[klh]

I'm in the market to get two new sets. One for the family room ~42-47" and one for the bedroom ~32-37".

I have a JVC RS1 font projector in the home theater so size isn't a major issue... getting good bang for the buck while maintaining reasonable quality/reliability is. I've been thinking about getting the Phillups 47" or 42" 1080p LCD from Costco and the smaller 32" or 37" Phillups 720p LCD for the bedroom. Since contrast has come up, I've had the general impression that LCD is the way to go because they are lighter weight and less energy whores. Having said that, I haven't given plasma much thought... am I missing something?

[John151]

We have two 37" panny plasmas, and one 27" LCD. I personally think plasmas have a much better picture than LCD, especially on hon-HD content.  LCD and plasma each have their pros and cons, and in certain situations, one will be much better than the other.

If the unit will be used by kids, and/or used for video games, or is in a room with lots of sunlight, LCD may be the better choice.

For a HT set up, with good light control, plasma would be my choice.

For your bedroom (32"-37"), the panny 37" is probably the only choice for plasma.  We have a 37" panny in our bedroom.  An LCD would have worked equally well here as this unit is only used for the wife to watch Opra at night.  We we went with the panny as we have the same unit in our family room, and I didn't want to learn how to configure another tv.

 

[klh]

John... thanks for the response. I forgot to mention the family room has a lot of windows so reflections will be an issue. I moved the TV to a wall where it will be less of an issue, but this will be for casual watching... nothing serious. The fact that plasmas are better for SD is an issue. Do you think the newer LCDs are also inferior for SD content? Or, do you think this is something particular to the models you own? BTW, we won't be playing any video games on that TV... at least not in the next 5+ years. I assume you are referringto burn-in. Thanks again.

[Zero]

When given the options; go plasma - particularly Panasonic screens (many models of which feature anti-glare). Panasonic not only holds most of the plasma patents, but are by far the most durable, reliable, and longest lasting sets available today. Considering these screens are much quicker, look better at different resolutions, have an extremely long shelf-life, have zero color abnormalities that every LCD is still prone to, and can still look sharp even while up close to the TV.... the only reason to ever consider an LCD is if you don't have the coin to flip for a plasma screen.

[klh]

I'd love to go for a 50" 1080p Panny plasma for the family room and a 37" 720p Panny plasma for the bedroom, but the cost of going with them over the 47" 1080p Philips LCD for the family room and the 37" 720p Philips LCD for the bedroom is significant. The two LCDs together would cost less than the 50" plasma. I'm not sure the difference is worth it to be honest... especially when you consider the walls opposite the two locations have windows. Maybe I could justify going with the plasma downstairs if I went with a 32" LCD upstairs. I'll have to read up more.

Question... what would look better with SD material from a seated distance of about 10'... a 42" 1080p Philips LCD or a 50" 1080p Panny plasma? And, yes, this question is considering downsizing the LCD for the living room. Remember I have a 110" screen in the HT so I'm not so concerned about getting that extra bit of size... regular everyday TV watching is more important.

[John151]

John... The fact that plasmas are better for SD is an issue. Do you think the newer LCDs are also inferior for SD content? Or, do you think this is something particular to the models you own?

I don't think this is specific to my model of plasma.  My theory is that the plasma pixels are oval or rectangular, so they are better suited to stretching a non-HD picture.   Just a theory from a novice.  Also, from what I can tell, all plasmas brands are pretty close in PQ, where LCD brands vary greatly.  I think some of the newer models, from some of the better brands, are closing the gap. 

BTW, we won't be playing any video games on that TV... at least not in the next 5+ years. I assume you are referring to burn-in. Thanks again.

I think LCDs do better with computer generated content, where plasmas are better with natural content.  Sometimes I watch PBS nature shows just to gawk at the PQ.  And, yes, burn in is a minor issue for plasmas.  LCDs also have lower power consumption, and longer life.  My thinking is that if kids are going to playing video games on the TV, you can expect them to walk away w/o turning anything off, so the same image may be on the screen for extended periods of time.  Also, with kids, the TV may get much more use.  Thus, I generally think that LCDs are more appropriate for a gaming and kids, while plasmas are appropriate for movies and such. 

[jonwb]

I guess one question I'd have is why would you spend the extra $400 or so on a 1080p version of the 50" lanny?  Especially since you said you'll be watching lots of SD.  For the smaller tv I'd just get an LCD.

[DSK]

We just went through the comparisons for a TV in our living room. We don't sit too far away from the set so we only wanted 32" to 37" max. In this size, the new Sony Bravia 32" LCD looked more natural to us than any other set so we went with it. The Bravia 40" LCD was also excellent (though a touch big for our needs) but if I was looking for 40"+ I'd probably still go for the better plasmas over LCD.

A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across a review in which the reviewer was very surprised to find that the new 40" LCD Bravia was the equal of their reference plasma (Panasonic?). Another reference referred to a test where a number of people were put in front of a variety of plasmas and LCDs of different sizes (not knowing what they were watching) and the result was that the preference was 60:40 in favour of plasma, with the margin wider as the screen size became larger.

We found that the LCD was far better in conditions where there was some reflection. Some of the plasmas had a "non-reflective" screen but the picture didn't look as natural.

There's no doubt that LCDs have narrowed the gap on plasmas recently. But as with audio, it is a personal preference so go out and check out as many as you can to see what looks best to you. Have fun!

[klh]

Thanks guys. I was at the mall with the missus tonight so we stopped by Sears to see what they had. They had a recently released 42" 720p Panny plasma for $1100 and the 1080p version for $100 extra. I was excited to see it because the response on AVS has been quite good. Well, it was sitting next to a Samsung plasma and the Samsung blew it away WRT clarity/detail. With identical feeds, you could easily pick out the individual wiskers on a guys face on the Samsung whereas you couldn't with the Panny. The Panny's picture was extremely soft. I'm sure part of it was d/t miscalibration (or no calibration), but I have a hard time believing it was entirely d/t that. That was surprising considering the high praise Panasonic gets. I'll keep looking.

[zybar]

Thanks guys. I was at the mall with the missus tonight so we stopped by Sears to see what they had. They had a recently released 42" 720p Panny plasma for $1100 and the 1080p version for $100 extra. I was excited to see it because the response on AVS has been quite good. Well, it was sitting next to a Samsung plasma and the Samsung blew it away WRT clarity/detail. With identical feeds, you could easily pick out the individual wiskers on a guys face on the Samsung whereas you couldn't with the Panny. The Panny's picture was extremely soft. I'm sure part of it was d/t miscalibration (or no calibration), but I have a hard time believing it was entirely d/t that. That was surprising considering the high praise Panasonic gets. I'll keep looking.

KLH,

Please, please, please...don't base your decision on how things look at a big chain store.  There are so many factors there that are negatively impacting what ANY TV can really do, that it is almost criminal.

While it is good for you to not base your decision solely on what you read here or on AVS, I would put more stock in what is said on the boards than how things are setup and displayed in a chain store.

That being said...the Samsung is a good unit and wouldn't be a bad choice.  In a proper environment, with proper setup, I think the Panny will provide a better overall picture, but that is just my opinion.

Try to see your choices in a smaller, boutique store, or better yet, at somebody's home.  Many of the people on AC or AVS will gladly allow you to come over and view their setup.

Best of luck on getting what you want.

George

[ctviggen]

I get tricked into this, too.  I see side-by-side sets and figure that one is better for certain reasons.  However, my Samsung LCD TV came with "dynamic" as its normal setting from the factory.  Comparing this versus movie mode in a brightly lit room, and the dynamic looks much better.  However, put that on at night with low light, and one can see the overblown reds and greens.  Similarly, if one TV like the Pioneer comes with normal or movie mode (or someone switches it there), and the other TV sitting next to it is in dynamic mode, you'll like dynamic mode better, but the TV itself won't necessarily be better.  You really need to either read reviews or get two TVs, put them in similar modes and then compare (best would be to run Avia or some other calibration tool on them; actually, best would be full blown calibration, but that runs into some cash or equipment).

[mjosef]

Yeap. All solid advice...don't be fooled by the in-store displays...one set can be tweeked to look much snappier than the set next to it.
If you have no other venue but in-store display to make a decision, you must insist on seeing the set-up menu on the competing displays, that way you can see the critical settings (contrast, brightness, sharpness and color levels) of the sets you are interested in...some store may not want to let you play with these settings but you can sometimes get a co-operative sales person who would allow you some leeway.
Over 70% of the displays I see in the usual stores are way off/pumped up. Look for correct skin tones, and natural color in nature scenes, if you have never seen such color in real life then you know its pimped.
Its your money and they(stores) want your business, so insist on having the remote of the competing sets in your hands.

[John151]

Auditioning flat panel TVs at the various stores is is a lot of work for sure.  Not to mention all of the biased, and questionable advice from the rather "junior" staff at most stores.    

[Dan Driscoll]

The Panny's picture was extremely soft. I'm sure part of it was d/t miscalibration (or no calibration), but I have a hard time believing it was entirely d/t that.

You shouldn't, because it almost certainly was due to mis-calibration and differences in settings. NEVER, NEVER trust the store set-up of a display unless you personally know the qualifications of the person who did the set-up. Even then you can't be entirely safe, because some moron customer may have come by and changed all the settings.

[klh]

Guys...

Wow... lots of good input. Thank you very much.

I went by Best Buy tonight just to check things out. It was interesting... and another starting point. I was trying to compare 42" & 50" plasmas and 42" and 47" LCDs. The Samsung 1080p 50" plasma definitely looked better than the Panasonic 1080p 42" and 50" displays. It showed more detail. When compared to the Samsung 120Hz 1080p LCD display, they all paled in terms of sharpness, shadow detail and appearant contrast with HD signals. The LCD's blacks looked significantly blacker, but the whites were blooming big time. Then, he reluctantly switched the signal to a few different SD digital satellite feeds. The plasma displays absolutely blew away the Samsung LCD. The LCD looked horrible. The plasmas really shined. This, along with all that I've read online, basically tells me that current LCDs can do a lot with a great signal but can't do much with a poor signal whereas the plasmas are much more forgiving. As a main display for everyday viewing, I think plasma is the better choice. What it really comes down to is the RS1 is my toy upstairs, and will be used for HD video and film only. Contrast will run supreme, and I'll love every moment of it. The plasma will be downstairs and it will cover the myriad of SD and HD video on satellite. My wife isn't the most discriminating videophile , so the subtle lack in HD will easily be offset by the dramatic gain in SD playback. Since we have window coverings (blinds and curtains), I'm not concerned about reflections. Also, no kids and no video games. Now I'll just have to find a smaller shop that caries various calibrated plasmas to see which one I like best.

Thanks again for all the input. I really appreciate it .