[mythtv-users] OT: LED or Plasma (was Advice on choosing a TV)

[bhaskins at chartermi.net]

---- Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards at gmail.com> wrote: 
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Paul Gardiner <lists at glidos.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'm confused now! After reading through all the great advice in your
> > replies, I was seeing the sense of not making too much of the choice
> > based on viewing in shops. I've been reading a lot of reviews and
> > forum discussions. That led me to settle on a Panasonic Plasma
> > TX-P50G20B. But I thought I should at least see one before I
> > committed. I visited a shop today, and had them show me it
> > playing various content with varying sources. It looked great, but...
> >
> > the one thing that's now derailed my thinking a bit was a side-by-side
> > comparison with a blu-ray of Avatar between a plasma and a led tv
> > (TX-P42G20b and TX-L42D25B). The led looked superb. I was expecting
> > the colours to look more vibrant in shop lighting, but it looked
> > like it was in a far higher resolution, with so much more detail.
> > Is that likely to be down to shop lighting, or are leds inherently
> > sharper than plasmas? I can't imagine how. These were both 1080
> > panels. Would I find under more normal lighting conditions
> > that the Plasma's image was just as sharp and detailed as the
> > LED looked in the shop? Is there some difference in the layout
> > of pixel elements or the image processing that makes the difference?
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> 
> We just bought one of these
> http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11529676&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+4000000&eCat=BC|79|2341&N=4001374%204294967225&Mo=8&No=1&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=
> 
> <http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11529676&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+4000000&eCat=BC|79|2341&N=4001374%204294967225&Mo=8&No=1&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=>We
> love it.  I can share why:
> 
> 1) It hooks up to MythTV without problems.  By that I mean I can put my DVI
> video (with DVI to HDMI cable)  in and my analog audio in and it works
> through the speakers without having to tell it that there is no audio in the
> HDMI stream.
> 2) LCD gives very uniform lighting with none of the problems LED backlight
> are said to have.
> 3) The Contrast is so great that I think the added contrast of the LED
> versions really amount to a marketing gimmick.  My projector looks great
> when actually watching a movie although you can notice the need for more
> contrast if you really think about it.  It has 6,000:1.  This TV is
> 150,000:1.  It is good enough, which is perfect.  The blacks look completely
> black.
> 4) The added life that the salesman said the LED screen would give me
> exceeded my life expectancy.  A LCD TV on 4 hours a day will last 40 years.

I have no idea just how long the lcd may last.
The thing that you worry about is the backlight(s) and the inverter(s).
I have replaced way too many of these in monitors and laptops, a task that I really hate BTY.
I would guess that the average life of a single bulb is closer to three years.
Most laptops have only one CCFL backlight bulb but monitors and tv sets can have many more.
The loss of just one bulb or the "turning pink" problem can certainly result in a picture that no one would really want to watch.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who had to support the big screen monitors as used in commercial establishments to find out what they think the lifetime is.
 

> I will be dead in 40 years and if I watch more than 4 hours of TV a day, I
> might as well be dead right now.
> 5) When you first turn it on, it asks is you want to set it up for the home
> or for the store (or equivalent wording).  It looks great set  up for the
> home.  Store mode is too vivid, very unrealistic colors and such.
> 6) It has 120Hz refresh.  I saw a demo of 60, 120, and 240 Hz refresh.  The
> high refresh removes some artifacts and introduces others.  I think 120Hz is
> a nice compromise, almost as good as 240Hz in motion artifacts
> without noticeable blurring.
> 
> Allen