# 720p plasma vs 1080p LCD



## Ownageism

All right. I need advice. I have a budget of $500.

Should I get this LG 42", 720p 3D plasma? Or TCL 40" 1080p LCD?

Mind you, it doesn't have to be a 3D TV, or even these brands, but the budget has to be $500. If there's a TV that isn't a 720p plasma or 1080p LCD in my price range that's better, I'm open to it.

*Background:*

- This will *not* be used with my PC (I already have a gaming tower); I do plan on doing some light console gaming, since I haven't owned a console in years. Keyword is light: I am a PC gamer.

- Purely for watching TV, mostly sports. I suppose I'll watch some Blu Ray movies in the future, and a Blu Ray player will be a future purchase; however, I don't know how often I'll use the player.

- Does not need to be a smart TV or anything. I have a computer to browse the internet, and prefer watching Netflix at my computer anyway.

- I will be about 8 feet from the TV (minimum of 7.5 feet).

*What I want:*

***- I want the best quality picture that my $500 can buy.***

- I wouldn't mind it being 3D, but it's by no means a requirement, and I'll happily trade that feature for a better quality picture.

*
Couple questions:*

- At my viewing distance (~8 feet; minimum of 7.5 feet), will I notice a difference in picture quality with 1080p--even if it's LCD--versus a 720p plasma (assume a 40-42" TV)?

- Do LCD TVs still suffer from motion blur? For that matter, do plasmas still suffer from burn in?

Thanks in advance, guys.


----------



## Mattbag

I bet that plasma tv looks great. I have a 42 inch vizio led at 1080p and their isn't much difference since i switched from 720p if its for console gaming because the consoles "upscale" the resolution. but my 108p screen looks waaaay better when I conect it to my pc cause of the higher resolution.


----------



## Horse Head

If I had to choose between the two, then I would go with the TLC 40" 1080P LCD. Whatever you do, do not go with a 720p, especially a low cost plasma. That plasma is junk.

Ultimately, I would look around or save up a little more money and get something nicer.

Do LCD TVs still suffer from motion blur? Some. It really depends on the TV. My Samsung does not have this problem, actually never notice it in any of my LCD TVs.

For that matter, do plasmas still suffer from burn in? Yes! Especially the cheaper ones. Some super high-end ones do a-lot better job of preventing, but it still happens.

Note: I highly recommend buying a TV from a BM store where you can return it if you have an issue.


----------



## windfire

Most modern plasma TVs do not have burn-ins. No big worry in this department.

Most modern LCD TVs do not have much motion blur as well. However, as the main activity is watching sports, I propose to have a TV with 100Hz or above. Having 120Hz might be beneficial for watching fast action sports.

For your viewing distance and size of TV, I would suggest having 1080p over 720p, especially if your local broadcasting is sending out full HD signals.

Conclusion:- 40''+ 1080p LCD TV


----------



## FREELINE57

I have a similar 42'' LG 720p plasma for my main viewing at about 10' w/ HD and i also have a sony bravia 32'' 1080p lcd HD in my bedroom at about the same distance. In my opinion, the plasma ( hand's down ) is a much better picture.
The sharpness, and pic quality/ smoothness far exceeds what you would expect. Infact, you could tell a friend it was 1080p instead of 720p and you couldn't tell the difference.

I have nothing against LCD or even LED but my plasma @ 720p is by far the better purchase for me.

Also, i'm sure people will debate this all day long.....but i'm just giving you my opinion on what i see in front of me. In the end you still have to make the choise. GL.


----------



## mothrpe

Watch out that many 720p plasma tv's are 1024x768 resolution, not 1280x720. And most 720p lcd tv's have 1360x768 resolution.

This was a concern to me..........I don't feel like I want a 1024x768 tv at 40"+ sizes.

I would get a 40"+ 1080p lcd tv at that price range, you'll get the full 1920x1080 resolution on your blu rays.


----------



## Ownageism

So things have changed, and I now have a $700 budget, which... complicates things for me even more.

There's now a few 1080p plasmas that I can afford, but I'm still not sure if they're worth it. I've read of so many people complaining about image retention (not so much burn in) that it, frankly, scares me. I'm not sure if I want to deal with that, even though image retention is temporary.

Nevertheless, here are the TVs that have jumped out at me, based on what I've read (won't buy any of these on Amazon, just using it for link purposes):

JVC JLC42BC3000 42" 1080p LCD

LG 50PV450 50" 1080p plasma

Panasonic Viera TC-P42S30 42" 1080p plasma

LG 42LK520 42" 1080p LCD

Anything bad about any of those? Picture quality, burn in or image retention, sound quality, etc.

Also: what is this I keep reading about avoiding static images for the first 100-200 hours of a plasma? Seen a lot of people run some software for the first 100 hours or so. Am I just supposed to let it sit on for the first 100 hours running this stuff until it's broken in, so to speak?

Thanks for your help, guys. Been tremendously helpful so far.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ownageism*
> 
> So things have changed, and I now have a $700 budget, which... complicates things for me even more.
> There's now a few 1080p plasmas that I can afford, but I'm still not sure if they're worth it. I've read of so many people complaining about image retention (not so much burn in) that it, frankly, scares me. I'm not sure if I want to deal with that, even though image retention is temporary.
> Nevertheless, here are the TVs that have jumped out at me, based on what I've read (won't buy any of these on Amazon, just using it for link purposes):
> JVC JLC42BC3000 42" 1080p LCD
> LG 50PV450 50" 1080p plasma
> Panasonic Viera TC-P42S30 42" 1080p plasma
> LG 42LK520 42" 1080p LCD
> Anything bad about any of those? Picture quality, burn in or image retention, sound quality, etc.
> Also: what is this I keep reading about avoiding static images for the first 100-200 hours of a plasma? Seen a lot of people run some software for the first 100 hours or so. Am I just supposed to let it sit on for the first 100 hours running this stuff until it's broken in, so to speak?
> Thanks for your help, guys. Been tremendously helpful so far.


Plasma TVs are only good for motion media. All Plasma still have Burn In. Do not be fooled by people saying they do not have burn in issues. But, it should be noted that some high-end Plasma do a better job of minimizing burn in.

Do not go with a Plasma TV if you're going to have a PC hook-up to it. Non-high-end plasmas TVs have a higher failure rate than LCD TVs.

The JVC got good reviews, but not worth $659. I think if you keep looking you will find a better deal

The LG is not bad mid-range LCD TV, but I think if you keep looking you can find a better deal.

Getting a Plasma shipped! No! No!

I would avoid the Panasonic Plasma, it's junk and will fail!..

The LG Plasma seems like a nice TV, good size, and good reviews, but I still would not recommend a plasma for PC use.

Edit: Visit http://www.avforums.com/


----------



## newphase

get the LG

Who the flick are tcl? 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Plasma TVs are only good for motion media. All Plasma still have Burn In.


yeah - but that static img has to be there for over 8 hrs! burn is no longer the issue it was.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Do not be fooled by people saying they do not have burn in issues. But, it should be noted that some high-end Plasma do a better job of minimizing burn in.


no longer true due to EU legislation and advances in plasma (although there are FEW recent advances







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Do not go with a Plasma TV if you're going to have a PC hook-up to it. Non-high-end plasmas TVs have a higher failure rate than LCD TVs.


nonsense (IME, anyway) - our company see more lcd returns than plasma... unless you are counting dicks who want to re-gas their plassys, lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> The JVC got good reviews, but not worth $659. I think if you keep looking you can find a better deal


true
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> The LG is not bad mid-range LCD TV, but I think if you keep looking you can find a better deal.
> Getting a Plasma shipped! No! No!


why? My brothers shipped perfectly - upright, and sound! As did another 200+ customers last year.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> I would avoid the Panasonic Plasma, it's junk and will fail!..


nonsense
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> The LG Plasma seems like a nice TV, good size, and good reviews, but I still would not recommend a plasma for PC use.


- _UNLESS you are using a LOT a HELLUVA LOT of STATIC IMGS.









The 120hz LG is what I would go with.







_


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newphase*
> 
> get the LG
> Who the flick are tcl?


Hopefully you're not talking about the first LG he listed. The 720P Plasma TV, because it is junk and will die on him.


----------



## james_ant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ownageism*
> 
> So things have changed, and I now have a $700 budget, which... complicates things for me even more.
> There's now a few 1080p plasmas that I can afford, but I'm still not sure if they're worth it. I've read of so many people complaining about image retention (not so much burn in) that it, frankly, scares me. I'm not sure if I want to deal with that, even though image retention is temporary.
> Nevertheless, here are the TVs that have jumped out at me, based on what I've read (won't buy any of these on Amazon, just using it for link purposes):
> JVC JLC42BC3000 42" 1080p LCD
> LG 50PV450 50" 1080p plasma
> Panasonic Viera TC-P42S30 42" 1080p plasma
> LG 42LK520 42" 1080p LCD
> Anything bad about any of those? Picture quality, burn in or image retention, sound quality, etc.
> Also: what is this I keep reading about avoiding static images for the first 100-200 hours of a plasma? Seen a lot of people run some software for the first 100 hours or so. Am I just supposed to let it sit on for the first 100 hours running this stuff until it's broken in, so to speak?
> Thanks for your help, guys. Been tremendously helpful so far.


I would listen to this guy and get a 1080p plasma. I have a friend who bought a 1080p 59 inch plasma for just under a grand last summer. It shouldent be hard to find one in the 40 inch range for cheaper.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Plasma TVs are only good for motion media. All Plasma still have Burn In. Do not be fooled by people saying they do not have burn in issues. But, it should be noted that some high-end Plasma do a better job of minimizing burn in.
> Do not go with a Plasma TV if you're going to have a PC hook-up to it. Non-high-end plasmas TVs have a higher failure rate than LCD TVs.
> The JVC got good reviews, but not worth $659. I think if you keep looking you can find a better deal
> The LG is not bad mid-range LCD TV, but I think if you keep looking you can find a better deal.
> Getting a Plasma shipped! No! No!
> I would avoid the Panasonic Plasma, it's junk and will fail!..
> The LG Plasma seems like a nice TV, good size, and good reviews, but I still would not recommend a plasma for PC use.


Plasmas are superior in almost every way to LCD. Burn in is NOT an issue with a modern plasma from Panasonic or Plasma. Even the power consumption of plasma TV's has come down close to that of LCD panels.

With a plasma you will in almost every case get a panel with better dark levels, higher contrast, and zero response time compared to a similar priced LCD.

Personally I wouldn't ship a TV anyway, that's just asking for trouble.


----------



## DzillaXx

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Vizio-42-E3D420VX/15992330
the 3D on these TV's is pretty good BTW, I have a buddy that has one. He has 2 pair of modified glasses so when you can play split screen in 3d each players gets their own full screen to play on. Its a cool trick if you ask me. Also screen has no back light bleeding and contrast is vary good for a LCD. The 3d works with both AMD and Nvidia cards as well as 360 and ps3.

If going plasma I would get nothing but Panasonic, Though if you can afford it nothing can beat plasma quality.

Plus LCD is horrid on SD, Kinda sucks when a channel doesnt support HD.


----------



## Emy12

Apart of all the positive side of plasma TVs, I went to see a friends 42inch Plasma TV, the image very, very poor, dark no brightens at all. I went to shop to see more plasma TV...I was told that this is the image of plasma TV, like a shadow, dark. I was so disappointed.
I gave up and had to chose between Toshiba LED and LG LED. I finally went for Toshiba Regza 32SL863. I am very happy with it. I updated the software over the net and i can play 90% of all my avi files. I am a bit sad that they, amazon, could not deliver to my place only 32 inch in size, otherwise i would have got at least 40inch.
I would say go for LCD/LED TV. LG customer service is very good, at least in the UK.


----------



## james_ant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emy12*
> 
> Apart of all the positive side of plasma TVs, I went to see a friends 42inch Plasma TV, the image very, very poor, dark no brightens at all. I went to shop to see more plasma TV...I was told that this is the image of plasma TV, like a shadow, dark. I was so disappointed.
> I gave up and had to chose between Toshiba LED and LG LED. I finally went for Toshiba Regza 32SL863. I am very happy with it. I updated the software over the net and i can play 90% of all my avi files. I am a bit sad that they, amazon, could not deliver to my place only 32 inch in size, otherwise i would have got at least 40inch.
> I would say go for LCD/LED TV. LG customer service is very good, at least in the UK.


That seams very odd, its true Plasma's are typically not as bright as LED's but that shouldn't matter in the average living room (the average Plasma should output at least 300 cd/m2). Was your friends room very bright and did he know how to adjust the tv properly? The only area where Plasma brightness should be a down side is in a bright place place like a public waiting room or an airport with lots of open windows and bright light.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *james_ant*
> 
> I would listen to this guy and get a 1080p plasma. I have a friend who bought a 1080p 59 inch plasma for just under a grand last summer. It shouldent be hard to find one in the 40 inch range for cheaper.
> Plasmas are superior in almost every way to LCD. Burn in is NOT an issue with a modern plasma from Panasonic or Plasma. Even the power consumption of plasma TV's has come down close to that of LCD panels.
> With a plasma you will in almost every case get a panel with better dark levels, higher contrast, and zero response time compared to a similar priced LCD.
> Personally I wouldn't ship a TV anyway, that's just asking for trouble.


Burn in still occurs and Plasma TVs still have a higher failure rate than LCD TVs! You can argue all you want, but only a fool would buy a Plasma and hook a PC up to it.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Burn in still occurs and Plasma TVs still have a higher failure rate than LCD TVs! You can argue all you want, but only a fool would buy a Plasma and hook a PC up to it.


Stubborn newbie is stubborn.

Anyways, sorry you have to watch this OP but not everybody on this planet is open to other opinions. I'll try to explain this lcd versus led versus plasma thing but I'll probably do a terrible job.

*liquid crystal display (lcd)* This is probably the type of display you won't get. This display requires back lighting because the liquid crystals cannot produce their own light, which is why units are usually thicker, unless using back lights that actually light the display from the side. The disadvantage to a back lighting unit behind the panel is that it makes it thicker. The downside to edge lit is unequal light distribution. Trust me, I have this problem with a Samsung I have in my living room that's an lcd-led. It's edge list and whites in the middle aren't as great as the ones near the edges. I believe these displays are also limited to 240hz. 240hz (and 120hz) is already smooth so any higher isn't really necessary.

*light emitting diode (led)* As the name suggests, this type of display can emit it's own light. It consists of 3 led's; blue, green, and red, the primary colors of light. These units are thinner than lcd's because the panel itself can light itself up, eliminating the need to an additional back lighting unit. Light distribution is much more even because each pixel emits its own light, so not one part of the screen will be brighter than another. led's right now are limited to 240hz.

*plasma* A lot of people fear these displays because they produce a lot of heat. In a plasma, phosphors create the image and light themselves up, just like led. In the past, they had issues called burn in like you've read earlier. I'll do a horrible job explaining it so just Google it if you want to know. The heat issue was due to horrible efficiency, but don't let this drive you away. The trade off was much better image quality with deeper blacks and brighter whites. Modern plasma's however are rid of high heat output. Burn in is still possible but you need to leave a still image on the screen for an extended amount of time for that to happen. They've become extremely efficient (close to lcd's if I remember correctly). Plasma is a much harder technology to master so it won't progress as quick, but it still provides better picture quality overall, unless you have a horrible plasma. Plasma's go up to 600hz which is as smooth as melted butter on a pan. Motion blur is pretty much inexistent on plasma's.

If you read PCMag's little article between these three, they say modern led's can perform better. I don't have any proof if some can or not and I'm not sure what their methods are but these specific led televisions are usually expensive and I don't think it's worth it when you can get the same image quality for less, at the cost of a little more power (which isn't much, considering how some people have power hungry computers or run [email protected] or BOINC 24/7).

I would say get a 1080p plasma if you can. Panasonic is probably the best plasma manufacturer. They have 42" 1080p plasma's for under $700 IIRC.

If you aren't satisfied, get a 1080p led. I remember Panasonic uses IPS panels on theirs. I don't know about other manufacturers. Just don't expect the image quality to be as great. It might be close but plasma's still reign over led's in image quality.

Edit: Here's one I was eyeing earlier.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P42UT50-42-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00752VKTQ/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

It's 1080p, supports 3D (you probably won't care), and has a boat-load of other features. If you're concerned about quality, it seems to have good reviews (only 2 and I don't trust customer reviews much but it's Panasonic. They're probably the best plasma manufacturers like I said earlier).


----------



## LunchboxDDS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> Edit: Here's one I was eyeing earlier.
> http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P42UT50-42-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00752VKTQ/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
> It's 1080p, supports 3D (you probably won't care), and has a boat-load of other features. If you're concerned about quality, it seems to have good reviews (only 2 and I don't trust customer reviews much but it's Panasonic. They're probably the best plasma manufacturers like I said earlier).


They were selling the display model of that at best buy for $500. I was really considering it, but I really don't want to deal with a display model warranty should anything happen. It looked beautiful though. Sexy enclosure, and very compact compared to my 50" panasonic I got in '10. I could definitely tell a difference in the crispness between a 42" 720p and 1080p plasma. Some of the new LEDs in the $2000 and up range are looking pretty good though, but I can't really justify that cost because at most I'll get 3-4 years out of it before I'm itching for an upgrade.

I need a TV for the upstairs living room that will only get watched on occasion. I'm strongly considering the Insignia 42" 720p plasma @ $400 at BB. I saw nothing else at $400 that could compete with it.


----------



## auroraborealis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LunchboxDDS*
> 
> I'm strongly considering the Insignia 42" 720p plasma @ $400 at BB. I saw nothing else at $400 that could compete with it.


I would recommend against Insignia. They're essentially Best Buy's crappy knock-off brand. Got a set of Insignia brand speakers just to try it out, and wow. Awful. Just my experience, though.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *auroraborealis*
> 
> I would recommend against Insignia. They're essentially Best Buy's crappy knock-off brand. Got a set of Insignia brand speakers just to try it out, and wow. Awful. Just my experience, though.


Wrong! Dynex is the knock off brand. Also, both use LG and Samsung parts and panels. Speakers vs TV? Two different things.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> Stubborn newbie is stubborn.
> Anyways, sorry you have to watch this OP but not everybody on this planet is open to other opinions. I'll try to explain this lcd versus led versus plasma thing but I'll probably do a terrible job.
> *liquid crystal display (lcd)* This is probably the type of display you won't get. This display requires back lighting because the liquid crystals cannot produce their own light, which is why units are usually thicker, unless using back lights that actually light the display from the side. The disadvantage to a back lighting unit behind the panel is that it makes it thicker. The downside to edge lit is unequal light distribution. Trust me, I have this problem with a Samsung I have in my living room that's an lcd-led. It's edge list and whites in the middle aren't as great as the ones near the edges. I believe these displays are also limited to 240hz. 240hz (and 120hz) is already smooth so any higher isn't really necessary.
> *light emitting diode (led)* As the name suggests, this type of display can emit it's own light. It consists of 3 led's; blue, green, and red, the primary colors of light. These units are thinner than lcd's because the panel itself can light itself up, eliminating the need to an additional back lighting unit. Light distribution is much more even because each pixel emits its own light, so not one part of the screen will be brighter than another. led's right now are limited to 240hz.
> *plasma* A lot of people fear these displays because they produce a lot of heat. In a plasma, phosphors create the image and light themselves up, just like led. In the past, they had issues called burn in like you've read earlier. I'll do a horrible job explaining it so just Google it if you want to know. The heat issue was due to horrible efficiency, but don't let this drive you away. The trade off was much better image quality with deeper blacks and brighter whites. Modern plasma's however are rid of high heat output. Burn in is still possible but you need to leave a still image on the screen for an extended amount of time for that to happen. They've become extremely efficient (close to lcd's if I remember correctly). Plasma is a much harder technology to master so it won't progress as quick, but it still provides better picture quality overall, unless you have a horrible plasma. Plasma's go up to 600hz which is as smooth as melted butter on a pan. Motion blur is pretty much inexistent on plasma's.
> If you read PCMag's little article between these three, they say modern led's can perform better. I don't have any proof if some can or not and I'm not sure what their methods are but these specific led televisions are usually expensive and I don't think it's worth it when you can get the same image quality for less, at the cost of a little more power (which isn't much, considering how some people have power hungry computers or run [email protected] or BOINC 24/7).
> I would say get a 1080p plasma if you can. Panasonic is probably the best plasma manufacturer. They have 42" 1080p plasma's for under $700 IIRC.
> If you aren't satisfied, get a 1080p led. I remember Panasonic uses IPS panels on theirs. I don't know about other manufacturers. Just don't expect the image quality to be as great. It might be close but plasma's still reign over led's in image quality.
> Edit: Here's one I was eyeing earlier.
> http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P42UT50-42-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00752VKTQ/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
> It's 1080p, supports 3D (you probably won't care), and has a boat-load of other features. If you're concerned about quality, it seems to have good reviews (only 2 and I don't trust customer reviews much but it's Panasonic. They're probably the best plasma manufacturers like I said earlier).


Newbie! I'm a certified tech. I know everything there is to know about modern TVs. You're argue picture when it comes to Plasma TVs, but the low-end and mid-end Plasma have a high failure rate when it comes to internal components.

Also, LED TVs are LCD with the back-light being LEDs. You have no clue and your calling me a newbie.

Get your facts right and do not confuse tech! Maybe you want to read up on LCD backlit-LED TVs VS OLED.

It is sad when someone goes and copies info from somewhere else without checking the facts!

Once again for the OP! Do not get a low-end Plasma TV, they are all junk and will fail! You will not find a good new Plasma in the $700 range.


----------



## Horse Head

...


----------



## pioneerisloud

OP:
Get one of the nicer plasma's that you were looking at. That 3D LG 1080p one you linked earlier in the thread is an amazing panel. This one:
http://www.amazon.com/LG-50PV450-50-Inch-1080p-Plasma/dp/B004LWV3HC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332269849&sr=1-1&tag=vig-20

Ignore Horse Head. He doesn't even know that Dynex is the Best Buy brand....









I've got a Samsung 2010 model 50" plasma, "600Hz", 1080p, 3D ready...all that jazz. Its honestly one of the BEST televisions I have EVER used. I got mine as a Best Buy display model too, 2 YEARS ago. And its still going absolutely strong as day one. I've used LCD's, LED's, DLP's, CRT's...... and man, that plasma is just amazing.

Burn in IS NOT an issue anymore. Image retention is...sure. But only if you leave a static image on screen for like 30+ minutes. But its not even noticeable if you have something playing, and it goes away entirely after 5 minutes anyway. I wouldn't base your purchase off the one very small flaw, that you won't even notice more than likely.


----------



## Deverica Wolf

> Originally Posted by *james_ant*
> 
> Personally I wouldn't ship a TV anyway, that's just asking for trouble.


I had my 42" LCD TV shipped from Walmart.com. Thing came in fine.



> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> Plus LCD is horrid on SD, Kinda sucks when a channel doesnt support HD.


This is SO true lol.

I personally bought a 1080p LCD for $550 and didn't look back. Use it for TV, Blu-ray, and PC. I've been to the store and LEDs look more brighter but different. Once you one home you won't tell a difference but LCDs can't get too bright but that's good 'cause bright = unrealism. The Plasmas I've seen are dark and nothing special but I've yet to to see one play a Blu-ray movie at 1080p. If someone has clip I'd like to see it. I've read that people have still had burn-in issues despite taking care not to and using the anti-burn software. I've also heard not to use one for PC use because of burn-in. It's your money.


----------



## Kappy03

I would go with the plasma. The color and black levels will be better and it has a 600hz refresh rate (I know that's more that the eye can perceive, but still). The plasma you listed also as a 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio, nice.


----------



## Kappy03

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deverica Wolf*
> 
> I had my 42" LCD TV shipped from Walmart.com. Thing came in fine.
> 
> This is SO true lol.
> 
> I personally bought a 1080p LCD for $550 and didn't look back. Use it for TV, Blu-ray, and PC. I've been to the store and LEDs look more brighter but different. Once you one home you won't tell a difference but LCDs can't get too bright but that's good 'cause bright = unrealism. The Plasmas I've seen are dark and nothing special but I've yet to to see one play a Blu-ray movie at 1080p. If someone has clip I'd like to see it. I've read that people have still had burn-in issues despite taking care not to and using the anti-burn software. I've also heard not to use one for PC use because of burn-in. It's your money.


Burn in is becoming less and less of an issues as plasma technology evolves. Burn in is the brightness of the RGB of certain pixels being held static for a while. The phosphorus overheats and creates a "shadow". Certain configurations (the one that was held static) of the RGB of the pixel will be less bright.

I've had burn in with games HUDs. After hours of playing COD, you can see the mini-map outline in the corner. However, playing the Xbox 360 music visualizer for a while counteracts the burn in; or just watching tv/movies. Anti-burn in software is a scam. The PS3 visualizer and 360 visualizer probably work better.

You're right about not using a plasma as a PC display. The icons, web browsers, word docs, windows, etc.. would create a mess of burn-ins.

I think plasmas still look the best. However, once active-matrix-organic-light-emitting-diode (AMOLED) TVs come out, I will change my mind.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Deverica Wolf*
> 
> I had my 42" LCD TV shipped from Walmart.com. Thing came in fine.
> 
> This is SO true lol.
> 
> I personally bought a 1080p LCD for $550 and didn't look back. Use it for TV, Blu-ray, and PC. I've been to the store and LEDs look more brighter but different. Once you one home you won't tell a difference but LCDs can't get too bright but that's good 'cause bright = unrealism. The Plasmas I've seen are dark and nothing special but I've yet to to see one play a Blu-ray movie at 1080p. If someone has clip I'd like to see it. I've read that people have still had burn-in issues despite taking care not to and using the anti-burn software. I've also heard not to use one for PC use because of burn-in. It's your money.
> 
> 
> 
> Burn in is becoming less and less of an issues as plasma technology evolves. Burn in is the brightness of the RGB of certain pixels being held static for a while. The phosphorus overheats and creates a "shadow". Certain configurations (the one that was held static) of the RGB of the pixel will be less bright.
> 
> I've had burn in with games HUDs. After hours of playing COD, you can see the mini-map outline in the corner. However, playing the Xbox 360 music visualizer for a while counteracts the burn in; or just watching tv/movies. Anti-burn in software is a scam. The PS3 visualizer and 360 visualizer probably work better.
> 
> You're right about not using a plasma as a PC display. The icons, web browsers, word docs, windows, etc.. would create a mess of burn-ins.
> 
> I think plasmas still look the best. However, once active-matrix-organic-light-emitting-diode (AMOLED) TVs come out, I will change my mind.
Click to expand...

That's not burn in. That's image retention. Burn in is permanent, image retention goes away after having something moving along the screen (or after being shut off) (At least from my understanding).

Image retention IS still a problem with plasma's, but its honestly not nearly that bad. I've used my PC on my plasma for HOURS, just browsing OCN before. Chrome was stuck on the screen. I fired up a movie or a game...and it wasn't even noticeable anymore. After 5-10 minutes it was completely gone.


----------



## Ratjack

I have a 50" Panasonic Plasma and when I had an xbox I would game on that thing alot... during the weekend I would sometimes put in 6 hours straight and NEVER have i got any burn in on this TV. newer technology makes it a non issue.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OP:
> Get one of the nicer plasma's that you were looking at. That 3D LG 1080p one you linked earlier in the thread is an amazing panel. This one:
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-50PV450-50-Inch-1080p-Plasma/dp/B004LWV3HC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332269849&sr=1-1&tag=vig-20
> Ignore Horse Head. He doesn't even know that Dynex is the Best Buy brand....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a Samsung 2010 model 50" plasma, "600Hz", 1080p, 3D ready...all that jazz. Its honestly one of the BEST televisions I have EVER used. I got mine as a Best Buy display model too, 2 YEARS ago. And its still going absolutely strong as day one. I've used LCD's, LED's, DLP's, CRT's...... and man, that plasma is just amazing.
> Burn in IS NOT an issue anymore. Image retention is...sure. But only if you leave a static image on screen for like 30+ minutes. But its not even noticeable if you have something playing, and it goes away entirely after 5 minutes anyway. I wouldn't base your purchase off the one very small flaw, that you won't even notice more than likely.


Actually, I know dynex is the Best Buy brand. You failed to comprehend my post.

My post "Wrong! Dynex is the knock off brand. Also, both use LG and Samsung parts and panels. Speakers vs TV? Two different things." As you can see I did not say Dynex is not a Best Buy brand.
I know TVs.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> That's not burn in. That's image retention. Burn in is permanent, image retention goes away after having something moving along the screen (or after being shut off) (At least from my understanding).
> Image retention IS still a problem with plasma's, but its honestly not nearly that bad. I've used my PC on my plasma for HOURS, just browsing OCN before. Chrome was stuck on the screen. I fired up a movie or a game...and it wasn't even noticeable anymore. After 5-10 minutes it was completely gone.


It is temp burn-in. They just came up with a different term because Plasma were not selling and still are not selling. Plasma is done. OLED is FTW!

Leave a still image for 30m - 1h and you will see. It will go away after time, but it is extremely annoying. Also, if you are in game mode it will not occur as easy. Some Plasma TVs actually shift the image slightly in game mode to reduce temp burn-in or retention.

In the end, it does not matter what you do, burn-in or retention will occur. It's a common thing with the panel design.

Also, over time Plasma panels degrade and get cloudy and greyish-brown!


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Newbie! I'm a certified tech. I know everything there is to know about modern TVs. You're argue picture when it comes to Plasma TVs, but the low-end and mid-end Plasma have a high failure rate when it comes to internal components.
> Also, LED TVs are LCD with the back-light being LEDs. You have no clue and your calling me a newbie.
> Get your facts right and do not confuse tech! Maybe you want to read up on LCD backlit-LED TVs VS OLED.
> It is sad when someone goes and copies info from somewhere else without checking the facts!
> Once again for the OP! Do not get a low-end Plasma TV, they are all junk and will fail! You will not find a good new Plasma in the $700 range.


notsureifserious.jpg

So much false info from you too. I don't know everything but enough to know that you're trying to steer the OP in the wrong direction.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OP:
> Get one of the nicer plasma's that you were looking at. That 3D LG 1080p one you linked earlier in the thread is an amazing panel. This one:
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-50PV450-50-Inch-1080p-Plasma/dp/B004LWV3HC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332269849&sr=1-1&tag=vig-20
> *Ignore Horse Head*. He doesn't even know that Dynex is the Best Buy brand....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a Samsung 2010 model 50" plasma, "600Hz", 1080p, 3D ready...all that jazz. Its honestly one of the BEST televisions I have EVER used. I got mine as a Best Buy display model too, 2 YEARS ago. And its still going absolutely strong as day one. I've used LCD's, LED's, DLP's, CRT's...... and man, that plasma is just amazing.
> Burn in IS NOT an issue anymore. Image retention is...sure. But only if you leave a static image on screen for like 30+ minutes. But its not even noticeable if you have something playing, and it goes away entirely after 5 minutes anyway. I wouldn't base your purchase off the one very small flaw, that you won't even notice more than likely.


Do that and you'll be fine.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ratjack*
> 
> I have a 50" Panasonic Plasma and when I had an xbox I would game on that thing alot... during the weekend I would sometimes put in 6 hours straight and NEVER have i got any burn in on this TV. newer technology makes it a non issue.


This. Modern plasma's are great. I kind of wish Pioneer was still making the Kuro plasma's. Sharp doesn't do as nice as a job.


----------



## Horse Head

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> notsureifserious.jpg
> So much false info from you too. I don't know everything but enough to know that you're trying to steer the OP in the wrong direction.
> Do that and you'll be fine.
> This. Modern plasma's are great. I kind of wish Pioneer was still making the Kuro plasma's. Sharp doesn't do as nice as a job.


Never said all Plasmas were bad! Just the low cost ones are. If he is not going to be spending $1400+, then he needs to go with LCD with LED backlit and even then, the plasma still will not compare to Samsung/Sony/LG high-end LCDs and OLEDs.

None of my info is false. I just prove you do not know what you are talking about. So, the OP should not listen to you. Next time do some research before making comments...

Please do not miss-lead the OP by saying the modern Plasmas are great, because they are not all great. Some of the super high-end Plasma are nice (Still have burn-in/retention), but not those low cost 720P and low cost 1080P. If Plasmas were so much better than LCD, they would be selling for more, but they are not and they cost more to manufacture. They are actually selling for less. Most stores in my area are limiting the amount they carry do to low demand.

I have family and friends in the TV repair business and every one of them will tell you that the low-end and most of the mid-end Plasma are junk. Now the super highend commercial plasmas or cinema plasmas are nice, but they do not compare to OLED and they tend to cost way too much...

I think a-lot of you plasma lovers are comparing their plasmas to some old low-end lcd TVs or CRT TVs. My 2 Samsungs will stomp any plasma in their price range. The black levels on modern films are insanely nice and the whites are also insanely nice.

The simple fact is the OP only has so much to spend and going with a low cost plasma is a bad move. It will fail!

Also, pretty sure the OP already got a TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So take a hike!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Never said all Plasmas were bad! Just the low cost ones are. If he is not going to be spending $1400+, then he needs to go with LCD with LED backlit and even then, the plasma still will not compare to Samsung/Sony/LG high-end LCDs and OLEDs.
> None of my info is false. I just prove you do not know what you are talking about. So, the OP should not listen to you. Next time do some research before making comments...
> Please do not miss-lead the OP by saying the modern Plasmas are great, because they are not all great. Some of the super high-end Plasma are nice (Still have burn-in/retention), but not those low cost 720P and low cost 1080P. If Plasmas were so much better than LCD, they would be selling for more, but they are not and they cost more to manufacture. They are actually selling for less. Most stores in my area are limiting the amount they carry do to low demand.
> I have family and friends in the TV repair business and every one of them will tell you that the low-end and most of the mid-end Plasma are junk. Now the super highend commercial plasmas or cinema plasmas are nice, but they do not compare to OLED and they tend to cost way too much...
> I think a-lot of you plasma lovers are comparing their plasmas to some old low-end lcd TVs or CRT TVs. My 2 Samsungs will stomp any plasma in their price range. The black levels on modern films are insanely nice and the whites are also insanely nice.
> The simple fact is the OP only has so much to spend and going with a low cost plasma is a bad move. It will fail!
> Also, pretty sure the OP already got a TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So take a hike!!!!!!!!!!!


That is an absolute lie. There are some $700 1080p 3D 42" plasma's that perform like champs, and from what I've read, it sounded like you opposed anything plasma. OLEDs are an absolutely different story, they are great but there aren't any affordable OLEDs right now. They're all extremely expensive.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe you should learn how to get your message across better.

That's pretty obvious. Most people can infer that because there are some cheap brands out there that just suck and those not-so-good models that are always there once in awhile, and there's nothing wrong with plasma's being less expensive to manufacture. Now you're misleading the OP and some others saying that inexpensive displays are crap, but you sir, are completely wrong. Low demand is due to the majority of consumer's stupidity and blindness to the truth. Not everybody knows their stuff. They're like "omg plasma, soo much heat. Avoid at all costs."

Like I said earlier, not all plasma's are great, same thing goes with other types of displays. There are really crappy led's too, some even less expensive than plasma, yet the plasma's at the same price perform a lot better, and really? Super high end?









Go and calibrate your eyes. You obviously haven't seen a good plasma.

And stop going around trolling.


----------



## Kappy03

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> That's not burn in. That's image retention. Burn in is permanent, image retention goes away after having something moving along the screen (or after being shut off) (At least from my understanding).
> Image retention IS still a problem with plasma's, but its honestly not nearly that bad. I've used my PC on my plasma for HOURS, just browsing OCN before. Chrome was stuck on the screen. I fired up a movie or a game...and it wasn't even noticeable anymore. After 5-10 minutes it was completely gone.


Burn in does fade if the phosphor damage isn't too bad. Actually, the other pixels fade to match the "burned in" ones. The longer you use the TV, the harder and harder it becomes to burn in an image. I've also heard burn-on and image retention used interchangeably. *" I fired up a movie or a game...and it wasn't even noticeable anymore."* It is harder to notice burn ins once your focused on something else. If the screen was all grey or white, it would be very noticeable. 5-10 minutes of variable picture completely erased the burn in after hours of static picture? You must have a Super-Plasma because burn in sets in faster than it fades. After about 100 hours, burn ins are really, really hard to do.

Have you noticed how the news logos are translucent now instead of solid? That's because when the CNN or FOX or ABC or NBC logos were solid colors, they burned it quick. I mentioned in an earlier post about game HUDs burning in. I've found that turning down the opacity helps reduce burn in times and severity. If you can, change the color of the HUD every now and then too.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> Burn in does fade if the phosphor damage isn't too bad. Actually, the other pixels fade to match the "burned in" ones. The longer you use the TV, the harder and harder it becomes to burn in an image. I've also heard burn-on and image retention used interchangeably. *" I fired up a movie or a game...and it wasn't even noticeable anymore."* It is harder to notice burn ins once your focused on something else. If the screen was all grey or white, it would be very noticeable. 5-10 minutes of variable picture completely erased the burn in after hours of static picture? You must have a Super-Plasma because burn in sets in faster than it fades. After about 100 hours, burn ins are really, really hard to do.
> Have you noticed how the news logos are translucent now instead of solid? That's because when the CNN or FOX or ABC or NBC logos were solid colors, they burned it quick. I mentioned in an earlier post about game HUDs burning in. I've found that turning down the opacity helps reduce burn in times and severity. If you can, change the color of the HUD every now and then too.


Really? Will do this if I get myself a plasma. It's already tempting just looking at the modern ones in the store.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> Never said all Plasmas were bad! Just the low cost ones are. If he is not going to be spending $1400+, then he needs to go with LCD with LED backlit and even then, the plasma still will not compare to Samsung/Sony/LG high-end LCDs and OLEDs.
> None of my info is false. I just prove you do not know what you are talking about. So, the OP should not listen to you. Next time do some research before making comments...
> Please do not miss-lead the OP by saying the modern Plasmas are great, because they are not all great. Some of the super high-end Plasma are nice (Still have burn-in/retention), but not those low cost 720P and low cost 1080P. If Plasmas were so much better than LCD, they would be selling for more, but they are not and they cost more to manufacture. They are actually selling for less. Most stores in my area are limiting the amount they carry do to low demand.
> I have family and friends in the TV repair business and every one of them will tell you that the low-end and most of the mid-end Plasma are junk. Now the super highend commercial plasmas or cinema plasmas are nice, but they do not compare to OLED and they tend to cost way too much...
> I think a-lot of you plasma lovers are comparing their plasmas to some old low-end lcd TVs or CRT TVs. My 2 Samsungs will stomp any plasma in their price range. The black levels on modern films are insanely nice and the whites are also insanely nice.
> The simple fact is the OP only has so much to spend and going with a low cost plasma is a bad move. It will fail!
> Also, pretty sure the OP already got a TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So take a hike!!!!!!!!!!!


To even put sony under the title of high end tv's is a shame. Sony tv's are pretty much just sharp made. Now Both Samsung and Sharp make great LCD's, but the are still LCD's. A tech that is no better then plasma. From the horrid fluid motion, to poor contrast LCD while a good tech isnt perfect. Plasma will have a better picture, those Panasonic plasma's can't be beat in picture quality. Plus most of those LCD's use smooth motion, a little trick to go from 60hz to 120 or 240 or 480hz. Its really all a scam, as your still limited to 60hz input. It adds frames to make it look more fluid, but its not. Make it look like a soap opera, on some tv's. We have a Samsung tv and the coolers seem vary saturated and the screen is kinda glossy, what i personally don't really like.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> To even put sony under the title of high end tv's is a shame. Sony tv's are pretty much just sharp made. Now Both Samsung and Sharp make great LCD's, but the are still LCD's. A tech that is no better then plasma. From the horrid fluid motion, to poor contrast LCD while a good tech isnt perfect. Plasma will have a better picture, those Panasonic plasma's can't be beat in picture quality. Plus most of those LCD's use smooth motion, a little trick to go from 60hz to 120 or 240 or 480hz. Its really all a scam, as your still limited to 60hz input. It adds frames to make it look more fluid, but its not. Make it look like a soap opera, on some tv's. We have a Samsung tv and the coolers seem vary saturated and the screen is kinda glossy, what i personally don't really like.


Sony really needs to do better. They have too many overpriced things.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> Sony really needs to do better. They have too many overpriced things.


LOLWUT. They are selling the PS3 *below cost*, the Sony CX series of TVs, which you can't get in the States, is very good value for money, as as their budget BX series is.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> LOLWUT. They are selling the PS3 *below cost*, the Sony CX series of TVs, which you can't get in the States, is very good value for money, as as their budget BX series is.


*facepalm*







Now I need to catch up with the times. I just remember stuff being really expensive the last time I bothered to check (about a year or two ago).


----------



## drbaltazar

at 40 inch you ll need a 1080!cause you will view it from close at time and it gets annoying in a hurry at 720p

has for the p or the i make sure it support both so if you hit a channel in i it will be properlly configured!most buy a p for name but the sad truth is almost everything cable is either 720p or 1080i.and the limited few time you ll view blue ray in 1080p24 are few and far between i suspect!


----------



## james_ant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> *light emitting diode (led)* As the name suggests, this type of display can emit it's own light. It consists of 3 led's; blue, green, and red, the primary colors of light. These units are thinner than lcd's because the panel itself can light itself up, eliminating the need to an additional back lighting unit. Light distribution is much more even because each pixel emits its own light, so not one part of the screen will be brighter than another. led's right now are limited to 240hz.
> 
> I would say get a 1080p plasma if you can. Panasonic is probably the best plasma manufacturer. They have 42" 1080p plasma's for under $700 IIRC.
> If you aren't satisfied, get a 1080p led. I remember Panasonic uses IPS panels on theirs. I don't know about other manufacturers. Just don't expect the image quality to be as great. It might be close but plasma's still reign over led's in image quality.
> Edit: Here's one I was eyeing earlier.
> http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P42UT50-42-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00752VKTQ/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
> It's 1080p, supports 3D (you probably won't care), and has a boat-load of other features. If you're concerned about quality, it seems to have good reviews (only 2 and I don't trust customer reviews much but it's Panasonic. They're probably the best plasma manufacturers like I said earlier).


You gotta be careful there, the majority of LED tv's are only LED backlit and really have no difference between them and a normal LCD. I can't even think of an example of a LED tv that is built like the way you've described.

However, I agree that a 1080p plasma would be the best option. Even mid range plasmas are better than most high end LCD/LED backlit panels.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horse Head*
> 
> *Wrong!* Dynex is the knock off brand. Also, both use LG and Samsung parts and panels. Speakers vs TV? Two different things.


Honestly, why must you do that? There is no need to write "Wrong!' in-front of your post, all it does is make you sound like an ass. Neither Insignia or Dynex are known for their quality.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *james_ant*
> 
> You gotta be careful there, the majority of LED tv's are only LED backlit and really have no difference between them and a normal LCD. I can't even think of an example of a LED tv that is built like the way you've described.
> However, I agree that a 1080p plasma would be the best option. Even mid range plasmas are better than most high end LCD/LED backlit panels.
> Honestly, why must you do that? There is no need to write "Wrong!' in-front of your post, all it does is make you sound like an ass. Neither Insignia or Dynex are known for their quality.


Most modern LED's are actually LED-LCD's which are actually LCD's except with LED back (or edge) lighting. I have one and I need to make a correction. I believe I said 46" but it's a 55" (which kind of makes the edge lighting issue more severe because the light is spread over a larger distance).


----------



## colforbin

vote 1080p Plasma


----------

