Quote:
|
Originally Posted by myers830
$4500 for a 37" anything is totally foolish. The Sharp Aquos 37" (the BEST LCD in existance) was in fact reveiwed next to a $1600 37" ED Panny and lost in every category except life expectancy and even that part of it is a moot point since 60,000 hours for a Plasma is many, many years of use. When I find the link to that article..I will be very glad to post it here. The poster's question was which 37" is the best bang for the buck....it's NO contest. LCD has a long way to go to come up to PLasma standards....blacks, grey levels, contrast ratios, viewing angle, motion blur, color saturation, and the list goes on and on...are better on Plasma, and getting better all the time. If not for the "burn-in" issue, LCDs would be totally irrelevant as far as fixed-pixel displays go....and having 2 Plasmas myself, one 4 years old....the burn-in issue is fast becoming a non-issue.
|
There are still things to be mentioned here... the 37" Sharp Aquos has a much higher resolution than the 37" Panasonic Plasma: 854x480 compared to the LCD's resolution of 1366x768. This is true HD, meaning a much clearer, more detailed picture. You can also sit much closer to the screen and not get that disgusting SDE (Screen Door Effect). Having to sit a distance away from the 37" Panasonic Plasma to eliminate SDE means you get a smaller screen, as it's further away.
Blacks and grey levels may not be quite as good as Plasma, but in a fairly well lit room, it's hardly noticeable at all. And the Sharp would be the best LCD I've ever seen when it comes to reproducing good blacks.
Motion blur is something that only happens with LCD TVs that have a response time more than 16ms. 16ms = 63fps (frames per second). At this rate, the fps EXCEEDS that of normal broadcast video - which reaches no more than 60fps. So motion blur is a MOOT issue with good LCD sets that have a response time of 16ms or less (such as the 37" Sharp).
Reviews should be taken with a grain of salt: the contrast ratio may be higher on Plasma, but in REAL WORLD situations, LCD exceeds Plasma in contrast. Read
this review if you don't believe me
. And here's a quote from it:
Quote:
Contrast Ratios
Current plasmas measure contrast ratios of up to 3000:1. However, when compared to LCD TVs in "real world" situations, contrast ratios for plasma TVs drop to approximately 200:1.*
LCD TV contrast ratios are measured using "real world" standards. Typical contrast ratios range from 350-450:1.
LCD TVs contrast ratios measured in real world situations double typical plasma TVs.
* source = NEC-Mitsubishi white paper
|
There's no point in reading reviews. Most are biased against a particular technology. For example, would a magazine bash Plasma technology as a whole, when the majority of their advertising revenue comes from Plasma manufacturers? An interesting point I read...