After viewing college bowl games last New Year’s Day on my sister’s big screen TV, I told my wife that we should get a high definition TV before the 2008 football season started. So, as August approached and preseason predictions proliferated, we began to look for a new high definition large screen TV.
To my dismay, I learned that there is not just one type of product that generally fits that description. Different brands and models vary in their degree of resolution (number of pixels, number of lines of resolution, etc.) which affects the quality of the picture and the capability of the TV to utilize high definition “input”, whether it be cable or satellite TV channels, electronic input from a “Blu-ray” or “up-converting” DVD player, input from a gaming device, or possibly even other sources. I also learned that there were two basic types of these TV’s regarding the basic manner in which the visible image is produced in/on the screen–plasma and LCD. In my case, the biggest issues to be decided were these two–the number of lines of resolution and whether to buy plasma vs. LCD. Once these “technical” options were decided, choosing between the available brands and models that satisfied these options was relatively easy.
I found that many of the TV’s on display in stores with attractive prices were TV’s that had only 720 lines of resolution, though they presented a picture of very good quality from current TV programs via cable or satellite. It seems that the “geeks”, and perhaps the industry, do not consider anything less than 1080 lines of resolution to be “high definition. Presumably, 1080 lines of resolution is the minimum number needed to take full advantage of a true “high definition” TV signal or other high definition input. Thus, I decided that I wanted a TV with at least 1080 lines of resolution.
With regard to the plasma vs. LCD issue, it appeared that in the past, plasma has been considered necessary for the TV’s with larger screens (50″ in. or larger), while LCD was generally associated with smaller screens. Plasma was generally considered to give a “brighter” picture, but LCD did not have the risk of certain technical problems associated with plasma (i.e. “screen burn-in” from the same static image displayed too long on the screen and eventual failure of the bulb or light source for the TV requiring a presumably expensive replacement). However, continuing technical development has decidedly narrowed the differences between the two with regard to performance. LCD TV’s with 50″ or larger screens are now common on display floors and the projected “half-life” of replaceable plasma “bulbs” is well in excess of any resonably expected useful life of the TV. The risk of screen “burn-in” seems to be almost nil under ordinary usage and conditions. I visited several “Best Buys” and other stores with TV displays and concluded that the plasma TV’s did appear to more consistently present a brighter and sharper image–though some of the LCD’s were very close. After much deliberation, including reading reviews on line as well as watching in-store displays, I chose plasma.
Response time (sort of the equivalent of the number of frames per second in movies on film) was never really an issue for me. Most of the sets that I viewed seemed to fall into a range of about 2 to 6 milliseconds response time. I am not a “gamer”, and virtually all TV’s I viewed were capable of showing the programs that I watch without a noticeable problem of “blurring” in action scenes. If you are a really serious gamer, or really concerned about quality of high-speed action scenes, then response time might be a factor for you to consider.
After deciding upon a plasma TV with 1080 lines of resolution, it was relatively easy to settle upon Panasonic Viera. The 42″ size was virtually dictated by the space which we had available. Cost and physical appearance were virtually the final deciding factors.
Once we got the TV hooked up and in operation, we have been very pleased with it. As far as I know, the quality of the picture, especially with regard to brightness and sharpness, is unsurpassed. I really do not know how it could be better. We only have it hooked up and in use for satellite TV signal from Direct TV, and not all channels are in HD. The image is very good even on non-HD channels and the HD channels are terrific. I assume the picture quality would be comparable from any HD input such as a Blu-ray or up-converting DVD player.
Pro’s: Great picture, very bright, very sharp; very competitive cost; relatively easy to hook up; occupies less space than older TV’s with comparable screen sizes. Fast and careful delivery by Amazon and its delivery system.
Con’s: Unexpected costs–had to upgrade Direct TV satellite and monthly subscription to receive HD TV signal; to view DVD’s in HD one must purchase a “Blu-ray” or “upconverting” DVD player as well as rent or buy DVD’s recorded in Blu-ray or HD format; to obtain “home theater” quality, one must purchase an additional sound system and other components. This particular set has an SD memory card slot for direct viewing of digital photos on SD cards; I wish they would have also included a CompactFlash (CF) slot that would work with pictures from my Canon digital SLR camera. Instructions for set-up and use are not particularly clear and useful, but are no worse than instructions for other electronic items in general. Information available from manufacturer prior to sale regarding use, capabilities, and functions of the item seemed to be unavailable; or, if available, was so technically oriented as to be of no use to potential purchasers lacking technical familiarity with electronics.
