[touchingcloth]

Hello All

Could some kind soul - with knowledge of things tv! - please advise...

Decided to plum for a new telly..after many months. Confused over which would suit..yawn..age-old i know!! also , budget..losing money by the minute! kinda thing..its now or never.

SO, down to PLASMA. Its a dark room, and basically for my £750ish budget..could see a cracking LCD tv.

SO - PANASONIC - Panasonic TX-P46S20B OR THE PANNY TX-P42G20B.

I know the 42inch gets across the board good reviews...its wireless etc freesat/freeview. BUT, tempted by the bigger screen - basically of the 46inch.

SO - simple question...anyone know of the main differences..quality of picuture wise? I havent HD at the moment..so aside from bluray/dvd movies and xbox - realise wont be getting the most out of it at the moment anyway.

Appreciate anyones advice? thanks.

[Headrush]

How far are you planning on sitting from the screen?
The bigger the screen the further you need to sit back from it or you'll notice the "pixels".

I have the Panasonic Viera TH-42PZ80U 42" 1080p Plasma and even on SD input it scales very well. (All depends on quality of original) I find the 42" is bigger enough that looks good from close and far distances.

Except for a very bright room I'd take a Plasma over the LCD TV anyways. I find my colours are much better than my friends that have same size LCDs. You wouldn't think blacks would matter but the difference in pictures with a true black are quite noticeable.

Just my 2 cents.

[touchingcloth]

Your two cents most welcome Headrush.

More confusing than the plot of Inception! all this buying of tv's.

Ill be sitting a good 2 - 3 meters away. Size is..everything! as we know. So tempted to opt for the bigger 46inch espicially for the price - nearing £800.

Seeing so much choice around, for £500...is this new panny 42inch worth the extra you think?

Anyone else aware of the pros and cons of last years S-series? the 46inch plasma? Would i be disappointed if i went with the size over the 42inch? I know..i know...personal taste...but no harm in others opinions.

[JohnWill]

I find the comments about LCD vs. Plasma somewhat confusing. I have one of each, a 50" plasma and a 42" LCD, and I'd take the plasma in the bright room any day. If you're setting 2 meters away, I'd stick with a 42", if you're 3 or more, I'd go for the bigger set. I set about 10' (3 meters) from my 50" plasma, and it's just right.

[Headrush]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

I find the comments about LCD vs. Plasma somewhat confusing. I have one of each, a 50" plasma and a 42" LCD, and I'd take the plasma in the bright room any day.

Depends on the models. The newest ones have better anti-glare coatings.

[aka Brett]

IMO LCD has come along way but
Panasonic plasma for the dollar is just awesome...hands down.
So now lets see if there is a reason you cant use it.
An overly bright room....the advantage goes to lcd
The TV will be placed where refection will be a problem...this can be from lamps...gaps in curtains..it all depends where the TV is ofcourse.

If the above will be a problem then opt for LCD..but as I have stated LCD TV has come along way
I bought an LCD rather than plasma due to the huge window in the living room and other various light sources.
I opt for Plasma unless its impractical for where its going to be placed

[JohnWill]

My only complaint with plasma is the higher power consumption, it's about 3x the LCD power requirements.

[paisanol69]

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that JW!

I feel that the difference between Plasma/LCD is so small, that anyone who really cares (think green) would purchase an LCD over a plasma ! ( there is also the issue in the amount of heat a plasma produces, which is higher than a LCD.)

[JohnWill]

I'll admit, I won't be buying another plasma, by the time I need another set, I'm sure LCD will have totally taken over. I don't regret getting the plasma, when I bought it, LCD sets the same size were over twice the money and the picture quality and viewing angle were not nearly as good.

[Headrush]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

My only complaint with plasma is the higher power consumption, it's about 3x the LCD power requirements.

I remembering reading a article that suggested this was greatly over exaggerated.

The main argument was that an LCD's backlight is always on at a consistence intensity. As a result the power requirements are very constant and electric use is easily quantifiable.

On the other hand Plasmas don't use backlights. As such power requirements fluctuate depending on the actual images.

I can't say how true and how much this matters, just what i remember from reading.

I have tested my Plasma using a P3 Kill-A-Watt meter and with my electrical costs at $0.11/kWh I believe I calculated the use of my Plasma 6 hours a day costs me $6-$8 a month.

Edit: Power listing of many LCDs, LEDs, and Plasma in comparison chart: http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

I'll admit, I won't be buying another plasma, by the time I need another set, I'm sure LCD will have totally taken over. I don't regret getting the plasma, when I bought it, LCD sets the same size were over twice the money and the picture quality and viewing angle were not nearly as good.

They have came along ways for sure......although plasma may be more for the purists so to say...The LCD offers a great picture nowdays.....I was able to hit all but one shade with the black and whites and only unable to obtain one shade of red when setting up The lcd..which is now about 2 years old.....very good for an LCD at the time.....I expect many models now can hit most of the shades.
I would like to point out that I took the first 2 LCD tvs back and got another brand for number 3 which is actually a cheap sanyo from walmart

[Headrush]

Originally Posted by paisanol69

there is also the issue in the amount of heat a plasma produces, which is higher than a LCD.

True. I think of it as a deterrent so the kids won't sit too close.

[aka Brett]

It is my understanding that the Plasma is what caused the Canadians to become sports fanatics

[JohnWill]

Originally Posted by Headrush

I remembering reading a article that suggested this was greatly over exaggerated.

The main argument was that an LCD's backlight is always on at a consistence intensity. As a result the power requirements are very constant and electric use is easily quantifiable.

On the other hand Plasmas don't use backlights. As such power requirements fluctuate depending on the actual images.

I can't say how true and how much this matters, just what i remember from reading.

I have tested my Plasma using a P3 Kill-A-Watt meter and with my electrical costs at $0.11/kWh I believe I calculated the use of my Plasma 6 hours a day costs me $6-$8 a month.

Edit: Power listing of many LCDs, LEDs, and Plasma in comparison chart: http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

I also used a Kill-A-Watt, and I ran it with typical programming for a few minutes, changing channels to get different program material. That's how I got my readings, and I don't think it's exaggerated. Those aren't something I read, they were actual readings from my two FP sets.

[Headrush]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

I also used a Kill-A-Watt, and I ran it with typical programming for a few minutes, changing channels to get different program material. That's how I got my readings, and I don't think it's exaggerated. Those aren't something I read, they were actual readings from my two FP sets.

You never said what your reading where so it's pretty hard to quantify.

Are you saying your costs were substantially higher than mine?
Just curious.