So I'm in the market for a display to replace a old 37" 1080p westinghouse lvm-37w1 LCD that I have in the livingroom. It has a pretty bad picture and even somehow gets bad IR even though it is a LCD.
I'd really enjoy the picture quality and motion resolution benefits moving to a plasma would give me but about half the time I have my current screen on (maybe 4 hours a day) I'm using it as a large format computer screen for a person with vision issues that makes it easier to see a big tv sized screen while sitting on the couch than using a desk and a small monitor was.
I planned to replace the livingroom computer with a small tablet but after having a Nexus 7 for a few weeks it looks like too often I have to turn the PC on and use the screen for stuff like email, shopping and banking.
I'm concerned that if I go with a plasma for the better picture for all the sports and Blu-rays I'd use, that I'd damage the screen with IR and/or Burn-in since I'd still have to use it as a monitor and for multiple hours every day.
I really didn't want to compromise on picture quality but I also didn't want to spend good money on a plasma only to ruin it faster versus settling on a cheap LCD.
Am I being overly concerned with IR or burn in issues that lots of static use might cause?
I know the VT50 has very current panel tech and IR and burn in are mainly past concerns and a nice LCD like a direct back-lite Sony XBR would cost me something like $1000 more compared to the 55" VT50 on a good sale so I'd likely just cheap out on a 60hz LED LCD if I couldn't get the VT50 instead of trying to match it in performance because I know the other LCDs don't come close until the costs go up.
Does anyone think I can realistically use a vt50 for multiples hours a day as a monitor without issues or should I give up on the dream of plasma and just find a cheap LCD and save for a zt60 in a year or so in a dedicated home theater setup were it wouldn't have to be used as a monitor ever?
I'd really enjoy the picture quality and motion resolution benefits moving to a plasma would give me but about half the time I have my current screen on (maybe 4 hours a day) I'm using it as a large format computer screen for a person with vision issues that makes it easier to see a big tv sized screen while sitting on the couch than using a desk and a small monitor was.
I planned to replace the livingroom computer with a small tablet but after having a Nexus 7 for a few weeks it looks like too often I have to turn the PC on and use the screen for stuff like email, shopping and banking.
I'm concerned that if I go with a plasma for the better picture for all the sports and Blu-rays I'd use, that I'd damage the screen with IR and/or Burn-in since I'd still have to use it as a monitor and for multiple hours every day.
I really didn't want to compromise on picture quality but I also didn't want to spend good money on a plasma only to ruin it faster versus settling on a cheap LCD.
Am I being overly concerned with IR or burn in issues that lots of static use might cause?
I know the VT50 has very current panel tech and IR and burn in are mainly past concerns and a nice LCD like a direct back-lite Sony XBR would cost me something like $1000 more compared to the 55" VT50 on a good sale so I'd likely just cheap out on a 60hz LED LCD if I couldn't get the VT50 instead of trying to match it in performance because I know the other LCDs don't come close until the costs go up.
Does anyone think I can realistically use a vt50 for multiples hours a day as a monitor without issues or should I give up on the dream of plasma and just find a cheap LCD and save for a zt60 in a year or so in a dedicated home theater setup were it wouldn't have to be used as a monitor ever?














