
First up, the conclusion is that if you want a 'small' [81cm or less] TV for 'personal' viewing, then LCD is cool. Bigger than that, Panasonic recommends plasma. Did you already guess that from their URL?
I've been following the LCD vs. Plasma debate since they were both on the scene. The last TV I bought was 10 years ago... and 3 PCs later [including a change of monitor], I've been waiting, waiting, waiting for the cost of an LCD or plasma represent a bang for buck upgrade over a 51cm CRT screen [We actually watch Jodie's [yes I know - our] 68cm TV of a similar vintage now].
So back to Panasonic. Here are the problems I have with the propaganda, in BEr.g's guide to [somewhat] credible argument.
Don't debunk myths about your view while propagating myths about others. I think they have over stated the advantage plasma has in 'reproducing fast moving images' and 'producing blacker blacks'.
Don't defend a fault with a definition of the fault. Burn in 'will only happen under the highly rare condition that a high contrast image is continuously displayed for a very long time'. Indeed. That's exactly the problem.
You won't win over your audience by assuming they are idiots. 'Remember, you watch TV at home not in a store'.
Don't use surveys when it can't possibly contribute to your argument. I don't care at all what 70% of Australians think about the colour reproduction of the two technologies. I don't watch TV with their eyes, brain and nervous system!
My main issue with plasma is that screens have always been much lower resolution. Finally however, there is a 1080p model. It's HUGE though [165cm] and priced to kill.
So rather than rant about LCD, I'd like to hear from all of you [well, those of you prepared to write a well reasoned argument]. I would like to get a 1080p capable TV, but keep in mind...
- most video I currently watch is in the order of 512x384, 624x352 or 720x480 and somewhat compressed
- Swansea doesn't have standard let alone high definition digital TV
- I have regular DVDs too
- Swansea should get SD and HD TV later this year!
- We have the capability of watching movies on blu-ray discs [if we had any]
- I would like to hook a PC up to it as well [so many applications]
7 comments:
I need to do more research, but my understanding is that LCD is a clearer picture but more expensive, and that plasma has a higher refresh rate (good for sport) and is cheaper based on size.
Size isn't everything though. There's no point having a tv that is the size of your whole wall if your couch is only a couple of metres back. It will be like when I got free tickets to see Braveheart at the cinema for playing at the opening, only to be seated in the FRONT row. I couldn't take in the whole image at the same time.
Oh dear... and I thought this was settled. I go away for 2 weeks and you fall off your soapbox? I even had a name picked out for our new Sony 1080p [LCD]. :S
Please someone... just confirm that LCD is *better*?!?!? [and if anyone says 'it's just different'...]
I think I better come home soon :D
Yes Jodie, I get the feeling he needs you home!!!
psycho analysing this he is struggling.
plasma sounds cool
OK.. I just saw a show that dealt with this very issue. The expert said that they are both good technologies but application and lighting make the difference.
So: TV and movies + light control=plasma, while gaming and internet + uncontrolled light (too many windows)=LCD.
Having seen your place... plasma!
In any case, HD content is quite limited. You might do well to stick with your CRT in the end and spend the money on something else.
OK... so AE... given what the expert says... wouldn't playing World of Warcraft on a 1080p screen from the comfort of the lounge with a wireless keyboard / mouse / trackball / whatever be AWESOME?
BEr.g
OMG.. then you could get xp with your party using teamspeak!
Post a Comment