Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Usacomp2k3 wrote:That's correct, but those bulbs last for 4000 or more hours, which means a couple of years for most people.The only real downside is that they take bulbs (IIRC) that eventually die and cost a couple hundred $$ to replace...I could be totally off base with that though.
paulWTAMU wrote:You know what those 52" LCDs are good for? People who care more about how a television looks than how it looks, if you get me. Style over substance. If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.I think when I buy a new TV I may wind up with one of those then. I didn't plan to hang my TV on my wall anyway, and these seem to be much, much cheaper than good plasmas or LCDs, typically 600 less or more from the shopping I've done. So unless something changes in the next sixth months it'll likely be one of those. Although, the thought of hanging a 52" LCD on my wall...god that's appealing but it isn't worth the 2400+ good LCD TVs seem to cost
paulWTAMU wrote:The problem with sets that big is that they show everything bigger, including bad things. A DVD that looks sharp as a tack on a 46" screen can look like poop on a 73". I'd buy something in the 46-55 inch range if I were you.saw a nice looking 73" one the other day at circuit city--was there looking for a DVD--holy freaking hell that was huge 3300 though.
Vrock wrote:I think a lot of people might be concerned about burn-in issues as well.If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.
mattsteg wrote:Vrock wrote:I think a lot of people might be concerned about burn-in issues as well.If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.
SpotTheCat wrote:It's tough to shed a reputation once it's been earned.I thought with modern plasmas you don't really need to worry about burn in.
Patrickr wrote:Panasonic has plasmas out with anti-reflective screens now. And burn-in, while still possible, hasn't been a huge issue with plasmas for the past couple generations.mattsteg wrote:Vrock wrote:I think a lot of people might be concerned about burn-in issues as well.If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.
And reflectivity...
paulWTAMU wrote:DVI is essentially dead for consumer televisions. You can always use a DVI to HDMI adaptor though on your video card.The other question; when I build my new PC, if my GPU(s) have HDMI output, or if I buy a TV with dual DVI inputs, can I use that TV to play my PC games on?
paulWTAMU wrote:I know you ditched your plasma Vrock; what lead to that if you don't mind me asking?
paulWTAMU wrote:The bottom line is that a quality LCD of equivalent size is going to cost you more than a Plasma. Since plasmas are pretty much limited to 42" and 50", a 47" LCD compares with a 50" plasma for the most part.At 47" is the LCD vs. Plasma still a big deal, or does that come in to play more at the huge sizes of 50"+? I'd be sitting about 6-8 foot back from this.
paulWTAMU wrote:Samsung makes a nice 50" 1080p plasma for about $2k. If 1080p isn't a must you can find nice 50" 768p plasmas for under $2k that still compare favorably to LCDs. And there are always 42" 1080p plasmas, too.Sadly at 50" the price seems to go way up; decent plasmas seem to sell for about 2200 which is outside of my range I'll look some more at the sub 50" market; I was hoping for a true gigantic-screen TV but I may have to settle for a mere bigscreen
paulWTAMU wrote:It's possible that's because most football games are broadcast in 720p. If that was the case there, you really wouldn't see any difference between the two sets.I didn't see the samsung when I was looking but may check on it. I'd like to get 1080p, but I have to admit, I didn't see much real difference between 720 and 1080 watching the football game they were broadcasting in the store.
paulWTAMU wrote:I believe that Sammy is the 5084. Check it out. Cnet thought favorably of it. Turns out that it's a bit more expensive that I thought, hovering around $2500. Sorry.I will certainly try to find that Samsung though; 2k is at the uppermost limit, so cheaper is better, but that just sounds...so damn nice. I'd prefer to go bigger than a 42" but if needs must...
paulWTAMU wrote:That should be a full 1920x1080p TV....I'm sure of it.I found it online at Crutchfield's :O Nice machine! It's 1080i which as I understand it can negatively affect image quality though. I'd like to find it someplace in town to at least see it...but good lord that size and price, and since Samsung has a good reputation...damn. I may have decided. Now I gotta convince wife. Wish me luck!
mattsteg wrote:Burn-in is not even remotely close to being an issue like it was several years ago. Thankfully, the technology has come a long way.Vrock wrote:I think a lot of people might be concerned about burn-in issues as well.If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.
Dizik wrote:I have to disagree. It depends a great deal on the specific set. Many plasmas suffer from inaccurate primary colors whereas the SXRD set is pretty much right on the nose for color accuracy (and gray scale). The reason RPTVs are cheaper isn't because they're inferior; it's because projection itself is cheaper.way of getting a bigger picture than direct view. Yeah, plasmas still hold the cards when it comes to blacks, I'll grant you that, but a good RPTV comes quite a bit closer than you're implying. IMHO, of course.However, while you may be getting a very large (52"+) set cheaper than you would a comparatively sized plasma, the image quality isn't close to what plasma offers.
Dizik wrote:Sure, but the reputation persists to some degree. I'm always most impressed with the appearance of plasmas while browsing.mattsteg wrote:Burn-in is not even remotely close to being an issue like it was several years ago. Thankfully, the technology has come a long way.Vrock wrote:I think a lot of people might be concerned about burn-in issues as well.If you're going to go flat panel, do yourself a favor and get a plasma. Even the best LCDs aren't as good as a decent plasma; especially when it comes to temporal resolution and black levels. Then there's backlight leakage, poor viewing angles, and backlight banding, all of which can ruin watching a TV in a darkened room. Frankly I'm amazed that LCDs are as popular as they are when plasmas are cheaper; it shows that the average consumer either doesn't know or doesn't care about image quality.
Vrock wrote:That goes without saying.I have to disagree. It depends a great deal on the specific set.
Vrock wrote:That's why I recommended Pioneer and Panasonic. I have yet to see a set from either of those manufacturers that suffer from those problems, provided you don't get their cheapest set.Many plasmas suffer from inaccurate primary colors whereas the SXRD set is pretty much right on the nose for color accuracy (and gray scale).
Vrock wrote:Sorry...I didn't mean to imply that projection was an inferior technology, just that you can usually get a larger RPTV for less than a comparatively sized plasma. And I'm not saying that the RPTVs image quality sucks, it's a great picture, but not as good as plasma. Again, this is all my opinion. I was seriously contemplating getting a 60-something inch DLP (Mitsubishi I think) before I bought my plasma. But after looking at the quality of the plasma I got over the DLP, it was worth it for me to spend the money on the smaller screen with better image quality. Not to mention, I wouldn't be able to get the full use of the DLP set since I would be unable to sit at the ideal viewing distance.The reason RPTVs are cheaper isn't because they're inferior; it's because projection itself is cheaper.way of getting a bigger picture than direct view. Yeah, plasmas still hold the cards when it comes to blacks, I'll grant you that, but a good RPTV comes quite a bit closer than you're implying. IMHO, of course.
Dizik wrote:Well...both the mainstream Pioneer and Panasonic sets have issues with inaccurate greens, according to their Cnet reviews anyway. I find this annoying. You have to dial the color saturation way down to compensate (which desaturates reds and blues as well, unfortunately). Otherwise stuff like grass and trees really stand out. For me, it's like the screen is saying "HEY LOOK! LOOK! I'M A TREE!"That's why I recommended Pioneer and Panasonic. I have yet to see a set from either of those manufacturers that suffer from those problems, provided you don't get their cheapest set.
Dizik wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I think plasmas are fantastic and generally do look a bit better than the finest RPTVs. In your opinion, what is it about the plasmas that makes them look better? Color? Contrast? Overall brightness? For me it's definitely the contrast.And I'm not saying that the RPTVs image quality sucks, it's a great picture, but not as good as plasma. Again, this is all my opinion. I was seriously contemplating getting a 60-something inch DLP (Mitsubishi I think) before I bought my plasma. But after looking at the quality of the plasma I got over the DLP, it was worth it for me to spend the money on the smaller screen with better image quality. Not to mention, I wouldn't be able to get the full use of the DLP set since I would be unable to sit at the ideal viewing distance.
Dizik wrote:You have no idea how much that sucks, too. *sigh*Again, provided you aren't susceptible to phosphor decay.
Vrock wrote:Sports can mean hockey, basketball, car racing, etc.. Then the green doesn't really matter?Personally I think the CEMs do this on purpose because they know lots of flat panel buyers are sports fans, and they try to tailor their greens to stand out to attract these folk's attention. Ugh.