Plasma or LCD?

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?

It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
longevity - but what about now?
I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
a tough call really.

So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
screen)

Thanks,


--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(mindesign)]

I still believe Plasma has it over LCD - I know for slow motion stuff LCD
looks fine but when doing any fast moving CGI or action, the LCD's fall
over..... even the exxie ones. But it is amazing what people will put up
with - when I did my research I concluded that pioneer and Hitachi had
the best Plasmas and Panasonic and Sharp seemed to have the best LCDs - I
admit that my information and research is now around 6 months old. I saw a
TCL Plasma yesterday that actually looked fine.... it was a 42 inch and
showing god-awful footage of horse racing but the image was crisp and clean.
I put some AV into it from my Panasonic DMER65's HDD and I have to say I
think it looked great.....the guy reckons he paid $1100 for it which seemed
like great value to me, but again, I didn't see it next to any others or
spend that much time checking out what in's and out's it had etc.

Anyway, Plasma gets my vote, until LCD gets its refresh times down to
something that stops the 'mouse trails'

Just one man's opinion!

Steve


"Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...
> Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>
> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
> longevity - but what about now?
> I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
> $2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
> strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
> a tough call really.
>
> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
> - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
> screen)
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> /J/
> I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch
> Hedberg
>

[Ext User(Italo)]

"Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...

> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
> longevity - but what about now?

Still does.

> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
> - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
> screen)

What size are you looking at?

If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's above
32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than plasma (yes
the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue with Plasma
sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd recommend that one.

--
Italo

[Ext User(Zog)]

mindesign wrote:

> Anyway, Plasma gets my vote, until LCD gets its refresh times down to
> something that stops the 'mouse trails'
>

well your info is old, I don't get 'mouse trails' on my Humax LCD tv and
that has a response time of 16ms, the newer LCD tvs with 8ms or better
response times are much better again.

sure at the moment a large size plasma is still cheaper than a similar
sized LCD tv, but the gap is getting narrower.

a friend of mine just bought a new Sony X Bravia 46" LCD tv, it was $6k,
but able to show 1080p and 8ms response it is stunning.

[Ext User(Sunny)]

"Italo" <inottetolati@xmg.ten> wrote in message news:4600e01a$0$22844$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
| "Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
| news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...
|
| > It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
| > longevity - but what about now?
|
| Still does.
|
| > So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
| > - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
| > screen)
|
| What size are you looking at?
|
| If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's above
| 32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than plasma (yes
| the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue with Plasma
| sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd recommend that one.

Do the "blacks" still have the shine effect ?
Last LCD I looked at put me right off. Wish someone could come up with a lighter weight Old technology TV :-)

[Ext User(Zyxak)]

On 21/03/07 18:40, Zog uttered the following...

> mindesign wrote:
>
>> Anyway, Plasma gets my vote, until LCD gets its refresh times down to
>> something that stops the 'mouse trails'
>>
>
> well your info is old, I don't get 'mouse trails' on my Humax LCD tv
> and that has a response time of 16ms, the newer LCD tvs with 8ms or
> better response times are much better again.
>
> sure at the moment a large size plasma is still cheaper than a similar
> sized LCD tv, but the gap is getting narrower.
>
> a friend of mine just bought a new Sony X Bravia 46" LCD tv, it was
> $6k, but able to show 1080p and 8ms response it is stunning.

I recently purchased a Sharp Aquos 32" HDTV (LC-32BD6X) for about $2k
and I'm very happy with it. It has an integrated high definition
digital tuner and can display up to 1080i with 6ms response time.

The previous problems with each system - LCD's response time and
plasma's burn-in - are no longer an issue and the choice is now down to
personal opinion.

--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
=Z=
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
LIFE: A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*

[Ext User(SalesMart.com.au)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, =?iso-8859-1?b?SmXfdXM=?=
<127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:

>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>
>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>longevity - but what about now?
>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>a tough call really.
>
>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>screen)

If I was buying now I'd go for the Samsung or Sony LCD.
Which ever way you go make sure you get a 3 year zero dead pixel
warranty where the warranty is onsite. This way they'll come out and
replace the screen.

Places like Harvey Norman have many brands and models on display.
Then buy from them or find another selling it cheaper. I'd be buying
from local stores and not getting them in from interstate, only
because if you need help then they can come out and set it all up for
you.

Try and get the digital tuner built in and two HDMI connectors.

The prices on LCD and Plasma have come down by quite a bit in recent
times.

SalesMart.com.au
Perth, Western Australia
http://www.salesmart.com.au
*******************************************
Email Contact info on the above site.
*******************************************

[Ext User(PHATRS)]

Jeßus wrote:
> Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>
> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
> longevity - but what about now?
> I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
> $2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
> strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
> a tough call really.
>
> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
> - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
> screen)
>
> Thanks,
>
>

My 6 year old plasma has no burn-in which may be because I didn't leave
static images on the screen for 12 hours a day.

It also has no brightness issues probably because I didn't use the
factory default settings which were very bright and high contrast and
made for a very poor picture. After calibration with a test DVD the
settings are much more neutral and easy on the eyes.

It gets used for a couple of hours every day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even early plasma screens like mine had a
brightness half-life of 20,000 hours. Once that point is reached, I'll
just turn up the brightness and contrast a bit.

I'd love to buy a new true-HD display. I would simply buy the TV that
had the best picture for the amount of money I could afford and whether
it was LCD or plasma would not be a factor.
--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

[Ext User(Graham C)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, Jeßus
<127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:

>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>
>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>longevity - but what about now?
>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>a tough call really.
>
>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>screen)
>
>Thanks,

The Gadget Show on UK TV had a challenge last month to find the best
plasma and LCD screens, 40" or more for under 1,000 UKP

The two sets were then shown to a bunch of football fanatics showing
the same prog (a live match which is a pretty good test)

Conclusions were:

The audience was exactly split as to the plasma picture v the LCD.
Avoid any 'cheap' LCD with an unknown name sold in a supermarket.
Best plasmas are made by: Panasonic Pioneer
Best LCDs are from: Samsung Sony Toshiba

The two TVs on test were reported to be excellent, and were:

Panasonic TH42PX60B (42") Samsung LE40N73BD (40")

Other good smaller ones were: Toshiba 32WLT66 Toshiba 20WLT56

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&section=Features&show=s6e2&featureid=298&description=What's%20on%20TV?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=500

Graham

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:40:02 +0000, PHATRS wrote:

> Jeßus wrote:
>> Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>>
>> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>> longevity - but what about now?
>> I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>> $2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>> strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>> a tough call really.
>>
>> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>> - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>> screen)
>>
>
> My 6 year old plasma has no burn-in which may be because I didn't leave
> static images on the screen for 12 hours a day.
>
> It also has no brightness issues probably because I didn't use the
> factory default settings which were very bright and high contrast and
> made for a very poor picture. After calibration with a test DVD the
> settings are much more neutral and easy on the eyes.

I've found my way to the DTV forums, and it does appear that the factory
default settings are frequently far from ideal.

> It gets used for a couple of hours every day.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but even early plasma screens like mine had a
> brightness half-life of 20,000 hours. Once that point is reached, I'll
> just turn up the brightness and contrast a bit.
>
> I'd love to buy a new true-HD display. I would simply buy the TV that
> had the best picture for the amount of money I could afford and whether
> it was LCD or plasma would not be a factor.

Yes, ultimately the screen I'll buy will be based on what my eyes tell
me - but that is a problem too , heh :)To me the LCDs and Plasmas (in
my price range) have advantages over each other in terms of picture
quality.
The plasmas are more relaxing on the eye, and tend to have more natural
looking colours, and also don't 'artifact' (my term only, not sure what
the correct one is) with fast moving objects.

OTOH, LCDs tend to look crisper/sharper and with more contrast, which I
really like

I'm sure there's examples of each that overcomes these problems, but
they're outside my budget.

Incidentally, I saw a Sony yesterday for approx. $6000 (about 106") -
man, it had the best damned picture I've ever seen of /any/ type of TV...
just amazing. Extreme sharpness, perfect contrast & colour... virtually
none of the usual visual problems we expect in either CRT, LCD or
plasma. Once these come down to 'normal' pricing, I'd say real picture
quality has arrived.

--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:30:29 +0000, SalesMart.com.au wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, =?iso-8859-1?b?SmXfdXM=?=
> <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>>
>>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>>longevity - but what about now?
>>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>>a tough call really.
>>
>>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>>screen)
>
> If I was buying now I'd go for the Samsung or Sony LCD.
> Which ever way you go make sure you get a 3 year zero dead pixel
> warranty where the warranty is onsite. This way they'll come out and
> replace the screen.

Yes... *on-site* warranty. That's a very good point Colin, I'll make this
an important consideration.

I have to say that at this early stage the Samsungs are at the top of my
list, along with (surprisingly to me at least) Philips and possibly LG.
The Sonys tend to be outside my budget ($2500-$3500). The Philps plasmas
and LCDs I was looking at were really quite impressive considering the
price (the backlighting thing might be a little gimmicky though - I'm
undecided on that presenty)

> Places like Harvey Norman have many brands and models on display. Then
> buy from them or find another selling it cheaper. I'd be buying from
> local stores and not getting them in from interstate, only because if
> you need help then they can come out and set it all up for you.
>
> Try and get the digital tuner built in and two HDMI connectors.

They all seem to have tuners built in these days, and to be honest, for
all practical purposes I probably wouldn't notice if it had one or not :)

> The prices on LCD and Plasma have come down by quite a bit in recent
> times.

They certainly have, and now it's possible to buy one with acceptable
picture quality at a reasonable price IMO. Which is why I'm after one now
:) Thanks.


--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:01 +1100, Italo wrote:

> "Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...
>> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>> longevity - but what about now?
>
> Still does.

Heh.
Yes, some still say the problem persists, others say it's not the
problem it used to be... this is something I need to find out for sure
before taking the plunge.

I should add that I use a HTPC, so there will frequently be static images
on the screen, and I have a habit of (unintentionally) leaving the screen
on for hours at end.

>> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why -
>> keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>> screen)
>
> What size are you looking at?

Preferably in the vicinity of 100CM, although if I happened upon a true
bargain on an 81CM screen I might be swayed.

> If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's
> above 32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than
> plasma (yes the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue
> with Plasma sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd
> recommend that one.

Thanks. I recall one of the smaller Toshiba LCDs I saw yesterday had a
stand-out image. But the Sony I saw - wow. Very impressive...
unfortunately it was double my budget!

As mentioned, budget is around $3000 and looking at around 100CM, so I
cannot ignore plasma as these do seem to offer many advantages with the
above criteria.

I'll keep digging... cheers :)

--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:47:40 +0000, Sunny wrote:

>
> "Italo" <inottetolati@xmg.ten> wrote in message news:4600e01a$0$22844$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> | "Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
> | news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...
> | > It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
> | > longevity - but what about now?
> | Still does.
> | > So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
> | > - keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
> | > screen)
> | What size are you looking at?
> | If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's above
> | 32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than plasma (yes
> | the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue with Plasma
> | sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd recommend that one.
>
> Do the "blacks" still have the shine effect ?
> Last LCD I looked at put me right off. Wish someone could come up with a lighter weight Old technology TV :-)

There's some quite thin CRTs available now, if thats what you mean?

--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:29:37 +1100, mindesign wrote:

> I still believe Plasma has it over LCD - I know for slow motion stuff LCD
> looks fine but when doing any fast moving CGI or action, the LCD's fall
> over..... even the exxie ones.

Yeah, I noticed this as well.


> But it is amazing what people will put up with - when I did my
> research I concluded that pioneer and Hitachi had the best Plasmas and
> Panasonic and Sharp seemed to have the best LCDs - I admit that my
> information and research is now around 6 months old. I saw a TCL Plasma
> yesterday that actually looked fine.... it was a 42 inch and showing
> god-awful footage of horse racing but the image was crisp and clean. I
> put some AV into it from my Panasonic DMER65's HDD and I have to say I
> think it looked great.....the guy reckons he paid $1100 for it which
> seemed like great value to me, but again, I didn't see it next to any
> others or spend that much time checking out what in's and out's it had
> etc.

Well, that's a bloody good price for a 42" plasma. Perhaps it wasn't high
definition?

> Anyway, Plasma gets my vote, until LCD gets its refresh times down to
> something that stops the 'mouse trails'

Thanks for your thoughts. I think that if I can allay my fears regarding
screen damage with the plasmas, I'll just let my eyes make the decision
on which type to go with.

--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg

[Ext User(Italo)]

"Sunny" <wombathouse@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:wq5Mh.14197$8U4.9382@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| What size are you looking at?
|
| If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's
above
| 32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than plasma
(yes
| the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue with Plasma
| sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd recommend that one.

>Do the "blacks" still have the shine effect ?


"Shine" effect? All LCDs lose contrast and black level at extreme angles, so
if you plan to watch the TV at an angle of 180 degrees don't get an LCD.
Since, I assume, you won't then an LCD is the best, cheapest and more future
proof especially if you buy a Sony, Panasonic, and/or Toshiba models. It's
also the only choice at 32" or below.


>Last LCD I looked at put me right off. Wish someone could come up with a
>lighter weight Old technology TV :-)


What brand was it? How long ago was it? etc... since you're in the market
you haven't been around to have a look lately?

--
Italo

[Ext User(dAz)]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:47:40 +0000, Sunny wrote:
>
>> Do the "blacks" still have the shine effect ?
>> Last LCD I looked at put me right off. Wish someone could come up with a lighter weight Old technology TV :-)
>
> There's some quite thin CRTs available now, if thats what you mean?
>

not sure what he means, anyway even with the thinner CRTs they are still
too heavy, use too much power, still have screen flicker which gets very
noticeable after watching plasma or LCD screens for a while.

most LCD screens don't have a glass sheet in front to protect the
screen, so if you have little sticky fingers around your place might be
best to mount the tv on the wall out of reach, the screen can only
cleaned with a damp cloth, no cleaning solutions or sprays, on the plus
side these screens are not reflective so you are not going to see a lamp
or a window in the middle of the picture :)

by all means go check out the tvs in a display room, check the blacks
are really black and the brightness is good, I do see a lot of LCDs and
plasmas are set with high or over saturated colours, I have had to dial
down this on a few sets to make the picture look more normal.

and so long as you pick an LCD tv with a good response time like 8ms or
better you are never going to get the ghost trails like first gen sets had.

[Ext User(mindesign)]

Don't leave a DVD on pause with a plasma display - bad habit and not
friendly to plasmas. There are a bunch of makers who have fixes etc. but my
suggestion would be to ONLY buy LCD if you're prone to having static images
OR reduce the screen saver time way down....problem solved

One thing that made me wait around 8 extra months when deciding was power
consumption - from memory LCD's use around 1/3 of Plasmas..... As
mentioned, the two Plasmas I was deciding between were Hitachi and Pioneer.
The Pioneer is a 50 inch, the Hitachi a 55 so around a 1/3 more screen real
estate and 100 watts more power consumption..... the Hitachi has a swivel
feature too (the remote allows you to swivel the screen automatically) -
glad I didn't let that feature govern the decision as I have not needed to
move mine a millimetre since installing it. Both images were in my opinion,
spectacular especially compared to Panasonic and Sony LCDs, all of which
were viewed side by side..... when I say spectacular, I mean for this type
of display..... my Loewe widescreen CRT was better than all of them, but
tiny in comparison etc.

For mine, either the P or H would've been fantastic

Finally, I was offered a killer price on the Pioneer so went with that. If
you're in Melbourne I can personally recommend HiTek in High Street
Northcote - they're extremely patient and knowledgeable..... maybe do what
I did...... create your own DVD of action sequences and CGI and take it
along to different sellers.... if they won't let you view it, run .... if
they can't set their systems up to allow you to run it, run..... (hardly
normal) - if they are keen to see how your stuff performs on their gear,
you have a starting point.

Cheers

Steve


"Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.21.21.05.12.306634@G3.jebus-net...
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:01 +1100, Italo wrote:
>
>> "Jeßus" <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.03.21.05.30.36.459197@G3.jebus-net...
>>> It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>>> longevity - but what about now?
>>
>> Still does.
>
> Heh.
> Yes, some still say the problem persists, others say it's not the
> problem it used to be... this is something I need to find out for sure
> before taking the plunge.
>
> I should add that I use a HTPC, so there will frequently be static images
> on the screen, and I have a habit of (unintentionally) leaving the screen
> on for hours at end.
>
>>> So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why -
>>> keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>>> screen)
>>
>> What size are you looking at?
>
> Preferably in the vicinity of 100CM, although if I happened upon a true
> bargain on an 81CM screen I might be swayed.
>
>> If it's 32" or under than LCD is pretty much the only option, if it's
>> above 32" I'd still say the better LCDs out there do a better job than
>> plasma (yes the blacks are an issue with LCD but they're also an issue
>> with Plasma sets). The 37" Toshiba is an outstanding LCD and I'd
>> recommend that one.
>
> Thanks. I recall one of the smaller Toshiba LCDs I saw yesterday had a
> stand-out image. But the Sony I saw - wow. Very impressive...
> unfortunately it was double my budget!
>
> As mentioned, budget is around $3000 and looking at around 100CM, so I
> cannot ignore plasma as these do seem to offer many advantages with the
> above criteria.
>
> I'll keep digging... cheers :)
>
> --
> /J/
> I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch
> Hedberg
>

[Ext User(rob)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, Jeßus
<127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:

>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>
>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>longevity - but what about now?
>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>a tough call really.
>
>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>screen)
>
>Thanks,

Plasma screens have very high power consumption. This is an important
but often overlooked fact.

[Ext User(SalesMart.com.au)]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:55:51 +1100, =?iso-8859-1?b?SmXfdXM=?=
<127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:30:29 +0000, SalesMart.com.au wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, =?iso-8859-1?b?SmXfdXM=?=
>> <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>>>
>>>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>>>longevity - but what about now?
>>>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>>>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>>>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>>>a tough call really.
>>>
>>>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>>>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>>>screen)
>>
>> If I was buying now I'd go for the Samsung or Sony LCD.
>> Which ever way you go make sure you get a 3 year zero dead pixel
>> warranty where the warranty is onsite. This way they'll come out and
>> replace the screen.
>
>Yes... *on-site* warranty. That's a very good point Colin, I'll make this
>an important consideration.
>
>I have to say that at this early stage the Samsungs are at the top of my
>list, along with (surprisingly to me at least) Philips and possibly LG.
>The Sonys tend to be outside my budget ($2500-$3500). The Philps plasmas
>and LCDs I was looking at were really quite impressive considering the
>price (the backlighting thing might be a little gimmicky though - I'm
>undecided on that presenty)
>
>> Places like Harvey Norman have many brands and models on display. Then
>> buy from them or find another selling it cheaper. I'd be buying from
>> local stores and not getting them in from interstate, only because if
>> you need help then they can come out and set it all up for you.
>>
>> Try and get the digital tuner built in and two HDMI connectors.
>
>They all seem to have tuners built in these days, and to be honest, for
>all practical purposes I probably wouldn't notice if it had one or not :)
>
>> The prices on LCD and Plasma have come down by quite a bit in recent
>> times.
>
>They certainly have, and now it's possible to buy one with acceptable
>picture quality at a reasonable price IMO. Which is why I'm after one now
>:) Thanks.

The Samsung LA40R71BDX LCD might be in your price range.
From what I've seen in Harvey Normal stores is they stand out over the
other ones I've seen. If your into console games, some of them have a
special game mode which maybe of some interest. The two listed below
have that game mode.

SAMSUNG SAM 40IN, DVB-T(TUNER BULIT-IN)16:9, 5000:1
Product Code : TVS-LA40R71BDX
http://www.samsung.com/au/products/tv/lcdtv/la40f71b.asp
They retail for about $2600 to $3000 depending where you buy.

SAM 46IN HDTV, 16:9, 6000:1 W-XGA, PC IN. VESA
Product Code : TVS-LA46F71BX
http://www.samsung.com/au/products/tv/lcdtv/la46f71b.asp
These cost a bit more and range anywhere from $4200 to $4600.

More info on other Samsung LCD's at:
http://www.samsung.com/au/products/tv/lcdtv/index.asp

Ignore the two retail prices on the Samsung site. Prices have since
come down quite a bit since that site was created.

If you have Foxtel, PVR or DVD Recorder I think I'd get them to bring
the TV set out and set it all up for you. Then once its set up take a
picture of where all the cables go so if at any time in the future you
have to move things around you'll know where all the cables go.

The Samsing LCD's above currently have a 3 year warranty. The plasma
screens have 1, 2 or 3 year warranty depending on the model. The very
expensive ones tend to hav ethe three year warranty where the ones
prices around $2300 are only 1 year.

SAM 106CM DVB-T(HD TUNER BUILT PLASMA TV, DIGITAL AUDIO OUT
Product Code : TVS-PS42Q7HDX
http://www.samsung.com/au/products/tv/plasmatv/ps_42q7hd.asp
This has a retail price of $3290 but you should be able to get them
for about $2300. This has a two year warranty.

Plasma Screens from Samsung.
http://www.samsung.com/au/products/tv/plasmatv/index.asp

You really need to see them in action and then decide which one to
get. The Harvey Norman store near us has the biggest range of any
store I've seen of LCD or Plasma screens from that many different
brands.

The "aus.tv.digital" news group maybe another good one to post into.

The DBA web site maybe of some interest.
http://www.dba.org.au

SalesMart.com.au
Perth, Western Australia
http://www.salesmart.com.au
*******************************************
Email Contact info on the above site.
*******************************************

[Ext User(mindesign)]

No big deal but if you look at Samsung's website you'll see that their 46
inch LCD consumes 270 watts whereas the Pioneer 50 inch Plasma consumes 350
watts - not a huge amount of difference but it all has to go into the mix

Steve


"rob" <rob@spamoff.net> wrote in message
news:bdj303htba45pv25hsg86s1eb6d997cel5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:40 +1100, Jeßus
> <127.0.0.1@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Wondering what the current state of play is between these two options?
>>
>>It used to be that plasma had some problems, such as burn in and
>>longevity - but what about now?
>>I'm looking at buying one or the other, with a budget of between
>>$2500-$3000. Looking at quite a few screens today, IMO both options had
>>strong points and weaknesses from a purely visual point of view... it was
>>a tough call really.
>>
>>So anyway I'd be interested to hear which one you'd go for and why
>>- keeping in mind my budget. (BTW, I'm definitely looking to go for a HD
>>screen)
>>
>>Thanks,
>
> Plasma screens have very high power consumption. This is an important
> but often overlooked fact.
>
>
>
>
>
>