- This topic has 175 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
The OC Scam.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM #118640December 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM #118421
CoronitaParticipantI like plasma if the location where the tv will be is not subject to glare.
I like LCD for rooms that have a lot of glare. As such, I'm spoiled and have both :)…Both tube tv's died a two years ago, so an upgrade was needed. I'm sort of crying now, because plasmas and lcd's are soo much cheaper these days.
If you plan on using your tv as a monitor for a computer, I'd say LCD is better. There was some initial concerns about image burn-in for plasmas. personally, I don't think it's really an issue these days.
Whatever you buy, just don't be one of those annoying people that invite your friends over and make them go through millions of pictures on the new display 🙂
December 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM #118554CoronitaParticipantI like plasma if the location where the tv will be is not subject to glare.
I like LCD for rooms that have a lot of glare. As such, I'm spoiled and have both :)…Both tube tv's died a two years ago, so an upgrade was needed. I'm sort of crying now, because plasmas and lcd's are soo much cheaper these days.
If you plan on using your tv as a monitor for a computer, I'd say LCD is better. There was some initial concerns about image burn-in for plasmas. personally, I don't think it's really an issue these days.
Whatever you buy, just don't be one of those annoying people that invite your friends over and make them go through millions of pictures on the new display 🙂
December 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM #118589CoronitaParticipantI like plasma if the location where the tv will be is not subject to glare.
I like LCD for rooms that have a lot of glare. As such, I'm spoiled and have both :)…Both tube tv's died a two years ago, so an upgrade was needed. I'm sort of crying now, because plasmas and lcd's are soo much cheaper these days.
If you plan on using your tv as a monitor for a computer, I'd say LCD is better. There was some initial concerns about image burn-in for plasmas. personally, I don't think it's really an issue these days.
Whatever you buy, just don't be one of those annoying people that invite your friends over and make them go through millions of pictures on the new display 🙂
December 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM #118630CoronitaParticipantI like plasma if the location where the tv will be is not subject to glare.
I like LCD for rooms that have a lot of glare. As such, I'm spoiled and have both :)…Both tube tv's died a two years ago, so an upgrade was needed. I'm sort of crying now, because plasmas and lcd's are soo much cheaper these days.
If you plan on using your tv as a monitor for a computer, I'd say LCD is better. There was some initial concerns about image burn-in for plasmas. personally, I don't think it's really an issue these days.
Whatever you buy, just don't be one of those annoying people that invite your friends over and make them go through millions of pictures on the new display 🙂
December 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM #118649CoronitaParticipantI like plasma if the location where the tv will be is not subject to glare.
I like LCD for rooms that have a lot of glare. As such, I'm spoiled and have both :)…Both tube tv's died a two years ago, so an upgrade was needed. I'm sort of crying now, because plasmas and lcd's are soo much cheaper these days.
If you plan on using your tv as a monitor for a computer, I'd say LCD is better. There was some initial concerns about image burn-in for plasmas. personally, I don't think it's really an issue these days.
Whatever you buy, just don't be one of those annoying people that invite your friends over and make them go through millions of pictures on the new display 🙂
December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM #118516hipmatt
Participanteverything you EVER wanted to know about TVs, audio, etc…
http://www.avsforum.comI prefer LCD.
.. Lcd is brighter, usually higher resolution(1080p), IMHO better contrast, runs cooler, uses less power, is less prone to burn in(yes its still possible, just less likely), and weighs less (slightly) .. also has less glare
stick with vizio(great low end), sharp, samsung, or sony.. Plasma is cheaper, bigger for the money, has better viewing angles, usually not as high of resolution(most people don’t need 1080p), not as bright, less contrast, some say more accurate(possibly less vivid) colors. Looks great in a darker room, but may be weak for brighter room. Plasma may develop burn in monitor displays same graphic for extended time(most tv watching won’t be a problem). Usually the glass screen is more prone to glare.
stick with Panasonic, Pioneer.Both will look great with todays HD signals. Good luck.
December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM #118648Participanteverything you EVER wanted to know about TVs, audio, etc…
http://www.avsforum.comI prefer LCD.
.. Lcd is brighter, usually higher resolution(1080p), IMHO better contrast, runs cooler, uses less power, is less prone to burn in(yes its still possible, just less likely), and weighs less (slightly) .. also has less glare
stick with vizio(great low end), sharp, samsung, or sony.. Plasma is cheaper, bigger for the money, has better viewing angles, usually not as high of resolution(most people don’t need 1080p), not as bright, less contrast, some say more accurate(possibly less vivid) colors. Looks great in a darker room, but may be weak for brighter room. Plasma may develop burn in monitor displays same graphic for extended time(most tv watching won’t be a problem). Usually the glass screen is more prone to glare.
stick with Panasonic, Pioneer.Both will look great with todays HD signals. Good luck.
December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM #118682Participanteverything you EVER wanted to know about TVs, audio, etc…
http://www.avsforum.comI prefer LCD.
.. Lcd is brighter, usually higher resolution(1080p), IMHO better contrast, runs cooler, uses less power, is less prone to burn in(yes its still possible, just less likely), and weighs less (slightly) .. also has less glare
stick with vizio(great low end), sharp, samsung, or sony.. Plasma is cheaper, bigger for the money, has better viewing angles, usually not as high of resolution(most people don’t need 1080p), not as bright, less contrast, some say more accurate(possibly less vivid) colors. Looks great in a darker room, but may be weak for brighter room. Plasma may develop burn in monitor displays same graphic for extended time(most tv watching won’t be a problem). Usually the glass screen is more prone to glare.
stick with Panasonic, Pioneer.Both will look great with todays HD signals. Good luck.
December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM #118723Participanteverything you EVER wanted to know about TVs, audio, etc…
http://www.avsforum.comI prefer LCD.
.. Lcd is brighter, usually higher resolution(1080p), IMHO better contrast, runs cooler, uses less power, is less prone to burn in(yes its still possible, just less likely), and weighs less (slightly) .. also has less glare
stick with vizio(great low end), sharp, samsung, or sony.. Plasma is cheaper, bigger for the money, has better viewing angles, usually not as high of resolution(most people don’t need 1080p), not as bright, less contrast, some say more accurate(possibly less vivid) colors. Looks great in a darker room, but may be weak for brighter room. Plasma may develop burn in monitor displays same graphic for extended time(most tv watching won’t be a problem). Usually the glass screen is more prone to glare.
stick with Panasonic, Pioneer.Both will look great with todays HD signals. Good luck.
December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM #118744Participanteverything you EVER wanted to know about TVs, audio, etc…
http://www.avsforum.comI prefer LCD.
.. Lcd is brighter, usually higher resolution(1080p), IMHO better contrast, runs cooler, uses less power, is less prone to burn in(yes its still possible, just less likely), and weighs less (slightly) .. also has less glare
stick with vizio(great low end), sharp, samsung, or sony.. Plasma is cheaper, bigger for the money, has better viewing angles, usually not as high of resolution(most people don’t need 1080p), not as bright, less contrast, some say more accurate(possibly less vivid) colors. Looks great in a darker room, but may be weak for brighter room. Plasma may develop burn in monitor displays same graphic for extended time(most tv watching won’t be a problem). Usually the glass screen is more prone to glare.
stick with Panasonic, Pioneer.Both will look great with todays HD signals. Good luck.
December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM #118521Participant3) Dump your cable, go with Satellite. We actually had both cable and satellite feeds coming in, so we could compare them. There is no comparison, especially when it comes to HDTV. Satellite rules with a brighter, far crisper picture.
Absolutely FALSE! Satellite bandwidth is weaker than both cable, or fiber optic. When used with an HD signal, cable and fiber are clearly better pictures. I have experience with fios, timewarner, dish, directv, and can tell you that the best HD pictures will be from fios or cable. Sat HDTV must compress the video quality to allow it to be sent from the SAT in orbit to your home, the cable and fios bandwidth is much higher. This allows for uncompressed, or minimally compressed HD.
This being said, HD signals from satellite have motion blur, trailing effects, and visible compression artifacts. Still images in HD can look just as good though, the problem happens when the video is constantly changing. NOW – regular TV is superior on Sat systems, they are all digital, and the bandwidth is high enough to accommodate the lower es programming. Regular cable in low def may still be analog.
most people may not notice the difference, but Direct TV has BY FAR the MOST HD channels of any TV provider I’ve ever seen.
December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM #118653Participant3) Dump your cable, go with Satellite. We actually had both cable and satellite feeds coming in, so we could compare them. There is no comparison, especially when it comes to HDTV. Satellite rules with a brighter, far crisper picture.
Absolutely FALSE! Satellite bandwidth is weaker than both cable, or fiber optic. When used with an HD signal, cable and fiber are clearly better pictures. I have experience with fios, timewarner, dish, directv, and can tell you that the best HD pictures will be from fios or cable. Sat HDTV must compress the video quality to allow it to be sent from the SAT in orbit to your home, the cable and fios bandwidth is much higher. This allows for uncompressed, or minimally compressed HD.
This being said, HD signals from satellite have motion blur, trailing effects, and visible compression artifacts. Still images in HD can look just as good though, the problem happens when the video is constantly changing. NOW – regular TV is superior on Sat systems, they are all digital, and the bandwidth is high enough to accommodate the lower es programming. Regular cable in low def may still be analog.
most people may not notice the difference, but Direct TV has BY FAR the MOST HD channels of any TV provider I’ve ever seen.
December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM #118687Participant3) Dump your cable, go with Satellite. We actually had both cable and satellite feeds coming in, so we could compare them. There is no comparison, especially when it comes to HDTV. Satellite rules with a brighter, far crisper picture.
Absolutely FALSE! Satellite bandwidth is weaker than both cable, or fiber optic. When used with an HD signal, cable and fiber are clearly better pictures. I have experience with fios, timewarner, dish, directv, and can tell you that the best HD pictures will be from fios or cable. Sat HDTV must compress the video quality to allow it to be sent from the SAT in orbit to your home, the cable and fios bandwidth is much higher. This allows for uncompressed, or minimally compressed HD.
This being said, HD signals from satellite have motion blur, trailing effects, and visible compression artifacts. Still images in HD can look just as good though, the problem happens when the video is constantly changing. NOW – regular TV is superior on Sat systems, they are all digital, and the bandwidth is high enough to accommodate the lower es programming. Regular cable in low def may still be analog.
most people may not notice the difference, but Direct TV has BY FAR the MOST HD channels of any TV provider I’ve ever seen.
December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM #118728Participant3) Dump your cable, go with Satellite. We actually had both cable and satellite feeds coming in, so we could compare them. There is no comparison, especially when it comes to HDTV. Satellite rules with a brighter, far crisper picture.
Absolutely FALSE! Satellite bandwidth is weaker than both cable, or fiber optic. When used with an HD signal, cable and fiber are clearly better pictures. I have experience with fios, timewarner, dish, directv, and can tell you that the best HD pictures will be from fios or cable. Sat HDTV must compress the video quality to allow it to be sent from the SAT in orbit to your home, the cable and fios bandwidth is much higher. This allows for uncompressed, or minimally compressed HD.
This being said, HD signals from satellite have motion blur, trailing effects, and visible compression artifacts. Still images in HD can look just as good though, the problem happens when the video is constantly changing. NOW – regular TV is superior on Sat systems, they are all digital, and the bandwidth is high enough to accommodate the lower es programming. Regular cable in low def may still be analog.
most people may not notice the difference, but Direct TV has BY FAR the MOST HD channels of any TV provider I’ve ever seen.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.