nope, no bulb change for me..yet. they were looking at the LED DLP which doesn't really need a bulb change.
Thanks......it's a $200 difference should I get the Panasonic and save money or is the Samsung 5 worth the price difference.
I don't know what models you are looking at, but I would go with the cheaper one. but here's a good site with quality reviews http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/reviews.html
Actually I'd say the 120hz is meant to smooth out movies as well. Movies are filmed at 24hz which is divisible by 120. So no more 3:2 pulldown with frames altering. Instead each frame is shown the same amount which in turn smooths the picture. Cranking up the motion definitely makes the movies more enjoyable for me. At least blu-rays. I'd prefer to have the 120hz motion turned off for DVD's because it brings out all the flaws in them. But HD programming and blu-rays look phenomenal with it on, and look perfectly natural.
its a tough choice between technologies. but if he wants a very large screen than DLP is the way to go. if he wants to wall mount something or have something more portable than i'd go with an LCD. I have DLP-type tv, 720p and i've been very happy with it. the only reason why i'd go flat panel in the future is just to save space. but if my living room is huge, I'd get a 67inch TV.
I have a 2008 DLP and a 2008 LCD and its not even close in terms of picture quality. Its like comparing a Benz to an Accord. The Samsung LN (NOT LNT) line is amazing!
Sony and Samsung are the best when it comes to LCD's. Though Samsung plasmas are awesome as well. Pioneer and Panasonic are probably the best for plasma.
So you're telling us the LCD is much better than DLP? I am considering a DLP LED as a second HDTV because of value, but am a little skeptical due to the price difference. I believe you get what you pay for, hence LCD is superior.
In the end, what it comes down to is which do you want more? Better picture or better size? If you want size with very good picture, go with the DLP. If you want amazing picture but are willing to compromise on the size, go with the LCD. I don't know much about plasmas, so maybe someone else can fill you in on that.
that's basically what it's coming down to. I can see the quality difference it appears between the 52" LCD and the 67" DLP but a 15" difference!!!! that's huge!! so hard to say no to it.
Plasmas still are considered the best displays for picture quality, the black levels are inherently better than LCD and their viewing angles and contrast ratio. The Pioneer Elite Kuro plasmas are considered the best TVs you can buy period. However plasmas waste more energy than LCDs and are now more of niche market for high end users, sports/commercial use. Plus LCDs are considered better for video games. its just more profitable for companies to make LCDs cause you can make them in all sizes. For a large flat panel > 50 inches , Plasma is the better deal. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii.html
I'd choose the 67 if you have the space. if you were comparing similar sizes, I'd spend alittle more for the LCD, however 67 is still 67.
When you take it home, and the wife says "we could have gone with a BIGGER TV", that's when you feel all .
I'm not married , but the girl is gonna take a gander. I ALREADY know she is going to pick the 67". She likes it big . I keed I keed, but mostly she is going to pick it because she can't tell the difference in picture quality. This is a girl who picked DVD quality over Blu-ray. Her reasoning. Blu-ray was TOO sharp!!!
FWIW, I just bought the Samsung 46" 550 series LCD (got circuit city to pricematch amazon), and it's freakin awesome. 0% for 36 months is available too.
I'm assuming the DLP is better, but you tell me...I have a Mitsu Diamond, 57" and it's amazing...I have an older LCD so I can't compare....
