lcd/plasma

A few thoughts:

I own a 42" Panasonic plasma (42PWD8UK)and have been very impressed with it. I also sit 9" away and the set certainly is not too big, in fact I think a 37" would be too small.

A 37" LCD is much more expensive than a 37" Plasma if you compare the better manufacturers such as Sharp or Panasonic. Overall I think Plasma is just the better value provided that you get a good manufacturer that will last.

Terry,

Bought my Panny 37" two and a half years ago...given excellent service, with fine picture quality.

Depending on the size of room, and the distance you will sit from the screen, compare the 42 to 37"; for me the 37" won.

LCDs are getting better all the time. Motion artifacts were amongst the shortcomings.

I'm going to buy a 20-24" widescreen PC monitor to use in my bedroom, using my laptop to play DVDs - let us know how any comparisons you do work out.

Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Terry59:
does anyone have a preference when buying a plasma or lcd and what make were you impressed with,i am looking for something with a screen size between 37-42inchs but not sure if 42inchs is going to be to big as i will only be about 9 feet from the screen

Sony Bravia KDL-V40XBR1. I got one and it is one of the best.

At that size, definitely plasma over LCD. In my view, LCD leaves much to be desired with motion. The best LCDs around are the Sharps and they're fantastic when nothing's moving, but it all goes wrong when movement comes into it. Smaller screens (21inch and less) don't suffer so much of course, but even they have trailing problems.

Of the plasmas, I did a direct A/B just recently between the latest Panasonic and Pioneer. The Panasonic was in since it's a 37 inch job and the person who wanted it needed a smaller unit. Well, by golly! The Panasonic, with its 37inch picture, is actually BIGGER than the 43inch Pioneer! Isn't that ridiculous? It's both taller and wider than the Pioneer by a few centimetres (I forget the exact measurements).

As for picture, the Pioneer murdered the Panny (surprised, since I'd heard it was good). We went through a full setup to make sure and it simply didn't have the contrast capability (set to maximum) to actually give you the correct results. Very disappointing.

Viewing distance remains the same of course, since the main factor to consider is pixel size. This remains fairly constant (about 0.5mm) for all plasmas so the viewing distance remains a minimum of about 9 feet irrespective of screen size.

The Pioneer has one other nice feature - it has a separate tuner unit so only one wire is required between it and the screen. This is nice for wallmount scenarios. The Panasonic has the tuner section built into the main chassis. This can be easier if you're pushed for shelves, but wallmounting is a pain because of the extra cables going to the main chassis.

The only (minor) weakness of the Pioneer, in my view, is the add-on speakers. I've tried the side mounted ones and they are not very good at all, so it's not too hot when it comes to being used purely as a telly. Don't get me wrong - they make a noise, but it's not as impressive as some CRT TVs. Now, this is a minor weakness because most of these panels get used in surround sound applications or with external amps and speakers, but it's annoying since they are not cheap speakers.

Frank model of pioneer was it?

I am also thinking of taking the plunge LCD or Plasma and am interested in your comments that LCD is still poor on movements, as none of the magazines seem to indicate this making decisions pretty difficult

Nige

Latest Pioneer 436 HD Ready thingy, the PDP-436XDE. This is such a good screen. And it's good out of the box since it's factory set to the ISF calibration standard (which we checked with a setup disk). Most manufacturers set their units for maximum contrast or sharpness and brightness so they look good in the typical Currys/Dixons/John Lewis stores. The problem is, of course, that's a completely inappropriate setting for the home, and none of these units come with built in setup software.

This is a subject which is often overlooked in the magazines and at the dealers. Most manufacturers expect plasma screens to be setup by the dealer, but with most people buying online/Dixons/Currys and the prices coming down, this isn't happening so many people are watching their screens at an incorrect setting. The other thing which gets me is that the setup disc allows us to set up the unit with the DVD player, but what if the output of the SKYbox/Playstation2 differs significantly from the norm? Well, the settings aren't per input so one of your sources has to be out. I think the settings should be settable per input.

As to LCD vs plasma, there is no comparison in my view, especially now that plasmas have almost CRT-like longevity. The only place LCD wins is if you must have a smaller screen. Plasma just doesn't make sense for small sizes because of the pixel size which is pretty much fixed at 0.5mm for now so the minimum viewing distance remains 9 feet or so which indicates a larger screen.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
In my view, LCD leaves much to be desired with motion. The best LCDs around are the Sharps and they're fantastic when nothing's moving, but it all goes wrong when movement comes into it.

Hmmm .... I'm not sure this is true any longer Frank.

LCD panels certainly used to have major problems with motion artifacts but the latest generation of picture processing "engines" plus vastly improved response times (some now around 10ms) have pretty much eliminated them - to my eyes anyway & I could see them clearly before. I've mainly been looking at 32" models & it's possible that the larger LCD screens still suffer in this respect, but I can't see why this should be the case .....

Most industry observers seem to think that there are trade-offs with both formats, plasma generally being preferred for large screens (over 40") & LCD for smaller ones, although it's perhaps worth noting that Sony have announced that they will drop plasma altogether as soon as large-screen LCD panels become cheaper .....

Unfortunately for Terry59 & NigeP, 37-40" seems to be the crossover point where opinions are firmly divided - life is never simple is it !

Paul

Paul,

We shall have to agree to differ. We have the latest generation 32" Sharp model optimised for PAL and the judderiness is still there - better than before I grant you, but still there, and a lot worse than CRT in my view.

I'm not surprised Sony are moving away from plasma - their models aren't strong competition and never have been. And of course, the production costs for LCD are far lower than plasma.

That said, primary screen displays are set to change quite significantly in the next year or two. LED displays are finally becoming cheap enough to make it into production, and they explode the colour gamut that both plasma and LCD can cope with.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
.... and a lot worse than CRT in my view.

That said, primary screen displays are set to change quite significantly in the next year or two. LED displays are finally becoming cheap enough to make it into production, and they explode the colour gamut that both plasma and LCD can cope with.

This is the root of the problem of course - neither plasma nor LCD can (yet?) beat the best CRT sets for overall picture quality but consumers (myself included) want flat-panel sets on the grounds of space saving & sexy appearance.

New developments will undoubtedly offer further advances (no surprise there). The joint development between Toshiba & Canon called SED (which uses phosphors like CRT & plasma) allegedly provides CRT picture quality but in flat-panel form.

The trouble is of course that if you always wait for the next generation, you never actually buy anything !

Paul

quote:

but consumers (myself included) want flat-panel sets on the grounds of space saving & sexy appearance

Also, please show me a 42" or 50" CRT. They don't exist. I think Loewe once did a 39/40" CRT but is was huge!! and the screen bowed like a goldfish bowl. A real dinosaur.

Allan

There is one UK Naim /AV dealer who won't even stock LCD and is scathing on his website. Frank seems to be confirming his point of view.

gosh had another browse today at Fenwicks and Dixons and must admit of the LCD screens the Sony and Sharp looked pretty good while the Panasonic which is raved about in the magazines not so good.

On plasma the gave a sharper picture but are 42 upwards, (too big). How does one make a choice when it is not easy to demo and they are expensive! so have to make the right choice

Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by NigeP:
gosh had another browse today at Fenwicks and Dixons and must admit of the LCD screens the Sony and Sharp looked pretty good while the Panasonic which is raved about in the magazines not so good.

On plasma the gave a sharper picture but are 42 upwards, (too big). How does one make a choice when it is not easy to demo and they are expensive! so have to make the right choice

Nigel

I purchased the Sony KDL-V40XBR1 and to my eye it is FAR better than any plasma screen currently in the North American market of the size around 40 inches. At home it is even better. I am going to get the Bang Olufsen active speakers model BeoLab3 to match with it.

What about the issue that some people seem to have been afflicted by with plasmas, namely that the sky logo gets burned onto the screen over time?
I realise that some have not suffered this problem at all....any perspective on that Frank?
Simon

quote:

Originally posted by NigeP:
gosh had another browse today at Fenwicks and Dixons and must admit of the LCD screens the Sony and Sharp looked pretty good while the Panasonic which is raved about in the magazines not so good.

On plasma the gave a sharper picture but are 42 upwards, (too big). How does one make a choice when it is not easy to demo and they are expensive! so have to make the right choice

Nigel

I'm sure there are many in the same boat Nigel (myself included). Every time I go to town I end up in front of hundreds of screen choices all showing the same programme material.

It is sometimes obvious that the signal may be the limiting factor. Those screens showing HDTV (which is not generally available yet) are breathtaking. But sometimes one wonders why some shops even bother to turn on their screens in the morning as the programme material and the quality is appalling and puts discerning customers completely off.

How can one do an A/B/C/D/etc screen comparison if the screens aren't all being fed a decent signal? Even browsing doesn't provide much hope of making a reasonable choice.

The investment is high and the risk is too! The cheaper screens were given a real bashing by more than one Danish magazine only recently. Hopefully HDTV will sort the men from the boys and we can all relax and enjoy .. er...the same old crap. But bigger and sharper.

quote:

Originally posted by NigeP:
gosh had another browse today at Fenwicks and Dixons and must admit of the LCD screens the Sony and Sharp looked pretty good while the Panasonic which is raved about in the magazines not so good.

On plasma the gave a sharper picture but are 42 upwards, (too big). How does one make a choice when it is not easy to demo and they are expensive! so have to make the right choice

Nigel

Making ones choice is actually very simple.

You MUST. MUST. MUST. see your chosen few panels being fed by the signal that YOU intend to feed it with. Not some split/ split/split again signal that they have in those kind of shops.
A panel fed via component cabels or the proper hdmi (if actually available) at the correct amount of lines (remembering all DVDs are still 480p output here) will blow away any that you see incorrectly set up.

How many others here have seen the ploy being used to get people into shops at present by showing a Hi Def panel being fed from a Hi Def player sat discreetly away from it without any markings? The picture is usually stunning, as it should be. Only problem is, the player is not available comercially, and neither is any other form of hi def signal at present.

Obviously Nime & myself were thinking & typing the same thing at the same time. I made my choice 2 years ago anf found tweaks months later that kept improving the picture q. One of the best was the DVD5, but thats another story.

It's all a bit "up in the air at the moment" isn't it Steve? HDTV is not yet and many manufacturers are labelling Chinese/Taiwanese made goods.
LCD and other technologies are still in their relative infancy.
Since my CRT is so damned heavy it can sit there a while longer I think.
Even if big, flat screens do have that touch of magic!

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
Paul,

We shall have to agree to differ. We have the latest generation 32" Sharp model optimised for PAL and the judderiness is still there - better than before I grant you, but still there, and a lot worse than CRT in my view.

I'm not surprised Sony are moving away from plasma - their models aren't strong competition and never have been. And of course, the production costs for LCD are far lower than plasma.

That said, primary screen displays are set to change quite significantly in the next year or two. LED displays are finally becoming cheap enough to make it into production, and they explode the colour gamut that both plasma and LCD can cope with.

Sorry Frank, but the latest Samsungs are a massive step ahead of the current Sharps, closely followed by LG. The Sony's are almost as bad as the Sharps.

We were amazed by the lack of latency and grain displayed by the Samsung LE32R51BD (32").

Andrew

Andrew,

I haven't done direct A/Bs but my understanding is that the current Sharps are the best LCDs on the market, and by some margin. The PAL optimised screen is meant to be the best image you can get and in my view it's still not up to much.

The point made about multi-A/Bing is also important. Most of these places (Dixons/John Lewis/etc) put the signal through analogue distributors which vary in quality from feed to feed. Therefore, two screens next to each other may give vastly different results to what they should simply because of the distribution in the shop. I guess in future all these feeds will go digital and the variance will be lower (if not exactly gone).

As to the logo burn-in issue, my understanding is that this is largely a thing of the past now. The latest screens don't appear to be affected by it so easily or badly.

Of course, as Paul says, if you keep waiting for the next generation you never actually buy anything, but we do seem to be in quite a state of flux on screen technologies.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

The point made about multi-A/Bing is also important. Most of these places (Dixons/John Lewis/etc) put the signal through analogue distributors which vary in quality from feed to feed. Therefore, two screens next to each other may give vastly different results to what they should simply because of the distribution in the shop. I guess in future all these feeds will go digital and the variance will be lower (if not exactly gone).

To add some more background detail, the A-B'ing I did was at Harrods (serious high-end window shopping ). The displays were using their own HDTV demo material. Each display looked to be performing optimally.

With the Samsung the images appeared to standout more. Movement had less blurring, everything was reacting surprisingly fast.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

The point made about multi-A/Bing is also important. Most of these places (Dixons/John Lewis/etc) put the signal through analogue distributors which vary in quality from feed to feed. Therefore, two screens next to each other may give vastly different results to what they should simply because of the distribution in the shop. I guess in future all these feeds will go digital and the variance will be lower (if not exactly gone).

Frank,

To add some more background detail, the A-B'ing I did was at Harrods (serious high-end window shopping ). The displays were using their own HDTV demo material. Each display looked to be performing optimally.

With the Samsung the images appeared to standout more. Movement had less blurring, everything was reacting surprisingly fast.

Andrew

I currently have a Panasonic 42" Plasma (non-HD) it blew all other makes and models out of the water when I got it 2 years ago. The shop I got it from had to put the panny in a different room from all the other makes as it was the only make that was selling.

Until HD is readily available (and free) I can't see the point of ME upgrading to a HD-TV. As this is the case, it may be worth waiting for the following to mature:

http://www.canon.com/technology/display/

This sounds like it could be very good indeed.

Regards

MF