Best HDTV ($600-$800) to buy for X360? (continued)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

Sorry for originally posting this in the Xbox 360 section.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27056757&page=0

Anyway:

Basically I've narrowed it down to these four. Specifically, I'll be using this just for gaming with an Xbox 360.

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05771009000P?mv=rr

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05775039000P?keyword=PN42B450&sLevel=0

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05771849000P?mv=rr

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05775809000P?keyword=42PQ30&sLevel=0

Currently, I own an LG 22" and have never had a problem with it, but at that size the picture was never breathtaking or anything. It did its job and gave me a nice HD picture but now I'm looking for something a little bigger and a little more serious.

Avatar image for joseph_mach
joseph_mach

3898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 joseph_mach
Member since 2003 • 3898 Posts

After having recently doing some homework on televisions, I kinda noticed that all four of those t.v.s are filled with a bunch of "eye grabbing" buzzwords. Stuff like 600Hz (where the human eye can't tell past 240Hz), "blazing fast response times of 6 ms" (fast, but I've seen them much lower), "dynamic" contrast ratios of certain high numbers (where it's the static or native that matter most). I'm sure they are nice t.v.s, but there are probably a few better ones if you don't mind spending another $100 or so. I've seen some really nice ones right at the $800 mark, but after tax, it'd go up a bit. Of the ones listed above however, I'm kinda leaning towards one of the plasmas. I'd look around a bit more if I were you and stay away from those t.v.s with a lot of "buzzwords" if at all possible.

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

After having recently doing some homework on televisions, I kinda noticed that all four of those t.v.s are filled with a bunch of "eye grabbing" buzzwords. Stuff like 600Hz (where the human eye can't tell past 240Hz), "blazing fast response times of 6 ms" (fast, but I've seen them much lower), "dynamic" contrast ratios of certain high numbers (where it's the static or native that matter most). I'm sure they are nice t.v.s, but there are probably a few better ones if you don't mind spending another $100 or so. I've seen some really nice ones right at the $800 mark, but after tax, it'd go up a bit. Of the ones listed above however, I'm kinda leaning towards one of the plasmas. I'd look around a bit more if I were you and stay away from those t.v.s with a lot of "buzzwords" if at all possible.

joseph_mach

No, I totally agree with your point regarding "buzz words" but that's definitely not what spurred my interest in the above televisions. I just like the size of those televisions and their prices. But I'm really having trouble deciding between plasma and LCD.

I definitely have played on my parents' plasma and the picture was amazing and vivid. Actually, playing on that plasma was probably the best picture of any television I've ever played on. However, the interface of Hitman left a ghosting or a burn-in in the television, which totally freaked me out (and them; the plasma was like $10,000 or something ridiculous). I don't know I've always had it engrained in my mind that plasmas aren't ideal for gaming. The way they should be "broken in" for the first 100 hours, always have that tendency for burn-in, will only last so many years because of the gas inside gradually fading, and most being only 720 is definitely a turn off.

Avatar image for SkateEmerica987
SkateEmerica987

90

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 SkateEmerica987
Member since 2005 • 90 Posts

I'd go with the 40" samsung lcd, like you said, plasmas burn in and fade over time. An lcd would probably be much better for an xbox only tv, plus the 1080p is more future proof if you ever plan on watching any blu rays. samsung is almost constantly rated above lg in consumer reports for quality and picture, but it still might be a good idea to try the couple out in person. Just do what i did and bring your xbox to the store, if you are serious about buying a tv they will have no problem letting you do it to compare quality.

Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
I'd bet the plasma has the best picture of the 4 (Look at the 50" Samsung and Plasma also as I've seen them for $800 in stores). The burn-in problem has been greatly reduced in modern plasmas so you shouldn't experience what you experienced with your parents. The fade is another plasma myth as new plasmas wouldn't have noticeable fade for a very long time (Panasonic's rate their's at 60,000 hour half-life). Also, 1080p/720p is entirely dependent on the distance you sit from the set. For a 40" set, you would not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at 5 feet (You will not even see full 720p at over 8 feet). See the chart: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html One of the features that most is overlooked when comparing TV's is off-axis viewing. LCD's have a major issue with off-axis viewing aside for their motion lag.
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

I'd bet the plasma has the best picture of the 4 (Look at the 50" Samsung and Plasma also as I've seen them for $800 in stores). The burn-in problem has been greatly reduced in modern plasmas so you shouldn't experience what you experienced with your parents. The fade is another plasma myth as new plasmas wouldn't have noticeable fade for a very long time (Panasonic's rate their's at 60,000 hour half-life). Also, 1080p/720p is entirely dependent on the distance you sit from the set. For a 40" set, you would not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at 5 feet (You will not even see full 720p at over 8 feet). See the chart: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html One of the features that most is overlooked when comparing TV's is off-axis viewing. LCD's have a major issue with off-axis viewing aside for their motion lag. rastan

Hmm that link's pretty interesting. Thanks. But, alas, I am still torn between plasma and LCD.

Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
Look at 3 things: 1) Viewing Environment- Will you be using this in a very bright room or light controlled room? LCD brightness and glare free screen (most LCD's) is the better choice for a very bright room. Plasmas superior contrast better for light controlled environment. 2) Seating position - Sitting closer than 5'? A 1080p set will be better. People sitting off center? Plasma is better for off axis viewing. 3) Price - For $800 you can get a 50" plasma with superior color, contrast, refresh rate and off-axis viewing whereas for $800 you can get a 40" LCD with superior brightness, no-glare screen, and more power efficiency.
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts
[QUOTE="rastan"]Look at 3 things: 1) Viewing Environment- Will you be using this in a very bright room or light controlled room? LCD brightness and glare free screen (most LCD's) is the better choice for a very bright room. Plasmas superior contrast better for light controlled environment. 2) Seating position - Sitting closer than 5'? A 1080p set will be better. People sitting off center? Plasma is better for off axis viewing. 3) Price - For $800 you can get a 50" plasma with superior color, contrast, refresh rate and off-axis viewing whereas for $800 you can get a 40" LCD with superior brightness, no-glare screen, and more power efficiency.

Yeah see that's the thing they really do have pros and cons and I know exactly about each of them from past televisions I've owned or played on. What it really comes down to is which one is going to provide the better gaming experience or better gaming picture. I'm thinking of revisiting Sears this week and talking to them about it.
Avatar image for monson21502
monson21502

8230

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 monson21502
Member since 2009 • 8230 Posts

you should save 200 more and get this beast. 47` 1080p 120Hz philips. much better brand then LG

http://www.walmart.com/Philips-47-LCD-HDTV-1080P/ip/10965944

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

you should save 200 more and get this beast. 47` 1080p 120Hz philips. much better brand then LG

http://www.walmart.com/Philips-47-LCD-HDTV-1080P/ip/10965944

monson21502
I think that would be too big as this tv is going to be in a fairly small room. Anyway I always thought LG was a good brand. How does LG compare to Samsung? Right now LG has a 42" LCD for $700 whereas Samsung has a 40" LCD for $800.
Avatar image for CStheGreat
CStheGreat

705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 CStheGreat
Member since 2008 • 705 Posts
[QUOTE="monson21502"]

you should save 200 more and get this beast. 47` 1080p 120Hz philips. much better brand then LG

http://www.walmart.com/Philips-47-LCD-HDTV-1080P/ip/10965944

larry45
I think that would be too big as this tv is going to be in a fairly small room. Anyway I always thought LG was a good brand. How does LG compare to Samsung? Right now LG has a 42" LCD for $700 whereas Samsung has a 40" LCD for $800.

Samsung >>> LG
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
I would definitely pick Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic over LG and Philips.
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

I was never under the impression that Samsung is superior to LG. I thought they were on the same page.

Avatar image for Scoob64
Scoob64

2635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 Scoob64
Member since 2008 • 2635 Posts

I was never under the impression that Samsung is superior to LG. I thought they were on the same page.

larry45

according to CNET, LG makes an absolutely amazing LED LCD.

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="larry45"]

I was never under the impression that Samsung is superior to LG. I thought they were on the same page.

Scoob64

according to CNET, LG makes an absolutely amazing LED LCD.

yes but unfortunately it's $1300+
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
Unfortunately, it's a CNET TV review. I would heed more attention to Home Theater Magazine and Sound & Vision. I've had bad luck with an LG Blu-Ray player (including their service or lack there of) and a good chunk of reported plasma problems were attributed to LG (they also sell parts to Phillips, Vizio, Zenith, etc). They do make decent phones though.
Avatar image for Scoob64
Scoob64

2635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 Scoob64
Member since 2008 • 2635 Posts

TC (larry),

Maybe you should buy online instead of from Sears?

Heres a Panny plasma 42" 720p

and here is an LG plasma 42" 720p - both new, under $650 - tax free, free shipping, and the website is CNET verified.

Avatar image for Scoob64
Scoob64

2635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 Scoob64
Member since 2008 • 2635 Posts

oh, and dear Lord, do NOT buy from Wal-Mart unless you want older models at new model prices... and Philips' TVs are a complete joke compared to LG...

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

TC (larry),

Maybe you should buy online instead of from Sears?

Heres a Panny plasma 42" 720p

and here is an LG plasma 42" 720p - both new, under $650 - tax free, free shipping, and the website is CNET verified.

Scoob64
Hmm very interesting indeed. Now what about an LCD from them? Basically I'm still trying to decided between plasma and LCD but I'm guessing since you posted plasma links that you're probably advocating plasma.
Avatar image for Scoob64
Scoob64

2635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 Scoob64
Member since 2008 • 2635 Posts

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

TC (larry),

Maybe you should buy online instead of from Sears?

Heres a Panny plasma 42" 720p

and here is an LG plasma 42" 720p - both new, under $650 - tax free, free shipping, and the website is CNET verified.

larry45

Hmm very interesting indeed. Now what about an LCD from them? Basically I'm still trying to decided between plasma and LCD but I'm guessing since you posted plasma links that you're probably advocating plasma.

Yeah, I'd definitely go with plasma if it were me for that budget... the only way I'd go LCD is if I could get an LED LCD and thats out of your price range. On the whole (especially the ones I sent you), Plasmas will have better contrast ratios that non-LED LCD televisions... and even the best plasmas still exceed LED LCDs in contrast ratios... in case you are not familiar with contrast ratio, that and color accuracy are the main things you want to look at in terms of picture quality in flat panel televisions high-def TVs... the closest you can get to achieving CRT level contrast ratios while still gettin that beautiful high-def flat panel resolution/sharpness the better :)

Avatar image for Scoob64
Scoob64

2635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21 Scoob64
Member since 2008 • 2635 Posts

If you can extend your budget by $30, I'd get this

$829, tax free and free shipping.

This'd be awesome -high-def plasma with excellent contrast and 600Hz to control motion blur (which is good for gaming)... I have a 42" currently, but really wish I had gone for the 50 in retrospect- and plan on upgrading to a 50 soon... this one is a really good deal considering the size and technology.

Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

If you can extend your budget by $30, I'd get this

$829, tax free and free shipping.

This'd be awesome -high-def plasma with excellent contrast and 600Hz to control motion blur (which is good for gaming)... I have a 42" currently, but really wish I had gone for the 50 in retrospect- and plan on upgrading to a 50 soon... this one is a really good deal considering the size and technology.

Scoob64
Hmm yeah that's definitely not bad for that size but I'm mostly going to be keeping this in a dorm room so I don't know if that'd be too big.
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
...and remember the dynamic contrast specs reported by LCD manufacturers are worthless. In terms of contrast very few LED LCD's can compete with even the cheapest plasmas, but they are priced a substantial amount more. Standard LCD's can't even come close to plasma contrast, but that is a known trade-off with LCD's.
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts
I really am leaning towards plasma - just because, let's face it, they have the superior picture. And I remember when I played on a 42 (give or take) Pioneer plasma at only 720p it was the most incredible picture ever. The only thing that worries me is burn in / ghosting. I know a lot have anti-burn in technology nowadays so it shouldn't be too much of a problem but I don't want to really have to constantly be checking for ghosting, worrying about it, trying to erase it, etc. I play a lot of Halo 3, which has the hud obviously - a static image, and I play games for hours on end so I don't know if this would be a problem. The last discouraging factor is that from my understanding there is a "breaking-in period" where static images shouldn't be displayed for the first one hundred hours and that the brightness or contrast levels should be kept at half. This seems more like an annoyance than anything because when I get this the first thing I'm going to want to do is, obviously, play ODST non-stop on it. If those two concerns could be extinguished I feel pretty confident that I would be unambiguously set on going with plasma. Although I would really hate if tomorrow when I get to Sears the salesman is dead set on LCD...after i'm feeling good about plasma. ---------------- Finally, I just want to say that I've always had trouble discerning an actual, beneficial difference between 720 and 1080. Just the other week, for the first time in years, and on a gigantic DLP I think I may finally have noticed a less-graininess to the picture when setting the picture to 1080. (Still, I'm not sure because I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything to the actual TV settings, just the 360. Maybe I didn't even do it right). And on one last note my 360 doesn't have HDMI and I'm just wondering if that will hinder maximum picture quality considering the plasma I might purchase is only 720p.
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
With the recent Panasonic (50" 720p co-worker bought) and Samsung plasmas (Recent 50" 720p uncle bought), I have not noticed any real issues on initial setup. Ghosting was non-existant in during calibration where I left the test image up for a while. As long as you don't run the set at show-room level brightness and contrast I wouldn't worry too much about the break-in period. You should calibrate it anyways as soon as you get it to get the best picture any ways. Many salesmen used to definitely harp on about LCD as they cost more and hence make more money for their company, but I was surprised when I went with my uncle to get the Samsung at Sears that the salesman said that was th best deal in the store at the time. Both paid ~$800 for them and I would say the Panasonic has a slightly better picture, but the swivel on the Samsung was a good feature for my uncle. As for non-HDMI, it should not limit game quality. However, very few 360 games actually are native 1080p anyways (I believe the number is under 10). How far will you sit from the set? If you get a 1080p set, you will only be able to feed it native 1080p from the few games and from a Blu-Ray player if you got one. Everything else would be scaled to 1080p. VGA: HD DVD - 1080p resolution and all others DVD - Upscaled as high as 1080p resolution and all others Games - 720p games upscaled to 1080p, also supports native-1080p games in the future Component: HD DVD - 1080i resolution maximum, limited by AACS DVD - Upscaled to 480p maximum, limited by CSS Games - 720p games upscaled to 1080p, also supports native-1080p games in the future
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
By the way, I dug this up on Halo and ODST at http://www.videogamer.com/news/bungie_happy_with_sub-720p_halo_3_odst.html: It's not uncommon for a game to run at a sub-720p resolution, but when that game is an entry in a console's flagship franchise, people take notice. Halo 3, the first Halo title released on Xbox 360 and Bungie's first title for the console, sacrificed 720p and ran at 1152x640 in order to maintain a steady frame rate. Now, two years later, Halo 3: ODST has sparked internet chatter about sub-720p resolutions once again. Asked by VideoGamer.com at gamescom last week if too much has been made from the fact ODST runs in a sub-720p resolution, Bungie community and pr director Brian Jarrard agreed, stating, "I think so". "I think the game looks great. I think like CJ [Cowan, director of cinematics] pointed out, ODST looks even better than Halo 3, and it's the same technology and the same engine," explained Jarrard. "Whether it's 640p native or 720p, I mean I don't think that's really a deterrent to whether or not the game looks good and is fun to play. I think it's a bullet point media love to pick up on, and they love to pick and pry. But I feel like it's definitely overrated. "We're very happy with the engine we have, and how robust it is and the ability to have all these great features. If that means that we've shaved off 20p somewhere, so be it."
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts
[QUOTE="rastan"]With the recent Panasonic (50" 720p co-worker bought) and Samsung plasmas (Recent 50" 720p uncle bought), I have not noticed any real issues on initial setup. Ghosting was non-existant in during calibration where I left the test image up for a while. As long as you don't run the set at show-room level brightness and contrast I wouldn't worry too much about the break-in period. You should calibrate it anyways as soon as you get it to get the best picture any ways. Many salesmen used to definitely harp on about LCD as they cost more and hence make more money for their company, but I was surprised when I went with my uncle to get the Samsung at Sears that the salesman said that was th best deal in the store at the time. Both paid ~$800 for them and I would say the Panasonic has a slightly better picture, but the swivel on the Samsung was a good feature for my uncle. As for non-HDMI, it should not limit game quality. However, very few 360 games actually are native 1080p anyways (I believe the number is under 10). How far will you sit from the set? If you get a 1080p set, you will only be able to feed it native 1080p from the few games and from a Blu-Ray player if you got one. Everything else would be scaled to 1080p. VGA: HD DVD - 1080p resolution and all others DVD - Upscaled as high as 1080p resolution and all others Games - 720p games upscaled to 1080p, also supports native-1080p games in the future Component: HD DVD - 1080i resolution maximum, limited by AACS DVD - Upscaled to 480p maximum, limited by CSS Games - 720p games upscaled to 1080p, also supports native-1080p games in the future

Finally went to Sears today and this sweet Asian dude who worked there said that all the employees in electronics owned plasmas for gaming/sports viewing. He said that Sears actually gets a lot of LCDs and LED LCDs back for servicing or returning. He also said that burn in isn't really much of an issue anymore. When I asked him about a "break-in" period he said that he never really did that for his plasma and neither did anyone else he knew who purchased them - like they would go right home and start watching football games in max brightness or something. So, I set on a 42" Samsung plasma. In the store this set actually looked much brighter and sharper than a Panasonic of equal size and price. Tomorrow I think I'm going to go get it. Thanks to everyone for their help and advice. It's finally led me to choose.
Avatar image for larry45
larry45

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 larry45
Member since 2004 • 345 Posts

crazywayne287, wherever you are, i'm going plasma.

Avatar image for Makari
Makari

15250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 Makari
Member since 2003 • 15250 Posts

crazywayne287, wherever you are, i'm going plasma.

larry45

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05775509000P

720p Panny for $600! It's actually what I'm using exactly right now for 360+TV, and I'm liking it quite a bit. There's a ton of information on it at AVSforum.

Avatar image for monson21502
monson21502

8230

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 monson21502
Member since 2009 • 8230 Posts

crazywayne287, wherever you are, i'm going plasma.

larry45
isnt plasma tvs being phazed out soon? it would suck trying to get it fixed if it broke on you if they dont make them anymore....
Avatar image for Innovazero2000
Innovazero2000

3159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 Innovazero2000
Member since 2006 • 3159 Posts

oh, and dear Lord, do NOT buy from Wal-Mart unless you want older models at new model prices... and Philips' TVs are a complete joke compared to LG...

Scoob64
Huh? Have you ever actually messed with a phillips? They aren't elite, but their panels are actually very nice. They're higher end LCD's are very impressive, and even the lower ones have impressively accurate color repletion.
Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
No.
[QUOTE="larry45"]

crazywayne287, wherever you are, i'm going plasma.

monson21502
isnt plasma tvs being phazed out soon? it would suck trying to get it fixed if it broke on you if they dont make them anymore....

There are fewer manufacturers making plasmas now, but they are not being phased out. In fact plasmas offer the best bang for the buck right now and in fact teh best selling TV on Amazon right now is a Panasonic plasma.
Avatar image for reverend1985
reverend1985

172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 reverend1985
Member since 2009 • 172 Posts

alot of people still use plasma TVs for gaming, mainly because when LCDs first game out ghosting was a huge problem. Now LCDs are as good as plasma, I own a Vizio 42in plasma and here soon ill be upgrading to LCD. A few key things to look for in a TV is contrast ratio, the higher the number, the better. Next is you want at least 120mhz, which most TVs now have. Next make sure you have a decent 6-8 ms response time. Another thing is I would go with 1080p. Even though most games are only 720p here soon, xbox games will start going even higher in resolution. And one last key thing is size and distance, measure the distance you will be sitting from the TV and multiply it by 4in. example, if you are sitting 8 feet away, do not get a tv bigger then 32" this is so you don't see the pixels as bad and you dont hurt your eyes

Avatar image for rastan
rastan

1405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 rastan
Member since 2003 • 1405 Posts
I disagree with just about all of your points. 1) Yes higher contrast is better, but you need to look at native contrst ratio not dynamic. This is not available in many published specs and most LCD's (including LED based ones) still can not touch native contrast ratios available in plasmas. 2) 120Hz is something that some people like and others don't. It is a technology used only in LCD's to help eliminate motion blur, but this can affect the look of movies, 3) 6-8 ms still produces noticable blur. Plasma's have near zero refresh time, 4) Your info on resolution and distance contradicts itself. There is absolutely no reason to get a 1080p TV if you are going to sit 8' away from a 32" set. Your eye's will never even be able to see the difference in 720p/1080p resolution at that distance, in that size tv. In fact on that size TV from that distance, you will not even see the full benefits of 720p. At 8', if you actually want to see 1080p, you will need at least a 60" set. In summary, LCD's are still not as good as plasmas. They have gotten better. Especially LED based ones. However, they are more expensive, contrast still is not as good as plasmas, they have a real issue with off-axis viewing, and motion blur is still an issue in many of the sets.