[shuvc]

@ST7677, what are good 42plasmas in the market today? A few months back I recall seeing a Panasonic for 70K. Would such an entry level plasma be better than say a 40 bordeaux art for 85K?

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by shuvc

@ST7677, what are good 42plasmas in the market today? A few months back I recall seeing a Panasonic for 70K. Would such an entry level plasma be better than say a 40 bordeaux art for 85K?

Though the question was directed to ST, i think 77K for a 40" Bordeaux Art would make a whole lot more sense than 70K for a panasonic plasma due to the many advantages the LCD has over plasma has discussed over and over again on this thread.

[aggressive_anush]

I spent almost a year trying to decide which TV to buy. The only reason i was considering LCDs was because i would be using the TV for a lot of gaming and with plasmas there was always a fear of burn in.

However after demoing almost all the TVs on the market, both LCDs and Plasmas, i realised that LCDs dont look anywhere as good as a plasma.

I think apart from the fear of burn in, and perhaps a little bit of image retention with a plasma, there is no real advantage that an LCD would have over it.

Colours on a plasma are more natural compared to an LCD. Plasmas are far more capable when handling motion. No image blur which is a huge concern on LCDs. In fact if you go through this thread there are many posts on how people were disappointed with motion blur while watching sports on an LCD. Plasmas are also supposedly better at handling standard def content when compared to LCDs. Considering that most people are not going to be using it for high def content in the near future, and are primarily going to be using the TV for watching regular cable and DVDs, I would seriously consider a plasma over an LCD.

There are arguments against the plasma concerning their power consumption, but i dont really think this is as large of a disadvantage as everyone makes it out to be. Not many people really look at the power consumption of electronics while buying them do they?

Last week i picked up a Panasonic PV70 42" plasma. (Perhaps thats why i may show a slight bias )

I have been using it for gaming on my X360 and the PS3, and for watching high def content on bluray and hd dvd. Picture quality is stunning. Blacks are incredibly dark. Motion is smooth. Planet earth on HD DVD was simply incredible.

Regular DVD too looks really good. And im not even using component cables to connect the DVD player.

Gaming on the X360 and the PS3 is brilliant. No noticeable input lag. And any image retention that there may be goes away in a couple of minutes.

Im really happy with the plasma I picked up, and i would seriously urge everyone considering an LCD to go out and have a demo of a good plasma first.

Plasma isnt dead yet. In fact panasonic has started work on a new factory which would have the capacity to make 1 million plasmas a month.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by mobike008

Though the question was directed to ST, i think 77K for a 40" Bordeaux Art would make a whole lot more sense than 70K for a panasonic plasma due to the many advantages the LCD has over plasma has discussed over and over again on this thread.

Don't agree at all. I'm too lazy to browse thru an 80 page thread to see what was stated but I'd take a plasma over an LCD any day unless one's budget is severely limited. A 70K panasonic plasma absolutely kills anything else in that price range. There are a few Hitachi plasmas as well for a bit more which are even better. Anyone who states that plasmas have low life, suffer from burn in and such stuff needs to wake up. These issues are all a thing of the past and no longer affect modern plasma panels.

[csentil]

Hey aggressive !! :-) How much did you pay for the Panasonic and where did you get it? Last heard they were quoting something like 75-80K.

[aggressive_anush]

I paid 74.5k for the PV70 model. It came along with the pedestal stand as well as a wall mount.

[MaserQ]

Looking to get a 26' LCD TV to wall mount in a small bedroom. Usage would be Tata Sky or the like, lots of sports - football, Formula 1, cricket etc, watching regular DVDs, PC connectivity and some Playstation in that order. Havent gone up to the showroom yet, but here are the results of my initial research:

1. Sony 26' V300 - 2nd gen WCG CCFL, Dynamic Contrast 6000:1, On-screen contrast 1300:1, (can someone explain the difference) Response Time: 8ms.

2. Panasonic 26LX 60M - On-screen contrast: 1200:1, XGA panel, Response time: ??, Dynamic contrast: ??

3. Panasonic 26LX 70C - WXGA panel, On-screen contrast: ??, Response Time: ??

4. LG 26LC7 - Dynamic Contrast ratio 10000:1, Response time: 5ms.

Have I missed out any other competent 26' LCDs? I have decided to give Samsung a miss as I am not too happy with picture quality. Any suggestions would be welcome.

[reignofchaos]

You might wanna check the Philips 26TA2800. The panel was excellent for the 28k or so asking price. 720p with DVI, VGA, Component inputs and a superb S-IPS panel.

[Vid6639]

The debate on plasma vs LCD continues. As Anush has said plasma's are better than the LCD's currently with regard to motion blur. But the gap will be almost next to nothing in the coming few months.


Consumer Electronics Show 2008 - CNET Asia

I have seen this new range from Philips and trust me it is a huge step forward in reducing the motion blur. The picture processor in this is 3 core processor which will reduce motion blur as well as remove halo effect. The clarity has to be seen to be believed.

[csentil]

Agreed. But True HD is still very expensive in LCD's. In India I don't think there's any 42" model available for less than a lakh. However you could get a True HD Plasma for a really good price and the prices are headed south as we speak. :-)

[shuvc]

@vid, while what you say seems good for new LCD screens, those screens will surely cost more. What I am trying to understand is:
Decent 42 plasmas in the market today cost 70-80. Are the 40 LCDs currently available in THAT price range better or inferior?

[csentil]

Nope. You don't get LCD's & Plasma's with equal resolution, quality/technology whatever at the same price. LCD's at the current Plasma prices are not True HD and possibly have motion blur as well.

[ST7677]

Originally Posted by shuvc

@ST7677, what are good 42plasmas in the market today? A few months back I recall seeing a Panasonic for 70K. Would such an entry level plasma be better than say a 40 bordeaux art for 85K?

Entry level 42" plasmas you can get under 50k today! Panasonic is no entry level TV, Panasonic is to Plasma what Samsung is to LCD tv, both are market leaders and offer good value for money TVs.

Originally Posted by shuvc

@vid, while what you say seems good for new LCD screens, those screens will surely cost more. What I am trying to understand is:
Decent 42 plasmas in the market today cost 70-80. Are the 40 LCDs currently available in THAT price range better or inferior?

My friend recently bought Pana Plasma 42" PV 7 for about 65k. It's movie quality is better than Sony W series (LCD) which costs 1.2 lakhs.
Paper specs apart, in real life Samsung R81 compares to Sony S series and nothing more. Samsung picture processor is pretty dated and not designed to handle noise in signal.

I am yet to buy one LCD/Plasma so I am not baised. My preferences have changed over posts in this thread - as you move from Showroom to home, it;s likely that yours will change too.

IMO, Marketing gimmicks apart, Plasma have big a picture and price advantage today. This is assuming you would use it for what you used your CRT for...

Most LCDs in showroom display razor sharp, colour rich, SLOW moving HD media in ultra bright setting. That is not what you are going to be watching at home, nor is your living room be lit with 20 tube lights!

Not to forget plasma is 2" bigger in size... You may think it is small difference, but see them aside and you can clearly make out. It's like Samsung 37" LCD vs Samsung 40" LCD they are 2 different price points. Get my point!

Talk about colors being richer in Plasma - Today LCD TVs in market have 10 Bit color panel, whereas Plasmas have 16 bit color panels.

Talk about contrast ratios - Plasmas have 10000-30000 contrast whereas LCDs have 8000-18000 (Dynamic) contrast.

Talk about motion blur - LCDs have response time of 5-8ms, which do not bother plasmas at all

Plasma Burn in is not really a problem for home use.

Originally Posted by vid6639

The debate on plasma vs LCD continues. As Anush has said plasma's are better than the LCD's currently with regard to motion blur. But the gap will be almost next to nothing in the coming few months.
Consumer Electronics Show 2008 - CNET Asia
I have seen this new range from Philips and trust me it is a huge step forward in reducing the motion blur. The picture processor in this is 3 core processor which will reduce motion blur as well as remove halo effect. The clarity has to be seen to be believed.

I read about these, and they look interesting, but CNET says that except for 2 ms response time the 3 core processor is just another attempt at 120 Hz stuff other mfgs are already offering. I would wait to comment. But looks like it would take around 18 months to reach Indian shore.

Let's not forget that in mean time Plasmas would have moved ahead, Pioneer is already demoed plasma with Infinite contrast ratio. And the 10 Lumen tech can create Plasmas with 4 times more brigtness than LCD at half the power consumption...

[srishiva]

I second (or third or nth) the Plasma advantage. Other the brightness and low power consumption, LCDs cannot match Plasma today.
Guess we'll have to wait for organic LED TVs to fight with Plasma.

[Su-47]

I don't claim to have read all the pages in this discussion, but in the last few pages, I am surprised to see that LG is not even considered as a contender. Why is that?

See the following quote for example:

Originally Posted by vid6639

1. Samsung Bordeaux art 32R81
2. Sony Bravia V series
3. Sony Bravia D series with motion blur removal processor
4. Hitachi 32A01
5. Sharp 32BX6M
6. Panasonic 32LX700M