Help with Tv decision please!

big b

Folks
Talking to John at Richer Sounds about a new Tv & home cinema system.
Home cinema is sorted I think, a nice mid-range Pioneer.

On the tv though, my head's minced!

The only must-have is size, namely 40 or 42", budget a grand-ish

But without going into big bucks, it seems I have to trade-off some spec.

I'm probably going to upgrade my sky box to an HD one, haven't done it yet though. TV will be mostly for standard dvd's (upscaled by the pioneer), sky tv & a little PS2 gaming. (I'm in no rush at the minute to get a PS3)

Which features should I worry about most;

HD ready or full HD?
50hz or 100?
LCD or plasma?

I'm not as scared of plasma as I once was - seems reliability is better now, screen burn less likely too. I'm still a little curious as to why plasma is cheaper, usually a better system costs more!
In my price range it seems tough to get full HD with 100hz, but bizarrely to me, I can find HD ready with 100hz.

I have limited faith in looking at 20 different sets in a shop display & would really appreciate any opinions based on personal experience.

Thanks in advance...

jackdaw

big b wrote: »

Folks
Talking to John at Richer Sounds about a new Tv & home cinema system.
Home cinema is sorted I think, a nice mid-range Pioneer.

On the tv though, my head's minced!

The only must-have is size, namely 40 or 42", budget a grand-ish

But without going into big bucks, it seems I have to trade-off some spec.

I'm probably going to upgrade my sky box to an HD one, haven't done it yet though. TV will be mostly for standard dvd's (upscaled by the pioneer), sky tv & a little PS2 gaming. (I'm in no rush at the minute to get a PS3)

Which features should I worry about most;

HD ready or full HD?
50hz or 100?
LCD or plasma?

I'm not as scared of plasma as I once was - seems reliability is better now, screen burn less likely too. I'm still a little curious as to why plasma is cheaper, usually a better system costs more!
In my price range it seems tough to get full HD with 100hz, but bizarrely to me, I can find HD ready with 100hz.

I have limited faith in looking at 20 different sets in a shop display & would really appreciate any opinions based on personal experience.

Thanks in advance...

Hi
Defintely get FULL HD if you are going 40" ...
I would go 100hz with motionflow.
LCD .

I am about to get the SAMSUNG LE37B651 .. its €999 here in Spain,
the 40" model (LE40B651) is €1,200 .
This TV has gotten fantastic reviews and is a new 2009 model.

There is also the 40" Sony W5500 ... but is more expensive (1,500 or so)
I read reviews for both and SAMSUNG for me is better , also has a
cool in-built player that the sony didn't have...

dunno if prices in IReland are similar - they should be even less as
here in Spain for some reason electro domestics are pricey.

Petetheroadie

jackdaw wrote: »

Hi
Defintely get FULL HD if you are going 40" ...
I would go 100hz with motionflow.
LCD .

I am about to get the SAMSUNG LE37B651 .. its €999 here in Spain,
the 40" model (LE40B651) is €1,200 .
This TV has gotten fantastic reviews and is a new 2009 model.

There is also the 40" Sony W5500 ... but is more expensive (1,500 or so)
I read reviews for both and SAMSUNG for me is better , also has a
cool in-built player that the sony didn't have...

dunno if prices in IReland are similar - they should be even less as
here in Spain for some reason electro domestics are pricey.

Plasma all the way. Lcds just don't cut it on contrast or motion handling.
The panasonic g10s seem to be getting good reviews, or snap up a kuro while they're around.
Pete

me_right_one

big b wrote: »

I'm not as scared of plasma as I once was - seems reliability is better now, screen burn less likely too. I'm still a little curious as to why plasma is cheaper, usually a better system costs more!

I thought plasma were cheaper cos they only have a lifespan of 2-3 years???

Zonda999

me_right_one wrote: »

I thought plasma were cheaper cos they only have a lifespan of 2-3 years???

No not anymore. Modern plasma's have a lifespan of around 100000 hours which is probably longer than lcd

cnocbui

me_right_one wrote: »

I thought plasma were cheaper cos they only have a lifespan of 2-3 years???

Panasonic claim 35 years of average use before the brightness halves.

I think they are cheaper because making big LCD panels has always been a very difficult process industrially. It used to be yields of perfect screens were low so many had to be scrapped. Not sure id that is still the case.

So ironically, it may actually be cheaper to make a better product - Plasmas.