So are LCD TVs actually any good?

[CommanderSpike]

You can get a Dell 2005FPW widescreen TFT with component input...play your PS2 on it full screen, watch TV with a £20 PC TV tuner card AND use the screen as a high resolution PC monitor...much better AND cheaper than having a seperate LCD TV and LCD TFT IMO.

Until HD comes along, DVDs and TV are going to look bad on screens bigger than around 40" or high detailed crisp LCD panels larger than 20" IMO

[Marcos]

Yes, if you look at some of my posts in the Dell TFT threads i've asked several times for members to post their opinions on the quality of the PS2 running through the Dells.

You dont even need a VGA box with the Dells as they have S-video and composite video connections. But was interested to see if dedicated "LCD TVs" could be better at being a TV than a PC monitor.

[jonaslasky]

And damn was I gutted to discover I'm not a "serious videophile" and my 32" LCD TV is mere crap

Although he didn't expand on it, I assume jonaslasky was referring to LCoS and DLP?
Not sure I've ever gone for the bleeding edge technology for reasons of cost and first generations usually being superceded quickly - the possible exception being the A/V amp with digital in/outs of which there are about 3 to choose right now.

I would recommend taking a couple of your own DVDs to a small TV store with different LCD TVs in stock and judging for yourself in all honesty - that's what I did, backed up with magazine reviews for the best quality / bang-for-buck factor (then ordered off the Internet and saved a few hundred quid).

Different people have different opinions and standards, based on experience expectation and usage - you have to make your own decision in the end.

No offense intended Paul, (and I'm glad you took it in stride) but LCD and plasma have never impressed serious videophiles. Forgive me but color mixing and color gamut with LCD is just bad. It just has that weird granular 16 bit look even when running at 24 bits. Plasma has better color, but then you see all the little cells. It looks like a honeycomb structure with very dark edges.

Anyway, I'm not talking about LCoS, because that's turned out to be a very tough thing to produce. Intel (the largest chip maker) last year declared they were going to conquer the large screen TV world with LCoS, this year they admitted utter defeat. Sony is the only one successfully producing LCoS TVs.

http://news.com.com/Intel+kills+TV+c...3-5421567.html

I'm not talking about DLP either, even though I was an early fan of that. It turns out DLP is infested by a noticeable pixel crawl. It looks like a bunch of strange bugs are advancing accross the srceen. I would guess it's the side effect of those tiny little mirrors oscillating back and forth to "paint" the picture. DLP also suffers from those noticeable pixel borders like plasma pixels.

What I'm talking about are SED, and OLED in the longer range... but more realistically, good old CRT HDTV. CRT is still the standard for quality. Nothing but nothing that you can buy at the store today exceeds CRT quality and manufacturers are introducing thinner CRTs to make them compete with LCDs and plasmas in "sexiness"

http://news.com.com/Flat-panel+TVs+c...86.html?tag=nl
http://news.com.com/Photo+Super-slim...=st.rc.targ_mb
http://news.com.com/Photo+CRTs+getti...3-5473476.html

This new Sony LCD might be an exception, but i doubt it would equal a good CRT in any case. This article is informative about display tech in general.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117629,00.asp

LCDs and plasmas are popular for two reasons... cool factor and status symbol. Let's face it, when you have a large flat panel display, people assume you have money to spare. They're as much of a chick magnet as sports cars.

Here are some interesting links regarding next generation technologies:
You'll have to register (FREE) at physorg.com to gain access.
SEDs and OLED's aren't that far off either. One of the stories is
about Sony going into full production of OLED displays Sept. 2004.
SED is also slated for production early this year with full production next year.


http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118836,00.asp
http://www.physorg.com/news1295.html
http://www.physorg.com/news2547.html
http://www.physorg.com/news1164.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6676

http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
http://www.newscientist.com/article....mg18224443.100
http://www.universaldisplay.com


jonas

[jonaslasky]

More bad news about LCDs

http://news.com.com/Image+RIP+dead+p...ml?tag=nefd.ac

Jonas

[Paul Adams]

No offense intended Paul, (and I'm glad you took it in stride) but LCD and plasma have never impressed serious videophiles.

Heh, none taken I assure you, my purchasing decision was based on extensive personal research on the currently available units, magazine reviews and of course budget.

When I went from VHS to DVD I was astounded by the difference in quality, and at the same time I jumped from prologic to DD/DTS so I had a quantum leap in my home entertainment experience - I am not saying the move from 28" CRT to 32" LCD was the same, but I honestly believe the upgrade to be worthwhile.

It suits my purposes - mainly watching DVDs through an HDMI/DVI connection and I would argue about colour respresentation, pixellation, etc. being that bad as it is so much better than the TV I had previously.

My parents live in the US and have an LCD TV, something like 26" and it looks nasty when you get up close (e.g. to change the disc), their friends have a wall-mounted plasma TV and while it holds up to close scrutiny, the colours did seem a little washed out and not quite so well defined as I had expected (maybe the high ambient light in California?).

A friend of mine in the UK splashed out on a projector setup and I was less than impressed, but he went for the budget-end of the DLP ones - I find the picture suffers hugely if not displayed in a very, very dark environment and the colours always appear washed-out.

Yes there is the "cool" factor with LCDs (and plasmas), they do look a hell of a lot nicer than CRT or rear-projection - but I wasn't bothered about pure screen size (I think you can get a 42" upwards plasma for the same price as my 32" LCD), I just wanted something that fit my living environment better.

I wanted to go digital, so that left me with a small range of units to choose from too (and even less AV amps) - I intend to get my DVI output from my main PC hooked up to the TV too eventually.

Also I was treating myself after selling my house last year

I don't generally buy bleeding-edge technology either (true proof one has money to burn and doesn't mind upgrading 3 months later when second generation stuff is out) so in reality it would be way beyond next year that I would look at another tech anyway.

Thanks for the links on the new techs though, I like to read these things when I get time

[Marcos]

I still regard CRT the best quality, just wish i could get a 21" model with 100hz since anything else is too big for the bedroom. And slim CRT sounds like a great idea

[jonaslasky]

More links to pages about SED:

http://blog.sagetechnology.com/techs...01/11/278.aspx

http://blog.sagetechnology.com/techs...09/29/236.aspx

http://blog.sagetechnology.com/techs...09/02/217.aspx

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=A5&seq=27

Jonas

[KBeee]

Ahh well - I'll turn the lights down, turn up the sound, and watch a DVD on the big screen knowing I shoulda stuck with a 28" CRT cos it's sooooo much better...
Hehehehehe