need help deciding on a TV

[Atreides]

Okay I've been going back and forth on this for 2 days now, and I think I have it narrowed down to 2 choices:

Samsung 58" Plasma (PN58C550)

or either one of the Sharp 52" LEDs on amazon (LC52LE700UN/LC52E77U)


I've had a samsung plasma (42", about 4-5 years old) in my living room for a while now and I've been really happy with it, but I'm looking to upgrade to 50"+ I guess my main concern is that it's primarily going to be a gaming TV, so my reluctance to get an LED stems from issues with refresh rate/input lag, and contrast/black levels.

The Samsung seems like it's a really solid choice overall, and burn-in really isn't a concern for me, but I feel like with brighter games I won't get as vibrant of a picture as an LED. But on the other hand, I don't want to play a survival horror game and feel like I'm squinting to see on an LED. Plus the plasma is 6" bigger, and I'm not going to wall mount it so I don't care how heavy it is or how much power it uses.

I guess my question is which TV I should go with and why. Also I'm not really THAT attached to either Sharp, so if someone knows another good non-edge lit LED that's less than $2000 I'm all ears.

Thanks!

[Darus Grey]

but I feel like with brighter games I won't get as vibrant of a picture as an LED

They're not supposed to be "vibrant"(this is a marketing ploy of LCDs, emphasize the only thing they're good at, ignoring that content isn't made for those completely over-saturated settings).

Anyways, the 58 samsung you're looking at is an older model, I'd really recommend the panasonic S or G series over them, Samsung's prices on Plasma are ridiculous for what you get. I just recently got a 54inch S2 for $1150, comparable samsung models start at like $1800.

[Atreides]

actually that Samsung (PN58C550) is definitely a 2010 model, I called Samsung themselves to find out the difference between it and another model with a similar model number (PN58C550G1F, which is the same just only sold at best buy) to confirm it as well. PN58B550 would be the old model, iirc.

MSRP on it is 1650 at Amazon as well, the 58" panasonic I was looking at retailed for 1500, so it's only a 150 dollar difference... but nearly every review I read on Panasonic's 58" Plasmas complained about floating black levels, whereas the only complaints I could find on the samsung were about a possible buzz/hum from the speakers, which doesn't bother me since I'll just be plugging it into a sound system anyway.

Still, are you recommending Plasma over LED no matter what I get?

[Darus Grey]

Yeah, I misread the model number, regardless of that I'd recommend Plasma over LCD, it's superior at literally everything.

You already own a Plasma so you know about the minor maintenance they need, so no reason not to recommend one.

[Atreides]

I realize LED TVs are basically the same thing as LCDs except for the backlight, but you didnt mention them in either of your posts and those were the 2 I was asking about-- LED-LCDs and not conventional LCD TVs.

I guess input lag/motion blur will still be a problem, but locally dimmable LEDs (as opposed to edge-lit) can display much better blacks than conventional LCDs, and are really really bright compared to pretty much everything else (sometimes too bright imo). I've heard their contrast range is actually worse than standard LCDs so I guess that's a no go there, but yeah, just wanted to make sure you didn't misread my first post.

I'm 99% sure on the plasma now anyway, going to wait 5-10 years and just upgrade one of my TVs to an OLED or an LED with 3D or whatever technology has been advanced and made cheaper, but for now plasma seems to be the way to go.

[happydude]

dont know if you want to pony up the 6grand for this but its a nice option available later on this year

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/s...cd-tv-eyes-on/

price will probably drop alot in a year or two.. i hope lol was setting my eyes on this until i saw the 5999$ price tag for the 46"

[Darus Grey]

I realize LED TVs are basically the same thing as LCDs except for the backlight, but you didnt mention them in either of your posts and those were the 2 I was asking about-- LED-LCDs and not conventional LCD TVs.

I guess input lag/motion blur will still be a problem, but locally dimmable LEDs (as opposed to edge-lit) can display much better blacks than conventional LCDs, and are really really bright compared to pretty much everything else (sometimes too bright imo). I've heard their contrast range is actually worse than standard LCDs so I guess that's a no go there, but yeah, just wanted to make sure you didn't misread my first post.

I'm 99% sure on the plasma now anyway, going to wait 5-10 years and just upgrade one of my TVs to an OLED or an LED with 3D or whatever technology has been advanced and made cheaper, but for now plasma seems to be the way to go.

Yeah I realize you were talking about LED backlit LCDs(I just don't call them LED TVs cause it's disingenuous, if you can't tell I really loathe the great marketing LCD makers have done selling sub-par sets to the public).

@happydude, if you were going to drop 6 grand on a TV, that thing is junk, for that price-range Laser-TV is where it's at... beats both Plasma and CRT at everything, but cheapest models start at 5k.

[Atreides]

dont know if you want to pony up the 6grand for this but its a nice option available later on this year

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/s...cd-tv-eyes-on/

price will probably drop alot in a year or two.. i hope lol was setting my eyes on this until i saw the 5999$ price tag for the 46"

yeah uh.. 2000 is the most Im willing to spend, which excludes nearly every single one of Samsungs direct-lit LED TVs, even their "budget" edge-lit ones come in around 2100 or so on sale and don't look that much better than conventional LCDs. Sharp Aquos (and to a lesser extent LG) LED's actually seem to be the best value out there, as both of their 52" units are directly lit and cost around 1500-1600 on sale.

I'll probably never buy an LG TV ever again, they're decently high quality but most of their low-end models don't even include an option to turn dynamic contrast off, which is the kiss of death for a survival horror or horror movie enthusiast like me.

They actually had one of those wafer thin silver-bezeled Samsungs at best buy when I went there, I believe it was a 42", possibly the one you linked since the MSRP was something like 7000 bucks. I must say it was pretty stunning, in fact it was the reason I decided to check out LED's in the first place.

Still, LEDs are nothing more than an LCD with an LED backlight instead of a flourescent bulb, so while they can give you a brighter picture and cope a little better at displaying black, they still suffer from all the drawbacks that LCDs do, namely motion blur/response time and comparitively low contrast ratios when you take dynamic contrast out of the equation.

I feel like Plasmas are better, have always been better (and will be for a while), and have been unfairly targeted by LCD manufacturers ad campaigns as being expensive, hot/powerhungry/prone to burn in, burn out like light bulbs, thick/heavy, and not having picture quality as good as LCDs, when none of those things are actually true lol.

[happydude]

Yeah I realize you were talking about LED backlit LCDs(I just don't call them LED TVs cause it's disingenuous, if you can't tell I really loathe the great marketing LCD makers have done selling sub-par sets to the public).

@happydude, if you were going to drop 6 grand on a TV, that thing is junk, for that price-range Laser-TV is where it's at... beats both Plasma and CRT at everything, but cheapest models start at 5k.

laser tv? enlighten me

[Atreides]

It's basically a rear projection TV, but instead of lamps it uses lasers to scan across the screen and draw the image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_video_display

Laser technology advocates claim the displays will:[17]

* be half the weight and cost of plasma displays
* require around 25% of the power required by plasma displays
* be very slim like plasma and LCD displays are today
* have a very wide color gamut, twice that of current HDTVs.
* have a very long life
* maintain full power output for the lifespan of the laser, resulting in a picture that doesn't progressively degrade over time (which happens with technologies such as plasma, LCD, and CRT)
* never suffer from screen burn-in; Burn-in is caused by uneven use of color reproduction elements across a screen's surface, but laser TVs bypass this completely.

First of all, it's pretty hard to burn in a modern plasma (even my 5 year old one has pixel shifting to prevent it). I'm sure the Laser TV has some stunning images but their wiki article was clearly written by someone who works for a company that makes them, lol.

And personally I don't get the point of TV's claiming to be energy efficient or use less power. When people spend 2k+ on a piece of electronics chances are they don't care how much power the shit uses.

edit: lol also, the plasmas don't use some massive amount of electricity, like the Laser TV's advantages implies. The 58" one I mentioned above (one of the largest ones on the market) is even Energy Star certified, and people have hooked them up to kill-o-watt monitors to show they don't use much more energy than LCD. Also I'm pretty sure plasma display burning out or needing to be recharged is bullshit also, btw.

[Darus Grey]

Yeah, wiki article sucks, though it's right that the only downside is cost(well, being rear-projection is a downside too because you get over-scan with any rear-projection, but it's adjustable).

Testing I saw had input lag at unmeasurable compared to CRTs(equal or faster) and no refresh/blur/phosphor trail issues like lcds/plasmas can have.

Though I'd rather buy 3 Plasmas than 1 laser TV, lol.

[Atreides]

ended up going with the PN58C550 58" Samsung from Amazon, 1649.99 + 119.99 for a 3 year warranty, free shipping and sales tax. Amazon has a pretty decent delivery/return policy on big ticket electronics, not to mention it's 150 bucks cheaper than Best Buy not including 120 bucks worth of tax.

Should be here wednesday, can't fkn wait.

In related news, already shifted the 42" into my bedroom and the 32" from my bedroom onto my desk. 32" for a computer monitor is a bit too big for my taste, lol