32" FullHD LCD or 42" HD ready Plasma?

[shredder]

Hi I need the help of you gurus to decide this one.
I was about to get a 32" LG (32LG80FR) when I came across a 42" Panasonic Plasma (Panasonic-TH-P42C10D) at around the same price point.
So now I am confused about whether to go in for LCD or Plasma of bigger size.
The plasma is tempting because of the price and obviously real screen estate. Does anyone have any experience with this particular model?

My main use will be for watching DVD movies(upscaled) and DivX, though I will eventually upgrade to BluRay once it becomes as mainstream as DVD. Normal TV watching will be through ordinary cable. Also I will want to hook it up to a PC now and again for some intense gaming and also for surfing the net. (Mainly the TV should serve as a monitor as well).
So I need your valuable advice and suggestions on which model to go for...
Madbullram and others have constantly reiterated that the benefits of Full HD become apparent at 42". Am I going to be missing out much on a 42" HD Ready TV?
Thanks in advance.

PS: I have also heard about the 2009 Panasonic Plasma, that they become noticeably dimmer within one year. Is this particular model a part of the 2009 lineup?

 

[kg_murali]

Hi,

Go for 42" Panny. I am using for last 7 months. No probs till now.
Some one on the forum has hinted it is available for 31.9 K in Bangalore. Well what was quoted to you ??

 

[shredder]

I got a quoted price of 35k

 

[shredder]

Hi,

Go for 42" Panny. I am using for last 7 months. No probs till now.
Some one on the forum has hinted it is available for 31.9 K in Bangalore. Well what was quoted to you ??

What is the performance like for High def content?
And how much did you get yours for?

 

[sanjay0864]

Count my vote for the Panasonic 42" HD ready plasma.

 

[kg_murali]

Hi,

I got it during Deepavali with 3 years warranty. The price was 45K . I am using it with NBox for movies and the PQ is too good. It is on component video. Now I have got Xtreamer and will try on HDMI.
The PQ is good at 15ft. Even with normal cableTV, PQ is good for some of the channels. But the SQ is very very poor.

 

[sam9s]

Hi I need the help of you gurus to decide this one.
I was about to get a 32" LG (32LG80FR) when I came across a 42" Panasonic Plasma (Panasonic-TH-P42C10D) at around the same price point.
So now I am confused about whether to go in for LCD or Plasma of bigger size.
The plasma is tempting because of the price and obviously real screen estate. Does anyone have any experience with this particular model?

My main use will be for watching DVD movies(upscaled) and DivX, though I will eventually upgrade to BluRay once it becomes as mainstream as DVD. Normal TV watching will be through ordinary cable. Also I will want to hook it up to a PC now and again for some intense gaming and also for surfing the net. (Mainly the TV should serve as a monitor as well).
So I need your valuable advice and suggestions on which model to go for...
Madbullram and others have constantly reiterated that the benefits of Full HD become apparent at 42". Am I going to be missing out much on a 42" HD Ready TV?
Thanks in advance.

PS: I have also heard about the 2009 Panasonic Plasma, that they become noticeably dimmer within one year. Is this particular model a part of the 2009 lineup?

Weigh your options carefully, just because your are getting bigger plasma does not make it the obvious chioce........it entirly depends on what you would be using your display for......

As far as I can see, you would be using your display to see DVD movies upscaled and divx (probably HD rips) and later go for BluRay..........I can also see you would be connecting your PC for some gaimg ...... all these reason clearly state you should in all probability stay away from a Plasma and get a FULL HD LCD. Trust me result is rewarding. BR looks fantastic on full HD, so does HD rips, LCDs are also better in displaying upscaled DVDs, finally gaming, all current gen PC games are Full HD.

Keeping all these points, I strungly suggest to go for an LCD preferabily 42", but do not settle anything less that Full HD given the use you have mentioned for your display........

 

[sanjay0864]

Resolution is only third or fourth, in the list of characteristics that determine the final picture quality visible to a person. Thus, please do not give 'FULL HD' any more weightage than is due. The human eye scientifically cannot even discern the difference between 720p and 1080p, i.e. from a reasonable distance of 7-9 feet in the case of a 32" TV. In fact even in a 42" TV, you are going to be hard pressed to tell any differreence between 720p and 1080p, from a normal distance of 7-9 feet.

Plasmas are in general far superior to LCDs for gaming purposes. The slow response time of LCDs causes lag and ghost trails in fast motion video and gaming.

Also, there is absolutely no truth in classifying LCDs as inherently superior for upscaled DVDs. As a matter of fact, Plasmas are in general superior to LCDs on most counts and are definately far better value for money.

By, the way I would not dismiss the impact of size that easily.
The viewing area of a 32" 16:9 TV is 27.9 in(w) x 15.7 in(h) with a total viewing area of 438.03 sq in.
The viewing area of a 42" 16:9 TV is 36.6 in(w) x 20.6 in(h) with a total viewing area of 753.96 sq in.
Which means the 42" Plasma has a 315.93 sq in. larger viewing area, which translates into a 72% larger picture. Yeah, those 10" can surely add up.

Between a 32" LCD (irrespective of resolution) and a 42" HD ready Plasma, it is a 'NO CONTEST' and the plasma wins hands down.

 

[sam9s]

Resolution is only third or fourth, in the list of characteristics that determine the final picture quality visible to a person. Thus, please do not give 'FULL HD' any more weightage than is due. The human eye scientifically cannot even discern the difference between 720p and 1080p, i.e. from a reasonable distance of 7-9 feet in the case of a 32" TV. In fact even in a 42" TV, you are going to be hard pressed to tell any differreence between 720p and 1080p, from a normal distance of 7-9 feet.

Plasmas are in general far superior to LCDs for gaming purposes. The slow response time of LCDs causes lag and ghost trails in fast motion video and gaming.
.

LCDs have come a long way......gone are the days when Plasma were the choice for the so called "response time" these days all LCDs have surpassed that hurdle and have brought down the ms to a far reasonable level. There was also a time when plasmas used to boast contract ratio, but again LCDs have come along way and today we have LCDs with far better contract ratios....

I will also like to clear this 1080 and 720p make no difference concept............viweing distance is not the only thing that determines the video quality over these resolutions........depends on the source as well, if the source has a 1080p resolution, it is always better to view it on a display which has a native 1080p resolution............., as then the display does not have to scale the image to fit the given size (resolution), and this scaling is a big factor how good does the display shows the image. Scaling is done by TV's own algo. Better the algo better the scaling and better is the image, but in the end.......if the scaling of an original image occurs there is bound to be some loss or cropping of picture........... eventually resulting in some loss of picture quality as well.

So its advisable to have a full HD to run 1080p signals and aviode scalling,

Having said that I also agree people are equally satisfied by the HD ready as well people who dont care much of some picture loss (after all how much difference one can make out). On the other hand people like me who are pretty meticulous about getting every ounce of detail out of a BlueRay/Gaming would not settle for anything less and definately would go for a Full HD........

To the OP if....Your future source is full HD (BR and Games) my suggestion Full HD specially if you belong to my genre, else most welsome to opt for a Plasma.......

 

[adder]

Well if one is going to gaming i would recommend a lcd,the input lag isn't noticable even in fps games in Spva based lcd let alone Ips based lcds.
Again the lcds crisper ,sharper nature will make one feel he is in the game,lcds are also much better suited in room with light source in front ,sides of the tv.The glare in a plasma is going to wash out the picture leading to poor contrast and washed out colors.

 

[sanjay0864]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of misconceptions people have about LCDs and Plasmas. What I am hearing here, is what one would generally expect a Sony or Samsung salesman to be saying as a part of their sales pitch. More often than not, there is very little truth in the salesman's pitch and very rarely can any of the claims be backed up by technical facts. Surprisingly, it seems like a lot of the same going on over here. I suppose the likes of Sony and Samsung have done a great job marketing LCDs. All I'll say is, if you guys think your LCDs are nice and you are happy with them, so be it. But please don't guide others as if what you state is the gospel truth. For, most of what you are stating is not technically correct. I would suggest that you search and investigate the internet for more facts, before stating that LCDs are better than Plasmas. The actual facts point towards the opposite. Although, it would be silly of me or anyone else, to make any blanket judgements either way.

@shredder
I suggest that you do some research of your own vis a vis the Plasma vs LCD debate. Personally, I feel that choosing between the 'two' choices, a 32" LCD and a 42" Plasma, is an absolute no brainer and that the 42" plasma is a clear winner amongst the two. I guarantee you will never regret the decision.

EDIT: I had overlooked the fact that you want to use the TV as a monitor. In that case and primarily for that reason, I too would suggest that you go with the 32" LCD. 1024x768 resolution for a 42" PC monitor is way too low. Although even 1920x1080 resolution for a 32" PC montor is not going to give you a very pleasing experience. If it were not for your requirement to use your TV as a PC monitor, I would suggest you buy the 42" Plasma.

 

[sam9s]

^^ What has been said above would have been true a couple of years ago, yes Plasma were considered to be better in terms of Blacks, Contract ratio, viewing angle.......but yoday that is not entirly true, LCDs as I said have come a long way since Plasma were ruling and today's gen LCD compeat equaly if not better than Plasma, so in that sence, there is no Clear Winner definately......

And BTW I would suggest people to do their research as well, on most of the sites (currently updated) we see reviewers stating advantages of Plasms over LCD BUT also state the fact that recent LCDs have come across these hurdels and have bridged the gap considerably......as I said Gone are the days when Plasmas were a "Clear Winner"....

 

[vramak]

Mainly the TV should serve as a monitor as well.

For this reason, LCD.

HD ready plasma's have 1024x768 resolution, which at 42" size is certainly not suitable for browsing the internet. Plus no one would want to use a plasma screen as a monitor because doing so will greatly increase the chance of image burn-in.

Anyone who's done research will agree that at the same price point, a plasma screen will have wider color gamut (thus better color accuracy), deeper black levels (thus more contrast) and less motion blur than an LCD screen. The downsides of plasma's are vulnerability to image retention, more screen glare, more power consumption, lesser brightness and in your case, lower resolution too.

In your case, the problems caused by vulnerability to image retention and lower resolutions outweigh the benefits given by plasma. So get an LCD.

 

[BLASTO]

If you want to use the TV as monitor, go for LCD (period)
If you want to view upscaled movies, TATA sky etc, go for Plama.
More than that use your eyes. Demo thoroughly taking time. People can help you only to an extent. Sanjay's post has the rest!

Viewing angle in LCDs is a problem and you will see the difference if you have a plasma and visit a friend who has an LCD (or vise versa). No comparisons here. If someone says otherwise, It is wrong!

More than that, for regular content, the new LCDs does have considerable motion resolution, black levels, colour reproduction etc to live with in daily use.

Finally aspect ratio is hyped up. 720p is good enough for 42". (If you are 'reading' something from the screen as in computer monitor)

For your particular case, LCD is the way to go as you have a monitor usage.

 

[pavit]

The choice between LCD and Plasma has always been driven more by where do you plan to keep it. If the place is fairly lit and ventilated, go for LCD. If it's dark, go for Plasma
For bigger sizes (40+) plasma is recommended.

 

[jayad08]

42" plasma if you are going to watch everyday content. such as TataSKY, DVD movies..

go for 32" only if u are going to do any of these quite frequently..
1) you are not going to wall mount, and sit very close, using it as a monitor
2) u are going to use text based applications such as internet browsing/word/excel
3) u r going to play latest full HD games at 1080p
4) u r going to watch BR rips@1080p or going to connect a BD player and watch blue rays regularly..

 

[sam9s]

Viewing angle in LCDs is a problem and you will see the difference if you have a plasma and visit a friend who has an LCD (or vise versa). No comparisons here. If someone says otherwise, It is wrong!.

Again thats old news todays gen IPS pannel LCDs have same viewing angle as Plasmas have........~180D

 

[sanjay0864]

^^ What has been said above would have been true a couple of years ago, yes Plasma were considered to be better in terms of Blacks, Contract ratio, viewing angle.......but yoday that is not entirly true, LCDs as I said have come a long way since Plasma were ruling and today's gen LCD compeat equaly if not better than Plasma, so in that sence, there is no Clear Winner definately......

And BTW I would suggest people to do their research as well, on most of the sites (currently updated) we see reviewers stating advantages of Plasms over LCD BUT also state the fact that recent LCDs have come across these hurdels and have bridged the gap considerably......as I said Gone are the days when Plasmas were a "Clear Winner"....

Actually, all that still holds true for most Plasmas and LCDs. As far as LCDs may have come, it is only the very high end (read expensive), LED 'back lit' (not side lit) LCDs that have now started to compare with Plasmas in terms of 'Blacks, Contrast Ratio, Viewing Angle' etc. In the mid to lower end, Plasmas are still the 'clear' winner. Basically as value for money the plasmas are long way from being beaten yet. In fact even today, even with cost not being an issue, the very best TVs, both 2D and 3D are Plasmas. Ofcourse all this applies to sizes larger than 42", since, below that size, LCD is pretty much the only choice available.

 

[sam9s]

In the mid to lower end, Plasmas are still the 'clear' winner. Basically as value for money the plasmas are long way from being beaten yet. In fact even today, even with cost not being an issue, the very best TVs, both 2D and 3D are Plasmas. Ofcourse all this applies to sizes larger than 42", since, below that size, LCD is pretty much the only choice available.

I respectfully differ, I did not find any practicle viewable difference in "Contract Ratio and Viewing level. Yes Blacks were wee bit better, but not that we can claim LCD a deal breaker or clear looser...........pluse LCDs were bright and had that matt finish in viewing a HD movie giving an edge over plasma as fas as BluRay viewing is concerned....................Anyway as I always say, just like audio, video is subjective as well and I respect that difference.....

 

[sanjay0864]

Anyway as I always say, just like audio, video is subjective as well and I respect that difference.....

Can't argue with that, my friend. :clapping: