LED v Plasma

[Lizzybif]

I am still very happy indeed with my Panasonic 37X10 and it is much better, in my opinion, than the Panasonic LCD which is now in my bedroom

However, I was watching QVC and they had a 40" Samsung LED telly (can't remember the model no) and both presenters were raving about it and saying they had both replaced bigger Plasma tellies with this as the picture was so much 'sharper' and clearer.

I was just wondering whether an LED produces much the same picture quality as an LCD in which case I would stick with my Plasma as I much prefer the more 'natural' colours and a picture which doesn't burn my eyeballs after a couple of hours viewing.

So just curious!

 

[Inferno]

I was looking at a panasonic d25 led tother day and it was indeed nice and sharp and colourfull really good tv but i am still in favour of the natural picture that my plasmas produce.
And they are far and away more natural and realistic than any led i have seen to date and that includes the sony hx903 less fudging of the picture and better motion handling and when all the artificial gubbins was off the plasmas look way better and just more real.

 

[Piers]

Most of the LED back-lit LCDs produce a worse picture than CCFL back-lit LCDs (but they are really thin ;-). Stick with your plasma.

 

[PhilipL]

Hi

I was looking at a panasonic d25 led tother day and it was indeed nice and sharp and colourfull really good tv but i am still in favour of the natural picture that my plasmas produce.
And they are far and away more natural and realistic than any led i have seen to date and that includes the sony hx903 less fudging of the picture and better motion handling and when all the artificial gubbins was off the plasmas look way better and just more real.

LCDs have a buy-me mode as they are able to produce extremely bright images and compete with each other in the shops by being the brightest and most colourful. Plasmas brightness is limited and they can't 'falsely' shout loud for attention in the shops, so are typically calibrated to look more realistic.

Unfortunately I think for all the wrong reasons the retina burning images from LCDs when compared to Plasmas in the shops have swayed many people to an LCD TV.

Get a good LCD and calibrate it correctly it will ironically look not that different to a Plasma image. Most people don't change the settngs on their LCD TVs and so have handed over a large some of money just to watch bleached out contrasting pictures where people have pink faces.

Regards

Phil

 

[DiScO197]

Hi



LCDs have a buy-me mode as they are able to produce extremely bright images and compete with each other in the shops by being the brightest and most colourful. Plasmas brightness is limited and they can't 'falsely' shout loud for attention in the shops, so are typically calibrated to look more realistic.

Unfortunately I think for all the wrong reasons the retina burning images from LCDs when compared to Plasmas in the shops have swayed many people to an LCD TV.

Get a good LCD and calibrate it correctly it will ironically look not that different to a Plasma image. Most people don't change the settngs on their LCD TVs and so have handed over a large some of money just to watch bleached out contrasting pictures where people have pink faces.

Regards

Phil

I think that pretty much sums it up. When I was buying, the LED LCDs stand out and look awesome compared to the plasma screens in store. Very different story when you get them home mind. I went through various side lit models and was eventually offered the new Panasonic plasma model for this year (V20) and it blows the very expensive side lit models I tried out of the water.

 

[Stout Fellow]

50" plasmas produce the worst picture in the store usually (the LG and Samsung ones in particular) it's surprising that they sell many at all really.

 

[Lizzybif]

Cheers guys and my apologies for not replying sooner but didn't know I had any replies.

Will stick with my Panasonic Plasma which I am very happy with indeed.

Just a couple more questions though please.

Are the newer Plasmas any better than the 37X10 I have already and is there much difference between HD Ready and Full HD on 37" and 42" tellys?

I would really love to get a 42" Plasma but just not sure it will fit into the only corner I can put my telly. It would be a very tight squeeze!

 

[Piers]

Getting a bigger screen is almost always a good idea provided you get the right one. How far from the screen do you sit?- this is crucial as to whether a 1080p screen will be worthwhile or a waste of money.

Plasmas may look bad in a store but the good ones usually look better when well calibrated in a home environment. That said, I have spent today calibrating a Sony LCD. End results were very good (but it was top of the Sony range).

What sources do you have connected to the 37X10?

 

[Lizzybif]

I sit about 9ft from the telly. The problem with fitting a bigger telly in is it's situated in an alcove so bit of a tight squeeze.

I have a Blu-Ray Player and Humax PVR attached to my Plasma.

 

[Piers]

At 9ft you won't see a difference between a 37" HD screen and a 37" full HD screen. You will (just) with a 42" screen if your eyes are good.

 

[Lizzybif]

Thanks a lot Piers and happy to hear that I won't see much difference between HD ready and full HD.
It means I can stick with my HD ready and so save money.

At what viewing distance would I see a difference.?

 

[Piers]

The various "expert bodies" all have different suggestions on this. In my opinion around 5ft from a 37" screen to see the difference.

 

[Lizzybif]

Thanks again Piers.

Don't think I'll be able to get my sofa that near the telly.

How far would you say for a 42" in case I do decide to get one and take it you don't think it's worth going for HD?

 

[Piers]

A full HD 42" would be worth getting given that you have a Blu Ray player. Your current 9ft viewing distance is just about OK but 7ft would be better.

 

[Lizzybif]

Okay thanks again Piers.

You've been a great help. Which 42" Panasonic would you recommend?

 

[Inferno]

How much money have you to spend?

 

[matt41]

Okay thanks again Piers.

You've been a great help. Which 42" Panasonic would you recommend?

If you could tell the difference between 42 or even a 50 at 8ft, 768 v 1080 I'll eat my hat.
And I've got a lot of hats!

We've run the test side by side and its literally impossible.
Matt

 

[verdigris]

The problem with the 720p versus 1080p argument is that it ignores the fact that 720p sets are now sold only as low-end models, so are missing some useful features, such as anti-glare filters, built-in DVB-T2 (Freeview HD) tuners, flexible picture controls, THX mode, ethernet and so on.

This is a pity, because actually manufacturers could probably build a very decent 720p plasma at a really good price point, say sub-£500 at 50 inches, without sacrificing much, if anything, in terms of picture quality.

 

[matt41]

The problem with the 720p versus 1080p argument is that it ignores the fact that 720p sets are now sold only as low-end models, so are missing some useful features, such as anti-glare filters, built-in DVB-T2 (Freeview HD) tuners, flexible picture controls, THX mode, ethernet and so on.

This is a pity, because actually manufacturers could probably build a very decent 720p plasma at a really good price point, say sub-£500 at 50 inches, without sacrificing much, if anything, in terms of picture quality.

I don't disagree with these statements.
But its whether or not you need these extra features or notice say the increased black levels, when the TV is set up well.
For example the X20 by Panny was £499 and at that price an absolute steal.
its just rather annoying that people think they can see a difference in screen resolution at say grater than 8 feet or need it on a 37-42 inch screen.
Frankly Full HD is rather a con when you see some of the smearing on full HD LCD sets. Or want to view plasma at 2ft when the screen tech itself requires a certain viewing distance.
Once large sets are able to be viewed as close as say the Iphone 4 screen, then resolution figures may have more meaning.
For static PC images 1080 is probably necessary but dynamic pictures are another matter.
Matt

 

[Lizzybif]

How much money have you to spend?

None at the moment I'm afraid! Planning for the future.

So does the concensus seem to be that I'm as well sticking with HD ready at my viewing distance? To be honest that suits me fine as all I want from a telly is a really good picture and sound which I get from mine.
Just fancy getting a 42" if it will fit the space I have.

I am now wondering will I get any benefit from changing to an HD PVR ie will I notice better picture quality on the HD channels than I do on the SD I'm watching at the moment?

 

[PhilipL]

Hi

If you could tell the difference between 42 or even a 50 at 8ft, 768 v 1080 I'll eat my hat.
And I've got a lot of hats!

We've run the test side by side and its literally impossible.
Matt

It also ignores the fact that to display full HD images on a 720p panel requires a chunk of downscaling which is a lossy process. Anyone who has tried to get decent quality SD footage from an HD source will know, downscaling is quite troublesome. It can give rise to funny artefacts and pulsing of fine details with slight camera movements, which would be noticeable from normal viewing distances.

Having a 1080 panel (even better with a pixel-to-pixel mapping mode) removes the need to downscale.

Also having 1080 also future proofs the TV, for example should a change of seating arrangements take place in the room meaning viewing distances are shorter or even moving house.

I am now wondering will I get any benefit from changing to an HD PVR ie will I notice better picture quality on the HD channels than I do on the SD I'm watching at the moment?

Yes you most certainly would. There are none of the severe compression artefacts on HD and of course you get higher resolution. There are only 4 channels though available in HD on Freeview, and one of those just shows repeats constantly.

Regards

Phil

 

[YellowSphere]

I would rarely recommend HD Ready panels for a few reason, chief among which is that if your DVD player of choice (in many cases a Blu-Ray player) does not output at SD resolution for DVDs then you won't get a good picture as the upscaled image isn't coming in at native res, and never will (as the TVs aren't 1280x720). You want to pixel map wherever possible, and this makes a difference far more than the arguments of whether or not acuity can discern a difference in pixel density.

 

[Deleted member 432728]

Ive always though downscaling looks better than upscaling? anyone agree? or is it just me :\

 

[YellowSphere]

Ive always though downscaling looks better than upscaling? anyone agree? or is it just me :\

A downscaled HD signal will look better than an upscaled SD signal, if that's what you mean? At any rate, I'm sure we can agree that no scaling is best, which is which 1080p is better, all other things being equal (and the price difference not being much, which it usually isn't these days)

 

[tvbox]

I have my sky HD on my 42X10 at 720p.

1. It's the native resolution
2. The text is much sharper. No brainer on that one.