Ok, so I went and looked at the SD content on some LCD tv's today. My choices today were Samsung and Sharp. I went to BB, and I have to say, the SD content on both sets was better than one would be lead to believe on the forums, but certainly not great. One channel on the Samsung (looked at both 4661 and 4665, they did not have a 52 inch) looked terrible. It seemed to be void of reds and whites and was just one big blur of green and blue. But another channel with a Hockey game playing looked very watchable (i was informed it was a digital channel). The Aquos (I believe it was the 82u) also looked alright on the SD channels. The HD on all the sets did not look incredibly impressive, as there was a fair amount of pixalation, so I assume that is due to the multiple splitting of the source. The salesperson commented on a few things that I would like to get answered in here:
1). He said the SD channels were OTA, and that Directv (I have Directv HD with an HD DVR), being digital, would give me a better picture than the SD OTA channels. Now, I know from on here that usually the OTA HD channels are better than Directv HD channels, so one would assume the SD would be better OTA also,,,,can anyone comment on that?
2). He said that Plasma would give me a better picture in SD than LCD. He then showed me the SD on the Samsung 50" plasma (didnt get the model #) and compared it to the SD on the Samsung 4661F. Quite frankly the 4661F looked better, lol. We were watching the Hockey game, and that is when he claimed "well this is a good digital channel. If I could get a standard channel (I assume like the green/blue channel as I call it now) you would see how much better the plasma is for regular SD."
3). Since he had a higher regard for Plasma, at least in the SD mode, I asked him about burn in, particularly black-bar burn in from watching SD. He showed me how the Samsung had an anti-burn in function that scanned the screen to eliminate burnin, and even fix it if it happened. So I ask you, if you had burnin, would this truely work?
4). I then asked him the lighted room question, i.e. plasma looks great in darkened rooms, but not so much in well lit rooms. He then went on about glare, which we all know about, but also said it was really a toss up, because although most of the LCD's are matte finish instead of glass (well, except for the 4665), that LCD's tend to wash out in light. Hmmmm, I thought the washout arguement was the one made against plasma's, not LCD's, but I didnt argue with him.
I have been pretty much stuck on LCD's over Plasmas, and, after seeing the plasma screens, I still like the LCD's better. They are so much brighter and more detailed. But any answers to my questions above would be appreciated, particularly as it pertains to SD, as I would still like to have a decent SD picture (better than the one I saw today).
52" Samsung 750, finally satisfaction