LCD vs. Plasma

i can tell you what i pay if that helps...I have 5 tv's active, all DVR's, 2 of them are HD-DVR's, I have the extended channels including locals, HBO, & HD service, I pay $112/mo...

i have high speed road runner for $24.95/mo

 

i find that very hard to believe. i don't have tw, but it seems pretty stupid to take a 1280x720x60 signal and turn it into a 1920x540x60 signal. not saying cable companies can't be stupid, but i would expect a lot of people to be upset about such a thing. and tw would just be wasting bandwidth on scaled up content (1920x540 is more pixels than 1280x720).

dtv is just data. a cable company is just forwarding that data. why would they intercede and monkey with the content of the data stream?

how does you tv handle 1080i? does it display it interlaced or does it scale up each field to fill the full 1080? because, of course, if it's taking a 1080i signal and dispaying it at 60fps, you're taking 1920x540 images and scaling them up to 1920x1080. i'd say it's arguable if that'd look better than 1280x720.

who said 768 is better? i'm saying the content of broadcasts are going to make some things look better than others. 1280x768 is perfectly adequate to display 1280x720. how is that hard to comprehend?

i agree. and considering that i don't own an hd set, i presume you're talking about yourself.

 

It's not 1920x540, you need to read some more, myTV is one of the ones that independent labs certified correctly deinterlaces 1080i (and does a damn good job of it), and lastly:

Now I now why people find you so annoying. Why don't you tell us what it's like to spacewalk while you're at it.

 

now that's fucking funny...

 

what's not 1920x540? look, i've been doing computer animation for nearly 20 years now. i know pixels. i know how tv signals work.

1080i is interlaced. do you understand what that means? that means it gets 540 lines from one field, and 540 lines from another. you get 60 fields per second. the tv interlaces them together to give you 30 frames per second at 1080 lines. not 60 frames per second, but 30.

720p is pretty straight forward -- 60 frames per second. no interlacing.

do the math here.

1280x720x60 = about 55 million pixels per second
1920x1080x30 = about 62 million pixels per second

relatively similar bandwidths. 1080i has about twice the spacial resolution, 720p has twice the temporal resolution. for sports, temporal resolution is more important (it's not a coincidence that pretty much every sports dominated channel is 720p).

so if your tv is 1280x768, it's not going to lose any spacial resolution with 720p. and if it's got good response times, it can keep up with 60 frames per second. sounds like a 1280x768 plasma to me.

i don't know what it's like to spacewalk, but you're telling me it's the same as scuba which i know it ain't.

 

See tag

edit: I'm quite sure I'm getting 720p when I'm on Fox and ESPN. And I get 1080i on CBS. Maybe HH has those turned off on his cable box, you can force the box to scale all your channels to 1080i OR 720p but I wouldn't recommend that unless the scaler in your tv is shit.

Your tv looks very nice though HH How big is it?

 

Why?

 

How does a Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 look on 1080P vs 720P?


I'm looking to get a PS3 soon and a 37-42" Plasma.

 

They look fantastic on both, however games aren't often displayed in full 1080p. I think there are two x360 games that are in full 1080p (one is NBA Street 3) and maybe a couple more on PS3. A lot of high profile games are rendered in resolution even less than 720p and upscaled. Halo 3 is rendered at 630p or something weird like that, iirc.

X360 supports 1080p ONLY over hdmi, if you have an older unit with just component video it only supports 1080i. All PS3's support 1080p for Bluray playback.

More important than resolution though when concerning videogames, you need to think about lag created by the processing of the TV. LCDs are infamous for their lag, some sets now are really close to zero lag, but that is something you VERY MUCH want to consider when looking at LCD. It's advertised as 'response time.'

If you play a game like Rock Band or Guitar Hero, lag can make these type of games unplayable.

Gaming is the main reason I went plasma over LCD, personally. Fast moving images plus the potential for lag makes plasma the right choice IMFO.

But don't listen to me (or HH,) go to a videogame forum like NeoGAF and ask the techies there about LCD tech, or a videophile forum like AVS. They can help you a lot more than anyone here.


edit: If you want a future-proof set, then you definitely should get 1080p. Blu movies support that resolution, and more and more cable/satellite channels over the years will eventually get there. However, like I've said, there are more things to consider rather than just resolution when you're talking about an amazing picture.

 

Wrong.

TV sets that do not use CRT's and that display 1080 scan lines (or 1080 rows of pixels) always display video as 1080p@60.

No wonder you're so down on 1080p sets. You don't understand them.

I am 99% sure you are not - you may be able to do so via a cable card, but if you have a Scientific Atlanta 8300 HD box like just about every TW HD customer, it outputs in 1080i. Perhaps there is a setting to change that, (and perhaps the box can actually do it), but I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that, and again, only a zOMG 768p FTW!! dork would do it.

I have been an AVS Forum member for about 5 years now. Only the plasma fanboys wouldn't laugh in your face for saying that plasma is better than LCD for gaming. 75% of the people there would recommend LCD, but the bigger point is that you once again are playing the role of fanboy. Just stop.