My family was looking into finally buying an HD TV. I know LCD are at the bottom of the totem pole, but what is at the top? I doubt we will get an LCD, but what is the difference between Plasma and the new LED TV's? They went to Costco and saw some Sony on sale (I forget if it was LCD, Plasma, or LED though) and it really sparked their interest. If you know the best models, that would be great too. I think we can handle between a 42" and 48" (diagonal) screen. The location where we will put it is about 40" or so across.
I don't think there are any OLED TV's that big yet. You may be seeing LED-backlit LCD's (as opposed to cold-cathode fluorescent backlit) which, IMHO, are the best.
Plasma may be on its way out, however that does not mean you shouldn't get a Plasma if that is the best quality tv in your price range. A good plasma still beats a good LCD in my opinion (just like how a good crt still has the best picture all around). That said, I got a new tv in the last couple of weeks and it was a Sony Bravia LCD, as a good plasma would have cost a bit more than I was willing to pay for a television. Ultimately pretty much any tv that you are spending a decent chunk of change on is going to be good, the best thing you can do is ignore all the hype, look in the store at screens around your price range and then search the internet for reviews of that model.
Plasma has a short life thats why they are on thier way out. They go to shit after 3 years. We have a 52" LCD thats damn nice, Its a Philips with a 33,000 to 1 contrast ratio. They are about $1,800 at wal-mart.
Because of the lifespan, I can't really recommend plasma. However, just go to Best Buy or whatever, don't even look at the prices, and look at what picture looks the best. Go around to a number of different stores (Best Buy, Fry's, local chains, hell, even places like Wal-Mart and Fred Meyer have surprisingly large selections), and pick a model from each that looks best. Go online, and do research, then buy from the place that will get it to you cheapest (remember, include shipping!).
Contrast Ratio means nothing because each company measures it differently. It's a meaningless stat when it comes to HDTV's. In my opinion LED > LCD > Plasma. LED's are nice, very thin (less than an inch on a 50" TV), and come in up to 600hz. LCD's are the cheapest and last longer than plasmas and you don't have to worry about them every laying flat if you move or anything. A plasma must always be standing up. 1080p is of course the standard now, make sure you get that. And don't go with anything less than 120hz.
To be clear: There are no actual LED TV's above 11" (OLED). Let's not buy in to Samsung's marketing hype, mkay?
Fair enough... but they are less than an inch thick. I would take the LCD over the Plasma any day. I don't see a single advantage to plasma.
I am currently in the market for ~19" or so TV. It is just to tide us over till the Army pays to replace my real TV. I am not looking to spend a whole lot, b/c once the new one comes in it will either go in the guest room or office, BUT I'd hate to spend $200 on a shitty TV if a good one is only a bit more. At that size though does it really matter?
I got a 22" AOC HDTV (720p) about four months ago. $149. Beautiful picture quality, Blu-ray looks gorgeous, great color. If you're just looking for a solid TV, that's what I'd pick. EDIT: Nevermind, Anc. I went around looking for one so I could link it for you and couldn't find any for that price anymore. I must have got it on sale. It's apparently $249 normally. J.
That said, some of Samsungs screens do look absolutely stunning. Also I was looking at one of their thin screens the other day (must have been about 40") and it was amazing how thin it was, truly at the point where you could have one hung on the wall.
^Oh I'm not disagreeing that Samsung makes the best big-screen TV, but it's not an LED screen, and calling it one is just plain incorrect and confuses the matter.
Sounds like we have the exact same HDTV model. I have to say that I love it. The range of colors from it gives the perception of depth that can't be achieved on a CRT.
I've heard you say this before... and I don't doubt you one bit, but do you have a link that I could do some more reading about this? That's seriously fucked up.
To tell the truth I heard it from a friend that manages a Best Buy first, then from a sales person at Conn's. After googling it I found a few discussions where it's mentioned that there is not a standardized measure for contrast ratio but I haven't found anything except other people saying it. I suppose it's not one of those things that the companies are just going to put out there on their website because they want you to buy into the marketing hype. Here is some link to discussions about it: http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/04/02/ask-engadget-hd-when-does-contrast-ratio-fail-to-matter/ http://www.twice.com/blog/Executive...acturers_Agree_On_A_Measurement_Standard_.php Honestly though, the best way to shop for a TV is to go look at a bunch of them. It doesn't matter if the contrast ration is 200:1 or 50000:1, which ever picture looks the best is the best.
I would be really surprised by that... I've still yet to see anything but an SED prototype that had the full color range and consistency of a CRT.
Good point, we shouldn't plan for the future... or now(Blu-Ray)... way to drive home the point though.
Okay, so after a day out looking and shopping, I have narrowed down to three. And of course I like them in order of price... 228.43 - Phillips 19" - 19PFL3504 - Sam's Club (can't find anything on the web.. :/) 249.97 - LG - 19HL20 - HHGregg 309.94 - Samsung - LN19B650 - Bestbuy (couldn't find anything on the web for the first two. Neither BB or HHG carried the Phillips, but between the LG and the Samsung there was a pretty noticeable difference (I always wonder how much is just calibration though...) I just wonder if there was a $60 buck difference, and wish I had the Phillips there to compare. According to the dude at HHGregg Sam's Club shit is a couple years old, but it still had HDMI so does that really matter? On a side note the chick at Bestbuy was pushing me twords the LG and it had a big SALE sign on it, but even it's SALE PRICE was 29.97 more expensive than HHGregg was offering it for.
I use a Samsung monitor as the screen for my media center, and it is absolutely gorgeous. Same goes with the TV my old roommates used to have. It's up to you if it's worth it for a TV that is going to be used on a temporary and secondary basis, but it's definitely a fair price for the quality, IMHO.
If you don't care about 1080p I saw a 720p 32" LCD for 299.00 at the local Best Buy yesterday. I don't remember the brand. But if this TV is going to wind up in a spare room or your bedroom maybe then 32" is a pretty nice size.
At those sizes, 1080p isn't worth it. You'll never notice the diff from 720. I wouldn't worry about 1080p until you hit 46" really. Frankly, I'd rather watch 720p on a 32" screen than 1080p on a tiny 19" screen.
Blu ray isn't more than 60fps either. Any players that claim to go higher are simply artificially increasing the source framerate. The highest framerate for a blu-ray movie is 59.94. And yes, I'm sure that TV is going to last you until the standard changes again... More sage advice: always buy monster cables! Otherwise your bits will be tainted!
I have a 42" Pioneer 1080p plasma thats two and half years old. Contrary to suggestions above they they go shit after 3 years, it is looking better than ever and really gives rich colour when playing blu-rays.
The 120hz TV's have a smoothing effect that looks very clean on the right show. Admittedly it must be turned off for some things to look right... pressing a few buttons hasn't really bothered me yet. One thing it looks really nice on is the ticker at the bottom of a news channel or sports show. You won't find any argument from me over cables. HDMI is HDMI no matter what brand you pick. The only bad experience I had was a cheap one that wouldn't stay plugged in fully. I returned it and got one that cost about 5 dollars more and that problem went away. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe PS3 makes games that run in 120fps.
Nope, PS3 games are lucky to get about 30fps even at the usual ~680p resolution that the games are rendered at before being scaled up. 360 and PS3 games are not really "HD" games, they are just scaled up from lower resolutions, much like an upconverting DVD player. And, for the record, I do believe that having the 120hz refresh rate can improve image quality in some cases. I just think that it really isn't ALL that important to say that it is a "must have", and it's well down the list of important specs to consider.
Ah, see... Even though NOW it would be a secondary TV, I just have a problem doing that. I guess I get it from my dad, but if I'm going to buy something I just go ahead, save up, and buy the best in whatever particular niche I am going for. Then run that bitch till she dies. He's still got Audio components in the home stereo from when he and my mom first got together (pretty cool to be able to play vinyl through the shit! ) and just last year bought a new TV (replacing the one he bought in '91 when we moved in to the New House).
