in that case definitely go plasma, Samsung and Panasonic are probably your best bet
in that case definitely go plasma, Samsung and Panasonic are probably your best bet
Pana's G series panels are very nice plasmas for the money. Samsung makes a decent panel, but I've noticed problems with the backlights with their products. It's inconsistent tho, I can't easily identify a product line that has the problem more than the others, even LCDs and computer monitors have been known to have this issue from them. I suspect it's because they use many manufacturing locations for their products and some of the locations have lesser build quality. LCD's will very largely depending on the size and price point.
Ok, I'll look into Panasonic G series plasma's then!
Thanks for the replies, trying to get myself all set up in HD for when New House/SVU/Southpark hits, hah!
just to echo what Kareface says, it really depends on the size/model. For lower end 58" plasmas, samsung's models usually beat out panasonic's, but that may not be true for other sizes. For me, it was a choice between the Samsung potentially having an issue with speaker buzzing (mine doesn't, thankfully) vs. the 58" Panasonic having trouble with floating black levels, but that's not a problem all panasonics have. You should always do plenty of research before you buy a television, like at least 2-3 days, then sleep on whatever decision you make before you place your order lol
Just looking at my options, thoughts on this?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16889102260
Not too sure I understand the concept of 1080i either.
for the same price (or close) you can get a panasonic 46" plasma or a samsung 50" plasma, both of which will almost definitely have a better picture than the LCD
Re: burn in concerns, I can attest to the validity of the problem as I had the health/ammo indicators showing up as a ghostly faded overly on everything I watched for like a month after I did a several-hour-long session in Halo one weekend...even though the vast majority of the screen is in constant motion, and even takes a break for cutscenes, those static images of the border edges and such really messed with it.
They did go away, but it was pretty annoying while it was there; and they don't really do it anymore now that I've had the TV for a few years. Knowing what I do now, I'd say it couldn't hurt to run some kind of 'burn' imagery to help wear down that early effect if only to limit your own annoyance at the problem.
1080i is 1080 lines, interlaced
without going too in depth about it, interlacing is a technique that takes advantage of how the human brain processes moving images to display 'half' an image (every other line so 540 lines) each frame, which you see as a slightly less sharp full image.
'standard definition' television is interlaced, and could be called 480i. (240 lines per scan). 480p is also called 'progressive scan', and is a full 480 lines per scan.*
basically, interlacing is a way to reduce the amount of data per frame without drastically reducing the quality of the image, but the image quality is reduced.
most everything today is progressive and not interlaced, it's ok to buy a screen that says it supports 1080i, as long as it also supports 1080p.
*for the purposes of this I'm ignoring overhead. technically, standard definition NTSC is 525 lines of data, with 480 visual lines typically for 0.9 aspect ratio pixels.
The wikipedia article is actually really good at explaining it and even gives some demonstrative examples of the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlacing
If it went away it likely wasn't burn-in. Also, if you acquired image retention that quickly, you should consider reducing the brightness or the contrast. A proper display calibration will do wonders for this problem, as the correct settings will allow the display to look crisp with out needing the back-light to be cranked up. It'll also save you on power.
If I'm looking at an LCD/LED TV, is the difference between(Both Samsung, both 40"):
60hz + 3,000,000: 1 contrast ratio - 899.99
And
120hz + 4,000,000: 1 contrast ratio - 1099.99
Worth it? IE: Worth it for the more expensive model? Not sure how much 60 more ghz and a higher contrast ratio will do for me.
if you had to choose between the two I'd go with the more expensive model but I still think you're making a huge mistake getting an LCD over a plasma
Not to mention at those prices, virtually any LED-LCD you get is going to be edge-lit and not backlit, which means the dynamic contrast is going to look shitty especially in dark or mixed light-dark images.
Not to mention Samsung LCDs are about the worst TVs around you can buy for the purpose of gaming.
Like I said, trying to compare. I keep getting a bunch of different opinions too, heh.
In terms of plasma's, thoughts?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasoni...&skuId=9761068
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16889187153
Seems pretty good, check to make sure that model doesn't have any particular defects though
Amazon currently has that exact TV for $678, btw
I bought my current 58" from Amazon, was at least 200 bucks cheaper than best buy/newegg, they sell 3 and 4 year warranties, and they delivered it into my apartment for free, and they let you make sure it works before you sign for it.
Oh, wow. I like never shop on Amazon except when I buy textbooks, I'll take a look.
Is LG a reputable brand? I know my parents have a like 65inch LG, but they probably don't pay enough attention to know the difference.
Hmm, think I'm going to go with this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TC-P...9751846&sr=8-1
Seems to have gotten really good reviews, and I can't find any real defects with this model besides the general burn-in precautions.