Best TV picture now...?

[tellboy]

I have always thought my 36" Sony CRT set with WEGA technology which is almost impossible for two delivery people to lift on to the stand from the box was just about the best TV picture you could get and even slightly better with the digital box on.

I have just bought my Mum a LCD Flat screen Hitachi 32LD3200 because it was rated as the best buy (in What LCD and Plasma TV Magazine ). I set it up next to mine as I always run new equipment non stop for 48 hours (my burn 'em in policy ). The picture was so much better than the Sony and I have been under the impression that CRT (Cathode Ray Tube ) was still better than LCD or Plasma.

Does anyone agree ? As I might now get a Flat Screen , what do you recommend or not recommend in the LCD range. I have heard a few worrying tales about plasma so prefer LCD. Thanks .

[gary baldy]

Is this a genuine question or an excuse to brag about the size of your telly?

[Mattk]

i have also heard that lcd/plasma technology is still not an equal to crt.1 thing that is usually noticeably inferior is fast movement as lcds and plasma tend to exhibit blurring.you might want to check for that.

thats said i personally wouldnt buy a sony tv as i feel they trade on their old reputation and no longer produce products to live up to their name.my crt tv is a 100 hz toshiba costing considerably less than a sony with better features both inside and out and in stuff magazine is always in their top 2 or 3.panasonic being generally regarded as crt leaders now.

[Hippy]

Plasma / LCD screens always look flat ... by that I mean the highlights are somewhat bleached and the dark areas lacking detail ... when first switched on. There is a natural tendency to adjust the brightness and contrast during this "warm-up" time with the effect that later the settings are wrong, with the black point too high and the contrast wedge a litte narrow.

When properly set up an LCD / plasma display is better than most CRT displays in the crispness of the image and absence of geometrical distortions, but the best CRT displays score over plasma / LCD in their depth of contrast and illumination.

It is advisable to veiw LCD / plasma displays in slightly lower ambient illumination than you would provide for the equivalent CRT. This tricks the eyes, it does not improve the display one iota.

If your dispaly of whatever sort is set up well, you should be able to see the compression artefacts (like the fuzzy edges on jpeg web photos) on ITV station idents etc. quite easily if using digital TV. Because of motion blur on non-CRT displays this may not be so apparent, wheras it is glaringly obvious on CRT models.

Now as the broadcasters wish to sqeeze lots into a narrow bandwidth on Digital TV, compression rates are likely to increase with the result that the moving contrasty parts of the image wil be subject to more artefacts. However, as most of us will almost certainly be using LCD / plasma displays within the next 5 years or so, the broadcasters will be able to do this without our noticing, as by then we will have become accustomed to the motion blur that will hide the loss of transmitted resolution in just those parts of the picture.

[Gandy]

Sony's are renowned for having poor picture quality, Most of them are made under license by LG (Lucent/Goldstar) and simply sell themselves on the Sony brand. The same TV by LG would most likely be �100+ cheaper yet exactly the same. I don't mean to p!$$ on your bonfire but the 36" Wega is one of the worst to have purchased. The screen is bigger but it has the same number of pixels as the 28". They make the pixels bigger to fill the screen. Imagine looking at a TV screen through a magnifying glass and you'll get the picture (no pun intended). As far as high street TVs go Phillips Matchline or Crystal II screens are probably the best and will outlive a plasma or lcd screen.