Buying a LCD TV

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

Guys, let me tell you something from experience. be it DTH, STB, Cable or Pure Terrestrial, the LCD & Plasms TVs just cant show them as good as the good old CRTs do. Playing DVDs or HDTV inputs is a totally different ball game on these TVs, but if you are going to be a TV viewer, even the DTH solution sometimes is a little hazy. i do speak from my experience. i have been having DTH for one year now & i recently upgraded my tv to a 100 HZ tv which is very similar to the LCDs, but i find that the channels which come in 100% strength are terrific to watch, but not the ones that are even 75%. cheers...more a little later as i am held up right now.

Let me quote my experience...

I was on 100Hz TV (29 inch Sony DRC Wega) for 2.5 years and recently switched to 50 inch Plasma. Since the local cable quality is really bad, I switched to Tata Sky before buying the plasma. Turned out to be a good decision.

Even in Tata Sky, the quality of the channels differ. The Zee channel (except Zee Studio) are usually bad, low bandwidth I suppose. But the Star channels and international channels (HBO, PIX, etc) are really good.

[gkrishn]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

i recently upgraded my tv to a 100 HZ tv which is very similar to the LCDs,

I what ways do you think they are similar???

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by gkrishn

I what ways do you think they are similar???

Actually, that's right. 100Hz TV is nothing but a high end CRT. They are no way similar to LCD or plasma.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by gkrishn

I what ways do you think they are similar???

i am not a techie to explain it in technical terms, but i will tell try. In the normal 100Hz TVs that we get to buy for a king's ransom, you get smearing of images, trails etc. This smearing is caused by digital artifacts (The set has to do digital encoding and decoding in realtime), since most of the TV signals are in analogue. A faster and better processor in the TV may lessen or resolve this issue. But while playing a DVD, it is entirely different, the picture quality is amazing with vivid colours that you can only dream of in a 50HZ TV.

Coming to LCD screens, the most vital part is the response time. That is the time taken for one pixel in the panel to go from active to inactive & back to active again. The higher the response time, more the digital artifacts as caused in the 100HZ TVs. (See the similarity ?). Now, there are excellent LCDs & excellent 100HZ Tvs, but what we see in our 'exclusive' showrooms is mostly full of sets that have a resposnse time that is not adequate to show our analog signals in good clarity. of course, the movie channels might look good, which it does for me too, but the real problem is when you watch poor quality signals (which are very much available even in DTH) & in watching sports channels with inadequate bandwidth.

It seems that the manufacturers needed a selling point that would be cheap to implement and released technology that was not ready.

cheers

[gkrishn]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

i am not a techie to explain it in technical terms, but i will tell try. In the normal 100Hz TVs that we get to buy for a king's ransom, you get smearing of images, trails etc. This smearing is caused by digital artifacts (The set has to do digital encoding and decoding in realtime), since most of the TV signals are in analogue.

Lets say if you are watching espn thru cable on your 100hz crt... Why do you think and digital encoding, decoding has to be done?? As per my understanding its analog all the way.

Your 100hz crt should be able to give amazing, vivid colours just like any 50hz tv. The difference between 100hz and 50hz in most cases where just the refresh rates. Except for the panasonic, and sony DRC model which were also HD tvs.

I extensivly looked at the panasonic model, which is discussed in the 29inch flat crt thread. It was much better than similar 50hz 29 inch panasonic models in the shop. both were playing some cable channels only.

But then what is the size of ur 100hz model? and what is the size of 50hz model you are mentionin?? In my opinion above 25 inch the quality, using normal cable network, actually drops. Actually you might start noticing the pixels...

Coming to LCD screens, the most vital part is the response time. That is the time taken for one pixel in the panel to go from active to inactive & back to active again. The higher the response time, more the digital artifacts as caused in the 100HZ TVs.

I dont think the artifact are due to the higher response time as you mentioned. But it could be because of another reason. The normal anolog CRT has 640x480 resolution. Which they term as 480i. "i" stands for interlace. The normal cable and even DTH guys might give you feed for this resolution only.

But the LCD, 32 inches i was looking at, has 1366x768 resolution. 768 amounts to 720p. "p" for progressive. When u give ur normal cablewala feed to this LCD, it has fill up the rest of resolution. So how the final image might apear on the screen, completly depends on the LCD up conversion from 480 to 720. This is where it could result in too many artifacts. This is my understanding.

Apart form all this technicalities, I just happened to watch the Ind-SA match on star sports on a 40 inch sony "S" series connected to tata sky. The 16:9 resolution strecthed the faces little bit, and noticable when commentators apeared in close up. Other than this, the quality was really good.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by gkrishn

Lets say if you are watching espn thru cable on your 100hz crt... Why do you think and digital encoding, decoding has to be done?? As per my understanding its analog all the way.

Nope, In 100 Hertz sets, the frames are scanned at a rate of 100 times per second, which is twice as often as in a 50Hz set. To be able to double the number of image frames, 100 Hz televisions use a digital memory. The digital memory converts all incoming video signals from analog to digital. It stores every new frame for a split second, so that it can be written a second time (from memory) to the screen. After that, the digital signal is converted back to analog and sent to the screen twice as fast. i guess thats where the digital part comes in.

Originally Posted by gkrishn

Your 100hz crt should be able to give amazing, vivid colours just like any 50hz tv. The difference between 100hz and 50hz in most cases where just the refresh rates. Except for the panasonic, and sony DRC model which were also HD tvs.

the colours & image clarity on a 100HZ , in my opinion cannot be matched by any 50Hz or even LCD screen (the lower & middle end systems that are available in the market today). that is my opinion. I believe these TVs are built down to a budget & not built upto a standard, in which case, what we normally get is called VFM. BTW, i have a Phillips 29, which is also a HD compatible TV.

Originally Posted by gkrishn

Apart form all this technicalities, I just happened to watch the Ind-SA match on star sports on a 40 inch sony "S" series connected to tata sky. The 16:9 resolution strecthed the faces little bit, and noticable when commentators apeared in close up. Other than this, the quality was really good.

If you are happy with it, what else is required, just go ahead & buy it.

[mrhap]

Guys, i have been looking at 42 inch plasma tvs. Have heard about the latest LG time machine tv. Also , am considering the Samsung and Panasonic models. Any suggestions/tips/feedback/reviews would be welcome about the brands.

[akshay1234]

Originally Posted by mrhap

Guys, i have been looking at 42 inch plasma tvs. Have heard about the latest LG time machine tv. Also , am considering the Samsung and Panasonic models. Any suggestions/tips/feedback/reviews would be welcome about the brands.

out of those samsung would have the best after sales service.. the panasonics are a bit delicate.. the samsung would be the best out of them.. but also look at lcd before you buy a plasma because the lcds are newer technology.

[mrhap]

As far as features and quality are concerned, what would people suggest. Features wise LG with its 80 gb in built hard disk sounds quite exciting, but am not sure about the picture quality....panasonic is supposed to have good quality but very dry on features, samsung is supposed to be middle of the road....comments anyone?

[akshay1234]

Originally Posted by mrhap

As far as features and quality are concerned, what would people suggest. Features wise LG with its 80 gb in built hard disk sounds quite exciting, but am not sure about the picture quality....panasonic is supposed to have good quality but very dry on features, samsung is supposed to be middle of the road....comments anyone?

see the picture quality for yourself and decide.. anf after having a normal panasonic crt tv ive come to the conclusion that panasonics are delicate and dont have good after sales service..

[mrhap]

Well, i just wanted to have some personal comments based on people's experiences. I am sure a few people on this forum must be having one of the plasma's i have mentioned?So i wanted personal experiences.

[Samurai]

I compared LCD and Plasma for a long time before settling for Plasma two months back. Even plasma technology has improved leaps and bounds, and Samsung is the clear leader. The major problem with LCD is the viewing angle. If you are not sitting right in front of it, the image will suffer. While it has acceptable viewing angle along the horizontal plane, the viewing angle is very acute in the vertical plane. If you are standing in front a LCD TV placed for sitting audience, you can barely see the clarity. Even in the seating position, if you deviate from the center of the LCD screen along the vertical plane, there will be lose of clarity.

[mrhap]

which brand and model / size plasma have you bought? whats been your experience with the quality and other add-on features?

[Samurai]

I got this one:Samsung Plasma TV | PS-50Q7H

Amazing picture quality, what else can I say. In combination with Tata Sky, it is a great experience.

[determinus]

Two issues with LCDs are that

a) The pixels can die. And when it does, you just loose one line from the display. The life/quality of any batch of transistors cannot be uniform, so dead pixel is quite a possibility. The replacement can only be done as complete panel, and costs 25k or so.

b) You cannot control the intensity of the glow, the pixel is either on or off. In plasma - technically - the voltage can be controlled for better intensity. BTW, the intensity is not a major issue in dimly lite rooms and if watching distance is 15' or more.

Plasma also has its own issues. But with Laser projection devices (touted as Plasma/ LCD killer) on the horizon, I would rather wait for 6-9 months for the Laser TV to come out. And even if it cannot kill them both, the LCD/ Plasma prices are going to come down sharply. I certainly wont mind a Bravia 40" for 75k. As for the dead pixels, I will take that chance.