TV advice. Sony LCD KDL 40S2010 40" LCD or Panasonic TH-42PX77U 42" plasma?

V

Viva Las Vegas

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Trying to decide between these two sets. I was 99% gonna go with LCD due to having a lot of windows where the tv would go but then Panasonic has this new plasma with the anti-reflection coating on it. Anyone using their 360 on either of these tvs and have any opinion on them? Thanks!
 
I bought the LCD from jr.com a few months back and really enjoy it, but cant compare to the plasma of course. i dont have a 360, but there isnt much glare on my lcd anyways. in case you want to keep a tally thats
LCD 3 - Plasma 0
 
Burn in is not a problem these days. I play everyday on my 50" Panny plasma with no problems. Plasmas still have better color and blacks than LCDs. I went with a plasma because of the better picture and you couldn't even get 50" LCDs when I bought my TV about 9 months ago.

If I were buying a TV today, I would buy a Panny plasma.
 
I'd go with the Plasma (WTF NO SONY FOR CHACRANAJXY!?!?) simply because the blacks and colors in general will definitely be better than that LCD... which isn't one of Sony's XBR models I don't think (those are the models really worth considering.) Panasonic makes an excellent plasma second only to Pioneer, so I can pretty much guarantee you'll love that TV.

Or get an Olevia.
 
[quote name='CaptainChunk']Burn in is not a problem these days.[/QUOTE]
That's not true, although they certainly are much better than they were a few years ago. No worries with an LCD, nagging thought in the back of your head with a plasma.

If you were only watching movies, I'd say get a plasma. The potential for glare that you speak of makes me lean towards LCD, though.

That Panasonic is a bit larger, but it's also lower res (1024x768) than a "true" 720p-level LCD (which is generally 1366x768). At that screen size it's not necessarily a dealbreaker though.

Hope this helps! Even though it doesn't!
 
[quote name='CaptainChunk']Burn in is not a problem these days. I play everyday on my 50" Panny plasma with no problems. Plasmas still have better color and blacks than LCDs. I went with a plasma because of the better picture and you couldn't even get 50" LCDs when I bought my TV about 9 months ago.

If I were buying a TV today, I would buy a Panny plasma.[/QUOTE]

I see it all the time at my work still (Circuit City)
 
[quote name='CaptainChunk']Burn in is not a problem these days.[/QUOTE]
That's not true, although they certainly are much better than they were a few years ago. No worries with an LCD, nagging thought in the back of your head with a plasma.

If you were only watching movies, I'd say get a plasma. The potential for glare that you speak of makes me lean towards LCD, though.

That Panasonic is a bit larger, but it's also lower res (1024x768) than a "true" 720p-level LCD (which is generally 1366x768). At that screen size it's not necessarily a dealbreaker though.

Hope this helps! Even though it doesn't!
 
I have the sony LCD 40 inch that your considering. There still is glare and is almost impossible to play my rainbow 6 vegas during the day without using night vision to see where i'm going. Some issues to look for with that particular sony model is uneven backlighting. Some people call it "clouding". You can google it and its pretty common. Mine has some but I do not mind it as i really can't see it unless you are just showing a black screen. Overall it is very very very good at night. The colors are perfect, imo. 360 games look really sweeeeet as well as my ps3.

Then again, i got mine for $1199 during circuit city's after thanksgiving sale so.. it was an impulse buy. haha. It was a sweet deal.f goodluck.

-JoE
 
Thanks to everyone for the input. The Panny has the anti-glare coating on it and a 10,000-1 contrast ratio. The few reviews of it I have seen said the anti-glare coating has no effect on picture quality. I'm leaning that way. Just have to find one available to see first hand.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']That's not true, although they certainly are much better than they were a few years ago. No worries with an LCD, nagging thought in the back of your head with a plasma.

If you were only watching movies, I'd say get a plasma. The potential for glare that you speak of makes me lean towards LCD, though.

That Panasonic is a bit larger, but it's also lower res (1024x768) than a "true" 720p-level LCD (which is generally 1366x768). At that screen size it's not necessarily a dealbreaker though.

Hope this helps! Even though it doesn't![/QUOTE]

Shit... didn't realize the Panasonic had such a shitty resolution. That's a dealbreaker if there ever was one.
 
I would go with the LCD. Unless you are going to be in a very dark room. The LCDs are much better in rooms with windows. Plus 1080p is an option with LCD. Unlike the Plasmas.
 
Plasma is better than LCD in general. It has deeper blacks, better color reproduction, higher contrast ratios (which are meaningless anyway), and no motion lag. The lower resolution isn't anything to worry about unless you're going to be sitting less than 7' from your TV. If you are sitting in that range, just get a 50'' 1080p plasma, and you'll be fine. ;)

I honestly don't understand why so many people recommend LCDs over plasma. Yes, LCDs won't burn-in ever, but their picture quality will always be inferior as long as they have to have backlights that are always operating. Plasmas are much closer to CRT quality than LCD. If you liked your CRT, I'm pretty sure you'll like a plasma a lot too.
 
I've owned a Panny plasma for 3.5 years now and I LOVE it. I can recommend one without hesitation. I play video games on it every day and there is no burn-in from anything whatsoever. The PQ is outstanding and I'm sure they've gotten even better over the last 3.5 years. My only gripe is that my TV only does 480i/p and 1080i and not 720i/p or 1080p - my next TV will though and it will definitely be another Panny plasma.
 
I have a 42" LCD 720p HDTV with HDMI, and I'm very satisfied with it. It's a Westinghouse something-or-other, and even though Westinghouse is a cheap cheap brand, I've been very impressed with the television. Aside from the things people have talked about, I think there's another very important drawback to LCD:

LCDs look like shit above of their native resolution.

As far as I know, there is not an LCD set in existence that doesn't have a set pixel size. Therefore, the display can try and simulate a resolution change, but it can't ever actually change the size of the pixels, and it will always look blurry when you switch it. My LCD's native resolution is 720p, and when I set it to a higher resolution, it looks wierd and bad. Note that I DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH PS2 OR OTHER OLDER SYSTEMS, BUT I have run into it when putting in a feed from my computer at a very high resolution or my 360 set to 1080p.

But LCDs are usually cheaper, and most importantly, they don't have any glare. Clouding is actually almost entirely a non-issue, because once you have an image moving across the screen, it's literally impossible to notice unless your TV sucks. Another issue is that LCDs have soft screens, so they're pretty fragile and you can't clean them with anything other than special LCD cleaner. I would recommend an LCD based on personal experience, because I've been very satisfied, but in my opinion I doubt you'll be disappointed with either choice.
 
[quote name='brandonabley']I have a 42" LCD 720p HDTV with HDMI, and I'm very satisfied with it. It's a Westinghouse something-or-other, and even though Westinghouse is a cheap cheap brand, I've been very impressed with the television. Aside from the things people have talked about, I think there's another very important drawback to LCD:

LCDs look like shit above of their native resolution.

As far as I know, there is not an LCD set in existence that doesn't have a set pixel size. Therefore, the display can try and simulate a resolution change, but it can't ever actually change the size of the pixels, and it will always look blurry when you switch it. My LCD's native resolution is 720p, and when I set it to a higher resolution, it looks wierd and bad. Note that I DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH PS2 OR OTHER OLDER SYSTEMS, BUT I have run into it when putting in a feed from my computer at a very high resolution or my 360 set to 1080p.

[/QUOTE]

The resolution thing is likley just that TV model more than a defect of LCDs in general. It's the TV either not scaling or poorly scaling the resolution back down that's probably causing that problem. Many LCDs are prefectly capable of taking even a 1080p source and succesfully scaling it to their native resolution. Also, as far as price goes, LCDs and plasmas are very competitive sometimes with plasmas even being the cheaper option for some brands but that's because more and more LCDs are moving to the 1080p resolution.
 
having an RPLCD myself, I can vouch for its awesomeness in terms of gaming.

However, as much as you can rag on plasmas for burn-in, lots of tech-heads are adamant that modern sets are far more advanced at resisting burn-in (although image retention is still an issue, it is at least not permanent).

Black levels and contrast ratios are where it's at, though. Upon viewing my g/f's parents new plasma, the difference black levels and contrast ratio had on the quality of the picture really blew me away. blacks being black and not a dark grey truly affects EVERY color in the pallete it seemed.

these are not all absolutes of the technologies, and every set is different, I just wanted to emphasize that the effect of a good black level or contrast ratio far outshines the difference between 720p and 1080p and whatnot. I think there was an article on AVS forum where they viewed various different sets and were asked which had the best picture, and sets with better black level / contrast ratio were chosen over those with better resolution, etc.

other things to consider are potential glare and the screen type - I love my soft-screen, but that's because I am OCD about images reflecting off the screen, like seeing the lamp sitting beside you or an open window on the screen. Haven't ever seen a soft plasma, but I have seen shiny LCDs.
 
[quote name='velvet396']

these are not all absolutes of the technologies, and every set is different, I just wanted to emphasize that the effect of a good black level or contrast ratio far outshines the difference between 720p and 1080p and whatnot. I think there was an article on AVS forum where they viewed various different sets and were asked which had the best picture, and sets with better black level / contrast ratio were chosen over those with better resolution, etc.

[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree. The precise reason I chose the Samsung LCD I did choose was not resolution but contrast ratio. My 32" set was, in my comparisons and reading online, as close as I could get to the quality of picture I was looking for without going plasma (for the absolute dark/light that make them so vibrant). It's 720p, and not too large (large enough for my purposes), and it cost a little more compared to the other models in that size range, but I think it was worth it. Plus it matches my glossy black DVD player and PS3. :) heh.

I use component for my PS3, composite (surprisingly clear) for the Dreamcast, VGA for the 360, and component for my GC and original XBox (via switchbox from psyclone). I've got my PS2 hooked up to the s-video on my TV, for those games that might not work (or have a special controller like GH) on the PS3. I plug my upscaling (region-free/macrovision free) DVD player into one of the HDMI ports, and that's about it. :) The only thing that would make my TV perfect would've been two component inputs, like some of the 40+ inch TVs had... But that's just nitpicking... for $79, I got a remote-controlled switchbox that has one free input for whatever I choose to get in the future.. ;)


DVD's look very nice, with appropriate darks, and the PS3 w/blu-ray movies, as well as games, looks stunning. Even SD television over plain-old-cable (what little I watch) is more than acceptable. I am glad I waited for the market to settle a little bit before buying my TV (last October)... and I am amazed how well the technology "just fits" in the closing era of the CRT-TV. :)

All hail our new HD overlords. ;)
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']The only thing that would make my TV perfect would've been two component inputs, like some of the 40+ inch TVs had...
[/quote]

The thing that impressed me most about my HDTV was all of the inputs and outputs that it had available. It was like it had a full-fledged built-in receiver or something! I had just come from having a device switcher and an RF modulator, and I'm certain my picture lost more than a small amount of fidelity being run through a series of cheap $20 electronics.
 
[quote name='brandonabley'] I'm certain my picture lost more than a small amount of fidelity being run through a series of cheap $20 electronics.[/QUOTE]


That's a good thing... I also can attest to the $20 switchboxes making things look a little craptacular... (I had a pelican s-video/composite switchbox for many moons on my 24" Toshiba TV.) Some things looked like hammered elephant dung, but some things just "clicked" a bit better... and I didn't notice the "busy-ness" of the picture. Ironically, my Dreamcast looked "smoothest" in games like Soul Calibur... but my PS2 and Tekken Tag Tournament looked busy.. and I was using overpriced cabling to boot. Go figure.

But this Psyclone device I got a Best Buy (*ack, POOEY*) is holding up nicely. I mean, if one has to use one, finding the least obstrsive and junky is a chore one should not shirk. Your eyes will thank you after 3 hours of Oblivion straight. :drool:

I'll get another TV before hooking anything else up to this one. ;) Switcbox or no, the cabling situation makes my TV look like it's spilled its guts on the entertainment center.... :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top