On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:19:49 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Meat Plow" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:20:28 -0700, PlainBill47 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:39:13 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
wrote:
Well I'm going to replace my 11 yr old 51" Panasonic projector. Not
because it doesn't work, actually works very well. It's highest
resolution is 480p. I'll be shopping for a new LCD set equal in size or
slightly larger soon. Of course I want a great fast picture with super
high contrast. And reliability. I might spend around $3000 US. What are
some choices and their advantages?
I'd like to point out that the aspect ratio of the screens should be
taken into consideration. Your 50" 3:4 Panasonic has a picture height
of roughly 30". To maintain the same picture height you would need a
60" wide screen TV. That is easily possible with DLP and plasma, and
even with LCD TVs.
My chief knock against DLP is a somewhat restricted viewing angle. And
let's be honest, the sets are much thicker than a comparable sized LCD
or plasma. However, a 65" DLP will easily fit within your price limit.
As far as Plasma vrs LCD, the usual advice applies, avoid house brands.
Both are viable technologies. Plasma will cost you less. Potentially,
LCD will last longer. These are one of the products where an extended
warranty is a good idea.
Ultimately, you and your eyes (and ears) are going to have to make the
decision. In plasma I would go with Samsung or Panasonic, take a lookat
LG is you want to but I'd avoid buying an LG plasma.
In LCD I'd suggest Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic. Sharp's Quattron
process may be more of a marketing gimic that a real advantage. Again,
you are the judge.
3D is available in all three technologies. I'm of the opinion that it
is more of a gimic than a real step forward. Certainly nothing I have
seen persuades me to believe the reason so many movies are shot in 3-D
is the producer is trying to disguise the fact they have a mediocre
script, poor actors, and a director who is well past his prime.
PlainBill
I'm looking at the Panasonic Viera 55" and Samsung similar model. I
realize the size of the old Panasonic 51" square projector's size in
comparison to say a 55" HDTV screen height. I like the prices and specs
of the plasma sets. Use wise, plasma should last 20 years in this
household.
Last Christmas, after agonising long and hard over replacing my ageing, but
still superbly performing, 32" CRT Tosh, I was totally knocked out by a 50"
Panasonic plasma, and that was what I ultimately bought. From time to time,
Pan offer 5 year full warranties on these sets. The store I bought mine from
was offering a 5 year warranty on their own account, and it includes the
panel. Having now watched the set for around 8 months, I can honestly say
that there is not a single thing about it that I don't like - apart from
possibly the sound which, in common with all slim sets, be they LCD or
plasma, is not particularly 'full'. Perfectly adequate for normal viewing,
but not great. To overcome this, I have my sat receiver optically linked to
a Sony HC amp with full format decoding, and that's what I use for watching
films. The picture on this plasma set is stunning - and, having spent many
years in TV and electronic service, I don't use that term lightly. I loved
my old Tosh, but on balance, I think I love this one even more.
About the only other piece of advice that I could give is that if you are
going to be looking at HD, make sure that you get a set that is 'full HD'
and not just 'HD ready' . On my full HD set, HD transmissions are really
noticeably sharper and more detailed, due to the fact that the panel's
native resolution matches that of the source. However, my son-in-law's
parents recently upgraded their sat TV package to a new HD receiver, and an
HD subscription, but they are quite disappointed with it, displayed on their
'HD ready' LCD Sammy, I think it is. I guess this is because the native
resolution of the panel is lower than the actual resolution of the HD
source, so although the set is capable of *accepting* the full res HD signal
that the sat receiver is outputting, it then has to downscale it in order
for the LCD panel to be able to display it, thus negating any real advantage
from having an HD signal in the first place ...
Just personally, I think that the colour rendition on plasmas knocks spots
off of LCDs. I was always happy with the level of maturity that CRT
technology had reached, in terms of natural colour rendition, and I was
reading just the other day, that the phosphors used in plasma panels, are
identical to those used in CRTs, so I guess that would explain why I like
the picture on my plas so much. :-)
Arfa
There are a number of pitfalls in the process of aquiring a signal for
an HD set. By law in the US all TVs must have a digiatl tuner. An
over the air signal can produce a stunning picture. However, this
depends on the local station. Some broadcast in 720p, others in
1080i. And most are still using SD for any remote feeds.
Converting a 720p signal to 1080i or vise versa results in
significant degradation. This can be made worse by 'professional'
installers. Shortly after having purchased my HD receiver I upgraded
my satellite subscription to include an HD receiver and the relatively
few HD channels available at the time. The installer insisted on
setting the HD receiver to output a 720p signal "because that matched
the native resolution of the TV" (the TV's native resolution was
1080p). Since the HD receiver included OTA capability the idiot had
set up a contition where a digital broadcast in 1080i would be
converted to 702p by the receiver, then converted to 1080p by the TV
with very unsatisfactory results. To further compound his folly the
fool set it to display SD signals across the full width of the screen
"so there wouldn't be any screen burn" - which does not occur with DLP
sets.
PlainBill