quality with the pioneer plasma i just can't get myself to like any of the LCD sets out there. i looked at the sony xbr and that is supposed to be top of the line LCD and i still wasn't blown away...

 

I see about 3 or 4 Sony XBR2 or 3's a week and still think my LG plasma has WAY better image quality. I am not a fan of LCD, just doesn't have the clarity I like. There are others like Soopa that will swear by it. A lot of it is preference and how one's eye interprets the image. Pioneer plasmas have possibly the best image quality I have EVER seen. Funny enough though, I typically think the Elite series has worse image quality then the regular consumer series. Another reason to save the $1500.

 

Question. how exactly bad is the burn-in problem with plasma tv? The saying from the LCD people sound like as long as you turn on the tv, it is going to get you. Is it just some kind of hype?

I have my CRT tv for 5-6 years. I don't see no burn-in with any station logo, and I have the TV on almost 12 hours a day every day.

 

Panasonic...but it's an 06 model for the plasma...I thought I'd try Olevia, but I already sent it back and got a Sabre for HD LCD and spent a little more money.

 

The picture quality of LCD TVs has historically suffered from poor black levels, but the latest versions are often much improved . The best LCDs actually surpass the best plasmas in terms of delivering a deep black, but most LCDs still lag behind. That's because LCDs use a backlight to provide illumination, and there's almost always some light leaking through the pixels. Color saturation is also generally inferior to plasma's, again as a result of the inability to completely blacken (turn off) the pixels.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This was from here.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108443-2.html?tag=lnav

Honestly though, it's really all on how big is your pocket book.