Plasma, CRT etc...

What do you think is the best kind of tv?

I've heard it depends on the size of the tv you want.

Not an expert by any means but we went for plasma because we wanted a bigger tv.

I have a 32" CRT...works just fine.

That's the best kind. That and it's paid for.

Plasma has higher frequency of problems with image burn-in, as well as more issues with reflectivity/glare in well-lit rooms. It also cannot be laid flat during transport (or any other time, I'd imagine). Those are a few of the reasons I went for LCD with my recent TV purchase. LDC costs a little more overall, but I still ended up getting a good bargain on a 46" Samsung.

CRT TVs are good, but they're bulky and not always that clear.

LCD TVs are good, but they have a limited viewing angle.

Rear Projection TVs (of the non-LCD variety) are crap. They're blurry and bulky. I have a rear projection LCD TV, and it's pretty damn good (it's in HD too).

Plasma, though I've only used it once, is the best. But yes, they're expensive, you have to replace shit, and images burn in easily.

This debate has raged on for billions of seconds at avsforum.com

Yeah, there really is no best when it comes to DLP, LCD and Plasma.

All are better than CRT, IMO, but CRT will most likely last you the longest and produces excellent black.

Plasma isn't the best, it's about equal to LCD. LCD also isn't really that small, you can get quite large LCD displays now.

The best deal, IMO, is a rear projection DLP TV. That is, if size (bulk) does not matter. DLP Projection is better than LCD Projection as well, IMO. LCOS or D-ILA are pretty nice as well. LCD projection tends to rainbow and not produce deep blacks. CRT Projection produces great blacks, but can be a bit fuzzy.

This is all in my opinion, just about.

You might as well ask which religion is best.

Mormonism.

CRT for everything but weight, bulk, and one other thing. Does video games and analog TV the best by far and away. Digital can be razor-sharp (if you bother to calibrate it) as well, and of course it's got the highest contrast and best blacks. Best viewing angle as well.

The one other thing, regrettably, is 1080p. There simply aren't any that do it. There are CRT's that do have the full 1080/1200 lines, but they don't to progressive scan with it.

Fortunately, the true successor, IMHO, to CRT's, in terms of blacks, contrast, and viewing angle, is coming out soon commercially. SED. Damned if I remember what it stands for, but it's apparently essentially CRT-quality without the bulk (and of course with higher costs). That's what my next TV is going to be.

Oh yeah, when you're sitting in front of a CRT you're continually being blasted with electrons (they go clear through the screen and out across the room).

With the other types this doesn't happen.

I suppose I should have put an option in the poll for actual screen projection (a projector shining onto a seperate screen). Some people dig that setup. Those are nice IMHO but they bring their own problems. Unless you have a model with a monster bulb, it will look crap and washed out under anything other than blinds-closed lights-out conditions.

Can't speak to your second point, but the first is completely ridiculous. If a sheet of aluminum foil or even a magnetic field will stop electrons, then a big thick sheet of glass inlaid with an alternating shadow mask or trinitron wires and phosphors certainly will.

My LCD TV, and basically every model I saw on sale when I was shopping for it, all had 178-degree viewing angles--BOTH Horizontally and Vertically! What the hell more do you want!?!

I have no problems with this at all. In fact I just tried to see what you were talking about and couldn't get it to do anything. "?"

You guys might have the rear projection LCD TVs like I do.

No.

So when you poke your screen, it does that watery effect (or at least it would if it didn't have some sort of protective glass)?

My TV is 4.5 to 5 inches thick.

The box says LCD TV.

Truly... LCD can be the best... professional grade panels beat out any other tech. However you are looking at paying $15,000 for a 20" monitor.

You can't make a statement about whats "best". Some plasmas are better than some LCD, and vice versa. Same goes for all categories. People like to praise the CRT, but the resolutions are too low these days, and nobody is making good CRTs anymore for the most part. Also, you gotta make a definition for "best". Some people include price in that equation, some don't, some include size, some don't, some include power consumption, some don't some include very accurate color, some don't. The list goes on. Like I said, trying to pick a "best" is pretty silly.

There is such a thing as LCD-projection... in other words the image is projected thru a smaller LCD panel... rather than using other methods.

A lot of LCDs do have 178degree viewing angles now, so what Timmy said basically relates to older LCD models and el-cheapo models.

I run all my games at 1440x900 4-6xAA without any refresh problems or ghosting. Nice deep blacks and vivid color. That's a fairly high resolution for 19". In fact, it's higher than most 17-19" CRTs you'll find. I say 17-19, because my monitor is widescreen.

It is also so nice to have that heavy box off my desk. The best consumer LCDs run resolutions at around 1920x1200. Which is usually 1080p.

Refresh rate doesn't really matter on an LCD.

Low refresh rate causes eyestrain on a CRT because a CRT has only a single beam of light that pans back and forth, up and down, while changing colors, in order to draw the entire frame.

On an LCD, each pixel actually has it's own physical representation. This means that when pixels are changing, there aren't instants when "nothing is there" in a given pixel, it is just the old value. Because of this, refresh rates don't create eyestrain or a flicker.

You do need to pay attention to "response time" though, which is, how fast a pixel can change color. Many old LCDs had response times that were > 30ms so you could see a "blur" when you are viewing fast action. However, most LCDs now are 8ms response time, so it really isn't an issue anymore.

30" LCD generally runs at 2560x1600. There are a decent amount of monitors out there atm using that rez.

Those panels aren't as mature as 1920x1200 though, that is pretty much the "best" rez out there at the moment for someone with a mid-high end machine.

As for me I run a 1650x1050 20.1" widescreen LCD on the left, with my old 17" 1280x1024 LCD on the right. <3 dual monitor. I'd like to go for dual 24" 1920x1200's of the same type but #1 that costs a lot of money and #2 my PC isn't up to running my games at 1920x1200 yet anyway.

They'll be mature soon enough though! Hopefully price comes down as well.

I have two 19" 1440x900's running side by side.

What really ticks me off? 3 months later the 20.1" came down in price and were the about same price as the 19" were when I bought them!

Yeah, my PC would have troubles running games over 1650x1050. I only have an ATIx1950PRO, which is a great card, but I don't want to suffer any quality loss by bumping up resolution to 1920x1200 on a 24" monitor.

It sure would be awesome though!

I'll deal with this problem when my current television dies.

As an addendum, check the grey-grey response time, if it's available; high-contrast changes are much faster than low-contrast.

A lot of LCDs come with a 4ms GTG time nowadays.

Link? I'm skeptical of that, especially in the TV realm.