I will shortly be in the market for a mahoosive telly, the choice over here is huge and totally bewildering, but cheap!

My questions are.....

1080p or 1080i?

Plasma or LCD?

Are the Sony's or Panasonics of this world any better than the Samsungs or Sanyo's?

Anything else i need to know?

Cheers!

Mark

Sony dont make plasma so that should tell you lcd is the way forward, plasma's had it's day.

1080p is the better standard.

Have a look at LG (if they sell them where you are) they make the panels for every high street manufacturer you've heard of, they are a very very good brand that is often overlooked due to the low cost, ignore them at your peril!

Full HD 1080P plasmas in size 42" have just hit the market at an affordable cost, I will allways say Plasma over LCD. There is a reason why the biggest name in TV's dont make LCD's. Sony used to sell plasmas, but since they sold there production plant to another japanese company its become cost prohibitive to setup another.

TBH, you will get people that prefer one over the other. need to go and view / compare for yourself.

I was looking around for a HD tv about this time last year. Couldnt decide weather I should go for a LCD or Plasma. I finanly decided on LCD but ended up letting the girlfriend choose the one she like the look of as I couldnt tell the difference between them picture wise

I got the Samsung and im very happy with it. It runs the PS3 and XBox 360 very nicley.

Andy

Sony dont make plasma so that should tell you lcd is the way forward, plasma's had it's day.

All that tells you is that Sony didn't want to tool up for a plasma plant.

In head-to-head tests plasma always wins for image quality.

gotta be a 50-inch Pioneer PDP-LX508D, or the 60-inch PDP-LX608D if you're feeling flush

Projector and a lot of bulbs for that money

Just make sure it's DLP, not LCD for moving video. And make sure you check the price of the lamps or you'll have quite a shock later.

All that tells you is that Sony didn't want to tool up for a plasma plant.

In head-to-head tests plasma always wins for image quality.

Sony used to make Plasma's, they stopped when they realised they could get just as good picture quality from an LCD at a much lower cost.

the which website rates LCD quality just above plasma. i think 1080p is the way to go for me.

thanks for the comments guys

Mark

Sony used to make Plasma's, they stopped when they realised they could get just as good picture quality from an LCD at a much lower cost.

Having seen the Pioneer in action, that isn't true; LCDs are getting good, but Plasma is better.

It's more likely that Sony realised there was more profit to be had by selling decent/acceptable LCDs to joe bloggs who wouldn't take the time to really compare and would be sold be the fact that it's a Sony and must be good - same as they do with car audio

Sony used to make Plasma's, they stopped when they realised they could get just as good picture quality from an LCD at a much lower cost.

Then Sony are deluded. LCD does not match plasma for image quality. Not even close.

the which website rates LCD quality just above plasma. i

Which should stick to washing machines. They're a laughing stock in pretty much every industry.

only part of the LCD that Sony make is the bravia image chip the panel is made by samsung and the tv is assembled by samsung ..For 40" and below Lcd is slightly better but for above 40" plasma is the only way to go although i personally prefer lcd its all down to personal preferance .. i was in makro earlier and they have a 50"samsung 1080p plasma for £1100inc vat which aint too bad... the only reason i have a samsung LCD was the curry's engineer broke my dlp tv so the gave me vouchers to the value of an eqivalent tv.. which i then got the 40" samsung + xbox 360 games with the vouchers

Which should stick to washing machines. They're a laughing stock in pretty much every industry.

Their washing machine reviews aren't particularly great either :thumbdwn:

Chris

Samsung 87 series 46" gets my vote! Highly rated, looks gorgeous and you can get it for approx £1400 on line. I am saving up as I type

It is an LCD but they have improved the black levels enormously, full 1080p etc. The problem for me is that plasma has two main drawbacks:

1. You have to run them in - no plugging in and away you go, you have to have them turned down 'low' for a period before you can fully use them

2. Screen burn, as in what you were always warned about on old CRT monitors. plasma does suffer form this, and if you constantly watch 1 channel on Sky or Freeview where they have the channel symbol in the top left, this could be a problem, as well as kids leaving an Xbox360 or whatever plugged in and turned on but left for a long time.

Samsung 87 series 46" gets my vote! Highly rated, looks gorgeous and you can get it for approx £1400 on line. I am saving up as I type

It is an LCD but they have improved the black levels enormously, full 1080p etc. The problem for me is that plasma has two main drawbacks:

1. You have to run them in - no plugging in and away you go, you have to have them turned down 'low' for a period before you can fully use them

2. Screen burn, as in what you were always warned about on old CRT monitors. plasma does suffer form this, and if you constantly watch 1 channel on Sky or Freeview where they have the channel symbol in the top left, this could be a problem, as well as kids leaving an Xbox360 or whatever plugged in and turned on but left for a long time.

Am sorry but your points 1 and 2 are not true at all. Plasmas do NOT have to be run in at all, they might take time to warm up each time you use them ie 15-20 mins for the picture to be at its best but this is not noticeable when you turn it on.

As for screen burn, the screens do not burn that easily. Some plasma's move the image around every 10-20 minutes slightly to prevent the sky channel logos etc burning the screen.

I am a fan of both plasma and LCD. For sheer conveience I'd go for an LCD but if I wanted a cinema setup it would HAVE to be plasma for the picture quality.

Having watch footie on our £800 42" Hitachi plasma, and my in-laws' £800 26" Sony Bravia LCD, I can say for certain that even top-end LCD is nowhere near cheapo plasma for avoiding 'ghosting' on moving pictures. One thing I have noticed, though, is that the (non-compressed) analogue picture is far crisper than the (slightly blocky) freeview picture on our big telly. I gather this will change once the analogue signal is switched off, and the digital signal bandwidth is increased to support HD, though...

Ive spent a lot of time looking into this lately (as part of my job) and the conclusion I have come to is that I personally prefer plasma over LCD; mainly for the more natural picture (presentation and colour accuracy) it gives.

The best I have demoed in the last two weeks (and there has been a total of 8 so far) has been the new Pioneer KURO plasmas - the 42" and the 50" were both MASSIVELY more impressive than the equivalent lcd panels from Sony, Samsung, Sharp and LG.

The max resolution of the screen seemed to play little part in the overall quality - natural colour and deep blacks made the biggest difference and the Pioneers did this amazingly well. The LCD pictures just looked 'over-processed' to me.

Id also have to buy one thats 24fps compatible also otherwise you will see a slight juddering effect when watching HI def blue ray as I did in the demos. From memory, none of the sony's had this, the Samsung lcd did as did the Pioneers.

Hope that helps,

Lee

Plasmas are for bigger screens, and generally better for movies and TV.

LCDs are best for small screens, and generally better for gaming or PC use.

Of course there are good and bad in each. I have a Toshiba 42WLT68 and the ghosting issue is simply not an issue as it is a 100hz TV. I also get a fantastic picture on my Xbox 360, and I'm more than happy with the picture for TV and DVDs.

Swings and roundabouts - best thing is to go and look at some screens and decide which perform well for your eyes.

Chosing a TV nowadays is so difficult because it really depends on what you want it for and how you're going to use it.

Unfortunately, most of the high street shops are treacherous for giving you unbiassed opinions. Most of them have a bad quality feed, or they all put a DVD of Disney's latest CG film which will always look very good on a screen. Then you have the fact that not all screens are set up in the same way and some may have the settings all wrong since the previous customer had a play with it. Of course, if it looks wrong you won't want to buy it, but that could be just the settings and not the screen itself.

As for the plasma vs LCD debate, it's an ever-changing world. Just about every year, manufacturers on both technology fronts come up with new ideas to improve quality, reduce any particular negative point of the technology. Some of this is done very well, others distort the picture adding too much sharpening or contrast, so although the colour really "pops" on Monsters Inc, it's not natural and looks horrible on normal celluloid material.

There's no substitute for having a look around various shops. And if a screen looks particularly bad (or good) in a shop, don't dismiss it until you can see the same screen in another shop under a different set of conditions

LCDs are continuously improving and the latest gen of stuff is getting very close to plasma in terms of contrast, black levels, etc. Combined with motionflow (100Hz) stuff, it's nearly as good as traditional CRTs in terms of faithful colour reproduction. Certainly in the professional broadcast world, people are looking more and more into LCDs to replace CRTs as they offer weight and heat benefits. Until now, lots of broadcasters have been reticent due to picture quality lacking far behind CRT, but now the technology is advancing, it's getting very close

Ive spent a lot of time looking into this lately (as part of my job) and the conclusion I have come to is that I personally prefer plasma over LCD; mainly for the more natural picture (presentation and colour accuracy) it gives.

The best I have demoed in the last two weeks (and there has been a total of 8 so far) has been the new Pioneer KURO plasmas - the 42" and the 50" were both MASSIVELY more impressive than the equivalent lcd panels from Sony, Samsung, Sharp and LG.

The max resolution of the screen seemed to play little part in the overall quality - natural colour and deep blacks made the biggest difference and the Pioneers did this amazingly well. The LCD pictures just looked 'over-processed' to me.

Id also have to buy one thats 24fps compatible also otherwise you will see a slight juddering effect when watching HI def blue ray as I did in the demos. From memory, none of the sony's had this, the Samsung lcd did as did the Pioneers.

Hope that helps,

Lee

Spot on!!

The Panasonic plasma units are very very good and can be had for a good price. However The daddy of plasma is without doubt the new Pioneer Kuro units which will show Hi Def to an amazing standard. But you must be prepared to pay for that performance.

LCD can be had for a much cheaper price, but don't compromise. Due to the backlight, the pictures can look slightly washed out... Best way to compare - TV on and switch to an input with nothing running into it (Scart etc) the cheaper LCD units will have an almost grey look on the screen rather than black (this is where plasma kicks ***). This will even vary through single manufacturer ranges - Samsung being an obvious one, Their cheaper units don't show black as well as their higher end displays.

At the end of the day its gonna sit/hang in your lounge, its going to be part of your furniture. Don't get hung up about brand, buy what you like. Make the saleman work for his money (make them move the screen to compare if needed) and happy shopping!!!

Chosing a TV nowadays is so difficult because it really depends on what you want it for and how you're going to use it.

Unfortunately, most of the high street shops are treacherous for giving you unbiassed opinions. Most of them have a bad quality feed, or they all put a DVD of Disney's latest CG film which will always look very good on a screen. Then you have the fact that not all screens are set up in the same way and some may have the settings all wrong since the previous customer had a play with it. Of course, if it looks wrong you won't want to buy it, but that could be just the settings and not the screen itself.

As for the plasma vs LCD debate, it's an ever-changing world. Just about every year, manufacturers on both technology fronts come up with new ideas to improve quality, reduce any particular negative point of the technology. Some of this is done very well, others distort the picture adding too much sharpening or contrast, so although the colour really "pops" on Monsters Inc, it's not natural and looks horrible on normal celluloid material.

There's no substitute for having a look around various shops. And if a screen looks particularly bad (or good) in a shop, don't dismiss it until you can see the same screen in another shop under a different set of conditions

LCDs are continuously improving and the latest gen of stuff is getting very close to plasma in terms of contrast, black levels, etc. Combined with motionflow (100Hz) stuff, it's nearly as good as traditional CRTs in terms of faithful colour reproduction. Certainly in the professional broadcast world, people are looking more and more into LCDs to replace CRTs as they offer weight and heat benefits. Until now, lots of broadcasters have been reticent due to picture quality lacking far behind CRT, but now the technology is advancing, it's getting very close

THis is what I have gathered in a lot of research recently, latest crop is nearly as good as Plasma without high energy useage and heat output, that siad for big screens cost of LCD is still prohibative compared to Plasma. I do however, think that in the end Plasma will loose the battle, but hey unless some one digs this post up in 5 years time I should be OK.

The daddy of plasma is without doubt the new Pioneer Kuro units

Ah - you've not seen the 103" Panasonic in action then.

Even ignoring the sheer size of the thing (which is tricky) the picture is astounding. Even standard def video looks great on it.

I reckon OLED is worth keeping an eye on. SED appears to be dead in the water, unfortunately - it showeda lot of promise.

I reckon OLED is worth keeping an eye on. SED appears to be dead in the water, unfortunately - it showeda lot of promise.

Don't know about SED, have canon dropped it or just unable to achive a working solution they can manafacture.

OLED - a 5mm thick tv :drool: