looking for a 42" minimum
must be hdtv enabled

been told lcd are not too crisp at this size?

thoughts/experience/recommendations?

 

are you sure you want a 42" tv? i hope you got a big enough living room

i like the 37" ambi light lcd myself!

 

I have the Phillips HDTV 42" and it is supposed to be the only full hd ready plasma tv.....

Same as this but i have it on a black glass stand...

 

WAY to large for the 2 up 2 down cottage im renting now gareth but ive just bought a new house with our lass, room is large enough, think its 13 x 24 foot
we looked at a panasonic one yesterday
was reduced from 2400 to 1900 and was bundled with a dvd recorder and a bling stand (dont think i will be wall mounting either) but i got talked out of impulse buying

 

I've got the Pioneer 43" HD ready model and i cant fault it at all.

Do you have a specific budget?

 

This is the same as mine:

http://www.richersounds.co.uk/showpr...PION-PDP436FDE

Have a look on: www.richersounds.co.uk they usually have good deals

 

am hoping to get one for around 2 to 2.5k tops

this is the one i was looking at yesterday....

http://www.richersounds.co.uk/showpr...A-TH42PX60-CAB

also going to get a home cinema surround sound job so the tv needs proper component output

 

whichever you buy don't go for the hitachi 42pd6600.
they've stopped building them because most have gone back (mines goin this week!) the hitachi 42pd7200 is what i'm gettin as a replacement as i haven't read a bad review of it yet. try richer sounds as shown above, as they are about Ł500 cheaper than currys/comet and i cant fault their customer service.

this is a very good forum for plasmas http://www.avforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82

 

we have a 42" samsug one and its quite old now so we paid alot for it but they have come down in price loads!! and all that crap about how they break after 2years must be rubbish because our's is really old like when they first came out

 

Matt if its hd stuff you will mainly be interested in then an lcd will give a better resoloution than a plasma. ie.. plasma is 1024x768and most lcds are 1366x768 so the picture will be less stretched.

However to be honest all these Ł1000+ tvs offer good picture quality anyhow and unless analy retentive nobody really notices the difference.

 

used to fix these things once apon a time hold on for a HUGE LCD,plasma aint good enuff,neither of thm are as good as a CRT TV,im not wasting my money yet!if u are gonna do it,LG are knockin out some good plasmas at the mo

 

...as said i run the Sony 3LCD 50inch HD ready rear projection TV and at 1300quid is a bargain...if you put HD content on it you will not notice the difference to even a 5 grand screen unless you a complete boffin

Go LCD Matt without a doubt.

 

Matt worth while waiting and checking out the Panasonic Viera PV600 series. They look top notch

 

i have a Sony 42" plasma that i think is great.

One we tip i'd give you though is that they look small in the showrooms, in your livingroom they look much bigger.

I'm moving house into a smaller living room, so have to sell mine

 

From whatI have read on the net when looking at these things, Plasma generally gives you a higher contrast ratio (3000:1 is commonplace for plasma's!) whereas LCD is not as high (typically 800:1 - 1000:1), BUT! LCD's typically have more pixels and better brightness. The lower contrast ratio is only a real problem when rying to view the screen in extrememly bright light. That said, most LCD screen don't have glass covers on them, meaning you get virtually no light reflection on them. I notice that with my TFT PC monitor is only hard to see when the sun is really shining in through the window, but my monitor is in FRONT of the window, rather than having the window shining on the screen....

From what I have seen, the common plasma pixel res is 1280x720 (true 16:9 widescreen) while most LCD's are 1366x768 (true 16:9 widescreen) on the same size screen. So naturally then one with more pixels will give a better picture...

 

The picture will never ever be as good as a normal 32" tv, I dont care what anyone says, mines an HD ready one like and even with the shite leads that telewest give u the pic is good

 

You's make my 28" sound small

 

When i bought my 42" Plasma, alot of people said to go LCD.
But i spent a whole day with the 2 types of TV set up next to each other and for me, the plasma is the better one

Horses for courses i think, go with what you prefer

 

most plasmas left on all day loose there quailty

 

How do LCD screens fare if left on all night?

Typically I will have the TV on during the eve while sitting at the PC (if not listening to music) and will go to bed with it on, so 9 times out of 10 it's on all night, till about 7am.... so it could be on solid for 10-12hrs.....

How would an LCD cope with this?

 

titfanny, plasma better for you why?

 

Matt

I just found the Plasma to be a nicer picture to watch. You can go right into the techie side of things, but if you are looking THAT closly at the picture on your screen then you wont be enjoying whats on imho.

I had both the TV's running normal ariel pictures, Sky pictures and DVD pictures so i could do a proper comparison, and for me i prefered the Plasma.

I think it is down to personal choices in the end

As long as you dont get a rear projection TV you will be fine

 

this is what i thought from looking at what i saw the other day pal

lcd = pixelated
plasma = crisp

no room for a crt or rear projection cos i want a large screen lol

 

Do what i did mate, get 2 put side by side and go from there

I did all my testing in Currys, for about 3 hours............Then told them i can get them cheaper off the Net and went to Richersounds

 

TWAT

 

I was told that Plasma screens start to lose pixels around the edges after certain amount of hours, and to regas them it's approx Ł700.

 

regas = please explain

i hear this is .....

"needs doing frequently"
"is a myth"
"is impossible"

 

Matt the 3lcd i have is slim...ok not picture frame...

Plasma looks better on poor feeds like UK Gold etc...but if you are HD orientated then LCD you have to get.....As said my TV looks as good as anything out there on HD which is the future...plus i only have 1 bulb to change in time...plasma you have to throw away Oh and dont leave MTV etc on FFS or you will have the logo burnt into the screen on plasma

 

Hmmm, Just read through this thread and from what I've seen,I think LCD is better.

I have a question,though......... Are there any LCD tv's in the 'old' format style ?? I think CRT tv's are in 4:3 format,aren't they?? Much better than 'wide screen'.

 

No doubt the Pioneer XDE, Look on AV Forums mentioned above and What Hi-Fi, top notch telly and you will notice the difference from others. Porkie and Renton have these screens iirc.

At that size plasma is still the best quality, expect over 8yrs life with 6hrs a day veiwing and ignore the other bollox, except they do suffer screen retention (similar to burn) still if a image is displayed for a prolonged period.

I have the Philips 9830 lcd as the retention is an issue for me, best of the LCDs with 1080 resolution but still not quite as good as the pioneer for quality and more expensive/hard to get in stock.

 

Why in the FUCK would you want a 4:3 TV??? Much better? Why? Cos you lose a third of the picture?

One of the best benefits I noticed when I got a freeview box was not the extra channels it gave (please, I barely watch the 5 "normal" channels, let alone 30!) but that on 95% of all programmes you got the full 16:9 widescreen picture - which means you don't lose a tird of your pic that you do on 4:3 res....

Here, example of a 16:9 picture being displayed on a 16:9 TV screen;



and a 4:3 picture being displayed on the same 16:9 TV screen;



And here is how 16:9 is presented on a 4:3 TV - much smaller "picture" area;



But, when you watch "normal" TV channels (example, BBC 1) on a 4:3 TV, you lose a third of the picture with either side being "chopped" off, like so;




Way I see it, if it was intended to be watched that way, then that way is best! I have a 4:3 TV in my room and I HATE watching DVD's on it cos of the fat "black lines" you get top and bottom - even worse when you get an anamorphic film is 1.83:1 ratio - the picture is TINY..... (full 16:9 is 2.35:1 IIRC)

 

I see what your saying,but widescreen pics are too 'narrow' hieghtwise,for me. You can't really watch the whole screen,without having to move your eyes around,to catch what's going on,in all the picture ! I find it very distracting.

Oh and ALL my tellys are the old 4:3 format.......

Isn't there some some sort of 'converter' so that you can run 16:9 pics on a 4:3 telly,properly ??

 

My TV allows you to view 16:9 pics on it (it is 4:3) as it has a button to do so on the remote. You end up with black lines top and bottom (see the third pic I put up)

With digital TV, like Freeview, the majority of channels display programmes in 16:9. If you have a 4:3 TV, the digi-box will have an option in the set up to allow you select what display mode you want to view in, 16:9 or 4:3. On a 4:3 TV you select 4:3. If the prgrammes is being broadcast in 4:3, your 4:3 tv will show it full screen, and if it is being broadcast in 16:9, then your 4:3 will show it in 16:9, but with the top and bottom black lines....

But, my point is, you are making the picture smaller doing it this way. So your 21" 4:3 TV only becomes a 17" or 19" widescreen TV (example)

Your still watching the same picture, but if you had a 32" widescreen you aren't losing any size.

To get the same size picture as a 26" widescreen TV you would need a 30" 4:3 tv, as you lose so much picture to black lines top and bottom...

 

Meant to add, if you are watching analogue (normal TV where you only get channels 1-5) then you have no choice on viewing aspect ratio. The programmes (most of em) are filmed in 16:9, but analogue channels are broadcast in a modified 4:3. You a pair of small, thin black lines top and bottom (to square the picture off for the corners) which is the virtually the same height as a 16:9 picture. But then the sides are cut off the pic for the modified 4:3 - see pic 4 I posted.

I comparred this when we got a digi-box - put on ch5 to watch a 16:9 movie on the digi box on my widescreen TV and then put on ch on my 4:3 TV using normal analogue signal. Same picture, but the sides were lost on the analogue picture....

 

I understand what you're saying. My main TV is a 28'' 4:3 type one.

I'm watching 'The Firm',right now,on 4 and guess what...... fooking black lines,top and bottom!! I'd rather lose the edges of the picture,than have the black lines !!

 

Are you watching on digital or analogue (ie, normal aerial or thru a set top box) ?

Actually, with Ch4, they present the majority of their films, even in analogue transmission, in 16:9, so on digital aswell as analogue, you still get black lines on a 4:3 TV... If it was ch5 tho, viewing on analogue signal, you'd lose the sides of the picture and only have thin blak lines top and bottom....

I don't like the idea of loosing the sides of the picture tho, nor having a reduced sized picture when watching DVD's or digital TV, which is hy I think 16:9 widescreen TV's are much better...

 

Was watching on analogue,through my electronic aerial thingy !

All this 'black line' crap is very annoying !!