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

kuddles wrote:

What about input lag? People on other forums complain that recent plasmas are pretty terrible with this sort of thing, but on the other hand I'm not certain if I'm the kind of person who would even notice it.

Current plasmas from Panasonic and Samsung are some of the best TV's out for input lag, while Samsung's LCD sets have a tendency to be some of the worst for input lag.

kuddles wrote:

What about input lag? People on other forums complain that recent plasmas are pretty terrible with this sort of thing, but on the other hand I'm not certain if I'm the kind of person who would even notice it.

It's generally been that plasmas are the closest thing to CRTs with fast response. Although you have to watch some sets with processing modes. You might need to run in game mode.

LCDs are generally slower even best case.

What forum claims Plasma's have worse input lag than LCD's? I want to know so I can go mock them

TheGameguru wrote:

What forum claims Plasma's have worse input lag than LCD's? I want to know so I can go mock them

There was a time when there were a few popular models that had horrendous input lag. It's been years ago though. Just another thing that might have been more or less an issue at one time that really isn't anymore.

There aren't any claiming they are worse than LCD's. They are just claiming that over the past few years plasma televisions have gotten worse about it again. A lot of them seem to insist on still using CRT's, though, so I have a feeling it won't be something I can discern.

kuddles wrote:

There aren't any claiming they are worse than LCD's. They are just claiming that over the past few years plasma televisions have gotten worse about it again. A lot of them seem to insist on still using CRT's, though, so I have a feeling it won't be something I can discern.

This sounds like the people that still play records on expensive turntables hoooked to classic tube amps.

To some degree, they are right. CRTs are faster, no doubt. It might matter to a very limited set of gamers, specifically high level fighting game players. But plasma's very close, so the rest of us will be just fine with them as long as the setup is correct.

The main thing to worry about on plasmas is too much processing going on in the chain.

That said, there's a big thread over at AVS that I think I posted a link to that has info on input lag by models. It's not comprehensive, though.

TheGameguru wrote:

What forum claims Plasma's have worse input lag than LCD's? I want to know so I can go mock them

Hah! That got a long and genuine LOL from this reader.

kuddles wrote:

There aren't any claiming they are worse than LCD's. They are just claiming that over the past few years plasma televisions have gotten worse about it again. A lot of them seem to insist on still using CRT's, though, so I have a feeling it won't be something I can discern.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...

A little breakdown on input lag in console games, where you will experience the most.

Malor wrote:

If the room is really bright, you'll probably prefer an LCD screen. (The LED refers to the backlight, and it's not that important... you don't care how the light is generated, just where it is.) But if you have any reasonable light control, plasma is thoroughly superior.

My wife and I have an open, airy apartment. Very beautiful, but always sun coming in. We'll stick with LCDs until they make something superior that isn't glossy. Being able to watch the TV without reflection is worth the quality trade-off, IMO.

The only problem I had with my recently purchased Samsung 46 LCD was the judder. The judder was absolutely terrible. Then I turned off their picture smoothing technology and it looked perfect.

DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:

If the room is really bright, you'll probably prefer an LCD screen. (The LED refers to the backlight, and it's not that important... you don't care how the light is generated, just where it is.) But if you have any reasonable light control, plasma is thoroughly superior.

My wife and I have an open, airy apartment. Very beautiful, but always sun coming in. We'll stick with LCDs until they make something superior that isn't glossy. Being able to watch the TV without reflection is worth the quality trade-off, IMO.

The only problem I had with my recently purchased Samsung 46 LCD was the judder. The judder was absolutely terrible. Then I turned off their picture smoothing technology and it looked perfect.

Did you find a Samsung that has a matte screen? IMO, the LCDs that have glass give up 80% of their benefit for lighting over plasma. I don't remember seeing many Samsungs without glass.

If I had a choice between a glass LCD and a plasma, I'd stick with plasma.

(this is one thing Sony gets right with their LCDs IMO).

MannishBoy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:

If the room is really bright, you'll probably prefer an LCD screen. (The LED refers to the backlight, and it's not that important... you don't care how the light is generated, just where it is.) But if you have any reasonable light control, plasma is thoroughly superior.

My wife and I have an open, airy apartment. Very beautiful, but always sun coming in. We'll stick with LCDs until they make something superior that isn't glossy. Being able to watch the TV without reflection is worth the quality trade-off, IMO.

The only problem I had with my recently purchased Samsung 46 LCD was the judder. The judder was absolutely terrible. Then I turned off their picture smoothing technology and it looked perfect.

Did you find a Samsung that has a matte screen? IMO, the LCDs that have glass give up 80% of their benefit for lighting over plasma. I don't remember seeing many Samsungs without glass.

If I had a choice between a glass LCD and a plasma, I'd stick with plasma.

(this is one thing Sony gets right with their LCDs IMO).

Yeah. It was matte. That's why I snagged it. It's a discontinued model, so maybe those are becoming less common with 3D and everything. It was funny, though, because I'd had my last HDTV for 5 years. I had an uphill battle convincing my wife we needed a new one. But between the size of our new living room and explaining to her that there may not be many good matte HDTVs available she got it and agreed. We don't spend much money on TVs and I personally play portable games so much that that's one of my last concerns. But once she saw a plasma she realized the need to grab a matte LCD while we still could.

By the end of the experience she was walking up to TVs and lightly touching the surface to be doubly sure it was not glass.

DSGamer wrote:

By the end of the experience she was walking up to TVs and lightly touching the surface

What is this magic box? A portal to another dimension?

While glare can be an issue It's probably worth thinking about your viewing habits...if you are like me and really only watch TV in the evenings..it's probably not going to impact you on a day to day.

Alright then. I was just thinking that now that I have to buy a new television, I might as well go big (at least 50") and I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a major negative with plasmas I wasn't aware of to explain the significant price difference.

I know to take user reviews with a huge carton of salt, but the Amazon reviews on the television I'm eyeballing are actually saying the picture isn't that bad in brighter conditions.

kuddles wrote:

I know to take user reviews with a huge carton of salt, but the Amazon reviews on the television I'm eyeballing are actually saying the picture isn't that bad in brighter conditions.

It's not. Plasmas used to have two light problems: reflection, and inherent max brightness of the set.

The plasma sets can get significantly brighter than they used to, so it's not nearly as much of a concern as it used to be, either. You can just turn up the brightness to overdrive minor light wash out if that's a problem. And the coatings also cut down the reflections a bit.

So unless you have direct light hitting the set most of the time you're watching it, it's not really that big of a deal these days.

Plasmas still don't get as bright as LCDs. But it's not the situations that if you don't have a cave that you should get an LCD. Most rooms are fine for either.

My TV is in front of two 4'x6' windows with a windowed door directly facing the TV on the opposite side of the room. Curtains control enough light to make it not an issue at all.

kuddles wrote:

Alright then. I was just thinking that now that I have to buy a new television, I might as well go big (at least 50") and I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a major negative with plasmas I wasn't aware of to explain the significant price difference.

I know to take user reviews with a huge carton of salt, but the Amazon reviews on the television I'm eyeballing are actually saying the picture isn't that bad in brighter conditions.

Going big is good. My Samsung LCD (input lag, confirmed!) is 52". The day it was delivered (Amazon, natch), I was very worried that I'd gone too big.

A few years later, I'm planning on going 65" for the next one. Plasma, of course.

Big is in the eye of the beholder.

I just replaced my 32 with a 46 and felt like that was as big a leap as I wanted to make. The TV dominates the space as it is.

I have been contemplating a projector setup. I like the idea of getting rid of the entertainment center and replacing it with a retractable screen.

I looked up some calibration info online for my tv and used the settings suggested, not too sure what to think. Seems a bit dark and pretty soft to me.

Also, noticed some screen tearing in the map screen of Skyrim. This is the first time I've noticed it at all on the tv, is this common on the game itself?

I tried a projector awhile ago, heavyfeul, and while it's wonderful having a screen size measured in feet, I found that my LCD projector was absolutely terrible for gaming, with horrible black levels and nasty lag. It was okay for movies, but it just wasn't all that great. My Samsung plasma, while smaller, is a zillion times better.

Admittedly, projectors have been getting better, so one you'd buy today would be greatly improved from my Sanyo Z2, but you still have the fundamental problem with projectors: the bulbs have a fairly limited lifespan, and they are very expensive to replace. You have to baby a projector. In particular, once it turns off, you REALLY shouldn't restrike the bulb until it is absolutely dead cold. The reason that all projectors run their fans like crazy after you turn them off isn't because it's necessary -- slow cooling is actually better -- but because manufacturers are terrified that you'll turn it back on again with a warm bulb. At best, the bulb's life will be drastically shortened, and at worst, it can actually explode, wrecking the projector.

The run cost for a projector is typically around 10 cents an hour. The bulbs cost hundreds of dollars, and last for a few thousand hours. They're very difficult and very expensive to manufacture. And because of the extremely high heat levels, many LCD projectors are subject to yellowing over time, as the panel gets cooked by the insane light levels passing through.

I would just do the 80" Sharp LCD if I craved a really big screen.. its not near the PQ of the 80 or 102" Plasma's from Panasonic but its way cheaper.. And despites its limitations has a much better PQ that all but the highest end Projectors.

I'm 12 hours away from buying an LG 50" plasma 600Hz for $800 Cdn (before taxes). Thoughts?

Strangeblades wrote:

I'm 12 hours away from buying an LG 50" plasma 600Hz for $800 Cdn (before taxes). Thoughts?

It's kinda weird that you'll be buying a TV in the middle of the night.

Spoiler:

How's that for a thought?

mrtomaytohead wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

I'm 12 hours away from buying an LG 50" plasma 600Hz for $800 Cdn (before taxes). Thoughts?

It's kinda weird that you'll be buying a TV in the middle of the night.

Spoiler:

How's that for a thought?

MrTomaytoHEAD!!!! To the office for being smart-alecky!

Strangeblades wrote:

I'm 12 hours away from buying an LG 50" plasma 600Hz for $800 Cdn (before taxes). Thoughts?

I haven't heard much about LG plasmas, but it sounds like they might be cheaper than comparable Panasonics or Samsungs, who are generally considered the leaders in that space.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

I'm 12 hours away from buying an LG 50" plasma 600Hz for $800 Cdn (before taxes). Thoughts?

I haven't heard much about LG plasmas, but it sounds like they might be cheaper than comparable Panasonics or Samsungs, who are generally considered the leaders in that space.

Hmmm. So far from my experience with LG monitors, and others experience with LG HDTV plasmas, LG is the way I'm leaning.

That's cool. By cheaper I just meant that similarly sized plasmas from the other guys seemed to be around $200 more, at least, USD.

You might want to scan AVSForum to see what they're saying. In your price range, that might be the best solution, but I'd try to get a feel for what people think of the LGs there.

Just be aware that they're super, super anal over there, and they'll absolutely obsess about tiny problems that most people can't even see. It's a little scary, actually.

Can anyone help a plasma virgin out?

1) What about driving six hours with a modern-day plasma? Problems with vibrations?

2) And does it have to travel upright? Or can it travel at a slight angle for six hours?

Amazon will deliver it and set it up, FYI.