Team-BHP - The TV Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdivy (Post 1539359)

CRT has its advantages

Even today, the quality of the CRT image remains better than LCD/Plasma. But as screen sizes get larger, the CRTs become bulkier, inconvenient to handle, and very expensive to make. A 42 inch CRT TV would be a monster. So the LCD/Plasma is more of a convenience thing than a quality advantage over CRT. But in the right viewing position, the quality difference has narrowed to almost nothing now.

^^ i would rate the PQ per dollar/rupee as follows
CRT > Plasma/RPLCD > Edgelit LED/LCD
this might change in the future once local dimming led lcds offer better pq at an affordable price :-)
So you can see from above, the dying (plasma/crt) or dead (rptv) technologies are better than what we have today. Edge lit LED LCDs have a huge convenience in form factor - I am amazed at how thin they are :-)

Quote:

Unqualified statements like this cause a lot of confusion to people. If CRT was much better why would companies invest millions of $$ on developing LCD and Plasma? The correct answer is CRT is good for old style analog transmissions but LCD/Plasma beat CRT hands down in new high resolution digital transmission and media format

I think you have been answered by Msdivy and Sawyer, you can counter them now if wish to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdivy (Post 1539383)

Update: Last weekend my dad bought LG 42LH90QR (Direct LED LCD TV). I suggested Panasonic Plasma but dad was not convinced about plasma technology. Picture quality is not as good as plasma, but close and way better than normal LCDs.
What I liked is it can play video files on USB (supports divx).

I believe that at this point plasma is better than LCD in terms of angle of vision. While LCDs also claim a wide angle these days, this just means that the picture can be seen. However, the colors look washed out as soon as the move away from the sweet spot starts. Plasma on the other hand does not suffer this wash out of colors. But Plasma needs a dark environment to shine in. Therefore, at this point in time, if one can have a dedicated HT room, that can be kept dark, plasma is still a better buy. This is actually a very good time to buy plasma for HT applications, apples to apples, they are a lot cheaper than the LCD sets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaks (Post 1537886)

After much deliberation and looking at my pass book finally went yesterday to E-Zone for the second time in two weeks and confirmed what I had seen earlier- The Panasonic 32X9D was looking better or same as the Samsung B450, LG LH20 which are more pricey, so swiped the card bought it without further ado. They had no freebies for this panny model since it was priced the lowest at 29,900 but I managed to bargain 1K off and got it for 28,900 which is the best VFM out there I think.clap:

I was interested in the 42C10 but since it is slightly bigger for our living room I instead went for the 32" LCD and at that size I don't have to worry about FHD too. Now with the saved $$ I can also think of some decent HTiB :D.

Thats exactly what I am planning too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdivy (Post 1539359)

CRT has its advantages:

Resolution & Aspect Ratio- Operate at any resolution, geometry and aspect ratio without the need for rescaling the image.

True but this doesn't translate to better PQ, it just shows it works in analog mode.

Black-Level - Produce a very dark black.

A fact of little significance other than theory- Oh, C'mon how many of us are really crying over the CRT black Vs LCD/Plasma black these days?

White Saturation - Bright-end of the intensity scale is very rugged

Yeah, but who says LCD/Plasmas don't give white saturation unless we are considering very cheap low end models.

Contrast - Produce the highest static contrast levels

Actually, I can see the contrast much better in LCD than CRT.

Gray-Scale - perfectly smooth gray-scale

Again a theoretical fact. Are you seeing B&W movies?

Gamma shape of the gray-scale- close to a perfect power-law,

Again a theoretical fact

Color and Gray-Scale Accuracy - the very best color and gray-scale.

Obviously you must be joking.

Motion Artifacts - Have fast response times and no motion artifacts

Agreed, but its hardly discernable in todays models

Best for rapidly moving or changing images.

How fast, I have seen ICE hockey and F-1 and it was excellent in LCD/Plasmas.

Cost - Less expensive than comparable displays using other display technologies.

Actually no, its more expensive, just ask your friends who bought 29" few years back.

Where it loses out:

Physical size - The picture tube makes it bulky
Emissions - Give off electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields.

Due to the clear images it produces, graphic designers in our company still prefer CRT monitors.

This is because they want absolutely natural colours as it appears-to-the-eye images not because it is better PQ.

Last week went with my Bro for a demo of various LCD's and Plasmas to show the difference between them and to choose the best either Plasma or LCD, and the out come was Plasma if no direct light coming on TV screen and budget is limited(if we leae Pioneer plasmas) or Philips Cenios series LCD, compared this 42" LCD with top of the line Sony, Samsung, Sharp even our full HD Penny Plasma but theres no comparision of the black levels Philips shows, picture quality, motion handeling awesome product and the best among the lot if you have a budget of around 80K for 42" LCD.
One more thing confirmed that Sony stopped their 10bit LCD panels due to pink tint which they were not able to resolve now they are back to 8 bit panel.
Saw couple of background images which other TV's were not able to produce at all just a blank color over there and this champ was showing all the minute details.
So still if someone is planning for some other brand or model just have a look at Philips cenios series and decide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaks (Post 1541092)

True but this doesn't translate to better PQ, it just shows it works in analog mode.

A fact of little significance other than theory- Oh, C'mon how many of us are really crying over the CRT black Vs LCD/Plasma black these days?

Yeah, but who says LCD/Plasmas don't give white saturation unless we are considering very cheap low end models.

Actually, I can see the contrast much better in LCD than CRT.

Again a theoretical fact. Are you seeing B&W movies?

Again a theoretical fact
Obviously you must be joking.

Agreed, but its hardly discernable in todays models

How fast, I have seen ICE hockey and F-1 and it was excellent in LCD/Plasmas.

Actually no, its more expensive, just ask your friends who bought 29" few years back.

This is because they want absolutely natural colours as it appears-to-the-eye images not because it is better PQ.

Zaks, a lot of things you dismiss as theoretical are material factors affecting PQ for most people. Regarding your primary grouse against CRT that they only take analog signals, I agree to the extent that PQ is a function of the source signal. But component inputs in many late-gen CRTs are damn good and serve the purpose rather well, so what if they're not HDMI. And everyone who's seen a LCD will dismiss as a joke that LCD contrast levels compare well to a CRT.

I have watched full-HD LCD in 32" and 40" sizes (Samsung and Sony), and a HD-ready Plasma (Panasonic) extensively. I have a late-gen 29" CRT in my room. All I can say is that LCDs still lack detail when showing fast motion (maybe 200Hz, 1-2ms panels will mask this completely when showing full-HD source, but then they are bloody expensive at THIS point in time), and that Plasma come close, but still cannot match CRT in picture quality. And yes, you could buy a 29" CRT for 21-22k, while a good 32" LCD costs anything from 30k onwards.

Ok. Time for me to buy a new TV. We are looking for two Screens. One is a 42 inch LCD for my hall, and one will be a 22 inch LCD screen for my PC. I need to know some good LG TVs.

We have visited Vijay Sales, and are deciding between these two TVs (42inch)

I want this:

LCD TVs- Jazz & Scarlet For Ultimate Picture Quality In Full High Definition | LG India

But Mom wants this, as it is cheaper:
http://www.in.lge.com/Product/Produc...arent=LCD%20TV

As Far as the Screen for my PC goes, I am looking at something in the region of 10-12K and have decided on this.

LG LCD Monitors & LG CRT With High-tech Performance & Unique Designs | LG Electronics India

OR

LG LCD Monitors & LG CRT With High-tech Performance & Unique Designs | LG Electronics India
Are there any other Brands I should be looking at?? (This applies only to the monitor)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrus43 (Post 1544537)

Ok. Time for me to buy a new TV. We are looking for two Screens. One is a 42 inch LCD for my hall, and one will be a 22 inch LCD screen for my PC. I need to know some good LG TVs.
I want this:

LCD TVs- Jazz & Scarlet For Ultimate Picture Quality In Full High Definition | LG India

LG website isn't upto date, there is no information about LH 90 on the website.

If its LG & LCD you could check out the LH90 series too, its a newer one. Was 68K a fortnight ago. (LG's website is not upto date)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaks (Post 1539209)

If CRT was much better why would companies invest millions of $$ on developing LCD and Plasma?

- Plasma & LCD TVs look much better than the CRT when the TVs are off.
- Space
- Weight
- Power saving in LCDs
- No TV Stand or Cabinet needed
- Lots of pretty girls come to watch TV at your home when you have these plasma/lcd TVs

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaks (Post 1541092)

This is because they want absolutely natural colours as it appears-to-the-eye images not because it is better PQ.

Well, even while watching TV, I would prefer to see natural colours as compared to unnatural ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amitk26 (Post 1527168)

This is the main reason Plasmas are abandoned in favor of LCD by all major manufacturers including Panasonic.

What's your source for the information that Panasonic is abandoning Plasma in favour of LCD?