Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Suggestions for a 32" Gaming TV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
June 21, 2010 7:30:37 AM

Ive been saving up to buy a nice LCD TV but I have a few hangups. First being my parents went out and bought a brand new TV, and the thing is Atrocious. Its a Toshiba, not sure the model. about 42" and cost about $800 CAD. I hooked my 360 up to that garbage, popped in Mass Effect 2, and i swear to god there was a 2 second wait time between me clicking a button and it happening onscreen, The response time was horrible, not to mention it had that sped up look, as if it were skipping frames, while watching movies and sometimes even TV shows on HD channels. So needless to say, this has scared me out of buying a TV without considerable ammounts of advice from people educated in the area. I'll start by stating what im looking for:

1080p HD (If those are two seperate things, please let me know. I always thought anything over 320 was "HD")

32" (Perfect size for my setup)

60Hz (Perhaps 120 or even 240 if it actualy makes a difference, which ive heard many times it does not, because games refresh at 60FPS regardless, and that going higher can actualy mess up image quality in some cases such as movies and even some games)

Fastest Response time possible (For obvious reasons, as well I'll most likely be using this as a monitor for my PC as well, but that is at the bottom of the list by far, i want the TV to function for Console gaming First and Foremost, all else is second.)

So basicly just top of the line as far as 32" LCD goes. I'd get a Plasma but I hear those arent Ideal for gaming, as the countless hours of play will burn it out. My budget can be relatively high, as I can just go ahead and save up more cash, so feel free to mention mention TVs within any price range, but if I had to budget, id say anyhting up to $1000.

Here are two I was looking into:
Samsung 32" 1080p LED HDTV
Sony BRAVIA 32" 1080p LCD HDTV

I'd really appreciate any suggestions you fine people could give me, as I've been delaying this purchase for nearly 3 months at fear of buying a piece of garbage. I want to be 100% sound when I buy this TV. Thank you once again, and I look forward to your responses.

More about : suggestions gaming

June 22, 2010 8:16:49 AM

Anyone?
Score
0
a b x TV
June 22, 2010 4:45:38 PM

OK haven't experienced this personally, but I've read that you'll need to turn off the 120Hz internal refresh, if at all possible, for gaming since that is what is probably causing your input lag on the Toshiba TV. The 120Hz refresh requires a processor to interpolate between frames for stuff like sports or other fast-paced action so as to reduce motion blur.

I have a PS3 connected to a 50" Pioneer plasma TV and there is no lag when playing games, plus the picture looks beautiful at 1080P 36-bit color. Just about all recent plasma TVs have burn-in prevention plus special default settings for games (you have to set that TV input to game mode).

I also have a couple 120Hz Sony LCDs but never connected the PS3 to them, which is why I don't have personal experience concerning input lag on them. But I can vouch for the fact that Sony makes excellent TVs :) .
Score
0
Related resources
June 22, 2010 7:47:41 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
OK haven't experienced this personally, but I've read that you'll need to turn off the 120Hz internal refresh, if at all possible, for gaming since that is what is probably causing your input lag on the Toshiba TV. The 120Hz refresh requires a processor to interpolate between frames for stuff like sports or other fast-paced action so as to reduce motion blur.

I have a PS3 connected to a 50" Pioneer plasma TV and there is no lag when playing games, plus the picture looks beautiful at 1080P 36-bit color. Just about all recent plasma TVs have burn-in prevention plus special default settings for games (you have to set that TV input to game mode).

I also have a couple 120Hz Sony LCDs but never connected the PS3 to them, which is why I don't have personal experience concerning input lag on them. But I can vouch for the fact that Sony makes excellent TVs :) .


Its not the burn-in on plasmas im worried about as i also heard they fixed that problem. its actualy the fact that Plasma TVs have a lifetime expectancy of 2-4 years. And using the TV hours on end a day is sure to shorten that to the lesser side of that 2-4 years. I know the picture quality is much better but i mean, your 50" for example probably cost you 3-4 grand, and thats a steep price for 2 years of a usable TV. Hence why im looking for a good LCD. If i can find an Affordable 32" Plasma I might consider it.

If there are any good plasmas you could reccomend, id appreciate it. I hear they come in sizes only as small as 40" generaly, but if its good and relatively cheap ill get a 40". Plasma quality is supposed to be amazing, only thing im worred about is it dying on me after 2 years.
Score
0

Best solution

a b x TV
June 22, 2010 8:31:47 PM

I guess you are referring to the brightness diminishing over the lifetime - see this link for an update: http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-li...

Quote:
The second question that I get from friends or family when discussing plasma TVs is, "Plasmas don't last as long right, they burn out faster (than other television technologies)? The short answer to this question among top tier brands is, "No, plasma is the equivalent of LCD/LED in lifespan as a technology, though there is variation among brands and models".

FYI: The first question is, invariably, "Which is better, LCD or Plasma (TV technology). See our article: Plasma TV vs. LCD.

Plasma TV life span expectancy has long been a hot topic and rightly so. Most early plasma monitor models from 1999 and early 2000 have already been delivered to the electronics graveyard. Manufacturers were doing well to deliver a plasma product that fired up. An early adoptor could purchase a plasma TV that was 6" in depth, was hot enough to fry an egg on, and had fans that sounded like it was going to take off and fly through the roof - all for a modest $10,000.

However, improvements in the longevity of plasma TVs and displays have been rapidly effective. The green phosphors are claimed by some manufacturers as the reason behind the incredible increase. Lower power usage and motion adaptive anti burn-in technology are also contributors.

In fact, many plasma manufacturers boast a life span of 100,000 hours to half life! This is a longer life than a tube based television. The specification is somewhat suspect since the process of determining longevity of the product is based on deductive mathematical calculation of phosphor dissipation, and does not take into account the electronic components and the myriad of problems that can occur. Panasonic was the first to claim the 60,000 hour life span, up from a previous 30,000 just a year prior and now Samsung, LG and Panasonic claim 100,000 hours to half life.

So how long will a plasma last? The long and short of it is that it depends upon your daily hourly usage as well as how you use the monitor. 4 to 55 years is my new short answer.

One practical example I will cite here is the Panasonic Tau units being used by video rental company, In Motion Pictures at major airports around the country. Most of the earlier Tau models have now been replaced by a newer model, but these plasma displays were used for 5 years and were the first generation of plasma displays to go a considerable distance. In Motion displays images on them from 6AM until 10PM daily (16 hours). By my estimates, these early plasma displays by Panasonic were in use by In Motion for around 30,000 hours or more. They never fail to catch my eye as I pass by in one airport or another to see if they are still in use. If they have lost some of their brightness level its hard to tell. This use equates to 18 years for a home owner that watches 3 hours television per day. So a 100,000 hour lifespan for a plasma TV will mean triple that to 54 years at 3 hours per day.


Anyway, now that Pioneer is no longer manufacturing plasmas (and I bought mine closer to the $2K mark because of that, until demand drove the price well over $3K as the Kuro Elite models were top-ranked by CNET and other review sites), I'd recommend Panasonic or Samsung. Read the reviews on CNET.
Share
June 23, 2010 7:29:07 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
I guess you are referring to the brightness diminishing over the lifetime - see this link for an update: http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-li...

Quote:
The second question that I get from friends or family when discussing plasma TVs is, "Plasmas don't last as long right, they burn out faster (than other television technologies)? The short answer to this question among top tier brands is, "No, plasma is the equivalent of LCD/LED in lifespan as a technology, though there is variation among brands and models".

FYI: The first question is, invariably, "Which is better, LCD or Plasma (TV technology). See our article: Plasma TV vs. LCD.

Plasma TV life span expectancy has long been a hot topic and rightly so. Most early plasma monitor models from 1999 and early 2000 have already been delivered to the electronics graveyard. Manufacturers were doing well to deliver a plasma product that fired up. An early adoptor could purchase a plasma TV that was 6" in depth, was hot enough to fry an egg on, and had fans that sounded like it was going to take off and fly through the roof - all for a modest $10,000.

However, improvements in the longevity of plasma TVs and displays have been rapidly effective. The green phosphors are claimed by some manufacturers as the reason behind the incredible increase. Lower power usage and motion adaptive anti burn-in technology are also contributors.

In fact, many plasma manufacturers boast a life span of 100,000 hours to half life! This is a longer life than a tube based television. The specification is somewhat suspect since the process of determining longevity of the product is based on deductive mathematical calculation of phosphor dissipation, and does not take into account the electronic components and the myriad of problems that can occur. Panasonic was the first to claim the 60,000 hour life span, up from a previous 30,000 just a year prior and now Samsung, LG and Panasonic claim 100,000 hours to half life.

So how long will a plasma last? The long and short of it is that it depends upon your daily hourly usage as well as how you use the monitor. 4 to 55 years is my new short answer.

One practical example I will cite here is the Panasonic Tau units being used by video rental company, In Motion Pictures at major airports around the country. Most of the earlier Tau models have now been replaced by a newer model, but these plasma displays were used for 5 years and were the first generation of plasma displays to go a considerable distance. In Motion displays images on them from 6AM until 10PM daily (16 hours). By my estimates, these early plasma displays by Panasonic were in use by In Motion for around 30,000 hours or more. They never fail to catch my eye as I pass by in one airport or another to see if they are still in use. If they have lost some of their brightness level its hard to tell. This use equates to 18 years for a home owner that watches 3 hours television per day. So a 100,000 hour lifespan for a plasma TV will mean triple that to 54 years at 3 hours per day.


Anyway, now that Pioneer is no longer manufacturing plasmas (and I bought mine closer to the $2K mark because of that, until demand drove the price well over $3K as the Kuro Elite models were top-ranked by CNET and other review sites), I'd recommend Panasonic or Samsung. Read the reviews on CNET.


I ready your reply as well as that entire article and I just wanted to ask the point of the arcticle in your perspective. Is it to say that Plasmas are BETTER or Equaly as good? If what the article states is true, the life expectency is the same as an LCD/LED, while the picture quality is much greater. If that is so, should i not buy a Plasma? Problem is, im not TV savy yet, so take this for example:

Panasonic 42" 1080p Plasma HDTV

Is that a good TV? I see stuff there like "600Hz Sub Field Drive" and "12-bit Panel Processor" and its all gibberish to me. Dont get me wrong, I understand the electronic terms here as Im getting into building computers. I understand the 600Hz, and 12-bit parts, i just dont understand its affect on the TV itself. Breaking it down, what im asking is, A) Is it the General Opinion that IF you can afford a plasma, you sohuld buy it over an LCD/LED? B) Same as [A] but in YOUR opinion. and C) Can you reccomend some plasmas that are Good and a smaller size, like 42" (as thats what fits my size interest, in fact its even a little to big, but hey, if the plasma is a good buy, i can manage to change my setup for a further distance.) Assuming of course, that a Plasma is what i should buy.

Plasma really caught my attention a while back when i heard this about Plasmas not having a Pixel Response Time (Milleseconds, such as 8ms or 6ms) or Refresh Rate (Hz, such as 60/120/240) as it outputs real time (The equivalent of saying that all Plasmas have an instant response time and a Refresh rate = to whatever your watching, so no motion blur on sports, and no lag on games, and basicly that the image quality of the Plasma is just Unparalleled.)

Feel free to answer my questions, your help is greatly appreciated in my persuit of knowledge.
Score
0
June 23, 2010 10:54:23 PM

Plasma VS LCD has been around forever and for a while the answer was Plasma is a better picture but doesn't last as long and costs more money.

Today Plasmas have = picture quality MOST OF THE TIME.

Plasmas no longer have a burn in issue at all and NOW generally last as long as LCD TVs.
Plasmas also have refresh rates of 600hz so you never need to worry about speed.
The largest issue with a plasma TV is the room you set them up in and the lighting in the room. If you are going to be playing your games with the sun shinning in i would say that you would have to be crazy to buy a plasma, they do not perform well under high amounts of light.

I am a SONY guy for TVs, Every TV we have owned in the last 10 years (about 6 has been sony). here is the deal with sony though..... unless you are getting near the top of the line sony, samsung wins. That Samsung TV you listed is an amazing unit and in no way other than cost will you be disappointed, thats just a lot of money to spend on a 32" TV.

I use a 42" LG 720P LCD 60HZ TV for gaming (xbox 360 and HDMI out from my computer) and i LOVE it, i see no difference in quality when playing on higher end TVs, if anything I like my LG more, its brighter and the black levels are great.

I think you need to decide if you want the newest technology and if its worth the money or not. You can get a 32" vizio for less than 400.00US and you will prob be happy saving the 600 more you are thinking of spending, however if you wana get the best and know you have the best, go for it.

As far as noticing the difference with 60hz 120hz and 240hz, it all depends on viewing distance, quality of what you are watching, what you are watching, and the size of the TV.

Personally i am extremely picky and i cant tell the difference of a GOOD 32" 720p and 1080p, especially the refresh rate, even if im watching a new blu-ray.

the larger you go the more noticeable it will be. Depending on where you buy the TV, i would bring a blu-ray and have them plug in a player into the different TVs you are thinking of getting. You will be surprised at how into it the sales people get ( if they care ).
Lastly i would say that Reviews on the internet tend be written by morons who really dont know what they are talking about, however if you are hearing the same thing over and over again, they are probably correct.
read a lot of reviews on the specific TV you are going to purchase from lots of sites and it will definitely increase your odds of getting a good product. You are definitely taking good steps to finding your tv though!
Good luck!!!

Score
0
June 23, 2010 10:55:28 PM

and that panasonic you linked is a good tv, just not for that price. my girlfriends family just got the same series in 52" for a little less and it included a panny bluray player
Score
0
June 24, 2010 7:56:33 AM

eloplayspolo said:
Plasma VS LCD has been around forever and for a while the answer was Plasma is a better picture but doesn't last as long and costs more money.

Today Plasmas have = picture quality MOST OF THE TIME.

Plasmas no longer have a burn in issue at all and NOW generally last as long as LCD TVs.
Plasmas also have refresh rates of 600hz so you never need to worry about speed.
The largest issue with a plasma TV is the room you set them up in and the lighting in the room. If you are going to be playing your games with the sun shinning in i would say that you would have to be crazy to buy a plasma, they do not perform well under high amounts of light.

I am a SONY guy for TVs, Every TV we have owned in the last 10 years (about 6 has been sony). here is the deal with sony though..... unless you are getting near the top of the line sony, samsung wins. That Samsung TV you listed is an amazing unit and in no way other than cost will you be disappointed, thats just a lot of money to spend on a 32" TV.

I use a 42" LG 720P LCD 60HZ TV for gaming (xbox 360 and HDMI out from my computer) and i LOVE it, i see no difference in quality when playing on higher end TVs, if anything I like my LG more, its brighter and the black levels are great.

I think you need to decide if you want the newest technology and if its worth the money or not. You can get a 32" vizio for less than 400.00US and you will prob be happy saving the 600 more you are thinking of spending, however if you wana get the best and know you have the best, go for it.

As far as noticing the difference with 60hz 120hz and 240hz, it all depends on viewing distance, quality of what you are watching, what you are watching, and the size of the TV.

Personally i am extremely picky and i cant tell the difference of a GOOD 32" 720p and 1080p, especially the refresh rate, even if im watching a new blu-ray.

the larger you go the more noticeable it will be. Depending on where you buy the TV, i would bring a blu-ray and have them plug in a player into the different TVs you are thinking of getting. You will be surprised at how into it the sales people get ( if they care ).
Lastly i would say that Reviews on the internet tend be written by morons who really dont know what they are talking about, however if you are hearing the same thing over and over again, they are probably correct.
read a lot of reviews on the specific TV you are going to purchase from lots of sites and it will definitely increase your odds of getting a good product. You are definitely taking good steps to finding your tv though!
Good luck!!!

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

and that panasonic you linked is a good tv, just not for that price. my girlfriends family just got the same series in 52" for a little less and it included a panny bluray player


The price being higher than what your girlfriend payed is probably because A) The price is Canadian. B) its 42" not 32" (unless that was just a typo). and C) she probably got a deal in-store, as in she probably said "Hey! I need a Blu-Ray!" and they throw in the whole deal for -20% or something.

If that is a good TV, i might save up some more money and grab it. Me and a friend are going to buy new TVs together, so we can get a good deal. sometimes they do good offers like 50% off the seconds one, and we could split the difference.

Are there any Plasmas in particular you can reccomend?
Score
0
a b x TV
June 24, 2010 9:04:55 PM

JeremyHill said:
I ready your reply as well as that entire article and I just wanted to ask the point of the arcticle in your perspective. Is it to say that Plasmas are BETTER or Equaly as good? If what the article states is true, the life expectency is the same as an LCD/LED, while the picture quality is much greater. If that is so, should i not buy a Plasma? Problem is, im not TV savy yet, so take this for example:

Panasonic 42" 1080p Plasma HDTV

Is that a good TV? I see stuff there like "600Hz Sub Field Drive" and "12-bit Panel Processor" and its all gibberish to me. Dont get me wrong, I understand the electronic terms here as Im getting into building computers. I understand the 600Hz, and 12-bit parts, i just dont understand its affect on the TV itself. Breaking it down, what im asking is, A) Is it the General Opinion that IF you can afford a plasma, you sohuld buy it over an LCD/LED? B) Same as [A] but in YOUR opinion. and C) Can you reccomend some plasmas that are Good and a smaller size, like 42" (as thats what fits my size interest, in fact its even a little to big, but hey, if the plasma is a good buy, i can manage to change my setup for a further distance.) Assuming of course, that a Plasma is what i should buy.

Plasma really caught my attention a while back when i heard this about Plasmas not having a Pixel Response Time (Milleseconds, such as 8ms or 6ms) or Refresh Rate (Hz, such as 60/120/240) as it outputs real time (The equivalent of saying that all Plasmas have an instant response time and a Refresh rate = to whatever your watching, so no motion blur on sports, and no lag on games, and basicly that the image quality of the Plasma is just Unparalleled.)

Feel free to answer my questions, your help is greatly appreciated in my persuit of knowledge.


Let me put it this way - ccurrently I'm probably about 70% home theater usage, 10% HDTV usage and 20% gaming usage on my TVs. So to me cinematic quality is the most important feature. Since your primary usage seems to be gaming, then you probably have different priorities than me.

I have a 52" Sony W3000 mounted on the wall in my family room, which gets bright morning sun coming in through a couple of tall windows on either side, and a Sony XBR4 46" that I use in a sitting room with just a small window. Just a DVD player connected to the first, and a DVD & BD player connected to the 2nd. The Pioneer is also in a fairly bright room but with curtains to filter out a lot of light. I have watched the digital copy of Avatar on all 3 systems, and the BD version on the last 2. Without a doubt, the Pioneer plasma has the better picture for viewing movies in a darkened room, whereas the LCD works better in a bright room.

The "12-bit panel processor" just means that the TV processes each primary color channel 12 bits at a time (i.e., 12 bits for each of the RGB colors = 36 bits total). Many cheap TN panels such as used on a lot of laptop LCD displays can only do 6 bits per color, or 2^18 = 262144 colors, instead of the 16 million that a true 8-bit-per-color panel can do. They may advertise "effective 8 bit" or "effective 16 million colors" but they do this by dithering. My 12-bit plasma panel can display over 68 billion different colors, although only about 2 million ones at a time (1920 x 1080 resolution). What this means is that on a low bits per pixel display like the cheap TN panels, if you have a scene of, say, a blue sky that darkens or changes colors from one area to the next, you can see banding where there is a band of pixels all the same color, then the next band having a somewhat different color, etc, which is why those devices use dithering to simulate a greater number of colors.

In a dark room, the plasma's colors seem much more vivid and a wider gamut than the LCD's, although the XBR is closer to the plasma than the W3000 in picture quality (which seems a bit flat in comparison - at one time I had both Sonys and a Sharp Aquos 45" all in the same room - developed a bad panel out of warranty but my Visa platinum card extended the warranty by a year, so I got the XBR and a BD player for "free" since Sharp no longer made replacement panels for that model). This after running a tuneup DVD on all 3 systems to adjust color and brightness and other picture settings. The plasma has a better contrast ration so that during the night scenes with the luminescent alien lifeforms, the colors are simply amazing.

However I have played CoD and other games on the plasma during the daytime, and never had a problem with the image. Well except for the Simpsons game (I must be the only person to buy that one :D ) which looks cartoonish, but on purpose.

So IMO the plasma is significantly better for HD cinema, better for HDTV (I would invariably use the plasma to watch the last season of Lost in HD) and streaming video, and about equal for gaming (I have a gaming laptop that I have connected to all 3 at various times, before I got the PS3 this past Christmas, but the PS3 has been connected only to the plasma). However for ordinary analog cable TV and for watching CNN on a sunny morning, the W3000 is better, esp. since the coffee pot in the kitchen is closest to that TV :p . For ordinary DVD watching at bedtime, it's the XBR since the sitting room is attached to the master bedroom.

The problem with taking your favorite DVD or BD to, say Best Buy and asking to see it played on a variety of TVs, is finding an accomodating salesperson (best bet is maybe late evening during a weeknight), plus them letting you adjust the TV settings to something approximating what you'd use at home. Generally stores have bright interior lighting and thus they crank up the brightness on the TVs. But if you're lucky enough to find an accomodating salesperson, then that is the best way to compare them for yourself.

Did you check out the CNET HDTV reviews? There's a Panasonic plasma 3D model that is also top-rated for 2D picture quality, but it's kinda expensive.
Score
0
June 25, 2010 7:27:41 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Let me put it this way - ccurrently I'm probably about 70% home theater usage, 10% HDTV usage and 20% gaming usage on my TVs. So to me cinematic quality is the most important feature. Since your primary usage seems to be gaming, then you probably have different priorities than me.

I have a 52" Sony W3000 mounted on the wall in my family room, which gets bright morning sun coming in through a couple of tall windows on either side, and a Sony XBR4 46" that I use in a sitting room with just a small window. Just a DVD player connected to the first, and a DVD & BD player connected to the 2nd. The Pioneer is also in a fairly bright room but with curtains to filter out a lot of light. I have watched the digital copy of Avatar on all 3 systems, and the BD version on the last 2. Without a doubt, the Pioneer plasma has the better picture for viewing movies in a darkened room, whereas the LCD works better in a bright room.

The "12-bit panel processor" just means that the TV processes each primary color channel 12 bits at a time (i.e., 12 bits for each of the RGB colors = 36 bits total). Many cheap TN panels such as used on a lot of laptop LCD displays can only do 6 bits per color, or 2^18 = 262144 colors, instead of the 16 million that a true 8-bit-per-color panel can do. They may advertise "effective 8 bit" or "effective 16 million colors" but they do this by dithering. My 12-bit plasma panel can display over 68 billion different colors, although only about 2 million ones at a time (1920 x 1080 resolution). What this means is that on a low bits per pixel display like the cheap TN panels, if you have a scene of, say, a blue sky that darkens or changes colors from one area to the next, you can see banding where there is a band of pixels all the same color, then the next band having a somewhat different color, etc, which is why those devices use dithering to simulate a greater number of colors.

In a dark room, the plasma's colors seem much more vivid and a wider gamut than the LCD's, although the XBR is closer to the plasma than the W3000 in picture quality (which seems a bit flat in comparison - at one time I had both Sonys and a Sharp Aquos 45" all in the same room - developed a bad panel out of warranty but my Visa platinum card extended the warranty by a year, so I got the XBR and a BD player for "free" since Sharp no longer made replacement panels for that model). This after running a tuneup DVD on all 3 systems to adjust color and brightness and other picture settings. The plasma has a better contrast ration so that during the night scenes with the luminescent alien lifeforms, the colors are simply amazing.

However I have played CoD and other games on the plasma during the daytime, and never had a problem with the image. Well except for the Simpsons game (I must be the only person to buy that one :D ) which looks cartoonish, but on purpose.

So IMO the plasma is significantly better for HD cinema, better for HDTV (I would invariably use the plasma to watch the last season of Lost in HD) and streaming video, and about equal for gaming (I have a gaming laptop that I have connected to all 3 at various times, before I got the PS3 this past Christmas, but the PS3 has been connected only to the plasma). However for ordinary analog cable TV and for watching CNN on a sunny morning, the W3000 is better, esp. since the coffee pot in the kitchen is closest to that TV :p . For ordinary DVD watching at bedtime, it's the XBR since the sitting room is attached to the master bedroom.

The problem with taking your favorite DVD or BD to, say Best Buy and asking to see it played on a variety of TVs, is finding an accomodating salesperson (best bet is maybe late evening during a weeknight), plus them letting you adjust the TV settings to something approximating what you'd use at home. Generally stores have bright interior lighting and thus they crank up the brightness on the TVs. But if you're lucky enough to find an accomodating salesperson, then that is the best way to compare them for yourself.

Did you check out the CNET HDTV reviews? There's a Panasonic plasma 3D model that is also top-rated for 2D picture quality, but it's kinda expensive.


Ill be playing it in a dark room for sure, as i practicly bolt up my windows whenever im in my room. Light = Gamings worst nightmare in my opinion, if i wanted to see the sun, id be outside running around doing something lol. Right now im using my HP Pavilion w2207h monitor for my gaming purposes via an HDMI cable, but as you can see the stats are at the GREATEST just plain horrible. i mean i can pick out the pixels in my screen when playing Modern Warfare 2, or ANY game for that matter. Mind you is a hell of a step up from my 15 year old 32" SANYO picture tube TV here. The biggest problem i have with using this moniter is A) the horrible picture quality (Colours are off, Pixelation, Ghosting), and B) the Motion Blur i get when using it. Playing games such as Sacred 2, Final Fantasy 13 and Metro 2033 LITTERALY made blood vessals in my eyes pop, like its PAINFUL to look at the screen while using it, i dont know why. This may be a problem with my vision, im not sure, but its only those games so far that have affected me this way.

So I guess thats the go ahead to go Plasma i suppose. all thats left is finding a good one..
Score
0
a b x TV
June 25, 2010 1:19:59 PM

Panasonic Viera TC-P50VT25:

Quote:
The good: Superior black-level performance and excellent shadow detail; accurate primary colors in THX mode; great color saturation; effective antireflective screen; reproduces 1080p/24 cadence properly; VieraCast provides access to select Internet services and improved customization; solid 3D picture quality; includes 3D glasses.

The bad: Relatively expensive; last year's Panasonic plasmas lost black-level performance over relatively short periods of time; non-adjustable grayscale in THX mode; some artifacts in 1080p/24 mode; fewer streaming services and apps than the competition; uses more power than LCDs and newer plasmas.

The bottom line: With both 2D and 3D sources, Panasonic's flagship TC-PVT20/25 series plasma TV delivers outstanding overall picture quality.


That's the one I'd get, although it is expensive plus there's not too much 3D content available yet, but that is the 'wave of the future'. At the moment, it has the best 2D picture available, bar none. And if you have family members, they'll be fighting you over the 3D glasses :p , so you'll wind up having to buy more..
Score
0
June 26, 2010 12:08:50 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Panasonic Viera TC-P50VT25:

Quote:
The good: Superior black-level performance and excellent shadow detail; accurate primary colors in THX mode; great color saturation; effective antireflective screen; reproduces 1080p/24 cadence properly; VieraCast provides access to select Internet services and improved customization; solid 3D picture quality; includes 3D glasses.

The bad: Relatively expensive; last year's Panasonic plasmas lost black-level performance over relatively short periods of time; non-adjustable grayscale in THX mode; some artifacts in 1080p/24 mode; fewer streaming services and apps than the competition; uses more power than LCDs and newer plasmas.

The bottom line: With both 2D and 3D sources, Panasonic's flagship TC-PVT20/25 series plasma TV delivers outstanding overall picture quality.


That's the one I'd get, although it is expensive plus there's not too much 3D content available yet, but that is the 'wave of the future'. At the moment, it has the best 2D picture available, bar none. And if you have family members, they'll be fighting you over the 3D glasses :p , so you'll wind up having to buy more..


Yeah that one is a bit too expensive for my tastes, as im assuming i wont even see a difference in picture quality on that TV while gaming, and its mainly for Home Theater purposes. i need a Plasma TV that is 42" max cause ill be viewing at a relatively close distance, and as well its only neccesary for it to have gaming features, as chances are i will never view movies or TV on it. I dont watch television, and Movies i only watch in Theaters, or on my monitor, where movie quality doesnt matter to me. Im all about MAX gaming on a TV and i dont need a thousand dollars worth of add-ons for crap ill never use. i stress gaming quality above all else. Do you know of any TVs that fit that specificly? cause i mean its impossible for me to look at the Specifications of TVs on websites and tell wether or not its top line for gaming. Another big contributing factor to my wanting a plasma TV is im very Motion-blur sensative, and i heard Plasmas clear that right up.
Score
0
a b x TV
June 26, 2010 2:05:24 PM

Here's a good plasma Panny, 42". I'd check around on some of the other review sites before buying however.
Score
0
June 28, 2010 10:10:02 AM

I dont suppose there are any other Plasmas that anyone here can reccomend? i have decided ill got for a Plasma thats 42"-54" for a relatively decent price, as well as 1080p. I saw a few Panasonics that were highly reccomended via reviews and such, not of the Viera name, but Panasonic Plasmas none-the-less. They were going for around 1300-2000 for a 42"-54" inch, decent price i must say, considering those same TVs went for 6000$+ 5-10 years ago. Regardless i need a Gaming TV that doubles as a PC monitor if possible, so any reccomendations? im sort of building a list here and compiling my finding so i know Exactly what to buy when the time comes.
Score
0
Anonymous
July 11, 2010 3:40:08 AM

Granny died and left my folks some change, so I have been thinking about buying a new TV for the bedroom. 42" LED backlite TV at Walmart looks really good, I think it's a Proscan.

Everybody seems really happy with it and it's only $600, and free shipping. Wow.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/ProScan-42LED55SA/14053381

Very thin, very light, draws about 40w I would guess. Match with an internet enabled Samsung Bluray for Netflix on-demand and connection to the home data storage over ReadyShare ;-)

New gf should like it just fine.

Score
0
July 11, 2010 3:43:46 AM

Quote:
Granny died and left my folks some change, so I have been thinking about buying a new TV for the bedroom. 42" LED backlite TV at Walmart looks really good, I think it's a Proscan.

Everybody seems really happy with it and it's only $600, and free shipping. Wow.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/ProScan-42LED55SA/14053381

Very thin, very light, draws about 40w I would guess. Match with an internet enabled Samsung Bluray for Netflix on-demand and connection to the home data storage over ReadyShare ;-)

New gf should like it just fine.


Well first off, Im Canadian, so that offer isnt valid here. Second of all I wouldnt trust anything from ProScan out of the sense that it is a little bit shady. also the quality isnt that great. im looking into High end 32" LCDs or High end 42" Plasmas, by that i mean Top of the Line for that size, no fancy 3D crap, no add accesories, just 100% performance.
Score
0
July 21, 2010 7:30:12 AM

Best answer selected by JeremyHill.
Score
0
February 25, 2012 7:58:47 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!