Computers & Electronics

Upgrading from a CRT TV? Me too.

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 25th, 2009 10:52 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Oct 12, 2008
16 posts
22 upvotes

Upgrading from a CRT TV? Me too.

I am the average guy. I watch movies/TV and I play video games. I am upgrading from a 27" CRT. If you are like me, read this post.

I have a list of requirements for my new TV. I have used HDTVs in the past and they performed suboptimally (poor viewing angles, input lag issues, extremely low picture quality for SDTV content, no 1:1 pixel mapping), I had to return them. Yeah you run into problems with cheapo sets, even from big brands. I want a set with all or most of these checkboxes checked:

[ ] Under $1000
[ ] 1080p
[ ] between 37 and 47"
[ ] 2+ HDMI
[ ] Better-than-average viewing angles - extremely important
[ ] Better-than-average picture quality

[ ] VERY low input lag for gaming. Most "game modes" only decrease lag by ~30%
[ ] can use it as my PC monitor without significant issues.
[ ] Pixel-for-pixel display on all inputs (especially important for PC use). you'd think that if you give the TV a 1920*1080@60hz signal it would skip the scaling, and display each pixel in its correct place, but not all sets can figure out how to do this (happened to me with a Dynex 42" set)
[ ] Matte or anti-glare finish.
[ ] Decent quality scaling for SDTV (like 480i) content.
[ ] Low input lag for 480i content - so i can play N64 games without being constantly annoyed at the horrendous input lag. Sadly I don't think there is a set that does this well. So I guess I need to keep an old CRT TV for my 1990s games because my 2009 TV doesn't support them properly. That's sad.

Will most of the LCDs on the market meet these requirements?

Can anyone recommend LCDs based on these requirements and please not leave anything out? If I missed anything, let me know....

120hz is totally unnecessary for me, and i'll tell you why (although it's included on most newer sets anyways):
-Firstly I don't like the overprocessing - frame interpolation/motionflow/trumotion/whatever you want to call it, it makes everything look artifically sped-up (but it's not), AND creates artifacts. What the hell?? But some people really like it.
-Secondly I do like the fact that they can display 24fps content properly now without the judder caused by 2:3 pulldown or whatever it is called. But i have been watching movies for a while... and I have never noticed this even once.. on the other hand I do notice input lag in gaming, a LOT, so that's a much higher priority than 120hz

This is what I want to pay for such a TV this boxing day:
46": $850
42": $650
40": $600
37": $500

So.. let's talk about TVs!
20 replies
Deal Expert
Jun 24, 2006
15769 posts
11167 upvotes
Based on what you listed as your priorities, forget LCD. Whatever size Panasonic Plasma fits your budget is a far better way to go.
Newbie
Oct 12, 2008
16 posts
22 upvotes
Gutty96 wrote: Based on what you listed as your priorities, forget LCD. Whatever size Panasonic Plasma fits your budget is a far better way to go.
From looking around... Plasma is supposed to be capable of better PQ, blacks and viewing angles than LCD, anti-glare or matte finish seems more common, and 120hz does not apply. So there's some checkboxes checked. But I'd be afraid to get a large plasma because of heat output, power usage, burn-in and image retention. Do plasmas weigh more?
Deal Expert
Jun 24, 2006
15769 posts
11167 upvotes
flyingpants wrote: From looking around... Plasma is supposed to be capable of better PQ, blacks and viewing angles than LCD, anti-glare or matte finish seems more common, and 120hz does not apply. So there's some checkboxes checked. But I'd be afraid to get a large plasma because of heat output, power usage, burn-in and image retention. Do plasmas weigh more?
Yes, they do weigh more, use more power, and make more heat, but it is really all relevant. If it costs you $10 per month to run a LCD, it will cost like $12-13 per month to run a Plasma. More then worth it for all the perks of plasma.

Heat is not a problem, you don't plan on hugging it while you watch it, do you?

Also, why would weight matter? It either goes on a stand, or mounts on the wall. Again, you are not going to be holding it up while you watch it, right?

Burn in is a non-factor with today's plasma technology.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 28, 2002
8423 posts
312 upvotes
Kitchener
What ARE the perks of plasma vs LCD? Sorry but I'm a newb when it comes to TVs and I am interested in learning more too so I can make a good decision when the time comes to ditch the old CRT I have.
Deal Expert
Jun 24, 2006
15769 posts
11167 upvotes
Better picture quality, deeper blacks, richer colors, no motion blur, better viewing angles, etc.

Don't forget they are cheaper too!
Deal Addict
Sep 3, 2005
1684 posts
298 upvotes
deeper blacks also implies better contrast
Banned
User avatar
Oct 20, 2007
4397 posts
509 upvotes
Mississauga
Plasma is the best way to go if you're using it for movies and just watching TV. Is there anything that LCD does better than plasma in (maybe as a computer monitor)? LED looks not bad and if it gets better in a couple of years, I might switch then, but right now plasma is best.
Not all Toronto sports teams are cursed!! Toronto Raptors 2019 NBA Champs! :D
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 14, 2007
2611 posts
79 upvotes
Price - you'll be able to find the size you want for your price.
1080p - Most are, for your price it'll be.
37-47" - Fine, I'd go bigger if I were you. It's never enough, trust me.
2+ HDMI - Any modern set will have this.

Viewing angles - Well, the thing with LCDs is that they're not nearly as good as plasmas in this area, because the plasma picture doesn't change at all from an angle. However, the glass screen on a plasma can have annoying reflections. To add more confusion to the mix, the LCDs with the best contrast/picture have glossy screens and thus, have a great picture, but also have reflections and colour shift from viewing angle.

PQ - The best PQ is usually a plasma thing, however there are LCDs that are very competitive, like Samsung's mid range sets. Like I mentioned, the glossy screened ones have way better contrast and therefore way better PQ, but they have their drawbacks too. It's up to you to prioritize PQ vs. viewing angles & distortion.

Game mode is one way to decrease input lag, turning off processing like the AMP 120 Hz interpolation is another.

You can use LCDs no problem for your computer display. 1:1 pixel mapping is not a big deal for most sets. Perhaps you encountered problems with your Dynex or whatever, but every TV I've tested (did it professionally for a bit) had a 1:1, Just Scan, Dot by Dot or similar setting that achieves what you want. 1080p plasmas do too.

I just saw that you mentioned you want matte. A mid range Sony seems like it is shaping up to be one of your better options. Just understand that the glossy ones have far, far better contrast and PQ. I know, tradeoffs all over the place.

Scaling is all about the video processing, and it is primarily what accounts for big differences in TVs, like going from a V-series Sony to an XBR. The quality is all over the place... I've seen very good, and very, very bad. Midrange + models will be decent for you.

If you like playing N64 and what not, why not use emulators on your PC and scale to 1920x1080? Will alleviate your PQ problems.

It's occured to me that people don't understand what 120 Hz does. It is NOT the over-smoothed effect that you have seen. That is interpolation, which can be turned off completely. The set always runs at 120 Hz so that it can display 24 fps material, but the smoothing is an option that you can set different levels for. IT, not the 120 Hz, is what introduces artifacts when set too high. So just turn it off, enjoy the benefit of 120 Hz anyway.

Finally, I don't recommend plasma for you. In terms of PQ for movies etc., the best plasmas own the best LCDs. And Pioneers have pretty much zero image retention. But Pioneers cost a heck of a lot (maybe 3x your budget) and are hard to find now. Panasonics are the next best in PQ and in IR. Samsungs and the rest are okay... The thing is, apart from Pioneers and the best Panasonics, most plasmas today have crappy contrast and black levels. It's partially that LCDs have improved a lot, and also that plasmas haven't progressed from most brands that much (only Pioneer/Panasonic spent big $ on R&D). The colours on a plasma are somehow more natural-looking nonetheless, which is why some will still recommend them, but I want you to know that image retention on most plasmas is something that does exist. A few months ago I tested a 58" Samsung, and a ghost of the logo from the Blu-Ray menu (which was on for 20 seconds) could be seen for half the movie. It may not be permanent, but trust me, it is NOT ideal for any PC at all. This will be the case with any plasma not Panasonic or Pioneer.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 23, 2004
9468 posts
2408 upvotes
London
loybond wrote: Price - you'll be able to find the size you want for your price.
1080p - Most are, for your price it'll be.
37-47" - Fine, I'd go bigger if I were you. It's never enough, trust me.
2+ HDMI - Any modern set will have this.

Viewing angles - Well, the thing with LCDs is that they're not nearly as good as plasmas in this area, because the plasma picture doesn't change at all from an angle. However, the glass screen on a plasma can have annoying reflections. To add more confusion to the mix, the LCDs with the best contrast/picture have glossy screens and thus, have a great picture, but also have reflections and colour shift from viewing angle.

PQ - The best PQ is usually a plasma thing, however there are LCDs that are very competitive, like Samsung's mid range sets. Like I mentioned, the glossy screened ones have way better contrast and therefore way better PQ, but they have their drawbacks too. It's up to you to prioritize PQ vs. viewing angles & distortion.

Game mode is one way to decrease input lag, turning off processing like the AMP 120 Hz interpolation is another.

You can use LCDs no problem for your computer display. 1:1 pixel mapping is not a big deal for most sets. Perhaps you encountered problems with your Dynex or whatever, but every TV I've tested (did it professionally for a bit) had a 1:1, Just Scan, Dot by Dot or similar setting that achieves what you want. 1080p plasmas do too.

I just saw that you mentioned you want matte. A mid range Sony seems like it is shaping up to be one of your better options. Just understand that the glossy ones have far, far better contrast and PQ. I know, tradeoffs all over the place.

Scaling is all about the video processing, and it is primarily what accounts for big differences in TVs, like going from a V-series Sony to an XBR. The quality is all over the place... I've seen very good, and very, very bad. Midrange + models will be decent for you.

If you like playing N64 and what not, why not use emulators on your PC and scale to 1920x1080? Will alleviate your PQ problems.

It's occured to me that people don't understand what 120 Hz does. It is NOT the over-smoothed effect that you have seen. That is interpolation, which can be turned off completely. The set always runs at 120 Hz so that it can display 24 fps material, but the smoothing is an option that you can set different levels for. IT, not the 120 Hz, is what introduces artifacts when set too high. So just turn it off, enjoy the benefit of 120 Hz anyway.

Finally, I don't recommend plasma for you. In terms of PQ for movies etc., the best plasmas own the best LCDs. And Pioneers have pretty much zero image retention. But Pioneers cost a heck of a lot (maybe 3x your budget) and are hard to find now. Panasonics are the next best in PQ and in IR. Samsungs and the rest are okay... The thing is, apart from Pioneers and the best Panasonics, most plasmas today have crappy contrast and black levels. It's partially that LCDs have improved a lot, and also that plasmas haven't progressed from most brands that much (only Pioneer/Panasonic spent big $ on R&D). The colours on a plasma are somehow more natural-looking nonetheless, which is why some will still recommend them, but I want you to know that image retention on most plasmas is something that does exist. A few months ago I tested a 58" Samsung, and a ghost of the logo from the Blu-Ray menu (which was on for 20 seconds) could be seen for half the movie. It may not be permanent, but trust me, it is NOT ideal for any PC at all. This will be the case with any plasma not Panasonic or Pioneer.
+1 You are better off with a good LCD than a cheap plasma, imo get the largest you can afford LCD or Plasma...they'll all look good when it is in your living room, the only thing is you'll never get enough with the size.
Newbie
Oct 12, 2008
16 posts
22 upvotes
Yeah, I'm terrified of plasma screens. Viewing angles and PQ are not the highest priority. So long as it's not inverted when viewing from 15 degrees, like a cheap laptop screen...
apvm wrote: +1 You are better off with a good LCD than a cheap plasma, imo get the largest you can afford LCD or Plasma...they'll all look good when it is in your living room, the only thing is you'll never get enough with the size.
Fantastic.. so how about some actual recommendations? (46" is as much as I'll ever need.)

I'm looking primarily at 40-47" between $700-1000. I guess I have to pick between Sony, Samsung, LG, Sharp and Vizio. Which of these have the least input lag?
Deal Expert
Jun 24, 2006
15769 posts
11167 upvotes
apvm wrote: +1 You are better off with a good LCD than a cheap plasma, imo get the largest you can afford LCD or Plasma...they'll all look good when it is in your living room, the only thing is you'll never get enough with the size.
See that is were I disagree. I have always seen a $1000 plasma having better PQ then a $3000 LCD. So, with that in my, consider what a $3000 plasma would look like.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 23, 2004
9468 posts
2408 upvotes
London
flyingpants wrote: Yeah, I'm terrified of plasma screens. Viewing angles and PQ are not the highest priority. So long as it's not inverted when viewing from 15 degrees, like a cheap laptop screen...



Fantastic.. so how about some actual recommendations? (46" is as much as I'll ever need.)

I'm looking primarily at 40-47" between $700-1000. I guess I have to pick between Sony, Samsung, LG, Sharp and Vizio. Which of these have the least input lag?
Well, 1st off, if you ask anyone with a HDTV, most of them will tell you they wish they bought a larger one, trust me your 42" or 47" will look smaller and smaller. I can't tell you which brand has the least input lag since I don't own all of them...I have a Sony 42" and it serves my purpose of watching HDTV and BR Disc and I don't notice any input lag. I don't think you will regret purchasing any of the three "S" Sony, Samsung or Sharp...the above poster is right, for Plasma, Pannasonic.

I don't have much experience with HDTV, but my Samsung RPTV failed within 2 years...my 15" Sony CRT TV failed within 5 years and my Sharp 32" CRT TV still working after 17 years.

Personally, I would go for Sharp and if not the Sears sales person gave me a very good deal on that Sony that I couldn't pass last year, I would have gotten a Sharp.
Gutty96 wrote: See that is were I disagree. I have always seen a $1000 plasma having better PQ then a $3000 LCD. So, with that in my, consider what a $3000 plasma would look like.
It really doesn't matter if a $500 plasma is better looking than a $5000 LCD, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...as long as OP is satisfy with the PQ, it doesn't really matter if it is a Plasma or LCD...or even LG, Samsung, Sony etc...afterall it will be the only TV in his living room, nothing side by side to compare with. Mind you those cheaper brand Plasma still have burn in effect if you don't take good care of it.
Newbie
Oct 12, 2008
16 posts
22 upvotes
From reading the AVSforum.. The LG LH30 line is one of the best LCDs TVs for input lag right now. Samsungs are a bit slower, Sony is out of my price range, and I don't know anything about Sharp or Vizio.

I'm playing N64 (480i composite) on an LH40.. the input lag is almost imperceptible on Super Mario 64 and Starfox 64.. (on my Toshiba set it was totally unplayable) we may have a winner. Too bad it looks like such crap!

I also have a N64 emulator running simultaneously on the VGA input, and while it looks around ten times better (especially with texture replacement packs) and is much more responsive, emulation is not 100% perfect..

I am hoping to snag a LG 37LH30 37" for $500 canadian to hold me over for a year or so until these manufacturers stop dicking us around. We can argue whether bigger is better or not - but there's no point in spending $1000+ on a TV if you're going to be disappointed.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 14, 2007
2611 posts
79 upvotes
You need not be, if ye pockets be deep and a Pioneer at hand LOL. I have owned and tested a crapload of TVs and I wouldn't get a plasma today if I couldn't get a Pioneer (for any reason).

It won't look like a cheap laptop screen, because laptops use TN screens (like cheap computer monitors), and all LCD TVs use higher-quality panels, even $299 32 inchers. LED-backlit LCDs, expensive as they may be, are the worst for viewing angle and have a very defined sweet spot. Not under 1k anyway, just saying.

When I get a chance today I'll recommend a couple models for you.
flyingpants wrote: Yeah, I'm terrified of plasma screens. Viewing angles and PQ are not the highest priority. So long as it's not inverted when viewing from 15 degrees, like a cheap laptop screen...



Fantastic.. so how about some actual recommendations? (46" is as much as I'll ever need.)

I'm looking primarily at 40-47" between $700-1000. I guess I have to pick between Sony, Samsung, LG, Sharp and Vizio. Which of these have the least input lag?
I'm all for nice plasmas (I have a second-gen Kuro as my main display), but I don't think you can say that as a general rule. Sure, if you take the $1070 or whatever Panasonic G10 from the States as your 1k plasma, and the worst possible LCD at maximum retail price for 3k, only then.

However, even last year's 52" Samsung A650 series beats even Panasonic's best current plasma in black level and contrast. Panasonics and plasmas in general are somewhat inaccurate with greens, and the A650 is nearly spot-on after calibration. So basically, the A650 is better in most ways. In a room with some light, it's better than all plasmas because it gets brighter and the screen is deep tinted, so you see great contrast. With plasmas, they wash out quite a bit in the same environment, but look awesome in the dark. The Kuro I have looks absolutely stunning at night... but I really don't like it in the day comparatively speaking.

Dark rooms - Go plasma. Moderate to a lot of light - definitely LCD.

Gutty96 wrote: See that is were I disagree. I have always seen a $1000 plasma having better PQ then a $3000 LCD. So, with that in my, consider what a $3000 plasma would look like.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 14, 2007
2611 posts
79 upvotes
You're absolutely right, go as big as you possibly can, otherwise at some point, you will want to upgrade. OP notices lag because he games. You wouldn't notice it with regular content.

Statistically, both LCDs and plasmas are very reliable. The failure rate is extremely low compared to other types of electronics. Obviously though, cheaper ones don't last as long.

Sharp is the last tier 1 brand I would recommend. Almost any major brand is better. Their reputation has been tarnished because of streaking and other issues in 2006 and 2007, but the image processing is also pathetic. I realize you're recommending with longevity in mind, and while they're fine for that, I'm speaking about PQ. Dunno if you guys ever saw the 65" Sharp that FS cleared out last boxing day for 2999, but I once had that TV beside a few others in a side-by-side, and I can't tell you how terrible the processing was. Everything was smearing, tearing and artifacting - even my dad (who once looked at his old CRT on the floor and thought it was his new, widescreen LCD) would be able to notice the difference!
apvm wrote: Well, 1st off, if you ask anyone with a HDTV, most of them will tell you they wish they bought a larger one, trust me your 42" or 47" will look smaller and smaller. I can't tell you which brand has the least input lag since I don't own all of them...I have a Sony 42" and it serves my purpose of watching HDTV and BR Disc and I don't notice any input lag. I don't think you will regret purchasing any of the three "S" Sony, Samsung or Sharp...the above poster is right, for Plasma, Pannasonic.

I don't have much experience with HDTV, but my Samsung RPTV failed within 2 years...my 15" Sony CRT TV failed within 5 years and my Sharp 32" CRT TV still working after 17 years.

Personally, I would go for Sharp and if not the Sears sales person gave me a very good deal on that Sony that I couldn't pass last year, I would have gotten a Sharp.



It really doesn't matter if a $500 plasma is better looking than a $5000 LCD, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...as long as OP is satisfy with the PQ, it doesn't really matter if it is a Plasma or LCD...or even LG, Samsung, Sony etc...afterall it will be the only TV in his living room, nothing side by side to compare with. Mind you those cheaper brand Plasma still have burn in effect if you don't take good care of it.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 14, 2007
2611 posts
79 upvotes
AVSforum is your best friend! Sony is not out of your price range BTW. Lose Sharp from the list, Vizio is not bad. Better than average.

Actually, if you can get that LG for 500ish, that'd be a good value, and you could resell it for almost as much after a year. You'd lose very little if anything. Not a bad plan.

IMO, you won't be disappointed. The most value you'll get is from a 40-46" set at the moment. I'll try to find you something today.
flyingpants wrote: From reading the AVSforum.. The LG LH30 line is one of the best LCDs TVs for input lag right now. Samsungs are a bit slower, Sony is out of my price range, and I don't know anything about Sharp or Vizio.

I'm playing N64 (480i composite) on an LH40.. the input lag is almost imperceptible on Super Mario 64 and Starfox 64.. (on my Toshiba set it was totally unplayable) we may have a winner. Too bad it looks like such crap!

I also have a N64 emulator running simultaneously on the VGA input, and while it looks around ten times better (especially with texture replacement packs) and is much more responsive, emulation is not 100% perfect..

I am hoping to snag a LG 37LH30 37" for $500 canadian to hold me over for a year or so until these manufacturers stop dicking us around. We can argue whether bigger is better or not - but there's no point in spending $1000+ on a TV if you're going to be disappointed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 23, 2004
9468 posts
2408 upvotes
London
loybond wrote: Dark rooms - Go plasma. Moderate to a lot of light - definitely LCD.
+1, now I remember why I shopped for a LCD instead of Plasma, I have a bright living room.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 14, 2007
2611 posts
79 upvotes
There's a guy I've bought a few TVs from... small store in Mississauga. Nice guy, even takes returns if you're not happy. Usually the lowest prices I can find - he tries to get "overstock" stock.

Here's his ad.

http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/yrk/ele/1522144186.html

The 52" Samsung B610 is a good deal at 1299. You can probably give him cash and not pay tax. If you have trouble with this I can talk to him.

The 40" B610 is 799. Again, I'm sure you can pay 799 tax in.

Even better, for boxing day, FS has

Sony 40" Bravia V-Series 1080p LCD HDTV - $699.99

I would highly recommend this for the price. Processing is well above average, the price is well below your limit, and the quality of the TV is very decent. I know there's a 40" Sharp for 599 there too, but this particular Sony is a "good" TV... I was actually thinking about it for another bedroom myself.

If you're ok with a 60 Hz TV - which means that you don't notice jerkiness in 24 fps content, you don't want to use the smoothing feature and you want as little lag as possible - this would work for you...

Sony Bravia KDL52S5100 52" 1080p LCD HDTV - $1199.99

It's at Future Shop as well. It's not bad for the size. Trust me, go bigger. It'll seem small to you in a while. I recommend going 50" minimum if possible. The only issue with this particular TV is that it won't be super easy to resell if you wanted to - people don't know what 120 Hz is, but they *need* to have it. But the price is as good as it gets for a 52 incher and Sony uses some of the better panels.

There's a huge thread on 40-46" TV deals at the moment too... you should have a look. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably go for the 52" Samsung or Sony. $100 diff for a slightly better panel and 120 Hz. Oh wait, no tax on that, so the total price would be slightly less than the Sony.

Top