Christmas sale, or After Year's End sale?

[Gray_Area]

I've been out of the loop on this kind of thing. Which is better?...in particular, for a TV.

Also, I thought plasma was better than LCD, but I notice LCDs are going 'full HD', and plasmas are not.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't know where you got that idea. 

Plasma is CHEAPER than lcd, but that is the only benefit.  Actually plasmas have issues at certain altitudes and other quirks.

LED>LCD>Plasma


As for deals....  decide where you are going to buy it, check that place/site regularly.  It's really a crap shot as to when the next big sale will be depending upon the particular model you are after.  You just missed the last minute sale (monday) and there's usually other sales between the 26th and 1st as people run back to the stores to take stuff back.

[stu33]

Plasmas used to give better color reproduction, especially with blacks.  I don't know if that's true anymore, been awhile since I researched it.

[Howard_Casto]

Plasmas used to give better color reproduction, especially with blacks.  I don't know if that's true anymore, been awhile since I researched it.

That a lot to do with the screens they used to put over LCDs when they first came out... it was a dull matte  finish similar to old computer lcds.  Now they've switched to that shiny, glare resistant stuff and the colors are much better.  Ragardless, that was a limitation of LCDs... LEDS don't wash out the colors with a flourescent light, so they offer a superior color range to the other two. 


It doesn't matter anyway, as Gray_Area pointed out, it is very difficult to find a plasma with full 1080p output.  This is because plasma is a dead end tech... lcds and leds have replaced it and it is slowly being phased out.

[Rando]

Best time of the year to buy a TV is coming up to the Superbowl.  So post-New Years.

[Vigo]

Talking Price, plasma is usually best value for low cost. You can get a large plasma TV for very cheap, and it looks good. The fact that the plasmas are 720 usually doesn't always mean as much as you would think, they still look great. A cheap LCD will look like trash. It will not achieve those cinematic colors and you will have paid more for a worse looking set.

If you really want to put forth the money on a good TV, go with a nice, name brand quality LCD. It will be overall superior in every way. If you want a cheap TV and still pass as an awesome looking set, go with plasma. Also, with plasma, keep in mind it does have burn in. Nothing permanent unless you really leave it on a static image for days, but it can still get annoying with video games when you can see the HUD showing after you are done playing a game.

[pointdablame]

I've got to chime in here -- there's a lot of bad assumptions and just wrong data in this thread already.

How exactly is it hard to find a "full HD" plasma??  There is no shortage of 1080p plasma screens on the market, from a ton of reputable companies.  Go to any store, online or in person, and you will find 1080p plasmas just as you will LCD and LED.

Saying something so general as "LED>LCD>Plasma" is stupid.  There are a ton of low end and old tech LCD panels that will not hold a candle to Plasma screens.  In many ways, the tech behind it has little to do with the quality of the TV... you need to research the actual panels used in the displays and the individual picture quality of sets you're interested in.  Black levels on Plasmas are still the best, in my personal opinion, and are only recently being rivaled by LED lit LCD panels.  LCDs will typically not have black levels anywhere near Plasmas or LED.  Whether that matters to you depends on your viewing habits.  Color reproduction is an entirely different, yet related, discusson as well.  I'd say that new LED tech typically has better color reproduction than both plasma and LCD, but there are always exceptions.

Also.... in case someone chimes in here about plasma burn-in, I assure you they are about 10 years behind the time.  Burn-in is not an issue on any quality plasma panel that is watched in a typical fashion these days.  Half life of the gases is also a non-issue as you'll replace the set long before you face that problem.  Altitude issues are true, so if you're above 6000ft above sea level, don't get a plasma.

Go to a good store and find some sets you like.  More important than online opinions (including mine) and reviews, are how you perceive picture quality, especially colors.  You may find that you really like the way Sony colors look compared to Samsung, or vice versa, and you'll only notice that when you see them in person.  Most companies (and tech) have a certain "feel" to their picture quality and you need to know what looks best to you.

I've owned all 3 types of TVs, and currently have a 50" Samsung plasma (1080p) and a 46" LED.  I've owned 3 LCD (non LED) panels in the past from various companies.  You need to go check things out in person.  I personally think that Samsung's colors look "best" to my eyes so I've stuck to them.  Find what looks best to you and then look into specific models.  Compare those models against each other and against your use cases (enough HDMI ports?  proper settings?  calibration options if you're going to dig into that world, etc)

[Vigo]

Yeah, just to clarify my post, because PDB is right, plasmas come in 1080, but when I mentioned 720 plasmas, I was referring to the plasmas that are readily much cheaper than just about any equivalent LCD.

Also.... in case someone chimes in here about plasma burn-in, I assure you they are about 10 years behind the time.  Burn-in is not an issue on any quality plasma panel that is watched in a typical fashion these days.  Half life of the gases is also a non-issue as you'll replace the set long before you face that problem.  Altitude issues are true, so if you're above 6000ft above sea level, don't get a plasma.

I did chime about burn-in earlier, but I think I need to chime in more. I don't know if there is a specific term for it, but the burn-in I was talking about is very short term....Like you play a game with a static image on it for a couple hours, then watch tv. The image will ghost there for a few minutes. My wife left on a marathon of NCIS on for a whole day, and the USA channel logo burned into the screen. That took a couple days to wear off, but again nothing permanent.

[Howard_Casto]

Saying something so general as "LED>LCD>Plasma" is stupid.  

Not any stupider than claiming that plasma is in any way a wise invesment in this day and age.

Arguably they can have a better color contrast than a bargain basement bin lcd and it might be cheaper, but there are tons of negatives to owning plasma that I won't get into here.

We have to make some generalizations or else we won't be helpful.  And in general, with cost taken out of the equation LED>LCD>Plasma.


Let's put it this way, when you take 3 comparable tvs, one of them plasma, one of them lcd, and one of them led, there is a reason that the led will be the most expensive and the plasma will be the cheapest.  Sometimes you get what you pay for. 

Personally I like LCDs, right now they are in the "sweet spot" until the price of LED tvs go down.  80-90% of the consumers out there who buy a new tv buy a LCD and there is a reason for that. 

[pointdablame]

Yeah, just to clarify my post, because PDB is right, plasmas come in 1080, but when I mentioned 720 plasmas, I was referring to the plasmas that are readily much cheaper than just about any equivalent LCD.

Also.... in case someone chimes in here about plasma burn-in, I assure you they are about 10 years behind the time.  Burn-in is not an issue on any quality plasma panel that is watched in a typical fashion these days.  Half life of the gases is also a non-issue as you'll replace the set long before you face that problem.  Altitude issues are true, so if you're above 6000ft above sea level, don't get a plasma.

I did chime about burn-in earlier, but I think I need to chime in more. I don't know if there is a specific term for it, but the burn-in I was talking about is very short term....Like you play a game with a static image on it for a couple hours, then watch tv. The image will ghost there for a few minutes. My wife left on a marathon of NCIS on for a whole day, and the USA channel logo burned into the screen. That took a couple days to wear off, but again nothing permanent.

Yeah, that is called Image Retention and is very different than burn in.  Burn in is a permanent burn to the screen -- think old school rear projection TVs with Fox logos permanently burned in.

Even with modern day plasma tech, Image Retention can be seen.  If you play a game for a long stretch or keep a static screen, you will see IR for a few seconds.  In my experiences with my plasma, it's pretty rare, but it will depend heavily on how you use the TV.  When I have seen it on my set, it goes away after 10-20 seconds of displaying a different picture.  If that will bother you at all, then steer clear of plasma.

[pointdablame]

Not any stupider than claiming that plasma is in any way a wise invesment in this day and age.

If you say so Howard, after all you're always right and you love telling us all.  And in case that sarcasm isn't thick enough, there is absolutely no reason that buying a plasma with a PQ that you like isn't a wise investment.  I'd argue that your "sweet spot" LCDs are the least desirable investment right now since LED is clearly superior to LCDs and the prices are dropping

Arguably they can have a better color contrast than a bargain basement bin lcd and it might be cheaper, but there are tons of negatives to owning plasma that I won't get into here.

Why not?  Wouldn't going through this long list of negatives help the OP make a decision?  My guess is you'll mention that plasmas use a good bit more power than LCD or LED (which they do) and that like for like, they're almost certain to put out more heat than LCD/LED.  They're also heavier like for like.  That doesn't stop me from having my 50" plasma hung on a wall for 3 years with no issues though.  So what is your big list of negatives?

And color contrast and black level comparisons aren't really "arguable."  Go read up on any standardized calibrations and you'll see that only recently has LED lit LCD panels come anywhere near levels of plasma.  And color quality, as I mentioned is largely a personal matter as all sets today have a pretty good baseline color reproduction except perhaps the lowest of the low end stuff.  It's going to come down more to what colors look "right" to you.

We have to make some generalizations or else we won't be helpful.  And in general, with cost taken out of the equation LED>LCD>Plasma.

Yes because cost is rarely part of the equation when you're buying something.  Plus tech is almost irrelevant in the argument given the TV deals you can get all day long.  Best Buy has 32" LED panels for $250 and under.  They're lower end brands and may be crap for all I know, but you're not gonna find a $250 plasma easily so your point doesn't make much sense regardless.

Let's put it this way, when you take 3 comparable tvs, one of them plasma, one of them lcd, and one of them led, there is a reason that the led will be the most expensive and the plasma will be the cheapest.  Sometimes you get what you pay for. 

It will be most expensive now because it is the newest tech.  That's how it works.  Newest tech doesn't always mean the best, though as I said, LEDs are getting better and better and likely will be the better choice compared to plasmas in the long run.

Personally I like LCDs, right now they are in the "sweet spot" until the price of LED tvs go down.  80-90% of the consumers out there who buy a new tv buy a LCD and there is a reason for that. 

And that reason is price... which you said to exclude from the argument a few lines up. 

80-90% of consumers also won't bother to ask the questions asked in this thread and will just go to Walmart and buy the TV that's on sale for $199.  No one is disputing that there are MORE LCDs out there than plasmas and LEDs, so your point isn't really that surprising.  More LCDs = more LCD sales.  That's called statistics... not proof of superiority

[shmokes]

If I were buying a TV today it would hands down be plasma. Better colors. Way better blacks. WAY better blacks. The best panels you can buy today are Panasonic plasma panels (and that's only because Pioneer exited the Plasma TV market). Howard is wrong on this. And don't just take my word for it. Check out CNET's 2011 TV roundup.

That list is dominated by Plasma TVs, and you'll get lovely little quotes like this one regarding a Sony LED LCD:

One of the best-performing LED-based LCDs we've ever tested, the expensive local-dimming Sony XBR-HX929 competes well with the top plasmas.

Does that sound to you like Plasma has a problem being competitive with LCD these days?

[shmokes]

By the way, the terminology being used in this thread is bugging me. LED and LCD are not two different things (unless you're talking about OLED screens). LED TVs are LCD. They are just lit with LEDs rather than fluorescent lights. It makes for better colors. But it's still an LCD panel. To say that LED is better than LCD is like saying fuel injection is better than internal combustion when you mean fuel injection is better than using a carburetor.

[stu33]

In support of Plasma, I'd put my 4 year old 42" LG plasma (720p) up against pretty much any current-day LCD and it would compare favorably on similar content.  It can't do the 1080p feeds, but it's 720p and 1080i is amazing.

[Rando]

Some possibly outdated comments:
- Plasmas use more power
- Plasmas are heavier

When viewing sets in store, be aware that most have their colors jacked up to show brightnes, or at least the ones that they want to move at the time.  Check reviews and such before going in because what you see in the store might not be accurate when comparing picture by picture.  I like the Sony Bravia series for consistency.

Again to what I think was part of your original question, Superbowl time is best time to shop.

[SNAAKE]

here we go again. that ol plasma vs lcd......

thought plasma wins by default SIMPLY based on picture quality. thats pretty much all I care about. the most expensive and highest quality lcd monitor still cant produce the same picture quality as any random plasma tv. I am NOT watching movies on a lcd tv. yes those jaggy pixels for fast motion scenes bother me. even if its not that noticeable(Id assume really expensive lcds handle things better than the crappy ones)

just get a panasonic plasma. you'll be happy with it. 720p is good enough for 42". 1080p for anything bigger. check out slickdeals.net. I had my 42" plasma for almost 4 years and I couldnt be happier. well I could be if I can get a bigger one. I waiting for a sale or something. maybe its time for a 60" tv..

[hyiu]

I also would ask you to check out plasma tv...

a couple of my friends got Samsung 60+ inch top model, and it has amazing pic.

if I were buying for my living room, I would buy a big, high end plasma.

However, everyone has their limits, in size, budgets,... etc.

I'd say read up and listen to what others say...
but in the end, go to a store and check out the exact model before you buy...

[shmokes]

I somewhat disagree with the common wisdom of going to the store to check out a model. When you go to the store you miss very important information, like what the remote is like (which I think is a very important detail if you will actually be using the remote as opposed to something like a Harmony). You are also exposed to a great deal of misinformation thanks to the inconsistent and generally over-the-top color/brightness/contrast settings stores use on their floor display models. If you base your decision on what you see in the store, it's bound to be an uninformed decision. I think you're much better off reading professional reviews, and to a lesser extent, user reviews online.

[pointdablame]

I somewhat disagree with the common wisdom of going to the store to check out a model. When you go to the store you miss very important information, like what the remote is like (which I think is a very important detail if you will actually be using the remote as opposed to something like a Harmony). You are also exposed to a great deal of misinformation thanks to the inconsistent and generally over-the-top color/brightness/contrast settings stores use on their floor display models. If you base your decision on what you see in the store, it's bound to be an uninformed decision. I think you're much better off reading professional reviews, and to a lesser extent, user reviews online.

Don't go to best buy and stare at the wall b/c you're absolutely right then.  However, if you can find a smaller electronics store they'll usually let you adjust the tv and put on what you want to really test the picture.  I've even had good luck getting Best Buys with Magnolia theaters to let me use the TV, and they're usually set up for a much nicer viewing area.  It's still not as good as a smaller store in my experience if you have any around.

The problem with big box stores and their walls of tvs are they do oversaturate everything and put brightness way up so it "pops"  its a terrible way to look at pictures, so you definitely do need to take that into consideration.  I would never want to buy a tv just b/c I read reviews on it though.  You need to see it in person.

[jimmy2x2x]

Another vote for plasma here, my ageing pioneer set has excellent vivid life like colours and stunning inky blacks.

If I was to buy another set today I would go plasma, no doubt about it.

[wp34]

If I was to buy another set today I would go plasma, no doubt about it.

+1

I picked up a Samsung 58" Plasma last year at this time and have been very happy with it.  The picture is stunning and I would buy another in a heartbeat.

[SNAAKE]

60" zenith(rebranded LG) is on sale 800 shipped from newegg. I am THIS close to ordering one

[Howard_Casto]

I personally wouldn't waste any money on anything internet enabled.  That stuff never gets updated and inevitably is out of date in 6 months.

I've got to disagree with you on that one.  I've got a vizio via and the thing is frikkin awesome!  Mind you it isn't for everyone and many of the apps seem stupid. (Why the hell would you want to twitter from your tv?)  But the price for a non internet tv verses an internet one is negligable and the few apps that are worthwhile (tv guide, the weather channel, youtube, ect....) more than make up for the price difference. 

Also I've had it a year to this day and they have done a update once a quarter, adding a new "killer app" each quarter.  I just got my latest update last night which added youtube and skype support. 

[Well Fed Games]

I personally wouldn't waste any money on anything internet enabled.  That stuff never gets updated and inevitably is out of date in 6 months.

I've got to disagree with you on that one.  I've got a vizio via and the thing is frikkin awesome! 

Agreed. I'm not expecting the services to last forever, but TWIT (this Week in Tech), Revision 3 (Tekzilla, the Ben Heck Show), and Pandora are a real value-add to my Vizio I didn't factor in when I bought it. My only complaint is that the Netflix app only works half the time... but I am pretty sure the fault lies in the app, not the TV.

[amendonz]

boxing day here. scored a brand new 4gb xbox360 for 170nz$ ($130us) to replace the one stolen on tuesday. happy as, will get a hard drive sometime with the vouchers i have for other shops 

[SNAAKE]

boxing day here. scored a brand new 4gb xbox360 for 170nz$ ($130us) to replace the one stolen on tuesday. happy as, will get a hard drive sometime with the vouchers i have for other shops  

how where...IN STORE ONLY??

I could use some new xbox..by some I mean like 10

[amendonz]

one of the big box electronic stores here bond and bond, my step brother told me last night i hardly believed him, rocked up and sure enough, 170$ 360s

[Howard_Casto]

Nah, I've seen em for 150-130 throughout the holiday season, you just have to be on your toes.

www.dealnews.com

[Blanka]

LED>LCD>Plasma

Turn that around:
LCD>LED>Plasma.
BTW, LED is as much LCD as LCD . It just has different (read inferior) backlighting.
Give me a wide gamut CCFL backlit LCD any time. Don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about 8cm thickness on a 1m diagonal TV.
Those last generation Samsung and LG ones with Full HD, 1:3000 static contrast and wide-gamut CCFL beat the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of any modern flimsy LED piece of crap.

[shmokes]

Flimsy? What are you doing with your TV?

[Blanka]

To cross a certain width, 1/30th of the length is needed in height to have a decent stiffness. Those 1m/1cm TV's cant be made stiff. I don't do anything with them, but it just feels awkward. And 1 cm means NO CCFL.... so I'll pass.

[Gray_Area]

Regarding contrast and black levels, I've read it goes LCD CCFL, LCD LED edge-lit, LCD LED.

Mainly, this display will be for watching movies (DVD/Netflix-streamed/HDD). Depending on the black levels, I may play retro games on it.

[Blanka]

The panel is the only defining thing in black levels, and not much has gained last few years. With some newer LED-panels, you have things like local dimming, but that does not improve much. Your Pac-man is not going to gain contrast with that. But the black bars on the sides will look blacker. If that is OK, go ahead, go for local dimming LED. If you want great pixel-to-pixel contrast, just read the tests and the real world measurements. At the moment 1:3000-1:3500 is about the highest you can get from LCD. I have a 2008 wide gamut PVA-panel 27 inch 1920x1200 pixels, with 1:1500 static contrast, and I can tell you, it is about the best panel ever made in terms of contrast and colour space. They don't make 'm like that anymore . The thing goes up to 550cd/m2 (twice as much as most LED panels!), LED tv's look pale next to it and black stays black.

On the other hand, I also have a lightning fast 1:800 static 26 inch IPS screen, and that looks as good. As long as the brightness is set-up at the right level relative to the ambient light, even 1:600 can be more than enough.

[lilshawn]

just to throw a wrench into the works, i just picked up a 42" philips plasma (1080i) for $150. it was my sister-in-laws, it had a few bad caps in it, replaced them, fired right up.

swapped it for my 50" hitachi Rear projection LCD (50VS69) it's 1080i as well, the same weekend the plasma crapped out, my bulb blew (good timing)

now iv'e noticed 2 things, yes plasma is ridiculously bright and the blacks are spectacular compared to my RP but the color gamut is not as good. RP display has nice and smooth gradients.

graidents look a little banded on the plasma, where they look fine on my RP  there is a slight issue with image retention a people say with plasmas (i do game on my TV) but nothing that i could consider an issue just yet. I don't get that at all with my RP.

granted my RP was the top of the (for the end of the) line when it comes to RPTV's (has separate panels for RGB in the light engine instead of using a color wheel and a single panel nets great colors) but you'd think something newer would look a little better.

the only disadvantage to my RP is the poor viewing angles... not that i sit anywhere but center stage when playing games. 

I'd have to say that when my replacement bulb shows up, it'll be going back in it's place. maybe i'll have a 42" monitor for my computer.

[Howard_Casto]

LED>LCD>Plasma

Turn that around:
LCD>LED>Plasma.
BTW, LED is as much LCD as LCD . It just has different (read inferior) backlighting.
Give me a wide gamut CCFL backlit LCD any time. Don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about 8cm thickness on a 1m diagonal TV.
Those last generation Samsung and LG ones with Full HD, 1:3000 static contrast and wide-gamut CCFL beat the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of any modern flimsy LED piece of crap.

The backlighting IS the difference.  LCDs use a flourescent tube, which gets hot, draws a lot of power and "yellows" the colors just a tad.  The power drain puts stress on the power supply and the main cause of fault in modern tvs are bad caps on the ps.  Leds use white leds to backlight the panel for a superior color scheme and a lot less power.  The thickness of the screen doesn't really equate into it. 

I'll throw this example out there:

Take a look at a really nice xmas light display that uses white mini blubs.  That is white right?  It is beautiful right?  Now take the same display and replace some of the mini bulb strings with identical looking strings of mini led blubs.  Suddenly you realize the thing you once thought was beautiful is a yellow dog turd. 


Now do I think the difference is enough to justify the extra cost?  No not yet.... those things need to come down a bit or you need to find one on sale.  There is a farily striking difference though.  LCDs are the sweet spot atm.... that doesn't mean they are the best, but they are certainly the best value.


lilshawn:  A lcd-based RP is a equivelent of lcd tv... it just uses projection tech.  RP is a VERY good display, but as you've noticed having to replace bulbs and poor viewing angles tend to put it in another category.  I would have mentioned what you did about plasmas (poor color range) but if it was coming from me people wouldn't have believed it.  So thanks. 

[lilshawn]

lilshawn:  A lcd-based RP is a equivelent of lcd tv... it just uses projection tech.  RP is a VERY good display, but as you've noticed having to replace bulbs and poor viewing angles tend to put it in another category.  I would have mentioned what you did about plasmas (poor color range) but if it was coming from me people wouldn't have believed it.  So thanks. 

i can feel the burning already.

I'll see if i can get a decent shot of it with my camera later today. Yes, I know people aren't going to believe it... but c'est la vie, a picture is worth a 1000 words.

[shmokes]

His Plasma tops out at 1080i. How long has it been since ANY television had specs like that? 5 years? 720p, sure, but 1080i? That's an old TV. You can't base conclusions about current technology on 5 year old products.

If you don't live above 6000 feet, Plasma is king. An LCD panel that can come close to matching it (and it can only come close) will cost three times as much.

[lilshawn]

well here it is. the smoking gun for plasma

plasma: 42" philips plasma, video through HDMI

CRT: 27" citizen, video through YPbPR

photo 1 is plasma photo 2 is CRT i tried to get a tighter shot on the CRT due to the smaller size.

this is by no means any kind of scientific test.

[wizkid32]

Also, I thought plasma was better than LCD, but I notice LCDs are going 'full HD', and plasmas are not.

Please tell my you aren't listening to that darn Video Only commercial!

I've been out of the loop on this kind of thing. Which is better?...in particular, for a TV.

I'd say the after Christmas sales.  The stores want to get rid of leftover holiday stock.

[lilshawn]

does anybody really know what "full HD" is??

HD is only HD if there is something less than what is being called HD is now called HD can no longer be called HD cause A NEW HD IS IN TOWN MOFO!.
color was HD
then 720 was HD
then 1080 was HD

By that logic my computer monitor at 1920x1200 is... the new, new, "full HD"?

I'd say the after Christmas sales.  The stores want to get rid of leftover holiday stock.

this. new crap comes a rollin' in about the begining of the quarters... so January 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012 to get some good numbers in after xmas sales. sometimes they will hold off till the 3rd quarter to target summer spenders. April 1, 2012 - June 30, 2012.

edit: fixt quote

[Howard_Casto]

does anybody really know what "full HD" is??

HD is only HD if there is something less than what is being called HD is now called HD can no longer be called HD cause A NEW HD IS IN TOWN MOFO!.
color was HD
then 720 was HD
then 1080 was HD

By that logic my computer monitor at 1920x1200 is... the new, new, "full HD"?

Nope.  First off, when we are talking High Definition, we are only referring to televisions.  Computer monitors have exceeded the resolutions of HD sets ten years before they ever hit the market.  The reason wasn't technology limitations but rather limitations on broadcast bandwidth.  It's pretty hard to justify the expense of a 1080p monitor when tv is only broadcast in 480i. 

Afaik color tv was never referred to as HD. 

480p is SD or standard definition.  Anything lower can also be considered SD, but 480i is also referred to as broadcast quality because that used to be the standard resolution tv used.  Of course that term is quickly becoming obsolete. 


Anything 720i or higher is considered HD.  Understand though that 1080p sets were available alongside the first 720p sets, so a "new HD" has never been released.  1080p has ALWAYS been considered "FULL HD"  Btw, broadcast television STILL isn't in full hd.  Most broadcasts are in 1080i or 720p.  The only thing outputting 1080p would be your computer, your bluray player and your video game consoles.  Even the video game consoles rarely render the graphics in 1080p, they just output at that resolution.


So long story short, since the term HD started floating around, full hd has always been 1080p because this will be the maximum broadcasts can handle for quite some time.  Full HD would only be upped if they start chruning out higher broadcast resolutions, and since we haven't even hit 1080p yet, it could be quite some time before that happens.

The term was coined, btw, because test groups found that even though we've dealt with monitor resolutions on our computers since the mid-90's, the average consumer is too stupid to understand what a higher resolution is or means.  To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

The term HD is really abused though, not by the tv industry but by everybody else.  Computer monitors, which have been HD for YEARS are now touting a big HD sicker on the side as if that's something to be impressed by.  Video cards now tout HD graphics, when setting the display to 1080p would actually downgrade the maximum resolution of the card.

I also got a chuckle out of the HD Vision sunglasses they sell on the infomercials.  Guess what moronic consumers?  Real life is ALWAYS in HD. 

[lilshawn]

Afaik color tv was never referred to as HD. 

although not actually saying "High definition" per say, color was always toted as the newest bestest thing with gimiky names for it. True to life dat!

[Blanka]

Nope.  First off, when we are talking High Definition, we are only referring to televisions.  Computer monitors have exceeded the resolutions of HD sets ten years before they ever hit the market.  The reason wasn't technology limitations but rather limitations on broadcast bandwidth.  It's pretty hard to justify the expense of a 1080p monitor when tv is only broadcast in 480i.  

Afaik color tv was never referred to as HD.  

In Japan they had HD analog broadcasts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sub-Nyquist_sampling_encoding
It was comparable to 1080i in resolution and was full colour analog.

Computer monitors did not exceed that! Two of the first high res computer screens are the 2 page b&w Apple monitor at 1152x870 pixels in 1989 and the NextStation monitor with 4-level grayscale 1120x832 in 1990.

[wizkid32]

does anybody really know what "full HD" is??

HD is only HD if there is something less than what is being called HD is now called HD can no longer be called HD cause A NEW HD IS IN TOWN MOFO!.
color was HD
then 720 was HD
then 1080 was HD

480p (720i) is standard TV program definition.

720p (1080i) is considered high definition.  But it lacks a bit on bigger TVs.

1080p is the highest definition available, and thus "Full HD". 

Just look at the package.  If it says "Full HD", it should run at 1080p.  If it just says "HD", it will most likely only be 720p.  There is a major difference between the two, and it only gets worse as the TV size increases.  It's not to bad on a 32" or less TV, but on anything bigger than that, it will be much more noticeable.

[Howard_Casto]

Nope.  First off, when we are talking High Definition, we are only referring to televisions.  Computer monitors have exceeded the resolutions of HD sets ten years before they ever hit the market.  The reason wasn't technology limitations but rather limitations on broadcast bandwidth.  It's pretty hard to justify the expense of a 1080p monitor when tv is only broadcast in 480i.  

Afaik color tv was never referred to as HD.  

In Japan they had HD analog broadcasts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sub-Nyquist_sampling_encoding
It was comparable to 1080i in resolution and was full colour analog.

Computer monitors did not exceed that! Two of the first high res computer screens are the 2 page b&w Apple monitor at 1152x870 pixels in 1989 and the NextStation monitor with 4-level grayscale 1120x832 in 1990.

Yeah I'm aware of Japan's experiments with HD broadcasting... they were just that, experiments.  It doesn't matter anyway as the term HD hadn't been coined at that point.  Actual HD programming didn't start popping up for the mass market until the very late 90's, when the term HD started to be thrown around.  By then you could easily find a 1920x1200 monitor or a similar 4:3 based resolution.  I apologize though... that shouldn't have said "10 years" it should have just said "years"..... sometimes what I think and what I type don't sync up. 

[wizkid32]

sometimes what I think and what I type don't sync up. 

I know the feeling...   

[amendonz]

My mega drive is high def, says so right on the console

[Vigo]

My mega drive is high def, says so right on the console

Oh yeah, they do! At least the first model did. I knew I knew I heard of HD regarding TV picture for longer than just within the last 8 years or so, but couldn't think of any examples.

Who knew that roughly 1/4th of VGA resolution qualified as High Definition? 

[yotsuya]

To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

UGH!!! is right on. I get tired of buying nice 22inch widescreen monitors for people at work, only to see them switch the resolution to 800x600 or something like that to make the icons bigger. 

[lilshawn]

To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

UGH!!! is right on. I get tired of buying nice 22inch widescreen monitors for people at work, only to see them switch the resolution to 800x600 or something like that to make the icons bigger. 

 

[yotsuya]

To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

UGH!!! is right on. I get tired of buying nice 22inch widescreen monitors for people at work, only to see them switch the resolution to 800x600 or something like that to make the icons bigger.  

 

Exactly. You'd think they'd do a bit of research first or even ASK, but no.

[GibsonRiddler]

Don't forget Win-Dex will get you windows HD clean, and you can buy HD paints at Lowes.

[wizkid32]

To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

UGH!!! is right on. I get tired of buying nice 22inch widescreen monitors for people at work, only to see them switch the resolution to 800x600 or something like that to make the icons bigger. 

Personally, I just set my monitor to the highest resolution the poor old thing can handle, and then get used to it.   

[lilshawn]

To many people a high resolution just makes the icons on their desktop smaller.  (UGH!!!)

UGH!!! is right on. I get tired of buying nice 22inch widescreen monitors for people at work, only to see them switch the resolution to 800x600 or something like that to make the icons bigger. 

Personally, I just set my monitor to the highest resolution the poor old thing can handle, and then get used to it.   

i spent a few hours fixing a computer at 800x600.. then i went to my computer at 1920x1200 and i was like dayum!  , i cant see!

[Blanka]

By then you could easily find a 1920x1200 monitor or a similar 4:3 based resolution.

Yeah, My 1999 IIyama on my G4 Mac tower did a whopping 2048x1536. On a 19 inch screen (actual size 18)! OMG that meant sore eyes.... Nothing Retina about that.

[Gray_Area]

I think I'm getting distracted.

[boykster]

This thread is entertaining

[Gray_Area]

***