Looking at 42 inch TVs. Yeah I can stand in front of TVs for a bit at chain stores, but it's annoying/distracting and the viewing material is seldom reference quality.

This might be helpful to consider:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

If the two TVs had all the same features except for the resolution, it would depend on how far away you are from the TV. For 42", you'd have to be closer than 8' away to start to discern the differences. However you might not find the features you want in the 720p set as the market has decided they are "low end".

See what happens when I pause to add content

CA_Steve: That'll teach you to give a reasoned response, with a well made hyperlink! Clearly, rudely throwing a URL at the poster was the correct course of action.

I like to watch HQ material with no scaling involved. I have a HTPC and a 46" LCD TV capable of 1:1 pixel mapped output. High quality 1080p material in, no scaling just out on the LCD native res all the way.

Material that's not that HQ or when picture quality is less of an issue, no 1080p remux is necessary and a good quality 720p rip that gets upscaled will do.

There are also individual differences in visual acuity which are usually glossed over, especially among the older half of the population.

You don't need "reference quality" material when comparing 720p to 1080p. This isn't audiophilia. While 720p isn't bad, the difference is real. People may not necessarily realize the difference they're seeing is due to the increased resolution but most people do reliably experience it.
If you have decent eyesight, it'll be obvious with simple HDTV (as long as it's not playing old programs which were recorded at a lower resolution). If you can't see the difference, no biggie: you simply don't have a use the extra resolution (but others watching your TV might).

You also need to consider panel quality - I prefer 1080p (sharper eyes than average; still young), but a quality 720p looks better to me than a cheap 1080p screen.

If you ever want to use it as a monitor, I'd strongly recommend 1080p. If you'll only ever be streaming Netflix or Hulu, 720p should be fine. Several variables to consider. However, with quality TVs becoming cheaper, I'd usually go with a decent 1080p set if you can at all swing it

Am considering a plasma set. New models just becoming available, should see mark downs on last year's models.

One thing I went back to is viewing from further away. Prefer to get the entire picture in the center of attention. Yeah you do see things happening in the edges of your vision, but then you move your eyes to see exactly what's going on, which means you move them back, and you can miss something that way.

Thinking of the Oppo BDP-103 to lengthen the lifespan of my DVD collection, which I have no interest in replacing.

Also - I want the entire movie in view. 16:9 sets (1.77:1) cut off the edges of 2.35:1 movies when viewing full screen. That may work for some movies, but not for others.

Plasma is pretty. Can't beat the picture quality in a moderately to dimly lit room. Power consumption is higher than LCD...but they've certainly dropped a lot in the last few years. Black levels keep getting better every year, so that's a tradeoff for buying last year's set...unless you can get last year's Panasonic VT50 for the price of this year's ST60.

This review site might be helpful.

200 watt usage doesn't amount to a huge cost over the course of a year. Lots of times frankly there's nothing on worth watching. And I use a smaller analog TV for casual viewing and background noise.

Last year's Panny ST50 would probably suffice just fine. But customer ratings even on budget 720p 42 inchers is quite high. I need to be careful because I tend to suffer from "feature creep" and keep escalating which model I think I want.

There is a lot of different LCD screens, and the newest LED backlit models have "full backlight" that use a large number of LED's and this gives one big advantage to the image quality: dynamic contrast ratio.

A color TV is most challenged by making black. And how well a screen can do black has a big affect on the color, and contrast ratio is an under appreciated quality of TV's.

Another important quality is the speed of the pixels to turn on and off, and at first this was a challenge for LED's, but they are now are quick enough to show high speed motion.

I am trying to keep track of TV's in the 40-42" size for the day my current TV stops working. As time goes on, the better 1080P 120/240Hz TV's are tempting - my Panasonic GAOO 27" Superflat has 500 lines of resolution which is great for its time, but it uses ~165watts. I'm definitely getting an LCD with LED backlight, because 35-50watts is far better power use, and the picture quality is much better than what I have.

I'd say go for 1080P, for sure!

When I went through this a couple of years ago, there were some specific things I was interested in:
- HD picture quality (and all the subsets of stuff involved)
- SD picture quality (yeah, I still watch a lot of SD content)
- gaming
- power consumption

I spent a lot of time looking at reviews and I think my eyes were bleeding after I finished the threads at avsforum. Seemed like I couldn't ever get to 4 of 4 unless I wanted to pay much more than I wanted to. The LED backlit LCDs promised a lot, but then I read about clouding and other stuff. So, I caved and bought a 47" Samsung LCD with CFL edge lighting. My only disappointment is the black crush...but, it was $800 vs $2k for the locally dimmed LED LCD or the really nice Plasma. I'm sure, they've all advanced. But, I think my next TV (if I were to get one today) would be a Panasonic Plasma.

I have a 32inch 4:3 HDTV, it uses 300 watts. I only use it for DVDs, and even at that wattage it works out to 4 cents an hour, with some winter heat as a freebie. The upper end full array LED sets are so expensive I doubt one would ever recoup the initial investment.

Are there still non-1080p TVs around? Is that really a buying option?

As far as I'm aware, nobody has been making quality panels with less than 1080p for 2-3 years. Since 2012, even budget TVs and the cheapest 120$ 23" PC monitors have 1080p.

So, I don't think there is much to talk about

Is the 300watts with or without the power factor?

You can hardly buy DVD players anymore, so you might as well get all the resolution out of the BluRay format.

A 720P 60Hz with 4,000:1 contrast ratio would be a major disappointment.

A 300 watt CRT, I doubt power factor is present, just a huge transformer. I'm using the PC for a player, as it doesn't truncate the format at all.

I don't believe CRTs ever had low contrast ratios.

Tim851, only plasma sets are made at 720p anymore.

I can't stand SD softness on an HD set, looks like it out of focus, unviewable as far as I'm concerned.

It must have been a very small splash, still I would have liked to have seen it.

http://store.vizio.com/news/VizioXVTPro ... nemaWideTV

Still available:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... n_LED.html

All else being equal, why would ~33% fewer horizontal lines of resolution be better? In what way is plasma better than LED lit LCD screens?

I agree that virtually all TV's are displayed in totally awful.

720p Resolution: Don't think anyone said better. Cheaper came up. Not a resolvable difference unless your TV is closer than x viewing distance for y TV size came up.

I haven't done an A:B of TVs since my purchase. But, at that time, you had to spend buttloads of $'s on the LED backlit versions with arrays/local dimming to minimize the clouding/spotlighting effects I saw in the lower priced LED LCDs. Seemed like the plasmas were always at a better price point at a given picture quaility point.

Getting charged an arm and a leg for that priviledge, twice the going rate for plasma.



Neither plasma not CRT are black challenged.



Some people are reporting getting headaches from LED TVs, it is possibile to turn on and off too fast.



Some of the strange artifacts that LCDs (or the circuitry that supposedly makes improvements) leaves a lot to be desired.

That said plasma has its own issues. The front is always glass because there's x amount of pressure behind it. If there's even the slightest unnoticed crack on the interior of the glass it can eventually spider out, the way auto windshields tend to crack more in the winter. Such "defects" are always blamed on the user and are not covered under warranty.

LED - Some of the "240 Hz" rates are merely pulsing the LEDs to make it seem like higher refresh rates. In layman's terms that's called a marketing gimmick. There's are also widespread reports of banding, to the point where the unit becomes unwatchable.

I have an NEC LED pc monitor. It has light leakage just like the prior model with a CCFL. Actually it's slightly worse and its brightness uniformity is not better either. The only positives appear to be power consumption and the lack of mercury. But even then to be truly "power efficient" one needs to factor in both the energy used in manufacturing and the disposal costs of the unit. Anything less than that you're simply fooling yourself. These days 1 and 2 year old TVs, washing machines, refrigerators, microwaves are filling up dumps and we truly don't understand (or even admit) what the long term costs of this mess will be. I digress.

I gotta laugh at people who say plasmas appear dull in bright rooms. Ever go to a bright movie theater? Actually it's a reasonable tradeoff, slight dullness in bright light versus wonderfully correct color at night. I hand calibrated my set with minimal background light, I couldn't care less if its dull on bright sunny days. Why would I watch TV at such times? More incentive to turn it off and be outside, a positive thing.

To get your Oprah fix?

Ain't nobody got a screen that W - I - D - E.

There was an interesting review about a Panasonic Plasma on Amazon. Seems the guy experienced burn-in. Called and complained to Panasonic support, they said he did something wrong, displayed static items for extended periods of time. Yeah he has certain symbols and emblems that remained imprinted on his screen. The source? When he used Panasonic's website and apps to download programs. He pointed that out to them, and as usual the argument that it's the customer's fault turns into an extended silence.

Some have complained that the X for exiting Windows apps is burned into their screens. Can't say I'd be too happy about that either.

On other fronts I watch The Bourne Ultimatum through my PC and VLC Media player. I was bothered by something, but I could not tell what. The picture seemed rather jerky or sped up during fast movement scenes. VLC deinterlacing default is "blend" and if you read the description it's the worst possible option. So I switched it to Film NTSC (IVTC) and then everthing was great. I understand that Yadif (2x) also works quite well, but needs more cpu.

I would like to use VLC's audio compression, but I'd have to read up on it first. For me the dialogue is too low and the explosions are too loud.

I thought plasma burn-in was a thing of the past - like 4yrs ago+. I've heard of short term retention that fades over time.

It "seems" today's plasma is fine after a burn-in period. Avoiding tape banners, static logos, and letterbox format for about 150 hours, then you're OK. Also running decreased brightness and contrast during this time.

ALL color TV's have different quality black rendering. Many Sony CRT's had a sepia (brown) instead of black. I'm not talking about contrast ratio.

Where are you finding 42" plasma screens for 1/2 the price of an LED LCD? Why are they so inexpensive?

1. The problem with plasmas is not burn-in, it's image retention.
And yes, Panasonic plasmas are still susceptible to it, mine developed some 18 months after purchase, and it was my fault,
having watched for too long a TV news channel with a bright logo. It's slowly going away, if I don't watch that channel.
2. A Panasonic 42ST50 plasma has about the same image quality as a 42" Samsung LED that costs almost twice as much.
Actually, according to Cnet reviews, it beats a 2x priced LED in contrast and panel uniformity.

I like this thread because it brings up a question I have been trying to answer for some time.

At some (unknown) point in the future I might want to get myself a 42" LED TV to replace my 24" Monitor.

My thinking is as follows, I don't actually own a TV (and have not done for 6-years), my housemate has a TV but we will be parting ways and a 42" TV sounds like it should give a much better video watching experience than my current 24" monitor, plus it has speakers already built in and I can also use it for games and as my standard PC screen.

I have so far only had one opportunity to take my PC round to a friends house and use it for a couple of days. I was very surprised to discover that "about" 8-feet away a 42" TV is "visibly smaller" than my 24" monitor that I am staring at right now, which is an arms length from me, they are very similar resolutions (1920x1080 for the TV and 1920 x 1200 for my monitor), the "relative pixel size" had also dropped (as you would expect) so navigation via mouse became somewhat more difficult.

My conclusion turns out to be obvious, as a screen for PC use my monitor wins, as a screen for watching movies my monitor wins, as a screen for playing games my monitor wins, as a screen for several people watching movies a 42"+ TV wins.

Ideally I would need to get a 50"+ TV to equate to a screen that is about the same "visible size" as my current 24" screen.

Yes I could always get the best of both worlds by getting a 42" TV and watching it from a comfortable distance when I have people over so that everyone can sit comfortably AND be able to see the screen fairly straight on and then move closer when I was playing games and/or using the screen for general PC activities, but that seems to be a bit of a PITA and as I already have a 24" scrren I could always go back to a dual screen setup, one for video and one for everything else.

What I really could do with is simply not affordable (a very large screen/ a larger quad-HD screen (current cost is about £20k for a 55" model)).

--------

And to very simply answer the original question about 720p vs 1080p.

My same friend used to have a 40" 720 screen in an identical position to the new 42" 1080 screen, the sofa has not moved either, the difference is startling, some of it is due to the better colour purity of the new LED TV (the colours are obviously more vibrant) but mostly the higher resolution is what does it, higher resolution video is very noticeable and very welcome, I personally would not buy an otherwise identical 720 screen even if it was half the price of a 1080 screen, especially as they are so cheap now anyway.

--------

A quick question, would there be any benefit in getting a TV that has a 100hz or more refresh rate for playing games, I know that the latest HDMI spec can support 1080 @ 120Hz, but can the graphics card.? I have not found out what it does support by way of refresh rates for HDMI. There would be no point getting a 100Hz TV when the output from the PC is locked at 60Hz. And yes I do realise that having a game running over 60Hz is not realistic unless its an old game, and even questionable as to whether there is a perceived benefit.


Andy

A video card's refresh rate was always limited by the bandwidth of its RAMDAC, a chip that is no longer in the equation. Sorry I don't have a more complete answer. I think response times for LCDs are a bigger issue.