Fancy gaming on the World's first 42-inch plasma with 1080 line display?

[Steven W]

Hitachi announce its 2006 plasma television line. Can't seem to find any pics, awaiting email back from Hitachi.

Check out the Press Release for more info.

[SingingOrange]

I was thinking about buying 1080p TV for my computer, I use it mainly for games and movies.

is it a good idea? assuming that I use my monitor for other tasks.

[UKMuFFiN]

yes please

[Kaine (AoD)]

I would love too >_< hehe i use a 26" widescreen at the moment which... you know... its nice... but GIEF 42" NWO PLIX!1!!!11!

[Funkstar]

the 42" panel might have 1080 lines of vertical resolution, but unless there is a mistake in the article or the press release, they aren't 1080p sets.

The 42" has a resolution of 1024 x 1080 which is not far off being half the horizontal resolution of a 1080p signal. The 55" screen has a regular resolution of 1365 x 768 which is the same as the majority of sets out there at the moment.

and here was me getting excited about a 1080p panel being released...

[ExceededGoku]

Yes please

[dave87]

Why get a 42" Plasma if you can get a 42" LCD (already available) that fully meets the 1080i/p specs? The only downside I can see is the 4-12grand price tag.

You pays your money makes your choice....

[Funkstar]

Until standing in the Panasonic shop in town for 10 minutes on saturday, i had almost convinced myself that current LCDs were just as good as plasmas. Erm...perhaps not.

They were running their HD demos on a variety of screens accross one wall, pretty impressive stuff, especially the 65" monster they had at one end. However, right next to each other they had a 42" plasma and a 37" LCD and the difference was startling.

Part of the demo was an image of an old fasioned shop sign swinging back and forth on a back background. On the LCD the text on the sign was difficult to read without really concentrating on it, the plasma however was cristal clear and you could read it as a glance.

The demo then moved onto a tropical garden scene with some Japanese text scrolling past as speed. Obviously i couldn't read it, but the LCD lacked definition on the fast moving area, where as the plasma was spot on. The static portion of the screen was almost identical on each device.

This has convinced me again that plasma is still a better picture at the same resolution.

[Betty_Swallocks]

But you have to be rich to get a plasma. You need to replace them every few years because the channel logo in the corner of the screen will burn in in no time.

[UKMuFFiN]

The TV people are combating this buy using animated logos and ones that refresh all the time or dissapear after a few seconds. but yeh, ure right i think LCD is better, is the main advantage with plasma a higher conrast ratio?

[Funkstar]

Burn-in is just as likely on a CRT screen as a plasma. so is the change in light output over time (both will bim over time). However this isn't nearly as common as it used to be. Granted it you leave it on sky news all day every day (why would you want to?!?!) you will get impressions of the ticker tape along the bottom when you switch to another channel.

Plasmas have much better contract ratios, are brighter and generally have richer colours.

Sure they are more expensive than LCDs, but, in my opinion, they have a better picture and are worth the money.

Anyway, a 65" HD plasma may be around &#163;8,000 today, but i remember what a basic 42" panel was &#163;8,000. wasn't too many years ago