Hey guys, which is best overall for watching blu ray movies with my ps3 and HD gaming with my ps3 / 360

samsung/sony lcd's or panasonic plasmas?

I am mostly concerned about blur for gaming and which brand is overall best for picture quality for movie watching

is the 120hz a big difference for movies/games?

do the panasonic plasmas have 120 hz? and naturally have less blur than the sony/samsung lcd's due to being plasma?

I saw the displays at bestbuy and they looked unreal and is it due to the 120hz?

if so can the panasonic plasmas look just as good?

thanks in advance

Check this out:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997138

plasma has a better picture. period. its a better picture no matter what you watch. you give it to the tv and it does what it does.

OP, beware of the posts that have "period" in them. The one above is an equivalent to: Brunettes are smarter. Period. But he is right. That is why, in the 50 -52 inch category, plasmas outsell LCDs two-to-one. Oops, sorry, it's the other way around.

OP, beware of the posts that have "period" in them. The one above is an equivalent to: Brunettes are smarter. Period. But he is right. That is why, in the 50 -52 inch category, plasmas outsell LCDs two-to-one. Oops, sorry, it's the other way around.

Not exactly...

LCD TV also gained against PDP in the 50-54” size category, rising to a new high of 46.1% with most 52” LCD TVs selling at a substantial premium to comparable PDP models. (http://displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/7034.asp)

Hey guys, which is best overall for watching blu ray movies with my ps3 and HD gaming with my ps3 / 360

samsung/sony lcd's or panasonic plasmas?

I am mostly concerned about blur for gaming and which brand is overall best for picture quality for movie watching

is the 120hz a big difference for movies/games?

do the panasonic plasmas have 120 hz? and naturally have less blur than the sony/samsung lcd's due to being plasma?

I saw the displays at bestbuy and they looked unreal and is it due to the 120hz?

if so can the panasonic plasmas look just as good?

thanks in advance

The 120 Hz refresh rate is the LCD manufacturer's way of killing two birds with one stone:

1) Motion blur - LCDs typically blur a bit during fast motion. Putting an interpolated frame between after each real frame of data helps eliminate this effect. Sometimes this can cause unwanted artifacts.

2) LCDs with a refresh rate of 120 Hz can display 24 frames per second material with less judder than a 60 Hz display. That's because 120 is a multiple of 24, thus each frame is displayed 5 times. Some plasma displays have similar processing. Pioneer displays can change their refresh rate to 72 Hz and Panasonic's use a 48 Hz refresh rate for this type of material.

Because plasmas do not suffer from the same type of motion blur that affects LCD displays, none of them offer a 120 Hz refresh rate. It's simply not a necessary feature.

As to which is the best, a Sony/Samsung LCD or a Panasonic plasma, that really depends on you and what you happen to like. The reason these displays looked great in BB, had very little to do with 120 Hz, they're simply both excellent displays. Just go to the store, and see for yourself. You cannot go wrong with either.

OP, beware of the posts that have "period" in them. The one above is an equivalent to: Brunettes are smarter. Period. But he is right. That is why, in the 50 -52 inch category, plasmas outsell LCDs two-to-one. Oops, sorry, it's the other way around.

Didn't VHS out sell Beta? Which was the better technology and provided the best features? See how your statement is rather flawed if your intention was to say that one is better cause it out sells the other. As shown by the other poster your information is wrong anyway. :cool:

To the OP, I encourage you to go to the stores and get the controller in hand and make the adjustments to the picture to give you the best picture from each set you are looking at and then let your eyes decide and then look at the pros and cons of each to make your final decision. Good luck.

Didn't VHS out sell Beta? Which was the better technology and provided the best features?

From Mediacollege.com:

For consumers, the most immediately obvious difference between the two formats was the recording length. Standard Betamax tapes lasted 60 minutes — not long enough to record a movie. Conversely, the 3-hour VHS tapes were perfect for recording television programmes and movies.

So much for "the best features".

As far as being wrong on the sales figures, their data is based on the total volume sold in the US. This includes Beverly Hills and Manhattan as well as Piqua, Ohio. My data, as unscientific is it is, comes form the B&Ms in the suburbs of Chicago where the residents like me have enough money for the the price not to be a factor. I have yet to hear from a local store that they sell significantly more plasmas than LCDs. It is always the other way around.

The moral from my survey is that where the price is not a factor, the buyers tend to choose LCDs.

From Mediacollege.com:

For consumers, the most immediately obvious difference between the two formats was the recording length. Standard Betamax tapes lasted 60 minutes — not long enough to record a movie. Conversely, the 3-hour VHS tapes were perfect for recording television programmes and movies.

So much for "the best features".

As far as being wrong on the sales figures, their data is based on the total volume sold in the US. This includes Beverly Hills and Manhattan as well as Piqua, Ohio. My data, as unscientific is it is, comes form the B&Ms in the suburbs of Chicago where the residents like me have enough money for the the price not to be a factor. I have yet to hear from a local store that they sell significantly more plasmas than LCDs. It is always the other way around.

The moral from my survey is that where the price is not a factor, the buyers tend to choose LCDs.

Yes recording time was one of the drawbacks of the early beta-max but in other areas it was superior. Beta did include longer record times as your information isn't totally accurate as they could record up to 5 hours when they introduced other speeds. It appears your research needs some improving and like I said anyway, selling more doesn't mean better. Is standard DVD better than Blu Ray? Is SDTV (which is still viewed by more people) better than HDTV?

Why does Chicago have more weight than the total sales figure? and by your own admission you only contacted a few CC's and BB's. Like you said, not very scientific at all. Believe it or not, there are many places throughout the US where price is not an object to a consumer, not just Chicago. As for which is better by sales figures I would imagine BB and CC to be a poor representation as those are typically where an average consumer is shopping as opposed to the specialty stores where the more discriminate shopper is likely to shop.

As I pointed out before, total sales figure is a poor way to determine which type is better. It only represents which type is more popular and as another poster pointed out the figures are very close in the 50" and above range anyway. Popular doesn't equal better.

Why does Chicago have more weight than the total sales figure?

First, I did not say "Chicago". I said: "the suburbs of Chicago". For any statistical study that involves disposable income, the difference is enormous. Secondly, the Chicago area, like any metropolitan area, has much higher median and disposable incomes than the national averages. Again, we bogging down on things that should be treated as axiomatic.

First, I did not say "Chicago". I said: "the suburbs of Chicago". For any statistical study that involves disposable income, the difference is enormous. Secondly, the Chicago area, like any metropolitan area, has much higher median and disposable incomes than the national averages. Again, we bogging down on things that should be treated as axiomatic.

Chicago or suburbs of Chicago doesn't give your opinion any better basis as it's so flawed that it's really not even worth going any further with. I hope you're not insinuating that the richer you are the better judge of TV's you are.

The only thing that's bogging down this subject is your flawed statistical representation and I assume this thread will soon be locked as it should be if it continues in this direction. :rolleyes:

From Mediacollege.com:

For consumers, the most immediately obvious difference between the two formats was the recording length. Standard Betamax tapes lasted 60 minutes — not long enough to record a movie. Conversely, the 3-hour VHS tapes were perfect for recording television programmes and movies.

So much for "the best features".

As far as being wrong on the sales figures, their data is based on the total volume sold in the US. This includes Beverly Hills and Manhattan as well as Piqua, Ohio. My data, as unscientific is it is, comes form the B&Ms in the suburbs of Chicago where the residents like me have enough money for the the price not to be a factor. I have yet to hear from a local store that they sell significantly more plasmas than LCDs. It is always the other way around.

The moral from my survey is that where the price is not a factor, the buyers tend to choose LCDs.

McDonalds sells more burgers than In N Out and I'll tell you which one is better! At the same price point or even where McD's is more expensive! This is not to say Plasma better than LCD but your argument is flawed. Going to show the customer does not always go for what's better ...

How deos the old adage go?

"cow dung tastes good, billions of flies can't be wrong" ?
:)

OP, beware of the posts that have "period" in them. The one above is an equivalent to: Brunettes are smarter. Period. But he is right. That is why, in the 50 -52 inch category, plasmas outsell LCDs two-to-one. Oops, sorry, it's the other way around.

Pot meet kettle. ;)

From Mediacollege.com:

For consumers, the most immediately obvious difference between the two formats was the recording length. Standard Betamax tapes lasted 60 minutes — not long enough to record a movie. Conversely, the 3-hour VHS tapes were perfect for recording television programmes and movies.

So much for "the best features".

As far as being wrong on the sales figures, their data is based on the total volume sold in the US. This includes Beverly Hills and Manhattan as well as Piqua, Ohio. My data, as unscientific is it is, comes form the B&Ms in the suburbs of Chicago where the residents like me have enough money for the the price not to be a factor. I have yet to hear from a local store that they sell significantly more plasmas than LCDs. It is always the other way around.

The moral from my survey is that where the price is not a factor, the buyers tend to choose LCDs.

Doesn't make ANY sense. If price isn't a factor one would talk about plasmas being more expensive.(Kuro's)
So the money no object crowd would lean to that, not a less expensive LCD.
You are contradicting yourself.

Doesn't make ANY sense. If price isn't a factor one would talk about plasmas being more expensive.(Kuro's)

Only Kuro's sell for more than LCDs on an inch by inch basis I believe.

The most popular myth I heard this year (more than once actually), is that plasmas are phased out, hence the reduction in price. :eek:

Then you tell people if price is that important, they can buy a Pioneer Kuro or Elite for a little more than a LCD and they then say it's too much for them. Gee.

Doesn't make ANY sense. If price isn't a factor one would talk about plasmas being more expensive.(Kuro's)
So the money no object crowd would lean to that, not a less expensive LCD.
You are contradicting yourself.

I am amazed how anybody can come to the conclusion that LCDs are less expensive. One of the two major chain stores - the one that sells Pioneers - shows eight 50-inch plasmas with the average price of 1775 and thirteen 52-inch LCDs with the average price of 2362. That amounts to 33% more for the average LCD.

According to a source cited by one of the pro-plasma posts, the national sales of the LCDs are about equal to the sales of plasmas in the 50-52 inch category. Lets further stipulate that plasmas are better, according to the pro-plasma camp. In conclusion, an inferior product, the LCDs, sells as well as the superior product, the plasmas, in spite of the fact that the inferior product costs 33% more. A truly remarkable outcome. It must be these retina-damaging, cartoonish colors that mesmerized the nation.

I am amazed how anybody can come to the conclusion that LCDs are less expensive. One of the two major chain stores - the one that sells Pioneers - shows eight 50-inch plasmas with the average price of 1775 and thirteen 52-inch LCDs with the average price of 2362. That amounts to 33% more for the average LCD.

According to a source cited by one of the pro-plasma posts, the national sales of the LCDs are about equal to the sales of plasmas in the 50-52 inch category. Lets further stipulate that plasmas are better, according to the pro-plasma camp. In conclusion, an inferior product, the LCDs, sells as well as the superior product, the plasmas, in spite of the fact that the inferior product costs 33% more. A truly remarkable outcome. It must be these retina-damaging, cartoonish colors that mesmerized the nation.


Aren't statistics a wonderful thing in the hands of one who either manipulates or doesn't know how to interpret the results? A lot of detail is left out of your assumption ramazur, but I'm pretty sure you know it's not as simple as you put it. Please find me the national statistics of the average price for 50" and above LCD's and plasmas sold and then we can discuss. :D

I am amazed how anybody can come to the conclusion that LCDs are less expensive. One of the two major chain stores - the one that sells Pioneers - shows eight 50-inch plasmas with the average price of 1775 and thirteen 52-inch LCDs with the average price of 2362. That amounts to 33% more for the average LCD.

According to a source cited by one of the pro-plasma posts, the national sales of the LCDs are about equal to the sales of plasmas in the 50-52 inch category. Lets further stipulate that plasmas are better, according to the pro-plasma camp. In conclusion, an inferior product, the LCDs, sells as well as the superior product, the plasmas, in spite of the fact that the inferior product costs 33% more. A truly remarkable outcome. It must be these retina-damaging, cartoonish colors that mesmerized the nation.

Pioneers, the best, are more expensive and that's what I own...so lcd's are cheaper to me.
You have a super hard time grasping that quality does not equal sales.
See beta, see HD-DVD.