32" FullHD LCD or 42" HD ready Plasma?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

I do not understand this urge to brand a Full HD TV better than a HD Ready TV. That is not necessarily the case. Whether one is better than the other is decided by the source files/discs we use. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyhow, how many here can spot glaring or even consistently noticeable differences between the same image at 720p and at 1080p? The question is moot.

In my opinion, one should just pick that TV which offers them the best picture - for their ambient light settings, for their viewing or colour/contrast preferences etc. I dont think there can be one particular TV or brand that can work as a universal recommendation or as a 'best' product. At least not at the budget range.

Again - just my opinion.

It all depends on the screen size and the viewing distance.

 

[sam9s]

I do not understand this urge to brand a Full HD TV better than a HD Ready TV. That is not necessarily the case. Whether one is better than the other is decided by the source files/discs we use. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyhow, how many here can spot glaring or even consistently noticeable differences between the same image at 720p and at 1080p? The question is moot. In my opinion, one should just pick that TV which offers them the best picture - for their ambient light settings, for their viewing or colour/contrast preferences etc. I dont think there can be one particular TV or brand that can work as a universal recommendation or as a 'best' product. At least not at the budget range.
Again - just my opinion.

Agree to every word, and believe it or not, I have been putting he very same views. Ceck out a statement I made on the first page......does it sound any different than what you have said here.....

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........

In my opinion, one should just pick that TV which offers them the best picture - for their ambient light settings, for their viewing or colour/contrast preferences etc.

absolutely....and is'nt this called subjectiveness, and when i tried to explain the same thing I was .....................anyway thanks for the input......

 

[sanjay0864]

And Sanjay, it is much better to use words such as 'I agree', and 'I disagree', rather than using words such as 'absurd', 'sound like a stuck record' and so on. Such words will only increase the provocation to people who are already heated up.

Point taken.

This is simple discussion on LCD/Plasma. What ever information you have, just post it politely. It is upto the reader to read what is written and come to whatever conclusion he wants and likes.

Would like to point out that 'THIS THREAD' is not really a LCD vs Plasma, thread but rather for a very specific set of requirements of the OP, ie. 32" Full HD LCD vs 42" HD Ready Plasma. The answer in my opinion, for the 'OP', is very simple, as stated by me earlier also, he should go in for the 32" LCD. The primary reason being, his need to use the TV as a PC monitor. For others, who do not have plans to use the TV as a PC monitor, my opinion stands, that the 42" HD Ready Plasma is a much better value for money.

 

[sanjay0864]

But then under 50 inches (42 to be precise) the differences between FHD and HD ready wont be that stark is what I gather from most of the discussion here.
On that note, does it make any sense to buy a Full HD TV if I am considering one of 32' be it LCD or plasma.

Your assessment is on the dot. For sizes under 50 inches, when viewed from normal viewing distances, the difference between 'Full HD' & 'HD Ready' is only in the mind and serves only to satisfy one's urge to have the best 'technical specs'. 'Technical specs', as most of us know, are more often than not, just for marketing purposes and do not neccessarily have a bearing on the final viewable picture quality.

 

[sanjay0864]

does it make any sense to buy a Full HD TV if I am considering one of 32' be it LCD or plasma.

Hi. No one answered this question. Even I want to know the answer.

The short and sweet answer to this is, NO. Full HD has absolutely no relevance, when deciding on a 32" TV, regardless if it is a LCD or Plasma. The only time it has relevance is if you plan to use the TV as a PC monitor. But be forewarned that even 1920x1080 (Full HD) is a very low resolution, for a 32" PC monitor.

Use the following link, to calculate, based on "Visual Acuity standards" at what size and at what distance the human eye can resolve the entire resolution of a moving picture.
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

Plasmas are preferrable over LCDs, for almost all situations except the following:
In smaller sizes than 42".

Could you enumerate the reasons?

The most important reason being that there aren't many choices for Plasmas smaller than 42". As far as I know, there are only two comercially available Plasmas in sizes less than 42". The choices being, a 37" Panasonic and a 32" LG. Other than that, I personally would not rule out a Plasma even in these smaller sizes.

 

[sanjay0864]

Ok lets change the equation to 42'. Does it make any sense to buy a full HD Plasma/ LCD TV of 42'?

42" does not change the equation enough to really matter and thus the short and sweet answer to this is also, NO. The only time, Full HD would matter at this size, is if you sit 'unusually' close to the TV.

Use the following link, to calculate, based on "Visual Acuity standards" at what size and at what distance the human eye can resolve the entire resolution of a moving picture.
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

 

[sam9s]

42" does not change the equation enough to really matter and thus the short and sweet answer to this is also, NO. The only time, Full HD would matter at this size, is if you sit 'unusually' close to the TV.

Use the following link, to calculate, based on "Visual Acuity standards" at what size and at what distance the human eye can resolve the entire resolution of a moving picture.
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

I would respectfully disagree, as I said Full HD also make sense when your sourse is full HD like BR or PC gaming, I will rephrase/re quote my statemet made on the first page...

...............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 (Plasma or LCD either way) specially if you belong to my genre, else most welsome to opt for an HD ready......

 

[BLASTO]

I would respectfully disagree, as I said Full HD also make sense when your sourse is full HD like BR or PC gaming, I will rephrase/re quote my statemet made on the first page...

Correct. If the source is FHD, the 720p TV downscales it to 720p and it depends on the TVs capability on how the picture appears.

When someone says you cannot distinguish between a HD ready and FHD TV from correct viewing distance, It means that when FHD TV is displaying 1080p scene and a HD ready TV is displaying the same scene in 720p, You cannot distinguish from >7-8 feet for 42".

If both TVs are displaying 1080p, there will be detail loss due to downscaling which is again hardly perceptible to human eyes. But detail loss is a detil loss nevertheless. Only >95% people cannot make out from that distance.

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 (Plasma or LCD either way) specially if you belong to my genre, else most welsome to opt for an HD ready......

If you have a BR player and lots of 1080p content at your disposal, you wont even ask if you require a FHD or HD ready TV. FHD it is. But if your usage is DTH, DVD, 720p Upscaled content, A HD ready TV would suffice for all technical and practical reasons if you are not born with an eye of an eagle.

Baseline is, when fed with native content 9720p for HD ready Tv and 1080p for FHD TV), the sizes upto 50" will not show advantages of FHD over HD ready at usual viewing distances. When 1080p is fed to both, there is loss of data during down-conversion which is there.

 

[sanjay0864]

...............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,

What you state is correct, but you continue to be lost in the pedantics of things. No one is debating or disagreeing, that a 'Full HD' display, in the case of a 'Full HD' source, would result in a higher resolution and if you wish to call it, a 'more detailed' picture, specially due to the absence of any scaling. Rather, the argument is based on the very relevant 'value' of that 'more detailed' picture. It makes no sense to pay more for, or give undue importance to that 'more detailed' picture, if due to human 'vision acuity', which is a scientifically proven and an undebatable fact, one cannot see or benefit from, the 'more detailed' picture. We can continue to argue till the world ends, but the fact remains, that due to the limitations of human 'vision acuity', there is no 'real' benefit of 'Full HD' below a certain screen size. The screen size, ofcourse varies, depending on viewing distance from the display and the resolution in question.

It might actually serve you well, to take another, more closer look at the "Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution" chart and maybe even experiment with it, before dismissing, what is a scientifically proven fact.

PS: Enough has already been stated here, for the OP and anyone else to make up their own minds. Stating any more, would only amount to, going around in circles. Thus, with this, I personally withdraw from any further debate on the matter atleast in the context of this thread.

 

[sam9s]

Correct. If the source is FHD, the 720p TV downscales it to 720p and it depends on the TVs capability on how the picture appears.

When someone says you cannot distinguish between a HD ready and FHD TV from correct viewing distance, It means that when FHD TV is displaying 1080p scene and a HD ready TV is displaying the same scene in 720p, You cannot distinguish from >7-8 feet for 42".

If both TVs are displaying 1080p, there will be detail loss due to downscaling which is again hardly perceptible to human eyes. But detail loss is a detil loss nevertheless. Only >95% people cannot make out from that distance.

If you have a BR player and lots of 1080p content at your disposal, you wont even ask if you require a FHD or HD ready TV. FHD it is. But if your usage is DTH, DVD, 720p Upscaled content, A HD ready TV would suffice for all technical and practical reasons if you are not born with an eye of an eagle.

Baseline is, when fed with native content 9720p for HD ready Tv and 1080p for FHD TV), the sizes upto 50" will not show advantages of FHD over HD ready at usual viewing distances. When 1080p is fed to both, there is loss of data during down-conversion which is there.

Hail you your statement BLASTO :cheers: ....Finally the one who I actually wanted to..... understood me "correctly" :yahoo: :yahoo:
My argument ends here ......lets move on to other topics and members who need help....

 

[BLASTO]

Hail you your statement BLASTO :cheers: ....Finally the one who I actually wanted to..... understood me "correctly" :yahoo: :yahoo:
My argument ends here ......lets move on to other topics and members who need help....

Well, If you are trying to say only this in all these pages, then you were really talking in french! I don' think even VRAMAK is denying that.

To add to that, If you were looking for the details missed out by a 720p TV when 1080p contents are displayed and viewed from the correct distance, You might probably not enjoy the movie itself in the process.

 

[sam9s]

Well, If you are trying to say only this in all these pages, then you were really talking in french! I don' think even VRAMAK is denying that.

lol heck no ...... VRAMAK discuession pivot was the A/V subjectiveness, that I am not sure if you agree.......but I still stand to it........and VRAMAK is not denying this fact sanjay was and I quoted you this way for him to understand.........
Plus the fact that the other thread was started by him as a repercussion of the argument we had here......