I did a lot of searches on yahoo and google about this topic.
Im sure this topic has been posted in the past.
I just want to clarify that I understand things.
I just want to hear your thoughts on the 2. What you chose, why, and r u happy.
Not realy looking for a new TV, but soo many good deals out there its hard not to look and contemplate it.
I currently have 7 yr old JVC iArt 32" CRT tube TV. Works just fine. No HD.
I get my TV from Comcast. Funny story. I dont watch much TV. So when I called to set up appt. for install of service. I ordered just basic TV package. 15 Ch. or so. no MTV, ESPN, etc… $9/mos. Guy came out to install and forgot the cable filter. Instead of driving back to warehouse to get the filter he just hooked me up to Cable at no charge. So now I get something like 75 channels for $9. He said Im not stealing he is just giving me a break since he doesnt want to drive back to warehouse. Remind you this is cable, no Digital, no box, no satellite.
Last yr I bought 2 LCD’s. a 22" for kitchen and 32" for my office. Now the channels that are HD ( only 2 channels ) looks great. Everything else looks “fair”. The 32" JVC crt in the living room looks fine/normal.
Is it true that unless you have digital/box or dish on a plasma or LCD TV channels will looks fuzzy/blurry unless they are broadcasted in HD? When I go to BB and ask them to change the broadcast to cable the image looks blurry/fuzzy. But in HD/digital looks great.
Now would it even be worth my interest to buy a big ole plasma or LCD with my basic cable package. Or would I need to upgrade my service to make the image look good?
Is it true Plasma @ 600hz is sharper with moving objects vs LCD with 120 or even 240hz?
LCD is brighter and less glare?
What to go with. Since plasma is 600hz it sounds better. And you can get much bigger for much less. I hear about burn in but they said its almost non-existant these days.
I just went through the whole flat panel purchasing process, so I feel somewhat qualified to answer. I very strongly recommend LCD over plasma - get LED if you can afford it, but you need pretty deep pockets for that.
Screens with a 600hz refresh rate are rare, and completely unnecessary. I can promise that you wouldn’t be able to tell much of a difference from a 240hz set. Mine is 240 and it looks gorgeous.
However, if you don’t have any HD content to display on your TV, then it simply isn’t worth it. The standard definition content won’t look any better, and it might actually look worse since you’ll have to deal with sizing ratios on your new widescreen. If you’re going to get an HDTV, then make sure you have some channels to go with it - or a bluray player/computer setup so you can enjoy the HD.
At home I have both a 42" LCD (For gaming) and 52" Plasma (Movies & cable).
From what I can tell there is not difference. I play games HD so yes there is completely different visual effect when your not watching tv shows on a plasma that are in HD.
From what I can recall cable on 42" LCD is better than it being on our 52" plasma. This is not with HD receiver.
If I had a choice I would go with the 42" LCD. Because it can game and a still picture won’t wreck it and 42" is a decent size.
My uncle has a 72" Plasma and it’s just to fucking retarded. You literally have to sit in his yard 100 feet away to watch the damn thing.
lol at the last 2 guys saying LCD’s are betting for gaming. Personally I prefer plasmas over regular LCD’s as I can’t stand looking at grey instead of black.
With that said I have a 55" samsung LED that is spectacular for everything.