|
||||||||
40" projection TV vs 40" flat panel TV screen size |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 64
|
40" projection TV vs 40" flat panel TV screen size
I currently have a Pioneer 40" projection TV that has just packed up..... so I am looking to buy a replacement plasma or LCD TV.
I want to retain a similar screen size.... am I correct in assuming the screen sizes quoted for flat panel TV's are still diagonally sized? If this is the case, then a 40" flat panel will now become somewhat less in height than my existing TV, but wider, correct? Can anyone with a 40" flatpanel post the actual physical sizes of the screen in height and width please. The size of my current screen(visible) is 33 1/4" wide x 23 3/4" high (approx). I notice that 40" flat panels are quite a price hike from say a 32" or 37", so if I dropped down a size or two would the actual visible area reduce significantly to be a vastly noticable difference from my current 40" projection TV?, and will the lower size screen be a sharper picture than the 40" (as is the case with CRT)? I am also looking for advice/recommendations for a suitable replacement. The projection TV I have is a Pioneer SDM1407, it's been a great TV for the last 10 years, but not realy worth repairing. Although state of the art when new, it looks rather dated AND BIG compared to todays modern slimline panels. I'm still undecided about LCD or Plasma, I was told Plasma was better above 40", but have just read a review on a new Sony model in 'What home cinema ' magazine who say that this has TV has now exceeded the picture quality of the plasma.... so I'm even more confused/undecided! ![]() The brief is; [list]A similar sized screen, must be black case (not young nor trendy enough for silver!), decent sound output quality (my pioneer, being a huge box is really quite good, with a decent base), bottom speakers (I dont have surround sound/cinema) no more than £1500 preferably 3 scart sockets good picture quality - non motion blurring, with sharp text ( due to my poor eyesight) available to take away from a retailer (dont want to risk an internet delivery driver thanks!) I may push the boat out and go sky HD later on in the year (if I can talk my wife around to it!). [/list] Last edited by hbg59 : 03-01-2007 at 00:35. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 113
|
The widescreen aspect ratio is 16:9 so the dimensions of the 40" screen are 35"X19.25", which will subjectively look just slightly smaller than a 40" 4:3 screen. 32" widescreens look very small to me and will certainly be a big drop from your 40" 4:3, so I'd advise against. 37" is not too bad though.
The LCD/Plasma debate has been done to death but I went for the LCD because of lower power consumption, no burn in, sharper picture and greater long term reliability. There are those that would say I'm wrong on every count, but I don't think so. The one area that plasma can claim superiority is in having blacker blacks. Most of the other LCD shortcomings (such as motion blur) have been basically cured on current generation TVs. I'd go for a Sony W or X 40". I've got the V2000 and it's excellent - huge number of controls to adjust including the all important backlight adjustment. The clarity of the screen is amazing. Last edited by Technophile : 03-01-2007 at 12:41. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:12.


