Why more LCD than Plasma?

Joe_news · 03-07-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottnot

Frankly, once you've properly calibrated the set, and assume that you have some light in your viewing room, I do not believe that you will see any difference.

I highly disagree with this statement. As a TV saleman there is without a difference on the higher quality Plasma's from Pioneer and huge jump in black level from even top of the time LCDs like Samsungs 4681 and Sonys 52XBR5. And the colors are so much richer.

In fact with ISF calibration a plasma TV will outclass an LCD even further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootski

LCDs have the lowest failure rate.

somewhere between 2 to 4 percent.

Oh, they also use LESS HOUSE CURRENT (watts) too !

Seeing how the latest gen of panels has the same life expectancy of a LCD I don't that. Also, you get a better picture, so what if it uses a little more power (about 30% less with calibration)

Quote:

Originally Posted by amf1932

Power consumption compared

LCD - 52" Sony XBR 4/5 = 330 watts

Plasma - 50" Panasonic = 705 watts

Plasma's are the most power hungry, inefficient type of TV's manufactured today.........although, they're very good at keeping a cold room warm.

They actually don't warm up a room. I should know, my house is without heat and that TV being on does shit for that room.

Scottnot · 03-08-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottnot
Once you've properly calibrated the set,
and assume that you have some light in your viewing room,
I do not believe that you will see any difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe_news

I highly disagree with this statement.

Right, that's why they're called opinions.

Quote:

As a TV saleman . . .

As regards opinions . . . beware the source . . . .

Quote:

And the colors are so much richer.

Now, there's a "sales pictch" for ya! Highly subjective statement.
I don't know what "richer" colors are; and frankly have trouble understaning "realistic", "unrealistic", "natural", "unnatural", and etc. when used to "define" the quality of various displays.
The so-called "videohpiles" and, of course, sales people are grasping for terms to differentiate at levels the have little meaning and probably no basis for 98% of the population (let's call them "average consumers" or "normal viewers").
My opinion is that this is just so much balderdash.

Quote:

In fact with ISF calibration a plasma TV will outclass an LCD even further.

And theoretically, it should be, and is, just the opposite.
As regards color in particular, calibration will minimize most apparent differences as all displays use the same color space, and calibration simply brings each set into the most accurate reproduction of color using the exact same palate - red, green and blue.
Calibration will minimize apparent differences.

Joe_news · 03-08-2008, 08:30 AM

Its hard to type a reply since your running off on tangents and your post lack clarity, but ill try. Yes I sell TVs, my point was clear. Unlike you for example, I see these sets each and everyday I work. I know how they perform in relation to one another very well. I'm not paid on commission and sell each of my clients the best they can afford. I don't dump cheap TVs on people and claim they "rock". So don't go and attack my integrity, you honestly don't know me and you couldn't be further from the truth.

As far as vocab usage I'm not sure what other way to describe a color thats more vivid as "richer". Don't nit pick at vocabulary unless you have a point other then "I don't know...". How about you go and see a Pioneer sitting next to a Sony LCD and see for yourself. (Note: For anyone who does this, keep in mind all LCDs are shipped with Dynamic contrast turned on, except for Philips. Pioneer's are not. Setting a Pioneer in its dynamic mode will reveal how deep not only black can go on a plasma, you'll see that without it, but how vivid the color gambit can be)

You have not learned what ISF calibration means correctly. The calibration can only make each set look as good as the sum of its components. It doesn't do magic, but will make each set looks the best it can. LCD can't give as deep of a black physically and thus will always be lacking in contrast, as a result the viewer will never see the subtle shades shown if the same image is viewed on a plasma screen.

DodgerKing · 03-08-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gosmosis

Sorry to post such a boring thread and I'm sure this subject has been beat to death.....

But, I couldn't find a specific thread addressing this.

If many of the "experts" claim plasma PQ is superior to LCD, then why are there so many more LCD's to choose from? Please tell me this isn't another Blu-ray vs HD thing.

Let me say this; I don't know if those who say Plasma is better are "experts", but I certainly never hear anyone say LCD is better. (PQ)

So - what gives? Will plasma give a better PQ? Does plasma deal with black, dark, shaded areas better than LCD? If this is the case, why wouldn't plasma be the one?

Finally - if plasma gives a better PQ - am I a fool to buy one? I mean, lets say that plasmas go out and are discontinued, is it bad to buy one now? Seems there are some pretty good prices on the plasmas. I've already owned an LCD. What would I immediately notice if I had a good plasma?

Thanks!
Gene

I will tell you why I chose LCD over Plasma. My TV is in a very bright room with a very bright window reflecting light directly on it.

DodgerKing · 03-08-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbinck

It boils down to light control in the room. If you have a high ambient light area the LCDs will be a better choice for you. If you have a darkened room the plasma will give you a better picture. Most commercial installations will favor LCD as well as brightly lit family rooms.

We put a plasma in a gymnasium with a lot of windows and mirrors and it was completely unwatchable. It was replaced with a LCD.

Also when pondering this subject, people tend to think all situations are like their own. A natural point of reference. But the truth is there are a lot more situations that will favor a LCD than plasma displays. Chances are you may find a single large screen TV in a house whereas in a car dealership there may be 10 or 12. Move into an airport and between the displays that display travel information to the TVs it could be in the hundreds for a large airport all would be better with a LCD over plasma. Sports bars and clubs tend more toward plasmas due to dimmer environments, but all in all commercial installations are better served by LCDs.

When looking at what a manufacturer offers it is instructive to consider the entire market for a given technology not just your home theater.

Exactly why I chose an LCD. I knew Plasmas were better in many ways. But there was no point in buying something I could not see the picture on, especially since much of my TV watching is baseball during bright summer time days.

DodgerKing · 03-08-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The main issue is that LCDs are widely available in smaller sizes which gives them a quantity advantage right away. Also, I feel that stores tend to pimp LCD more for whetever reasons although Im quite sure its monetary since thats the whole point of being in business.

You answered your question in your first sentence.

gosmosis · 03-08-2008, 09:25 AM

Funny how these posts spiral into other things. Well, I started this post yesterday or day before because I was on the brink of buying new panel. Had a LOT of opinions over last few days. I have my own. Luckily, I am very capable of comparing lots of variables and can narrow things down usually. In this order, this is how I came to final conclusion on what I bought LAST NIGHT:

1. Price - well, my definition of price is pretty broad. I'm certainly not going to stick myself in a corner. Basically, I told myself I wouldn't go over $1900, but really prefered to keep it around $1500.

2. Features - I definately had a set of features I wanted.

3. Research - Forum, online stores, etc. Lot's of time on this.

4. Convenience of purchase - meaning, I want it now. Not in 8 days. This is a downfall I have, but I travel a lot and soon go to South America, so I want it now and I want it working so I can enjoy it.

Without going into a lot of crap with all you guys, I came home with a Samsung LN-4069F LCD. Some of you may recall, I'm the guy who had the LN-4061F and accidentally broke the panel. Warranty would not cover it. Anyway - this 4069F is definately a step up and in just a few hours, I can see a great improvement in the following:

A - bright, colorful picture. No, not flame mode. Just noticed an improvement from 4061 to 4069
B - Blacks and contrast - so far, hugh improvement over the 4061f. None of the "odd fake" looking hair (anyone know what I mean)
C - 120Hz. This feature scared me. I watched it in the stores. Luckily, on this model (or maybe all models) you can have settings of high, med, low and off. On the high setting, you certainly start staring at the "quirky" movement of peoples hand gestures. I kid you not on that one. So, I find the low setting does the trick of quieting the blur that is a partial problem with fast paced movements. Now, I'm glad I purchased a set with this feature. At least I can manage it from the menu very easily.

Bottom line - this is an excellent LCD, though a bit higher priced for a 40" LCD. I got it for $1600 and I'm very happy.

Scottnot · 03-08-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe_news

So don't go and attack my integrity, . . .

ummm . . . I didn't realize that I had.

Quote:

As far as vocab usage I'm not sure what other way to describe . . .

My point exactly . . . words fail, distort, and ultimately have no meaning to the average consumer or normal viewer.

Quote:

Don't nit pick at vocabulary . . . Setting a Pioneer in its dynamic mode will reveal . . . but vivid the color gambit can be)

Sorry, but vocabulary, misuse of vocabulary and misleading balderdash are exactly the points here.
When talking to your customers, if you are inclined to "toss out" the expression "vivid color gambit", as you have here - you are distorting and misleading; primarily because the term "color gambit" is incorrect; the correct term is "color gamut" - anyway, notwithstanding very minor and imperceivable technical differences, all fixed pixel dispaly have the same color gamut, and whether the colors are more or less "vivid" is pretty much a matter of the saturation control. Let's not mislead with misinformation.

Quote:

You have not learned what ISF calibration means correctly.

Really? Sorry, but I would venture a guess that I have a far better understanding of this than most, certaily better than you.
Among other things, I do not use the adjectival "ISF" as that is akin to saying "Maytag" Repairman rather than refering to Appliance Repairmen in general.
Calibration is calibration; ISF does not have a monopoly on good, bad, proper, improper, basic, complete, or any other level of calibration - they are a self proclaimed certifying organization working within the video industry - that's all.
Those who do not understand this tend to be somewhat, if not greatly, misinformed.

Quote:

The calibration can only make each set look as good as the sum of its components. It doesn't do magic, but will make each set looks the best it can.

How true.

Quote:

LCD can't give as deep of a black physically and thus will always be lacking in contrast, as a result the viewer will never see the subtle shades shown if the same image is viewed on a plasma screen.

Well, if this is what you tell your customers, and if it is your goal to convince them that this is meaningfully correct information, I gotta disagree with you.

I would suggest a careful, thoughtful and unbiased reading of the Sound & Vision article posted earlier in this thread. While indeed, the "experts" come down on the side of plasma as "best", it is pretty clear that the differences are hardly dramatic.
Consider this "expert opinion":

Quote:

Michael Trei, Contributing Technical Editor
From the minute I walked into the room, I was impressed by how closely Al had matched the images on these two very different sets. Particularly with brighter scenes, the differences were subtle enough that they would be tough to spot under any circumstances — except in a side-by-side shootout like this one.

No mention here of "deeper blacks", "vivid color gambits", or "subtle shades"; just an honest, unbiased report
of the almost imperceivable differences.

pappylap · 03-08-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gosmosis

Bottom line - this is an excellent LCD, though a bit higher priced for a 40" LCD. I got it for $1600 and I'm very happy.

This is the most important statement in the entire thread.....Congrats!

Scottnot · 03-08-2008, 12:30 PM

DITTO!!

gosmosis · 03-08-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappylap

This is the most important statement in the entire thread.....Congrats!

Thanks. One final comment is how great the picture of my Samsung LN-4069F looked right out of the box. My 4061F, I had to tweak the settings for several days before I was happy.

iLarynx · 03-11-2008, 12:21 PM

While plasma may offer marginally better picture quality in some instances, LCD has other advantages including price, power consumption, etc. You are buying a video display system, not just a screen. The market and the average consumer have decided that the cost/benefit ratio of LCDs as a whole, are superior to plasmas. Slightly better picture in some cases for plasmas, but countered with the higher purchase cost and operating costs, it's not worth it for increasing majorities of consumers.

The Wall Street Journal has been publishing several articles in the past few months with stats and graphs showing how sales of plasma TVs have flattened (pardon the pun), while LCDs are going through the roof. Just go to their web site and do a search for "plasma lcd" and you'll see several of these articles including a few on how Matshusta (parent of Panasonic) is taking a hit on their stock price due to the sagging sales of plasma TVs. You'll also see an article from just last week about how Pioneer is exiting the plama screen production market altogether for the very same reason: Poor sales of plasmas. (You'll also see an informative article on the power consumption of plasma tvs)

For about a year I've looked at the market, the data, and the TVs. Most (but not all) of the plasmas I've seen do have superior screens compared to similar LCDs. But I have chosen to purchase an LCD (Sharp Aquos LC52D64U) because of the overall value. It may not have the absolute best screen available, but I think that it's the best 52" HDTV for the money. I'm sure this wouldn't be satisfactory for the plasma-purists out there scrutenizing every pixel, but it has an excellent picture to my eyes. And, even though I intend to keep this unit for 10+ years (The Sony it replaced was 12 years old), I'm also confident it will hold its value better than any plasma currently out there.

I recently saw an article on "sexy speakers" in which some people paid $40k, $50k, even over $100k for a pair of speakers. These may appeal to audiophile purists (and they are probably better sounding than most systems), but for 99.9% of the populace, these speakers aren't worth the money.

Similar thing for plasma TVs which, unfortunately for those who have recently bought one, appear to be going the way of HD disk players. Manufacturers are and will continue to pull out of the market until, it seems, you won't see them anymore. Unless, like those audiophiles with their "sexy speakers," you're willing to pay $40k, $50k, even over $100k to purchase one.

amf1932 · 03-11-2008, 01:35 PM

Fujitsu closes flat screen division
Japan Herald
Saturday 29th December, 2007

The Fujitsu group of Japan has decided to stop making plasma screens because they have fallen behind sales of LCD’s.

Even though Fujitsu introduced plasma to the world, it now says the technology is commercially unviable.

Plasma televisions sales have been falling behind those for LCD's, the rival high-definition technology.

Fujitsu has already stopped most production of plasma televisions and will now focus on Fujitsu’s other business of heating and ventilation equipment.

mobiushky · 03-11-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLarynx

While plasma may offer marginally better picture quality in some instances, LCD has other advantages including price, power consumption, etc. You are buying a video display system, not just a screen. The market and the average consumer have decided that the cost/benefit ratio of LCDs as a whole, are superior to plasmas. Slightly better picture in some cases for plasmas, but countered with the higher purchase cost and operating costs, it's not worth it for increasing majorities of consumers.

The Wall Street Journal has been publishing several articles in the past few months with stats and graphs showing how sales of plasma TVs have flattened (pardon the pun), while LCDs are going through the roof. Just go to their web site and do a search for "plasma lcd" and you'll see several of these articles including a few on how Matshusta (parent of Panasonic) is taking a hit on their stock price due to the sagging sales of plasma TVs. You'll also see an article from just last week about how Pioneer is exiting the plama screen production market altogether for the very same reason: Poor sales of plasmas. (You'll also see an informative article on the power consumption of plasma tvs)

For about a year I've looked at the market, the data, and the TVs. Most (but not all) of the plasmas I've seen do have superior screens compared to similar LCDs. But I have chosen to purchase an LCD (Sharp Aquos LC52D64U) because of the overall value. It may not have the absolute best screen available, but I think that it's the best 52" HDTV for the money. I'm sure this wouldn't be satisfactory for the plasma-purists out there scrutenizing every pixel, but it has an excellent picture to my eyes. And, even though I intend to keep this unit for 10+ years (The Sony it replaced was 12 years old), I'm also confident it will hold its value better than any plasma currently out there.

I recently saw an article on "sexy speakers" in which some people paid $40k, $50k, even over $100k for a pair of speakers. These may appeal to audiophile purists (and they are probably better sounding than most systems), but for 99.9% of the populace, these speakers aren't worth the money.

Similar thing for plasma TVs which, unfortunately for those who have recently bought one, appear to be going the way of HD disk players. Manufacturers are and will continue to pull out of the market until, it seems, you won't see them anymore. Unless, like those audiophiles with their "sexy speakers," you're willing to pay $40k, $50k, even over $100k to purchase one.

While the point of this thread is now moot as the OP has settled on a tv, this post deserves a reply for accuracy and for other reading.

First, the term "marginally" is an opinion and nothing more. All reviews on all tv's should be looked at as "rule of thumb" and not hard fast rules. The final review belongs to your own eyes. Do not listen to anyone as if they are the gospel truth. If you like LCD more than plasma, get LCD. If you like plasma better, get plasma. Reviews are only guidelines.

The "concerns of the majority" do not matter to a hill of beans when deciding on a TV. That is the "if everyon else jumps off a cliff will you?" mentality. If every one chooses an inferior product because it's cheaper, that does not suddenly make it a better product. It's just cheaper. It is up to each individual to determine what they define as value.

The Power consumption issue has been reviewed, explained, and proven to be a non issue. For similar sized LCD vs Plasma, the power consumption is comparable. Power consumption is the least useful means of comparing TVs. Please stop trying to spread inaccurate information. Even the WSJ article is not entirely accurate or worthwhile. Proof? Here's one to start with:

Quote:

A 28-inch conventional television set containing a cathode-ray picture tube, or CRT, for example, often uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set, a typical upgrade item, requires about twice that amount of electricity. But the real beast is the plasma set. A 42-inch model often sucks up 200 to 500 watts

So a 28" CRT is 100Watts. An LCD double that and a Plasma is Incredibly more than that at 200Watts? Isn't doubling the 100Watt = 200Watts? So isn't it possible that a 200Watt LCD could be as much as a 200Watt plasma? Am I wrong? This is sensationalism and not truth. It is based on assuming that the rated output of the set is equal to the actual power consumption. That is only true for LCD. Plasma does not draw full rated power all the time. And will rarely if ever reach full rated power. More studies have shown that on the average Plasma's draw significantly less than rated power. So a 42" lcd rated at 250 Watts, draws about 250Watts, but a 42" Plasma rated at 350 Watts draws more like 250 Watts. roughly. Power consumption is a non-issue. Install a CFL bulb in your most used light instead of incandescent and you will save more money.

Plasma may very well die away. That is truly sad as it is the king of PQ. But that's business. It is not, however, fair to try to persuade someone away from plasma just because "everyone else wants a cheap tv set." Let your eyes be the best reviewer you have. If you prefer LCD, get one and enjoy your new tv. If you want plasma, same thing.

USMale9659 · 03-26-2008, 08:49 PM

I owned a Sony 46v2500 LCD for about 6 months. The corner "bright spots" (clouding, fluff...whatever you want to call it) drove me nuts every time I watched a movie with a lot of night scenes, i.e. Bram Stoker's Dracula, Zodiac. I called Sony, they sent a repair tech out, he told me this was typical of LCD screens. They could replace the screen but it wouldn't change the bright corners, and, according to the tech, Sony wouldn't approve the screen change anyway.
I paid good money for this TV and called Sony again about what this tech had said and was surprised when the Sony customer service guy told me the same thing...he said I was obviously a "person who was particular about the performance of my TV" and even if they changed the screen, I would still see the bright spots.
I should be particular, I think, when paying over 2 grand for a TV!
Anyway, Sony bought the TV back from at full price (they tried to give me a pro-rated amount, I refused.
Then I bought a 4" larger Panasonic TH-50PX75U for $700 less than the Sony.
The PQ is far superior to the Sony, especially the black levels. They are actually black like they're supposed to be (imagine that). With the proper calibration for my viewing area, the detail is as good or better on both cable HDTV and the Oppo upconverting DVD, even though this TV is 720p VS. the Sony 1080p.
That's my experience with LCD and Plasma. The CC and BB showrooms did nothing for my decision, as they have such poor lighting for watching any TV. I went with the reviews I read all over about Panny Plasmas, and I'm glad I did.

03-08-2008, 08:30 AM	#48
Joe_news Sega does what Nintendont Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: U.S. of A. Posts: 951	Its hard to type a reply since your running off on tangents and your post lack clarity, but ill try. Yes I sell TVs, my point was clear. Unlike you for example, I see these sets each and everyday I work. I know how they perform in relation to one another very well. I'm not paid on commission and sell each of my clients the best they can afford. I don't dump cheap TVs on people and claim they "rock". So don't go and attack my integrity, you honestly don't know me and you couldn't be further from the truth. As far as vocab usage I'm not sure what other way to describe a color thats more vivid as "richer". Don't nit pick at vocabulary unless you have a point other then "I don't know...". How about you go and see a Pioneer sitting next to a Sony LCD and see for yourself. (Note: For anyone who does this, keep in mind all LCDs are shipped with Dynamic contrast turned on, except for Philips. Pioneer's are not. Setting a Pioneer in its dynamic mode will reveal how deep not only black can go on a plasma, you'll see that without it, but how vivid the color gambit can be) You have not learned what ISF calibration means correctly. The calibration can only make each set look as good as the sum of its components. It doesn't do magic, but will make each set looks the best it can. LCD can't give as deep of a black physically and thus will always be lacking in contrast, as a result the viewer will never see the subtle shades shown if the same image is viewed on a plasma screen. __________________ Home Theater Pro 1 ---------------------- Pioneer 5080 Logitech Z-680 Samsung BDP-1600 Panamax M4300 Cox HD-DVR Harmony 880 PS3, Wii, Dreamcast

03-11-2008, 12:21 PM	#57
iLarynx What is HD? Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1	The market has spoken While plasma may offer marginally better picture quality in some instances, LCD has other advantages including price, power consumption, etc. You are buying a video display system, not just a screen. The market and the average consumer have decided that the cost/benefit ratio of LCDs as a whole, are superior to plasmas. Slightly better picture in some cases for plasmas, but countered with the higher purchase cost and operating costs, it's not worth it for increasing majorities of consumers. The Wall Street Journal has been publishing several articles in the past few months with stats and graphs showing how sales of plasma TVs have flattened (pardon the pun), while LCDs are going through the roof. Just go to their web site and do a search for "plasma lcd" and you'll see several of these articles including a few on how Matshusta (parent of Panasonic) is taking a hit on their stock price due to the sagging sales of plasma TVs. You'll also see an article from just last week about how Pioneer is exiting the plama screen production market altogether for the very same reason: Poor sales of plasmas. (You'll also see an informative article on the power consumption of plasma tvs) For about a year I've looked at the market, the data, and the TVs. Most (but not all) of the plasmas I've seen do have superior screens compared to similar LCDs. But I have chosen to purchase an LCD (Sharp Aquos LC52D64U) because of the overall value. It may not have the absolute best screen available, but I think that it's the best 52" HDTV for the money. I'm sure this wouldn't be satisfactory for the plasma-purists out there scrutenizing every pixel, but it has an excellent picture to my eyes. And, even though I intend to keep this unit for 10+ years (The Sony it replaced was 12 years old), I'm also confident it will hold its value better than any plasma currently out there. I recently saw an article on "sexy speakers" in which some people paid $40k, $50k, even over $100k for a pair of speakers. These may appeal to audiophile purists (and they are probably better sounding than most systems), but for 99.9% of the populace, these speakers aren't worth the money. Similar thing for plasma TVs which, unfortunately for those who have recently bought one, appear to be going the way of HD disk players. Manufacturers are and will continue to pull out of the market until, it seems, you won't see them anymore. Unless, like those audiophiles with their "sexy speakers," you're willing to pay $40k, $50k, even over $100k to purchase one.

03-11-2008, 01:35 PM	#58
amf1932 Sony 52" XBR4 Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 546	Another one bites the dust Fujitsu closes flat screen division Japan Herald Saturday 29th December, 2007 The Fujitsu group of Japan has decided to stop making plasma screens because they have fallen behind sales of LCD’s. Even though Fujitsu introduced plasma to the world, it now says the technology is commercially unviable. Plasma televisions sales have been falling behind those for LCD's, the rival high-definition technology. Fujitsu has already stopped most production of plasma televisions and will now focus on Fujitsu’s other business of heating and ventilation equipment.

03-26-2008, 08:49 PM	#60
USMale9659 What is HD? Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Delaware Posts: 1	I owned a Sony 46v2500 LCD for about 6 months. The corner "bright spots" (clouding, fluff...whatever you want to call it) drove me nuts every time I watched a movie with a lot of night scenes, i.e. Bram Stoker's Dracula, Zodiac. I called Sony, they sent a repair tech out, he told me this was typical of LCD screens. They could replace the screen but it wouldn't change the bright corners, and, according to the tech, Sony wouldn't approve the screen change anyway. I paid good money for this TV and called Sony again about what this tech had said and was surprised when the Sony customer service guy told me the same thing...he said I was obviously a "person who was particular about the performance of my TV" and even if they changed the screen, I would still see the bright spots. I should be particular, I think, when paying over 2 grand for a TV! Anyway, Sony bought the TV back from at full price (they tried to give me a pro-rated amount, I refused. Then I bought a 4" larger Panasonic TH-50PX75U for $700 less than the Sony. The PQ is far superior to the Sony, especially the black levels. They are actually black like they're supposed to be (imagine that). With the proper calibration for my viewing area, the detail is as good or better on both cable HDTV and the Oppo upconverting DVD, even though this TV is 720p VS. the Sony 1080p. That's my experience with LCD and Plasma. The CC and BB showrooms did nothing for my decision, as they have such poor lighting for watching any TV. I went with the reviews I read all over about Panny Plasmas, and I'm glad I did. __________________ Panasonic THPX50U Plasma Harman Kardon AVR 340 A/V Rec'r Oppo DV-981HD DVD JBL Studio Series 5.1 Speakers Mediacom Cable (Sucks)

03-08-2008, 09:25 AM	#52
gosmosis <<PRIEST>> Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Central Illinois Age: 46 Posts: 4,695	Funny how these posts spiral into other things. Well, I started this post yesterday or day before because I was on the brink of buying new panel. Had a LOT of opinions over last few days. I have my own. Luckily, I am very capable of comparing lots of variables and can narrow things down usually. In this order, this is how I came to final conclusion on what I bought LAST NIGHT: 1. Price - well, my definition of price is pretty broad. I'm certainly not going to stick myself in a corner. Basically, I told myself I wouldn't go over $1900, but really prefered to keep it around $1500. 2. Features - I definately had a set of features I wanted. 3. Research - Forum, online stores, etc. Lot's of time on this. 4. Convenience of purchase - meaning, I want it now. Not in 8 days. This is a downfall I have, but I travel a lot and soon go to South America, so I want it now and I want it working so I can enjoy it. Without going into a lot of crap with all you guys, I came home with a Samsung LN-4069F LCD. Some of you may recall, I'm the guy who had the LN-4061F and accidentally broke the panel. Warranty would not cover it. Anyway - this 4069F is definately a step up and in just a few hours, I can see a great improvement in the following: A - bright, colorful picture. No, not flame mode. Just noticed an improvement from 4061 to 4069 B - Blacks and contrast - so far, hugh improvement over the 4061f. None of the "odd fake" looking hair (anyone know what I mean) C - 120Hz. This feature scared me. I watched it in the stores. Luckily, on this model (or maybe all models) you can have settings of high, med, low and off. On the high setting, you certainly start staring at the "quirky" movement of peoples hand gestures. I kid you not on that one. So, I find the low setting does the trick of quieting the blur that is a partial problem with fast paced movements. Now, I'm glad I purchased a set with this feature. At least I can manage it from the menu very easily. Bottom line - this is an excellent LCD, though a bit higher priced for a 40" LCD. I got it for $1600 and I'm very happy.

03-08-2008, 12:30 PM	#55
Scottnot Progress Not Perfection Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,020	DITTO!!