For those that have hD tv's which one do you think is better for xbox360 gaming and why.

thanks for the info

Most likely anyone here who owns a LCD will say LCD and anyone who owns a plasma will say plasma. There's advantages and disadvantes to each, if you read through the forums you'll get a good idea what those are.

If you're looking to get a HDTV flat panel, I'd suggest you go look at a bunch in the store. Personally I think it's more useful to narrow it down to a few individual models and not worry about the larger LCD versus Plasma debate. For example, a Westy 47" 1080p LCD may look way better than a particular 720p plasma tv at a certain price point, but a really good pioneer or panny 50" 720p plasma may give you more bang for your buck than a 40" LCD in the same price range. It's all about getting the biggest screen and best PQ you can afford IMO. Start with what your eyes tell you, then come here to make sure you're not making a mistake before you pull the trigger and buy it.

Dlp!!

Plasmas burn in. Not good for video games at all.

Plasmas burn in. Not good for video games at all.

Newer ones, not so much. Yes they still can, but to just say they burn in, is not correct. With a little precaution it is a thing of the past. Now they do suffer from IR and you have to be cautious.

Numerous, third part reviews (I just read one on HDGURU) state that LCD suffer from lag on games and sports, etc. While Plasma can't be beat for its color, blacks, viewing angle, etc.

If you are going to game a lot and a lot of that time is one game (i.e. hours), save yourself the headache and worries and get the LCD, if viewing is going to vary, number of hours spent gaming varied, etc. then get a Plasma, stunning sets.

If I had a plasma, I'd worry about burn-in and IR every time I played a video game. :( That really takes away some of the fun.

LCDs are better IMO. There are many reports of Plasma burn-ins from GoW.

Plasma (i own an LCD and like it a great deal) will have better pq. LCD will make games fun cause of no stress with the thought of image burn in. But if you mean the best PQ definitely plasma.

I play my 360 all the time with my 50" Panny Plasma and have never seen any IR or burn in. As long as you don't hit pause and goto vegas for the weekend your fine...I've seen more posts regarding motion blur than burn in.

Also, my 360 turns itself off after 6 hours of being idle, and my plasma goes into screen saver mode, so really no risk there.

what is motion blur? and do all lcd do it?

CRT's are the best TV's all-around.

LCD is best for gaming even though Plasma has the edge for black level . Plasma can be nicer to look at as long as you sit far enough back , if you sit somewhat close to your large display then LCD will be much easier on the eyes as Plasma is noisy up close (somewhat like dithering with DLP) . Plasma offers better viewing angle but you also get the glare from the glass (much like a direct view CRT) . Also consider that most HD plasmas sold today have to down scale 1280x720p because they are only 1024x768 resolution (so you have a 4:3 resolution that is resized to 16:9 giving you rectangular pixels) , which is not to say that most could even detect the resolution difference from proper view distance . Plasma sets are also more fragile and greater care is needed when moving , setting up , etc.

---- Jason

Thanks all for the advice, kind of have it narrwoed down to the

Samsung 46" LCD LN-S4695D 1080p

and

The panasonix 50 inch plasma

They are both great TVs, but I would go with the Samsung.

I have a LCD flat panel, a Panny Plasma and a DLP front project system. I only game on the LCD so I don't have to worry about burning in the plasma or wearing out projector bulbs.

Also consider that most HD plasmas sold today have to down scale 1280x720p because they are only 1024x768 resolution (so you have a 4:3 resolution that is resized to 16:9 giving you rectangular pixels)

I would say that 1366 x 768 is by far the more common resolution on plasma panels these days.

I would say that 1366 x 768 is by far the more common resolution on plasma panels these days.

Yes that LCD matching resolution is becoming more common with plasmas as they try to compete for market share but it is still not the most common , go into your average retailer and check how many are available for each resolution ;) .

-------- Jason

Get what you like. I have a Samsung lcd and a Pioneer plasma. The plasma looks better and plays better. Even though the resolution is more on the lcd the plasma looks 3x as nice. I sit @6ft away. 40 lcd 42 plasma. JMO get what YOU like

Anyone use dlps with their 360s?


Im thinking about getting the hls4666w or hls4666ws

Well i did it, will let you know how it turned out. I purchase from hideflifestyle.com, the ln-s4695 was $700 cheaper than in stores here, no sales tax, 3 year in home warranty was only $110 and $150 for shipping. Overall i saved $1100 if i would of bought it at the local store (bb, cc). The salesman was very curteous, answered all my questions, told me they had 26 in stock, he did my order and said it should ship today or tomorrow at latest. So far this company has been excellent and very professional. They also answered all my email questions i sent them. I will keep you all up to date on the shipment and its arrival. So far is been a excellent decisions.

Anyone use dlps with their 360s?


Im thinking about getting the hls4666w or hls4666ws

I play on a Toshiba 62HM85 DLP TV and it looks and plays beautifully, no lag/blur, great colour and black level, can't complain and 62" from about 8-10 ft away makes for an amazing gaming experience.

I game on a Pioneer 43" plasma and love it!

I have used it for TV, DVD and Video Games, but mostly video games.

Pretty much everyday for the last 1 1/2 to 2 years.

No burn in on my plasma.

I look for it too every now and then.

Plasma or LCD will be fine...I mean great for gaming. Plasma will give your the better picture over all. I also own both. I have a 37" Westinghouse LCD.

Plasma blows it away..although I assume the Pioneer plasma should give a better pic then the Westy.

I have a Pio PDP-5070 and it looks the best (IMHO)
even my Sony buddies hate to admit the PQ is amazing.

No noise at all, my viewing distance is about 6-7 feet
No ghosting or motion blur issues either.

No glare or reflection issues even in a bright Sun-Lit
South facing room with an 8' wide 7' high patio door.

My native resolution is 1365x768 as are all current Plasmas over 42"
The 50" and 60" Pio's are currently outselling the smaller units 3:1
according to one of the forum sponsors here.

Since when is 4:3 a "resolution"? I thought it was an aspect ratio?
rectangular pixels @ 16:9 ?
Again not a problem with 7 out of 10 current Pioneer Models
(only 3 42" models with 1024x768)

Fragile? OMG

So you can drop an LCD from a greater height than a plasma?
Great info to have for all of us who intend to drop them ... :rolleyes: :p

That's like saying buying a cubic zirconia is better than a diamond because you would loose less money if you threw them both off a bridge.

Yup, the only way LCD>Plasma is if you compare a top of the line LCD
to a Third-Tier Turd bargain 1040X768 suedo plasma.

Image retention or Burn-In risk after a proper break-in period at reduced settings is almost non-exsistant on higher end Plasma's.

4 hours of GOW or COD dont leave even a trace on my Plasma.

:cool:

Are you trying to debate opinion here or factual information ... It is obvious to anyone that sees your screen name what your opinion will be before you type a single line of text (then the fact that you call others "Sony buddies" is even further indication) . We don't need buyer justification opinions that are brand specific . This thread does not need to turn into a heated debate because of it either , so there was no reason for you to attack my post especially when my information is truthful and yours is based upon your opinion of a particular model/brand . So if you wish to be in a debate , which it sounds to me like you do by your confrontational attitude , please allow me to school you a little .

Noise : anybody making claims that a Plasma is not noisy at all up at the screen is fibbing , DLP is noisy as well which is just something that goes hand in hand with the technology . This was not meant to imply that the noise is visible from proper viewing distance and I did not say that it was .

Glare : if you have no glare in your particular environment then good for you but the nature of glass did not suddenly change just for your Pioneer plasma (which probably does have an anti-glare layer in there to help but does not totally prevent it for all situations) .

Last time I checked 1024x768 was a 4:3 resolution , you just took what I said out of context to try and make your opinion more substantiated than mine and make me look foolish in the process (be careful who you try to debate with at AVS , never assume you know more than anyone else) . The fact still remains that regardless of Pioneer the majority of the HD Plasma market has been 1024x768 which does result in rectangular pixels because of the 16:9 resize (look it up) . Yes the Plasma market is shifting and trying to hold onto market share by offering increased resolutions .

I never said anything about dropping either type of display but my money would be on the LCD having a better shot than the Plasma :p (again you are twisting things to suit your Plasma bias) but it is a fact that Plasmas are more fragile than LCD's , ask anybody in the industry and allow them to set you straight .

Burn-In/IR is still very real for many Plasma owners so do not try to discount it just because you do not have a problem with it on your Pioneer , new posts pop up all the time regarding this issue and I know a few people that have had it happen after proper burn-in and proper calibration .

Your Pioneer infatuation/bias becomes more evident with every line you type and that is fine for you , nothing wrong with some brand loyalty , but this thread was not about Pioneer now was it , or did I miss something :confused: .

** Oh and just so you do not think that I am a Pioneer hater , the best Plasma that I have seen and the only one that truly impressed me was a Pioneer **



Now please keep the thread on track and resist any urges to turn it into a flame war , there is no need and it will only be shut down because of it !

-------- Jason

Hey Pimp. Remember what I said the other day about feeling like I was pissing on other people's TVs every time I asked a question? Now it's in the Xbox Area too. Awesome huh?

LCD is best for gaming even though Plasma has the edge for black level . Plasma can be nicer to look at as long as you sit far enough back , if you sit somewhat close to your large display then LCD will be much easier on the eyes as Plasma is noisy up close (somewhat like dithering with DLP) . Plasma offers better viewing angle but you also get the glare from the glass (much like a direct view CRT) . Also consider that most HD plasmas sold today have to down scale 1280x720p because they are only 1024x768 resolution (so you have a 4:3 resolution that is resized to 16:9 giving you rectangular pixels) , which is not to say that most could even detect the resolution difference from proper view distance . Plasma sets are also more fragile and greater care is needed when moving , setting up , etc.

---- Jason

You have no clue what your talking about. Owning both a 47" Westy 47w1(along with plenty of experience with Sony's XBR2 series LCD along with numerous Samsung and LG products) and a 50" Samsung 5054 plasma I can without question that Plasma is far superior to gaming.

And its not just the superior black levels. Its due to the superior ability to handle motion.

BTW the MAJORITY of plasma's now at 1366x768 pixel counts. These sets are normally 50" and up. While pretty much all 42" plasmas have 1024x768 resolution. Some now are full 1080p, and then we have Hitachi's hybrids that are 1280x1080.

Plasma sets may be a bit more fragile, but its not like I play real football with my set outside too often pimply boy. ;)

Plasmas can still get burn in, but all the newest quality plasmas come with pixel shifting technology and white/white-grey scrolling maintnenance screens to prevent burn-in. When used regularly by heavy gamers burn-in or IR worries become non-existant.

Noise : anybody making claims that a Plasma is not noisy at all up at the screen is fibbing , DLP is noisy as well which is just something that goes hand in hand with the technology . This was not meant to imply that the noise is visible from proper viewing distance and I did not say that it was .

Glare : if you have no glare in your particular environment then good for you but the nature of glass did not suddenly change just for your Pioneer plasma (which probably does have an anti-glare layer in there to help but does not totally prevent it for all situations) .

Last time I checked 1024x768 was a 4:3 resolution , you just took what I said out of context to try and make your opinion more substantiated than mine and make me look foolish in the process (be careful who you try to debate with at AVS , never assume you know more than anyone else) . The fact still remains that regardless of Pioneer the majority of the HD Plasma market has been 1024x768 which does result in rectangular pixels because of the 16:9 resize (look it up) . Yes the Plasma market is shifting and trying to hold onto market share by offering increased resolutions .

I never said anything about dropping either type of display but my money would be on the LCD having a better shot than the Plasma :p (again you are twisting things to suit your Plasma bias) but it is a fact that Plasmas are more fragile than LCD's , ask anybody in the industry and allow them to set you straight .




Now please keep the thread on track and resist any urges to turn it into a flame war , there is no need and it will only be shut down because of it !

-------- Jason

A. Noise is due to poor or excessive video processing, but not all plasma's suffer from it. Many times its due to user incompentence, video settings, poor cable connections, no clue how to properly interface their game system with the TV etc.

B. Glare, becoming less of an issue...............ONLY for those who play in high/uncontrollable light environments. People who can control their lighting or play in low light situations have 0 issues.

C. 1024x768 is actually a 16:9 aspect ratio for 42" plasma screens pimply boy. Its due to retangular shaped pixels and internal processing of the plasma converts the horizontal lines to the correct ratio. When is the last time you have seen at 4:3 plasma? I can tell you know what your talking about when it comes to PDP displays. ;)

Pioneed PDP 5070HD here. Absolutely love it for gaming. Beautiful picture for gaming, HD, HD DVD/BR and even SD viewing. Couldn't be happier. Looked around a lot and LCD's simply didn't measure up.

I did perform a proper breakin in my TV for the first 125hours or so. After that, I have had 0 IR/burn in issues and this includes 4+hours of straight gaming sessions.

Glare isn't an issue due to room lighting.

CRT's are the best TV's all-around.

In point of fact CRT looks very much like Plasma (which it should considering the similarity in the way the picture is produced) but with 1080 res and much cheaper for larger screen sizes. But then that's old school...

CRT's are the best TV's all-around.

that's a pretty bold statement. would you say they are better for...space-saving?

I have both lcd and plasma, and I like the picture and color for plasmas much better with videogames. I usually play on my lcd, though, so i can't say much about burn-in.

that's a pretty bold statement. would you say they are better for...space-saving?

maybe they're better to wall mount? or better to move up/down the stairs if you move?

ZippyBongHits ,

Your insulting and childish attitude will not get you far here at AVS . Calling me "pimply boy" is probably very entertaining for you but I am fairly certain that judging by your screen name I am probably older (38) and after reading your oh so 'enlightening' response also much wiser .

Do yourself a favor and do not attack others because your opinion differs , you can state your opinion without insulting people and personal attacks only serve to have people ignore what you have to say .

I can assure you that I have probably forgotten more about AV than you will ever know so be careful of whom you try and pick fights with here at AVS . Not off to a good start for such a new member (are you maybe PioManiac reborn) .


And yes things have improved with many Plasmas over the past 4 months (since this thread was started) , many more offering higher resolutions and more reasonable pricing . Anybody claiming however that 1024x768 is a 16:9 resolution obviously knows very little about A/V (regardless of what processing is being done it is still a 4:3 resolution and not capable of true 1280x720p) .

--- Jason

C. 1024x768 is actually a 16:9 aspect ratio for 42" plasma screens pimply boy. Its due to retangular shaped pixels and internal processing of the plasma converts the horizontal lines to the correct ratio. When is the last time you have seen at 4:3 plasma? I can tell you know what your talking about when it comes to PDP displays. ;)

I would never buy a display with rectangular pixels. First of all, you never get the full HD horizontal resolution. Second, it just leads to trouble when you try to view a computer screen on it. You will never get a perfect 1:1 pixel ratio like I have on my native 1280x720 screen.

well if you can wait until the new 120 Hz LCD's come out they are much better and have a refresh rate almost zero like a Plasma

I would wait to get that but if you cant a LCD looks great now but a Plasma looks better as far as fluidity in motion goes and picture some would argure


but what has come about that can actually compete with CRT (yes a crt still has the best contrast and color reproduction of anything out there) is the LCOS from SONY and one from I think Samsung it is a HDILA I think anyway the LCOS looks great if you can deal with the not flat screen TV

I would never buy a display with rectangular pixels. First of all, you never get the full HD horizontal resolution. Second, it just leads to trouble when you try to view a computer screen on it. You will never get a perfect 1:1 pixel ratio like I have on my native 1280x720 screen.

Again more inconcieved nonsense. With my 360 it actually has 1024x768 widescreen mode conversion through VGA. So in fact you can get a CORRECT aspect ratio picture through either a 360 or even through a quality computer video card.

And to be honest, I have yet to see a 40" or 42" 720p OR 1080p LCD have the same image depth and buttery smooth motion abilities as a 42" 720p plasma.

Resolution is not everything. Contrast, color accuracy,color saturation are more important actually.

well if you can wait until the new 120 Hz LCD's come out they are much better and have a refresh rate almost zero like a Plasma

I would wait to get that but if you cant a LCD looks great now but a Plasma looks better as far as fluidity in motion goes and picture some would argure


but what has come about that can actually compete with CRT (yes a crt still has the best contrast and color reproduction of anything out there) is the LCOS from SONY and one from I think Samsung it is a HDILA I think anyway the LCOS looks great if you can deal with the not flat screen TV

No their refresh rate may be better, but pixel response time still is poor. 120hz only helps with motion jutter. It does not compensate for poor pixel response and hold time.

As for CRT, plasma already does compete and surpass CRT. In fact plasma basically gives the best of all worlds. Plasma is a fixed pixel display like an LCD monitor(so no convergence or geometry errors like a CRT)while using phoshpers like a CRT which allows for deep detailed blacks, vibrat colors and depth of field. And it does so with no motion blur.

No thanks to LCOS displays. Again convergence,focus and geometry errors. An RPTV will never pull off the same razor sharp display as either an LCD or plasma. If your gonna go projection, then get a real projector and a quality screen.

Again more inconcieved nonsense. With my 360 it actually has 1024x768 widescreen mode conversion through VGA. So in fact you can get a CORRECT aspect ratio picture through either a 360 or even through a quality computer video card.

And to be honest, I have yet to see a 40" or 42" 720p OR 1080p LCD have the same image depth and buttery smooth motion abilities as a 42" 720p plasma.

Resolution is not everything. Contrast, color accuracy,color saturation are more important actually.

But the resolution of any display that is touted as "HD" should be at least 1280 pixels on the x axis and at least 720 pixels on the y axis. 1024x768 doesn't cut it, even if the pixels are rectangular.

For instance, if you are sending a 1280x720p signal to the TV (what if your TV doesn't accept native 1024x768 or you don't have a VGA cable?), and it gets down/up (that's ridiculous) scaled to 1024x768, you are going to end up with averaging of pixels. Small details will get scaled away. And the small details do count, particularly in video games when you are trying to get off a perfect head shot across the entire map. And if you only send a 1024x768 signal to the TV through VGA, you aren't getting the full HD resolution that the 360 is capable of.

And yes, I'm certain that you can actually get these rectangular pixels to work in most circumstances. But you really end up relying on the device generating the video to come up with the correct aspect ratio. In some circumstances, it isn't possible.

Personally, I like displays to not have to do any scaling whatsoever. And I definitely don't like displays that have to up scale in one dimension and down scale in the other.

Pixels are meant to be square. Pixels are square in NTSC and ATSC broadcast standards. There is no reason for these plasma companies to use these rectangular pixel panels, other than the fact that it is probably cheaper for them to do so.

ZippyBongHits ,

Your insulting and childish attitude will not get you far here at AVS . Calling me "pimply boy" is probably very entertaining for you but I am fairly certain that judging by your screen name I am probably older (38) and after reading your oh so 'enlightening' response also much wiser .

Do yourself a favor and do not attack others because your opinion differs , you can state your opinion without insulting people and personal attacks only serve to have people ignore what you have to say .

I can assure you that I have probably forgotten more about AV than you will ever know so be careful of whom you try and pick fights with here at AVS . Not off to a good start for such a new member (are you maybe PioManiac reborn) .


And yes things have improved with many Plasmas over the past 4 months (since this thread was started) , many more offering higher resolutions and more reasonable pricing . Anybody claiming however that 1024x768 is a 16:9 resolution obviously knows very little about A/V (regardless of what processing is being done it is still a 4:3 resolution and not capable of true 1280x720p) .

--- Jason

Talking BS out your butt doesnt get too many points with me either. You don't know jack about display technologies. Thats obvious.

1024x768 in PDP's is a 16:9 aspect ratio fool. Want a bunch of links to "enlighten" you?

Sure will:

Heres one 42" WIDESCREEN 16:9 ratio plasma: http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/PlasmaTV/files/hp-t4254_final.pdf

Here's another: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069733_310985820_tab=B,00.html?compName=PNA_V3_Pr oductDetailsComponent

Here's another: http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=112105&catGroupId=24973&modelNo=TH-42PX77U&surfModel=TH-42PX77U&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702

Should I keep going and LINK EVERY SINGLE 42" plasma currently?

Getting the picture?

I am fully aware that 1024x768 is a traditional 4:3 aspect ratio for computer displays with SQUARE pixels, but this is a plasma screen.

Shrinking pixels down is much harder to do on a plasma than on an LCD. Hence why 1080p plasma displays have taken a bit longer(and why they cost more as well).


So do YOURSELF a favor. Start "remembering"(or IMO learn your subject as you don't know squat from alot of the posts I have read from you) your technology or don't post utter nonsense that is incorrect. All it does is lead to confusion for other people who want to learn.

Real simple.

But the resolution of any display that is touted as "HD" should be at least 1280 pixels on the x axis and at least 720 pixels on the y axis. 1024x768 doesn't cut it, even if the pixels are rectangular.

For instance, if you are sending a 1280x720p signal to the TV, and it gets down/up (that's ridiculous) scaled to 1024x768, you are going to end up with averaging of pixels. Small details will get scaled away. And the small details do count, particularly in video games when you are trying to get off a perfect head shot across the entire map.

And yes, I'm certain that you can actually get these rectangular pixels to work in most circumstances. But you really end up relying on the device generating the video to come up with the correct aspect ratio. In some circumstances, it isn't possible.

Personally, I like displays to not have to do any scaling whatsoever. And I definitely don't like displays that have to up scale in one dimension and down scale in the other.

Pixels are meant to be square. Pixels are square in NTSC and ATSC broadcast standards. There is no reason for these plasma companies to use these rectangular pixel panels, other than the fact that it is probably cheaper for them to do so.

First off for a TV to be considered "HD" or more specifically 720p HD it needs to have at least 720 lines of VERTICAL resolution. Horizontal resolution does not need to be 1280. The extra 260 lines in the horizontal plane really doesnt make that big of a difference.

If it was I would be gaming on my 1080p Westinghouse 47w1 TV and not my measly 1024x768 "720p" plasma display. Resolution does count, but not as much as you think. I envite you to game on my 42" plasma anyday. No LCD currently will compete with it. LCD's are great for still pictures, but they are poor and lose their razor sharp image when motion sets forth. Its just the nature of the current technology. I know LCD's are getting better, but they still aren't anywhere near a plasma in termsw of motion performance.

And by the way, I don't need to scale up or down any pixels. My Xbox 360 outputs at both 1024x768 and 1024x768 widescreen(which is what it runs at). I get 1:1 pixel mapping with no processing.

CRT's are the best TV's all-around.

They were 5-10 years ago. Not the case now. In fact all the high end CRT mfg's like Sony and Mitsubishi have stopped producing CRT's YEARS AGO.

First off for a TV to be considered "HD" or more specifically 720p HD it needs to have at least 720 lines of VERTICAL resolution. Horizontal resolution does not need to be 1280. The extra 260 lines in the horizontal plane really doesnt make that big of a difference.


So you wouldn't mind buying a 100x768 (yes, "100", not a typo) "High definition" display?

It must be high definition since it has at least 720 lines of vertical resolution. Screw the horizontal resolution. That extra 1180 lines really doesn't make that big a difference.

You seem to think that 1024 pixels in the x dimension is fine. But where is your line drawn for where you think a display is HD or not? Is it 800 horizontal lines? Is it 1024? Would 900 be acceptable to you? If 1024 is your line, why would you want to be right on that line of what is acceptable for being "HD"?

My minimum is 1280. No compromise (or scaling) needed.

Professionally Calibrated 57' HITACHI CRT:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC05103.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC05168.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC04819.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC04756.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC04755.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/bigfnjoe96/DSC04754.jpg


NO LAG
NO RAINBOW EFFECT
NO IMAGE RETENTION
NO MOTION BLUR

They offer the BEST BLACK LEVEL of any display on the market. If calibrated by an ISF will give you a helluva picture. When calibrated correctly BURN-IN is a NON-ISSUE. So that leaves actually resolution. Most CRT's will give you about 1280-1350 actual lines of resolution(1350Ix1080I) which still gives you more resolution than any other display out there except for a 1080P Native set.

The only real argument against a CRT is (Progressive VS Interlace) & IMO that argument really is about Personal Preference...

BTW, as for the original question, I would say PLASMA

That Hitachi picture is "OK", but it sure isn't the best I've seen. Never will from ANY RPTV. I also have a Mits WS55813 55" widescreen CRT. It also was ISF calibrated a few years back after break-in, and it still doesnt hold a candle to my plasma for gaming. And the plasma was only calibrated with a copy of DVE and a colorimeter.

So you wouldn't mind buying a 100x768 (yes, "100", not a typo) "High definition" display?

It must be high definition since it has at least 720 lines of vertical resolution. Screw the horizontal resolution. That extra 1180 lines really doesn't make that big a difference.

You seem to think that 1024 pixels in the x dimension is fine. But where is your line drawn for where you think a display is HD or not? Is it 800 horizontal lines? Is it 1024? Would 900 be acceptable to you? If 1024 is your line, why would you want to be right on that line of what is acceptable for being "HD"?

My minimum is 1280. No compromise (or scaling) needed.

All you need to do is game on a decent quality 42" PDP with 1024x768, compare it directly to a much higher 1080p LCD. There will be no comparison. The plasma will still show a superior picture.

I also was skeptical of the slightly lower horizontal line resolution at first, but after alot of research I found it was a moot point.

BTW, there is a slight difference between 100 lines and 1280 or 1024 lines than there is between 1024 and 1280 lines. Whatever your point is, its meaningless going to such a silly extreme.

SO now let me ask you this:

Would you rather on a super sharp widescreen 1024x768 image with incredible depth of field that may or may not have some scaling processing going on, or would you rather game on a 1280x720 display that displays most probably a picture that is not quite as sharp looking and much flatter with less vibrancy, even though it has the full pixel count array?

Your too worried about pixel specs. and resolution. I was in that category a few years back. Not anymore.

All you need to do is game on a decent quality 42" PDP with 1024x768, compare it directly to a much higher 1080p LCD. There will be no comparison. The plasma will still show a superior picture.

I also was skeptical of the slightly lower horizontal line resolution at first, but after alot of research I found it was a moot point.

BTW, there is a slight difference between 100 lines and 1280 or 1024 lines than there is between 1024 and 1280 lines. Whatever your point is, its meaningless going to such a silly extreme.


I was just trying to find out where your limit is. Personally, I think that the people that came up with that whole "must be at least 720 pixels of vertical resolution and horizontal resolution doesn't matter" are the same people who work for companies that make these horizontally challenged displays.

SO now let me ask you this:

Would you rather on a super sharp widescreen 1024x768 image with incredible depth of field that may or may not have some scaling processing going on, or would you rather game on a 1280x720 display that displays most probably a picture that is not quite as sharp looking and much flatter with less vibrancy, even though it has the full pixel count array?

Your too worried about pixel specs. and resolution. I was in that category a few years back. Not anymore.

I think you are getting your technologies messed up with this whole "depth of field" thing. That's a camera term. ;)

Personally, I'd rather go for both resolution and picture quality. But I won't sacrifice screen size for the absolute best PQ. My next TV will most likely be a ~60" 1080p rear projection. I'll be in the market in a few years, and by then the entire display landscape probably will have changed. I need the large screen because I have to sit ~15 feet away. I can't use a projector because my living room has far too much light in it. Large plasmas simply get too expensive. But maybe in a few years that will change. Hell, by then, maybe SED will knock us off our feet.

Zippy I dont know how much weight to take with your comments because like DaGamePimp has said your rude childish behavior leaves a sour taste in most peoples mouth.

I seem to recall the same type of garrish responses or backhanded insults in a few other threads that I've participated in where you have posted/responded. ( Westinghouse w4207 talk ) Its ok to disagree but we can learn from each other through the exchange of discussion not insult. I am no wordsmith so I will keep my responses concise but there are no need for that kind of thing, we are all mature enough to learn and move on.


-DrB

Zippy I dont know how much weight to take with your comments because like DaGamePimp has said your rude childish behavior leaves a sour taste in most peoples mouth.

I seem to recall the same type of garrish responses or backhanded insults in a few other threads that I've participated in where you have posted/responded. ( Westinghouse w4207 talk ) Its ok to disagree but we can learn from each other through the exchange of discussion not insult. I am no wordsmith so I will keep my responses concise but there are no need for that kind of thing, we are all mature enough to learn and move on.


-DrB

Actually to defend someone like pimp is to call the kettle black. I've seen his past posts and they are no better. And many times they attack other people or their views and knowledge on display technology.

Thicken your skin up a bit if my "text" offends you.

How about whats offensive to me? Like people who post complete and utter BS. Pimps own post was very offensive in that regard.

Maybe YOU should move on? :rolleyes:

That Hitachi picture is "OK", but it sure isn't the best I've seen. Never will from ANY RPTV. I also have a Mits WS55813 55" widescreen CRT. It also was ISF calibrated a few years back after break-in, and it still doesnt hold a candle to my plasma for gaming. And the plasma was only calibrated with a copy of DVE and a colorimeter.

We'll if you feel that way, put your $ where your mouth is & post some screen shots of some 360 games running of your PLASMA, since it seems your so confident about your PLASMA

I was just trying to find out where your limit is. Personally, I think that the people that came up with that whole "must be at least 720 pixels of vertical resolution and horizontal resolution doesn't matter" are the same people who work for companies that make these horizontally challenged displays.



I think you are getting your technologies messed up with this whole "depth of field" thing. That's a camera term. ;)

Personally, I'd rather go for both resolution and picture quality. But I won't sacrifice screen size for the absolute best PQ. My next TV will most likely be a ~60" 1080p rear projection. I'll be in the market in a few years, and by then the entire display landscape probably will have changed. I need the large screen because I have to sit ~15 feet away. I can't use a projector because my living room has far too much light in it. Large plasmas simply get too expensive. But maybe in a few years that will change. Hell, by then, maybe SED will knock us off our feet.

I should have reworded that to picture "depth" as I find that Plasmas have a very "3D" looking pciture to them when set up properly.


But say you would rather go for resolution AND picture quality makes no sense at all. Resolution plays a part in "picture quality", its just not the most important one. Its not even in the top 3. I've seen too many 720p plasmas outperfrom 1080p LCD and RPTV counterparts to worry that much about absolute resolution of a display.

As for future plasma 42" models you will probably see within the next few years full 1366x768 displays since there are now 1080p 50" displays coming out to the market. But like I said, its not the biggest driving force.

We'll if you feel that way, put your $ where your mouth is & post some screen shots of some 360 games running of your PLASMA, since it seems your so confident about your PLASMA



What games do you have for the 360 or PS3? You let me know what you have and I'll match your shots and add some of my own. I'll even put up a grayscale field, some pluge patterns, color test bars(all in HD) etc to show the lack of flaws my user calibrated set has.

BTW your grayscale and color decoding is still off on that Hitachi and your over driving the whites on that video signal, its apparent. Hitachi was never the best maker of CRT RPTV's.

Exactly how did that "ISF technician" calibrate your TV set btw?

This is a top I can definately weigh in on, as I have both a 42" pioneer plasma and a 1080p Sony LCD. Despite the superior resolution of the LCD, gaming on the plasma is just plain nicer. I'm uncertain why, except the picture and black levels, excellent contrast and detail on the plasma make for a great gaming experience.

And I've not experienced any burn-in yet. The LCD looks good, but just not AS good for some reason. I have both a 360 w/VGA and PS3, and the effect is the same.

BTW your grayscale and color decoding is still off on that Hitachi and your over driving the whites on that video signal, its apparent. Hitachi was never the best maker of CRT RPTV's.


You can't really tell all that much about picture quality of a TV from a picture in a web browser.

You are 2 steps removed from viewing the actual picture on the TV. Now you have the camera's settings messing with it. And then your computer's display also messes with it.

What games do you have for the 360 or PS3? You let me know what you have and I'll match your shots and add some of my own. I'll even put up a grayscale field, some pluge patterns, color test bars(all in HD) etc to show the lack of flaws my user calibrated set has.

BTW your grayscale and color decoding is still off on that Hitachi and your over driving the whites on that video signal, its apparent. Hitachi was never the best maker of CRT RPTV's.

Exactly how did that "ISF technician" calibrate your TV set btw?

I doubt my grey-scale & color decoding are OFF... What ever your trying to point-out may be coming from the camera itself & not the actual picture...

MY TV was calibrated by Kevin Miller in February of this year & is running @ 6500K

www.isftv.com

Games I own(360)

Gears of War
MLB 2K7
Rainbow 6 Vegas
NBA 2K7
SC: Double Agent
GRAW: Advance Warfighter
Condemned: Criminal Origins
PREY
PGR

You can't really tell all that much about picture quality of a TV from a picture in a web browser.

You are 2 steps removed from viewing the actual picture on the TV. Now you have the camera's settings messing with it. And then your computer's display also messes with it.

I probably am, but that picture has alot of blue hue in the upper whites along with them being overdriven, that is obvious even 2 stills removed, normally thats due to a combination of contrast being set to high along with the grayscale wandering.

BTW my computers screen is accurately calibrated. So it really falls on your camera and how well it reporduces the image.

Debates like this are just silly.
Most people defend what they own...

All displays have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Kyser