View Single Post
Old 11-26-2008   #10
whatchel1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Great Plains
Posts: 14
Default Re: 42" LCD vs Plasmas

Quote:
Originally Posted by glocksout View Post
jojoyee was definitely helpful, but it would make more sense in 2003 than in 2008.

When we're talking about a half-life of 60,000 hours we're talking 8 hours a day for 20 years until the display is at half-brightness. The average TV is on 4 hours a day, so we're talking 40 years. Regardless of how much it costs to replace the light engine, by the time you need to replace the light element of an LCD you might as well buy that new $50 TV in 2035.

The high-altitude issue only matters for people living in Colorado for the most part. And most manufacturers have high-altitude sets, except now they've defeated the need for nigh-altitude sets and most every plasma is fine at high altitudes.

The LCD technology is inherently limited because of the nature of the color crystals. These open and close to pass light. The fastest panels open at 2ms, and it takes another 2ms to close. The human eye can notice 4ms changes, so the very best LCD displays will always have motion blur. This is because these crystals open and close to pass light. Plasma pixels are activated at the speed of light, so there is no motion blur.
Well stated and correct. Also a good reason to go w/1080 models has to do with compatibility w/ sources. An example are the Dish network VIP sat receivers that output 1080p "On Demand" movies. If you don't have a compatible TV then sometimes it just won't play the movie. In future Blue Ray players may also do this as well and only output 480p if it doesn't see the 1080p ability.
Now one thing about available sets there is a new Vizio that should be out in many locations that is being compared to the top 4k buck plasma's that are out there. It is retailing at 1600 & bet it will soon be discounted below that.
whatchel1 is offline   Reply With Quote