Quote
HelterSkelter
Sorry Bjornulf, i just posted this subject/topic to let my IORR friends know that Plasma Screens are on their way out and best to not buy one anymore - we had a thread like this about Blu-Ray VS HD DVD formats about 6 to 9 months ago.

Why would it be best not to buy a Plasma TV anymore??Maybe they're on their way out soon,maybe they will be in production for another 7 to 10 years.It's irrelevant to people buying a TV during the next year or two.It's not like if you buy a Plasma TV and then they stop making them,you wouldn't be able to watch it anymore. As I said,the best TV on the market to date ( the Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-151FD ) is a Plasma & the top end Panasonic Plasmas are not far behind.In fact,there are no LCD's better than the high end Panasonic Plasmas and there has only been one LCD set that matches the quality ( the XBR8 Sony ) but it costs almost three times as much for equal quality.You can always wait for future technology before you make a purchase but,if you do that,you could end up waiting perpetually and never actually buy.The HD DVD story was different.People who bought HD DVD players (non Blu-Ray combos) are basically stuck with expensive standard DVD players because HD DVD discs are no longer produced.There is no such risk in buying a plasma television.

Quote
Chris Fountain
Winning Ugly,

"It's just speculation that Panasonic Plasmas won't be on the market in a few years and that the LCD's will catch up in quality,especially in typical low-lighting home theater settings.I don't think that the Plasmas will really be discontinued until other TV technologies such as OLED and/or SED catch on."

I'm not familiar with the OLED or SED technologies, so if I went to Walmart and purchased a 32-36" LCD Visio, would I be sacrificing any HD picture quality? The reason I ask is because watching college b-ball games or concerts from different arenas present contrast problems.

Please advise. Also, the Rolling Stones should be watched in high picture quality!!

Some Vizios are a good value for the price and some have picture quality issues.It depends on which model # that you're talking about.Personally,I'm not going to buy a TV from Walmart.They carry name brands but it's not just the brand name that matters.The quality varies among different model #'s in the same brand.For example Walmart has Sony and Samsung TV's but,they are the low-end models.You can do the research on this at cnet.com [reviews.cnet.com] [reviews.cnet.com] .They do some of the most in depth reviews compared to the other people like Yahoo.com. C Net tests picture quality in many different areas with discs designed for that purpose. The home theater web sites are also good for reviews.This is one example of a good home theater review site : [www.hometheaterhifi.com] but,they review TV's less often than C Net.

I plan to buy a big screen HD TV in the next 6 to 18 months and move my 32 inch LCD set into my bedroom.For what it's worth to you,after extensive research,I have pretty well narrowed my choices down to 3 : the Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-151FD Plasma [www.pioneerelectronics.com] ; the Mitsubishi Laser DLP L65-A90 which should be out in May [www.mitsubishi-tv.com] ; or the new 2009 Panasonic Plasma that will be out in August or September the TC-P58V10 [ces.cnet.com] .

SED TV's are not on the market at all and may never be but,it's possible.They were being developed by Canon and Toshiba but then they had to put it on hold because of a law suit which tied development up for years.A recent ruling in the courts has given Canon the green light to resume work but,that does not necessarily mean that they will because of the cost.Any SED TV's of decent size would be expensive and Pioneer has proven not many people will pay the premium.

There is one OLED TV ( by Sony ) on the market but it's only an 11 inch screen.I think that it's around $2,000 for the 11 inch TV.It's going to take years before there will be a decent size OLED TV and if/when there is,what will it cost?The picture is really stunning but,on the other hand,OLED's are supposed to last only half as long as an LCD or Plasma set.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
HelterSkelter
Sorry Bjornulf, i just posted this subject/topic to let my IORR friends know that Plasma Screens are on their way out and best to not buy one anymore - we had a thread like this about Blu-Ray VS HD DVD formats about 6 to 9 months ago.

Why would it be best not to buy a Plasma TV anymore??Maybe they're on their way out soon,maybe they will be in production for another 7 to 10 years.It's irrelevant to people buying a TV during the next year or two.It's not like if you buy a Plasma TV and then they stop making them,you wouldn't be able to watch it anymore. As I said,the best TV on the market to date ( the Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-151FD ) is a Plasma & the top end Panasonic Plasmas are not far behind.In fact,there are no LCD's better than the high end Panasonic Plasmas and there has only been one LCD set that matches the quality ( the XBR8 Sony ) but it costs almost three times as much for equal quality.You can always wait for future technology before you make a purchase but,if you do that,you could end up waiting perpetually and never actually buy.The HD DVD story was different.People who bought HD DVD players (non Blu-Ray combos) are basically stuck with expensive standard DVD players because HD DVD discs are no longer produced.There is no such risk in buying a plasma television.

Absolutely right, you are. I bought the Panasonic 46" that came out last year, never been happier with a TV. Running HD-material on it is just dream to watch.
And getting a PS3 to play the BluRay material is probably best value for money.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
Chris Fountain
Kovach


Thanks for link.

This unit sells for 650.00 Is the resolution comment true? and if so why not a Vizio with larger screen size??


If you need a smaller TV, reports say the Samsung LN32A450 is a standout in its 32-inch screen size. Picture quality is said to be great out of the box, but a huge number of picture adjustments lets you tweak the picture… to your liking. An adjustable backlight makes it easy to get the right brightness level for both well-lit and darkened viewing situations. The resolution of this TV is just 720p, but experts say that the benefits of higher 1080p resolution are lost in a screen of this size. Other sizes are available, ranging from 19 to 40 inches.

It's important that the Stones are watched with optimum clarity

1080p is only important for Blue Ray. Everything broadcast is 720p or 1080i. And you get the best picture when your TV matches the broadcast, as everything else is converted.

Having said all that, my Sony Bravia that I bought a few years ago looks excellent on any HD broadcast, be it 720p or 1080i; I can't notice a difference between the two. Don't have a Blue Ray yet, so can't comment on that.

You do need to adjust the picture of any TV though, they're generally set to something way too colorful and bright so they look good in a showroom under all those lights which is not a typical home setting.

You can pay big bucks to have your TV professionally calibrated. Or, if you can find it here [www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com] these guys typically give you their professionally calibrated settings and you can just copy them. That's what I did and I get a ton of compliments on the picture quality.

I don't have...any kind of wide screen HD plasma molten lava Starship Enterprise tv. I still have a big goofy tv. The HD/plasmas cost so much...to have one of them go away very soon is not encouragement to buy one.

Besides I've heard enough about the plasmas to make me not ever bother. Everyone I know has an HD (whatever that means).

HD means high definition.All plasma TV's on the market now are HD.There are also LCD HD tv's and DLP HD tv's.I don't know what you've heard and where from but,if you read professional reviews like this one : [reviews.cnet.com] or this one : [www.pioneerelectronics.com] or if you've ever watched HD material on one,I don't know where you'd get the idea not to bother.The picture quality is much better than standard definition.

Updated article on plasma displays to back me up : [news.cnet.com] .


As a side note,you can't buy a TV with a 1080i resolution.The " i " stands for interlaced.A 1080i broadcast shows the first 540 of the lines of resolution and then displays the last 540 lines of resolution a split second later for 1080 total but interlaced.The "p" in 1080p or 720p or 480p stands for progressive scan.A 1080p signal (as with Blu-Ray discs) shows all 1,080 lines of resolution at once.The native resolution of a 1080p (or even i) capable display is 1920 x 1080.the native resolution of a 720p display is either 1024 x 720 or 1366 x 768.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-10 00:54 by Winning Ugly VXII.

own a panasonic plasma for 1 1/2 years. No problems.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
As a side note,you can't buy a TV with a 1080i resolution.The " i " stands for interlaced.A 1080i broadcast shows the first 540 of the lines of resolution and then displays the last 540 lines of resolution a split second later for 1080 total but interlaced.The "p" in 1080p or 720p or 480p stands for progressive scan.A 1080p signal (as with Blu-Ray discs) shows all 1,080 lines of resolution at once.The native resolution of a 1080p (or even i) capable display is 1920 x 1080.the native resolution of a 720p display is either 1024 x 720 or 1366 x 768.

I don't know if they still make 1080i TV's since 1080p came along, but they were very popular here in the US for years.

That's incorrect.As I said,a true 1080p capable TV has the same 1920 x 1080 native resolution as a true 1080i TV.In the case of a 1080i signal being displayed,half of the 1080 lines of resolution are displayed a split second before the last 540 lines of resolution.

You are probably thinking of 720p TV's with a 1366 x 768 native resolution that advertised that they could accept a 1080i signal (Which they could but,in that case the 1080i signal is scaled back down to fit into the 1366 x 768 pixels of the TV.) Or,you could be thinking of a few rare TV's that had a 1024 x 1080 native resolution but,that's not truly capable of properly displaying a 1080i signal as a 1920 x 1080 TV is. 1080i is a term commonly used to refer to 1920 x 1080 lines of resolution displayed in an interlaced pattern.

Think of it this way : The " i " stands for interlaced. * A TV can't have interlaced pixels. * It can display them in an interlaced pattern or in a progressive scan pattern.All HD TV's have a certain # of horizontal pixels and a certain # of vertical pixels which amounts to the total # of pixels that the TV has.

I am upgrading my "family living room" set this year as well, but my cabinet currently holds a 32" Sony.

My space in that entertainment cabinet only allows for a set no wider than 35" with a height of no taller than 27". What is the largest size LCD screen set that I can fit in there?

Quote
The Sicilian
I am upgrading my "family living room" set this year as well, but my cabinet currently holds a 32" Sony.

My space in that entertainment cabinet only allows for a set no wider than 35" with a height of no taller than 27". What is the largest size LCD screen set that I can fit in there?

Simple, use Pytaghoras:
x and y is your height and width, the result is maximum size scrren you can use.
If we rewrite the above formula, it might be a little easier to calculate:
35²*27²=maxscreen²



(44"))

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-04 21:23 by mickijaggeroo.

With a calculated measurement of 44", it appears that the 42" sized model would be ideal. I've seen 42" and 46" screens advertised but not 44". I've been hunting HDTVs as well, and am leaning towards the Vizio, which is made by Sony (from what I told).

I'm by no means promoting Walmart but here is a link with some current market prices. Of course, Kovak has informed that these are not the higher end models even if it says Sony or Samsung. However, these are tough economic times.



[www.walmart.com]

44" was the outcome of the calculation I have´nt seen any 44"s either.
But 44 in this case might be accurate, since it´s the area of the picture that is 42" measured diagonally. Then add the framing around the screen, and 44" might be just right.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

mickjaggeroo

You pose an interesting point. I guess one would have to measure the frame's height and width in store just to be on the safe side. Or perhaps such information is provided on the advertisement.

Also, is the TV stand a consideration? What will support the TV? If this is the case, then the stand dimension needs to be added to height measurement in the Pytaghoras formula. This could possibly eliminate a 42" screen as a choice?

Please correct me if wrong.

You can always choose between a stand , or mounting the screen on a wall. Measuring in store might be a good idea.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Then the last question is if the cabinet is built into the wall. If so it could work. If the cabinet is stand-alone then that wall mount wouldn't make any sense. The TV would be swamped by the cabinet itself.

Of course, I think streamlining is the key. Sell the cabinet (if no emotional attachments), move cabinet items to other areas of the house. Make the viewing pleasure clean and sleek. The money he gains off of selling the cabinet can be used to buy a larger screen, speakers, DVR, and brand new Lazy-boy Recliner!!

BTW, I was just being lazy about the dimensions as I would still check the overall dimensions myself to be exact but since you all were on a roll I figured you had all this info handy to feed my curiosity.

So a 42" Flat panel would fit into the space by your estimations. I'm excited.

In my case I have a huge cabinet that I cannot part with at this time, that resides in cubby space perfectly. However there is a tall double hung window directly behind centered on the wall rendering that entire wall unusable for mounting. In addition the cabinet is full of DVD's, components, and junk my wife decorates it with on top. It does serve a very useful purpose.

Let's not forget that I have three kids with one four year old daughter who demands equal storage for all the Dora and Sponge Bob DVD's.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Think of it this way : The " i " stands for interlaced. * A TV can't have interlaced pixels. * It can display them in an interlaced pattern or in a progressive scan pattern.All HD TV's have a certain # of horizontal pixels and a certain # of vertical pixels which amounts to the total # of pixels that the TV has.

True, the exact number of lines and pixels vary, but HD TV's are commonly referred to 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. That's all I was getting at.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I have a LCD TV. Sony Bravia to be exact. LCD always looked better than plasma to me.

Couldn't agree more, Kent. And I, too, have a Bravia. A rear-projection LCD. Absolutely love it.

Quote
kovach

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Think of it this way : The " i " stands for interlaced. * A TV can't have interlaced pixels. * It can display them in an interlaced pattern or in a progressive scan pattern.All HD TV's have a certain # of horizontal pixels and a certain # of vertical pixels which amounts to the total # of pixels that the TV has.

True, the exact number of lines and pixels vary, but HD TV's are commonly referred to 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. That's all I was getting at.

Alright.All I was getting at is that a 1080p TV and a 1080i TV are one in the same.They both need to have 1920 x 1080 pixels to be true 1080p and 1080i. [en.wikipedia.org] [en.wikipedia.org] If you feed such a TV a 1080i signal (as in an HD broadcast),it will display 1080i interlaced but,if you feed the same TV a 1080p signal (as in a Blu-Ray disc),it will display 1080p in progressive scan mode assuming that the appropriate cables are being used.I have never heard of a TV with the required 1920 x 1080 resolution that could only display the pixels in an interlaced pattern and not in the progressive scan pattern.Such a TV would probably have to be without any HDMI connections since I believe it's part of the HDMI specification to be able to provide progressive. scanning.The TV's which some people were calling 1080i TV's really were not.They were of a lower resolution (720p if you will) but,the selling point was that they were able to accept the 1080i signal and scale it back down to fit in the pixels that the TV did have.This was rarely fully explained.That's all I'm trying to say.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I have a LCD TV. Sony Bravia to be exact. LCD always looked better than plasma to me.

Couldn't agree more, Kent. And I, too, have a Bravia. A rear-projection LCD. Absolutely love it.

The Sony Bravia rear-projection HD TV's were technically LCoS which stands for Liquid Crystal on Silicon [en.wikipedia.org] as opposed to the more common LCD [en.wikipedia.org].

They were,or are,great sets but,the only way that they're better than the top-notch plasmas (of '08 and '09) is in bright surroundings or at extremely high elevations above sea level.LCoS TV's are no longer produced.They had been by Sony and JVC.