Looking for a 42 inch TV.

H

hak

n00b
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
47
Hey guys, I've been looking into buying a 42 inch TV mostly for watching TV and Movies. I already own the Acer H243H foe 360 and ps3 gaming so I'm good there. First I have a few questions.

1. LCD or plasma? I know Plasmas have the better contrast ratios and no input lag or response tims, but I'm worried about burn in. Did they fix that yet?

Is the difference from 60Hz, 120Hz, and 240Hz very noticeable or just a gimmick?

Also I'm on a budget of about 600, or 800 on amazon (because I have gift cards). I'm all ears to any recommendations anyone has.

Heres a TV I've been looking at that got mostly good reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-42LD520-42...ref=sr_du_1_map?ie=UTF8&qid=1294296302&sr=8-1

Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I bought an LG 47" 60hz about a year ago. It was cheapest around at the time at $800. I was worried about the 60hz but you know after all is said and done and you have it up on the wall, I think you will like whatever you buy.

I don't use it to do anything but watch tv so if your going to game on it that MIGHT warrant the 120hz or something but I love mine just the way it is.
 
hak said:
Hey guys, I've been looking into buying a 42 inch TV mostly for watching TV and Movies. I already own the Acer H243H foe 360 and ps3 gaming so I'm good there. First I have a few questions.

1. LCD or plasma? I know Plasmas have the better contrast ratios and no input lag or response tims, but I'm worried about burn in. Did they fix that yet?

Is the difference from 60Hz, 120Hz, and 240Hz very noticeable or just a gimmick?

Also I'm on a budget of about 600, or 800 on amazon (because I have gift cards). I'm all ears to any recommendations anyone has.

Heres a TV I've been looking at that got mostly good reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-42LD520-42...ref=sr_du_1_map?ie=UTF8&qid=1294296302&sr=8-1

Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

LCD or Plasma really depends on your viewing environment. With plasma you will get the best results in a dark or dimley lit room. If you viewing environment has lots of windows or lights then I would go with LCD. Plasmas are better suted for movies with a lot of dark scenes, but they are still watchable on a decent LCD. General speaking LCDs do a better job with output from a computer and you do not have to worry about burn in.

For the most part I think 60/120/240HZ is a gimmic. I have a Samsung 52A650 (120Hz), my brother has a 52B750 (240 Hz). Neither one of us can tell the difference between the two. I would rather have 120 Hz than 60 Hz, mostly because the 120/240 Hz models usually have a better panel in them.

It always comes down to three things; price, what you are going to use it for, and where are you going to put it.

Dave
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I have a 42 inch Panasonic plasma (TC-P42S1) which I use as the monitor for my entertainment PC, so lots of movies and games and just a bit of web usage when I'm feeling too lazy to use my other PC. Burn has not been a problem for me, but I've seen plenty of image retention that can be distracting if I don't wipe it out before I try playing a dark video game.

Plasmas definitely have the edge in contrast and viewing angles, but they are not optimal if you expect to spend a lot of time looking at static images or have brighter ambient conditions.

120hz/240hz is marketing bs. I find that it gives movies an artificial, poorly lit, cheap look. It can also add processing time and lag if you want to play games. I'm not a fan. It would be great if they were actual usable input frequencies, but right now they're either interpolating frames or inserting black frames.

Best of luck.
 
The only big problem with Panasonic plasma's is the rising black level issue where the black levels are better when its new and slowly get worse over time.

Im not sure exactly which models are affected by this but I know the S1 series was on the list, It's also mentioned in CNET's review in the Editors notes.

Other than this Panasonic specific issue Im a huge Plasma fan. The contrast ratio / motion resolution alone makes them worth it, also unlimited viewing angles. I haven't had any issue with image retention over the 3 years ive owned my current Kuro 5080HD plasma. (It's used heavily for gaming).

My aunt recently bought a 55" Vizio LCD to replace her aging Samsung DLP and I'd have to admit it has a pretty nice picture (especially after she asked me to adjust it), I just dont know the reliability record of this brand.
 
I haven't noticed the black levels get terribly worse, but if I could have bought a Kuro for $650 my choice would have been made. The only time I think about black levels on my tv is when someone brings it up. Other than that I just enjoy using it.

There is a lot of info at AVS about the "issue" and why Panasonic tweaks the initialization voltage as the panels age. Generally, the blacks get brighter over time, but they use less electricity. Panasonic claims their only mistake was having it take such large steps instead of more smaller steps. Either way the power usage and lifetime of the set are impacted positively.

All I know, is as I said earlier, I just enjoy using it.

Edit -> Here's the best explanation I've found: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19588712#post19588712
 
Zepher said:
I am a plasma fan but my friend bought one of those Vizio TV's and they are pretty good.
If you bump your budget up on Amazon a little you can get the 55"
http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-E550VL-...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1294299239&sr=1-1
Click to expand...

Thats a little too much, but thanks anyway. I probably would but my brother wont slip it with me because hes cheap.

daveswantek said:
LCD or Plasma really depends on your viewing environment. With plasma you will get the best results in a dark or dimley lit room. If you viewing environment has lots of windows or lights then I would go with LCD. Plasmas are better suted for movies with a lot of dark scenes, but they are still watchable on a decent LCD. General speaking LCDs do a better job with output from a computer and you do not have to worry about burn in.

For the most part I think 60/120/240HZ is a gimmic. I have a Samsung 52A650 (120Hz), my brother has a 52B750 (240 Hz). Neither one of us can tell the difference between the two. I would rather have 120 Hz than 60 Hz, mostly because the 120/240 Hz models usually have a better panel in them.

It always comes down to three things; price, what you are going to use it for, and where are you going to put it.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'll be viewing it in my room. My room has 2 windows side by side about 5 feet wide and 4 feet high combined. I have black curtains that cover that windows though. I will be hooking up my PS3 (blue rays) and cable box. The most I'll spend is 800$ on amazon, but if you can find cheaper that would be great because the cheaper the better.

I'll be using it oly for movies and TV, but if I ever do game on it, I would only play single player campaigns, or sports games on it, because i use my monitor for competitive gaming (xbox 360)

Thanks for all your guys help.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As far as plasma vs LCD, I have a plasma and my brother has a LCD (note not LED-LCD).

Sports: Hands down and no comparison my plasma wins. It's not even close. We watch a lot of hockey games, and when the camera shifts up and down the ice, the motion blur is pretty noticeable on the LCD, where as on the plasma it's not there. Plasma wins.
Video games: I get better fluidity for games that don't have artificial motion blur. He gets the peace of mind that LCDs don't have even have the slight possibility of burn-in. Picture quality is the same, since they are both limited by the game itself. LCD wins, but not by much.
Daytime: My plasma looks very "meh" in the middle of the day. Ambient light definitely has a color wash-out effect. And it looks dimmer because of the light reflecting off the glass screen. My brother's LCD looks sharp and very vivid. LCD wins.
Nighttime: My plasma is like a cinema in my room. Turn off all the lights and it's amazing. The LCD is good too, but you really pick up on its flaws in the dark, like ghosting and poor black levels. Plasma wins.

--------------------

Why did I pick a plasma? Because it only cost me $300 (best deal I have ever seen on any TV on any Black Friday thanks to Buy.com). If it was a LCD instead, I still would have purchased it. For a 42'' 1080P it was a steal either way.

Hopefully LED-LCD will be able to offer the best of both worlds in another year or two.
 
As an owner of a 55" Panasonic Plasma and 52" Samsung LED LCD on opposing walls of my home (livingroom/bedroom), I can tell you this.... forget about plasma vs LCD. Its a bullshit comparison, as technology has matured, and most of the opinions people have formed are based on old technology. Its like asking if a diesel engine is better than a gasoline engine... it depends on the specific engines you are talking about of course.

Look at the actual sets themselves and read the reviews. There are some seriously crappy plasmas and some seriously badass LCDs and visa versa.

If slimness for a wallmount, weight (again so no worries if you're only on one stud), power use, and burn-in for computer use are primary concerns, this will likely push you towards a LED LCD.
 
To the poster above, I was under the impression that there are no real LED-LCD TVs in the $600-$800 price range. Edge-lit doesn't count. I've actually read the edge-lit can cause a worse picture than a standard CCFL LCD.

But, the fact that I notice differences and you don't pretty much verifies that the OP is going to have to see the two side-by-side for himself. (And in different scenarios if possible)
 
I find that asking people is pointless unless you have some kind of psychic link to their eyes. User your own and dont ask. Ignore the sales people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top