Sumanth_Champion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Thanks a lot guyz to one nd all for the amazing responses :( @Athek - am planning it from Adishwars in Marathahalli only. @bulovski - i was under the impression that plasmas are of lesser quality compared to LCD's so wrong of me then but Samsung's Plasmas both 42" and 50" are saying it as HD Ready only. Can you tell me which model you have bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumanth_Champion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 n between samsung n LG, no review has ever given better scores to LG than samsung.... if u do not take into consideration the 3D TVs that sony is about to launch, then the current lineup of samsung is way better than sony...they are sleek, stylish good picture quality and pocket burn proof anyways it all boils down to your personal preferences... always compare the same material on both the tvs simultaneously if possible... that is the best judge.. hope this helps Thanks dude. but i have seen in one Samsung tv if i watch it an angle i saw brightness going down in Samsung which i dnt see in LG otherwise both looked exactly same for me. Also do we have the same issue in plasmas also.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayush12ice Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Buy a 50" Plasma for that price - better everything than LCD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 From my personal comparisons I suggest Sony or Samsung for LCD TVs. Sony had slightly better performance especially with normal dvd movies, but it was very hard to tell apart when using HD videos. Samsung on the other hand has much better designs and is comparatively cheaper, so I guess you can't go wrong with either of them. No idea about Plasmas, but be sure to get a full HD one if you going to get a 50". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not just blacks - everything. And half the price of a LED. LCDs are no comparison to a plasma for picture quality. Plus if one has to play games then plasma's better because refresh rate is faster. But honestly, the best way is to go to a mall which has 50 TVs side by side and see the same video. Ambi mall in gurgaon has a sweet setup. LED / LCD / Plasma side by side in the Samsung area - that's how I selected the plasma. I saw Bolt in HD on all three simultaneously and couldn't find any difference. LOL gramps..u actually compared LCDs and LEDs on an animated flick, the one thang LCDs are actually competent at. compare it on real life and you'll actually see that plasmas kick awesome value for money a*s. though now you already have a plasma so ur a bro oh..and Nothing can match the black levels on plasmas, especially panasonic plasmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memnom Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 With plasmas there is a remotest chance you may end up with Burn - ins. I know the chances are remote but a chance nonetheless. You are better off with a Sony NX model mate. I got a quote from the grey market here for Sony BX40 40" ~ 46k Shipped to my home, so you would get a better deal if you knew guys. Dont know how much the NX costs but if there is an obvious difference between the two then go with NX or settle for. BX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigsaw Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 isn't plasma burn-in a thing of the past?? don't think that would've been brought up in this discussion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 wayy past. it cud only trouble u if u leave a still image on for hours. many multiple hours. so in a way, memmy is rite. but the pic q is so much better than any LCD that it really makes no sense to not opt for 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 I heard picture quality of Plasmas degrade over time. Anyone who used it for more than 2 or 3 years here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 more like 10-12 years. 150000 hours of viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 more like 10-12 years. 150000 hours of viewing. Im not talking of the total lifetime. Most people would replace it long before that much time, but does the quality of the picture degrade before that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulovski Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Even after watching an animated flick on LCD / LED / Plasma I couldn't make out any difference except the brightness on LED - that's how good a plasma is. Burn-in is a thing of the past - every plasma tv comes with anti-burn in. I was watching a shark attacks on discovery - the colours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memnom Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Yes Burn-ins are of the past, but they exist. Lets say u leave a static image paused for 30 mins (hours and hours are not required), there will be a faint burn-in that will dissolve over time, for 60 mins the burn-in will be more pronounced and will take longer. the point is things left static for as little as 30 mins can cause minimal burn ins, but when i spend 50k on something i expect even that to be absent. The Contrast Ratios of the LCDs have also improved much much better than say 2 years ago. And the blacks are much deeper than they used to be, atleast you wont loose your sleep over the Black Issue as u would've 2 years back. Besides the most overlooked points are Power and Heat, Plasmas do put out a lot of heat (personal experience) enough to warm a room in winter and they suck in a lot of power (kinda obvious isn't it?) http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ (this comparison includes TVs upto 9th month of 2009) Im not saying im against plasmas, we had one and it was one of the best TV memories i have but when such newer tech are available for such attractive prices why go for something that has a "may-cause-problems" tag-line attached to it? @bulovski, yes they are phenomenally reduced with anti burn-in measures like Wobbling but its not "completely" removed. @achillies, there is a possibility of image degradation as the phosphor used gets... well used. But with the advent of green phosphor which is now being used there ia a lot of improvement. Lets just say u will use it for 50000 hours before noticing any degradation or burnin problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 all your points are valid.. for 2007. welcome to the future. enjoy your stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Im not talking of the total lifetime. Most people would replace it long before that much time, but does the quality of the picture degrade before that? yea.. that's when the Q wud start decreasing.. total time is arnd 250000-300000 hrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Even after watching an animated flick on LCD / LED / Plasma I couldn't make out any difference except the brightness on LED - that's how good a plasma is. Burn-in is a thing of the past - every plasma tv comes with anti-burn in. I was watching a shark attacks on discovery - the colours discovery on HD..?? how the fook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulovski Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 What you're referring to is ghosting - that's not burn-in. Burn-in is permanent. Ghosting is not. Only happens when you leave a static image for a long time. As for price - LCD are more expensive than plasmas, and although their technology has improved it still doesn't allow colour reproduction the way a plasma does. The tech cannot do it yet - as simple as that. A 42" panasonic full hd plasma is still cheaper than a 42" lcd and gives better picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulovski Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 discovery on HD..?? how the fook? regular tata sky discovery - but the colours were wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 yea.. that's when the Q wud start decreasing.. total time is arnd 250000-300000 hrs. ok I did my research on Plasma tvs a few years back. Future sure is nice. Anyway if these problems no longer exist I see no reason to settle for a 40" lcd when you can get a 50" plasma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumanth_Champion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 after doing a bit of reaserch on Panasonic plasmas i am liking Plasma than LCD.. but i have read a couple of reviews (including panasonic site where they say <42" LCD is better option). is this true My viewing distance would 9 to 9.5 ft max assuming it is going to be wall hanging. So can i go for 50" tv or it is ruled out for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.