| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:08
|
 |
|
what is the best you reckon for a room that is not small ?
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:28
|
|
fvck HDTV - that shit is a wank that is beyond what is really necessary. There are hardly any programs and movies which take advantage of the extra ressolution.
In my opinion, it depends on what size you want.
Up to 100cm, i would stick with a HIGH QUALITY CRT (normal) TV.
There is only one brand i would consider.
# Loewe - it is THE shit for CRT TVs. Without a doubt the best picture quality and colour depth i have ever seen.
Bigger than 100cm - then look at your Plasmas/LCDs.
MASSIVE - a good CRT tube projector.
I am not a fan of rear projection. I just think they lack a lot of colour depth and picture quality, sure they are large, but they just arent as good.
It comes down to budget. For $3-4k you can get THE BEST CRT available from Loewe, or a substandard LCD. I know which i would prefer.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:29
|
|
Rear projections suck.
CRTs are great value, but bulky.
[Edit: I agree with Karl on the point about CRTs. I would buy a CRT before any of the others because they provide great value for money. As long as you have the room to fit a large one in (they're very deep).]
As for LCD vs Plasma, I think it comes down to what size you want. LCD will only go up to a certain size.
Here's an artilce I saved that goes through the pros and cons of LCD and plasma (and also busts some myths along the way). Have fun reading it!
| Quote: |
Sharpening plasma's image
03/02/05 | 10:25 PM PST
Eric A. Taub
TV makers are defending plasma's honor, even as they roll out more LCD
rivals.
The New York Times
If ever a product evoked lust in the heart, it is a plasma television.
Like radial tires in the 1970s, a big flat plasma set is today's
must-have technology.
But whispers about the plasma set's shortcomings--some old, some
new--have increased recently. Critics have focused on the technology's
warts, comparing its performance unfavorably with that of liquid-crystal
displays, another flat-screen technology.
If the negatives stick, it may mean trouble for LG Electronics,
Panasonic, Philips, Samsung and Sony, all companies that continue to
invest billions of dollars to produce plasma and LCD sets.
To address questions about plasma's image quality, life span, power
consumption and other characteristics, several of these companies have
started campaigns to change public opinion.
"The early versions of plasma had some issues, like product life and
image burn-in," said Jeff Cove, vice president and general manager for
Panasonic's consumer electronics group. "But old news is coloring how
people perceive the product. It was absolutely not affecting the
business, but it could affect it."
Samsung is hearing the whispers as well. "We have significant stakes in
both businesses, and plasma is getting the short shrift," said Jim
Sanduski, vice president for marketing of the company's visual display
products group.
Larry Weber, one of the inventors of plasma technology, said that recent
publicity, right or wrong, about how LCD sets would eventually take over
the large-screen market could only hurt plasma sales. "It makes sense
that plasma companies should speak out," he said.
And so they are. At the Consumer Electronics Show in January in Las
Vegas, Panasonic executives conducted side-by-side demonstrations of the
two technologies, in which criticism of the plasma set's performance was
systematically rebutted.
In casual conversations, the presidents of Panasonic, the world's
top-selling plasma brand, and Samsung, which ranks third, promoted their
strong commitment to plasma, even though no one was actually asking.
The problem is that once a product's reputation falls in a hole, it is
not so easy to get it out. "You hear blatant lies about plasma," said
Danielle Levitas, a senior analyst at IDC, a research firm.
Faced with whispers of plasma's faults on one hand and a vigorous
defense by manufacturers on the other, what is a consumer to do?
A potential flat-screen buyer could look at two sets, side by side, and
decide which one is better: plasma, which has thousands of tiny gas
tubes that light up to create pixels, or LCD, which has a constant light
source and uses the crystals to let varying amounts of light through for
each pixel.
But a video picture that looks great in the showroom may look terrible
at home, or vice versa. "TV's are shipped with the brightness and
contrast maxed out," said Gerard Catapano, manager of testing in the
electronics division for Consumer Reports. "The manufacturers want you
to be wowed by it, so the visual characteristics are peaked."
There are objective ways to compare the performance of LCD and plasma
sets. Here are some of the differences between the two.
Screen size
Plasma sets are not made in sizes smaller than about 37 inches because
it is too difficult to squeeze a large number of plasma pixels into a
smaller screen. Making LCD sets in sizes larger than about 32 inches has
not been economical because factories have not been able to create
several larger viewing panels from one piece of glass.
But new plants, which can produce multiple LCD screens from a single
sheet of glass, are starting to operate. As part of a venture between
Samsung and Sony, a new plant will be able to produce 40-inch LCD sets
in the spring. In October 2006, Sharp will open a plant designed to
produce 45- and 50-inch LCD sets, sizes that plasma offers.
All the new production capability should mean a continuing drop in
prices for LCD sets. A 42-inch LCD set that cost $4,500 last year will
fall to $1,700 by 2008, said Ross Young, president of DisplaySearch, a
company that researches flat panel sets.
Prices for plasma sets should decline as well. Last year a typical
42-inch high-definition model cost about $4,200. By 2008 it should cost
about $1,800, not much more than an LCD of the same size.
"The challenge for plasma is that it has a fairly narrow sweet spot,"
said Greg Gudorf, vice president for television marketing for Sony
Electronics. Above 50 inches, rear-projection sets that use Digital
Light Processing or other technologies can be more attractive to
consumers because they are less expensive without much of a difference
in picture quality, Gudorf said.
Resolution
To keep plasma prices down, some manufacturers have been selling what
they call enhanced definition sets rather than true high-definition
models. Each receives a high-definition television signal, but the
enhanced definition model has fewer pixels, and thus lower resolution.
But even most high-definition plasma sets have a lower resolution than
an LCD set. The image may look as sharp, however, depending on distance
from the set. From an average viewing distance of 10 feet, Weber said,
the eye cannot distinguish pixels that are smaller than about a
millimeter. So making them smaller to squeeze more into a given area
will not necessarily improve the picture quality. At 10 feet, a 42-inch
high-definition plasma display has an adequate resolution, Weber said.
But as with high-powered cars, people want performance whether they need
it or not. So some people opt for the higher resolution numbers of LCD
sets, even if it is hard to tell the difference.
Contrast
To look good, a television image needs to display a true white and a
deep black. Manufacturers claim plasma displays have a contrast ratio of
3,000 to 1, while LCD specifications are lower, around 800 to 1.
But numbers do not tell the entire story. In brightly lighted rooms, LCD
panels will appear to have much higher contrast; room light hitting a
plasma set bounces off the screen's phosphors. As a result, its blacks
will appear to be gray and muddied. Less light is reflected off an LCD
screen because of its polarizers and color filters.
The situation will be reversed when the lights are off. Without any
ambient room light, the plasma set's picture contrast looks to be equal
or better than the LCDs.
To create black in a plasma set, Weber points out, the gas discharge
activity in the pixels is decreased. But in an LCD set, black is created
by blocking light. And liquid crystals have a difficult time blocking
light at all angles.
Some believe there is little difference between LCD and plasma sets once
the lights are down. "In a dimly lit room, LCD and plasma TV's perform
equally well," Catapano of Consumer Reports said.
Color reproduction
Plasma sets can display a wider range, or gamut, of colors, than L.C.D
sets. But that gap will soon narrow. Sony recently announced the Qualia
005, an LCD set that uses light-emitting diodes rather than a
fluorescent backlight, raising the LCD color gamut above that of
plasma's.
But this new LCD technology is still very expensive: when introduced in
the spring, the 46-inch Qualia model will sell for $12,000. Samsung will
introduce a 40-inch LED-based LCD set for $9,000, a premium of $5,000
compared with its standard model. "But prices for this technology should
come down pretty quickly," Sanduski said. Brightness
Plasma creates a brighter pixel by increasing the charge applied to the
gas. When very bright scenes are displayed, the electrical charge is
lowered to prevent the display from overheating; but this also cuts
overall brightness.
An LCD screen, with its constant backlight, may be perceived by some
people as producing livelier images.
"The LCD image seems punchier than the plasma," Catapano said.
Burn-in and panel life
LCD monitors are not subject to burn-in, or the tendency of static
images to leave a ghostlike image on the screen. And while LCD backlight
bulbs can be replaced, when a plasma set's image decreases sufficiently,
it is time to buy a new set.
Plasma's advocates say the burn-in problem is gone. And while early
plasma displays lasted about 10,000 hours before the panel's brightness
decreased by half, today's sets have a brightness half-life of about
60,000 hours.
Some manufacturers like Panasonic incorporate technology to reduce
plasma burn-in by slightly shifting the image. And manufacturers caution
users that the first 100 hours are especially critical to avoiding image
burn-in.
Power consumption
Plasma sets are said to use considerably more power than similarly sized
LCD models. But Weber argues that because LCD panels have a constant
backlight, while plasma uses power only when a pixel is lighted, power
consumption is almost the same.
But not everyone agrees. When Consumer Reports tested power consumption,
it found that a 30-inch LCD consumed 133.5 watts, while a 42-inch plasma
used 346.5 watts.
Some of the difference is attributable to the larger size of the plasma
set, Catapano said. But not most of it. "A plasma TV has three power
supplies for one set. That's pretty significant," he said.
When the novelty ends
So, who wins? Judging picture quality is not like keeping score at a
ballgame.
Gudorf of Sony says brightness, contrast, color and viewing angle must
be examined in concert. "If you focus on just one without examining the
others, you won't be happy," he said.
Whether one buys a plasma or an LCD set, the novelty of having either
will eventually wear off. "At first, you're enamored with it, and after
a while you see the imperfections," Catapano said.
Entire contents, Copyright © 2005 The New York Times. All rights
reserved.
Copyright © 1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
[Updated on: Wed, 06 April 2005 23:31]
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:46
|
|
Thanks fellas ..
I was told by heaps of people that normal CRT is the way to go and to avoid rear projection ..
i forgot to mention FRONT projection ! apart from the fact that you need a huge wall to play the image on what u reckon ?
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:52
|
|
|
Nope. No projection unit can match the clarity of a CRT/LCD/Plasma.
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:54
|
|
in short - LCD and Plasma are teh suck.
I dont think i could live with such imperfections in a TV set i just forked out a couple of $<Garret b.b. turbos> for.
My opinion - get thee to Max Entertainment in Norwest shopping centre, or any other GOOD home entertainment store which stocks Loewe (pron: Loo-vey, but most say "lau-wee") and have a look.
A couple of points re, CRTs.
# Despite all the crap about "flat screen CRT" etc, such a thing DOES NOT exist in a CRT. You will find that in fact to create a "flat panel" CRT, a convex lens is used in front of the tube to stretch the picture out to the corners, distorting the true image. Loewe does not make flat screen CRTs, they boast slim line CRT tubes which have TRUE picture representation.
# LG is teh suck.
# 100Hz is a very nice feature. It really makes DVDs motion that much smoother that it is warranted.
# 576 lines is the max for standard def. displays.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Wed, 06 April 2005 23:54
|
|
The trouble with CRT when you get big screens say up to 91cm is that the picture tubes become quite large the tv's are heavy and also are slow to change channels. Our panasonic if you say press a channel seven from 9 it will take 5-10 secs to change the channel it might be just the tv but it is really slow. This is for a flat screen 100hz 68cm tv.
Personally for value for money lcd/dlp rear projection are good. Even normal rear projection tv's aren't as bad as ppl make out. One of our friends has a 132cm LG just normal rear projection and we were sitting in the dining room say 10-15m away from the tv in the lounge at an angle and could still see it fine.
I'd take LCD over plasma though although LCD is not as good when watching sport because of trails. Most plasma screens have a useful life of arounf 5 years as the plasma slowly breaks down beause of its half life, the tv will still be watchable but its brightness will decrease.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 00:02
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 09:54 |
# LG is teh suck.
# 100Hz is a very nice feature. It really makes DVDs motion that much smoother that it is warranted.
|
What's wrong with LG? I found them to have very good clarity for the price. The colour sucked though.
And, yeah, I love 100Hz. My next TV will definately do 100Hz.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth, WA
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 00:05
|
|
i was told CRT's and the 6-7k LCD Screen = good choice.
we were looking at a system of loewe/cerwin vega, but we ended up getting a 6.1 yamaha system, and at the moment we're still undecided about TV Choice.
im aware that a shitty LCD is far shittier than a good CRT for the same money, but its just the CRT looks like poop.
the picture clarity on some of the better quality lcd/plasma screens is simply unbeleivable.
Peace,
Eldar.O.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 00:15
|
|
We got our 100hz tv about three years ago know and its great so much crisper images and yes is great with the DVD's. Cost us 2100 back then and was over 1000 bucks off compared to now when they are lots cheaper. I was surpeised with the sound quality of our TV three speakers adjustable bass and treble etc and get this 40wrms output now this is for a 68sm tv its pretty cool, now to convince my dad that the rear speakers for the home theatre system need to be mounted above our lounge or just behind on the staircase. We got it at the same time as the tv and to this day they sit on top of the front speakers.
I mean what a waste we have 1500-2000 stereo with surround sound and all the speakers are just clustered together.
Great system technics, 5 disc DVD 100wrms x 2 front speakers and and then 50w centre and two 40 watt rear for 330wrms, it has great bass even without a sub cos the technics/panasonic speakers have built in super woofers.
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 00:28
|
|
Corona - your comments re. channel changing has very little to do with the size of the CRT, and everything to do with the internal circuitry.
Eldar0 - come over and i will show you why your comments re. CRT having poop picture quality are redundant  You CANNOT compare to the Loewe Xelos CRT. The only better TV sets i have seen have been $10,000+++
The Loewe is the shit. If you are comparing an LCD to a non-Loewe CRT, i can validate your comments
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 00:31
|
|
Max...
LG = Lucky Goldstar. Does anyone else remember the shudder-worthy quality of Lucky Goldstar electronic products????
For just that little bit more $$, you get the German machinery. Cant beat it. Perfect picture, and better colour depth than any other CRT.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:01
|
|
If you have the room, and can live with the drawbacks such as changing lamps and making sure you don't have full sun in the room all the time....get a projector. Nothing will touch it. An inFocus 4805 isn't too expensive, yes it's only 480P, but it packs a huge punch in terms of picture quality. Would be fine if you were only after say an 82" screen.
The new Plasmas kick ass, but don't expect a good one unless you want to spend over $10k, you get what you pay for. Some of the new LCD's are good, but it's taking them a while to work out how to get the panels big. CRT's are great if you have the room, progressive scan is something that you must have though. Rear projection TV's are a mixed bunch, I've generally found they aren't *too* bad providing you didn't buy an el cheapo...oh, and that you're sitting right in front of it level with the screen.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:04
|
|
|
Progressive scan is a load of shit we don't need it in australia, only useful in america.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:06
|
|
| Corona RT142 wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 09:04 |
Progressive scan is a load of shit we don't need it in australia, only useful in america.
|
Ok, and praytell why, i'd really love to hear this.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:11
|
|
|
Australian TV's have a higher resolution than those in America and progressive scan was developed for DVD's however in Australia it need it debunked by the fact we have screen running at a higher resolution. It was on some tech section on TV a while ago.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:14
|
|
|
Higher resolution has squat to do with interlacing. I'm not following...progressive scan just refreshes the whole image over and over. We're past the point where displays can only refresh every second line at a time, why go backwards?
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:15
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 10:31 |
Max...
LG = Lucky Goldstar. Does anyone else remember the shudder-worthy quality of Lucky Goldstar electronic products????
For just that little bit more $$, you get the German machinery. Cant beat it. Perfect picture, and better colour depth than any other CRT.
|
I didn't say they were good, but they aren't bad either, they've come a long way since the Goldstar days. They're great value for money!
|
|
|
Location:
c'town, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:22
|
|
read VERY carefully warranty information before buying a LCD, plasma or any other non-CRT type TV.
in there they will explain the minimum number of dead pixels allowed before you can claim warranty
theres nothing like watching TV with 9 dead pixels scattered across the screen, most likely one of which being right in the centre of view and you are unable to do anything about it on warranty until the 10th pixel dies.
my 0.02 == a good CRT will still p00 on all (same with computer monitors), other technology will eventually get better tho.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:24
|
|
|
Does anyone know if Samsung still have their zero dead pixel policy?
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 01:27
|
|
| Corona RT142 wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 11:11 |
Australian TV's have a higher resolution than those in America and progressive scan was developed for DVD's however in Australia it need it debunked by the fact we have screen running at a higher resolution. It was on some tech section on TV a while ago.
|
Resolution (well, PAL vs NTSC) has nothing to do with progressive scan vs interlacing.
Progressive scan r0x0rz!!11oneone
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 02:02
|
|
THE WITZL - You seem to know Loewe pretty well. I am actually looking at getting a Loewe CRT (Aventos). I currently have an RCA 80cm TV. I want to upgrade to a TV with Component in, PIP and 100Hz. Looking at a 76cm Widescreen. I am worried it will be a bit of a downgrade in size. Is this the case? or because it is widescreen, it will and up being more beneficial?
I am a little restricted by size due to my cabinet.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 02:05
|
|
|
PIP is cool i can also pause my television kinda fun when we first got it cos everyone bar me went out and when they came home i paused the TV and made them think it was broken, Can also do frame by frame fits about 16 on the TV and the same but going through all the channels to see what is on.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 02:22
|
|
Witzl, do you work for Loewe ? ahha
so my best bet is to go for a decent NORMAL CRT or WIDESCREEN CRT ?
70+ cm i am looking for
$1500 should do the job right ?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 02:45
|
|
|
Widescreen, there is no point to non-widescreen displays.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 03:05
|
|
|
Unless you were just going to use it to watch normal TV...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 03:09
|
|
|
Who would watch analog TV when you can watch digital? Which is mostly widescreen?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 03:15
|
|
I've been watching and waiting for roof mounted Front-Projectors to get down to the right price, and be capable of genuine daylight operation. I heard of a system being released that projected onto a black phospherant screen to give truly black-blacks but still have good brightness and contrast.
Can anyone confirm or deny?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 03:41
|
|
|
My gf's house has a projector as their sole display. Their house isn't hugely dark, there are blinds open in all the rooms outside the projector, and light gets through them anyway. It is perfectly watchable basically any time of the day. It's probably not as bad as you think, it wasn't as bad as we were expecting. Most of the time he even has the lamp brightness on economy and it still copes.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 03:59
|
|
Sweet. what size is it? can you play PS2/xbox etc on it? 
Did you end up getting the 2nd pair of rims btw?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 04:03
|
|
They have a Panasonic AE700E, 720P on a 100" screen...(and yes, it's massif  ). As for PS2 and XBox, course you can, why couldn't you? As a matter of fact, I'm hanging to take my PS2 around there to fire up GT4 
As for the rims, there is a pair of white Buddy Club P1's in 16x7.5" coming from Japan. When they get here they'll have to be repaired and sprayed, but at least I'll have them.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 04:27
|
|
MATE ! !
100" is 2.5 metres ! ! ! 
Nice work on teh buddy-clubs too. I had a set of charcoal 17x7" SF's on order, but they couldn't be stuffed freighting a single set to Australia. Poofters. (note - SF's are the cheap, cast QF-lookalike)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 10:40
|
|
I was thinking of these same things a while back:
I settled for a HD Tv receiver, Epson Projector-projected on a 150" screen, Harman Kardon 5.1 Sound System and H.K. Dvd Player and i tell you what, GT4 never looked so good , then again i spent $5,000 all up, its shits on any Plasma screen . Walking between rooms from a 68cm to a 150" screen is a huge difference . HD Tv is not on every program, but when its on it looks damn good ....Oh yeah you should see The Price Is Right with such a big screen .
whats your budget???.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 12:03
|
|
| smt_007 wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 20:40 |
I was thinking of these same things a while back:
I settled for a HD Tv receiver, Epson Projector-projected on a 150" screen, Harman Kardon 5.1 Sound System and H.K. Dvd Player and i tell you what, GT4 never looked so good , then again i spent $5,000 all up, its shits on any Plasma screen . Walking between rooms from a 68cm to a 150" screen is a huge difference . HD Tv is not on every program, but when its on it looks damn good ....Oh yeah you should see The Price Is Right with such a big screen .
whats your budget???.
|
was 5k with the sound system man ?
i dont care how much i spend, but just want something that suits my needs and at the same time dont want to pay more than is necessary
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 12:21
|
|
| Les wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 22:03 |
| smt_007 wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 20:40 |
I was thinking of these same things a while back:
I settled for a HD Tv receiver, Epson Projector-projected on a 150" screen, Harman Kardon 5.1 Sound System and H.K. Dvd Player and i tell you what, GT4 never looked so good , then again i spent $5,000 all up, its shits on any Plasma screen . Walking between rooms from a 68cm to a 150" screen is a huge difference . HD Tv is not on every program, but when its on it looks damn good ....Oh yeah you should see The Price Is Right with such a big screen .
whats your budget???.
|
was 5k with the sound system man ?
i dont care how much i spend, but just want something that suits my needs and at the same time dont want to pay more than is necessary
|
Yeah a bit over 6k with sound system, dont fool yourself mate, home audio is just like car modifications, you dont realise how much you have spent till you stop and look, speakers start from $50-$100,000.
You go to any real home multimedia store tell them you have a budget of say 8k, and they will be showing you stuff in a budget of 15k, and when they take you to the stuff thats worth say 5k, theres a huge difference, and you want to get sound as close to that but on a smaller budget. The reason i got all Home Multimedia gear is because i lost my license, had money in the bank so i blew most of it on Home Multimedia, how i thought is, i would rather put heap of money in a Home Multimedia system than caraudio, which can be taken in seconds with the car.
So are you looking at a whole Home Theatre Package or just a TV?.
[Updated on: Thu, 07 April 2005 12:26]
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Thu, 07 April 2005 22:48
|
|
|
just a tv man
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 04:50
|
|
Sigmeister,
having a widescreen TV is teh sheet, especially with the intelligent way that the Loewe adjusts the picture from 4:3 to 16:9 ratio..... you can have it kind of "half chopped" where it maintains the aspect ratio but zooms in a little, only losing a small amount from the top and bottom - worked beautifully for the majority of TV viewing.
Then if a program was actually in widescreen, the TV notices so and adjusts itself accordingly!!
76cm wide is still a good size! Myself i would buy the TV size i want and get the cabinet/wall unit to suit the tv
Les,
No i dont work for Loewe, i have just never come across a CRT THAT GOOD!!! evah!! The Xelos model my dad has is still used by channel 10 and 7 as their reference monitors to test picture quality and whatnot..... they are just truly amazing.
But for $1500, this argument is virtually redundant. With $1500 you cant afford to be picky. In that range it will all be much of a muchness, just buy a decent branded widescreen.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 04:58
|
|
Les, you've gotta set yourself a budget...
That way we know what you recommend... I could recommend you a $45k TV if you want...
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 05:22
|
|
are u guys calling me tightarse ? 
|
|
|
Location:
Perth, WA
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 05:22
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 08:28 |
Corona - your comments re. channel changing has very little to do with the size of the CRT, and everything to do with the internal circuitry.
Eldar0 - come over and i will show you why your comments re. CRT having poop picture quality are redundant You CANNOT compare to the Loewe Xelos CRT. The only better TV sets i have seen have been $10,000+++
The Loewe is the shit. If you are comparing an LCD to a non-Loewe CRT, i can validate your comments
|
THE WITZL
Forums Junkie
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Although, id rather have slightly reduced picture quality than have a mammoth TV fucker, maybe you can mount it into the wall or something?
Eldar.O.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 05:36
|
|
| Les wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 15:22 |
are u guys calling me tightarse ?
|
Yes, you tightarse.
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 05:51
|
|
|
YES. get some lube and buy up buddy!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 09:09
|
|
| Les wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 15:22 |
are u guys calling me tightarse ?
|
No, we are asking for a budget?.
Try walk into a, Hi-end Multimedia store and say i dont have a budget, when they walk upto the computer for the quote they will say, and thats a total of $64,999 , do you want to pay cash or mastercard, and sir that doesnt include the $6000 rca's made of 48ct Gold currently being melted at Fort nox.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 11:17
|
|
|
bastards .. so how much are the lou-vees then witzl ?
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 08 April 2005 11:46
|
|
around $2.5-4k
Maxx entertainment in norwest business park (baulkham hills really ) has them - great service from those guys too
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Sat, 09 April 2005 08:37
|
|
 I thought you were looking at something 4k, by the sound of no budget, whats your budget?.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Sat, 09 April 2005 10:51
|
|
|
does that mean its no good ?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 02:01
|
|
Who can word Me up on projectors? Or point me towards a website that can?
I'm thinking that after I've spent untold thousands on teh Skyline, a massiff, hektic projector would be fooolly sik. Bro. 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 05:27
|
|
|
What exactly do you want to know?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 05:32
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Mon, 11 April 2005 12:01 |
Who can word Me up on projectors? Or point me towards a website that can?
I'm thinking that after I've spent untold thousands on teh Skyline, a massiff, hektic projector would be fooolly sik. Bro.
|
I got my projector from melbourne, it was the cheapest there , and whats your budget ?.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 06:16
|
|
My budget is whatever it costs to get a decent, watchable picture of minumum 2.25 metres diagonal screen size. Daylight if possible, but I don't mind having to close the curtains - coz I do that with regular T.V. half the time anyway ! !
Yes, I am a cheap bastard - so teh less money spent the better!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 09:46
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Mon, 11 April 2005 16:16 |
Yes, I am a cheap bastard - so teh less money spent the better!
|
Agree 100%, no point spending too much money pointlessly, ie if you were to get a 80cm HDTV Sony has one and also Panasonic, but the sony ones cost an extra $900, and it deffinately is not worth the extra 900 in relation to quality .
The biggest Home screen you can get is 150" motorised or pull down, mine is not on a screen anymore just a white wall at 300" now .
Are you buying or do you have audio equipment for the projector?. One of the most important things you need to think about when getting a projector, is the price of the replacement globe, there are projectors out there worth $1500 and globe replacement is $800 , my projector costed $2000 and uses the cheapest globes at $350, i have seen many projectors worth 4k plus, and this one is up with them, i researched for about 3 months before making the decision.
Cheers.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 11 April 2005 10:00
|
|
|
The Panasonic AE700 is a nice relatively cheap 720P projector which is what I'd recommend for such a big screen. It is one of the better LCD's out there, although if you're really fussy about picture quality, you'll fork out for a DLP.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Perth, WA
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Fri, 15 April 2005 16:41
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 08:28 |
Corona - your comments re. channel changing has very little to do with the size of the CRT, and everything to do with the internal circuitry.
Eldar0 - come over and i will show you why your comments re. CRT having poop picture quality are redundant You CANNOT compare to the Loewe Xelos CRT. The only better TV sets i have seen have been $10,000+++
The Loewe is the shit. If you are comparing an LCD to a non-Loewe CRT, i can validate your comments
|
referring to the general look of the unit Witz, not the picture... a big ass mofo tv long fucking thing look teh shitty.
Eldar.O.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, Australia
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2004
|
|
Re: LCD Vs Plasma Vs rear pro Vs Normal HDTV
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 04:39
|
|
www.pricejapan.com
good site to buy projectors from, about 50% the price you would pay here, they have a good rep in regards to returns and warranty claims too. Just google pricejapan and you will find heaps of nerdy sites talkin about projectors and shit.
|
|
|
