StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So, I'm going to be shopping for a new TV in a few weeks because I want to move up in size; 19" just isn't cutting it anymore. I've seen a few nice deals on Best Buy's website, but I'm still not sure which one I want to settle for so I thought I'd ask around here since I'm fairly sure some people have used both. As far as silly things like budget limitations, right now I'd like to spend no more than $1,500.

Right now I'm heavily leaning towards a Plasma, partly due to the fact I can get a 50"+ model more cheaply than an LCD. My only drawback is that I mainly use my TV for gaming, so I don't know how well it'll handle my 360 games. Burn-in isn't too much of a concern after doing some reading, but what is a concern is whether or not there will be any noticeable lag while playing games, what kind of specifications would be best suited for gaming, etc. If there's enough doubt I'll just bite the bullet and go with an LCD, but, well, a 50" plasma is looking awfully tempting at the prices I'm seeing.

I would never buy a plasma, so I'm biased. But you'll get video lag regardless of panel type; I'm not sure if plasma is worse or lacks the 'turn off processing' options of LCD. The burn thing isn't a problem for modern panels as you say, but they're still big and hot and to me look worse.

Having only looked at LCDs when I bought my TV for gaming, I suggest looking for reviews of panels. I was able to work out not only how to turn off all the processing (to reduce image lag which is absolutely hideous with everything on) on my Samsung but to get a really good image out of it anyway (without all the enhancements). Personally I consider plasmas to be cheap because they're horrible crap, but if you're on a budget and there's no reason to put you off you might as well get one.

Stark wrote:I would never buy a plasma, so I'm biased. But you'll get video lag regardless of panel type; I'm not sure if plasma is worse or lacks the 'turn off processing' options of LCD. The burn thing isn't a problem for modern panels as you say, but they're still big and hot and to me look worse.

Having only looked at LCDs when I bought my TV for gaming, I suggest looking for reviews of panels. I was able to work out not only how to turn off all the processing (to reduce image lag which is absolutely hideous with everything on) on my Samsung but to get a really good image out of it anyway (without all the enhancements). Personally I consider plasmas to be cheap because they're horrible crap, but if you're on a budget and there's no reason to put you off you might as well get one.

I could feasibly go up to $2,000, but I'd like to avoid spending too much money. Right now most sets up to 50" are under $2,000 at Best Buy, whether they're LCD or Plasma so I'm mostly trying to get an idea of the quality I'll get with either for gaming.

Holy shit, for that kind of money you could get a totally awesome LG LED LCD (I think the 47" is about $1,700 in the US).

I've only used two plasmas for gaming and they're both older panels (2-3 years) and I consider them both massively worse with respect to picture quality and fidelity to my year-old LCD. The blacks are better, but to me everything else looks horrid (and the silly image processing stuff on mine makes black look great on movies anyway). Since I've never used a 'new' plasma (and we're about a year to eighteen months behind out here) I'm not sure if this is helpful.

Stark wrote:Holy shit, for that kind of money you could get a totally awesome LG LED LCD (I think the 47" is about $1,700 in the US).

A quick poking around and the cheapest OLED TV I'm really inclined to spend money on goes for about $1,400, but it's only a 40" set. On the other hand I can spend the equivalent and get a 50-55" LCD or Plasma, though after browsing the prices again I think I'm strongly leaning towards LCD.

This is a smaller version of the LG 55, and it's pretty ridiculous. PS, it'd cost $5-6,000 here. I'm informed you should stay away from Samsung LED backlit TVs.

Stark wrote:This is a smaller version of the LG 55, and it's pretty ridiculous. PS, it'd cost $5-6,000 here. I'm informed you should stay away from Samsung LED backlit TVs.

I've always been a bit reluctant about buying high dollar electronics over Amazon, though I'll definitely keep it in mind. I'm hoping Best Buy has a few more sales after the Christmas rush that I can take advantage of, since I can just pick one up at their store.

General Zod wrote:A quick poking around[/url] and the cheapest OLED TV I'm really inclined to spend money on goes for about $1,400

Those aren't OLED TVs. This is an OLED TV - yes that's right, ~$5000 for an 11-inch screen. There are three classes of 'LED TV'; ones that use LEDs to replace the conventional cold-cathode backlight (for slightly better colour rendering and screen life), ones that use a low-res LED array behind the LCD screen (allowing for better contrast because dark areas can have the backlight locally dimmed), and ones that use a high-res LED array to completely replace the LCD/backlight combination. AFAIK OLEDs are only used in the last category, which so far includes only tech demos and ridiculously expensive early-adopter showpieces.

Starglider wrote:

General Zod wrote:A quick poking around[/url] and the cheapest OLED TV I'm really inclined to spend money on goes for about $1,400

Those aren't OLED TVs. This is an OLED TV - yes that's right, ~$5000 for an 11-inch screen. There are three classes of 'LED TV'; ones that use LEDs to replace the conventional cold-cathode backlight (for slightly better colour rendering and screen life), ones that use a low-res LED array behind the LCD screen (allowing for better contrast because dark areas can have the backlight locally dimmed), and ones that use a high-res LED array to completely replace the LCD/backlight combination. AFAIK OLEDs are only used in the last category, which so far includes only tech demos and ridiculously expensive early-adopter showpieces.

Eh, details. Either way I'm not too inclined to go with an LED set.

Yeah, that's the sort of LED LCD I meant. The Samsung ones available here use LEDs around the outside and waveguides to spread the light behind the panel, and they can't do the local dimming and aren't as good as the other ones Starglider mentioned.

I thought Amazon would be pretty normal pricing for you guys?

Stark wrote:Yeah, that's the sort of LED LCD I meant. The Samsung ones available here use LEDs around the outside and waveguides to spread the light behind the panel, and they can't do the local dimming and aren't as good as the other ones Starglider mentioned.

I thought Amazon would be pretty normal pricing for you guys?

Amazon is generally cheaper than retail. I've had some rather dodgy experiences with Amazon shipping in the past though, so I'm a bit reluctant to trust them with anything high dollar.

General Zod wrote:Eh, details. Either way I'm not too inclined to go with an LED set.

I wouldn't expect to keep a monitor or TV for more than five years anyway (not as your main display that is), just because the technology is improving so quickly. There's nothing wrong with getting a cheap plasma now and then a LED-only quad-HD mega-display when the technology matures and the prices come down.

Of course in price-for-inches you can't beat a projector (I love my 1080p projector), but that requires some sacrifices in room layout and ambient lighting levels.

Just from TV shopping in the past couple of years, my bias leans heavily toward LCD. I just never, ever thought the Plasma screens looked as good, and always found LCD's to be typically clearer/crisper and really not that unreasonably priced. Also, I'm not convinced you're going to notice a difference between 47" and 50".

Starglider wrote: AFAIK OLEDs are only used in the last category, which so far includes only tech demos and ridiculously expensive early-adopter showpieces.

OLED looks like a bit of a deadend technology. The lifespan is crap (~10,000 hours to reach half brightness, especially on blues. A normal LCD panel might have a lifespan of 80,000 hours to half brightness)

LED Backlit LCDs provide better contrast and lighting geometry than a standard waveguide backlight and better image and less heat than a plasma (they also weigh less and use less power), and that's what I'd go for, were I TV shopping at the moment.

Bought Samsung LED backlit tv a month back now.


Picture quality is better than any other LCD sceen i've looked at and it's only an inch thick so it fits into the tiny space I have for the thing well enough..

Not sure what issues Stark has been warned about but so far I have nothing but good things to say about it.

I'm personally biased towards plasma. It offers a more natural picture to my eyes and deeper blacks compared to LCDs, though the new LED TVs are pretty much right up there in those regards. It really all depends in the environment you place your TV in. Plasma's view much better in darker unlit areas because the glass screen ( Regardless of what kind of treatment they do to it) will reflect ambient light sources which generally eliminates its advantages of being able to produce darker colors. LCDs don't have glass screens so the viewing surface doesn't suffer from diffused reflections. The light source is always on in an LCD, so it will never produce the amount of black level a similarly priced plasma can. A lot of showroom floors (Best Buy etc) are typically well lit or surrounded by other sources of light which allows LCDs to shine its best.

The reflections are sometimes even these days - many LCD panels have highly reflective coatings which are pretty poor in a room that has glare. Mine is as bad as glass and certainly no good in direct sunlight.

Zac, I think the Samsung LEDs are just less even backlight-wise than other LED layouts. They're still better than non-LED LCDs. I've got a Samsung 7 non-LED, and it's a damn fine panel (and not worth the extra $6-700 for the 'identical but LED' version).

Fully LED Backlit: Vizeo True LED, LG LH90, Sony XBR8, Toashiba SV, and Sharp 700UN (There might be a few I am missing)

Edge LED: All other LED (including all Samsung, which on the low end, use 6 bit panels)

I am not well versed in the debate technically, but consider:

1) RGB LED (not normal white LEDs) with local dimming LCDs like the Sony XBR8 and Sharp XS1 can match the best plasmas, last I read. At any rate their performance is really good.

2) Reliability. I've heard a lot of horror stories about Plasmas, but I have not verified these, but do take this problem into account.

I'm sorry I can't do better this near to exam time, but do look into the two points I have mentioned, I think it will help.

Edit -
There seems to be some confusion about LED TVs in the thread. So there's:
Edge-lit LED: Some LEDs at the side. Some performance and environmental advantageous over CCFL, but not huge IIRC. Generally manufacturers just use the technology to make their TVs ultrathin.
Local dimming LED: LEDs at various sectors of the screen can dimmed for blacks that can match plasmas (you can't get blacker than OFF).
RGB LED: Rather than just a white LED there are clusters of RGB LED that give better color response. Usually comes together with local dimming and signify the best of the LCD TVs.
OLED: A completely different technology, very nice really. But quite a way off, they're not making huge TVs out of this anytime soon (though phones and PMPs have a version of it - Zune HD, Cowon S9, Samsung Omnia 2, Nokia N85 etc...)

Ypoknons wrote:I am not well versed in the debate technically, but consider:

1) RGB LED (not normal white LEDs) with local dimming LCDs like the Sony XBR8 and Sharp XS1 can match the best plasmas, last I read. At any rate their performance is really good.

And after talking to Zod over AIM, they are out of his price range. Really his price range limits him to 120 Hz LCDs at 52", which these days means 6 Series Samsung as a good bet.

2) Reliability. I've heard a lot of horror stories about Plasmas, but I have not verified these, but do take this problem into account.

I work with a lot of people who have Plasmas and they each have a horror story (mostly from things like burn-in and power consumption not being factored in), while those that went LCD, not so much.

TimothyC wrote: And after talking to Zod over AIM, they are out of his price range. Really his price range limits him to 120 Hz LCDs at 52", which these days means 6 Series Samsung as a good bet.

Plus I mentioned my $2,000 upper limit at the top of the thread.

LED sets just don't offer enough of a price/size ratio to be worth it yet.

Plasmas are more for critical picture quality in a darkened room, if you want perfect skintones and shadow detail in your movies then plasmas still have a slight edge. But that doesn't matter a damn for video games where absolute brightness & contrast are of greater importance, and LCDs have the edge here.

So which ones are better for sports, specifically American football?

General Zod wrote:Plus I mentioned my $2,000 upper limit at the top of the thread.

The 46" XBR8 is $1996.84 But if you wanna go for size, well, of course you can do that

Havok wrote:So which ones are better for sports, specifically American football?

LCD. Either the high or mid range

The "600Hz Sub Field Drive" on plasmas comes from the fact that every frame is flashed 10 times, while the 120hz and 240hz TVs use fancy math to make frames where there are none.

BEst bet to see which one you like more is to go into a store durring football season, and do a head to head comparison when a game is on.