Remove this Banner Ad

LCD vs Plasma

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Changamagic

All Australian
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Posts
741
Reaction score
7
Location
Tassie
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Storm, THFC, Dallas Cowboys
Guys, i am in the process of buying a new tv - the debate is whether to go LCD or Plasma? I am looking at the 42 inch size and was curious at to whether one was better than the other in this size?

If any7one has any advice reagrding Full HD and HD it would be welcomed...

Cheers in adavance :thumbsu:
 
Full HD is 1080P

HD is 720P or 1080i

Channel 7 treat 540P and HD, they are wrong.

much discussion on whether you can see the difference and at what distance etc

as to Plasma v LCD. there are a range of opinions on which is better.

Full HD will attract a premium, altho it is coming down.

What is your budget? I'm looking at a catalogue now that has a 52" Samsung plasma (1366 x 768) and a 42" Full HD LG LCD and they are both $1799.

Personally i'd also be looking for the most number of inputs, esp HDMI X2 or 3.
 
Plasma are good for just pure viewing quality, but for diversity in viewing ranges of media and maintaining quality LCD is the way to go.
 
I've heard from a Tv expert - or is that 'expert' on ABC radio that a good quality brand Plasma is a better option then LCD.

Not my opinion of course. so if you get dudded, don't blame me.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I've heard from a Tv expert - or is that 'expert' on ABC radio that a good quality brand Plasma is a better option then LCD.

Not my opinion of course. so if you get dudded, don't blame me.
its true, a pioneer or bang and olufsen plasma shits on whatever LCD's are out there. There is an LCD that i like... Sony KDL70 XBR3. 70 inch, 1080p of LED backlit goodness. Weighs in at a whopping $70k though. I would recommend a pioneer plasma. They last as long as even the best LCD's, have better picture quality, better response times and the pioneer services (delivery, installation, warranty, calibration) are second to none.
Needless to say i am vey happy with my Pioneer 50 inch 1080p Plasma.
 
its true, a pioneer or bang and olufsen plasma shits on whatever LCD's are out there. There is an LCD that i like... Sony KDL70 XBR3. 70 inch, 1080p of LED backlit goodness. Weighs in at a whopping $70k though. I would recommend a pioneer plasma. They last as long as even the best LCD's, have better picture quality, better response times and the pioneer services (delivery, installation, warranty, calibration) are second to none.
Needless to say i am vey happy with my Pioneer 50 inch 1080p Plasma.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but my mates got a Pioneer plasma -Kuro and we were watching Saints vs Port (channel 7 ) and there was a bit of "shuddering" at times...picture was awesome though

Saw a match on HD (channel 10) a couple of months back on the Sony Bravia XBR and there was no "shuddering"

Overall I think the Pioneer had truer image colour than the Sony, but my opinion is if you want to purchase a tv for HD sports atm Sony is the way to go

If you want it for movies than Pioneer or Panasonic is better option
 
Going against every "expert" in the history the debate there Ares who state sport is better on Plasma.

Your budget will determine what you get. Also size of screen.
 
From what I understand, 50" and above, Plasma is the way to go.

My personal choice is the Pioneer Kuro, which can be purchased for around $4,500 now, which is excellent value (considering it used to be about $8 - $9k.

The new Pioneer is being released in Oct. which will be Pioneers last plasma screen.

Another very decent TV is the New Panasonic VIERA TH-50PZ800A 50" (127cm) Full-HD Digital Plasma TV, which is going for around $3,200 in the JB catalogue (and probably better instore). This is the 11th Gen pana and has been put on par with the Pioneer 50" Kuro for quality (long regarded as the best screen on the market). It's price point is obviously advantageous also.

Plasma is regarded as being better for sport and general viewing, whereas LCD is seen as better for movie and video games.

So, it will depend on your needs and budget.

Under 50" LCD is regarded as the best way to go and I would personally say the XBR Bravia Series would be up there with the best screens.

You're looking at RRP of $3,600 for the 40", $4,100 for the 46", $6,100 for the 52", but this is RRP and better deals could be sought in store.

Check this website out for some great deals http://www.digitalcentre.com.au/

On the Bravia's the 70" is ridiculous at $69,999. How they justify a jump from $6,100 for the 52" to $69,999 for the 70" is beyond me, particularly as you'd have to sit down the road for it to be a clear image.
 
Thanks guys for all your advice and information.

I ended up going with a 42 inch Panasonic Viera Plasma Full HD, ($2,400) I have heard from a number of different people that for pure tv viewing the plasmas can be better than the LCD's. For that reason and the fact i watch a lot of sport i went down the plasma path.... hope its the right choice!

I am really happy with the product at the moment - once again, cheers for all your help!
 
Thanks guys for all your advice and information.

I ended up going with a 42 inch Panasonic Viera Plasma Full HD, ($2,400) I have heard from a number of different people that for pure tv viewing the plasmas can be better than the LCD's. For that reason and the fact i watch a lot of sport i went down the plasma path.... hope its the right choice!

I am really happy with the product at the moment - once again, cheers for all your help!

Plasma is universally agreed to be the superior technology, you made an excellent choice. Panasonic's plasmas are fantastic, enjoy the footy in HD, you'll love it and wont want to watch SD footy again.
 
I always forget to watch my tv on the HD channels. Can't really notice a difference other than the TV takes up half the wall in my bedroom.

Oh well, I would have just drank that $2500 if I didn't spend it anyway :p
 

Remove this Banner Ad

haha, yer the Foxtel is on the 50" Plasma so the HD doesn't ever really get a run.
 
Slightly off topic but sometimes I look at HD and SD channells and there isn't that much difference. It's a bit more vivid and small details like the crowd are much clearer but a lot of people say after watching HD for a while everything else seems crap and blurry. I don't seem to notice that much of a difference. Is there something I could be doing wrong? Perhaps I need new glasses :o
 
Slightly off topic but sometimes I look at HD and SD channells and there isn't that much difference. It's a bit more vivid and small details like the crowd are much clearer but a lot of people say after watching HD for a while everything else seems crap and blurry. I don't seem to notice that much of a difference. Is there something I could be doing wrong? Perhaps I need new glasses :o
What the TV salespeople generally don't tell you is that to see the full benefit of the 1080 lines of resolution you have to be viewing from the optimum distance, which for a 42" screen is stupidly close; like 1.5m from the screen.

Another thing to keep in mind is that just because a show is on the HD channel, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily HD. Many shows are just a duplicate of what's on the SD channel. Also there is no true Full HD FTA TV in Australia. 1080 interlaced is the highest that any programs are broadcast in.

The importance of full HD is severely overstated and the cynical would suggest it's being driven by the manufacturers and retailers so that people who already have a HD screen think they're missing out on something and go out and buy a Full HD one. The bottom line is don't buy a TV based on numbers on a spec sheet. After all, resolution is considered only the 4th most important factor when assessing the overall quality of picture.

Check out these links for some more info:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html?tag=txt

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom