paulr

My first flat screen tv, for the living room, and 42". Plasma, LCD or LED. I watch films and football.

To replace a 28inch CRT.

Brun

I'll cut to the bulk of the future posts on this thread for you........
Panasonic Plasma

paulr

I looked at one yesterday next to an LED and the picture looked "wooly". Both Panasonic.

Brun

LED's do look crisp but they don't look natural to me.
I had the choice last year and went for a Panny 50" which is great in HD.
I've not looked since so maybe LED's have improved

jonc

I have a LG 42LE8900 and whole heartedly recommend this TV, it is a back lit LED rather than an edge lit so gets contrast ratios close to if not better than some plasmas. The picture is great and pin sharp in HD resolution and still pretty good on standard resolution. This model has had excellent reviews too.

Jamie

*pslewis think of the pixel*

Ant

I was a plasma fan but I've just recently got the samsung 3D tv 46" and the picture is superb

paulr

Ideally £550 or less.
Not interested in 3D.

Brun

I personally would stick to Panasonic or LG. My old LG 42" is still going strong after 6 years.
Plenty to look at with £550 in your back pocket and a 50" is within budget

SamUK

iTrader: (1)

LED is power is a concern, if its going to be on more then usuall..

I went for a 50" plasma, originally because it was cheap, but turned out better then i thought..

oh, and try to buy from Amazon if you can..customer service is great..they replaced my TV 2 times, no questions asked within 4 months of me having it.

jonc

I bought my LG from these guys, great service, helped me unpack and check the unit out before signing and fast delivery.
http://www.electrocentreltd.com/view...t.asp?pid=5915

In general, Panasonic for plasma, LG or Samsung for LED.

stilover

Another vote for a Panasonic Plasma. Mines great.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

If your are going down the Panny plasma route: Its the G series, V series or GT or VT series you want to look at, forget the rest of their line up (U series etc).

So for the current range that'll be gt30, g30, vt30 etc.

LG's latest 'Smart TV' plasm's look nice.


Wouldn't touch an CCFL LCD. Old hat and never that great anyway IMO.

LED; most manufacturers are STILL holding back on releasing full matrix lit panels on all but the most expensive models (still circa £1K for 47", like the LG LX9900), most manufacturers are still pushing edge-lit panels (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc).

Seeing this is your first flat TV, I would also suggest looking at an audio solution as 99% of panel TVs have terrible sound. In fact its inexcusable. OK if your old CRT was a hun drum NICAM, you might not notice. But for me, when I came away from a 5.1 CRT (built in sub, 2way main internal speakers, built in centre channel, remote rear satelites etc), it was a shocking loss in audio....I had to fork out the best part of £800 on top of the cost of the TV to get the sound quality back! And now have a giant A/V amp/radiator underneath the TV heating up the room! ('Onkyo' and 'compact' are mutually exclusive to each other ).

Jamz3k

Unless it is a Samsung D7000/8000 don't bother with LED, the rest look pish. Its the only TV series that has questioned my loyalty to Plasma.

Leslie

I would go for the Panny plasma every time.

Doesn't LED mean that the lcd screen is backlit with LED's?

Les

paulr

Okay, Panasonic plasma.

What features. I know i want built in freeview HD and full 1080p HD.

Buying online, don't you need someone to set it up for you, or is it dead easy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX...0474066&sr=1-3

£349.

CREWJ

If you are buying it for sport and are going for an LCD/LED TV then you should really get a high refresh rate TV. I got a 200Hz 46" and it completely decimates my 42" 100Hz when watching football or golf or anything with fast moving images.

dpb

28'' CRT

specialx

I had a 50" panasonic plasma then swapped to a 55" Samsung LED v7 for me the Samsung kicks the panasonic out of the park, the depth is simply breathtaking and with "motion plus" turn on the picture again lifts to a new level of viewing. (IMO)

Jamz3k

Or A widescreen window for truly breathtaking colours.

jonc

LED LCDs are backlit by LED rather than CCFL. This means they run cooler and use less power and with a matrix array setup can allow individtual LEDs to be independently dimmed or lit to increase contrast ratio and black levels which edge lit cannot do.

There is a potential issue with Panny Plasmas in that over time they loose their "blackness" as voltage is increased over time to compensate the degredation of plasma. Newer plasma have more gradual change but as to how gradual remains uncertain. There have been reports of this already happening with some of the older Panny plasmas. That together with higher power usage put me off plasmas.

paulr

Yes, what about the power consumption of a Plasma, what are we talking, pounds per week?
(Based on three hours a day).

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Oh come on its a tv! Just turn off a light!

Either way it'll use less power than a CRT.

And what you do save you'll lose when you fit a 300watt surround system

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

IMO and don't take this wrong way, but Samsung's 'motion plus' frame interpolation is the worst I've seen; If anyone is aware of the 'soap opera effect' these appear to suffer with it.

Our old Philips Natural motion TV never suffered this, nor does the Philips 9000series LED modern day counter part.

My Panny V20 plasma (discontinued) is somewhere inbetween; Not as good as Philip's 'natural motion' processing (as it can sometime stutter), but more realistic than the Samsung LEDs I've seen which look 'sped up'.


HOWEVER; The saving grace is ALL of them are better than a TV without frame interpolation IMO As a) you can always switch it off and b) I can't stand frame judder. Which was/is awful on LCD/LEDs without it.

(note some gurus justify frame judder by calling it the 'cinema' effect and saying it supposed to be like that.... but I call it pants )

jonc

A 42" plasma will definitely use more power than a 28" CRT that is for sure.

This will help to give you an idea of power consumption for both LCD and Plasma:
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

specialx

I am talking about watching blu rays, I never see any problems with the picture? Are my eyes not trained?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Maybe, I guess it depends on what you are used to. I never realised how good the old Philips natural motion was until I watched another 100hz (or 200hz etc) TV without any interpolation. I never really gave it much thought nor credit until I started look for new TVs, and found some models TV that did have motion processing varied in how well they did it. It could well be the later Samsungs or higher end models have addressed it.

Its probably at its worst on football I think. Films will always fare better unless there is some 24fps/50fps frame rate issue going on.

Its still far better than a TV without it though.

EddScott

My mother has our old 32" Sony Wega and I have to say I think the picture looks better than most LCD and Plasma. I think we've all been conned and CRT was always the better quality.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I stand corrected:

in 40" / 42" we're talking around 110watts vs circa 260watts as the average difference depending on settings etc (bearing in mind some TVs have an ambient sensor to detect room light, saving power by dimming the screen in darkened room).

So lets call it about 150watts difference. So what's that? 25pence a month extra if used for 3 hours a day? Seriously, thats is a drop in the ocean....

Does your house have a room using more than three GU10 halogens @ 50watts each? If so switch them off (or swap for LED/CCFL bulbs).

How about immersion heater at 3000watts? What temp is that set to 70dgrees or 55degrees?

Tumble dryer? 2500watts

Washing machine? 1500 watts

You get the idea.