Full HD LCD vs HD ready Plasma

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
4
0
Visit site
hi i im looking to buy a new 40 to 42in TV . i have sky HD and will by buying a PS3 or xbox360 shortly. will i realy notice the difference between full HD and HD ready ? will the pasma outperorm the LCD or will the full HD processing on the LCD make up for the shortcomings of the LCD ? cost is also an issue as there are some good deals on the plasmas at the moment.

your opinions and adivce would be helpfull in making my choice.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is something I'm really interested in finding out as well. The new kuro's from pioneer are really tempting, but would a decent (sony X series) 1080p LCD be better?

Looking forward to the next WHFSV to see what happens in the test!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is a process I've been through - it's not an easy one! I eventually decided that for my screen size (37-42 inches) there seems to be a lot of evidence that most people wouldn't see a huge difference between HD Ready and Full HD sets. As a fair amount of my viewing will be standard definition TV and DVD's (SD), it's important to get a set that will balance SD and HD performance. I found that many sets are goregous with Full HD but really struggle with SD broadcasts - and that would drive me nuts. I decided to plump with a 42" Pioneer Kuro having seen the overall picture quality under a number of conditiions (some good examples of SD and HD screenshots may be found on thread 128 at http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=544315&page=9

Panasonic's new 42" PZ70B seems to do a very good job with SD so that may be a good one to look at - but make sure you see a mixture of SD and HD content and don't forget to look at the colours, contrast, etc.

In short - I wouldn't get too hung up with the numbers game of Full HD vs HD ready - have a look at a number of sets and see what gives the best picture for you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PhilE has got it spot on here. I'd only add that (as I'm sure he's saying) in any display device, there's more to picture quality than simple resolution. Ask someone who knows about cameras (not me) and you'll learn that the quality of the lens has as much to do with final picture quality as the resolution of the device itself. With projectors, the same is true: two projectors sharing the same 1920 x 1080 Texas Instruments DarkChip 3 DMD (the top banana) can still have different picture quality, which directly reflects variables such as scaling and deinterlacing, optics, light engine (lamp quality, essentially) and more.

With a TV, the same is true. Full HD isn't necessarily the automatic path to video enlightenment. On paper, it's a good thing - but only (and I must stress only) after other picture quality variables have been taken into account. All I mean by that is this: I've seen some very poor Full HD TVs. That's poor even when fed by a grand's worth of Blu-ray deck connected by another hundred quid's worth of HDMI cable, and then given the best-quality disc transfers I know of.
Conversely, I've seen some HD-Ready sets that look terrific. That's partially because, as PhilE mentions, it's hard for the human eye to discern small differences in pixel pitch in smaller screen sizes (Full HD really only starts to make a huge difference in TVs above 50in, and most obviously, in projectors). But it's also because, like I said at the start, there's more to a great picture than simply resolution. Panasonic's affordable PX70-series of 37in, 42in and 50in plasmas are great TVs: not Full HD, true, but still, great. And as for the Kuro.well, you'll have to wait a few days for the next issue to find out!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thanks for the advice . i must admit i could not realy notice any difference in the show rooms between the two on the 40ins sets.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is starting to feel very much like the kuro is the way to go...

now to convince the luddites down the pub that it's not about the numbers!

Thanks folks!

T
 

D.J.KRIME

New member
Jun 28, 2007
160
0
0
Visit site
From personal experience once you get into a screen size where you can get either a LCD or Plasma the plasma is the way to go even if on paper it has a lower resolution as the Plasma will give far greater motion control and a much more believible black.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If your eyesight as really as good, if not better, than an Owl than go for the Pioneer. However if like millions of us you can't actually see a difference a cheaper display such as a Samsung 42PSQ97 or Panasonic TH42PX70 is just as good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Got to disagree there. The Panasonic is a great performer (haven't tested the Samsung, only the 50in version) but I reckon you'll clearly see a difference on a Pioneer. Of course, you're entitled to your view.
 

D.J.KRIME

New member
Jun 28, 2007
160
0
0
Visit site
I also believe the Pioneer to be a better tv than either the Samsung or the Panasonic but then there is a great price differnce between the Pioneer and the other 2 sets so you have to ask yourself if the extra uotlay is worth it for that extra bit of proformance? I suppose it all comes down to just how deep your pockets are at the end of the day.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts