Why did LCD look better than plasma with SD source

dmm27 · 18-09-2007, 11:51

Having trawled through the forums and magazines, I am now a bit confused.

Need a new TV as old CRT is a bit dodgy. I mostly watch SD via freeview and DVDs. I have no intention of getting Sky HD, and cant get Virgin media.

My TV will be about 8ft away from the sofa.

We were in a Panasonic shop yesterday, and were viewing a 42in plasma, 37in plasma, and 32in LCD all showing the same Freeview source from 8ft away.

I couldnt tell the difference between the 2 plasmas (settings the same). However what surprised me was the LCD seemed sharper, and this was watching football.

What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt.

Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources.

broadz · 18-09-2007, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmm27

Having trawled through the forums and magazines, I am now a bit confused.

Need a new TV as old CRT is a bit dodgy. I mostly watch SD via freeview and DVDs. I have no intention of getting Sky HD, and cant get Virgin media.

My TV will be about 8ft away from the sofa.

We were in a Panasonic shop yesterday, and were viewing a 42in plasma, 37in plasma, and 32in LCD all showing the same Freeview source from 8ft away.

I couldnt tell the difference between the 2 plasmas (settings the same). However what surprised me was the LCD seemed sharper, and this was watching football.

What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt.

Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources.

I've always thought LCD looked sharper than plasma on SD, but that's my opinion, that's why I have an LCD, and you'll find many plasma owners claiming the contrary. The probable reason was that you were viewing LCD on a 32" set, whereas the plasmas were 42" and 37". On an SD transmission, the smaller the set the less smearing and pixellation you will notice.

Apollo 1875 · 18-09-2007, 12:37

Firstly, SD images will look better on a smaller screen.

Secondly, The larger plasma screens probably had a 1080 resolution, whereas, the 32" LCD would have been 768, which is much closer to a standard definition broadcast made up of 576 lines.

In my opinion, the resolution of the screen is more important than "Plasma vs LCD" if you only intend to input SD signals.

I have a 32" 768p screen (Bravia V2500), my normal viewing distance is 10 feet, but still looks great at 8 feet. I wouldn't be tempted by a larger screen for only SD viewing.

If you are looking for a Panasonic I'd recommend the 32LXD700. You'll get great SD pics and you'll also be covered if you decide to upgrade to HD sooner than expected.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/re...32in-LCD-TV/p1

If you have a DVD deck with a component output, use it to hook up to your new TV you'll be amazed by how much better your existing DVD collection will look without having to upgrade HD.

x-p-d · 18-09-2007, 12:43

It was the size of the screen.

Nigel Goodwin · 18-09-2007, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmm27

What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt.

Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources.

LCD is sharper than Plasma, that's why Plasma tends to look slightly better on SD, because (like a CRT) the less sharp picture hides the defects better - and CRT hides it better than Plasma.

In your case, as already suggested, the LCD looked better because you were effectively further away (because it was smaller).

There's a lot of rubbish about all three, but essentially it's just down to screen size and viewing distance!. Make sure you test whatever you decide on, at the viewing distance you use at home - and don't forget, if you plan to use HD, you need to view from MUCH closer.

uncle_sam_ie · 18-09-2007, 13:13

Also, LCD will always look better on the shop floor under fluorescent lighting.

carefree cook · 18-09-2007, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-p-d

It was the size of the screen.

i can only agree

dmm27 · 18-09-2007, 19:09

thanks all. So basically if I go for a smaller screen now, the picture will probably look better (but I wanted a big screen!). If I then get HD later, I'll wish I bought a bigger screen originally

Gilson · 18-09-2007, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

LCD is sharper than Plasma, that's why Plasma tends to look slightly better on SD, because (like a CRT) the less sharp picture hides the defects better - and CRT hides it better than Plasma.

What a load of twaddle!

whatvideo · 18-09-2007, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilson

What a load of twaddle!

Its a given that flat panel sets show up SD defects more than CRT.

I dont think someone who rates svhs quality alongside dvdr(sp) has any room to speak about picture quality

skinj · 18-09-2007, 22:14

Which sets were you comparing and what settings were they all on?
If the plasma's were px7 models and the LCD was an LXD700 you were comparing the base plasma's and top end LCD. If the plas wer set to normal or cinema and the LCD was set to Dynamic it would also look brighter which the eye finds instantly better to look at in short the term.

Nigel Goodwin · 18-09-2007, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilson

What a load of twaddle!

Perhaps you would care to offer an explanation then?, although your technical knowledge does seem rather limited, and your opinions of 'good quality' rather questionable?

dmm27 · 18-09-2007, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinj

Which sets were you comparing and what settings were they all on?
If the plasma's were px7 models and the LCD was an LXD700 you were comparing the base plasma's and top end LCD. If the plas wer set to normal or cinema and the LCD was set to Dynamic it would also look brighter which the eye finds instantly better to look at in short the term.

The plasmas were the PX70's. I think that they were on normal. Not sure what the LCD or the settings were unfortunately. Will keep an eye out at the next test viewing.

Apollo 1875 · 19-09-2007, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmm27

thanks all. So basically if I go for a smaller screen now, the picture will probably look better (but I wanted a big screen!). If I then get HD later, I'll wish I bought a bigger screen originally

That's the position I'm in.

I bought my 32" set based on testing it's SD performance instore. I had also considered the 40" version of the same model but I found that whilst watching Freeview channels, digital artifacts were becoming visible at my viewing distance (10 feet).

I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair"

, where I sit closer to the set. I think it's actually a better spot for my surround sound as well.

The lady of the house always knew I was a geek, but now she's considering buying me a "Geek" t-shirt to wear while I'm in... the chair.

Nigel Goodwin · 19-09-2007, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo 1875

I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair"

, where I sit closer to the set.

It's not 'sad', it's perfectly sensible

- the viewing distance for SD and HD is different - unfortunately most people don't do this, so claim either that HD doesn't look any better (too far away), or that SD looks crap on their LCD or Plasma (too close).

Obviously this does give a serious problem, changing viewing distance when changing channels - but it's nice to see at least one person has got the sense to handle it correctly!.

daveac · 19-09-2007, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo 1875

That's the position I'm in.

I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair"

, where I sit closer to the set. I think it's actually a better spot for my surround sound as well.

The lady of the house always knew I was a geek, but now she's considering buying me a "Geek" t-shirt to wear while I'm in... the chair.

I do that.

Well I move the sofa nearer when watching BBC HD.

I only have a 26in LCD - is my 'second TV' ie. I bought it 2 years ago and it cost 900 Quid then.

I intend to buy a 42in between now and Christmas (January sales at the very latest) - and this TV will go in the back room.

But to watch HD programmes I move the sofa 4 feet nearer the TV - just to enjoy the greater detail.

Cheers, daveac

Nigel Goodwin · 19-09-2007, 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveac

But to watch HD programmes I move the sofa 4 feet nearer the TV - just to enjoy the greater detail.

We're going well! - that's two!

dmm27 · 19-09-2007, 23:56

had a look again at the 42PX70 and sony 40D3000. To be honest, hard to choose between the 2.

It will now come down to what price I can get either of them for. Looks like the sony has some bundles about with free HDD/DVD or home cinema. Dont know yet if that will be what sells it.

Nigel Goodwin · 20-09-2007, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmm27

had a look again at the 42PX70 and sony 40D3000. To be honest, hard to choose between the 2.

They are the top two manufacturers, so it should be hard!

555 · 30-09-2007, 13:43

When I was choosing my plasma, most guides suggested a viewing distance of 10-12 ft. I chose a 42" screen. I think 8ft is a little too close for a 42" anything. 37" may be your optimum.

555 · 30-09-2007, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

They are the top two manufacturers, so it should be hard!

The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost.

bobcar · 30-09-2007, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555

The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost.

It depends how you define top manufacturer. Would you say Ferrari was a top manufacturer compared to Nissan? I'd say either could be depending on your criterion.

Nigel Goodwin · 30-09-2007, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555

The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost.

At least Panasonic have a decent backup and service organisation in place, Fujitsu is absolutely pathetic!

Every duff Fujitsu I've seen or heard of has ended up being scrapped - due not just to a total lack of spares, but even a total inability to even get a price for the spares!.

But I wasn't talking about specific devices, but about the companies in general. Sony and Panasonic are the two top domestic electronics companies (in that order), and have been for many years.

thewhiterabbit · 03-10-2007, 13:24

i have had this chat before (look at my last post should i buy a 50 panasonic).

We sit 8 ft from our panasonic 32lxd60a 32 lcd and watch virgin , if we watch freeview its ok but with V+ it upscales it to near hd giving a sharper picture but if you only watch dvd and freeview then to be honest , a 32 is the best size to go for .

In the shop last week i explained why i wanted a 50 inch and the guy shown me freeview at 8 ft which was horrible as i can see all the imperfections and HD which was smooth , also theres a size chart to how far you should be sat away from the tv to get the most of the viewing pleasure .

Lcd also does not suffer screen burn like some plasma's but i understand that they now have sopftware in new plasmas to help with screen burn .

Andrew

steseagull99 · 07-10-2007, 19:52

to the guy buying the sony 3000 series, had a 32 inch for 2 weeks and am mighty impressed with standard dvd and HD on my xbo360 (why I brought, not hooked up to my sky yet as the misses prefers the JVC CRT). After asking for advice on here walked into Curries and they had it for £700 more expensive than virtually all the other 32" lcd but stood out like an expensively painted thumb

18-09-2007, 11:51	#1
dmm27 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 6	Why did LCD look better than plasma with SD source Having trawled through the forums and magazines, I am now a bit confused. Need a new TV as old CRT is a bit dodgy. I mostly watch SD via freeview and DVDs. I have no intention of getting Sky HD, and cant get Virgin media. My TV will be about 8ft away from the sofa. We were in a Panasonic shop yesterday, and were viewing a 42in plasma, 37in plasma, and 32in LCD all showing the same Freeview source from 8ft away. I couldnt tell the difference between the 2 plasmas (settings the same). However what surprised me was the LCD seemed sharper, and this was watching football. What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt. Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources.

18-09-2007, 12:11	#2
broadz Banned User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,313	Quote: Originally Posted by dmm27 Having trawled through the forums and magazines, I am now a bit confused. Need a new TV as old CRT is a bit dodgy. I mostly watch SD via freeview and DVDs. I have no intention of getting Sky HD, and cant get Virgin media. My TV will be about 8ft away from the sofa. We were in a Panasonic shop yesterday, and were viewing a 42in plasma, 37in plasma, and 32in LCD all showing the same Freeview source from 8ft away. I couldnt tell the difference between the 2 plasmas (settings the same). However what surprised me was the LCD seemed sharper, and this was watching football. What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt. Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources. I've always thought LCD looked sharper than plasma on SD, but that's my opinion, that's why I have an LCD, and you'll find many plasma owners claiming the contrary. The probable reason was that you were viewing LCD on a 32" set, whereas the plasmas were 42" and 37". On an SD transmission, the smaller the set the less smearing and pixellation you will notice.

18-09-2007, 12:37	#3
Apollo 1875 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Moon Base Alpha Posts: 386	Firstly, SD images will look better on a smaller screen. Secondly, The larger plasma screens probably had a 1080 resolution, whereas, the 32" LCD would have been 768, which is much closer to a standard definition broadcast made up of 576 lines. In my opinion, the resolution of the screen is more important than "Plasma vs LCD" if you only intend to input SD signals. I have a 32" 768p screen (Bravia V2500), my normal viewing distance is 10 feet, but still looks great at 8 feet. I wouldn't be tempted by a larger screen for only SD viewing. If you are looking for a Panasonic I'd recommend the 32LXD700. You'll get great SD pics and you'll also be covered if you decide to upgrade to HD sooner than expected. http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/re...32in-LCD-TV/p1 If you have a DVD deck with a component output, use it to hook up to your new TV you'll be amazed by how much better your existing DVD collection will look without having to upgrade HD.

18-09-2007, 12:43	#4
x-p-d Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portsmouth (Rowridge TX) Posts: 7,052	It was the size of the screen.

18-09-2007, 13:12	#5
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by dmm27 What has me confused is that LCD is supposed to make SD look worse than plasma, but it didnt. And the LCD was sharper showing football, which is supposed to be more blurry, but it wasnt. Can anyone tell me why this happened, as it seems to have blown away my understanding of plasma vs LCD if mostly watching SD sources. LCD is sharper than Plasma, that's why Plasma tends to look slightly better on SD, because (like a CRT) the less sharp picture hides the defects better - and CRT hides it better than Plasma. In your case, as already suggested, the LCD looked better because you were effectively further away (because it was smaller). There's a lot of rubbish about all three, but essentially it's just down to screen size and viewing distance!. Make sure you test whatever you decide on, at the viewing distance you use at home - and don't forget, if you plan to use HD, you need to view from MUCH closer.

18-09-2007, 13:13	#6
uncle_sam_ie Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ireland Posts: 601	Also, LCD will always look better on the shop floor under fluorescent lighting.

18-09-2007, 17:54	#7
carefree cook Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland Posts: 421	Quote: Originally Posted by x-p-d It was the size of the screen. i can only agree

18-09-2007, 19:09	#8
dmm27 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 6	thanks all. So basically if I go for a smaller screen now, the picture will probably look better (but I wanted a big screen!). If I then get HD later, I'll wish I bought a bigger screen originally

18-09-2007, 20:14	#9
Gilson Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,145	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin LCD is sharper than Plasma, that's why Plasma tends to look slightly better on SD, because (like a CRT) the less sharp picture hides the defects better - and CRT hides it better than Plasma. What a load of twaddle!

18-09-2007, 20:40	#10
whatvideo Banned User Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 157	Quote: Originally Posted by Gilson What a load of twaddle! Its a given that flat panel sets show up SD defects more than CRT. I dont think someone who rates svhs quality alongside dvdr(sp) has any room to speak about picture quality

18-09-2007, 22:14	#11
skinj Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,206	Which sets were you comparing and what settings were they all on? If the plasma's were px7 models and the LCD was an LXD700 you were comparing the base plasma's and top end LCD. If the plas wer set to normal or cinema and the LCD was set to Dynamic it would also look brighter which the eye finds instantly better to look at in short the term.

18-09-2007, 22:49	#12
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Gilson What a load of twaddle! Perhaps you would care to offer an explanation then?, although your technical knowledge does seem rather limited, and your opinions of 'good quality' rather questionable?

18-09-2007, 23:46	#13
dmm27 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 6	Quote: Originally Posted by skinj Which sets were you comparing and what settings were they all on? If the plasma's were px7 models and the LCD was an LXD700 you were comparing the base plasma's and top end LCD. If the plas wer set to normal or cinema and the LCD was set to Dynamic it would also look brighter which the eye finds instantly better to look at in short the term. The plasmas were the PX70's. I think that they were on normal. Not sure what the LCD or the settings were unfortunately. Will keep an eye out at the next test viewing.

19-09-2007, 09:51	#14
Apollo 1875 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Moon Base Alpha Posts: 386	Quote: Originally Posted by dmm27 thanks all. So basically if I go for a smaller screen now, the picture will probably look better (but I wanted a big screen!). If I then get HD later, I'll wish I bought a bigger screen originally That's the position I'm in. I bought my 32" set based on testing it's SD performance instore. I had also considered the 40" version of the same model but I found that whilst watching Freeview channels, digital artifacts were becoming visible at my viewing distance (10 feet). I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair" , where I sit closer to the set. I think it's actually a better spot for my surround sound as well. The lady of the house always knew I was a geek, but now she's considering buying me a "Geek" t-shirt to wear while I'm in... the chair.

19-09-2007, 10:51	#15
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Apollo 1875 I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair" , where I sit closer to the set. It's not 'sad', it's perfectly sensible - the viewing distance for SD and HD is different - unfortunately most people don't do this, so claim either that HD doesn't look any better (too far away), or that SD looks crap on their LCD or Plasma (too close). Obviously this does give a serious problem, changing viewing distance when changing channels - but it's nice to see at least one person has got the sense to handle it correctly!.

19-09-2007, 14:36	#16
daveac Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 466	Quote: Originally Posted by Apollo 1875 That's the position I'm in. I've now got an HD-DVD deck, sooner than I expected to, and sort of wish I'd gone for the 40". However, the vast majority of my viewing is still SD. So I've settled for (and this is going to sound really sad) designating a chair, my "HD chair" , where I sit closer to the set. I think it's actually a better spot for my surround sound as well. The lady of the house always knew I was a geek, but now she's considering buying me a "Geek" t-shirt to wear while I'm in... the chair. I do that. Well I move the sofa nearer when watching BBC HD. I only have a 26in LCD - is my 'second TV' ie. I bought it 2 years ago and it cost 900 Quid then. I intend to buy a 42in between now and Christmas (January sales at the very latest) - and this TV will go in the back room. But to watch HD programmes I move the sofa 4 feet nearer the TV - just to enjoy the greater detail. Cheers, daveac

19-09-2007, 16:06	#17
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by daveac But to watch HD programmes I move the sofa 4 feet nearer the TV - just to enjoy the greater detail. We're going well! - that's two!

19-09-2007, 23:56	#18
dmm27 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 6	had a look again at the 42PX70 and sony 40D3000. To be honest, hard to choose between the 2. It will now come down to what price I can get either of them for. Looks like the sony has some bundles about with free HDD/DVD or home cinema. Dont know yet if that will be what sells it.

20-09-2007, 09:49	#19
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by dmm27 had a look again at the 42PX70 and sony 40D3000. To be honest, hard to choose between the 2. They are the top two manufacturers, so it should be hard!

30-09-2007, 13:43	#20
555 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 4,249	When I was choosing my plasma, most guides suggested a viewing distance of 10-12 ft. I chose a 42" screen. I think 8ft is a little too close for a 42" anything. 37" may be your optimum.

30-09-2007, 13:46	#21
555 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin They are the top two manufacturers, so it should be hard! The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost.

DS Forums

Why did LCD look better than plasma with SD source

30-09-2007, 15:03	#22
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by 555 The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost. It depends how you define top manufacturer. Would you say Ferrari was a top manufacturer compared to Nissan? I'd say either could be depending on your criterion.

30-09-2007, 21:43	#23
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by 555 The TH-42PX70 is a plasma. I strongly contend that Panasonic are not the top manufacturer for plasma, and would propose that Fujitsu screens were vastly superior. However, the equivalent Fujitsu is three times the cost. At least Panasonic have a decent backup and service organisation in place, Fujitsu is absolutely pathetic! Every duff Fujitsu I've seen or heard of has ended up being scrapped - due not just to a total lack of spares, but even a total inability to even get a price for the spares!. But I wasn't talking about specific devices, but about the companies in general. Sony and Panasonic are the two top domestic electronics companies (in that order), and have been for many years.

03-10-2007, 13:24	#24
thewhiterabbit Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 66	i have had this chat before (look at my last post should i buy a 50 panasonic). We sit 8 ft from our panasonic 32lxd60a 32 lcd and watch virgin , if we watch freeview its ok but with V+ it upscales it to near hd giving a sharper picture but if you only watch dvd and freeview then to be honest , a 32 is the best size to go for . In the shop last week i explained why i wanted a 50 inch and the guy shown me freeview at 8 ft which was horrible as i can see all the imperfections and HD which was smooth , also theres a size chart to how far you should be sat away from the tv to get the most of the viewing pleasure . Lcd also does not suffer screen burn like some plasma's but i understand that they now have sopftware in new plasmas to help with screen burn . Andrew

07-10-2007, 19:52	#25
steseagull99 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: DERBY Posts: 63	to the guy buying the sony 3000 series, had a 32 inch for 2 weeks and am mighty impressed with standard dvd and HD on my xbo360 (why I brought, not hooked up to my sky yet as the misses prefers the JVC CRT). After asking for advice on here walked into Curries and they had it for £700 more expensive than virtually all the other 32" lcd but stood out like an expensively painted thumb