The big "How do I choose an HDTV?" thread.

Just to extend on what Fed just said, for gamers, plasmas in general have faster response time with less input lag than LCDs. Important for many action games, especially shooters. Music games also need low lag.

MannishBoy wrote:

Just to extend on what Fed just said, for gamers, plasmas in general have faster response time with less input lag than LCDs. Important for many action games, especially shooters. Music games also need low lag.

Plus they typically scale better (has this changed?) which will become very important if you intend to view SD content on the TV and enjoy it.

It is cheaper to go with a Roku than to pay extra for the IPTV interface on the TV. Roku works great and it is tiny.

Plasmas are great option. You get a bigger and better picture for cheaper than LCD. Panasonic and Samsung make good plasmas.

I hate 120/240Hz stuff. When did motion blur become a bad thing? Pretty soon video games will start looking more realistic than reality if they keep it up. If you can find 60hz version of the model you like, it will save you money and you lose nothing in picture quality, except one less pathway to screw it up.

Input lag is not really an issue, especially if you are pushing forty like me.

LCDs do have input lag, but most of the problem is often with the wireless controller and the game itself. LCDs with high input lag can sometimes be the tipping point, though. Games that require timing and quick reactions usually keep their input lag pretty low (70ms). But, you take a game where reducing the input lag is not as important, then your cumulative input lag can get pretty high. Even then, it will be younger players, in general, who will be most sensitive to it.

Stick with good brand name products and don't worry about it.

The two most important things - picture quality and price. Once you find the best sets available to you in your budget, then parsing the benefits of the different features and specs becomes more useful.

heavyfeul wrote:

I hate 120/240Hz stuff. When did motion blur become a bad thing? Pretty soon video games will start looking more realistic than reality if they keep it up. If you can find 60hz version of the model you like, it will save you money and you lose nothing in picture quality, except one less pathway to screw it up.

It's not that there's anything wrong with true 120hz/240hz, it's that there's something wrong with the current popular implementation in TV's.

Buying Plasma handily avoids that as the refresh rate on a standard plasma screen now is faster than any current LCD by a huge, huge margin and it's that way natively. There's no funky interpolation making it happen. 24p mode on blu-ray movies with my current plasma set looks leagues better than it did on the Sony LCD set I had before.

I've been incredibly happy with my Samsung D7000 series plasma since I picked it up back in February.

I love this advice. Thanks.

Chairman_Mao says:
"They consume less power, contain fewer toxic materials, and can be thinner and lighter than plasmas or CCFL-lit LCD TVs."

Man. It's a good thing I stopped giving a damn about the environment then. That was about two-three years ago when I began reading and doing stories on recycling, alternate power sources, etc.

The concerns of power consumption, toxicity and whether they are thinner or lighter don't play into my thinking. I'm all for getting big bad toys.

So, I'm looking at an LG LCD IPS panel, 40 inches min. and I will be watching it from eight feet away max. Just add money and shake.

Strangeblades wrote:

I love this advice. Thanks.

Chairman_Mao says:
"They consume less power, contain fewer toxic materials, and can be thinner and lighter than plasmas or CCFL-lit LCD TVs."

Man. It's a good thing I stopped giving a damn about the environment then. That was about two-three years ago when I began reading and doing stories on recycling, alternate power sources, etc.

The concerns of power consumption, toxicity and whether they are thinner or lighter don't play into my thinking. I'm all for getting big bad toys.

So, I'm looking at an LG LCD IPS panel, 40 inches min. and I will be watching it from eight feet away max. Just add money and shake.

One thing--at that distance, you probably wouldn't be able to notice whether the TV is 1080p or 720p. So, you could either save some cash by getting a 720p set, or spend more cash and get a 46" 1080p set. E.g. I watch a 1080p Panasonic plasma from about 6-7 feet away, and when I watch HD movies/TV shows, I struggle to see a difference between 720p and 1080p quality.

heavyfeul wrote:

Get 1080p. There is no reason not to these days. Nearly all televisions over 37 inches are 1080p. It is no longer a bullet point in my option, but a standard baseline feature now. The difference in price comes mainly from screen size these days. 1080p panels are probably getting cheaper than 720p panels, just because large 720p screens are being phased out. Nobody wants them.

An LG LCD IPS panel, 40 inches min. and I will be watching it from eight feet away max. And at 1080p. Thanks heavyfeul, ThinJ and everyone else for smart-word-giving.

I guess my next concern is if I buy this set 8 hours from where I live I guess I'm hosed for warranty protection? If it borks I guess I have to drive it back to original place of purchase?

Get 1080p. There is no reason not to these days. Nearly all televisions over 37 inches are 1080p. It is no longer a bullet point in my option, but a standard baseline feature now. The difference in price comes mainly from screen size these days. 1080p panels are probably getting cheaper than 720p panels, just because large 720p screens are being phased out. Nobody wants them.

heavyfeul wrote:

Go 1080p. It is a standard feature these days in nearly all TVs over 37 inches. 720p is officially dead y'all. 1080p is the new 720p.

More specifically, all TVs you look at over 40 inches are going to 1080p as 720p in large screens is being phased out. The price difference is no longer worth it. To get 720p as an option, you usually have to go with a 32 inch model.

True this. Although Panasonic seems to be holding out, still making 720p plasmas up to 50"

heavyfeul wrote:

Buy from Amazon. They often have the best prices and they ship free. Just be sure to buy from Amazon, NOT a third party seller on Amazon. When amazon is out of stock, they default you to a third party seller, usually the cheapest one.

Where do you live? In the US? Or Canada?

Buy from Amazon. They often have the best prices and they ship free. Just be sure to buy from Amazon, NOT a third party seller on Amazon. When they are out of stock, they default you to a third party seller.

I went with LG because they are cheap. When it comes to cheap LCDs LG is great, but as you move up a tier or two, the other brands are just as competitive. I wanted a 42 inch LCD 1080p set that was around $500. The best I could do with that criteria at the time was the IPS version of the LG 42LD450.

Sony may be expensive, but if you see their screens in real life, they are excellent. Sony knows how to make a good looking traditional LCD TV. All the manufacturers use the same panels, but Sony, and LG too, seem to know how to tune them better than anyone else. Sony always stands out for me when side-by-side with other TVs. I wish they were cheaper. Sony has always overvalued their brand name. They do know hardware better than anyone else though. They make great TVs.

US

heavyfeul wrote:

US

Sigh. I ask because I checked Amazon.ca (Canada) and their selection of TVs suck.

heavyfeul wrote:

Input lag is not really an issue, especially if you are pushing forty like me.

I'm 41, and it's very noticeable on a bad set with certain game times. That's one of the big things people complain about with the PS3 version of BF3.

Note that you can also make things worse by having a lot of processing going on on the video at either the TV or in a receiver. So it's not just the TV you have to worry about.

I simple test with a new set is to just play Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, or something similar. Both of those games require precise timing. If your LCD is adding a significant amount of input lag, then those games should make it apparent. I did not notice a difference in CoD when going from plasma to LCD, for example. It still felt as responsive as it always did.

Games like GTA IV and BF3 on the PS3 are going to be problems for a significant amount of users, because the games themselves introduce so much input lag. Those games are not good benchmarks in my opinion. My guess is that they jump near or above 200ms. An optimized game should only introduce about 60-70ms into the chain; at most 100ms. My monitor has an input lag of about 16ms. A typical big screen LCD will probably have a response times double that or a bit more (30-40ms).

Pointing the finger at LCDs just sounds like blaming an elevator for failing when you exceeded the max. capacity.

heavyfeul wrote:

I simple test with a new set is to just play Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, or something similar. Both of those games require precise timing. If your LCD is adding a significant amount of input lag, then those games should make it apparent. I did not notice a difference in CoD when going from plasma to LCD, for example. It still felt as responsive as it always did.

Some LCDs are worse than others. But in general, input lag goes like this: CRT < Plasma < LCD < DLP

Within that, there are different levels of lag between different manufactures and sets. For instance, in LCD world, Sharp has generally been reported better and Samsung worse (slower).

Yes, some people would never notice it. Wireless controllers also have slight lag, etc.

But IMO, it's definitely something gamers should know about when shopping. Whether it's a concern to them or not is an individual's call.

There are huge threads on AVS about it, and articles all over the web like this one at anandtech.

Agreed, but the most erratic number in the chain is the game. It can be great or horrible. You can compare response times of LCDs while shopping. But even with the most responsive screen you can find, how much are you saving compared to an average set? About 10-20ms?

My point is I do not think it is an important factor when choosing a television. If you are comparing individual choices, it makes sense, but to give LCDs a knock because of input lag is like throwing Kate Upton out of your bed for eating crackers.

(note to self...end every post with a bad simile).

heavyfeul wrote:

About 10-20ms?

No, some can be 60-70ms plus. Which is 4-5 frames in a lot of games. A big deal in something like CoD or fighters.

EDIT: Found this page. Some are over 100ms, like some Samsung LED LCDs in standard mode.

I think that would be noticeable to a lot of gamers.

Oh, I will not be using this for games. Just HBO, television shows and movies. And HBO. HBO.

Strangeblades wrote:

Oh, I will not be using this for games. Just HBO, television shows and movies. And HBO. HBO.

Plasma all the way, unless as mentioned earlier you don't have much control over the room lighting and glare might be a problem.

Picture quality is simply better.

Thin_J wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

Oh, I will not be using this for games. Just HBO, television shows and movies. And HBO. HBO.

Plasma all the way, unless as mentioned earlier you don't have much control over the room lighting and glare might be a problem.

Picture quality is simply better.

Yah, I might have to rule out plasma as my wallet couldn't take it. She can't take anymore Captain!

Note that I am moving up from a 21-inch(?) glass-box television - a CRT basically. So, any improvement will be super improvement, so it's high-quality LCD for me.

Strangeblades wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

Oh, I will not be using this for games. Just HBO, television shows and movies. And HBO. HBO.

Plasma all the way, unless as mentioned earlier you don't have much control over the room lighting and glare might be a problem.

Picture quality is simply better.

Yah, I might have to rule out plasma as my wallet couldn't take it. She can't take anymore Captain!

Note that I am moving up from a 21-inch(?) glass-box television - a CRT basically. So, any improvement will be super improvement, so it's high-quality LCD for me.

Really? Plasma's more expensive than LCD in Canada? Weird. They tend to be cheaper than their LCD equivalents.

I know nothing about shopping in Canada, but for example:

This budget model:
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-lg-42lv4400...

compared to this mid-range model:
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-panasonic-t...

Reasons to choose Plasma:

1. Perfect viewing angles. I.e. LCDs lose contrast and distort colors the further you move from the direct head-on viewing angle
2. Better contrast: Panasonic plasmas in particular produce almost as good black levels as the Pioneer Kuros, and excellent shadow detail. LCDs tend to "crush" dark details a bit, meaning they appear all black instead of subtle shades of dark gray. Contrast is more important than resolution, btw, so viewers tend to prefer a good 720p plasma over lesser quality 1080p sets
3. Fewer image enhancement gimmicks to turn off
4. Maintains full 1080p resolution even during scenes of high motion. LCDs, even 240hz ones, lose some (this isn't too noticeable unless you're watching 60fps content though)

What is your budget?

Huh. So plasma's are better picture and better contrast and maintains 1080p rez. And the prices seem comparable to LCD counterparts. Why would a person choose an LCD then?

heavyfeul wrote:

What is your budget?

My budget is $600-$700.

Strangeblades wrote:

Huh. So plasma's are better picture and better contrast and maintains 1080p rez. And the prices seem comparable to LCD counterparts. Why would a person choose an LCD then?

as mentioned earlier, the matte screen LCD TVs are best for rooms with lots of glare or reflecting light, which can be very distracting on the glass screen of a plasma. And in such rooms you won't need to worry much about black levels and contrast, as the ambient light makes it pretty much impossible to see the difference.

I am biased toward plasmas, but to be honest, you're going to love whatever you get, because it will be a big improvement.

Strangeblades wrote:

Huh. So plasma's are better picture and better contrast and maintains 1080p rez. And the prices seem comparable to LCD counterparts. Why would a person choose an LCD then?

Long standing myths that haven't been true about plasmas for years about short life, burn in, etc.

And what Mao mentions.

LCDs use a bit more power, but generally not worth the cost difference when you figure out how little that difference actually amounts to in electric bills (tens of dollars at the most).

Strangeblades wrote:

Huh. So plasma's are better picture and better contrast and maintains 1080p rez. And the prices seem comparable to LCD counterparts. Why would a person choose an LCD then?

Yeah. My 51" Plasma cost less than some 46" LCD's when I bought it.

Thin_J wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

Huh. So plasma's are better picture and better contrast and maintains 1080p rez. And the prices seem comparable to LCD counterparts. Why would a person choose an LCD then?

Yeah. My 51" Plasma cost less than some 46" LCD's when I bought it.

Huh? I thought plasma was the sh*t to have and due to that it was more expensive then comparatively sized models. Hmmm.

Well, it seems plasma is the way to go. Thanks for all the tips peoples.