|
|
Posted by D L S on 06/20/07 10:37
On Jun 19, 2:59 pm, "Mike" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Marko Van Vestibule" <mar...@wapthespamntlworld.com> wrote in messagenews:LeOci.49$vA3.12@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> > If you had to choose one, which one and why
>
> Neither is better than the other. They are totally different technologies
> and pictures.
> Its down to personal preference if you go to a shop and view them you'll
> have your answer.
Personally I have yet to see an LCD with the sharpness and PQ of a
decent HD Plasma, I am sure they are out there but not in the homes or
shops I have been too. The contrast is all to shit and the picture
way too soft and unnatural. The one my girlfriend's flatmate has in
the living room makes every show look like it was filmed on Digital8.
B&W films especially look how can i put this "shiney" I guess. Severe
contrast between darks and lights with little tonal gradient. This is
on a 32" fairly new LCD TV, I messed with the settings but couldn't
get it to look right.
Last I heard, LCD was closing the gap on plasma as far as pic quality
goes. Previously LCD was let down by slow refresh rates making fast
motion a bit blurry and it's LCD backlighting screwing up the contrast
so that black was never totally black. I should think that LCD has
closed this gap by now. The benefits of LCD being almost no image
retention, a problem even my run-in Pioneer suffers from after more
than a year, albeit slightly; also I think they have a lower running
cost.
I would check out the AV Forums for advice rather than here as there
are more "professional" TV people there as well as buying guides and
FAQs on both technologies and the latest on LCD/Plasma technology.
Damon
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|