Anyone have any thoughts on what's best for a 42 inch telly? From the display in my local Tescos the plasmas always look the better picture to me but people tell me LCD is better. My Dad has a Samsung LCD telly and the motion blur is terrible, but I've never noticed that on the plasmas.
Also, does anyone have Freesat? Is it any good?
Opinions please!
Just sit closer to the TV you have, Donald bloody Trump!
Plasmas are more susceptible to screen burn. LCD lasts far longer with far less chance.
Quality (including motion blur) depends on how much you're willing to pay. If you're into football but don't spend enough, you'll might never see the ball after kickoff.
LCD.
I don't get any motion blur on mine and it weighs about a third as much as a plasma screen. Also it uses a LOT less energy and you don't have to worry about screen burn like you do with plasmas.
It used to be the case that if you were going 40" and above you should go for plasma, but LCDs can hold their own now. All LCDs suffer from sort of motion blur unfortunately. I'm not sure if plasma screens suffer motion blur or not. Whenever I've looked at them, they're hooked up to blu-ray players, so they look sharp as f**k.
Quote: Aaron @ December 8 2008, 3:39 PM GMTQuality (including motion blur) depends on how much you're willing to pay. If you're into football but don't spend enough, you'll might never see the ball after kickoff.
Depends how far away you sit.
I'm a little disappointed with LCD TVs. I haven't seen one yet which can play things recorded in VT very well. I have a Philips 26" LCD, by the way.
I'd go with LCD. Once you buy one, go to this website and search their forums for "[model name] calibration settings." Factory settings tend to be exaggerated so that they stand out amongst the other sets in the showroom. Video geeks spend hours calibrating their sets to perfection and it only takes a few minutes to replicate it on your own television. My 46" Samsung had a lousy picture out of the box, but I changed to the AVS recommended settings and now I'm very happy with it.
100MHz LCD TV should last longer than a plasma, and give you no motion blur.
Quote: Ben @ December 8 2008, 3:42 PM GMTDepends how far away you sit.
But primarily it depends on the quality of the screen, and more to the point the components behind the screen, delivering you a suitably fast refresh rate with motion clarity.
Quote: Ben @ December 8 2008, 3:42 PM GMTI'm a little disappointed with LCD TVs. I haven't seen one yet which can play things recorded in VT very well. I have a Philips 26" LCD, by the way.
VT?
Quote: Aaron @ December 8 2008, 4:10 PM GMTVT?
Videotape. As in pretty much everything pre 2000 on British TV. Blackadder, for example, isn't too sharp and there's extra blur. Cheers, however, was filmed on film, so that looks great!
Lee, I found out a while ago that LCD vs Plasma is in the same category as PS3 vs Xbox 360 and Star Trek vs Star Wars. Everyone has their particular favourite and reasons why it is better than the other. In my opinion both have good and bad points.
I have a 42 inch plasma and have had it for about a year. I did all the research before I purchased and in the end I actually narrowed it down between a Panasonic plasma and an LCD Sony, both 42". In the end I went for the plasma because I thought the picture quality just edged it over the LCD.
Just have a look around and see what you like. If you see a tv you like at a price that suits your budget then go for it.
Def.
Ah, so you meant "recorded on VT". 
That's one of the things I'm apprehensive about upgrading my TV. But, alas, nowhere seems to sell normal sets now, so I won't have a choice when the current one dies.
Quote: Aaron @ December 8 2008, 4:40 PM GMTThat's one of the things I'm apprehensive about upgrading my TV. But, alas, nowhere seems to sell normal sets now, so I won't have a choice when the current one dies.
It's very irritating. Some sets play better than others though. I had a Samsung but it handled 'recorded on VT' so bad that I had to swap for Philips.
It is a hard choice, my boss swears by Plasma though I am more an LCD man myself for reasons above.
But at the end of the day I find a good general rule of thumb is the better the brand the better the picture, it's a loose term but it works - Sony have very good televisions.
But if you wait a few years I believe Organic TVs are coming out soon which will exceed LCD and Plasma in many ways, boasting 1,000,000 : 1 contrast ratio - keep in mind a good LCD has about 10,000 : 1. it's going to be good quality!
Quote: David Bussell @ December 8 2008, 3:36 PM GMTJust sit closer to the TV you have, Donald bloody Trump!
Go back to your valve-powered radiogram, Grandad.
Quote: DaButt @ December 8 2008, 3:54 PM GMTI'd go with LCD. Once you buy one, go to this website and search their forums for "model name calibration settings." Factory settings tend to be exaggerated so that they stand out amongst the other sets in the showroom. Video geeks spend hours calibrating their sets to perfection and it only takes a few minutes to replicate it on your own television. My 46" Samsung had a lousy picture out of the box, but I changed to the AVS recommended settings and now I'm very happy with it.
cheers
When I was at home, my Dad had and still has a Panasonic Viera 42" Plasma. I've yet to see HD on it yet though, so haven't seen it do its stuff. But it has all the features you need, I think? 1080p, Excellent Black levels, Freeview built in (just missed out on the newer Freesat models).
I'll probably end up getting an LCD for myself because of the price, but from the research I did before we bought the TV was that Plasmas last longer and are just generally better 