Quake3World

I'm thinking about buying a TV but aren't really familiar with what I should look for. I have a fairly bright living room, one wall is a giant floor to ceiling window, so mirror finishes on TVs are annoying. I think I might be able to squeeze in a 50" though more realistically a 46". It'll be for a few movies, internet portal (not the crappy built-in interface, I'll probably have an actual computer plugged in), maybe some gaming though I don't currently own a console, Netflix, Apple TV, etc. I don't care about 3D and will be disabling the frame smoothing processing.

I've read that the Panasonic TCP46ST30 is supposed to be a fantastic choice for plasma, any downsides to this? Just wondering what my LCD/LED alternatives are. Any other features I should look for, things to stay away from, recommendations?

dunno if they've gotten any better over the last year or so since i last looked, but stay away from edge-lit LED displays. If you're gonna go LED backlit you want RGB LED.

some light reading: http://reviews.cnet.com/monitor-buying-guide/

then again if you aren't super anal about having THE BEST PICTURE EVER OMGAZ then just find something on sale that has generally good reviews.

Rule of thump says don't go for Plasma if you have a bright room.
I went for a Pana TX-P46GW20. I'm very happy with it, even in daylight .
Plasma is great for watching DVD/BR imo. It's got that certain smoothness on silhouettes. It's not extra sharp like LCD/LED.

I guess you'll have to try it on your spot.

plasma will likely have more glare. i just got a new LG LCD and it's quite nice... quite a bit better than my parents' top-end samsung.
oh, and plasma will use more power and puts off a good deal of heat and can have reduced lifespan at high altitude (from what i've heard).

Obsidian's main objective is to find darker blacks.

olo

obsidian wrote: I think I might be able to squeeze in a 50" though more realistically a 46"

Is that what all the girls normally say to you?

Plasma burn-in is still a problem. I'd avoid them and stick to LCD/LED.

duffman91 wrote:Plasma burn-in is still a problem. I'd avoid them and stick to LCD/LED.

It's not burn-in, but temporary image retention. It only happens when you have static HUDs or non-transparent watermarks on the screen for extended periods and many sets (including my 51" Samsung model) have built-in tools to prevent it or remove it. Avoiding a plasma TV for this reason is stupid really and the technology has improved a lot over the years.

The main issue with plasma is sometimes there is an audible buzz that can be heard when bright/white pixels fill the screen. It's not really noticeable unless you actively listen for it, but it's a concern nonetheless. As for picture quality, plasma is still leaps above LCD, especially for contrast ratios. Watching movies on my plasma, especially in 3D is just spectacular.

This is my TV, which I bought about a month ago for £630. It's the baws. This website is also decent as a buying guide.

i would get a 50 or 60 something size for sure

def a led lcd probly sony or lg

it has to have a matte screen tho i also have a very windowie room

also go to costco and get a wdtv live for gosh sakes!

apple tv

panasonic

LawL wrote:Obsidian's main objective is to find darker blacks.

You need new material.

why does Obsid's blackness come up so often? dude, he rides a white man's road bike, so get off his fucking jock

We own a sony bravia. I feel like they are pretty good.

i'd wait for the quantumHD TV's. they have higher resolution than real life.

Unisaw wrote:

LawL wrote:Obsidian's main objective is to find darker blacks.

You need new material.

Show me where I've said anything to that effect before.

That is a sexy TV Brisk, do want... and not badly priced at all.
Hmmmmm.

plained wrote:panasonic

Why would you say so?
Their cameras sure suck but imo they have the best plasma panels available.
I don't know personally about Samsung panels. Heard they weren't bad. I went for the Pana back then because of the built-in multi-tuner, which is kind of important in Germany, don't know about other countries/your preferences.

Plasma does drain more Watts, but in a legitimate range nowadays. Your bill won't rise by an enormous impact. It's not a green technology though, that is true.

Tsakali wrote:i'd wait for the quantumHD TV's. they have higher resolution than real life.

IMPOSSIBRU

Actually Im looking at a new tv as well. What are your guys thoughts on the Sharp 70" LED LC70LE734U?

oh man this is alot harder than it looks

I grabbed a sony 55" ex62

terrible tv, its like every source into it gets re compressed or something!

and i find the edge lit led terribly dim and weak picture, the whites are dull dull dull

I'm thinking to get a regular cfl lit lcd but witch one!

the edge lit led use just over 100W of power ! thats not enough brightness for a 55" picture imo

the cfl ones use about 350w so at least there is some balls there

help

watts and brightness aren't the same thing... especially when comparing two different light sources.

Save your money for OLED.

If you have money to burn, though, import a Philips Cinema 21:9 aspect ratio TV, for film greatness (Cinemascope). 58" LED-backlit one goes for about £4000.

brisk wrote:

duffman91 wrote:Plasma burn-in is still a problem. I'd avoid them and stick to LCD/LED.

Avoiding a plasma TV for this reason is stupid really and the technology has improved a lot over the years.

"Temporary Image Retention" is the same problem - lack of display clarity as a result of viewing habits.

I disagree with your statements based on observed RMA rates for Plasma versus LCD units at my place of employment. I won't comment on the brands themselves or where I work, so I suppose this is as far as I'll take it.

well what good are you then... share the know, brother!