Home > Message Board > Articles > LCD vs. Plasma TVs

LCD vs. Plasma TVs

Posted by Admin on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

+ Share | Create New Article | Reply | Edit

LCD vs. Plasma TVs (presented by Philips)

Currently, flat TVs are created using two different technologies: plasma and Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). The foundation of the plasma TV is over a million tiny glass cells that are charged with a mixture of neon and xenon. Behind these cells are colored phosphors, which are chemical compounds that emit light when energized. Each cell has three phosphors; one red, one blue, and one green. When activated by an electrode, the plasma cells emit invisible UV light. The UV light strikes the red, green and blue phosphors on the back of the display and thus creates the pixels that form the image you see on the screen. LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) technology works differently. Liquid is suspended between two transparent panels. Within the liquid are crystals that, when activated by voltage, re-position themselves so that they either allow the light to pass through the panel and or block the light. This process is similar to turning on and off a million light bulbs. Fluorescent tubes behind the panels supply the light source. Both the lit and unlit crystals create visible pixels that cumulatively compose the image on the screen.

Pros and Cons of Each

Brightness
Brightness in LCD and plasma screens is typically expressed as candelas per square meter (cd/m2). Typically, plasmas are listed at 500-700 cd/m2, but independent reviewers say that that the brightness of plasma is closer to 100 cd/m2. Conversely, LCD TVs typically get a brightness rating of 450 cd/m2, again when measured independently.

Contrast Ratio
Contrast ratio is the measurement of the brightest white against the blackest black that the TV can create. The higher the contrast ratio, the easier it is to discern details on the screen. Current plasmas measure contrast ratios of up to 3000:1. However, independent reviewers believe that measured in real world viewing situations, contrast ratios for plasma TVs drop to approximately 200:1. Conversely, LCD TV contrast ratios range from 350-450:1 when measured using the same realistic standards.

Color Saturation
Color saturation describes the amount of grey in a color. The more grey, the lower the saturation. Plasma has the advantage over LCD in the area of color saturation because of it's method to light blocking. Plasma is able to completely turn off pixels when not in use, so that no stray light dilutes the colors. The way LCD technology works means that there is some stray light and therefore obtaining true color is difficult.

Screen Size
Right now, the plasma market offers TVs as big as 60 inches, and no plasma TV is available smaller than 32 inches. LCD screen sizes range from 13 inches to 46 inches, and because of manufacturing innovations, larger models are becoming available every year. Look for LCDs to catch up in this area soon.

Viewing Angle
Historically, plasma TVs have had a larger viewing angle, at about 160 degrees, when measured against older LCD TVs. However, the newer model LCD TVs have viewing angles up to 175 degrees.

Burn In
Burn in is what happens when an image stays on a plasma screen for an extended period of time. LCD's are not at all susceptible to burn in. While Plasma TVs are vulnerable, some newer plasma TVs have added features that combat it.

Lifespan
Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which equates to at about 20 years of usage if you have the set on for 4 hours a day. The lifespan of an LCD TV is typically 50,000 to 60,000 hours, or about 40 years running 4 hours daily.

Response Time
Response time is the amount of time, measured in milliseconds (ms), that it takes for a pixel to go from active to inactive and back to active again. Lower numbers mean faster transitions and fewer visible image artifacts. Plasma TVs were made to handle rapid movement on the screen more effectively. They can have response times as low as 15 ms. LCD TVs started as PC displays, and so the need to show fast movement wasn't critical; somewhere around 25 ms. LCD manufacturers have been steadily improving their response times as the demand for fast moving, full motion video has increased. Newer model LCD TVs can have response times as fast as 16 ms.

Power Conservation
Because the crystals in LCD TV do not produce light, the technology is labeled as "non-emissive," which means it does not give off radiation like the CRT. Cold cathode light sources, like fluorescent tubes, which use only a little power, are used to illuminate the image. LCDs also use less power than plasma televisions, because plasma requires powering hundreds of electrodes to stimulate the phosphors.

Conclusion
Knowing that flat TV is not going away, there is no time like the present to start enjoying all the advantages that these new technologies. Check out Philips line of Plasma and Flat TVs online today.

Author

Comments

Tasco

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 10:49 am:

Plasma VS LCD...........

But u did not answer which is best???

Admin

Moderator

Username: Admin

Post Number: 128
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:08 pm:

Need more info? Get more HDTV articles here:
http://www.ecoustics.com/Home/Home_Video/TV/TV_Articles/

Michel

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 08:21 pm:

I was recently told that plasma technology will be abandonned and that th true technology of the future is LCD. Does anyone know which is which?

Alan Smithie

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:23 pm:

I'd be surprised if I didn't know the source. Philips is a huge LCD producer, so which technology do you think they are going to claim is better? This article is a joke. Even the former head of Panasonic's flat panel display division, Webber, wrote in a recent article that very nearly all the articles written on LCD vs. Plasma are based on misconceptions and flat out wrong data. Webber is one of the guys who invented plasma displays, and he is very widely respected in both LCD and plasma engineering circles.

Fact: LCD can only reproduce 16.7 million colors, whereas plasma can exceed this figure by the billions.

Fact: LCDs do not last any longer than plasmas. In fact, plasma displays use less power because they are comprised of individual lighted pixels which operate at varieties of temperature, and are not always on as the entire LCD panel must be.

Fact: LCDs are brighter in bright viewing environments only because they are shipped with their brightness levels turned all the way up. Any display (including plasmas) will look just as bright if you turn their brightness controls way up.

Fact: LCD panels reproduce vastly inferior gray scale levels, which means that darker scenes contain less detail. Contrast = detail. Put an LCD in a dark room, and they will appear gray, not black. Plasma displays will always produce much higher contrast levels and more detail in dark areas of the picture.

Fact: the larger an LCD panel is, the more expensive it is. Thus, LCD panels larger than 40" are exceedingly rare, whereas plasmas are exceeding 70" in scale. Bigger is better, everyone knows that!

Fact: every major electronic brand is producing plasma displays as their high-end televisions, and LCDs as their entry-level. Why would they invest that sort of money into a technology that will soon be abandoned?

Fact: LCDs experience color shifting and contrast loss when viewed off angle. An LCD manufacturer can claim all he likes that his LCD has 170 degrees of viewing, but who cares if the picture falls apart? Plasmas do not suffer from this failure.

Fact: consumer LCDs pixel refresh rate is still around 11 ms, versus 4 ms in a plasma, meaning that high-speed action on the plasma will remain true, whereas jaggies and occasionally the complete loss of a fast-moving object will occur on LCDs.

Fact: LCDs are less resistent to burn-in than plasmas are. LCDs CAN suffer burn-in in their front filters if a static image is back-lit at a high enough brightness level for long enough. It's hard to do, but it can be done. Current plasma televisions are less likely than previous generations at suffering burn-in. This will continue to improve. Any display can be burned in if you try hard enough.

These are only a few nails to blow out the tires of this sad argument. I'm certain many of you will argue against what I have posted here, and feel free to. But if you would only simply do the freakin' research instead of listening to these "know-it-alls" who skew the facts, then you'd better understand that certain manufacturers are no different than politicians when it comes to the spin zone.

LCDs have their place in the industry, sure. As computer displays, not as high-end video displays. Yes, eventually some day plasma will probably be supplanted by technologies such as OLED (or OEL), but those are still far off.

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:03 am:

Quote - Alan

"Fact: consumer LCDs pixel refresh rate is still around 11 ms, versus 4 ms in a plasma, meaning that high-speed action on the plasma will remain true, whereas jaggies and occasionally the complete loss of a fast-moving object will occur on LCDs. "

And Id like to see where you egt that info.

The fastest LCD Rising AND Falling, complete response time for a LCD is around 16 Ms.

Plasma I dont know but 4 ms is way of base.

You obviously have not been in the presence of a high quality LCD display as Ghosting and 'jaggies' are a think of the past.

High Paced gaming is faster than your standard TV program and none of what you describes occurs in a decent LCD screen. Jaggies only occur when you run your LCD outside of its native resolution which for TV display shouldnt be an issue as its static anyway.

Brian Mitchell

Diamond Member

Username: Ecoustics

Fairfax, VA
USA

Post Number: 184
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 04:59 pm:

The confusion over LCD and plasma flat-panel TVs stems from these points.

1) Conflicting manufacturer claims of plasma/LCD superiority
2) Incorrect information from the press/media
3) Non-standard manufacturer specifications for apples to apples comparisons
4) Technological advancements are improving faster than the media can get the information out
5) Overall consumer confusion

Sharp is the current leader in LCD flat panel TV market. Due to the high cost of producing large LCD displays, many manufacturers are teaming up like LG (Zenith) & Philips, Hitachi, Toshiba & Matsushita (Panasonic), and Sony & Samsung.

In the plasma display panel (PDP) arena, Forbes reports the market leader is Panasonic, followed by Sony and Pioneer.

Both technologies are very good and both have strengths and weaknesses. At smaller sizes (less than 30-inches) LCD is less expensive and offers higher resolutions.

On the other hand, flat panel plasma displays are now offered in a range of sizes up to 71-inches! Plasma TVs are currently cheaper to buy at the same comparable LCD size (above 30-inches).

Both technologies continue to evolve and will get even better than they are now. Plus prices are expected to continue to drop. To definitively say which technology is better, suddenly becomes a debate of theoretical and technical details.

When making any comparisons, it's best to examine each model, and determine what your needs and intended uses are.

Seth J.

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 02:55 pm:

Alan Smithie...not that the coward will read this, but it's nice to know he had the guts to stick his real name beside his claims and not some pseudonym that filmmakers use when they're ashamed of their movie. Maybe there's a parallel there.

The point is, none of these stats can tell those of you in the market for a high-end TV anything. Do the research, of course. Before purchasing my LCD, I read as much as I could about the two technologies. It would have been easy to go with the "bigger is better" approach and buy a larger plasma for less, but the fact is, when I was standing in Best Buy staring at the possibilities, the LCD just looked better to me.

This is all that matters. Which looks better to you? For me, bigger is NOT better. I wanted a crisp, detailed image with plenty of viewable contrast and smooth color rendition. The plasma felt very warm to me, but the LCD just looked so much more precise. Plus, it doubles as my computer monitor now. And as far as the viewable angle, 90% of the time it's just me watching the screen. Do I care if the colors shift when viewed from the sides? No. Others may feel differently, though.

Bottom line, do the research, but trust your instincts. After all, whatever you buy must make YOU happy first and impress your friends second.

Anonymous

Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:47 am:

"Fact: LCDs are less resistent to burn-in than plasmas are."

Wow. Overreaching much, Smithie-boy? Your logic is that an LCD could MAYBE be deliberately burned IF you worked at it, and plasmas now have some amount of resistance, so LCDs are therefore "less resistant."

And LCDs are brighter because they are shipped with the brightness turned up? All televisions are shipped with the brightness up. LCDs actually ARE much, much brighter.

FACT: You're insanely biased and your facts are fiction.

Anonymous

Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 01:18 pm:

Here is my confusion...

Price wise, a 42" plasma is the same as a 50"-55" Sony rear projection LCD TV.

I would buy the rear projection LCD in a hearbeat but my MAIN concern is the image blur for high speed action.

brewsterlewster

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 10:46 am:

If you have half a brain for technology or half a heart for the environment (your childrens' future) then LCD wins hands down. Why put compact flourescents in your fixtures and then put a power hungry monster on your wall? The extra dollars per month are also better to spend on beer for the game watching!

go go ROCK

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 01:21 pm:

PLASMAS AND LCDS RULE!!!!!! i CANT CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!!

steve lambert

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 02:36 am:

I once saw a dog lick a 32" lcd because it had another dog on it. enough said.

Mike Chandler

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 04:11 pm:

LCDs give off no radiation and have a much longer life than plasmas by up to 30 thousand hours, thats all that matters to me as I just watched a plasma and a LCD and were both of the same great quality.

Bob Stevens

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:30 am:

My dog also once licked my 55" LCD because it had another dog on it. That sure is enough said, so get your facts right, and your underware out of a bunch!

tdr

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:45 am:

Fact: LCD can only reproduce 16.7 million colors, whereas plasma can exceed this figure by the billions.

You must be superman if your eyes can distinguish more than 16.7 million colours. What a pointless statement.

About the only point you mention with any noticeable impact on peformance of LCD is that the picture on an LCD is backlit, and raises the black level in a dark room. As LCDs are brighter than plasma this does not effect the relative contrast ratios, but could be annoying if you watch a black screen in a dark room I guess.....

Fact: the larger an LCD panel is, the more expensive it is. Thus, LCD panels larger than 40" are exceedingly rare, whereas plasmas are exceeding 70" in scale. Bigger is better, everyone knows that!

The larger any panel is, the more expensive it is! LCD technolgy price is coming down and will eventually eclipse Plasma.

Fact: consumer LCDs pixel refresh rate is still around 11 ms, versus 4 ms in a plasma, meaning that high-speed action on the plasma will remain true, whereas jaggies and occasionally the complete loss of a fast-moving object will occur on LCDs

11ms equates to 90 frames a second - far faster than th eeye can distinguish. Your supposed symptoms are complete bull - 'complete loss of a fast moving object' - yeah right...

Fact: LCDs are less resistent to burn-in than plasmas are.

Uhhhm - no way. Plasmas are MUCH easier to burn in.

Fact: LCDs are brighter in bright viewing environments only because they are shipped with their brightness levels turned all the way up. Any display (including plasmas) will look just as bright if you turn their brightness controls way up.

Again no. LCDs are much brighter when compared to Plasma when both are turned to maximum.

Fact: LCDs do not last any longer than plasmas
Uhhhmm yes they do - about twice as long on average.

Best Buy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 05:16 pm:

Fact: I work at Best Buy. I like both the same.

Fact: since it's my job to stare at the latest and greatest HDTV plasmas and LCD tv's I can tell you that LCD does tend to get a bit choppy during Fast moving programs, ie football or car racing events.

Fact: plasmas do have better color, but LCD's are not far behind. AND YES YOUR EYES CAN DESTINGUISH BETWEEN 3 BILLION COLORS AND 16.7 MILLION.

Fact: LCD's DO last longer and you can replace the bulbs in them, BUT if you have half a brain and buy a good quality plasma you wont have to replace it for at least 30,000 hours. If you watch this much tv you need help and a hobbie. At 5 hours a day 356 days a year it would take 16.4 years to kill the plasma

Fact: manufacturers are now testing their newer plasmas for 60,000 hours.the average person replaces their tv after 7 years.

Fact: Any good plasma has anti burn in features that can be utilized through your settings. This does not eliminate burn in but makes it

This said I will be waiting about 3 more months before i buy a new HDTV bucause i want to see if the LCD's will be improved to the point where fast move ment dosnt make them jitter.

Conclusion: Plasma is better for over all viewing pleasure and quality. LCD is better for reliabuility and isnt far behind. JUST GO TO YOUR LOCAL BEST BUY OR OTHER RETAILER AND WATCH THEM SIDE BY SIDE. Hanve an open mind, It's not like politics, just get which ever fits your needs and which one looks better

P.S. you can get LCD monitors as big as 52 inches now.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 1
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 07:27 am:

"Fact: plasmas do have better color, but LCD's are not far behind. AND YES YOUR EYES CAN DESTINGUISH BETWEEN 3 BILLION COLORS AND 16.7 MILLION. "

I believe that tdr said that the eye couldn't percieve ABOVE...A..B..O..V..E 16.7 million colours (i don't know about telling us which screen is best. You aught to get ya eyes tested first)

"Fact: manufacturers are now testing their newer plasmas for 60,000 hours.the average person replaces their tv after 7 years"

And...? Doesn't matter how long these screens are tested, what matters is how long it takes for the screen to lose quality isn't it?

"Fact: LCD's DO last longer and you can replace the bulbs in them, BUT if you have half a brain and buy a good quality plasma you wont have to replace it for at least 30,000 hours. If you watch this much tv you need help and a hobbie. At 5 hours a day 356 days a year it would take 16.4 years to kill the plasma "

Ok...so if someone who cannot afford a more expensive screen chooses one of lesser quality then they're stupid right? Ignorant, arrogant git!
and what's with all this "FACT!!" s**t? By your own admission you only work as a sales person in best buy, so stop making out as if you're some kind of genius authority n the subject. How old are you by the way? you sound about hmmm 18 or 19? L..O..S..E..R

Nelson Trick

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 09:36 pm:

Great arguments! Kudos to "Alan Smithie" heh..heh for getting a good discussion going. Everybody else just chipping away at his armour. He must be da Man! Here's my two cents:

FACT: Television is a profound part of the daily lives of people around the world over just as much as automobiles. Undeniable. Like all auto manufacturers the makers of plasma TV's utilize a component that auto manufacturers have used for decades: planned obsolescence. Why not? It's better if people buy a new set every three to five years. They do it with cars. Take advantage of improvements in technology and give the economy a boost. Nobody wants to make stuff that lasts forever anymore. Japan talks about this openly.

AlexZ

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 01:14 pm:

It seems like a cat and dog fight over here. Somebody was just trying to put their thoughts in written form and here we go, got a world-famed boxing match about deciding whichever is best, LCD or Plasma, I work at Sears and sell HDTV's there, from time to time people buy Plasmas more if they have a family, if they enjoy watching TV by themselves they take the LCD's. Figure out which one looks better to you and just buy it, it doesn't matter which is better to others, what matters is which looks better to you and your interests.

Drift wood

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 02:55 pm:

Great show boys, but thanks for all the advice. I was just passing through, and have been trying to deside which is best.

I was miss informed that the plasma would only last 5 years, but what i have jus read has given me great hope.

As for what is best LCD, or Plasma, all those who say that the choice is with the viewer get my vote.

I can remember when DVD frist came out at �400 to �1000, and all the magazines were comparing this with that, trying to find the best benchmark etc. to compare them. Now the they cost �25 do 3 times as much as when they first came out, and people are not so much as comparing the product as, what is being viewed on the product.

The moral is think what you are going to use it for, not the technology behind it, because in 6 months time it will be outdated.

Have a good time, i'm going out to get me self a 45" Plasma

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 2
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 03:21 pm:

Dixons are selling a 42" Techwood plasma tv for �1299. This made me a little suspicious, (if something seems to good to be true etc...). Anyway, I searched the net for peoples comments and found quite a few topics on this particular model which were basically complaining about how bad the picture quality is. Has anyone seen this screen and if so, would you recommend it or not? Also, when Plasma TVs are transported does it take a while for the picture to correct itself as this was also suggested in some posts?

Cheers guys

Kylez

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 09:39 pm:

The Sharp Aquos is the best picture I have seen. The $20,000 Plasma at Fry's Looks good and I think it better at that price, (SONY 60 or 70).Do the manufacturers send people on these sites to tell us lies? I have not seen 1 HDTV yet that actually gets rid of the pixalization and fuzzy's.

Anonymous

Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 10:16 pm:

This is one of the most outspoken forums I've seen! Lots of opinions, but also alot of substance. My question: should I buy the Panasonic rear projection PT43LC14 LCD TV or the NEC plasma 42XR3? Street price difference is $1800 vs. $3800, respectively. Both have HDTV native resolutions, display 480p, 720p, and 1080i, and fit my needs for screen size. The Panasonic has an integrated HDTV receiver but DirecTV doesn't support squat in HDTV anyway and DVDs aren't much better. I'd really like to hear from this crowd on what you think.

Erik A.

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 10:10 pm:

Anyone own a Hitachi 42V715 LCD projection TV? I haven't seen it up close, but it is well reviewed. Do LCD TV's last?

TJ Guy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

so many of the affordable Plasmas are EDTV's only the most expensive of units is HDTV....your own research should bare this fact.

I have seen so many people at Best buy or Futureshop googling over a plasma....and that's when I gently inform them that they are looking at an EDTV....sure plasmas can be cheapish....but that's because they are incredibly limited. I find the dithering of some plasma's distracting....though I can't lie....one of the nicer tv's I have seen was a 14,000$ pioneer....but again it was 14,000.
O
Opinion: LCD's look fantastic and generally have more pleasing characteristics. And at any reasonable size are always HDTV.

Look closely the next time you look at a (3000$ Canadian) plasma....it ain't always HD

BTW I have heard (I do not offer fact) that Plasma's fade over time....so they will not look exactly the same at thier service limit as they did brand new. Phosfors do "wear out"

LCD's can get stuck pixles but they are otherwise extremely consistant over their lifetime

Excuse the spelling :-)

Slade C

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 05:52 pm:

Are all employees of BestBuy, CC, CompUSA, and Tweeters getting the same Manufacturer's reps training them? Or, are you so overstocked in plasmas you have no choice but to ignore what the consumer wants?

"...Like all auto manufacturers the makers of plasma TV's utilize a component that auto manufacturers have used for decades: planned obsolescence. Why not? It's better if people buy a new set every three to five years. They do it with cars. Take advantage of improvements in technology and give the economy a boost. Nobody wants to make stuff that lasts forever anymore. Japan talks about this openly."

(First I want to thank everyone for their insight. These are interesting TV times)

The above philosophy is the one I find most common when I talk to salespeople at BestBuy, Circuit City, and even Tweeters; it is a flawed philosophy along with a flawed analogy.

First, what the industry turnover rate considers is only TVs purchased. I, along with everyone I know, may purchase a tv every 6-8 years, but not because we have no tv. A big part of the purchase is deciding what room will I put the old TV in.

Like a lot of us, I have a 10+ year old tv sitting in another room, mine is in the playroom and my kids use it for television and playstation and it used to be our primary television. We don't buy new TVs because we lost our other one, we are usually just ready for something with new technology and features. The old tvs are still good and operational.

The failed analogy part is the car industry, sure people on average buy a new car every 3 to 4 years, but not because their old one is dead. They trade in, sell, give to their kids, or use it as the "other" car.

I am one of those that believe consumers still have a hand in the tides of industry and the last thing we should do is bow down to the idea that its okay to spend 3k+ every 5 years on something that will no longer work, not that its obsolete (My 10+ year 27inch JVC is considered obsolete but still works great) In the case of Plasmas we are talking about death, are we not?

I am a middle class consumer and the idea that a brand new television won't have the same chance of sitting up in my playroom in 10 years still going strong certainly does bother me, especially when spending this kind of money.

When I went to CC, BESTBUY, and even Tweeters, I found they pushed Plasmas and said, "ahh, it'll last eight to ten years like the rest of em, you'll want a new one anyway." And the guy from Tweeters actually told me that all this Plasma negativity are wive's tales.

Well, I did my research like all of us and it comes out that the major resources: PCWORLD types, and ConsumerRep types, along with other internet ratings and reviews tell me different. Reviews tell us the life expectancy of an LCD is much higher, furthermore you should be able to change the bulb and it will last another 50k hours. That's better than a CRT can claim.

Longevity is reliability and where I come from reliability is quality. Don't let the salespeople and those hometheater consultants blurr the definition of quality. It is the same in most industries, save cell phone, food service, and prescription drugs. )

Stimulate the economy by being a smart consumer and don't just sit back and enjoy the light show when the band sucks. Plasma has its pluses and certainly is the Wow technology, but it won't ever be the CRT that sits in the attack and still works in the event of an emergency. LCD appears to have that potential.

As for the other arguments for or against Plasma and LCD: contrast ratios, color, viewing angles, etc. They are up to the viewer.

I vote for reliability and patience: in 3 months that 45" LCD could go from $6k to $3k

Gregg

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 03:06 pm:

Just Curious, As a Gamer, I feel the fact that Plasma TVs suffer from burn-in. Putting a damper on gaming as the same images are there at all times, for example Radar and health in Halo 2.

Would it not be best to go for an LCD?

stox723

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 04:16 pm:

OK I read ALL of the writings and responses.
First of all, the life of the technology is not what's important. It's the half-life that counts. Why? Because it's how fast the colors and brightness deteriorates. LCD does have a longer half-life which means it will stay brighter longer.
That being said, I feel that from what I've seen in viewing both LCD and Plasma in larger sizes (above 30") I feel that price would be the factor that would lead me one way or the other.
Lastly, I totally discount anyone's comments above who mock or deride any other writer. It shows that their being right is a personal thing with them, and their immaturity discounts their information.

mike_ rfc

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 01:22 pm:

try the panasonic 42 inch plasma from richer sounds only �1500, and possibly the best plasma going, much better than the techwood!

Christina

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:22 pm:

Having considered the pros and cons, I will likely be buying a plasma tv. However, I will be moving to another city in several months, and I'm wondering if the plasma tv is any more delicate to move (by professional movers) than other televisions. I know this sounds like a dumb question, but do I need to be concerned about this?

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 3
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:56 am:

I can't understand how some people say the picture quality on plasma tv's is as good as lcd. I've scoured shite loads of electronics shops and it seems obvious to me that lcd is streets ahead!! Am i missing something 'cos plasmas just seem really grainy.
Also is anybody a little suspicious by the suddden and dramatic drop in the cost of plasma tvs? If you ask me it looks like a clearance sale in advance of bigger (and better) lcd screens.

ps. Don't listen to anyone who claims to work in an electronics shop as they're probably giving you the same rubbish they're told to give customers in order to get shut of that plasma rubbish.

pps. do you realise it can cost up to �300 to have your plasma fitted to the wall? geeeezus!!!

Kine

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:58 am:

It seems to be some people here with interest and knowledge about this subject, so I will try to get som help from you, hope that is OK

I am looking at to different monitors to use wit my HTPC;

LG plasma XGA

or

LG LCD 1366* 768

I have read this thread, but I am not able to make up my mind.

It will be used mostly for watching TV and DVD, but also som PC use.

I really would like it if someone would share their opinion on this

Mike Callaghan

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 08:38 am:

I think the future is DLP. Period.

justthefacks

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:44 am:

ok, lets cut the bollocks!
I've got �2000 to spend on a 26-32" tv
I've got sky+ & a pioneer DVD
So what is it then LCD or plasma

Also, on the subject of response time (toshiba 26wl46b) LCD has a time of 10 milli seconds

This is 100 times a second or 100 Hz
twice as fast as most CRT tv's (50 Hz)

and movies are shot at 24 frames a second or every 41 milli seconds

so can someone explain how juddering comes about or is that complete bollocks?

Chalmette

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 08:47 am:

I have seen identical monitors on showroom floors with different looking picture quality. The tv settings may be different, the placement of the sets near other elecronic devices may cause interference, store lighting may be a factor, etc. Many factors may play a role in how it looks on the shelf. Walking from one set to another on the showroom floor to determine which one 'looks' better, doesn't necessarily work. Fact is, the explosion in technology in both lcd and plasma is making both better all the time. I don't think you can make a determination for yourself as to which is better unless you buy one of each and keep them for five years, constantly monitoring the minute nuances of each, instead of enjoying your favorite tv show. A more practical solution (imo) is to cough up 26 bucks for a year's subscription at www.consumerreports.org and arm yourself with an unbiased and objective comparative analysis of available products, before you drive out to your local BestBuy. Neither the claims of manufacturers who will understandably tout their product as the best thing since sliced bread, nor the claims of retailers who may be overstocked in what they are pushing, nor your gut instinctive judgment on a showroom floor, can be very reliable. Do your homework. If you're a working stiff like me, a large-screen lcd or plasma monitor can make a sizable dent in your budget, and you'll likely have to live with your choice for several years.

Mister Teevee

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 05:40 pm:

~
~
LCD and Plasma (and even CRT) each have their strengths and weaknesses, so it's definitely like comparing apples and oranges (apple juice versus orange juice, apple pie versus orange pie).

~~~

One thing that is certain is that LCD, no matter how tight the refresh rate, always has a "smearing" lag effect when fast-moving images are on the screen. It's not too noticeable on the better LCDs, but compared with CRT and plasma, you can see that LCD is inferior in that respect. CRT and plasma have no motion smearing.

~~~

HOWEVER, even though LCD has motion smearing, it has no flicker because of its backlight. LCD has the most stable image by far, which gives the illusion that images are really there. CRT and plasma both have flicker. (But think about it--film at your local theater has the worst flicker of all--48 flickers per second, or two lightbulb flicks per frame!)

~~~~

EVEN THOUGH the color fidelity on LCD is good, when you compare it to CRT and plasma, the colors aren't so accurate. In high-end photo retouching and movie effects studios, all of their computers still use clunky calibrated CRTs specifically for this reason. LCD is never used in a serious studio. Plasma's color rendering rivals CRT.

~~~~

ON THE OTHER HAND, LCD has the crispest and sharpest image compared to CRT--and Plasma is even less crisp.

~~~

My conclusion:
If you're a film buff and have a progressive DVD player and want to have a "film-like feel," go with plasma. The true-to-frame progressive motion makes plasma a treat. The killer for LCD is the motion-smearing effect that will detract from the film-like feel. The plasma's flicker may be annoying, but real film has an even more strobe-like unstable flicker anyway. (this is why they were nicknamed "flicks")

If sharper, more stable images are more important than recreating a film-like experience, go for LCD. LCD is far easier on the eyes for extended viewing. This is a good choice for someone who watches a lot of TV rather than movies on a DVD player. (Also, this is why LCD is a good choice for computer users who do a lot of typing and reading)

~~

Both plasma and LCD have their strengths and weaknesses, but we can all agree that both technologies look pretty slick and a lot cooler than our old-fashioned CRT sets.

I hope I've been helpful.

MISTER TEEVEE

Mister Teevee

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 06:20 pm:

~
~
Just to clarify--traditional movie film runs at 24 images per second. At the theater, the shutter light on the film projecter flickers a light twice for each image, then moves on to the next frame. (So that's 48 flickers [Hz] per second)

MISTER TEEVEE

Anonymous

Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 03:55 pm:

In early 2001 I purchased a Fujitsu 42" EDTV Plasma screen. Two months ago it failed. After three different diagnoses of the cause, we're now told the screen has failed. At the very most, this screen had 6500-hours of use as a video receiver, always in an air conditioned environment. Do others have similar experience? Where can one find data by manufacturer concerning lifetime of plasma screens?

real estate guru

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 05:52 pm:

Well I am no big bux spender but I bought a Dell 17" LCD that I could also use in a conference room as a secondary monitor for clients. I don't know what the criticism about "smearing" or jerking of the picture is all about. The LCD was a superior price and is superior quality. I also use it as a video display and leave it on in my business at night. No burn-in worries. For what I'm using it for, the LCD has the best functionality and picture quality.

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 11:09 pm:

Both screens are very good. When compared under the exact same condition, they both will perform very well. LCD tvs do have a smearing effect when fast images move by. They are getting better however. Good quality plasma displays will last about 30000 hours of strait use BEFORE they loose noticable quality.
PS to that guy who bought the Fujitsu Plasma, the most likely cause was the short lifespan of screens at that time. Now they last much longer. Besides, buy a Sony and get a real quality tv.

ShamrockKid

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 11:54 pm:

I have $4000 to spend on a new TV. I don't know anything (well . I've learned allot in the last 10 minutes reading the above) so here a couple of questions.

4K to spend. 42 inchest seems to be the ideal size. Best Buy? Tweeter? Online? What is recomended? Thanks for any info.

Rev. Marcus Capone

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 01:38 pm:

Is there any truth to the rumor that the plasma needs to be replaced after a few years?

Harry Drexel

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 12:09 am:

I agree with Mike C.'s prediction that the future of wide screen home HDTV television might be DLP. It's improved greatly in the last couple of years and while it's a second class technology it is the most workable in an everyday world. It's easily repaired and upgraded and can last for years. Components can be upgraded like people add and upgrade computer parts and accessories. If they can only make it as rich as plasma and bring down the weight and bulk it would be the wisest TV buy.

Guest

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 12:16 pm:

-Still picture quality: LCD has higher resolution than plasma, especially when not watching an HDTV program.
-Motion quality: LCD's blur a little, but i've played computer games on mine, and they go much faster than what you'd watch on tv, and there's hardly any blurring
-Colors: Plasma has more colors, but once u have 16.somethin MILLION of em, u've got most of the possibilities covered
-Size: Plasmas can be made for the same price at any size because the individual cells can be made bigger, but this hurts the picture quality because if the pixels are bigger, it would look good from a distance, but it would also look like a small tv
-Contrast: Unless u like to stare at a "black" screen in a dark room, the darkest a tv goes doesn't make too much difference
-Burn in: Plasmas are much more susceptible to burn in, and if u get a widescreen tv u probably r gonna have the two black bars on the side of it when watching a normal program, and those will definitely burn in because they are always going to be there. But LCD's won't burn in

I think both technologies are very good, with Plasmas getting the edge in watching fast paced movies, because then they recieve a high definition signal from the dvd player and will have a crisp picture with no lagging, and the whole screen will be used so there will be no bars to burn in, but LCD's get my vote when watching something like college football that is not broadcast in HD and has small images that need high detail.

capint

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 03:38 pm:

Just seen J-Lo on the #1299 techwood plasma in dixons, fed from a mid price dvd player. Can only say the picture was excellent, very smooth, bright and no blurring with fast movement. Nearby lcd's looked very grainy by comparison. A #6000 Sony plasma in the Sony shop looked very inferior by comparison. The source seems to make more difference than the screen. Often the cheaper option is the best, particularly when such a fast moving technology is involved. Much easier to write off a #1300 tv after 5 years than a #6000 one.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 4
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 08:17 pm:

It seems to me that alot of people seem to be making a big thing over lcd screens smearing during fast paced action. If this is the case, then can somebody explain to me why there is no noticable lag/smearing effect on my pc tft monitor when playing fast moving games which surely test such a screen more than movies do?This point has as yet not recieved any kind of adequate explanation, and in fact i have read specialist reviews which make this point in favour of LCD screens and as a rebbutal against the arguments of die hard plasma enthusiasts.
People also tend to be very biased in their opinion, mind you i suppose it's human nature that if you've spent 2000+ on a plasma/LCD TV then you're going to want to convince yourself (and others) that you've chosen the very best technology for your dollar. The moral of the story?...If you want advice on the pros and cons of this technology, go and buy a specialist magazine or visit a specialist site where you're goin to get honest, unbiased (and exaggerated) advice.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 5
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 08:19 pm:

Ps. the other option, (as pointed out earlier by a couple or wise souls) is go to an elecal store and judge for yourself.

Jim Ellis

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 08:18 am:

Very interesting and technical posts. But all I want to know is which one, plasma or LVD, is in colour.
Will either work with an indoor set top ariel?
If wall hanging, does it matter if it is a north or south facing wall?
Is the slot for the money on the top or at the side?
If they are so slim, where do the speakers fit?

Jim Ellis

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 08:22 am:

Some other advice please, where can I buy a keyboard which has the C and V keys reversed - then I could properly write LCD instead of LVD for my previous post.

Toilet Paper

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 02:30 pm:

There are many misconceptions here, mostly on the LCD side. LCD marketers are stringing you along. At least plasma companies don't flat out lie to people and write "unbiased" jargon like this Philips crap we are discussing.

First: LCDs have organic elements in the material outside the screen that can wear and have a burn in effect. The wear is usually caused by heat or running your bulb at the highest setting for the entire lifespan. The light from the bulb has to be diffused by something! Otherwise you would have hotspots in the final picture. Do a search on the net, there are a few instances. Email the manufacturer and ask if they will cover burnin under warranty. They won't.

Second: LCD bulbs are replacable, but at a cost that can exceed the original price of the unit. There are also more than 10 bulbs in the average sized units.

Third: More pixels doesn't equal a better picture for television. You have to scale the signal to a rediculous resolution. It does come in handy with photos though.

Fourth: The lifespan of LCD depends on your bulb setting. This holds true for plasma as well. If you bump the contrast all the way up you drive the panel harder.

Fifth: Good plasmas are significantly less prone to burn in. The better the panel the less chance of burn in.

Sixth: The more colors that can be reproduced the better. LCD has a more cartoonish look to the primary colors because it doesn't render shades very well. Also, LCD is a light filtering technology, so your end result will never be as good as a technology that actually creates RGB light.

All in all don't listen to manufacturers. Look for yourself.

LCD will usually look better with still graphics and less critical sources. Great for the kitchen and less videophile oriented people.

Plasma will usually look better with fast motion and colorful images. More videophile technology, but you have to spend more to get the good stuff.

DLP is ok, but suffers from its own set of unique problems. Mostly that it is still too expensive for a second rate technology based on an optical illusion (Single chip).

Buy based on what you watch. Voice your opinion on facts. Leave the rumors for the watercooler.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 6
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 01:05 pm:

Well....that's it, 'Toilet Paper' has the final word and he's obviously completely and unarguably 100% correct since he 'voices his opinion on facts', (the words pompous and superiour spring to mind here) so we might as well leave it there and go home.

"First: LCDs have organic elements in the material outside the screen that can wear and have a burn in effect. The wear is usually caused by heat or running your bulb at the highest setting for the entire lifespan. The light from the bulb has to be diffused by something! Otherwise you would have hotspots in the final picture. Do a search on the net, there are a few instances. Email the manufacturer and ask if they will cover burnin under warranty. They won't."

And then he goes on to say....

" Fifth: Good plasmas are significantly less prone to burn in. The better the panel the less chance of burn in. "

So my question is:... Is he trying to imply that somehow LCD screens are more prone (or even AS prone) to burn in??

"Second: LCD bulbs are replacable, but at a cost that can exceed the original price of the unit. There are also more than 10 bulbs in the average sized units. "

Er... is this REALLY true?

Does this fella have a plasma screen i wonder? No no, of course not. He's not biased in any WAY.

"All in all don't listen to manufacturers,(OR DIE HARD PLASMA ENTHUSIASTS/OWNERS). Look for yourself."

Couldn't have said it better myself, (oh i did didn't i)

Toilet Paper

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 04:24 pm:

Nice try peter, but you are WRONG!

For the record, I am not a plasma enthusiast. I actually own an LCD projector at home that I purchased while in Japan. I also own stock in the third largest LCD panel manufacturer.

It pisses me off when I see manufacturers marketing pieces of information that aren't true. No LCDs are not as prone to burn in as plasma. If you operate it at the lowest bulb rating, then nothing will happen at all. When people jack the bulb brightness setting up it increases heat which wears the organic elements within LARGER TFT flat panels. Computer monitors are designed a little different and don't need as an aggresive polarization technique. So tell me Peter, which is better compensating for possible burn in, or going into a situation blindly and ruining your nice pretty 5k television.

Don't beleive me? Email Mitsubishi and NEC, I did, they'll tell you the same thing.

As to the bulbs part of the equation. Did you really think there is only one bulb in the back? No, there are quite a few with a cost of at least 150$ plus labor to replace. Muliply that by 14 or so in a 25" display and you are up to around 1400$ plus the intensive labor to replace them! Also, you can't replace just one after time because the single one replaced will burn brighter and create a hot spot on the screen.

So to anwser your question, no I'm not biased. Technically I should be here pumping LCD. I just hate to see people get burned in the long run.

I also never pumped plasma or DLP. Each has its own advantage or disadvantage and I never claimed any technology was superiour.

Furthermore, sometimes it isn't the technology, but the implementation of the technology that makes the final difference. That's why I encourage people to look on a case by case basis. The electronics can account for close to 50 percent of the picture quality.

Hope this helps everyone.

Jonathan Bradbury

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 07:54 pm:

Wow! I just wanted to know which was better, the LCD or Plasma and I came accross this forum. I read one post and I lean towards the LCD and then I read another one and I lean towards the Plasma. It is hard to know what is fact and misleading marketing because both sides are claiming legitimacy. It looks to me like there is no one answer to this question. I have been told that I long as I get 480p, I am okay. Is this true? I just want what I believe everyone else wants: the best tv for my money. I am trying to get a 30" tv and will be using it to watch directv, dvds, and play some video games on occasion. For my needs, what would be the best 'bang for my buck'? Any thoughts?

RYG

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 08:57 pm:

probably CRT

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 03:20 am:

LCD WINS - no contest

HERE IS WHY

1. new generation PANASONIC LCD FRONT PROJECTOR PT- AE700U sells for 2200 dollars

2. PLASMA front PROJECTORS DON'T EXIST

3. THE PT-AE700U on for example a 92 inch 16:9 screen (cost less than 200 dollars) will produce a picture exceeding theater quality and approaching IMAX quality (e.g using Comcast provided digital video recorder DCT6400 - with DVI to HDMI connections. "screen door" effect is no longer visible as close as 6 feet viewing distance

4. with table mount and a tripod mount screen (or simply a large white wall) its pure do it yourself - TOTAL COMPLETE COST less than 2600 dollars with Monster cables.

5. I have looked at 100's of plasmas hi defs setup with quality hi def signals and have never seen one produce a picture close to what this Panasonic can do at the 80 to 90 inch diagonal

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 03:21 am:

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 08:39 am:

I need to know if there exists a good 29 inch and above lcd screen out there for 900 US dollars

Anonymous

Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 11:42 pm:

You know what-I'm so glad that you guys have some knowledge of this technology b/c I don't. I'm simply trying to find out if I should invest in an IPO on Monday Dec. 13. After doing some research they seem to have a pretty good grip on the OLED technology and a solid relationship with Philips. My question-Is OLED the future of FPDs or Flat Panel Displays and how far off is it. Someone please let me know.

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 11:52 am:

WOW! Lively bunch. Everyone here is forgetting a critical issue. The source.

I worked for Sony Broadcast for years and was involved in the launch of HD 1080I and I produced and directed DVD concerts shot in 1080I. (e-mail me for titles if you care, I'm not here to advertise). No longer having an assocation with Sony I am looking for experiences across the board.

I've also built Dub theatres (for producing movie sound) and installed and used $100K Kinotone film projectors and a JVC QX1 (LCD) projector that was truly amazing. I know what looks good and I know everything has a visible compromise.

I was looking for opinions for a set in my family room.

So much bull here! Almost no facts with the supporting technical and scientific data to support the statements.

For today's TV (Video) all broadcast cameras today regardless of resolution use imaging sensors that have motion artifacts and problems with vertical smear. Watch any motor race and you' see it.

Film has vertical and horozontal jitter and 48hz flicker. Converted PAL video and European film all have conversion issues.

I've seen more monitors in development than I can imagine. I've watched the generations imporve, but here's the catch.

I'm not producing, I'm buying with my own money. 80% of the use for this set will be my kids watching disney.

Like everyone else I want the biggest and best for my budget and I know in 12-18 months I'll wish I waited, but I want to buy now.

I'm leaning to LCD projection for the best compromise in a 60" size. Does anyone have anything to say about what they know, not something they read or believed to be accurate after reading a spec sheet or a sales pitch?

What do you have, and are you happy? That is the level of fact I am looking for.

Thanks....GR

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 01:01 pm:

LCD rear projections are very nice and represent a good value when compared to their flat panel counterparts.

The Sony XBR LCDs look good. Sony also has a SXRD technology that is currently being rolled out that looks very good. If you could wait about 2-3 months you would see a rear projection set in your size range. SXRD has better blacks that LCD and no rainbow effect like DLP. May be a little more expensive, but very worth it in my opinion.

If you had to buy now I would look at the XBRs. Panasonic makes them too, but the colors don't look quite right.

I have a Panasonic projector at home that looks better than their rear projection LCD sets. It's all in the implementation of the technology.

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 01:11 pm:

OLED is still a ways out to be competition for Plasma and LCD. OLED will remain popular for smaller readout displays on electronics main due to the power efficiency.

The half life for the red and blue portions of the display are not up to speed and will not be in larger displays until this gets corrected. Probably not for another 5-6 years, but looks very promising.

From an investment standpoint, I wouldn't expect Philips to be replacing any consumer electronics portions of their line for the next 5-6 years, but will grow significantly in smaller readouts. Most IPO start out with a bang or fizzle right from the start. It may pay to wait and watch.

Out of curiousity what is the name of the company? It would be fun to watch develop.

callmedave

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 10:51 pm:

Best buy employees are lied to by best buy. Thats a fact. Consumer reports has insulted their explanations of products many times.
Comp usa is the same story.
your eyes CAN see more than 16.7 million colors but not much more. thats why the PS2 and dream cast were 128 bit systems. not 32 bit, (i am NOT reffering to their CPU's, im talking about their color pallete. thats all 'bit'is in the video game world, how many colors u can make on the screen. if u dont understand hardware, dont post about it.)
Anyway, LCD's have framerate problems, if you dont believe me go to best buy, and move the mouse on a 500 dollar sony flat panel LCD. the mouse blurrs to garbage as its in motion.
Sony makes the best on the markey. All the HUGE CORPORATIONS seems to want su to think that pioneer does... i dont know why. Maybe bang fior ur buck it is but qualitywise next to a sony it looks grainy. Like the image is compressed, and yes with framerate problems.

CRT is still the king. Its called a flat screen, not panel. A flat thin peice of GLASS not plastic. You know ur not going to hang the TV on the wall, you just like knowing u CAN hang it on the wall. Get a Tube TV, they have perfect picture, no set lifespan, are cheaper and LCD or plasma is NOT sharper than an HD tube TV.

refresh rate is NOT better on LCD's its better ont he circuits of the LCD. let me explain. when they calculate refresh rate they are reffering to how long it takes for the signal to reach the screen NOT how long it takes the screen to react.

Also, LCD;s are indeed immune to burn in. HOWEVER the only thing that will caise burn in is a video game, and all 3 of our main gaming conmsoles today have technolagy in them to prevent burn in. (The new sleek thin ps2 has progressise scan)

Jean-Mathieu Aubin

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 02:46 am:

First of all I will tell you who I am, I am a FutureShop salesmen. Oh now I know waht you think : "He will bullshit us to promote what is good to sell". The only thing I can tell you is that I'm also studying in electronics so I'm not one guy that "seems to know something just to sell it". (And scuse my english cause I live in province of Quebec, for those who don't know I mainly talk french)

This is how I rate the new technology tvs

1st DLP Projection and Plasma
2nd LCDs
3rd LCDs Projection TVs

(Yes DLP is not discussed here but it have to be greatly considered when buying a tv)

So here is why:

The Plasmas Flat Panels :
Pro:
-Have a half-life of 60,000 hours
-Now have great bang for the bucks product
-High framerate / no jittering
-small
-very good contrast and colors
Con:
-is meant to burn on still picture

DLP Projection Tvs :
Pros:
-The DLP chip is claimed to last 100,000hrs (by TI)
-No jittering
-Very good contrast
-Very natural picture
-Can't burn
-Viewing angles are better than other projection technologies
-Very compact design (normally less than 1 foot in depth and can be paced in corner, even 52" and 62" screens !!)
Cons:
-you need to change the lamp after 4-5 years of use (between 299$CAN and 399$CAN), can be easily changed by the owner
-1% of people see a rainbow in the picture

LCDs:
Pros:
-life of LCDs is 50,000hrs
-usually have good brightness
Cons:
-Contrast are usually awful (only Sharp have good one)
-Black are grey, even on high priced LCD panel
-jitter in fast action
-the backlit never last the life of the LCDs

LCD Projection TVs
Pro:
-Have a compact design
Cons:
-Have a high jittering effect (only very priced tvs have a decent quality)
-you need to change the lamp after 4-5 years of use (between 299$CAN and 399$CAN), can be easily changed by the owner
-Give very pixelated picture (again only high priced tvs have good quality, like the Sony KDF-60XS955 at 6499,99$CAN)

Ok now the comparison between each technology, some products to check and why I put DLP and Plasma first.

There is two types of people, the one that watch TV and the other that watch movies. That is why there is two #1. I recommand DLP to those who watch more movies than normal Tv because, it render a picture that give the feeling of a film projector like in a real cinema (in Montreal we have a cinema that use a DLP projector with an HD signal and it�s really stunning). The brand that I think do the best DLP is Toshiba, yes somes will say Samsung but it�s not true, in my mind. There is a lot of different DLP chips, now the most used are HD3 and HD2+, the second one is by far superior. The biggest difference between the two chips are the contrast, 1500:1 for the HD3 and 2500:1 for the HD2+, it really makes a difference when you have a dark scene in a movie, all the details comes out. Toshiba use the HD2+ chip beside Samsung that use HD3. I think that it�s enough for the DLP, now it comes to Plasma.

First of all, what do I mean by half-life ? It�s when the flat screen have lost 25% of brightness, if you check it means 40years �. Hmm okay probably the TV won�t last that time so �. We don�t really care about the lost of brightness when using it. The only thing we have to check when buying a plasma is a warranty, why ??? because the worst period for a plasma are the first three years, it�s in this lapse of time that pixel will burn, after that period it�s nearly impossible. The best bang for the buck in Plasma is LG, first it have a very good picture quality, great colors and a base warranty of 2 years by the builder !!! And all this for a "cheap" retail price of 3999,99$CAN !! It is really a must to see.

Now the LCDs, personally I hate it !!!! if you want something good you need a lot of $$$$$$ for the same size than a plasma and less image quality it cost more, it can go as high as 2500$ over. The best lcd manufacturer is Sharp with is Aquos technology (it is fantastic as a computer monitor but as a big screen tv � we can have really better). It is also perfect for countertop tv in the kitchen but for a big screen I think it�s not a good choice. I don�t say all this just because I am fixed on plasma, but I am 7 to 9 hours a day watching TVs (the job obliges) and just can�t like it.

And the last one, when it comes to LCD Projection it is juste ugly when we compare it to DLP, it do a lot of jittering and is usually more expensive (Sony 42" 3499$CAN vs Toshiba 44" 3199$CAN). Anyway I don�t have a lot to tell about this technology.

All I can tell you is that the best judge is your eyes !!!! Nobody can tell you to like a TV. The only thing I can tell you is that the best Bang for the buck I�ve found to be very satisfied is the Toshiba 52HX84 (4699$CAN) + Toshiba SD-5970 HDMI DVD Player (249$CAN) and at least digital tv signal (HDTV if available is the best choice !!) and of course buy good cables !!!! it really worth it when you fall in this kind of TVs (Monster Ultra). This more than decent kit cost less than 5500$CAN+tx.

And I don�t want anybody to say I bullshit things because I�m a salesmen ! If I�m wrong on something just tell me and we will then discuss but these are all opinions and not FACTS like somes dare to tell. But it�s not all out of my mind, it�s based on examination and reading on the net.

So all comments are welcomes. And again, scuse my english.

tonyhawk

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 01:54 pm:

Good discussion here. However, I don't see any comments related to screen glare. In the real world our rooms have windows, lights, etc. all creating unwanted glare. Is LCD superior in this regard? Cheers.

G�sta H. Lovgren

New member

Username: G�sta

Lavallette, NJ
United States

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 09:19 pm:

One point I think is missed here is relative cost. I am in the market for a 42" set and am prepared to spend $5,000 for a tv.

Just for numbers, say a decent 42" Plasma cost $2500 and a decent 42" LCD cost $5000.

I am convinced that overall that picture quality of each is pretty competitive, at least for my purposes. (Unless I wanna make myself nuts with the technicals). But that LCD will have a longer life.

I also believe LCD is the future and technology will improve much faster/further in LCD than Plasma. I'm also pretty certain both technologies will drop precipitatively in price the next few years given past history in electronics. And/or that LCD is the better bet for the future.

What to do today though? For my purposes today either technology will give a good picture.

Well, here's what I've decided ---- Plasma is the far far better deal right now. And here's my reasoning. I can spend $2500 now for Plasma and replace it with a better technology (presumably LCD) in two or three years for the other $2500 (or probably a lot less).

So, using this logic, I still will have spent $5,000 and but have even better technology two years from now. And have enjoyed big screen tv for two or three years.

wtf

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 04:19 pm:

This is one of the most retarded arguments I've yet seen. Whatever happened to an honest objective discussion? Its plain to see everyone here has abias and more then likely because they bought in to one or the other of these technologies and now feel the need to prove to everyone (including themselves) that they made a smart decision. You need to stop your Mac vs PC, Xbox vs. PS2, apple vs. pear bullshit. You sound like a bunch of whiney biotches. And damn geeky ones at that!

goofy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 12:30 am:

Read the manual on the 42 inch LCD. Your bulb setting will vary the lifespan dramatically. Put it on high and you have quite a different story. You'll also see in the manual that they don't recommend still images on the larger sizes.

LISTEN TO ME I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:12 am:

WOW...you guys are a bunch of idiots...Every screen in my house is either plasma or LCD. In the bedrooms there are LCD's, which is perfect. For the larger rooms are Plasma's. One isnt better than the other, its just how you want to use it. LCD's are perfect for bedrooms because they are very crisp and sharp. In the larger rooms i needed a bigger TV and Plasma was the answer. Although i would like to see LCD's break 60", until they do i will continue to buy Larger Plasma's. I do like the picture quality a little better on the LCD but With a large Plasma you can't tell the difference anyway...thats were you morons are basing your facts on. Your comparing a 42" Plasma to a 17" LCD...now which is easier to see details??? Grow up and think about where the TV's gonna go and what you wanna watch on it!!

LISTEN TO ME I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:14 am:

ALAN SMITHIE IS AN IDIOT

robret balleseros

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:37 pm:

well i have found that this was very helpfull in expanding my telivision knoledge in the are of plasma and lcd. i have read and concluded that for me and lcd tv would be the best.

surferNJ

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 09:44 am:

When are the prices of LCD's expected to drop?

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 07:13 pm:

I have read these posts and found so many of them beyond ludicrous, especially from people who purportedly know what they are talking about.

COST: Plasmas are still MUCH higher than the equivalent rear projection LCD. I said "equivalent." This means an HDTV is compared to an HDTV with also similar features. Cost is still virtually twice as much for plasmas. EDTV plasma is a different animal. I don't know how well HDTV displays, probably nicely but it is still not HDTV and not comparable if you are looking for an HDTV.

COLORS: Whomever thinks that they can really see the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit color for moving pictures is the odd bird in the bunch. Virtually everyone I know cannot perceive any difference with most pictures, especially moving. More than 24bit color? Nobody will tell the difference and I dare anyone to try.

PICTURE QUALITY: Plasma is very nice to behold. Not as bright as LCD RP but I find it smoother and lacking the screen door effect to some extent. That said, the funkiness at times from HDTV broadcasts or certain pictures is virtually the same as LCD. Whomever says it does not happen is lying to you. I have spent many hours at Best Buy and Circuit City and both suffer from the same problem, which really isn't that bad when you watch it from the recommended viewing distance, e.g. 9 feet or so. The RP LCD picture is beautiful for football, so nice that a friend who hates football who was over sat down to watch the game because she found the colors and brightness of my Panasonic so vivid. I think plasma is a little duller but has a different charm and smoothness.

LIFE EXPENTANCY: Don't know much about this. From what I heard and a friend who owns one, plasma should start to diminish in it's brightness noticeably between 3 and 5 years. How much depends and it could be longer, supposedly now this may be the case with new plasmas. What I like about LCDs is the ability to simply change a bulb and the Panny is user replaceable. I'm not sure about dead pixels and would think both have the same issues but was told that plasma is more susceptible and I'm not sure why. From my understanding you can expect a longer life with your LCD although mileage may vary.

CONTRAST QUALITY: No question the plasmas have a better pure black but my Panny LCD is very close with an extremely dark gray that is so close to black that I can't tell unless there are black bars next to it and they are a shade darker. The blackness does vary by manufacturer so definitely check out what you buy first.

I saw the Samsung DLP and was not impressed at all. I found it having a similar screen issue with the RP LCD and sometimes extra fuzziness around images.

I ended up with the Panasonic 50" rear projection LCD in HDTV because at low to mid $2,000 range you get a fabulous looking image. I can replace the bulb if I need to and that doesn't require extra services. An equivalent plasma of decent quality is at least $5,000. The salesman above speaks truth but any of the really good stuff he is talking about is still much, much higher than $2,200 - $2,500. It is amazing that at that price you can get so many features with still a beautiful picture with an RP LCD television. IT's a very good compromise.

Chris188_au

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 09:16 pm:

Any comments on Sony dropping the manufacture of plasma in favour of LCD ?

dappindan

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:20 pm:

Question -- A couple of people have commented that they use their plasma and/or LCD for their computer screens. Can someone elaborate on this for me please? Which models carry these kind of connections, what should I look for, etc.? thanks.

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 2
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:39 am:

The new Panasonic rear projection LCDs have 2 RGB inputs and computer screens look beautiful. Why you'd want to do this for anything other than a power point presentation or replay of material on your hard disk, e.g. mpeg clips, is beyond me. What's nice about the Panasonics is that they have one connector on the back and one easily accessible on the side and you can view at a high resolution, not just 640 or 800 resolution.

EricS

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:28 am:

The human eye can most definitely see more than 16.7 million colors.

However, HDTV signals are limited to about 16.7 million colors anyway.

See:
http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/frame/research/mpeg/mpeg2faq.html

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 3
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:48 am:

Whether or not the human eye can technically see more than 16.7 million colors is a moot point if it doesn't make any perceptible difference with regard to the issue at hand -- which is that on your TV you won't perceive any difference at all. But you make an even better point about the limitation of HDTV signals.

My thought is that if you are worried about the "limitation" of 16.7 million colors on a current TV then you've totally missed the mark completely.

AngryClown

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:51 am:

I forgot to mention in my previous post: I personally use a flat-screen CRT ( Sony Trinitron 19" MultiScan G400) used by industry pros. I paid over $1,000 Canadian for it 3 years ago. Just so you know, I'm not biased either way; I just read a lot...

I hope those of you about to shell out thousands of hard-earned dollars do a LOT more homework than just reading this forum.

Oh! I nearly forgot: Someone asked about using an LCD as a computer monitor... Make sure it has the right connector. The good ones have both analog and digital. Also, make sure you are comfortable with the native resolution, you don't want to change it, or picture quality suffers. AND, if you're fussy like me, make absolutely sure it has 16.7(that's a SEVEN, not a two) million colours, and a decent response time (at least 16 ms). AND make sure it's 4:3, not 16:9(widescreen).

In closing, a quote from an undisclosed, unbiased "consumer" publication:

"Plasma TV's detail and clarity usually aren't quite as sharp as conventional CRT televisions"

'Nuff said.

AngryClown

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:00 pm:

Actually, I forgot to POST my last post! stoopid brayne!

For all the discussion in here, nobody has mentioned the fact that LCD's come in two very distinct configurations: UXGA, and not.
Also, nobody mentioned the fact that they also come with two totally different colour qualities: 16.2 million, and 16.7. A little research will tell you that the 16.2's use the adjacent pixels to blend the missing colours in, which obviously compromises the picture quality.
One other thing to consider: LCD's are succeptible to the occasional 'bad' pixel. Manufacturers are only liable to replace your screen if four or more pixels are dead. It's IMPERATIVE that you purchase in person, after viewing the actual monitor you're going to take home. Do NOT buy one through the mail!

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 4
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:32 pm:

Clown, you make some good points but I don't think there is a comparison between CRT and the rest. I think there is NO question that CRT looks the best of all except it's just not practical to have a set larger than 40" and even that one is a BEAST to get into an apartment or home.

Most of the affordable ones are not XVGA afaik. The response time (or refresh) is important and I've noticed that my TV will do HDTV well but the highest resolution is at a low refresh rate. I'm sure most are like this.

In buying through the mail, that's true but it doesn't mean you avoid it in store. Unless it's Circuit City or the like, the store doesn't have to and may not take back a TV because of a dead pixel or two. That would not be good.

So far I'm thrilled with the RP LCD Panasonic. In 10 years from now we'll see what's out there...

Jim Doeing

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 05:09 pm:

Where is alan smith to back up his statements

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

Not much to say but I love the banter. Some pretty funny retorts here. Im thinking of taking the whole thread and making it into a TV Sitcom. You will all get residuals....

get-a-life

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 07:42 am:

Anybody with an ounce of intelligence will realise that lcd & plasma are still in their infancy, and have yet to mature into something worthwhile.
So if you have any sense you should buy a top of the range CRT
They are still far superia and, because they are "old" technology, about a quarter of the price
So wait a few years then buy an "old" plasma, lcd or even a 3D laser projor unit.
Dont moan because you want to spend 1000s on a 60 inch tv
get a 36 inch one and sit closer
then re-asess your life and get some friends

seantvrepair

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:36 pm:

Bring back the 15" Black and White sets. They were good enough. Last for about 25 years.

Jobu

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:47 pm:

i luv u guys,-]p

..especially all yall angryass beligerant porkrollers. u made my day;]]

GaMinGFReAk

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 07:29 am:

look, lcd is now standard on most pc's and it is actually catching on quite well. I mean they last for ages and ages and it is proven coz my computer monitor hasn't had any problems and its an old lcd (dell 17" ultrasharp) its been running amzing for 3� years, colours great, great for movies and games. Definitely go for lcd coz when plasma burn they cost a bit to replace. I have seen how it has happened to several of my relative's tvs. Anyway when i get my sony 42" lcd i am gonaa connect my ps2 to it and it should be amzing. plus with plasmas your not meant to play games on there too long againg coz they will probably burn. anyway tell me if it is safe to play PS2 on an lcd everyday.

Anonymous

Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 03:45 am:

the true answer won't be known until around 2020, even by the manufacturers

by then they will sell real cheap, so no need to worry

Sideliner

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 09:17 pm:

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread - great discussion.

On the topic of power consumption, it appears that the LCD is the best choice....but how significant is this advantage? Generally speaking, what kind of factor are we talking here....1/2 the power consumption?.... 1/4?....

Thanks again guys and gals.

Raishel

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 01:50 am:

I'm almost embarassed to admit that I read this whole thread. Nonetheless- I know more now about LCDs and Plasma screens than I did before...then again, I can't differentiate between "FACT," Opionion, or preference in this discussion. Any truth to the possible negative effects of the plasma emmisions?

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 5
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:00 pm:

You can start differentiating between fact and fiction by determining who seems to be exaggerating and several are doing so. As far as plasma emissions, heck, I don't even know and would probably search several sites on the net because those that are sponsored by pro-plasma companies or producers of those products are extremely biased. I found some by accident and couldn't believe the slanting... but that I'm sure goes on with all sides.

For the most part, I think anyone looking at a big screen needs to think practically and most of this discussion is purely secondary.

1) How much are you willing to spend? That will determine what you can buy immediately.

2) Is HDTV important to you? That will determine whether an EDTV will be an acceptable tradeoff if you must have plasma but don't have the money.

3) What looks acceptable to you? I've seen some plasmas that are very unimpressive and some cannot stand the DLP color wheel issues or potential screen door of LCDs at a certain viewing distance (it gets lost in time and especially distance.) I've seen some LCDs that are drab. Most good manufacturers products are acceptable and for me it has been Panasonic, Sony and Samsung and potentially Hitachi. The others should be seen before bought. The store can be deceiving though. The Panasonic I saw in the store was very good but it doesn't even compare to how good the picture is hooked up directly to my digital cable at home.

4) Are there any "extras" that are essential to you? For example, HDMI input, a cable card, etc. These really should be secondary and most of the time these TVs have all the essential features.

After this I'd start worrying about the nitpicking. I'm very discriminating and very happy with my RP LCD which everyone is stunned by, especially its brightness and clarity. The price was great and everything else was gravy.

thePreacher

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:36 pm:

Hi All, i just accidentlaly perused through yoursite and i currently have a small dilemma. I just bought myself an LG HD DVD player and i just bought a Benq LCD Monitor (for the computer) i thought that since the monitor was dvi capable and that the dvd player outputted in dvi that it would work. Unfortunately this is not the case. I was wondering is it just simply settings of the dvd player or were HD DVD players never meant to work with computer lcd dvi monitors ?

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 6
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 01:29 pm:

Without trying to sound obnoxious, since when did this board or especially this thread, become a tech support line for your specific problem with your LG DVD player? People these days and instant gratificiation...

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

EDTV should never be considered, as a true HI DEF 720P or 1080i picture will simply blow it off the map, and EDTV's will be severely handicapped showing the upcoming HD-DVDs, arriving in 2005

Leave EDTV's to be pushed by BEST BUY Warranty-Pushers and their bogus "comparison" tests of EDTV's and HDTV using (480p) DVD source material

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 7
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 04:11 pm:

There is no need for such a limited perspective and attitude. An HDTV picture is better than EDTV but it's pretty close and a very good alternative for people who won't really use HDTV that much, will primarily watch DVDs, and must have a plasma right now. It has its uses although I personally would never compromise in that way.

thePreacher

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 05:02 pm:

Actually Slink as much as you try not to sound obnoxious, you arent really making the effort. Oh yes god forbide people ask questions to others who are better suited to answer them. God forbide that someone is to respond kindly with a sugegestion of a solution. Oh wait so i guess the whole goodwill towards man and such from christmas doesnt extend beyond the holidays. Thanks for putting the well deserved faith in humanity for me again.

Seriously, get off your high horse and just try to help someone. Whenever soemone new comes onto my usual car forums and dont know a single thing, i generally try to help them cuz well its kinda nice to help people.

All im simply asking is are computer lcds with digital input able to handle digital output from hd dvd players. A simple yes or no answer would be nice, but even better answer would be to address my problem. but that couldnt happen cuz well you seem to love your high horse slink, thanks a bunch for all the help, you are a great and wonderful person who just exudes sainthood.

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 8
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 05:18 pm:

Preacher -- practice what you preach. Now I will give you some schooling in etiquette, common courtesy and common sense that you evidently never learned nor cared about.

This entire thread is titled "LCD vs. Plasma TVs" not "free help for thePreacher." Using the slightest amount of courtesy or common sense or after reading dozens of posts would lead you to realize we are creating a resource of information on this topic. Would you burst into a classroom teaching math and interrupt the class to ask a science question simply because it's Xmas and there is a teacher in the room? It's no different and this thread isn't designed for your self important, egocentric request for free assistance that could even be better answered elsewhere by the manufacturer's own support line.

The fact that it is Xmas is no excuse for your lack of manners or common courtesy for everyone else. So as not to litter this thread with even more basics of common decency that virtually everyone here understands, heed the advice given to you and start a new thread instead of trying to justify poor behavior and think next time before you post. Best of luck with this in the New Year.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 7
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 07:01 pm:

Slink? Preacher? Get a life.

goodguys

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 07:05 pm:

Wow. Lots of funny info, know it alls and misconceptions. Also some good bits of info. A huge problem is actually where some of you are going to get your info! Shoot down to a GoodGuys near you if you're on the west coast...or a magnolia hi fi or something equivalent. So you get treated right and get the best info. You have a choice of some of the best merchandise and better knowledge.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 8
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 07:07 pm:

By the way can anyone tell me where to get a decent blow job? I know it's veering away from the main topic of discussion and all but i thought, well... since it's christmas an all you might partake of the christmas spirit a little n give us a few pointers. I Dunno, like yo momma perhaps?

ps. Perhaps i should start a new thread with this...hmmm yes, i think i will. Thanks anyway guys and slink/preacher? Merry Christmas.

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 9
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 07:13 pm:

I think that you people should seriously consider choosing an lcd tv. Let me explain... Having carefully weighed up all the odds...picture quality, burn in, longevity, viewing angle frames per second etc i finally realised that out of love for my wife i couldn't possibly choose a plasma screen. After all if she dropped it and broke her toe or seriously injured her back whilst carrying it from the car and installing it on the wall, i'd never forgive myself.

PeterPecker

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 07:17 pm:

MoeMan

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:24 am:

Having read all your interesting postings last night, I went out today to check for myself what the "real score" is between plasma and LCD. I visited Best Buy, Circuit City, PC Richards, and Electronics Expo.

At the end of the day- I am scratching my head and wondering what all you plasma die-hards are bragging about. In every store I visited, all LCD TVs were clearly better than their equivalent-sized plasmas in terms of clarity, color, brightness, and contrast. I never noticed any of this motion-blur nonsense on the LCD units. Black was black and not "gray". The only apparent advantage for the plasmas was that they seemed to have more models in the sizes exceeding 45".

LCDs are light and can be transported on a pickup truck or large SUV. (No need to pay for delivery.) And I would not want to spend additional hundreds to have plasma installed on a wall.

I am now searching for the best LCD deal.

Year 2005: The YEAR of Darth Vader

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 05:24 am:

Not exagerrating but OH MA GOD! I just purchased a 42 inch HD Plasma- 1024x768.. And without anything but the eyeballs on my head, I can tell you all, it not only is the manufacturer but the digital feed itself that makes the difference.. I have dish network with HD channels and the crisp and life like pictures are truly amazing, but on the HD channels ONLY; Its three dimensional and has depth, the analog channels are not even close.... The HD receiver is hooked up to the plasma by way of a dvi-d cable. I have noticed that the dvi input is the input with the best picture quality, vga input is also amazing but comes in second because why hook up ure computer when the burn in danger is lurking..and the component inputs come in third.. DVDs look cool on the red, green, blue components, but I am waiting for HD DVD or Blue Ray already. I spent 2400 dollars on a no name brand yet model and have been very impressed and happy with it.
Burn in IS an issue and addressing it means one needs to be aware of how not to burn in images; set zoom on the hd reciever not the plasma for no bars, and make sure no image is static for more than 10 minutes.. if so, just change the channel and come back to it.. Yea, it sounds like a pain in the butt, but I haven't really had any issue with burn in since TV shows dont display anything static for ten minutes straight.. Seriously tho, www.flatisbetter.com check this new japanese company out and let me tell you, the images with the feeds have been extraordinary.
Large plasmas have been out since the mid to late 90's and have had some time to fine tune the technology. In time, big screen LCDs will also work out the kinks (contrast ratios are low compared to plasmas) and will be a force to reckon with.. Mid 2005, the plasma and LCD large screens will be competing for your hard earned money, so both will work hard to improve the technology to earn the money..
Now the oncoming age of paper-thin tvs beckons us, granted it is 20 years away, but all of the technology being developed now will lead to better tech. later.. peace and remember that your money only goes as far as what it is you physically buy, not what your mind decides it wants to buy..

peter farrer

New member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 10
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:25 am:

Peter, it seems you need to get a life too and don't get the point either. You had nothing to add except your own stupid comment and now this thread careens out of control. Ask one of your brothers about your helping you with your impotence problems. Now can the comments stop and get back to the original conversation

Wow, i can see why you're so upset Mr Pecker, i mean, what next? total an@rchy and the end of the world as we know it right? Er this is just a simple technology discussion forum isn't it? I mean, i haven't inadvertently hacked into the national security mainframe or anything have I???!

Oh that's a relief then. So surely people (who aren't as an@l retentive as Mr Pecker & co) don't object to the odd bit of light hearted humour...Do they?

Merry Christmas everyone by the way.

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 11
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:28 am:

And by the way Mr Pecker (fitting name by the way) With such !ncestuous advice as you offer i recommend you never consider pursuing a career as an agony aunt.

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 07:31 am:

I have both and very high end. Sony XBR 32" FLAT LCD and Pioneer Elite 61" and 43" plasmas.

I like the plasmas a lot better. More color and contrast. Plus Pioneer Elite in my opinion makes the best plasmas in the market. Panasonic comes in 2nd. Fujitsu are really good but more expensive then Pioneer Elite.

Plasmas will last over 15 yrs. if you watch 4 hours a day, everyday for 365 days a year for 15 yrs........What's the big deal???? 15 yrs. from now the tv technology will be 30 times better so I will probally replace my tv's 15 yrs. from now. For me its like a car. NOTHING LAST FOREVER not even LCD's and who would want to keep a PLASMA or LCD over 15 or 20 yrs???? Only my grandparents still watch there 1970's big furniture tv.

You think I still got my big Sony Triniton tube tv from 1988 or 1990???? Get real!!!

If you are into high tech stuff and like high denifition and movies you should know that technology evolves fast and you should be ready to upgrade especially after 15 yrs.

If you want to invest in a nice HIGH DEFINITION display and want to impress your friends and guests then Plasma is the way to go. But keep in mind not all Plasmas are the same just like buying a car. Do your homework.....If you stick with Pioneer Elite you shouldn't go wrong plus I like there black piano finish they have in there plasmas better then silver which looks cheap to me.

Pionner Elite, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sony XBR, Mitsubishi, Faroudja, NEC, RUNCO to name a few have invested in the plasma technology in there high end lines.........why would they invest all there resources, money and technology if they believe LCD will wipe plasma out????

Pioneer, Runco, Faroudja, and Fujitsu the best in my opinion choose plasmas and didn't even bother with LCD's........that should tell you something how long Plasmas will be around.

and don't be surprise if they make plasmas look better and last longer with time. I remember the first plasma I saw in 1999 from Pioneer and NEC and 5 yrs. later they have improved everything by far.....Imagine 5 yrs. from now............how about 15 yrs. from now.

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 03:22 am:

PLASMA'S have cumulative fading - every day of use will dim the unit a bit. Many will dim by 50% within a few yrs

with LCD no fade, and when the bulb burns out, just change it

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 04:41 am:

Whatever.

That's why RUNCO, Faroudja, Fujitsu and Pioneer Elite are staying with the PLASMA technology and not touching LCD.

and when the bulbs burns out on a LCD just change it??? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! That easy right?? Just like changing a regular bulb in your house, please. By the time your LCD rear projection bulb burns out you probally would want to replace the damn set.

Plasmas are better then LCD's. THE REAR PROJECTION LCD's are crap. The Sony XBR flat panel LCD's are good but really expensive but not as good to the Pioneer, Runco and Fujitsu plasmas.

Anybody that says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and should take a break from visiting too much Circuit City, Sears and Best Buy because NONE of those places sell the high end plasmas which are the best in the market and no LCD set can compete with them.

sindy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:13 am:

Michael -- you don't really know why those companies aren't touching LCD do you? Perhaps it is because they don't want to spread their investment too thin and cannibalize their existing sales?

Yes, changing the bulb is pretty easy if you buy a Panasonic rear projection TV, which looks damn good and many think look much brighter than the plasmas.

If you have over $10,000 to buy the best plasma TV you can get, great. I think though most people here are looking for answers that are within their budget. Going back to Circuit City I have to say while the glossy, glassy plasmas look nice, they are not as bright as the LCDs and I don't think near as bright as the RP LCDs. It's a matter of what looks good to the individual...

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 03:30 pm:

The high end companies like RUNCO, Faroudja, Pioneer Elite and Fujitsu invest everything on plasmas instead of LCD because the plasma technology is better. That is just a fact.

You don't need to spend 10,000 for a good plasma. Unless like me you get a 61" Pioneer Elite 1410 plasma that I paid 10k, free shipping and NO TAX. You can get a Pioneer Elite 43" for less then 5,000. That is high definition at its best.

Now if I'm not mistaking the topic is which is a better technology plasma or lcd for the home theatre enviroment which means lots of dvd's and high definition programming..............then hands down plasmas are better.

If you want to talk about budget then the rear projection tv's from LCD, DLP or just the plain 3 color tube then for the money its good.

Not all plasmas, LCD, cars, computers, receivers and speakers are the same. CompUSA, HP, Dell, sells plasmas but I wouldn't consider them for home theatre enviroment because there EDTV and is mostlry for computer and presentation enviroment.

I wouldn't go to Circuit City to buy a plasma. I would go to Ultimate Electronics or a place that will sell the high end line. You have to compare apples and oranges and you get what you pay for.

By the way you said a rear projection looks brighter then a plasma. Tell me which plasmas have you been looking at because NO REAR PROJECTION from LCD or DLP looks brighter, bettter detail and have billions of colors to the plasmas from Pioneer Elite, Runco, Faroudja, Fujitsu, NEC and even Panasonic.

Give me the best LCD or DLP models in the market and I will show you at least 5 plasmas around the same size that will look better not only in appearance but quality of the picture in dvd's and high definition format.

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 9
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 04:39 pm:

Michael - The question here seems to be what are the differences between LCD and plasmas and it seems you are not comparing apples to apples. In terms of which is "better", a $14,000 model is usually better than a $2,000 model, regardless of which technology is chosen, and it has to do with many variables in the construction beyond just features.

Comparing apples, I don't think that many of the $3-6K plasmas look much better than LCDs and frequently I think the plasmas are not as bright and vivid although they have their own appeal. A $10,000-$12,000 plasma is a whole other matter and I'm not sure what an equivalent comparison would be. Many here seem not to want to spend $10K (even if cheap) on a screen.

I highly doubt one can comfortably perceive the difference between millions of colors and "billions" of colors. Not only is it overkill but if you perceive the difference with many of your viewings, then it is you who is fooled since the source material doesn't present in that many colors. Who cares if your car can do 500MPH if the one that can do "only" 140 MPH feels smoother on the highway?

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 08:06 pm:

I just said the Pioneer regular line and the Pioneer Elite 43" plasmas which are below 6k will blow away any LCD and DLP in that price range.

There's more to a HD display then brightness.

Watching true high definition and 480p sources on a true high definition plasma from a good brand is better then any LCD I seen.

The best LCD I seen is the SONY XBR which is there high end shiat KDL32XBR950 (4k to 5k) and KDL-42XBR950 (7k to 8k) I own the 32" model and trust me on this one my Pioneer Elite 43" plasma looks better on HD and 480p signals.

If you can't tell the difference bewteen millions of colors to billions of colors on a true high definition signal and a true high definition set then you either:

1) Need glasses, no offense
2) Or you haven't really truly sat down in front of a Runco, Faroudja, Fujitsu or Pioneer Elite plasma watching Discovery HD or the NFL on high definition.

Trust me friend there's a difference bewteen millions to billions of colors on high definition. Maybe you can't tell the difference on regular signal on a cheap rear projection but you are missing a lot.

If you are going to compare technology then you match apples and apples. Take the top of the line LCD rear projection or DLP and compare that to the top of the line with the plasmas regardless of price.

You can't compare the top of the line LCD's like SONY XBR's or the Samsung DLP's to the low level entries plasmas they sell at Circuit City, Sam's club, Costsco,Gateway, Dell, Sears or Circuit City. Most of those plasmas are not even true high definition but 480p.

You compare them to the top of the line Plasmas in the market and the plasmas will look better.

Go stand in front of the Pioneer Elite 1120HD 50 inch plasma or the 43" version 920HD and you come back here and tell me that is not better then any LCD or DLP rear projection in the market. Go check it out. There has to be at least 1 Pioneer Elite dealer in your state.

Even the regular Pioneer line (NONE-ELITE) OF PLASMAS they sell in Best Buy looks better then any LCD and DLP I have seen in CIRCUIT CITY or SEARS.

Slink

New member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 10
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 08:52 pm:

Michael -- As I said, from my understanding HDTV is only broadcast in millions of colors so if you are seeing a difference you are either smoking something or just think you are. If you are looking at a high end TV versus low end there are far more factors at play than even beginning to think you can see the difference as you go beyond over 16 million colors.

Personally, I don't care for the Samsung DLPs and think that the picture suffers from a chiaroscuro-like effect and the picture is much darker. Again, apples to apples, if you get a Panasonic RP LCD for $2K I think you are doing tremendously well because the differential between that and a top line plasma isn't as far as you think it is and it's a LOT better than any RPTV by far.

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:06 pm:

The best rear projection set I have seen was the Pioneer Elite 720HD and 730hdmi.You can get one for under 4k and will blow away the Panasonic rear projection. If you have the space and will view the set straight then you be fine. Viewing it from angles is not that good. But that goes with all rear projections.

Listen I'm not going to shiat on Panasonic. I like there plasmas and RPTV lines. They have come a long way from the 70',80's and early 90's they got there shiat together. Personally I think Pioneer plasmas and RPTV look better.

I saw the Panasonic 65" plasma and is pretty damn good. I think the 63" Fujitsu looks a little better but not by much but for the money I go with the Panasonic.........but I'm a Pioneer guy on displays, Denon on audio, Paradigm/Defenitive Technology on speakers, Sunfire on subs. I'm kinda bias on that.

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:54 pm:

PLASMA is way overpriced unless you need wall art, and EDTV plasma is the biggest problem

There is going to be alot of unhappy EDTV plasma buyers who find out the new HD-DVD discs coming out next fall won't look any better than what they are currently running

At Best Buy plasma note the following description of their new PAN edtv model just in:

"The new Plasma Display TH42PWD7UY delivers the finest picture quality ever achieved in a plasma display, to unleash all the power and dynamism of today's advanced video sources, including HDTV, DVD and personal computers."

This is pretty questionable marketing

michael boyer

New member

Username: Mikeravens

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 02:17 am:

Plasmas are expensive to built but they are coming down. But after watching high definition and upscale 720p on a HDMI DVD player on a PIONEER ELITE plasma I can't go back unless if its a RUNCO front projection and that's a least 30k to start.

EDTV are ok for the money, I guess. You can get one at Sam's or Costsco for less then 2k. Personally I would rather save a little more and get me the real HD plasma. They have good deals like NO PAYMENTS and NO INTEREST for 12 months. Just make sure you do a balance transfer to a low rate credit card if you can't pay the balance after the 12 months or you be paying 12 months accrued interest on top of the principal.

Year 2005: The YEAR of Darth Vader

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:57 am:

OK, yes all this talk of high end producers of plasmas is great.. I would like to inform you all though that there is a movement among small new upstarts that are forcing the prices down for plasmas.. It is because of these companies that the major plasma producers are being forced to cut costs and drive prices down steadily.. May I bring to all you'alls attention a company named byd:sign- www.flatisbetter.com .. Can I just say that the quality of their HD plasma is AMAZING!!!!!! With the Voom programming I just got (dumped Dish Network HD), I have to tell you, the images HAVE depth and a three dimensional feel.. The colors are vibrant and the contrast of the blacks and whites- MAMMMA MIA!!!! I paid 2400 (shiping and no tax included) for the 1024x768 resolution producing panel, and I can not stop raving about it.. THE facts tho, the image is best reached when using the DVI- digital video input.. With this all digital feed from the digital receiver, the panel performs beautifully.. SERIOUS... The Bravo D1 dvi outputtin' dvd player upscales ure dvds to 720p to 1080i and just makes the images also amazing.. HELP, I may not leave my room.. By the way, it IS a risk to go with a company we don't know of on this side of the pacific, but byd:sign has been out in Japan for some time now.. I really do feel good about this panel. And hey, all companies at one time were newbies, but gosh darnit, ya gots to see this thang.. And if anyone knows how I can test this panel to see if it can handle anything tough, please let me know and I will test this baby out..

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 12
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 09:23 am:

The truth is lads and lasses, is that from a personal standpoint, i cannot see the point in replacing my perfectly good 32 inch philips crt television at the moment when it seems clear to me that much is going to change in the next couple of years. Yes, i'd probably have to agree with the weight of opinion on this forum regarding the superior picture quality(in general) of plasma tvs. However balanced against an upcoming technology (ie. lcd) which doesn't have burn in, will not be ruined if handled incorrectly, does not need proffessional fitting to the wall, lasts significantly longer (and doesn't fade over time)etc. I think it's got to be worth waiting. With the weight of the whole industry pouring money into lcd technology (nod to the person who highlighted this point earlier) in a couple of years or less all you die hard plasma owners are going to be mumbling into your beards. So ramble on.. IN ADDITION, LET ME JUST SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS THIS FORUM HAS RUN IT'S COURSE AND THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO GLEAN FROM WITHIN HAS BEEN, WELL...GLEANED AND NOW WE HAVE SIMPLY RESORTED TO (USING THE SIMPLEST ANALOGY I CAN THINK OF) TO CHILDISH RANTING ALONG THE LINES OF "MY DAD'S BIGGER THAN YOUR DAD".

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 13
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 09:27 am:

By the way (and i'm extremely sorry for going slightly off subject and risking COMPLETE AN@RCHY "Mr Pecker") Has anyone read or know anything about a technology i read about a couple of years ago...roll up television?

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 15
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 09:42 am:

"You don't need to spend 10,000 for a good plasma. Unless like me you get a 61" Pioneer Elite 1410 plasma that I paid 10k, free shipping and NO TAX." by Michael Boyer

Loosely translated...I've got a HUGE plasma screen, NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 11
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:37 am:

Peter, I hear you about not replacing your 32" CRT TV. My 27" was nice too but will say that my 50" HDTV is a completely different viewing "experience" which is more than just "watching" TV. Even my father said so and he is the stodgiest of critics. It's fun and now affordable to take the plunge, if it suits you.

If you really want to take the plunge but holding off because of upcoming technology, you'll be waiting until the end because there are always changes. I waited a little only so that I could get (1) reasonably good HDTV that could be viewed at angles (RP LCD is very good) at a price no more than $2,500 (2) have relatively standard digital inputs (HDMI) (3) have at least 2 digital inputs (has cable card too) and (4) wouldn't suffer from the plasma burn in issue and had a bulb that could be user changeable. All of these worked with my new Panasonic 50" and I got it at a stupdendous price. I am thrilled I spent the money. In a year from now something else will be out there but my viewing experience will still be far more than adequate and enjoyable. I think the time to take the plunge is when you are ready and when you think some of the important items are standardized, such as HDTV, digital inputs (for now at least), and generally that the technology will age reasonably well.

Professor Tom

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 02:03 am:

Throw away your LCD and plasma screens. Both plasma and LCD technology pale in comparison to that, which is currently in development: Carbon-nanotube screens.

For the uninitiated, a quick primer on how the carbon-nanotube screens work: carbon molecules linked together resemble thin cylinders, these cylinders are bundled together, placed in an aligned electric field, and emit electrons of sufficient energy to activate phosphors. Also called a field emission display/screen.

Like plasma and LCD screens, whose aim is to replace the bulky CRT, the carbon-nanotube television attempts to make the home TV more manageable (size wise). Flat screen seems to be the way to go. But carbon-nanotube screens don�t have the burn-in problem or inefficient high power draw associated with plasma screens. And carbon-nanotube screens don�t have the smearing effect associated with fast moving images on LCD screens (the pixels in a field emission display switch on and off quicker than they do in the LCD unit) nor does a carbon-nanotube have the viewing angle limitation of the LCD screen.

An excellent review of carbon-nanotube screens may be found in MIT's Nov 2004 issue of Technology Review (from which I've paraphrased). The article (titled �Nanotech Display� and authored by Charles C. Mann) is available online.

My plan for my next TV? Buy a great quality � bargain priced cathode ray tube TV in the interim, while carbon-nanotube TVs eliminate the plasma and LCD competiton, wait a while longer for nanotube technology to become affordable, and then buy one of these babies. Heck, wait long enough and perhaps they�ll be giving away the plasma and LCD screens for near-free.

Student Mike

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 03:29 am:

Wow Professor Tom Great advice. I think I too will buy a great new dirt cheap CRT and wait for my new Nanotech screen. Kinda sounds like the old Beta Max story, or the Video Disc (lp size) failure for LCD/Plasma.
Thanx for the tip!

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 12
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 03:44 am:

While you guys are watching your November 2004 edition of Technology Review for the next few years while waiting for it to come out, I'll be enjoying my rear projection hi definition LCD and its vibrant colors. I think I'll hang on to it for a while... lol.

Anonymous

Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:28 am:

I'll be down on the field at the Superbowl via my 200 inch mega-screen HI DEF FRONT PROJECTOR, while others, holding out for the ultimate technology 5 to 10 yrs away, will be MERELY WATCHING their 7 inch black and white TV purchased at Walgreens for $19.95

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW RABBITS TO CHASE. THE INDUSTRY NEEDS THAT TO KEEP PROFITS ROLLING IN.

Student Mike

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:34 am:

No dude, the industry needs idiots like you to "KEEP PROFITS ROLLING IN".

Djenka

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 06:08 pm:

By Djenka (not an anonymus)

Inspite that plasma look more natural to me and that wieving nagle is far better for now, it does not take much of the brains to predict same fate for plasma as for Betamax vcr's (vs VHS).

Producers claim lifespan of an average CRT to be 15-20yrs, similar to plasma. Warranty usualy covers only first 1 sometimes up to 5 years. After that you are on your own.
Being in the consumer tv repair industry my self, i can recall many (in words: MANY) cases of a upper end CRT tv sets having tubes faded after 6-7 years and quite often after 5-6 years. Now if you pay ~1000EUR or much less for a CRT tv you might swallow that much easier than if you pay 2-3000EUR or more for Plasma tv with faded screen after 5-6 years (in real life it is not always as predicted).

With most innovations and improvements in LCD technology rather than in Plasma, quite soon LCD will be developed to at least match plasma in most features. Plasma will never match virtual eternal life of LCD (backlight can be made replacable, pixels will be improved for minimum or no dead pixels).

Conclusion: For now, i vote for plasma if you are looking for a (conditionaly) short term better. Very soon... odds are not going to be in favour of Plasma.

fogster

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 08:33 am:

I have a Sharp 24" LCD TV in the bedroom, a B&O Beovision 24" LCD TV in the living room and a 36" Toshiba CRT in the video room. My brother has a 42" Panasonic Plasma. My best mate has a Sony 32" LCD Widescreen. I spend a lot of time in front of all of them.
The LCD TV's were not my purchase (they're on loan - I'm looking after my uncle's apartment); the toshiba is my own TV.

I'm an audiophile (into fairly high-end hi-fi equipment) and I enjoy wine tasting too. Why am I telling you guys this? Because to a lot of people there is no difference between a �300 and a �3000 hi-fi; the same can be said to apply to wine. I'm not good enough to tell the difference between a �30 and �100 bottle of wine each and every time; but I can's always tell the difference between a bottle of wine I like and one I don't, and I can normally identify roughly where a wine is from and what grape it comes from without seeing the label. Lot's of people can't, and that's fine by me; but I get so peeved off when people who can't (or won't) taste the difference accuse me of lying, that I can't taste the difference either. How they explain that I'm able to say which wine is which time after time they can't explain. They don't experience the same thing as me so I must be wrong.

I'm just trying to put my comments in perspective. That these are my impressions of what I like and don't. They aren't "right or wrong", it's just my impressions. I hope that's useful.

The three LCD screens I have access to are, to me, ranging from BITTERLY dissapointing (in the B&O and Sharp case) to "poor to average" in the Sony. People have made reference to "cartoonish" colours herein and I have to agree. Everything seems a little too "forced" on the LCD's. Almost like someone has taken a black and white picture and then tried to colour it, matching the actual colours to the pallette available on the LCD TV by eye. They've nearly got it right, but not quite, so everything seems a bit "wrong". Also, borders between colours seem harsh (my mum loves it - she calls it "crisp" and "clear"), whereas I perceive it as "unreal", "bright" and "garish". I guess we're both right - and that's the point. I'm not sure what I'm seeing when I watch the LCD's, but it may be motion blurring - I know I feel "unsettled" watching them and, in preference, will watch a DVD at my girlfriends house on her 28" Cheap-as-chips Hitachi widescreen than on my $7000+ B&O Beovision. I can definitely perceive some form of blurring or lack of focus in TV broadcasts -this may be due to the source not the screen, but it is nowhere near as noticeable on the CRT Toshiba. If I had bought the B&O I'd be exceptionally dissapointed (although the motorised stand that follows you round the room is neat...!)

My brother has a 42" plasma and I find the picture far more watchable and "natural" than the LCD TV's - my mum (using her as a reliable benchmark!), finds the picture "soft" and displeasing, and I guess I can see her point a little.

For me, if I was looking now I'd buy my 36" Toshiba CRT screen all over again (even at the well over �1,000 I originally paid); progressive scan input is superb when fed from a suitably high-end DVD player.

If I had to choose between an LCD or plasma, based on my viewing, I'd go Plasma. The money I'd save for a comparable priced LCD screen I'd invest or save so that when the Plasma unit finally falls below my expectations I've got a stack of cash to buy whatever is great at the time. For me, the LCD picture is just unwatchable, considering I know what sort of experience the Toshiba set gives me.

If I had a plush modern apartment and wanted a flat non-crt screen I'd get a plasma, with a 5 year warranty. At the moment I wouldn't spend cash on an LCD TV - I simply don't like the picture - but if you like the pic, that's cool. The screen burn-in issue I'm not too bothered about because i don't actaully know anyone who's ever said "oh woh is me I bought a plasma and now I have the Sky News logo emblazened on my tv" - not one post in this forum has said, that I can see, that "I own a plasma and I have suffered burn-in". If this was a major problem, I'm sure at least one post here would have experienced it (unless the vast majority of postees have no actual experience of these technologies - which I don't think is the case).

The screen life? In 5 years time there'll be something new on the horizon and the plasma will be fine for the spare room (it won't, hopefuly, have "failed" but will just be a little dimmer - which will be fine for guests!).

Anyone who says they prefer the TFT pic - then that's not for me to disagree with you. My mum would like you lots and probably invite you in for tea!

Whatever you buy, I hope you enjooy your viewing - but please, don't disregard the idea of a CRT!

PS

A footnote - it doesn't quite fit in here, but it is relevant with what's above....
The only thing I would say is that I have been TERRIBLY disappointed with the B&O kit - if you ever think about this sort of stuff, think very, VERY carefully - the B&O stereo that my uncle also has in the apartment (3 months old, not sure what model but one with sliding glass doors and a hard drive) is back with the supplier as the CD has failed; the doors keep sticking; and the neat ability to store 200+ albums is compromied by the fact that you can only label each CD (whether album or single) with 8 letters on the display - pathetic - so restrictive, and for �4,000 the TV is, frankly, a rip-off. This is over $13,000 of kit and frankly I think it is terribly overpriced (although you are paying for design and looks not just performance). My system (TV and Hi-fi) cost less than a half of it and, to me, blows it out of the water.

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 09:21 am:

Great thread - I, as many others seem to be, am looking to change my main TV in the living room.

From all of the above I take away the following :-

If you can at all avoid it - do not purchase either of these technologies today - WAIT.

From what I can gather generally the price of TFT screens will come in line with CRT models during 2005 given the huge manufacturing ramp up in Asia by the major electronics companies, at which point the whole debate will become moot.

If it doesn't - then based upon the price curve of all emerging technologies you will probably be able to buy something in 6 months time thats better and cheaper than what you would have bought today .. I know this last is true of most things so don't shout at me :-)

So ... I shall be keeping my hard earned cash in the bank ... continuing to watch the 32 inch Sony Vega I bought 6 years ago and frankly has exactly the same picture it had when new .... and have another look in 6 months time.

Just my 2 pennies worth ... :-)

ady

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 09:22 am:

i'm getting a techwood plasma, it's the cheapest one i can find, I'm not expecting the world on a stick!!
hope it's good.

rksjr1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:48 am:

Hi all - I'm new to all the technology but through recomendations from Tweeter and some mag reviews, I've pretty much decided on purchasing a Pioneer Elite 50" 1120HD plasma. Best price I'm seeing is about $8200 other than online which I've seen around $7K delivered - but I've heard that Pioneer won't honor warantees and they try to tell you they can sell you a comparable warntee for another few hundred $. I have a few questions - 1, what do you think about this choice and 2- which dvd player or player/recorder would you pair with it. - 3- Have/would any of you make a purchse like this from anyone other than a local electronics outlet who is an authorized dealer?
Thanks

nonTHEwiser

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:48 am:

still can't decide.

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 13
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 01:31 pm:

Think about how much you have to spend. From there choices become easier. I didn't care to spend that much on a TV and am thrilled with the LCD rear projection units which put up a very good picture for a very reasonable cost.

rksjr1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 02:50 pm:

I want to get the best plasma TV and dvd player or player/recorder I can for under $10K. I've compared plasmas to other options and preferred the picture quality and space savings over the other options. Obviously, if I can save $ I'd love to do so, but if I have that much in my budget, I want to get the best bang for those bucks.

KEN CONFUSED

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 07:40 pm:

OK...read everyones comments..now give me the facts cause I'm bleary eyed from all the literature I've read.

I want to buy a flat screen/wall mount TV. 35-46 inches. What is the consensus on best model that fits these parameters??

HDTV OR PLASMA??

Which model??

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:27 am:

you need a wall mount TV so that limits you alot, basically to some kind of plasma at a cheap price. Pure LCD's for wall hanging are way high in price anywhere near 42 inch size -if they even have that size - so buy cheap because 1080p is on the way, and nearly everything is obsolete within a year of 2 anyways

Walmart will soon have a 42" 720p (true Hi Def) plasma, i think Sam's club has it already - and is priced around 2300 - not a bad deal. Don't be fooled by EDTV plasmas (480p) - they will be unable to play at hi def resolution the upcoming HD dvds due out soon

A 720p plasma is excellent for someone actually needing wall placement - but buy cheap ones that will do 95% of the job at 50% of the price

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 14
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:52 am:

Had a good look at plasmas and LCDs and LCD rear projections tonight at CompUSA. There is no question that sometimes the connectors are part of the problem. The LCDs were the brightest but I'm not sure the connection was solid as there was some fuzzy distortion that looked like connection. There was some very unsettling muddiness when there was motion (like someone waving their hand) but it could partially be due the connector. The Sony LCD rear projector looked very good and without these problems but on a separate connector.

The plasmas did not compare in terms of brightness. While some were EDTV, the overall picture is different.

Bottom line is that I wouldn't start running to Walmart for their $2300 plasma until you see it and compare it. There is no question that not all plasmas are created equal and the low end plasmas are blown away by the LCD rear projection at the same price point that I saw. Use your eyes first before you buy.

ElectronicsNut

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 02:31 pm:

Plasma and LCD will both be obsolete for large screen starting in 2006. SED/FED technology promises far better picture and lower power consumption than either. Toshiba already stopped making plasmas to focus on SED technology.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118836,00.asp

Herman Munster

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 02:40 pm:

Man, the power of advertising. Suddenly, people are bickering over whether the $5,000 LCD is better than the $5,000 plasma, while seemingly ignoring the harsh reality that we're willing to spend $5,000 to watch an episode of The Bachelor and 20 commercials. Our sedentary lifestyles are leading to some interesting "social" interactions. I could NEVER forgive myself if I was to spend thousands of dollars on a brain-deadening piece of machinery that hypnotizes me and tries to sell me things.

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 15
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 02:44 pm:

Nut -- neither plasma nor LCD will be obsolete in 2006. First, that product isn't out. Second, nobody has actually seen what it really looks like. Third, there is no mention of pricing and I doubt it will be cheap. Everything will eventually become obsolete.

Herman, I don't disagree with you about the sedentary lifestyle. But if you want to enjoy a good home theatre or football game, it's wonderful to watch on a big screen. Deciding what to get is the same as buying any high ticket item and one wants to be satisfied with the purchase by making an educated decision on the limitations beforehand. Society itself is abhorrent with an endless supply of "reality TV" shows designed to capitalize on the worst in people. I also don't now how parents can monitor TV these days since almost every prime time sitcom is beyond sexually charged. For me, it's movies and football and occasionally the history and nature channels and I love it.

GamINg frEaK - AKA will

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 08:36 am:

LOOK I AM GOING TO BUY THE SONY 32" LCD TV FOR �2995 NEXT WEEK AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO TELL ME WHETHER YOU CAN PLAY PLAYSTATION 2 ON THEIR LIKE A NORMAL CRT TV!!!

PLEASE HELP I DONT WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE!!!!

Stan in Minnesota

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:41 pm:

This seems like a good place to ask this question. I just replaced an aged (18 years old) Panasonic 19" color TV with a Sharp Aquos 20" LCD EDTV. I have Comcast standard digital cable.

This Sharp set gets great reviews for picture quality. However, I notice on live broadcasts (local; CNN; Fox, etc.) that people's faces and hair are "overly smoothed" to the point of looking like they were made up by an undertaker for a visitation.

I do a lot of digital photography. The effect I am seeing on the new TV is exactly the same as a ditigal photo image that has been over-corrected for noise.

Newer DVDs that I play (progressive scan) on this TV have some of that same look, but not as bad. Older DVDs and older movies on cable look much better. Oddly, most commercials look much better than live broadcasts. Some commercials look spectacularly realistic compared to live news broadcasts.

I have tried to research this on the Internet, but I have not seen any comment on this rather obvious video effect. I wonder what causes it: HD signal being down-sampled to 480? Digital signal scanning on a set with too little resolution (the Sharp is 640 x 480)? Just a characteristic of digital TV or LCD displays? What?

Apparently just something to live with in the digital age.

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 16
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:28 am:

"Peter, I hear you about not replacing your 32" CRT TV. My 27" was nice too but will say that my 50" HDTV is a completely different viewing "experience" which is more than just "watching" TV. Even my father said so and he is the stodgiest of critics. It's fun and now affordable to take the plunge, if it suits you."

If you really want to take the plunge but holding off because of upcoming technology, you'll be waiting until the end because there are always changes. I waited a little only so that I could get (1) reasonably good HDTV that could be viewed at angles (RP LCD is very good) at a price no more than $2,500 (2) have relatively standard digital inputs (HDMI) (3) have at least 2 digital inputs (has cable card too) and (4) wouldn't suffer from the plasma burn in issue and had a bulb that could be user changeable. All of these worked with my new Panasonic 50" and I got it at a stupdendous price. I am thrilled I spent the money. In a year from now something else will be out there but my viewing experience will still be far more than adequate and enjoyable. I think the time to take the plunge is when you are ready and when you think some of the important items are standardized, such as HDTV, digital inputs (for now at least), and generally that the technology will age reasonably well.

Yes I hear what you're saying Slink, but the truth is, i've already made my mind up to get an LCD screen for all the benefits mentioned above. The reason i'm waiting though is because of the few problems (motion blurring, limited and expensive screen sizes etc) which still plague the technology. However, i as do many others on here and whom i've spoken to, believe that LCD will increasingly come to the forefront of the market and therefore believe that as such, these problems will be overcome within the next year or two. So, for me, (bearing in mind i expect a good few years out of any TV i'm spending �1000 - �2000 on) it is better to wait a year or two and get what i'm looking for, rather than be dissapointed in a couple of years(and for the next 5 or 6 yrs) if these changes do come about. And in case you're going to ask; if they DON'T then i'll re evaluate my position then.
I realise that this may not be relevant advice to many people who are seeking to buy as soon as possible. But quite frankly, the TV i have at the moment (although 5 yrs old) is 32" and working perfectly, (picture superb which imo, is as good as, and probably exceeds that of any LCD or plasma which i've seen to date) so i'm happy to wait.

Good enough?

Cheers then

Anonymous

Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 05:17 pm:

WITH HI DEF, you may actually watch less TV, simply because you enjoy it so much

That is my experience at least

First, is because regular TV looks so bad, that 90% of channels are avoided most of the time since they are non HD.

Second and more importantly, the qualitative experience is so much better with HI DEF even though the quantity (ie. duration spent)is precisely the same. For example 2 hr movies take 2 hrs whether hi def or not, yet I believe when for example viewing a great movie with vivid detail on a super large screen HI DEF setup, it is much more satisfying than watching the same movie in lower quality detail. Point is HI DEF consumes no more time, yet the experience far surpasses regular broadcasts

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 16
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 06:28 pm:

Peter, I understand. If you were buying a 32" CRT for now then I would question your thinking. I donated my old 27" to my parents who are thrilled with an excellent old Sony. I wanted something larger. While 32 isn't huge, it's certainly better and if the screen is nice it still a good picture.

There is no question that CRTs look best in pure picture. However, there is no comparison between seeing TV high def in the big screen and if this is something you desire, don't wait too long. There will always be something else around the corner. After looking at LCD versus the rear projection LCD or plasma, I cannot say that the plasma is such a different experience to warrant the price differential. The LCD RP is very, very good. At prices between US $2,000 - 3,000, it is quite affordable.

I have also noticed that plasma and LCD and RP all do suffer occasionally from some weird fuzz in certain areas that I don't think has to do with motion. Happens almost exclusively on HDTV than movies. The LCD that I saw might have had a motion problem but not on the LCD.

My thought is that any time you can and are willing to wait for technology, you should do so. However, if it's something you'd really like and I think you should seize the day if it's affordable, then go for it and don't look back.

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 17
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:01 am:

"WITH HI DEF, you may actually watch less TV, simply because you enjoy it so much

That is my experience at least

First, is because regular TV looks so bad, that 90% of channels are avoided most of the time since they are non HD.

Second and more importantly, the qualitative experience is so much better with HI DEF even though the quantity (ie. duration spent)is precisely the same. For example 2 hr movies take 2 hrs whether hi def or not, yet I believe when for example viewing a great movie with vivid detail on a super large screen HI DEF setup, it is much more satisfying than watching the same movie in lower quality detail. Point is HI DEF consumes no more time, yet the experience far surpasses regular broadcasts "

WHAT???

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 18
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:11 am:

fair comment Slink me old m8, but although you may be paying $2-3000 for a good sized LCD(you didn't specify), over there in the states (i assume), us Neanderthals over in England are a little behind the times in terms of screen sizes and price (we've only recently been introduced to the wonders of tin openers having previously been reliant on either sharp rocks or our teeth to get to the yummy goodness within). The biggest LCD screen i've clocked so far has been no more than 32"

PROS-CONS??

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 12:16 pm:

CAN ANYONE..give me pros and cons on

Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P 42 in. EDTV Plasma Television Product rating: 5 STARS

The VIERA plasma line features new designer cosmetics a fully integrated ATSC tuner for high definition reception built-in CableCARD slot Panasonic was the first manufacturer to receive certification from CableLabs for an integrated digital television set DTV that connects directly to cable television systems and receives digital services without requiring a set-top box and HDMI High Definition and Multimedia Interface input The Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P42 diagonal screen EDTV Integrated ATSC tuner SD slot 4000:1 contrast ratio HDMI input 3/2 pulldown two-tuner P-I-P

Mr Ben

Unregistered guest

Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 07:09 am:

fact: lcd screens make you sterile and cause sugar diabetes.They are also made by the same people responsible for the faking of the moon landing and WWF.

Artbo

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 11:29 am:

NEED HELP!!!
I just starting researching LCD vs Plasma, not sure which way to go yet. Can someone explain to me what HD ready or HD Built-In means. Would I require an additional cable digital box to receive an HD signal if I went with HD Built-In. I currently have the standard cable line with no digital box.

n3tlq

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 01:17 am:

Wow!!! This has to be the longest post on one subject I've ever seen! I've been in the "higher end" of the Audio/Video business for over 30 years, and I think BOTH flat panel technologies have great advantages over the old crt's. You will NEVER see a properly converged image on a crt...physics won't allow it (unless it's an old monochrome display, so who wants that?) As has been shown by the sheer number of responses, both camps have their supporters. Yes, plasmas will fade over a very long time, and can be burned in. Yes lcd's DO have a big problem with fast motion, and a somewhat weird color palette. All front projection must be used in a very dark room, unless a badly faded image is o.k.! Nothing's perfect...Figure out how you want to use the set, where you want to put it, and how much you want to invest to accomplish your goal. When the shoe fits, buy it. Enjoy yourself! Now I've got to go catch up on tvland's 35th repeat of my favorite "Green Acres" episode...BTW, caring about the life expectancy of the display is meaningless! No way the rest of the set's circuitry will last that long!!!!

Graham Schofield

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:39 am:

GAMES. GAMES. GAMES.

Ok Im in the UK, have a ps2, an xbox and a gamecube, that can all run at 50 OR 60 Hz. I use the best quality scart or rgb connectors each console has made for it.( well the RGB connectors go into a scart plug, so they are all scart really, you know the type, a white, red and yellow phono style set of plugs that fit into the back of a scart block).

MY dvd player is run via a scart socket.

My SKY box connects a regualr aerial connector to the back of my tv ( via the VCR).

I want to get a 42" plasma, the ones I have been looking at are by Tiny ( www.tiny.com), Hisense ( from comet.co.uk) and the LG RX42px11 ( from comet.co.uk).

They all have at least 1 scart socket.

They are all around the �1400-�1500 mark.

Am I going to be able to plug and play all my games consoles, sky box , dvd player and vcr or am I going to have to get additional items to make them run?

It seems to be kinda tuff to get definitive answers from anywhere, and the guys in the shops have no idea and are not willing to set up consoles for you test.Losers.

So I turn to this knowledgeable forum. Are plasma screens simply plug and play with all games consoles...old and new?

fogster

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 01:29 pm:

Stan in Minnesorta - you're describing exactly what I see on my LCD's. I really am not impressed by the technology.

AlohaGeorge

Unregistered guest

Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 02:15 am:

I live in a beachfront house on the Windward Side of Oahu. It is a very salty environment and virtually anything that's metal will rust/deteriorate over time such as electronic boards.I replace regular TV's, computers, microwave ovens, etc after 3-4 years as when they break, it's usually not cost effective to have them repaired. Given the salty environment, would a plasma or LCD be better?

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 19
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 03:45 am:

If cost is an issue then LCD rear projection wins by virtue of it being the cheapest by far. The Panasonic, Sony or Samsung all make good comparable models and cost roughly $2-3K. Anything good in plasma in the equivalent will be at least double that and the picture difference isn't tremendous. LCD is costly and IMHO and to most, looks worse than plasma and also the LCD rear projection.

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 05:15 pm:

I've had a smaller CRT hi def for several years but recently went to LCD front projection (PANASONIC PT-AE700U) because 2k today can produce a picture better than what a 20k CRT based projector could do merely 3 yrs ago, and it looks far better than plasma or regular size LCD, DLP, or CRT

Since the unit is so small you can 100% protect the projector when not in use, using any number of covers

Only thing exposed is the screen which can be incredibly cheap in terms of cost, and of course it has no electronics. My 92 inch screen costs less than 200 dollars

check out this article
http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae700.htm

a 16 year old with more sense than you

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 08:14 am:

you babies need to quit whining

Couch Potato

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:03 pm:

Plasma, LCD, DLP, blah, blah, blah... after the second Budwieser they all look the same.

Go Patriots Go!
(slurp)

Prodigy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:56 pm:

Currently, the eight different types of display are:

Plasma, LCD, D-ILA, DLP, LCOS, RP LCD, RP CRT, and CRT

But don't waste your money just yet because the next generation technology is just a year away:

<a href="http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/">Flat-Panel SED</a>

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:20 pm:

NEXT GENERATION IS ALWAYS A YEAR AWAY

FACT is for 3 to 4k total today one can duplicate the in-theater experience buying everything: projector, screen, receiver, speakers etc

You don't need to drop for example 25k on the new Fujitsu 1080p LCD LPF-D711 Front projector. You can almost get the same performance at 90% less by buying at the bottom of the cost curve, not the top when a technology is brand new

Anonymous

Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 04:03 am:

Interesting read.
Cheers peeps.
Would be good to hear from peeps who have this hardware, and have had it for a few years thou....

Flashjeff

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:23 am:

Hello. I'm in the market for an HDTV and found the discussions here most fascinating and informative, not to mention highly....spirited, given the strong opinions/biases/axes to grind about the subject. But what I didn't see talked about at length is the high cost of plasma sets and whatnot.

I don't have four, five, six grand or more to spend on these things, regardless of how great they are. My ceiling would be three grand at most, and even that's a stretch. What would be my best bet in terms of quality, reliability and value which is perhaps most important to people like myself who would like to make the jump to HDTV but have to watch their budget?

Any help you can provide me would be most helpful.

Pete Bosworth

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:55 pm:

16 million colors sounds pretty good whether you can see them or not.

However if you consider that 10-bit 4:2:2 digital video has only 1023 discreet values, and 8-bit only 256, the argument is irrelevent in the Mpeg2
DVD world

G�sta H. Lovgren

New member

Username: G�sta

Lavallette, NJ
United States

Post Number: 2
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:00 am:

Having done my due diligence (a lot of it coming from this board) for about two months I finally made my decision: Yesterday I got delivery on a 50" Plasma.

Why Plasma? Quite simple, most bang for the buck. Paid $3500 for 50" screen, highest resolution (1300x800 or something like that, 1080i), decent sound (came with speakers), .... Pretty much everything that any high end set offered. To get the same, or close, in LCD would have cost close to 10 grand.

Came complete with a stand. Literally plugged it in, connected the speakers, hooked up the coax, one phone call to a very accomodating tech, and voila there was a HUGE crystal clear picture. Haven't got HD service installed yet. Wanted to wait until I got tv first. Sorry I waited now.

At this point, one day in, I would recco to anyone who is ready to buy to go ahead, bite the bullet and do it. Either LCD or Plasma, you won't be sorry. At least I'm not, nor is my wife after watching Singing in the Rain (we had it on TIVO). It's a whole new experience.

I got the set from ByDesign (mentioned in an earlier post on here). I was very reluctant to go with an unknown name but:

1) It was about $1500 less than the nearest comparable set I could find anywhere, much less in a recognizable brand name.

2) telephone conversations (several) with them (including the president of the company - Brian Dennison) left me with good impressions.

3) I was assured if there were ANY problems for the first year they would dispatch a local serviceman.

4) They had a tech service that was responsive to customers. (As good an experience as one gets with any tech supports (and that's quite a few) that I have found.)

5) They have finished negotiations with Costco and will be supplying them with 42" plasmas very soon. (This established bona fides as a serious company for me.)

And for the bucks, ByDesign can't be beat (at least not yet). The set appears be well designed and the company dependable. No bad vibes dealing with them. If you decide to call ByDesign, tell'em "Swede said to call." Won't help you any (or me either) but it's just neat, that's all.

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 02:07 am:

you would have to go to projection LCD to compare in price, as regular LCD's are ultra-expensive for larger ones, and of course projection LCD's are not wall hangable in the same way

your price is cheap and you got true HD (768P native) and you got a large size for a plasma - meaning its a good choice

all these technologies are a bargain when it comes down to it, its a matter of whether you need ultra slim or a bit heavier or want the mega screen front projecters

and for MOVIE VIEWERS who hook into a good hi def cable, or directTV/dish/voom hi def - they can look fantastic -even some 30 yrs old

1366 x 768 optimal resolution
1080i digital signal compatibility
1200:1 contrast and 16:9 aspect ratio
Dual 181 channel electronic PLL tuner
DVI, D-sub 15, component, S-Video, and 2 composites video inputs
Composite audio/video outputs and headphone jack
Built-in two 15W detachable speakers
VESA standard wall mountable
53 3/10"W x 32 3/4"H x 11 3/10"D
Includes remote and table stand

Flashjeff

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 06:30 am:

Thank you for the information. I greatly appreciate it. I've done some research and found that a rear-projection set would work best like the one you mentioned.

The Samsung 46" DLP (HL-P4663W) set intrigues me since I've read that DLP is supposed to be the latest and greatest technology which provides a quality picture with no threat of burn-in as with plasma sets, and it has both DVI and HDMI inputs, I could use the former with a HD satellite receiver and the latter with the Samsung upscale DVD player which I bought a few weeks ago. Best Buy sells the set for $2,400 which I can handle.

I'll keep on looking around to see what else I can find for my budget.

Bluford

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 05:57 pm:

May a woman speak! I have enjoyed this forum, but I was amazed at the competiveness displayed, arrogance and rudeness about deciding on a form of Television. I too having been trying to decide on the technology to go with. From the forum, I've decided to go with a 42" Plasma because for what I want to use, it for is my son's PS2 gaming, and their love of the sporting events and occasional movie watching. I like the opinion of some one who said that the monry they save in 5 years they could purchase a new and the latest technology. Have a great day and good shopping! Now what are the best deals for all that is needed to install should be the next forum!

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 20
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 06:12 pm:

Bluford -- good post (although no need to say it twice, just like my mother, ROFL.)

As many have here try to say, you have to buy what works for you and try to get the best you can that will work. In some instances, like yours, a smaller plasma works perfectly. It's actually not the cheapest way to go but it may be the best for video games, I really wouldn't know.

Flashjeff -- DLP is good but it isn't without its issues. Personally, I like parts of DLP a lot and others I hate. DLP has a deeper darker tone but I find that a lot of detail gets lost in its seemingly darker picture. I also see distortions in the picture that aren't the same as the plasmas and LCD RPs. Supposedly the next generation of DLP (not the current) will change part of the way the color wheel technology works (I think there is going to be the addition of additional ones so that there is better rendering, I can't remember exactly just that htis is occurring.) But you should definitely LOOK at all the TVs without prejudice. DLP is not necessarily "better" than LCD RP and I'd say they are close equivalents IMHO and plasma is a different step. Again, plasma means a quality plasma which will cost you quite a bit more.

While I have the Panasonic RP LCD, Sony makes a good one and some seem to like the Hitachi (I don't care for it except the styling is cool.) Samsung does make a higher end DLP which you should also check out and see whether the price differential is only features. Look at these TVs if that is your budget and choose the one that appeals to you most. You'll be happy I'm sure whichever one you get. ENJOY!

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 06:30 pm:

sorry, plasmas are never recommended for gaming for one simple reason: they are very highly prone to burn-in, and gaming itself is at the top of the list for creating burn-in problems

LCD or LCD projection tend to work best with games, others like DLPs

CRTs burn-in however they tend to be ultra-cheap in price, not big losses if they are destroyed

Flashjeff

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:25 am:

Thanks for the info, Slink. There's so much to take into consideration here, it can make one's head spin. Whew!

On the subject of burn-in, I'm very curious about that problem. Just how severe is burn-in with plasma, LCD, DLP or CRT sets? Does it happen right away or over the course of time? That is of concern to me especially since I'll be watching more TV than DVD's and practically EVERY channel has it's logo in the bottom corner of the screen. How serious does burn-in have to be factored in when purchasing a HD set?

As for Anonymous and his statement about CRT sets not being a big loss, that depends on if you happen to have disposable income. I don't, and a 200 pound paperweight would make for quite an eyesore.

jb luvs panasonic

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 09:18 pm:

Hi all - fascinating post here. I just purchased a 42" Panasonic EDTV plasma, and it is absolutely beautiful. It's the commerical version, and I got it for a steal: $1799.

For me, space was an absolute requirement since I wanted to hang it on a wall. And from what I've read and who I've spoken to, Panasonic is on the leading edge of plasma development right now. I may be looked down on in the snob community of native HDTV viewers - but I would challenge any of them to check out this Panasonic and honestly compare it to the HDTVs in/around that price range.

IMHO, spending more than 2k on a tv was a crazy proposition. In 5-10 years, after this current debate has long been forgotten, I'm sure the next generation 'whatever it is' will kick the azz of my Panasonic, similar to how my 28" 1995 GE got its azz kicked when I brought this baby home.

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 21
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 09:49 pm:

Snobs? For 10% you would be spending $2,000 (that's only $200) and you could practically purchase a real HDTV. There is a noticeable difference between the EDTV and HDTV. For current DVDs you'll be thrilled and there will be little difference.

If I was already spending $1,800 on a TV (a lot IMHO), then why not spend $200 more and get the full deal? I actually paid just a bit more than you did and got a 50" LCD RP and it was no contest for picture in my book. Since I like sports and watch HDTV, for almost the same price the EDTV just wasn't an option since the technology wasn't enough of an "improvement"

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 12:01 am:

On the 92 inch FRONT PROJECTOR I have, the difference between 480p (dvd)(EDTV) and 720p (true hi def) is in fact quite dramatic. On larger screens the differences are more significant

Many people watch 42" plasmas from 8 to 10 feet away, and at that distance perhaps the EDTV vs HDTV detail is not that much different

However, the mistake being made by many new to hi def is that they use the old non-HD standard viewing distance of 2 to 3 times screen diagonal, as applicable to actual hi def

With a quality hi def signal on a 720p or 1080i signal, approx 1.0 to 1.3 times screen diagonal is near optimal in recreating a true commercial theater experience. Otherwise you are missing out on huge detail

Lets say someone puts a 3.5 diagonal EDTV plasma on a wall and sits 10 feet away, they are going to miss 1/2 the detail anyways - so in that case the EDTV and HDTV difference doesn't matter much. However at 4 feet away the HD plasma will show much more detail on average than the EDTV

On basketball and football games for example, that extra detail allows on a mid-field or mid-court wide shot to see various players making their movies in a detailed fashion

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 19
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 05:53 am:

Another consideration for UK viewers when deciding whether to buy now or later is the fact that HD broadcasts will not be available until 2006 at the earliest, (according to Sky) and high definition DVDs probably won't be here until next year when blue ray discs are released into the UK market(2006 http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/blu-ray5.htm). Therefore, is it really worth paying over the odds now for a HD compatible television, or is it better to wait until HD television becomes a reality when LCD/DLP/Plasma technology etc, is that much better (and cheaper)?
Your thoughts?

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 20
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 06:13 am:

I'm just interested to know what those championing the superiority of plasma displays have to say about a couple of things...
First let me reaquaint people with a couple of paragraphs from the article above:

Response Time
Response time is the amount of time, measured in milliseconds (ms), that it takes for a pixel to go from active to inactive and back to active again. Lower numbers mean faster transitions and fewer visible image artifacts. Plasma TVs were made to handle rapid movement on the screen more effectively. They can have response times as low as 15 ms. LCD TVs started as PC displays, and so the need to show fast movement wasn't critical; somewhere around 25 ms. LCD manufacturers have been steadily improving their response times as the demand for fast moving, full motion video has increased. Newer model LCD TVs can have response times as fast as 16 ms.

And...

Contrast Ratio
Contrast ratio is the measurement of the brightest white against the blackest black that the TV can create. The higher the contrast ratio, the easier it is to discern details on the screen. Current plasmas measure contrast ratios of up to 3000:1. However, independent reviewers believe that measured in real world viewing situations, contrast ratios for plasma TVs drop to approximately 200:1. Conversely, LCD TV contrast ratios range from 350-450:1 when measured using the same realistic standards.

Check out this newer article @ http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/116091.html . In particular this paragraph:

Syntax introduces newly-designed Olevia 20-inch LCD TVs (LT20S and LT20SD) featuring 500:1 contrast ratios, 800x600 resolution, 12ms response times, VGA and component inputs, plus a built-in DVD player included in the LT20SD model.

Question: If plasma screens have (at the time of above article) a response time of 15 ms and the new generation of LCDs have a response time as low as 12 ms.... doesn't this mean "ghosting" on LCD screens is a thing of the past?

Have a nice day!

Toilet Paper

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:26 am:

The response time articles are pretty skewed towards LCD. The worst plasma on the market responds around 15ms. Panasonic has a 8ms response time, Pioneer is down to almost 4 according to the reps. The shutter on an LCD is also more prone to inaccuracies. Voltage from the control chips tell how far to open the gate to make a color. This and having a slower response time is what causes pixel flicker. Ghosting still isn't a thing of the past, but is getting better. It really isn't that prevalent till you get to larger sizes.

The real world contrast ratio basically means measured with the lights on. LCD specs out higher because the polorized filters reject ambient light better. Most plasmas now have filters that accomplish a similar result. LCD will win in contrast with the lights on though.

SED isn't as close as everyone thinks. Next year they will be commercially available, but won't be cost competitive till 2008. It is tough to tell what will happen by then, but Toshiba and Cannon definetly don't have a lock on the market. I guess the market will decide if SED is worth paying double for a set until they come down in price. Also, Toshiba never made plasma, just rebadged NEC and Fujitsu product.

OLED is the rollup technology everyone is talking about. One primary color could be rolled up, but the combination RGB OLED is too delicate. Samsung has a 21 inch model that will be shipping eventually.

Slink

Bronze Member

Username: Slinky

Post Number: 22
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 01:14 am:

I'm not sure if Rear Projection LCD is different than regular LCD (it seems to be) but I haven't noticed any motion problems that were not exactly the same as with the high end Sony's in the same store. In fact, the view on the RP LCD with good ones is downright gorgeous and in some ways more pleasing than the plasma. I find that plasma appeal varies greatly by brand and model and seeing them is a must. For those of you buying in the mail, you might be happy since it's a huge improvement over regular TV but side by side with competing products is another story.

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 21
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:03 am:

"OLED is the rollup technology everyone is talking about. One primary color could be rolled up, but the combination RGB OLED is too delicate. Samsung has a 21 inch model that will be shipping eventually. "

So does this mean that OLED technology has been abandoned then?
Also Toilet Paper, in your opinion, are the technical problems with LCD (ie. Color Saturation, Screen Size, Viewing Angle, Response Time) surmountable and do you think they will be overcome in the near future. ( question also to anyone with an unbiased, informed opinion)

Cheers

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 22
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:07 am:

"OLED is the rollup technology everyone is talking about. One primary color could be rolled up, but the combination RGB OLED is too delicate. Samsung has a 21 inch model that will be shipping eventually. "

So does this mean that OLED technology has been delayed but not abandoned then? And if so, any estimates on how long until it enters the market?(Also any decent links would be appreciated)

Also Toilet Paper, in your opinion, are the technical problems with LCD (ie. Color Saturation, Screen Size, Viewing Angle, Response Time) surmountable and do you think they will be overcome in the near future. ( question also to anyone with an unbiased, informed opinion)

Cheers

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 23
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:08 am:

Whoops!

Toilet Paper

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 12:58 pm:

No OLED is still alive and kicking. Eventually it may be a contender when the life span improves and prices come down. For televisions that is.

The flexible OLED material is still being developed. I'm not sure what is going to be done with it, but in concept you could layer over a wall and change the color every day if you want. The military seems pretty interested in it because you have the possiblity for adaptive camoflage.

Right now high end cars are getting OLED displays, which have a little better performance than similar LCDs.

I think active matrix LCDs can be improved, but most manufacturers are addressing the wrong issues. At CES Samsung and Sony showed new LED backlight technologies that were designed to improve color reproduction. LCD will never be as color accurate as plasma or SED because it acts more like a light filter.

LCD will continue to improve, however I think there are more limitations to the technology than plasma, SED, or OLED. Engineers will have to get alot more creative to overcome the current problems. Areas that they will improve over the next year are cell response time and light leakage around the shutters.

The trick is that it really doesn't need to be much better for conumers to purchase. 70% of the general public think that LCDs look great. Most of them don't care about color reproduction so many of the limitations aren't relevant to sales.

Talk to you later!

Matt Elyash

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 07:14 pm:

Just to Ruin everybody's day......

Westinghouse unveiled 37" 42" and 47" LCD's at CES with delivery dates starting in March - July 2005. The 37" with a MSR of $2499 U.S. dollars has a pixel Count that is DOUBLE the competition with a price that is hundreds and hundreds less! We are talking 2 million pixels instead of the standard 1mp, enabling 1920x1080p YES... PROGRESSIVE, not Interlaced 1080i giving you the ability to double your detail and get a larger screen and still pay less! Dude I don't care how good Plasma is, If I can get double the res and pay half or less the cost I am all over it!

Don't Believe me?
Here is the link to the interview in Digital Media Net. The tag line is below, with the link below that.

"In this exclusive interview for Consumer Electronics Net, Douglas Woo, President of Westinghouse Digital Electronics, and John Araki, Director of Product Marketing for that company, talk with CEN�s Charlie White about perhaps the biggest story of this year�s Consumer Electronics Show� LCD TVs and their ongoing and precipitous price drop. Not only are their prices in freefall, but the quality of LCD displays and the sizes of their screens are increasing exponentially. Find out why prices are dropping so quickly while resolution is on the rise, and take a look into the future of LCD television with these two industry experts.

Here is the link to the entire article, read it an weep kids, read it and weep......

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=30090

Matt Elyash

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 07:47 pm:

Someone back there a few days ago was talking about color reproduction on LCD/Plasma and computer applications. Colorists in Film & Television in general, will not use flat panel displays of any type for reference since they are far from accurate enough to provide the quality they need in accuratly color correcting or shading movies and commercials. This is revealed in Steve Hulfishes book, Color correction for Digital Video, the bible for color correction and shading used by many in the industry today.
The link is below....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578202019

The concept of color accuracy is really more of a subjective thing, with both LCD and Plasma panels, these are "display technologies" and not "Reference Monitors" they are in no way accurate in the first place.

Before you go all crazy and stuff, please understand that since in our minds we remember colors to be more saturated than they actually are, Display devices provide a more saturated view of the subject than reality actually presents, so that we find the picture to be more believable even though it is less accurate.

It is not in fact more accurate, but yet it IS more BELIEVEABLE. Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps, but as long as we are on the subject of the viewers perception....

Other factors that affect the look of ANY display, CRT, LCD, PLASMA, or any of the "moon dust technologies" (technology so far off in the future as to be about as accessable to the mainstream public as moon dust) are...

The viewing area, the color of the walls surounding the screen, what color clothes the person(s) standing or sitting in front of it are wearing, The color of the couch your sitting on, and a host of other issues.

Finally I must agree that getting personal really does not server any real purpose except to vent ones anger at perhaps purchasing a system and being told they made a mistake. Like so many said before me, ain't no such animal, if you are happy with the picture then you did not make a mistake! Now if the thing won't power up or play back your favorite DVD or HDTV signal, then you may have issues to work out, but if the picture looks good to you then "Be Happy Maaan"

Matt Elyash

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 08:11 pm:

One other "Caviet" when comparing units in the stores is "which one are they trying to move, either because they have a bunch of them, have a higher profit on them, or maybe there is a SPIFF or sales contest on them? Don't think all stores or sales people are above such trickery.

If you are looking at winning a contest with a major prize on the end of it, like a cruise or even one of the units your selling, a large amount of the folks I have had the misfortune to work around would have no compunction whatsoever in "de-tuning" the competition.

It is difficult to view objectively in this venue because of many variables in the store such as, where is that unit in the signal distribution chain for the content being played? Where is the unit in the store and where are the windows? Are both the units facing the same way with equal light falling on them?

What is that content and how is it being distributed? Are you looking at signal off air, a DVD or a HDTV reciever? Is it displaying native or interpolating the signal?

Who set up the monitor/panel in the first place, and did the know what they were doing?

How many lame-brains have come by and messed with the settings since that person who may (or may not) have known what they were doing set it up in the first place?

It all comes down to "What looks good to you"? Is LCD good enough for you? Are you going to host big Viewing Parties or snuggle up with your honey on the couch and watch chick flicks?

It is whatever trips YOUR trigger that counts.

Matt

tell tell

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 09:21 pm:

hi,
guys wots up? in this comparision i m really enjoyin thanks

Luvthedrew

Unregistered guest

Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 11:40 pm:

If Plasma is where it is at, then can anyone explain to me why Sony, Toshiba, Fuijitsu and Nec are all pulling out the the plasma industry? Sony and Toshiba both have pooled more recources into LCD technologies as well. Hmm, curious?

I have to say I have been toying with buying a HDTV for about a month now. When I first sought out I though one of those big 50" Projection screens (DLP or LCD) would be great...until I saw them with my own eyes up against an Top notch flat panel LCD or Plasma tv. No comparison, plasmas and one particular LCD looked amazing! Then I thought, that's alright...if I'm going to spend money on a HD set it might as well be one of the best, besides I can hang one on my wall over my fireplace and my wife LOVES that idea (saving space!)

So I decided to start doing a little research since there are a million different brands/types/connections/problems etc...

And what I came across was the one tv I fell in love with, the Sharp 45" Aquos LCD tv. Then I thought alright, plasma vs LCD..which one would win. And thus my entry to this fourm. I have to say for my own eyes I love the 1920x1080 pixels and my only "real" problem was the $8000 price tag it comes with. Compared to a similar priced plasma I could get a 50" top of the line Pioneer, Sony or Panasonic. But I just couldn't get over some of the issues with the plasmas, (none of which I will waste my breath on, you've already read about most of them). So why was I going to spend $8000 on a tv when I thougth I was going to spend around $2500? Oh and don't forget installation! So I had to take a moment and think about such a big decision.

Well, I have concluded that since December plasmas and LCD's have had an average price drop of 6.5% (which may not sound like much but on a $8000 set that's over $500) And market researchers say the expect that to continue through most of the year I figure LCD will obviously become a much major player and with lesser named brands introducing their own larger LCD tv's with the 1920x1080 pixels res. at a much lower price I figure I could save time, energy and most of all $$$ if I am patient. And besides with a LCD that should last until my unborn child goes to college I figure in another year or 3 everything including HD broadcasts in full 1080p and HD DVD's will be flooding around me and how happy am I that my tv boasts that 1080p resolution and my neighbor has his 768p Plasma with depleted coloring and the constant espn ticker going even when he's watching his Matrix DVD. I think I will survive untill the end of the year when I actually fork over the dough.

And besides, over 30 million tv's were sold in the US in 2004, and only 1 million were plasma.

Unless the Sharp 45" LCD gets majorly bad reviews or gets stiff competition I like what I see with my own two eyes.

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 01:42 am:

Better strategy is to buy the best technology near the bottom of the cost curve. 1080p is also 2 years away in terms of significant content, and is currently at the top of the cost curve. The cost/benefit ratio makes it a bad choice

Since you apparently want the best picture, note that a 3.5 ft diagonal high quality hi def picture requires you to sit about 3 to 4 feet away to enjoy the true hi def detail. Its really sort of like buying an old 13 inch set a decade back

The 60 inch rear projection LCD's (sony,hitachi etc) tend to be quite good and very practical, however the best unit for the money with the highest picture impact in the world today is the PANASONIC PT-AE700U LCD FRONT PROJECTOR which for the grand total of approx 2200 dollars (screen 200 dollars) allows you to project a 92 inch plus picture, nearly precisely recreating the in-theater experience

Now some do not have the room setups for front projectors, however for people that love hi def delivered movies and hi def sports this unit represents breakthrough technology

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 24
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:13 am:

The one thing that has always prevented me from considering a front lcd projector, (apart from the lack of space) is that they're rubbish with the lights on aren't they?

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 01:48 pm:

any projection technology whether front or rear, including both LCD and DLP has to take light into consideration, even the super bright JVC D-ILA front projectors. Direct sunlight of course is the the biggest problem with front projection LCD and you want to avoid it where possible, however various levels of artificial light are not the problems they once were as the brightness levels continues to increase

We have a 20 x 24 ft room with about 1400 watts of total light power and we can easily put up the equivalent of 400 watts of power in the room with no detriment to the picture. 800 watts is possible as long as the light is kept away from where the projector is

Now there's a big difference if one is spending let say $25,000 on a front projection system versus for example $2500. 3 years ago it would in fact take 25k to produce the same picture you can produce today for 2500 thanks to Moore's law, the law referring to ever increasing chip/computing power and lowered costs. This makes all decisions a bit easier

For example, lets assume an extreme case where the room being considered for front projection is in fact passive-solar in design, basically super large south facing windows for heating purposes. Now formerly one would never consider this room for front projection, however perhaps someone only really needs mega-screen viewing at limited times, e.g mostly night time movie viewing. In that case front projection might be an option, given today's rock bottom prices

The same thing that happened with computers a decade back will happen with hi def televisions. Not long ago, many thought it unlikely that people would have more than one computer per house. Multiple HD units will be located in different rooms with different purposes.

Front projection will be commonplace soon

(this article comments on the light issue)

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae700.htm

peter farrer

Bronze Member

Username: Elmerlobthud

Post Number: 25
Registered: Nov-04

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 06:04 pm:

No offence... but i don't consider �2000 a 'rock bottom price' for a second set. I know you're talking dollars but that's about what we'd pay over here once the price has been hiked up for the UK market.

big boy

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:56 am:

hi everybody,
a very interesting site, but you all suck.

sackso

Unregistered guest

Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 03:23 pm:

Just buy a Bang & Oluffsen Tv set.
If you havent heard of them, you can't afford it :-)

Luvthedrew