lcd or led

Wookey

ses6jwg wrote: »

I really think it depends on the models.

My sisters BF has a 42" LG Plasma which looks a lot worse playing PS3 through a HDMI connection than my Samsung 32" LCD, though there is slightly less "ghosting"

Plasma is not recognized as the best TV type to use for gaming, films however should come into there own in HD with a plasma unit.

darich

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

There is no such thing as an LCD tv!

What's the 37" black thing hanging on my wall that I play the playstation on then?

darich

Wookey wrote: »

Plasma is not recognized as the best TV type to use for gaming, films however should come into there own in HD with a plasma unit.

I'm not arguing the point but I thought plasma would have been better since it doesn't have refresh rates and shadowing that can be seen on fast moving games if you use lcd.

I've got an lcd but seen the same game at my sister's place on a plasma and thought the plasma had a better picture.

Dave101t

LCD standing for Liquid Crystal Display
LED - Light Emitting Diode
Plasma - Plasma.
that engineer musnt get much work not knowing what an LCDTV is!

also, ghosting is a screen response issue, 4-6ms (milliseconds) is pretty good for removing most ghosting.

almillar

Plasma screens are 'faster' than LCDs generally, though both are so fast these days taht the processing is almost as important as the screen's technology.
And what's this rubbish about reliability and longevity of plasmas? Has someone been talking to an LCD salesman?! I do accept that plasmas use slightly more power, but I think it's worth it for a much better picture.
And please don't get 'value for money' confused with 'cheap'. LCDs generally start 'cheaper' than plasmas.
And thanks to woody01 for correcting the screen burn comment.

Wookey

darich wrote: »

I'm not arguing the point but I thought plasma would have been better since it doesn't have refresh rates and shadowing that can be seen on fast moving games if you use lcd.

I've got an lcd but seen the same game at my sister's place on a plasma and thought the plasma had a better picture.

Better picture yes but the cost for that would be lesser frame rates, broadcast tv, dvd run at 30 fps, an awful lot of games can run at over 100 fps, cinema movies run at 24 fps. Some fast moving games can blur a bit on some plasma telly's, high end modern plasma's may well not have a noticeable issue. Most folk won't care to much but there is allways the gamer who will wan't the bestest possible picture in the fastest possible time.

Inactive

almillar wrote: »

And please don't get 'value for money' confused with 'cheap'.
.

If only more people could grasp that basic concept.

Well said.;)

darich

Inactive wrote: »

If only more people could grasp that basic concept.

Well said.;)

I know a guy who owns a tyre fitting company.
I asked him one day for cheap tyres....he replied "we don't sell cheap tyres, we sell tyres cheap".

Exact same principle

d-seven

Why not go into Currys or Dixons or some other dealer and ask for a demo of both plasma and LCD TVs? You dont have to buy from them, but you will get an idea of the quality of both.

almillar

Wookey - what?
You're saying that plasma has a better picture, then say that's at the cost of lesser frame rates, broadcast tv, dvd run at 30 fps, some fast moving games can blur a bit on some plasma telly's.
Where are the lesser frame rates on plasmas? As I understand it, plasmas and LCDs don't even have framerates, and if anything, as I said above, plasmas are faster!
Don't know what you mean by just saying 'broadcast tv'.
The same fast games you talk about will blur on an LCD before it does on a plasma.
Plasma screens are more than capable of showing a DVD at 30fps.
Care top explain your points a bit better?