Best LCD TV for V+

[gc10360]

Originally Posted by Paranoimia

The only brand I would always advise against is Philips, since every time I've seen one of their TVs in action, it's been like looking through a dirty window!

That statement is absolutely incorrect, I had a samsung le40r74bdx and recently upgraded to a philips 42pfl9632d and i have to say the picture is absolutely amazing. its a 1080p set with 100hz clear LCD, 3ms response time, ambilight and 14bit colour.

reading the limited reviews on the internet, i agree that it needs tweaking out of the box, but all agree they have yet to see an LCD with abetter picture even in standard def.

aparently the 47inch version won the european award for best LCD 2008.

Philips have come along way with their LCD TV's dont disregard them on inacurate information. I payed £1600 for mine but I have seen them on the web for as little as £979 now - thats a fantastic price.

[Paranoimia]

It's not "absolutely incorrect". Every time I personally have seen a Philips TV in a store, it has been like looking through a dirty window - therefore my statement is 100% true, given what I have seen myself. Just because the tree fell in the forest and you weren't there to hear it, doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

Maybe they have come a long way, and maybe yours is fine, but that doesn't make what I've said any less true. People are of course entitled to buy whatever they choose, but I'm simply passing along what I have seen.

[multiskilled]

Originally Posted by Paranoimia

It's not "absolutely incorrect". Every time I personally have seen a Philips TV in a store, it has been like looking through a dirty window - therefore my statement is 100% true, given what I have seen myself. Just because the tree fell in the forest and you weren't there to hear it, doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

Maybe they have come a long way, and maybe yours is fine, but that doesn't make what I've said any less true. People are of course entitled to buy whatever they choose, but I'm simply passing along what I have seen.

Perhaps you should have gone in the store, rather than looking through the "dirty window".

[Paranoimia]

Originally Posted by multiskilled

Perhaps you should have gone in the store, rather than looking through the "dirty window".

D'oh! That's where I went wrong!

[martin42h]

In my house, we have 2 Panasonic's (32 & 26 inch) & 1 Samsung 32 inch (my son's) and there are no 'dead' pixels on any of them. Picture quality looks much the same on all when plugged into the V+ (720p), but the Panasonics are definitely better on their 'internal' freeview tuners than the Samsung. The Panasonic 32 inch which is the latest model also looks great at 1080i on the V+ although I prefer 720p for any fast motion stuff e.g sport. Shame the V+ doesn't do 1080p. Going back to the dead pixel problem, I don't think this is the problem it once was, improved manufacture techniques no doubt.

[snazzy]

Yeah, there was a new technique for making the screen a good few years back, and they said this would boost the yield of perfect screens by quite a bit. Trouble is I'm still paranoid 'cos I know if I could see any my eye would divert to it or them constantly. That apart, all the other info I'm getting is just what I need.

[Paranoimia]

I know what you mean, snazzy... my PSP has one single dead pixel in the top left corner, and do you think I can ignore it?!

[snazzy]

It annoys me that the manufacturers get away with quoting some ISO standard that's acceptable to them but not to the buying public. After all the ISO organisation is just a made up body that took it upon themselves to agree this ISO standard with said manufacturers. Whilst I understand that there would be TV and Monitor makers getting away with murder without this standard and it can in this light been seen as a good thing. What about those of us who would still feel shafted it we got a iffy TV?

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Paranoimia

Having checked out a number of makes and models, the only 2 I would ever touch are Sony and Samsung. The others are just dull in comparison, and the colours washed out. The local Tesco has a wall of LCDs, and if you assume that they just set them up 'out of the box', the Sony's and Samsung's are the ones that draw your eye - pictures are brighter and colours stronger and more vivid.

That is because some manufacturers jack their default settings up to ridiculous levels, giving bright (headache inducing you might say) pictures to 'catch the eye'. If you were to get these sets professionally calibrated to actually display content as it was meant to be seen the image would be vastly lower contrast and desaturated. What you are seeing is a corruption of the original content and should not be used to judge a TV. There are only a few panel manufacturers anyway, so if you buy a Sony you are in reality getting re-badged Panasonic (or LG) anyway.

If you compare a good plasma display, such as a Pioneer to one of these radioactive LCDs, you would see a massive difference in how realistic the images look. This makes plasma a harder sell to some people, but to home cinema fans it makes plasma an automatic choice. It's also worth noting that LCDs have very poor black levels which can clearly be seen in low light situations (such as watching a movie a dark room). Plasma suffers from this problem considerably less.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 ----------

Originally Posted by charliestumpy

We chose a small 32" Pannie..

One stunning thing about using V+ into any good TV/display is that many of the channels appear almost, if not as good, as HD ... (people who sit 3 inches in front of a 56 inch display might disagree...).

Recently we have bought/watched our first Blu-ray excellent discs at cheap 3-for-2 price (i.e. £36 for all 3 'Pirates OTC' films on BD) and they are nice BUT not significantly better than ordinary £3-£5 etc DVDs.

The big problem IMO with 'wide screen' is the massive con of getting us to buy 16:9 flattie plasma/LCD sets to watch 22:9 cinema films ...

IMO after years of using good big/small visual displays, 32" is big enough for TV (buy good cheap projector if you want big film experience).

I am even surprised to find that good 24"-28" screen is perfectly good enough for all TV/disc-film watching. And I am a git who likes to buy the biggest and the best.

Just like in audio-'hifi' etc people who have wasted too much moolah like to pretend that everything overpriced is the best - suck it and see/make your own decisions.

'Often via the senses - mostly in the mind'.

The reason you find the upgrade to HD so disappointing is because you have a very small TV. With the size of flat panels dropping so quickly the size which is growing the quickest (in sales) is 42", with 50" not far behind it. At those sizes at normal viewing distances the jump between 480i or 576i to 1080p is night and day. SD looks blurry, blocky, and completely lacking in detail by comparison.

I'm lost for words with your next comment. What would you have studios do? Go back to hacking the sides of 2.35:1 ratio films just so they appear larger on your small TV? We have finally got to a point where films are presented on home formats as the director intended. I have no desire for that to ever change.

If you feel 24" is big enough, that's too bad as you're missing out. I have a 50" 1080p plasma and the experience is fantastic. Worth every penny. If someone is interested in home cinema they need only go to a specialist retailer and see a proper set-up with 50" plasma and 5.1 or 6.1 surround sound. The difference will not be hard to see.

[Paranoimia]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

That is because some manufacturers jack their default settings up to ridiculous levels, giving bright (headache inducing you might say) pictures to 'catch the eye'. If you were to get these sets professionally calibrated to actually display content as it was meant to be seen the image would be vastly lower contrast and desaturated. What you are seeing is a corruption of the original content and should not be used to judge a TV.

The settings on my Bravia are set at a around the halfway mark, and were out of the box. The only thing I changed was to turn off the 'vivid' colour setting. Even with that, the picture is far better than most of the other makes out there. Colours are realistic, strong and vibrant, without being "radioactive" as you put it. i.e. When watching football, the grass doesn't glow at me, and newsreaders don't all look like David Dickinson!

If 'professional calibration' means the result is the dull, washed-out 'dirty window' effect I see on other sets, then I'm afraid you can keep it! My colour settings aren't so strong that the TV glows at me - I see that on other people's TVs and find it unwatchable - but colours are still clearer and better defined than the other makes I've seen.

There are only a few panel manufacturers anyway, so if you buy a Sony you are in reality getting re-badged Panasonic (or LG) anyway.

Sony use Samsung panels, which is no doubt why they both have similarly high image quality.

If you compare a good plasma display, such as a Pioneer to one of these radioactive LCDs, you would see a massive difference in how realistic the images look. This makes plasma a harder sell to some people, but to home cinema fans it makes plasma an automatic choice. It's also worth noting that LCDs have very poor black levels which can clearly be seen in low light situations (such as watching a movie a dark room). Plasma suffers from this problem considerably less.

As a gamer first and movie fan second, Plasma was never an option for me because of screen burn. Yes, I know it's less of an issue these days, but it's still an issue nonetheless.

As for the picture quality issue - I'm aware plasma has a truer black, but the latest LCDs are pretty close. I frequently watch movies in a dark room, and the black levels on the D3000 are excellent. Watching a 2.35:1 movie, I can barely distinguish between the black of the 'letterbox' bars and the surround of the TV fascia (a real issue with my previous CRT WEGA), so the blacks are pretty good.

On a cost/functionality/quality basis, you can do a lot worse than a Bravia LCD. I once again refer people to the review I linked to earlier, particularly the calibration (see Lab Test Results for black levels) and conclusion pages.

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Paranoimia

As a gamer first and movie fan second, Plasma was never an option for me because of screen burn. Yes, I know it's less of an issue these days, but it's still an issue nonetheless.

As for the picture quality issue - I'm aware plasma has a truer black, but the latest LCDs are pretty close. I frequently watch movies in a dark room, and the black levels on the D3000 are excellent. Watching a 2.35:1 movie, I can barely distinguish between the black of the 'letterbox' bars and the surround of the TV fascia (a real issue with my previous CRT WEGA), so the blacks are pretty good.

Screen burn is a non issue on plasma now. The Pioneer plasmas even have an option for those that want to be super safe to orbit the picture by a few pixels very slowly, thus ensuring the same pixels are never the same for a long period. I've played games on my Pioneer for hours on end though and never seen any burn in.

Plasma has other image quality advantages too, such more accurate colour reproduction, no motion blur/smearing, and in the case of the Pioneers - true 24fps playback. (for BD movies) The blacks are indeed much better too, and having seen a comparison between a Pioneer KURO and a Sony Bravia the difference in a dark room between the two was dramatic. But then, a good plasma will cost a lot more than an LCD.

[die5el]

plasma technology is on its way out. Putting one of the nails in the lengthy coffin is Pioneer Corp, who is stopping ALL production of plasma display panels. Last week it was reported that they had decided to stop all 42-inch panel production, however that has now been expanded to its entire plasma line by the looks of it Plasma tv is dead

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by die5el

plasma technology is on its way out. Putting one of the nails in the lengthy coffin is Pioneer Corp, who is stopping ALL production of plasma display panels. Last week it was reported that they had decided to stop all 42-inch panel production, however that has now been expanded to its entire plasma line by the looks of it Plasma tv is dead

You are very ill-informed I'm afraid.

Pioneer's announcemet was that they will be sharing technology with Panasonic so they can manufacture their KURO panels. They are not getting out of plasma, far from it, and neither are Panasonic, who recently announced a new plasma size (46"), to go along with their existing 42", 50", 60", 103", and 150".

If you had actually seen a side by side of plasma vs LCD you would see why higher end screen makers, such as Pioneer and Panasonic remain totally committed to it. Only SED/OLED could ultimately beat it for image quality, but that is still many years away from being affordable at large sizes.

[Just John]

If I had to choose then it probably would be a Bravia, although remember that the V+ Box is the weakest link