[tumface]

O noble avsforum members, listen ye to my woeful tale - or alternatively, just skip skip the story, or even to the end where I just lay out my questions in a list.


In December of 2006 I purchased a Samsung LN-S4095D (LCD, 40", 1080p) primarily for gaming. I'd checked it out in person before buying it online; there were a few problems but generally I was very satisfied with it.


My satisfaction was moot, however: after having it for 6 days, it ate a Wii controller in the face. *Word of advice, if you have unruly friends, make sure they're wearing the Wii controller strap, especially if they're winding up to try to nail a turkey.


I've been without a real TV for a while (those 6 days sure were great) and now it's time to replace it. In addition to banishing first-time Wii players from my apartment, I want to make sure I get the best display possible. Which is why I'm posting here!


--woeful tale ends here--


The LN-S4095D was pretty great, but it had a few problems. The most annoying to me was the latency. Even though it has a game mode, I could still notice quite a bit of latency, probably at least 80ms. I realize that virtually all HDTVs are going to have latency, but I would like to have as little as possible. I play a lot of 'twitch' games, and every little bit of extra latency makes them harder. I've never owned another HDTV, so I have nothing to compare the LN-S4095D. How does it stack up against the models I'm considering (listed further down)?


I would also hope to get better picture quality than the LN-S4095D with this new purchase. The contrast ratio on the LN-S4095D was good, but not great. Samsung's DNIe enhancer was iffy, and I'd hope to get more contrast out of an LCD if I end up getting one.


The display will be in a very light-controlled environment. I can make the room very dark at all times, though I'll mainly be using it at night anyway. My place is very small, so I cannot go any larger than 42". I will be sitting between 4 and 7 feet from the display.


The usage of the display will be split about 60/40 between gaming and video. The games will be PS3 (HDMI, 1080p/720p) 360 (component, 720p) and Wii (component, 480p), with the occasional DVI/HDMI from my PC. For video, I will always be watching Blu-Ray/HD-DVD titles or 1080p content from my media center PC - no broadcast TV.


Which brings me to the Panasonic TH-42PZ700 (1080p 42" PDP). Personally, I love the high-contrast look of plasmas (my dad has had one for years and years, back when they were first coming out. Some old Marantz model) but the traditional lack of resolution when compared to LCDs of the same size has always gotten to me. I sit in front of large, high-resolution LCD computer monitors all day, so maybe that's why I'm more sensitive to it. Anyway, when I bought my TV back in December, I was dead set on 1080p at 40-42", so I got an LCD. I'm still set on 1080p, but now that this Panasonic 42" PDP is coming out, I'm wondering if I should spring for it instead.


As I outlined above, one of my primary concerns is the latency of the display. Not just the response times of the pixels on LCDs, but the total time it takes for a frame to appear. But speaking of response times, another plus for PDP is the superior handling of fast motion, of which there is a lot in games. The LN-S4095D was pretty good (I'd put it on par with most LCDs I see that claim between 8 and 12ms, despite Samsung being generally very "optimistic" about their benchmarks) but obviously better is, well, better.


The LCD I was considering was the Sharp LC42D62U - I've been digging around for a while here and people seem to like it a lot, and it's exactly within my price range and desired size. I'd definitely like to know what other people think, though.


So here, in a summarized list, are my questions for the noblemen of avs:

1) For a 1080p gaming display at 40-42", should I get the Panasonic TH-42PZ700 PDP or an LCD?

2) I'm considering the Sharp LC42D62U LCD, is this the best option for an LCD? It looks very impressive in person, but do you have any experiences with it, or alternate suggestions?

3) For those who have experience with both, how would you say a 40-42" Samsung LCD compares to any of these other models (or any models that you or anyone else might bring up)?

4) Does anyone have any experience with the new lineup of Panasonic PDPs?

5) What other factors should I weigh? What else am I forgetting?


I'm open to any suggestions. If you want to, feel free to throw anything out there. In case you didn't want to read the novel I just typed (understandable), here is a summary of my requirements for the display:

- Used primarily for gaming

- Must be 1080p, 1:1 pixel mapping

- As low-latency as possible, i.e. what has a great "game" mode?

- Two HDMI inputs, two component inputs

- Must be within 40" to 42"

- Will be in a very light-controlled environment, seated 4-7 feet away

- Response time is very important on LCDs for me (Sorry, Westinghouse)

- Not really worried about burn-in or image retention on PDP

- MSRP price cap at $3,000


Thanks so much for taking the time to read my rant, and if you offer some help, hey, that's even better!

 

[Raitzi]

It looks like plasma would be good option for you. Plasmas are superior when it comes to motion(compared to LCD). You will be fine with PZ700 if you dont use it without screen saver with PC.

Both Sharp d62U(2006) and d92(120Hz 2007) have banding issues,so i would say there is better lcds than those shaprs,but bandfree d92U/d62U is nice set.(there is a thread about banding with sharp)

MSRP for TH-42PZ700 is 2500$.(which i think is a bargain)


In june there is also 120Hz(better motion handling) 1080p lcds coming from Toshiba ,JVC, Philips and Samsung. Im currently thinking of buying Philips or Toshiba 120Hz 1080p lcd. Reason for me to lcd is that imgoing to also use it as pc-monitor and im bit concerned about energy consumption of plasmas.

 

[tumface]

Yeah, I've been doing some more reading here, and if I'm going to get an LCD, it will be a Sharp LC-42D72U. Apparently some people have problems with banding, however I'm willing to try my luck. Also, it seems like Sharp is willing to work with customers who get sets with banding and consider it a problem.


The only reason I was considering the Panasonic was because I heard it might actually be hitting retailers next week. I'm not willing to wait more than a week or so before ordering a TV. 120hz sounds good, but it's only an internal conversion, and sacrificing just a single feature in order to get a set a month earlier is fine with me. I wish Sharp hadn't canceled the LC-42D92U, but oh well.


I'm glad you reminded me about power consumption, though. I totally forgot that Plasmas suck a lot more than LCDs. I've heard it's gone down quite a bit, can anyone confirm this? What kind of wattage do they draw now? I live in a pretty old building, so it's pretty easy for me to trip the breaker here. For example, if I run my microwave (1250 watts) while I have my big soundsystem amp and all of my computers on, it'll probably trip. Yet another reason for me to considering LCD.


I was in BB the other day, and I saw a 46 inch 82U side-by-side with a PDP. They both had very vivid images, but the PDP still beat the LCD in for moving images. I really don't know if this difference is worth the extra waiting time, money, and hassle.

 

[Raitzi]

Difference between plasma and LCD power consumption is larger in over 42" sizes.

From manuals:

50PZ700:

Max power = 695 Watts (in gaming use i would say its about 400W, brighter picture means more power)

Samsung LE52M87BD (euro 52" 1080p LCD)
Stable power consumption:310W


But im looking lcd in 46" range so its about 260W for 46". My plasma alternative is 50PZ700 so that means i would use about 53% more power than lcd. CNET has comparision of different type TVs power consumptions.

My opinioin is that you dont have think about power consumption in 42" range.

 

[oldcband]

I own a 2 year old Sharp with a 16ms response and I don't have any problems with fast motion. Funny how owners with each display believe theirs are superior. I've owned plasma also and this is how I would decide:


Plasmas are for movies and DVD's and you have a perfect environment that can control lighting problems. Plasma is the choice for the movie lover.


LCD is much more versitle for gaming and all around use. LCD just have less worries.

 

[tumface]

I've decided to go with the Sharp, even though I know it'll have bands. Good news is, it wasn't horribly expensive, so I'm willing to trade a little bit of annoyance for overall higher quality when I actually have stuff on the screen. I'll make sure to take some pictures of it with a dark screen and add it to the 46D72U thread when it arrives next week (ordered from Vann's).


Thanks guys for your suggestions

 

[oldcband]



Quote:
Originally Posted by tumface /forum/post/0


I've decided to go with the Sharp, even though I know it'll have bands. Good news is, it wasn't horribly expensive, so I'm willing to trade a little bit of annoyance for overall higher quality when I actually have stuff on the screen. I'll make sure to take some pictures of it with a dark screen and add it to the 46D72U thread when it arrives next week (ordered from Vann's).


Thanks guys for your suggestions

I believe you made the right choice for your situation. Sharp make great TV's and the banding thing is a concern but is overblown. In fact way overblown. I'd bet if you had never heard about it here, you would not even gone looking for it and never would be an issue. Sharp backs up their product even it is an issue.

 

[tumface]

I probably would have noticed, but it would have been more of a "oh, guess that's just how it is" sort of thing. The Samsung I had was a little uneven, now that I think about it, but it didn't bug me at all.