What Is The Best LCD TV Resolution To Get For The Wii

Guigsy · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:26

LCD TVs are very bright compared to most monitors. Also, 19" to 26" is almost twice the area. It does seem like a big jump though...

Just had another peak at the Samsung site. A 32" LCD (again about 50% more area than a 26") is 180w. Does seem high though.

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:31

Yep I'm fairly sure that 32" widescreen CRT televisions don't use that much power.

Guigsy · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:44

You're right. Just had a look at the Philips site. 32" CRTs are only 100w! I think my ancient 20" was 120w, so they've improved too...

Flaw with LCD: The backlight is always on, regardless of how bright the picture is. CRTs and Plasma will need more power for a white picture, but far less if it's dark.

LED lit LCDs are around the corner and promise to improve this (and the contrast) and also knock a few cm out of the depth.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:45

Guigsy said:
Appologies. Last time I saw a plasma (about 2 years ago), it has a power pack bigger than an XBox360s and a couple of fans and it was kicking out heat like no tomorrow. I would have guessed 500w from the size and heat-waves coming off of that brick. That was a 32".

For MOST people, LCD is the way ahead.

Some the very cheap plasma's are very high power burners..(If i remember right,The new 42" samsung is quoted at 480watts :eek:

).So all these people that are thinking there saving a few hundred by buying a cheap end plasma are very wrong..(they mostly likely burn more then they save over a few years)

I myself belive LCD is the way forward for the average family...as you can't expect wife and kids to be careful with a plasma in the case of screen burn...

I have never had any screen burn myself..But i wouldn't like to trust a Kid leaving something like the sky+ menu on all day long or something like this...

My plasma auto turns off if there is no button presses after 3 hours to save it from any screen burn for if something like the above did happen.....

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:46

I think I'll wait until they've sorted out the technology and prices have come down before I buy one then - they are still in their infancy really

And until HD DVDs and TV broadcasts are mainstream then they are a poor choice for watching television on anyway, arguably.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:53

dirtydog said:
I think I'll wait until they've sorted out the technology and prices have come down before I buy one then - they are still in their infancy really And until HD DVDs and TV broadcasts are mainstream then they are a poor choice for watching television on anyway, arguably.

Thinking like that...Then you be waiting for ever..as every year something better is going to come out.

Have you tryed comparing a 36" CRT to a panny 37" plasma..
Many panny owners have liked there plasma PQ better then there CRT...

I myself don't own a panny plasma so i can't quote on this myself..

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 16:58

chaparral said:
Thinking like that...Then you be waiting for ever..as every year something better is going to come out.

I will wait until prices, performance and quality are what I consider good value. For me, that time is not yet.

Why would someone buy an HD television if there is little or no HD content to watch on it? :confused:

Unless you use it for your Xbox 360 or PS3, why else would you spend so much to get so little compared to CRTs, which are not only much cheaper but offer a much superior picture quality.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:01

dirtydog said:
I will wait until prices, performance and quality are what I consider good value. For me, that time is not yet.

Why would someone buy an HD television if there is little or no HD content to watch on it? Unless you use it for your Xbox 360 or PS3, why else would you spend so much to get so little compared to CRTs, which are not only much cheaper but offer a much superior picture quality.

I myself live in a single room place...
Having my plasma wallmounted instead of my huge 32" widescreen CRT was almost worth the price alone...Plus an LCD/Plasma looks so much better then a CRT..

dirtydog said:
why else would you spend so much to get so little compared to CRTs, which are not only much cheaper but offer a much superior picture quality.

Everyone that has seen my plasma with SD from sky+ & DVD has been very impressed with the PQ.....

Have you tryed comparing a 37"/43" plasma to a 36" CRT yourself yet ??..

(i don't own skyhd myself yet.)

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:04

I agree that LCDs/plasmas win the beauty contest, but it's just when you turn them on that they are a let down

Warbie · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:07

Guigsy said:
The only advantage of plasma was the brighter picture, better contrast and no ghosting. All 3 of these have disappeared in recent generations of LCD. If your plasma is a couple of years old, it's probably much better than the equivalent LCD. Now I think that the £5k plasmas are only produced for those people who think plasma sounds better.

I've gone through quite a few lcd and plasma screens over the last year - imo plasma is still comfortably in the lead in terms of picture quality, especially for dvds and general viewing. Resolution can suffer with the smaller screen sizes, but the bigger panels are better than any lcd i've seen (incl. the Bravias and other 1080p lcds of this world)

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:08

Oh, another thing about LCD TVs - are there any yet which run at 72Hz rather than 60? This is quite an issue for home cinema aficionados because both HD-DVD and blu-ray movies run at the exact same speed as the cinema, ie. 24fps. This means that they do not run fully smoothly (when the camera pans for example) unless the television's refresh rate is a multiple of 24.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:21

dirtydog said:
I agree that LCDs/plasmas win the beauty contest, but it's just when you turn them on that they are a let down

So i take it that you have not tryed comparing a 37"/43" plasma to a 36" CRT yourself yet ??..

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:25

chaparral said:
So i take it that you have not tryed comparing a 37"/43" plasma to a 36" CRT yourself yet ??..

You are telling me that fixed res, high res TVs display standard definition PAL television better than a CRT? And what is the comparative cost of these televisions I wonder

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:32

dirtydog said:
You are telling me that fixed res, high res TVs display standard definition PAL television better than a CRT? And what is the comparative cost of these televisions I wonder

My toshiba 32" crt was £1300 and my mates toshiba 36" crt was between £1600 and £1700 a few years ago...

You can get a good quailty SD panny plasma for very cheap now..

BUT how much is a good quailty 36" CRT these days ????? :confused:

Syph · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:35

chaparral said:
BUT how much is a good quailty 36" CRT these days ?????

Try finding one

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:39

Syph said:
Try finding one

LOL...I just been looking on toshiba website for one as you wrote this...

I don't think they even do any size CRT TV's anymore :eek:

They must have stopped making them because they were losing all there LCD sales to there superior picture quality on there CRT TV's..

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:49

chaparral said:
They must have stopped making them because they were losing all there LCD sales to there superior picture quality on there CRT TV's..

Their.

And yes, CRT is superior for standard definition television, stone cold fact I'm afraid

If you disagree then quite simply you are wrong, it isn't something which is debatable.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 17:55

dirtydog said:
Their.

And yes, CRT is superior for standard definition television, stone cold fact I'm afraid If you disagree then quite simply you are wrong, it isn't something which is debatable.

Yes CRT have better black levels ( i would never debatable that)...
But for the rest of the PQ you will never be able to compare a CRT against most plasma's...as CRT only went up to a 36" screen size..apart from the 37" panny plasma..(I think sony had a 32" plasma a while back,but it was crap by today standards)

But the little difference in PQ between a CRT & plasma will never make up for the CRT short comings (I.E it small screen size, huge bulk & weight)The same can be said of PC LCD vs CRTs...(which have been said many times before.)

dirtydog · 17 Dec 2006 at 18:00

chaparral said:
Yes CRT have better black levels...But for the rest of the PQ you will never be able to compare a CRT against most plasma's...as CRT only went up to a 36" screen size..

How does picture quality equate to screen size? They are different issues. Compared to LCD and plasma, CRT has perfect colours, gives a better picture and has an instant response for fast moving images. No blurring, no ghosting.

You seem to believe that the fact CRTs are not sold any more (or rarely) means that they are inferior to what has replaced them. Anyone who has bought an LCD TV and seen how poor the picture quality is when watching television will know that is wrong.

chaparral · 17 Dec 2006 at 18:03

dirtydog said:
Anyone who has bought an LCD TV and seen how poor the picture quality is when watching television will know that is wrong.

But plasma's are way ahead in this apartment compared to an LCD..

OOps...I think we taken over Ambro thread a little bit. :eek:

Merry christmas Ambro