...well, i' m sure those of you who don' t live in front of a shitty 15" ' gaming' LCD probably already new this, but just to reiterate, quoting from IGN' s HD mini-site i just happened to stumble across earlier:

WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN AN LCD

LCDs are the top selling HDTV technology wordwide, and in recent years have penetrated the market so aggressively that industry commentators have questioned how long competing technologies will last against the onslaught of ever larger and cheaper LCD displays. The technology grew relatively slowly at first, beginning in the 15 to 20-inch computer monitor space, and eventually ballooning to the dominate force in HDTV technology today. Consumer comfort with the technology, and overwhelming retail presence, continue to drive sales against plasma displays.

LCDs are generally credited with being the gamer’s choice in HDTVs thanks to the fact that it is the only option for displays smaller than 36-inches, has no issues with possible image burn-in, and has almost entirely shifted to 1080p, despite the fact that most LCDs aren’t large enough to take advantage of the added resolution (50-inches or more). Though some of these points are valid advantages, the gamer’s case for LCD is not entirely clear cut.

LCD image quality is lower than that of plasma displays. The necessity of incandescent backlighting of the LCD display results in a far lower contrast ratio (1,500:1 is common, compared to 10,000:1 available in other technologies). The visible effect of this issue is bright, greyish blacks that are noticeable when viewing a letterboxed movie or dark survival horror games. Another LCD weakness for gamers is the issue of response time, a measure of how long it takes a pixel to cycle from black (off), to white (on), and back to black. When this cycle takes too long it can be difficult for a display to manage to represent rapidly moving objects and a ghostly blur appears to follow movement across the display. 6-ms response time is acceptable for gaming and should produce little to no ghosting. Some displays, however, have response time figures in the 12 to 16-ms, and should be avoided by gamers and sports fans.

Most LCD HDTVs 24-inches and larger have made the jump to 1080p, primarily as a marketing ploy due to the fact that the resolution is only noticeably superior to 720p on displays larger than 50-inches. A consequence of the added resolution in smaller displays can sometimes be the amplification of aliasing (jaggies), especially with the PlayStation 3.

...now that pretty much confirms what i thought was common knowledge about a year back (in which i posted similar and got flamed by a certain awol PCFB)...

...anyway, if you truly love games and movies, do yourself a BIG favour and turn a blind eye to the cheap-a$$ option and get yourself a real display...

..of course if you want a simple and affordable solution, and find that a LCD screen best meets your particular needs, then that' s your prerogative... ...just don' t go round trying to pass off your peace of shit display as being superior when it clearly isn' t..

....


...where is Locopyo these days anyway?...



" True quality comes at a high price " - someone smarter than me










* sorry Mr Hardcore PC gamer :/

Hey I like my new LCD monitor.

I don' t notice any of that bright greyish black stuff they' re talking about and my contrast ratio is only 3000:1

Maybe they' re talking about the big ones. Mine' s only a 19" widescreen.

Still I like it, so [:' (]

Never liked lcds much, but I hear plasmas are no better.

Recently comparing two same sized same make tvs one plasma one lcd, i would certainly go for a plasma next time around. I am still happy with my LCD, as i dont really notice anything wrong it it, but i' d prefer something better if available.... One day.

Why would you go for plasma?

Im oftne on a tight budget so I think more with what I have in my wallet. I highly recommend the Olevia series HDTV' s!

..if you are on a tighter budget, or just want a straight forward solution, an LCD is a great option.... ....my post was merely sounding off towards the buffoons who would have you believe that it is the superior home cinema/mega-gaming option, when it clearly isn' t...

Don' t plasmas have quick burn-in rates and a rather short overall lifespan?

Don' t plasmas have quick burn-in rates and a rather short overall lifespan?

They sure do. Sorry, but if i had to chose i would go in this order LCD, DLP, CRT, Plasma

A good plasma TV looks better than anything out there right now, but its questionable life span and durability keep me from buying one.

I think the best all-around type of HDTVs are DLP, especially the newer generation DLPs, the price blows away LCD and Plasma, and the image quality is superior to LCD. The only drawbacks are that DLPs look poor in brightly lit environments, and that they are too big to consider for a room TV, it' s more of a living room TV. But DLPs are so affordable right now it' s ridiculous, I bought a 1080P 60" Samsung DLP last year for $3200 or so, now I see similiar DLPs selling for around $1800.

The only reason I even have an LCD is because I need a TV for my room, a 40" LCD hanging on the wall looks much better than a fat DLP sitting in the middle of your room.

Plasmas are better for watching movies and television, and have advantages when it comes to gaming, but like Eddie said just last week when you' re playing games that have a HUD you' ll end up getting burn in and fucking up your display, potentially for good. IGN saying the technology is at a level where this isn' t a problem is interesting, and i haven' t played around with any recently released plasma displays but since a good plasma would be pricey anyway i wouldn' t want to risk it based on what IGN-the-super-fuckwit-gaming-site has said.

loco bought a monitor with a blindingly fast response time and high contrast ratio. The only problem i would have had with it is the size, but for loco who plays his console games at the same gaming desk he plays his PC games, ...well, that' s his prerogative.

If i was going to buy a new TV i wouldn' t buy plasma or LCD, i' d buy DLP,a nd i probably will when i move out to Canada towards the end of the year.

Dont dlp' s suffer worse burn in effects than Plasma' s?

No. DLP is immune to burn-in.

I must be confuseing it with something else, Dlp is new to me.

Its cheaper, has a better picture, and dosent suffer burn in?. what are its draw backs then? its flat screen right?

They' re big, like a projection TV. They' re much lighter though. They used to have a problem called the " rainbow effect" where the colours bleed. They still have black level problems but much less pronounced then LCDs. They don' t have burn in at all, currently I think they' re the best bang for your buck for a gamer. As long as you don' t mind the size.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP

The *screen* is flat, the body of the TV isn' t. It' s fat, thats the drawback.

It' s not anywhere near as fat as CRTs are, but it' s still fat enough that you can' t hang it on a wall.

They are very light though, my 60" DLP is about 5 times thicker than my LCD but only weighs 72lbs, my LCD is only 40" and weighs 82lbs.

DLPs have a spinning color wheel since the consumer version only has a wimpy one-chip design. This accounts for the " rainbow effect" that some people see when not looking directly at the picture or whatever. This will be a non-issue in the future when they finally bring out a home version of the discrete 3-chip DLP. No need for a lazy color wheel. I don' t know of any plans right now for a 3-chip model in the consumer market, but you know it will happen.

IGN also fails to mention the downsides of the fixed pixel nature of LCD (or panels in general), meaning if you get a lovely new 1080p LCD screen any 720p stuff looks worse than on a 720p one due to the scaling. 480p is comeplewtely un-usable however due to the extreme levels of scaling involved.

So far the best HD panel I' ve seen is a SD plasma which downscales 720p and 1080i to usually 600p (800x600), and 480p is preserved better than any LCD I' ve seen. There was minimal ghosting and only slight image retention.

I personally don' t agree with needing a 50" display to get the full benefit of 1080p for gaming, as I' ve seen a noticeable difference at 32" . For films I would imagine you would as the viewing distances are likely to be much further back than when gaming. Though whilst it' s unlikely you' ll notice much more detail with 32" , the clearity of the image is much better and less like viewing a TV screen.

ORIGINAL: Kyo.k

IGN also fails to mention the downsides of the fixed pixel nature of LCD (or panels in general), meaning if you get a lovely new 1080p LCD screen any 720p stuff looks worse than on a 720p one due to the scaling. 480p is comeplewtely un-usable however due to the extreme levels of scaling involved.

480P isn' t unusable at all, TVs don' t just blow the image up, they use alot of tricks to make it look better. It looks about a million times worse than a 1080 image, but usually it looks about the same as it does on a 480i TV, which is what most people upgrade from.

You rarely have to watch anything in 720 mode exclusively, any 720P movie or game has an 1080i or 1080p mode, which looks superior anyway, so you would choose that, and almost every channel is in 1080i as well, the only things you' ll ever need to worry about watching on an 1080P is 480i/p and 1080i/p, 720 is a non factor.

The only thing that is truly unusable are 480i and lower, playing 480i PS1 games on a 1080 is painful.