400GB Blu-Ray Disc

[Sharingan]

Having second thoughts about my 40" 1080p also (a Sony Bravia, bought for € 2100). Although it offers very good picture quality, it just isn't quite large enough to do 1080p high-def video justice. I'd say, if you're going to watch a lot of high-def content, try to go for at least 46", preferably 50" or more.

[Teho]

I've no problem with that with mine (Samsung), I still love watching hi-def content on it. But it handles 24Hz sources poorly, and there's something (ok a lot) to improve on its black levels as well. Mine is the F71 2006 model, and I saw the M87 2007 model which came out mere months after I bought mine had improved in both of those areas considerably. Don't know about any 2008 models, but as prices are dropping it's very likely that I replace mine sometime next year I think.

[Sharingan]

With 'handling 24Hz sources poorly', you mean you're getting choppy framerates?

[Demon Cleaner]

I still have my 37" Panasonic VIERA plasma TV, which I bought 2½ years ago and paid 3.800€ (~2.500£). And I still think that Panasonic are making the best plasma panels, their latest ones are now already in the 11th generation (mine's still generation 8), and what I've seen so far yet, I haven't seen better. Of cause their panels are not the cheapest, but I'd rather buy quality than anything else. I've also heard some good things about Sony and Samsung panels, but it seems that Samsung has better LCD panels than plasma.

[Harrison]

That is the reason I have waited. The technology was obviously still being developed and is only now starting to become really good. Samsung's LCD panels are definitely very nice and probably what I will buy when I do eventually get one.

[Teho]

With 'handling 24Hz sources poorly', you mean you're getting choppy framerates?

Yep. Like all the early HD sets it simply doesn't have a 24Hz mode, and instead incorporates that trick where it jumps a little back and forth between frames to make the 24Hz playback rate match the TV's 60Hz display rate. And the result is obvious choppyness when things are moving around a lot. Only last year did the sets come with modes that provide smooth 24Hz playback. My set isn't the worst of them, but it still annoys me a lot whenever I spot it. Which in some movies is all the time, in others hardly at all.

[Harrison]

Some DVD players with upscale technology are meant to be able to fix this problem on older TVs as the DVD player sends a clean 60Hz display rate to the TV preventing this issue. And upscaling DVD players are now quite cheap. I saw a Sony one the other day for £50.

[Zetr0]

I have to interject here with a ... well i dont know what to call it...


As you all know Laser Printers are better and *technically* cheaper to run than the bubble-jet counterparts, this is reflected even today in price and performance.

Most of the money made from the Sale of Laser Printers is re-invest into the Bubble Jet line of printers and hence why they are not only substantially cheaper, but also constantly improving quality. still inferior to Laser however...

the same Parallelism is seen with LCD display and Plasma Display panels...

I have yet to see an LCD keep up with the colour / vibrance and lumi of my Plasma.

Now LCD's are getting better as more and more money is invested into it, (i am sure there is one small country thats major export has to be PDP screens LOL) however they are still plagued by low luminosity, pixel / picture tearing at low frequencies, serious latency with some video / audio sources and the dreaded dead-pixels

Although I have to admit I have seen some beautiful Sony LCD panels that are almost enough to make you think twice! but I wouldn't have a display panel that was not plasma... its.... well... all round better, if slightly more pricey.

So if i had any opinion,

If you can get plasma....

if you are getting 42" or less (which less might be hard to find in a plasma) go for a name brand, with this a 720p will be very pleasing for viewing

if you are going larger than 42" make sure you get atleast 1080p viewable panel, and dont get fooled by those funny 1:1 matrix panels either! always try and get a 16:9 or 16:10 display panel.

okay... thats about rant over i think LOL


carry on....

[Demon Cleaner]

I have to agree with Zetr0. I made that decision 2½ years ago and bought a plasma, because I thought quality was better, and in future I will also stick with plasma panels. Never change a winning team

[Teho]

I'm fully aware that plasma beats LCD per definition, but plasma has or had a couple of shortcomings of its own. Basically back when I was looking at it, you'd choose plasma if it was going to be mainly used for TV and movies, and you'd choose LCD if it was mainly for computer and videogame images. Also, back when I was looking at TVs you couldn't get 1080p plasma screens. No idea if you can now. I remember I had walked into a store that swore by plasma and didn't have any LCD sets at all, and as I was about to turn on my heel and walk out again the salesman who told me this actually got upset. I ended up having a long argument with him about the pros and cons of plasma, and he really fired himself up. To the point that he nearly chased me out of the store.

Basically I refused to buy one because one: you couldn't get 1080p sets yet and two: Image burn-in. Now, the seller swore that this was no longer a problem with plasma sets, and I don't think he lied. But I was going to spend over £2.000 on a new set that was and has been showing a lot of static computer and game images, and I just didn't want to risk it. So that's why I personally went for LCD.