Plasma or LCD?

pumpkin wrote:

Since we don't use cable or satellite, I'll have to move up in --I think-- 2008 when the gov't has mandated all network broadcast signals be ONLY in HDTV.

i don't think the mandate is to force hdtv. i believe it is to force digital rather than analog. you can have a digital tv signal that is 480i (or 480p or any other non-HD standard).

if your tv is truly analog (and i have no reason to believe it isn't), then you will indeed need to upgrade to receive the over the air signal - or you may need to just purchase a digital set top box to convert the signal so your current tv can display it.

Interesting...I thought it was an HDTV mandate!

Yep, I could do the set top box but might as well upgrade the whole TV while I'm at it.

Also, I know right now that at my location, I'd have to get a huge, expensive directional rooftop antenna if I wanted HDTV via broadcast. There's a website that you can check to analyze your area including tree-reflection which I have lots of! I wonder if the "digital" mandate will require the same thing???

On second thought, maybe I'll just skip the once or twice a week evening news and go over to a buddy's house for the Superbowl, ha!

You really need to think of the conditions that you'll be using the tv in.

Plasmas are best for low light conditions and are much better ant distinguishing between many different shades of black and dark colors.

LCDs are great in high light conditions seeing as they don't have as much glare as plasma screens.

Overall, if you want a multi-functional tv for use in all conditions, I'd go with the LCD.

FYI, I own a plasma, but I rarely watch tv and primarily use it to watch movies in darker conditions (hence my reason for choosing a plasma)

my 2 cents at least...

Bump

I'm thinking about getting a 40-42 in. LCD. Is getting 1080p resolution instead of 720p really worth the extra $$$? Anyone have recommendations on particular brands or TVs? Thanks!

I got one of these and this has the incredible picture quality. Seruosuly, check out the stats and compare it with the price and it's a no brainer! If you're lookin for a good 42 incher or willing to spend just a little more for the 47, I'd go with Vizio.

http://www.vizio.com/products/detail.aspx?pid=35

Ok, thanks! That looks impressive. I was a little bit leary of some of the non-traditional brands, but that model looks very nice. What does the contrast ratio mean-- which is better, 10,000:1 contrast or 1,000:1?

Definitely go and check it out! Make sure that the store you're viewing it at is streaming a HD braodcast. Some places will like to be sneaky and only show HD broadcasts onthe high end expensive tv's so a sucker can walk in and think that Sony is the cats pajamas!

plasma owner wrote: Plasmas [...] are much better ant distinguishing between many different shades of black and dark colors.

I've been very happy with my Panasonic 42" plasma (EDTV - at the time the HD was like a thousand bucks more) this past year. But the one area where it does poorly compared to the traditional CRT it replaced is in very dark scenes, especially in older black and white films. It just seems to have a finite number of distinct shades of "very dark gray" compared to CRT, such that subtle shading and details get lost. This affects scenes in maybe 5-10% of films I watch and is pretty tolerable overall, but certainly noticeable.

Are LCDs even worse in this regard?

To anyone looking to buy: be clear, you're buying a specific TV not a technology. I found a considerable difference in display quality among plasmas last year, the Panasonics being notably better than anything else at J&R in their price range.