LCD vs. Plasma TVs
| Posted by Admin on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:04 pm: |
 Share |
Create New |
Reply
| Edit
|
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 |
Plasma VS LCD........... But u did not answer which is best??? |
||
|
Moderator Username: AdminPost Number: 128 Registered: Dec-03 |
Need more info? Get more HDTV articles here: http://www.ecoustics.com/Home/Home_Video/TV/TV_Articles/ |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Diamond Member Username: EcousticsFairfax, VA USA Post Number: 184 Registered: Dec-03 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
"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 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
PLASMAS AND LCDS RULE!!!!!! i CANT CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!! |
||
|
steve lambert Unregistered guest |
I once saw a dog lick a 32" lcd because it had another dog on it. enough said. |
||
|
Mike Chandler Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 2 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
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. $3800, respectively. Both have HDTV native resolutions, display 480p, 720p, and 1080i, and fit my needs for screen size. The Panasonic has an integrated HDTV receiver but DirecTV doesn't support squat in HDTV anyway and DVDs aren't much better. I'd really like to hear from this crowd on what you think. |
||
|
Erik A. Unregistered guest |
Anyone own a Hitachi 42V715 LCD projection TV? I haven't seen it up close, but it is well reviewed. Do LCD TV's last? |
||
|
TJ Guy Unregistered guest |
so many of the affordable Plasmas are EDTV's only the most expensive of units is HDTV....your own research should bare this fact. I have seen so many people at Best buy or Futureshop googling over a plasma....and that's when I gently inform them that they are looking at an EDTV....sure plasmas can be cheapish....but that's because they are incredibly limited. I find the dithering of some plasma's distracting....though I can't lie....one of the nicer tv's I have seen was a 14,000$ 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 3 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
I think the future is DLP. Period. |
||
|
justthefacks Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
~ ~ 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 |
~ ~ 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Is there any truth to the rumor that the plasma needs to be replaced after a few years? |
||
|
Harry Drexel Unregistered guest |
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 |
-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 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 4 Registered: Nov-04 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 6 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
probably CRT |
||
|
Anonymous |
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 |
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 |
I need to know if there exists a good 29 inch and above lcd screen out there for 900 US dollars |
||
|
Anonymous |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: GöstaLavallette, NJ United States Post Number: 1 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
ALAN SMITHIE IS AN IDIOT |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
When are the prices of LCD's expected to drop? |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
Any comments on Sony dropping the manufacture of plasma in favour of LCD ? |
||
|
dappindan Unregistered guest |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 2 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 3 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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! |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 4 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
Where is alan smith to back up his statements |
||
|
TK Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
Bring back the 15" Black and White sets. They were good enough. Last for about 25 years. |
||
|
Jobu Unregistered guest |
i luv u guys,-]p ..especially all yall angryass beligerant porkrollers. u made my day;]] |
||
|
GaMinGFReAk Unregistered guest |
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 3½ 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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 5 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 ? |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 6 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 7 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 8 Registered: Dec-04 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 7 Registered: Nov-04 |
Slink? Preacher? Get a life. |
||
|
goodguys Unregistered guest |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 8 Registered: Nov-04 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 9 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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? |
||
|
MoeMan Unregistered guest |
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 |
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.. |
||
|
New member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 10 Registered: Nov-04 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 11 Registered: Nov-04 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 1 Registered: Jan-05 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 2 Registered: Jan-05 |
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 |
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... |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 3 Registered: Jan-05 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 9 Registered: Dec-04 |
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? |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 4 Registered: Jan-05 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 10 Registered: Dec-04 |
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. |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 5 Registered: Jan-05 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: MikeravensPost Number: 6 Registered: Jan-05 |
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 |
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.. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 12 Registered: Nov-04 |
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". |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 13 Registered: Nov-04 |
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? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 15 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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! |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 11 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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! |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 12 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
No dude, the industry needs idiots like you to "KEEP PROFITS ROLLING IN". |
||
|
Djenka Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
still can't decide. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 13 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 14 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 15 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 16 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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 |
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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 16 Registered: Dec-04 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 17 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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??? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 18 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 19 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
you babies need to quit whining |
||
|
Couch Potato Unregistered guest |
Plasma, LCD, DLP, blah, blah, blah... after the second Budwieser they all look the same. Go Patriots Go! (slurp) |
||
|
Prodigy Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
Interesting read. Cheers peeps. Would be good to hear from peeps who have this hardware, and have had it for a few years thou.... |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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 |
||
|
New member Username: GöstaLavallette, NJ United States Post Number: 2 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
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! |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 20 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 21 Registered: Dec-04 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 19 Registered: Nov-04 |
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? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 20 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 22 Registered: Dec-04 |
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. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 21 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 22 Registered: Nov-04 |
"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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 23 Registered: Nov-04 |
Whoops! |
||
|
Toilet Paper Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
hi, guys wots up? in this comparision i m really enjoyin thanks |
||
|
Luvthedrew Unregistered guest |
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 |
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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 24 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
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 |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 25 Registered: Nov-04 |
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 |
hi everybody, a very interesting site, but you all suck. |
||
|
sackso Unregistered guest |
Just buy a Bang & Oluffsen Tv set. If you havent heard of them, you can't afford it |
||
|
Luvthedrew Unregistered guest |
Wow I must say to bib boy and sackso, well spoken! Idiots. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Dudes - you spent twice as much with the plasma and are now whiney house marms. It's all in GIGO - garbage in - garbage out- and with an american DSS / DTV feed - and/or component DVD in - Sony LCD is 1/2 price and about 20% bettter quality than ANY plasma. You should have actually compared a few but now you are out 5k with a crappola, color bleeding, loser picture on the wall. I laugh at you. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 26 Registered: Nov-04 |
"Just buy a Bang & Oluffsen Tv set. If you havent heard of them, you can't afford it" i've heard of them but i still can't afford it. Luvthedrew: "Wow I must say to bib boy and sackso, well spoken! Idiots." Spoken like a true genius. big boy: "hi everybody, a very interesting site, but you all suck." Kind of contradicting yourself there aren't ya? can't you girls go find yourself a nice teen chatroom or something instead of lowering the tone on grown up sites? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 27 Registered: Nov-04 |
sorry Dr Fun i think i missed the irony ;-) |
||
|
Albertross Unregistered guest |
Well, I've read most of this discussion. I want to buy a larger screen than my 28" widescreen CRT, that I can wall-mount to save some floor space and get a cinema-like effect at home. I've seen both LCD an plasma screens in pubs and showrooms. sometimes I don't know which I've been viewing (nothing to do with the beer!). Since I can't always tell, I agree with the view that you buy what looks okay for you (and what you can afford). However I also think there ought to be some consideration of power consumption, not only because of potential savings on your power bill but for a more important reason, the health of the planet, which if it doesn't affect us will certainly affect our kids. PS can anyone tell me, without a diatribe about being on the wrong forum, why my wireless link sometimes fails even when I'm sat almost on top of my router (a couple of short sentences will suffice). |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 29 Registered: Nov-04 |
If you're happy with either screen then the main considerations for you are the weight (LCDs are lighter and easier to mount than plasma) and cost (plasmas are currently cheaper for screen sizes at 42" and above). This basically brings you round to where you started, sorry. Oh, and by the way, regarding the router problem.. you're on the wrong forum. |
||
|
factually correct Unregistered guest |
If you are planning to buy one of the new ultra-wide flat-screen TVs, beware. On show in the shops, they bowl customers over with the sheer size of the images they display. But in many cases, once buyers get them home they quickly realise that the picture quality leaves a lot to be desired. This is because many flat-screen sets simply stretch pictures designed for smaller screens. Doing this makes the pictures' coarse line structure and low pixel count all too obvious. High-definition TV (HDTV) services, which transmit much more finely detailed pictures, are beginning to go on air, but many of today's large flat-screen TVs will not be able to take advantage of them. A survey by the UK-based market researcher Screen Digest found that only half of all plasma TVs on sale in Europe - and none of the cheaper ones - can display HDTV pictures. And only two of 500 flat-screens on sale in the US can display the best available HDTV pictures. Information on whether they can or cannot display HDTV pictures is almost always buried deep in the sets' technical specifications, and most shops are selling the jumbo TVs on their screen size and price, not resolution. Worldwide there are two major standards for regular TV. The US and Japan use the NTSC system, in which the picture is built up from 480 horizontal lines, each made up of 720 pixels, making a total of 345,600 pixels per picture. The PAL system used in Europe and Australia does slightly better, as it has 576 lines, also of 720 pixels each. But both systems transmit "interlaced" pictures; to save on transmission bandwidth, each frame contains only alternate lines of the picture, so it takes two scans to build up the complete frame. Coarse lines Plasma, LCD and the upcoming surface-conduction emission display (SED) flat-panel TVs (New Scientist print edition, 20 November 2004) stretch these NTSC and PAL pictures to well over a metre wide. With average viewing distances of just 2.7 metres in homes, the coarse line structure, especially with NTSC, becomes obvious. TV manufacturers are desperate for broadcasters to begin transmitting the HDTV programmes that will show off their large screens to full advantage. HDTV increases resolution to at least 720 lines of 1280 pixels each. This means that an HDTV picture will have around a million pixels per frame - and often many more, as some HDTV standards have up to 1080 lines. And there is no interlacing, which improves the image further. Some HDTV services are already on air, and more are planned. Japanese broadcasters transmit HDTV via satellite, cable and terrestrial transmitters to 3 million homes - 6% of the country's TV-owning households. The US has had digital HDTV since 1998. After a slow start and early technical problems, more than 1000 TV stations across the US are broadcasting HDTV and around 10 million homes subscribe. European progress Europe lags behind in the terrestrial HDTV stakes, as broadcasters concentrate instead on cramming as many digital versions of PAL channels as possible into the airwaves. An HDTV signal broadcasts data at 20 megabits per second, and so takes up as much bandwidth as four digital PAL channels. So Europe's early HDTV is coming via satellite. Luxembourg company SES Astra has been broadcasting Euro1080, a free HDTV satellite channel, for the last year. German satellite broadcaster Premiere is linking up with French broadcaster TPS to launch sports and movie HDTV channels this year. In the UK, Sky will begin an HDTV satellite movie service in 2006. "It will be interesting to see how Sky markets its new HDTV service," says David Mercer of market research firm Strategy Analytics. "It will need to advertise a difference to sell it, but not disappoint viewers who cannot see any difference on the screens they have bought." In a helpful move, the European consumer electronics industry and the European Broadcasting Union last week agreed a new "HD ready" symbol to make it clear to prospective purchasers which sets are compatible with HDTV. Similar schemes are expected to roll out in other parts of the world. |
||
|
uniquename Unregistered guest |
Looing to buy a an LCD flat panel in the 45-46" range. Undecided on whether to buy a Sharp LC-45GX6U or a Samsung LTP468W. Anyone have experience / recommendation to post? |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 23 Registered: Dec-04 |
Good posts everyone with the exception of the frustated teens who are missing their x-boxes. If you have to buy a flat panel, that is you must mount on the wall, I would probably think about going plasma rather than pure LCD. From what I've seen they don't look as great as expected. For some reason LCD rear projection doesn't suffer from the same distortions or what I perceive as a diminished overall picture quality. If it's in the living room get a good stand and get an LCD RP. If it must be against the wall I'd spend a little more on the plasma. It's not like regular LCD is that cheap anywyas. Either way, I'd go into a store and look at both first -- definitely. Your eyes will tell you what a reviewer cannot. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 30 Registered: Nov-04 |
I think it's safe to assume that anyone who's actually interested in the discussion on this board (and therefore have read the posts) has actually grasped the idea of going to the shop and seeing the TVs for themselves. However, as one person highlighted in an earlier post, due to signal allocation in electrical stores it's not always possible to see these TVs on an equal basis. Therefore i think that perhaps it's at least as important (when spending such a large amount of money) to buy a specialist magazine, research the technology pros and cons and read a professional review BEFORE going to an electrical store. THEN decide whether you like the screen in question. Have a nice day |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 31 Registered: Nov-04 |
Also, when you have got a short list of possible TVs, ask the shop assistant to play a DVD through an RGB scart connection onto the screen. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Consider this BEFORE you make a decision. FORGET all the hype about technology. The current stuff, in any format, is very good. The important thing to consider is this: Is what you are considering BETTER THAN WHAT YOU'VE CURRENTLY GOT? That's the bottom line and here's why. Many of us are googling over the Sharp LCD with < 12 ms refresh rates and 1080P resolution. True. Same with some DLPs and Plasmas. But like buying a NEW car, the first owner loses the most in depreciation. With technology, today's new high-priced stuff will cost less later AND the new stuff coming out will be BETTER than the current stuff AND be introduced at lower prices due to increased competition. So take heart. If the $2000 - $3000 LCD or DLP rear projection set is better than the 3 to 5 year old 480P rear projection or non-HD tube set you currently own, you WILL BE PLEASED with almost any 720P set you buy. I would rather spend that amount of money, knowing that I will upgrade with reasonably priced incredibly superior technology in a few years than spend $5000 to $8000 on the first of the great stuff to come along. Because if you do that, you KNOW that you will be coveting the future new stuff AGAIN. Those who take my advice now, will eventually own TWO great TVs for the the same money you spent on one. And if you're married and not overly rich, you think your wife is going to understand how a $4000 TV (3 years from now) is better than the $7000 TV she's been watching, not to mention the silent agony she's been swallowing all that time since you forked out that cash initially. You get my point? Yeah, it's fun to play smart shopper and videophile/technophile, but think about it. Don't you just want to take advantage of HD content NOW and know that you have made a true upgrade over your existing system? I have been agonizing over this decision like y'all are, contemplating spending up to $7000. Am I that vain? Do I want to be a mature adult or an overly-excited kid in a candy store with bigger eyes than his stomach? I have finally decided that I can experience a significat improvement over my existing set for around $2300. At that price, my wallet and my conscience can actually look forward to the future 1080P sets that will make the few current ones look pathetic by then and cost a lot less as well. Think about it. It makes sense. It sure took a load off my mind. The biggest issue is connectivity. Make sure you understand how you will hook up ALL of your VIDEO AND AUDIO. Understand your compenents or the ones you are considering. Compatibility is NOT guaranteed. Also, here are a few features that are not common and you might want to consider them. A feature that is a big plus when connecting video directly to the TV and audio to an A/V receiver is for your TV's remote to have SEPARATE buttons for each input source. Otherwise, when you change sources (ie SAT to CBL or CBL to DVD or TV to PC), you will also have to change your A/V receiver's audio source. Think about it. Only some Toshiba sets and more Hitachi sets offer this important feature. It allows you to set up MACROS to to perform the audio and video matching with one button press. Now if you opt not to get this feature, the feature your choice of TVs should at least have is the ability to SKIP or TURN OFF un-used input sources. If you only use one component input and a HDMI input, if you can turn off all the others, you won't have to SCROLL THROUGH THEM ALL when you want to change input sources. And if you only have TWO inputs, you will be able to use a MACRO. More than two and you may not be able to, unless one is very seldom used. Not all sets allow you to SKIP un-used video inputs. Most Mitsubushis do and the Sony KBF40/50/60WE series do. I noticed a nice Panasonic that did not. So beware. Look for these features. Also, FYI, the new Hitachi remotes no longer have the separate remote buttons for each input source, but the TV will still accept the signal from older Hitachi remotes. So you can buy one or take your learning remote to Circuit City and program them into your learning remote. Something to consider. There's a lot more to buying a TV that will function easily in your home than most people think about. Us geeks can understand switching our remotes between one device and another and one mode versus another, but no one else in the household knows how. Anyway, I apologize for rambling on. I just hate to see people make costly mistakes that they end up regretting later. I hope I've made you think. I wish you well in your purchasing choices. And thanks to all who offer sound advice about the various technologies. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 24 Registered: Dec-04 |
Charlie, I think you are mistaken about a number of things: 1) The current LCD RP and plasma HDTVs are I have not seen any display that "blows away" my Panasonic HDTV rear projection 50" the PT-50LCX64. There are some that are somewhat better but none "blow it away" at all. 2) EDTV (your 720P set) is better than your 480 line regular TV and no question you'll be pleased. That said, my Panasonic LCD RP HDTV blows away any EDTV, plasma or not. There is a big difference and, quite frankly, the price differential is so marginal that it's simply not worth buying an EDTV unless you absolutely must hang something on the wall. Even then, I'm not sure it's justified at all. 3) Almost all good HDTVs now change source. My Panny LCD RP HDTV allows you to setup the source for each component you have and the TV remembers where it's connected. I'll be surprised if the other good brands don't. The audio source is outputted through the digital out that goes directly to a digital input in my receiver. 4) The Panasonic PT-50LCX64 allows you to skip and remove unused sources. I got mine for an insane price (which seems to be far below the current MSRP.) Still, if you can get this in the mid-2000 range, it is an AWESOME TV and I think it will be many years until I will feel any need for a replacement. |
||
|
Tpm Dombrosky Unregistered guest |
Well - this forum is published proof that too many people have more money than brains. I simply do not understand one buying a $5,000 TV when a 36" Flat screen CRT TV can be bought for about $299. Not HDTV of course, but I have yet to see where the HDTV is superior enough to warrant 10 times the price. If one spends 10 hours a day watching TV, I suppose the expense may seem worthwhile, but for the average consumer, the new crop of LCD/Plasma HDTVs is simply a consumer ripoff of gigantic proportions. Get real you guys . . . get some friends . . . then get a life and buy a CRT for less than $500 and spend the rest on some floozie. LOL Tom Dombrosky |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 25 Registered: Dec-04 |
Well Tom, it's quite clear that you have never seen a widescreen 50" HDTV and all it's glory. So that would mean that you're talking right out of your butt. The best part about having the HDTV is that the women love 'em. Unlike you, I don't have to pay for the women. ;) Enjoy your floozies and using your small equipment.... |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 32 Registered: Nov-04 |
Posted by Tpm Dombrosky on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 06:28 pm: Well - this forum is published proof that too many people have more money than brains. I simply do not understand one buying a $5,000 TV when a 36" Flat screen CRT TV can be bought for about $299. Not HDTV of course, but I have yet to see where the HDTV is superior enough to warrant 10 times the price. If one spends 10 hours a day watching TV, I suppose the expense may seem worthwhile, but for the average consumer, the new crop of LCD/Plasma HDTVs is simply a consumer ripoff of gigantic proportions. Get real you guys . . . get some friends . . . then get a life and buy a CRT for less than $500 and spend the rest on some floozie. LOL Tom Dombrosky Ok thanks Tom. Comments like this are proof also that opinions are like @rseholes: Everyone has one and they're often full of sh*t. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 33 Registered: Nov-04 |
I also like the way he stereotypes people who use these forums as friendless geeks with no lives and women as being floozies. Bet this guy's a real genius and no doubt a real hit with the ladies too. |
||
|
Jay Max Unregistered guest |
Interesting stuff. I want to go HDTV but have limited space (corner location) - can go with wide screen CRT at about 32" or either plasma or LCD up to the low 40" range. Viewing distance is around 10 feet. Any recommendations? |
||
|
PeeBee Unregistered guest |
Wow, this forum gets a bit emotional at times! I have just bought a Pioneer 50" plasma and most of the time the picture is simply stunning. DVDs, some Playstation games and some digital TV stations are great but a lot of broadcast material is simply rubbish - even from the BBC! At one stage I went back to my trusty 32" Sony CRT to check on a program and found that it really was that bad! The biggest problem with large screens (plasma/LCD/projector) is the quality of source image material and 'blowing them up' just makes the pictures worse. No matter how good the special digital processing algorithms for improving MPEG pictures are, you are still dependant on the overall quality of the source. Roll on high defintion TV. |
||
|
VIPs Unregistered guest |
Thanks guys - reading this was by far more funny than any comedy show on TV. I specially liked: "Enjoy your floozies and using your small equipment...." "opinions are like @rseholes: Everyone has one and they're often full of sh*t." "No dude, the industry needs idiots like you to "KEEP PROFITS ROLLING IN". A lot of VIP's (very imcompetent person) around here... filmmakers, salesmen, producers LOL Go outside, get some fresh air do some sport. By the way how much do you guys weight? |
||
|
Peter Romailler Unregistered guest |
Excellent posts everyone!!(no-minds aside...) After all that , I also will hang on to my 32in wega, waiting for prices to come down. Thanx for a lot of great info and super entertainment!! |
||
|
Well, THAT made 30 minutes fly by! Unregistered guest |
Alan Smithie must be laughing! All this excitement from one post and then he disappears into the wilderness. Well, this is my first time on the forum and I was looking for the same answer as many others; LCD or plasma, and I think I got it. The answer to life, the universe and everything TV (to paraphrase Douglas Adams) is; ...it doesn't actually matter. Just buy the cheapest unit that you like. Great, thanks everyone, especially for the fish! |
||
|
Alan Smithie Unregistered guest |
Amazing.... To be honest guys, i just got some information on the two, and then wrote stuff i was sure would offend someone... Now, don't get angry anyone, i only did it to kick the discussion, to get more oppinions on the subject, because one thing is the info i found on the subject, another thing is peoples own experiences. And i'd say it worked.... Daaamn! :-) After reading all these posts, i say LCD, not a doubt... I kinda suspected so, that's why i chose to attack lcd ;-) Sorry for the desception, but u gotta admit, it turned out to be a damn good discussion right? |
||
|
Ray H Unregistered guest |
For those looking for rear projection units (DLP, LCD, LCOS), you may want to read the following below: http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=e300353d55aec36e658c6420d3cf54d9& t=16760 http://www.petitiononline.com/panbulb/petition.html After hearing the horror stories of the bulbs burning out very early and the ballast going bad, I will not consider rear projection tv's. |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 34 Registered: Nov-04 |
Well whatever your motive Alan Smithe thanks because i'm now much more clued up about this subject thanks to this discussion board :-) |
||
|
cathodraytube Unregistered guest |
LONG LIVE THE CRT!! the cathodraytube is tride and true ,it has better coler fidelity than plasma or lcd ,has better resolution ,better contrast and it costs way less. a HD digital flat screen CRT is the onley way to go (or a projection tv for verry large screens) a 36" hd crt will cost bout 800$ ,a plasma or lcd will cost $2000+ . a good crt should last at least 15-20 years and after that youv gotten your moneys worth out of it . i just dont see y any 1 would want to pay that much just to watch TV. also (this is probobley erelavant ...but who cairs)DVDs suck! they get scratched ,they rot after 5 or 10 years , too flimbsy ,cant record verry easeley, ect...i hope D-VHS takes off and gets reel cheep. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
I own a Family oriented restaurant in Salisbury, MD. We are not part of a chain, nor franchised to a chain so we don't have deep pockets. At the same time, we are thrifty, and do have some change saved up. We believe in purchasing top quality for the best price. When I bought a new grill 5 years ago, I could have paid only $1000.00, but instead paid $5,000.00 for one that was easier to clean and radiated less heat; thereby reducing labor to clean it, eliminating the need for costly chemicals to clean it, and reducing my HVAC demand load. We are on Marylands Eastern Shore, where Electrical rates are now 33% higher than last year because the state decided to experiment with deregulation of electricicy on the "poor relations" before victimizing the rest of the state with this farce. Recently, a new sports bar came to town and installed 30+ CRT Flat Screen sets. They spent plenty of $$ on everything else, so were they simply saving 60 grand on sets or were these weighty monoliths a better investment utilizing a price/quality ratio ie bang for the buck? I have wooden built-in supports that can accomodate up to 40" CRT units (they presently have a 25" RCA from 20 years ago and a 27" from 8 years ago), so I could go with two of these if I can find 4 guys with back support belts to lift these babies in place. Or should I just wait for this new SED?? to hit the sam's club shelves in 2008 and concentrate on good food for a few more years; or what. I'm sorry, but the LED's do seem to be more vibrant than the plasmas; and the projection tube LED's seem to be a poor relation for not much less. Besides, I learned a long time ago that lots of wizzbangs, whirlygigs and moving parts generally add up to lots of repairs. If the most advanced LED projection TVs use hundreds of tiny mirrors, what lubricates the hinges, or whatever they turn on and how many cazillions of motions must they accomplish over the "usable life" of the unit? Remember, I'm in the restaurant industry. we buy equipment that lasts for 30-40 years, and where most equipment design has not changed for decades. Also, if these babies have a 16:9 screen ratio, then why are there a pair of big blacked out bars on the top and bottom of these screens? Sort of defeats the purpose of buying a bigger screen. |
||
|
cathodraytube Unregistered guest |
it just bothers the hell out of me that nothing is being built to last anymore...cars , TVs , houses , ect ... all these corprit a$$holes that want to make money and sell crap and screw every one over...its like living in a nightmare where everything ages and wares out 100 times faster than its soposed to... |
||
|
cathodraytube Unregistered guest |
Oops...lag... damn dial up... |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: SlinkyPost Number: 26 Registered: Dec-04 |
Welcome to the new millenium. It's all about marketing, which makes lawyers look honest. |
||
|
Missile Unregistered guest |
If no one bought new LCD's or Plasma's, how would TV technology improve? I have a 26" Sharp Aquos and a 30" widescreen Toshiba HDTV, and I think I'd rather watch the 26" Aquos when there is a lot of light coming through the windows because the Toshiba's screen reflects the light. But other than that I'd rather watch the CRT Toshiba HDTV. I also use my 26" Aquos for my computer monitor, so now I don't need a TV and a computer monitor taking up a bunch of room. Restaurant owner: You should probably get front projectors, unless there is a lot of light in your restaurant or you don't have a seperate sound system, then you should probably get CRT's or rear projection LCD's. Also you might want to consider your tv channel source, because you might want to get built in HD Tuners. If all channels were in HD, the best monitor is the 45" or larger Aquos with the 1920 x 1080 resolution. The picture is awesome, especially when used for a computer monitor. My next TV will probably be the Panasonic TH-50PHD6UY. |
||
|
Anonymous |
ok right. now every format has its own rewards. quite frankly, id use plasma for viewing but lcds will alwals be side by side my cpu. lcds require less power and have a constant output no matter the image this is because the light is always on and if you put more backlight then the brighter still it will be compared to plamas that work more similarly as crts which is why i call them tft version of crts. the only reason why id choose plasma is because ill be using it until lcds can rival in contrast and size. and right now, plasmas are cheaper anyway but i will only get the smallest model(cheaper one). by saying this, i will use up every pixel of my plasma and then get an lcd when technology will give justice to lcd. dominic |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 35 Registered: Nov-04 |
"I own a Family oriented restaurant in Salisbury, MD. We are not part of a chain, nor franchised to a chain so we don't have deep pockets. At the same time, we are thrifty, and do have some change saved up. We believe in purchasing top quality for the best price. When I bought a new grill 5 years ago, I could have paid only $1000.00, but instead paid $5,000.00 for one that was easier to clean and radiated less heat; thereby reducing labor to clean it, eliminating the need for costly chemicals to clean it, and reducing my HVAC demand load. We are on Marylands Eastern Shore, where Electrical rates are now 33% higher than last year because the state decided to experiment with deregulation of electricicy on the "poor relations" before victimizing the rest of the state with this farce. Recently, a new sports bar came to town and installed 30+ CRT Flat Screen sets. They spent plenty of $$ on everything else, so were they simply saving 60 grand on sets or were these weighty monoliths a better investment utilizing a price/quality ratio ie bang for the buck? I have wooden built-in supports that can accomodate up to 40" CRT units (they presently have a 25" RCA from 20 years ago and a 27" from 8 years ago), so I could go with two of these if I can find 4 guys with back support belts to lift these babies in place. Or should I just wait for this new SED?? to hit the sam's club shelves in 2008 and concentrate on good food for a few more years; or what. I'm sorry, but the LED's do seem to be more vibrant than the plasmas; and the projection tube LED's seem to be a poor relation for not much less. Besides, I learned a long time ago that lots of wizzbangs, whirlygigs and moving parts generally add up to lots of repairs. If the most advanced LED projection TVs use hundreds of tiny mirrors, what lubricates the hinges, or whatever they turn on and how many cazillions of motions must they accomplish over the "usable life" of the unit? Remember, I'm in the restaurant industry. we buy equipment that lasts for 30-40 years, and where most equipment design has not changed for decades. Also, if these babies have a 16:9 screen ratio, then why are there a pair of big blacked out bars on the top and bottom of these screens? Sort of defeats the purpose of buying a bigger screen." Nice essay, unfortunately it's so long i just couldn't be bothered to read it all. |
||
|
Lpisa Unregistered guest |
Pete, Sorry you felt that way, but isn't yours 15 words longer than mine? Since many have been condemned for being industry reprsentatives, I was merely trying to inform those interested in assisting me as to where I'm coming from, what my motivations are, etc. Let's be realistic, 6 months have passed since the original post that started this thing. In techno-speak that's what, a decade in human years? Since prices are now much lower than Sept 04, then there must have been some level of improvement since as well. Also, for those who are interested in assisting me, what is the best bang for buck time of year to buy? I've observed that computers co try to wring that last sale on the stale stuff until after Christmas, and with Super Bowl and March Madness, I assume TV co are liquidating the last of the Chrismas stock. Thanks! |
||
|
Anonymous |
Fujitsu plasma panel V-TEK, that is the answer for all your plasma needs...! |
||
|
Bronze Member Username: ElmerlobthudPost Number: 36 Registered: Nov-04 |
Lpisa yes mine was longer but then i only copied and pasted it. Also this disscussion is about which technology is better to which you have actually contributed soemwhere in your essay but unfortunately buy the time most people get to the part about the deregulation of electricity they're likely to be bored with the whole thing. Thanks |
||
|
paradox999 Unregistered guest |
God what a long thread, I got bored after the first 6 posts =) |
||
|
Andrew Lockwood Unregistered guest |
I was pretty confused over whether to go LCD or Plasma, too. Everybody keeps telling me different stuff, and no one in the retail departments seem to know what they're talking about! I did find an article in this magazine called CE Lifestyles that was pretty good though. It helped walk me through what each one actually consisted of and which one is best to go with. Ultimately I think it's kind of an individual decision, which is basically what the article said. You can check it out at www.celifestyles.com. I think it was the April edition, but I don't remember for sure. |
||
|
Need_good_SD_TV Unregistered guest |
I had a 53 inch RPTV that was non-HD (8 years old). It finally bit the dust. However, picture quality from DSS was very close to that of HD I thought. Every HDTV I've seen is incredibly blurry (really unwatchable) for standard definition such as satellite (non-HD), my mini-dv camcorder tapes, VHS, ... So I'm giving up on HD for now - I think it's sad that all the HDTV buyers are stuck to watching a few channels because the rest look like crap. Probably they've never experienced a non-HD big-screen TV using a digital satellite picture before so they think that seeing crappy picture on a big-screen is normal. But what about EDTV? Will that show SD signals as well as my old 53" TV? Reason I'm considering EDTV is that it's available in a 42". Otherwise I could go for a 32" tube (36" is just way too heavy). |
||
|
Graeme3000 Unregistered guest |
A concern I have about LCD is the lack of contrast and its inability to display pure blacks. Do you think that this will eventually be resolved with improvements in LCD technology? Does anyone know whether there are LCD or Plasma screens (~42") out there that rival the picture quality of the Philips CRT "pixel plus" technology? |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
WHAT IS anyones take on the Philips 32" LCD HDTV w/ ambilight? I am thinking of buying one. |
||
|
Frankwatchingthefinalfouronplasma Unregistered guest |
Obviously a lot of opinion... I'll add mine, my 3 year old Panasonic plasma has no burn in and operates at about 4-6 hours a day... lets say 5... given the poor life quoted earlier of 50,000 hours that's only 27 years. I might need another one by then. Honestly, I also have a Sony LCD... THE PLASMA IS A MUCH BETTER PICTURE when compared using the same input at 1080i. I believe that to be the best measure of a TV's quality assuming the two you are comparing are of equivalent size and cost. |
||
|
Frankwatchingthefinalfouronplasma Unregistered guest |
Need_good_SD_TV hang in there, HD is just getting rolling and when I compare my Dish Network HD versus my Directv SD signal it's night and day... Yes, I have both my wife complains every month when we get two bills but I like my NFL Direct Ticket and my Dishnetwork superstation package :-) But if you want an SD TV, my Panasonic Tau comes in a 32 inch version and quite honestly it is the absolute best SD TV I've ever seen check it out in a best buy or circuit city or something, its awesome. The blackest blacks I've found in an SD TV. |
||
|
New member Username: AlupangPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-05 |
My main objective was to find a plasma/lcd that I could place on my wall above the fireplace and open up my family room. Local TimeWarner cable's HDTV/PVR, Scientific Atlantic 8300HD comes with an HDMI output and can select 480P, 720P or 1080i. So, my objective was to find an HDTV plasma or LCD with this connection and built in ATSC tuner for receiving HDTV signals in the event you lose cable. Well, in LCD, there are none with HDMI or DVI-HDCP. Or, at least, I haven't found one in my price range ... under $3000. All LCD's with the latest technology and over 40" are well over $5000. With plasma, I have narrowed it down to two in the 42/43" range, either the Pioneer 43" PDP-4345 which is $2655 at www.BCWNETWORKS.com or the LG DU-42PX12X which is $2365 at Plasma World, used www.pricescan.com and www.nextag.com respectively for prices. The Pioneer appears to be the better choice since it does have HDMI. However, the LG plasma boasts 60,000 hours due to their Image Sticking Prevention Technology (4-modes). The LG also has 5000:1 contrast ratio but only has DVI with HDCP ... both have a built in ATSC tuner with attached speakers. Pioneer does not give any claim as to how long their plasma's will last, however, they simply say they last longer than previous models due to incorporating the latest in technology. Panasonic also boast 60,000 hours with their industrial model plasma's but not in their consumer models that have HDMI and ATSC tuners. So, with that said, if I can get the same connectivity with the 8300HD using LG's DVI with HDCP vice using their onboard HDMI then, more likely than not I'll go with the LG. Understand that there might be a cable converter for this connections. However, if I happen to run accross literature to indicate Pioneer's longevity, then I'll probably go that route. Yes, seen both screens with 720p input and they look absolutely fantastic. LG has the Exclusive XD Engine which has six distinct processes to contribute to picture improvement and has 3/2 pulldown. LG's XC Engine takes the low resolution of analog signals to near HD Levels by improving brightness, contrast, detail and enhancing color as well as reducing signal noise. Pioneer has their exclusive PURE DRIVE which keeps signals entirely in a lossless digital domain, has Advanced PureCinema with 3/3 pulldown, ACE II (Advanced Continuous Emission II) uses 10-bit processing to produce 1,024 gradation steps for each cell and has Deep Encased Cell Structure ... each individual lamp is encased in its own cell to prevent bleed-over. I'm just wanting to find the model that will last the longest without deterioration. I have a 50" Hitachi Ultravision that I'm moving into another room 10-years old and the picture looks as good as the day I got it (auto-convergence). Forget using CableCard .. can't use it for PAY-PER-VIEW and other on-demand type stuff, why bother. Any advice, which model? BTW, per above post, Phillips is too expensive and above models are as good ... better due to connectivity. HINT: .. Go to Best Buy, Circuit City, Sound Advice and the like and use your own judgement to find out which has the best picture. Then, purchase the item online through an online discounter. Remember, instead of paying taxes, you'll be paying a hefty delivery fee, around $200 but, justabout on-par what you'd pay in taxes anyway. Plus, you're not paying MSRP (or $100 off same) and the saleman/woman trying to convince you that you're getting a deal. And, you still get the manufacturers 1-year warranty. Sure to get a lot of responses on this one ... all you 18/19 yr/old salesman/woman trying to make a buck. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
apart from the image quality issue, how's everyone dealing with the widescreen - or lack of - issue? do you stretch your pic to fit with one of the options (none of which are perfect) or do you leave it normal which don't look right, does it? i was disappointed to see, even when stations broadcast in LBX (like TCM) you then have to blow up the pic to fit the sexy widescreen and the quality drop is much bigger than i would have guessed any thorghts? i've just got a Panasonic TC-32LX20 32" LCD and for this reason,as well as the strange "colorized" look, i think i may return it and wait a year or two which is a shame |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
This is off - topic but I think the expertise here will help - I'm using an LG brand 44" DLP television with a Samsung DVD player - connecting via DVI. In doing do the greys all but disappear. If I connect the tv to the dvd via S-Video I get greys. But in DVI darker scenes flatten out and lose tons of subtle detail. Is this an inherent problem with DVI or do I have a bad cable or just not the best combination of products (It's not an expensive DVD player, and the cable is the one that came with the unit). |
||
|
Benjamin Caracas Unregistered guest |
Manufacturers are testing theie plasmas for 60,000 hours? Can anybody do the math? That means leaving the Plasma on for 6.85 years straight. So how long have these 60,000 hour tested plasmas have been in the market? Do they actually give you a written guarantee for the 60,000 hours? If not it is BS |
||
|
Anonymous |
Wow! What an amazing discussion this has been. It may never end. I have been running a Sony CRT front projector in my theater for almost 5 years.Great picture for both 1080i and 720p HiDef. It has been discontinued and I wanted to run a 50" Plasma in another room. From what I have read I'm not sure if either the LCD or Plasma will ever come close to the same picture.Maybe at least the price will come down soon. J. |
||
|
Anonymous |
I've read the whole thing, every word. It makes me sad that so much self-rightious, I'm-right-dammit, these-are-facts-not-opinions, go-for-the-jugular crap pervades what is really a very interesting topic. How about more empirical, less anecdotal data? Maybe quoting sources? I particularly felt sorry for the restauranteur...he didn't deserve the rabid-dog response. Oh yes, pompous is the word that comes to mind... Oh, one last thing, I spend hours each day around both LCDs and plasmas and there is abosulutely no comparison whatsoever, in any way. Trust me, I know... |
||
|
wooly Unregistered guest |
Wow made it too the bottom, finally, anyhow, im still confused. orginally i was convinced LCD, my in-laws have got a LG 42" plasmsa, but watching it it goes patchy and picture isnt very sharp. hense why i thought lcd. not sure reading all this now. does make matter ie sony WEGA? |
||
|
personal preference Unregistered guest |
I bought a LCD for my computer monitor. Why? Because it doesn't bother my eyes like the others do. (i know many people don't have this problem) I bought a plazma tv for my living room because I don't watch that much tv to worry about rumors on lifetime. I bought it because the particular brand i bought was slightly cheaper than the brand of lcd the same size. Both of them still had very good quality to justify the price. I thought about a projection hd which seem to lack the nasty rumors the flat panels do..but i liked the space increase of the flat panel. I have a regular 300 dollar television in my bedroom cause frankly..i didn't want to waste any more money only to watch some csi or news. It all came down to this: All the types have flaws i'm willing to put aside for a little extra cash. Neither screens had bad enough differences to worry about. Besides, how can you enjoy a movie if you keep concentrating on the slight image blur or slight chance of burn in? Frankly both look much better than regular televisions even at the lowest level. When you go to a store to look at screens, don't be surprised if no matter what you buy it looks better at home. Think of how many times they have to split the signal and how much cord it has to travel through to reach all those screens in that huge store. |
||
|
what LCD to buy? Unregistered guest |
Just wondering if anyone has bought one of the ACER AL2671W 26" Widescreen TFT LCD TVs? I dont need a huge plasma screen, nor can I afford one. DABS.com are selling the ACER LCD TV for just under £600, which seems like a bargain compared to the likes of Sony Toshiba LG etc. It seems to be as well specified as all the more well known brands http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/homeentertainment/televisionsandprojection/produ ctView.htm?quicklinx=3LD0 Any thoughts? Comments? advice? |
||
|
TheManWhoKnows Unregistered guest |
personal preference, nothing looks better than a crt. nothing. period. nothing. basta. what LCD to buy?, you get what you pay for...good luck. |
||
|
arnz Unregistered guest |
how does this technology actually work |
||
|
miggs Unregistered guest |
Frankwatchingthefinalfouronplasma, why are you paying for HD DishNetwork and SD DirecTv? Why not go all HD/SD on DirecTv? |
||
|
Mike U.K. Unregistered guest |
OK. First, as bad as it sounds, not all sales people are given the correct infomation buy the company to then inform the customer eg the lifespans of Plasma over LCD. So try not give them a hard time when there doing their best to try to help you. Now there are always going to be sales people that are only going to be after as much commision as they can get but again there are going to be some you honestly want to help you. Secondly I prefer LCD and am quite intrested in the TOSHIBA 32WL48. If anyone has any good or bad experiance with this TV please let me know. Last but by no means least. Sales people in ther early 20's and even in their late teens do not need to be dimissed due to their age. Quite honestly they tend to know more and be a little more clued up about such things as Home Entertainment and other gadget like goods compaired to older sales staff and it might be an idea for a few people to take them a little more seriously and value their opinions in the future. |
||
|
Anonymous |
LCD over Plasma. Longer life. |
||
|
thierry Unregistered guest |
in australia ,Pioneer is selling their plasma 50 and 43 inch pdp with 5 year onsite warranty,,that means if anything goes wrong ,they will replace it,free of charge,not bad i think....as for the picture quality in high definition mode ,,its pretty fantastic,,as for burn in ,it mainly occurs with solid color logos,,television providers are changing their logos to watermarks as its in their interest to change so people can view their programs on large screens.as for power consumption ,yes maybe the plasma do use more but if you are that worried about power then maybe look at what you own,,,maybe you will have to get rid of that 4 wd 3.8 liter v8 you use to go shopping with..... |
||
|
practical Unregistered guest |
SPENDING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR A TV IS STUPID! ALL OF YOU ARE STUPID! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S LCD OR PLASMA OR WHATEVER! YOU'RE STILL WATCHING THE SAME TV SHOW OR MOVIE! YOU STUPID MORONS! WHY NOT JUST SAVE YOUR MONEY AND DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR IT! YOU STUPID MORONS! IT'S JUST LIKE A WATCH, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S JUST A SWATCH OR A ROLEX! IT WILL STILL TELL YOU THE SAME TIME! YOU LOW LIVES! |
||
|
Anonymous |
Dont be so sure that the price of LCD/PLASMAs will go down as DVD players did!!!1 Chips and mass boards are very chip indeed. Displays in general are very expensive. For sure the prices will go down but not dramatically! Remember the prices fall down for state of the art computers. That is not the case for minitors!!! Is it??? At least not on a monthly or monthly basis. I bought a 20 inches BLUESKY LCD for my country house in the beautiful mountains of Karpenisi for only 399. Seems good enough but I would get a PHILIPS if I had 800 Euros Thanks P.S. This conversation has definetely a lot of info and a lough!!!!! |
||
|
Hamzy Unregistered guest |
Hey, I don't why everyone is looking at Best Buy or Future Shop..... Costco has the best deals. Anyway, just wanted to get some feedback on the Daytek 32" LCD, has anyone heard anything about quality b/c its going for $1499 which is a hell of a deal. And i agree don't waste ur money on a TV but at $1499 I think thats reasonable. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
My two-cents is, if a TV burns an image into it in as little as 15 minutes, based on the research I've done; combined with the fact that your Plasma TV will degrade over time, LCD takes the cake. Even if Plasma is slightly better looking, or has better contrast ratios....... Those two points are key for the future enjoyment of your TV. They call it "Half-Time" for plasma TVs, but what about "Quarter-Time"? Think about it people, the longer you watch your TV, the crappier it gets. Sure, you look at the newest model sitting on display at your local Future Shop, Best Buy or Costco, but now add three years use to that screen. Degradation baby! Plasma has some major obstacles to overcome. Even if they fix the Image Burning problem, your TV will still fade over time, meanwhile those who bought LCD will enjoy the same quality for their entire lifetime. Once a plasma is gone, "Half" gone, or "Quarter" gone, you gotta shell out for a new TV. If a plasma lasts 40,000 hours to "half-life", if you use your TV for an average of 5 hours per day average, your TV will lose about 10% every 5 years. It will be 1/4 as good as new in around 11 years. My big-screen just turned 10, so I'd be seeing about 25% reduction right now. This may be ok if you plan on replacing the TV in three years. LCD would still be @ 100% in 20 years though. SO DON'T BE SOLD ON THE ONE THAT LOOKS PRETTIEST IN THE SHOWROOM!!!! Think long-term. Get the specs on your Half-Life when buying Plasma, and make sure you can live with that. As of now, if you own a computer, you have to go LCD, unless of course you enjoy having your desktop icons and such burnt on top of your movie footage. I use a computer hooked up to an older projection TV and have had some Image Burn, but my next buy will be LCD. |
||
|
Mike Delo Unregistered guest |
I bought both and after having them for about two weeks we placed the plasma in the living room and the LCD in the office. I love it because the LCD is so big that my wife doesn't see me behind the screen. The plasma works better for family movies as it can be viewed better from many angels. Word of advise, place you LCD away from you eyes by at least two feet and don't get one that is too large or your wife and children will never find you. |
||
|
Just call me John Unregistered guest |
Reading this was very interesting. Everyone is trying to offer there own great advice. In the end, this is still a very new product and NO MATTER what anybody says, these supposed facts are just estimations. Only time will tell which product can stand the test of time and the consumers interest. Myself I am going to enjoy the good old fashion tv's for just a little bit longer. But I will keep my eye on these new technology Tv's. And when the crash test dummies aka: impatient consumers give there final word. I'll be there waiting to buy.. |
||
|
Anonymous |
I need 50 small LCD monitors like the size of a large PDA screen. Can anyone direct me to a good website? Bobby allpills101@yahoo.com www.cheaprxmedsonline.com |
||
|
New member Username: DogehemiPost Number: 3 Registered: Mar-05 |
Can I place my plasma tv over fireplace without damaging it? The fireplace is dead center along short wall |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Hmm, I find it strange that you are fighting over nothing here. There a certain benefits of plasma and lcd. If you are buying the tv for viewing, and gaming i would recommend PLASMA, otherwise for office work, presentations LCD. My reason being is that i understand how the technologies work. Here is a good place to view more info on this subject. http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050309/index.html enjoy Ilya |
||
|
Max Johnson Unregistered guest |
Wow. There is a lot of useful information in here. Thanks to those of you who constructed well thought out, pertinent posts. To all the arrogant, self-righteous douche-nozzles that did little but vomit knee-jerk reactionary garbage: Get a life, and quit wasting my time. |
||
|
fred waist Unregistered guest |
somebody way up there said there are 2 kinds of people - them who watch TV and them who watch movies ????? most everybody i know watches TV, movies AND uses a computer and i and my friends/family/etc all increasingly want 1 display device that's good for all 3 that said, my not-at-all unique objective opinion is that the biggest distraction with any display is motion smearing and you get that in bucketloads with almost all LCDs! my test is simply this - when i whip the mouse pointer across the screen, do i see more than 1 pointer on screen at the same time? if yes, chances are this is going to be a distracting factor when using it certainly for DVDs if not so much TV with all but the cheapest displays these days, the brightness, contrast and colour depth generally exceed my needs in all modes of usage and to make points about future improvements and new technologies is redundant - i (or other people) have got 3K burning a hole in my pocket NOW! yeah, maybe in 5 years LCD's will p*ss all over everything else but for now, if you're on a budget get the best CRT you can afford, if you're a rich merchant do what the f**k you like!!! |
||
|
about:blank Unregistered guest |
I don't know if this has been resolved in this thread, but I've looked around the web for a while and most websites are saying that the human eye can only distinguish ~9 million colors. That's the average that I'm getting from visiting over 15 websites. If this is true the argument of how many colors that a display has is a moot arguement. |
||
|
Anonymous |
I read this entire thread. I have cancelled my cable tv and found my library card and will take up reading, taking walks and listening to baseball games on the radio. thanks for all the input. |
||
|
Anonymous |
I didn't read all of it, but after a while I thought it's best to compare the screens at a store. Most of the time there are nice setups where you can check the latest models out. All the facts are nice to know, but in the end I think you need to take one home that satisfy your needs, and you feel comfortable with. It's a matter of taste, and that's it. Taste is not a subject to discuss... |
||
|
Mr. Leadbottom Unregistered guest |
Hmm, I find it strange that you are fighting over nothing here. There a certain benefits of plasma and lcd. If you are buying the tv for viewing, and gaming i would recommend PLASMA, otherwise for office work, presentations LCD. My reason being is that i understand how the technologies work. Here is a good place to view more info on this subject. http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050309/index.html enjoy Ilya ============================= Ilya Dv., thanks for the link to some very good information about LCD and plasma TVs. |
||
|
Craig Brady Unregistered guest |
I wonder what buyers remorse, and/or second guessing, was like before we had the internet. Although many seem to do research via the internet, many others seem to go out and buy something on impulse (brain f*rt) and then go shopping for validation of their decisions. Both Plasma and LCD technology are an amazing blessing. Small houses/rooms can now have big TVs, and the computer can fully converge with the home theater as well. We jumped into Plasma as a total Brain F*rt at our house. We mainly watch DVDs and plain old basic cable (no settop box), so when EDTVs fell below $1500 US, it seemed like little risk to give it a try. The halflife debate did not stop us in the least. Even if the halflife is ten (10) years, I assume I can crank the brightness and contrast up for as much as ten more years before throwing this thing in the nearest waste dump. We are by no means Videophiles. We love movies and cable TV, and learned to love them on everything from a 37" non-flat CRT to 41" Rear Projection. We went and stood in front of several TVs in our price range, and picked one that we would like to watch in our family room. I suggest that most consumers do the same thing. If you have questions regarding how different it may look when you get it home, make sure to do business with a retailer that has a liberal return policy. Most improtantly, time is wasting. Get a new TV and re-watch all of those DVDs to see what you have been missing. |
||
|
Just Someone Unregistered guest |
Alan Smithie Unregistered guest Are you on comission or something?, LCD's are BETTER than plasma's. |
||
|
Jimmy James Unregistered guest |
Well, try reading all this post in one sitting - lucky I was reading with my LCD Laptop on my lap with my 5 year old conventional CRT TV in the background. Those new Westinghouse LCD TV's look good http://westinghousedigital.com/press/designT0726.shtml However still 2-3K USD each min and only just coming out in USA so will take longer to get to Australia, I originally found this post as was emailed special price on samsung 32" LCD however after finding out it had 23ms response time I'll wait till I can get one with 12ms or less. This article below was the most telling http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=30090 |
||
|
Anonymous |
What does everyone think of this. http://www.plasmacity.com/lcd_vrs_plasma.htm You'd think if anyone was going to be bias about plasma tvs it would be plasmacity .com but apparently not. |
||
|
Mr. Leadbottom Unregistered guest |
Jimmy James, The article from your first link says that there's no picture degradation throughout the 50,000 hour life of the Westinghouse LCDs. I find this hard to believe, but I hope it's true because I recently purchased a 17" Westinghouse TV for my wife. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Plasma and LCD TVs are pretty much running the market for TV sales now adays. I know this because thats what I do, sell TVs. If you compare the top comsumer brand TVs (meaning tvs you can go in and readily buy in a store) you do get some interesting outcomes. For comparison I will use the Sony 50" XBR plasma, and the Sharp Aquos 45" LCD. Brightness: Sony XBR 150cd/m2 Sharp 450cd/m2 Contrast ratio: Sony XBR 2000:1 Sharp 800:1 Size: Sony XBR 50" Sharp 45" Viewing Angle: Sony 160 Horizontal 120 Vertical Sharp 170 Horizontal 170 Vertical Burn in: Sony Yes Sharp No Life: Sony 10,000-20,000hrs at full brightness (this is how you will watch it) Sharp 40,000-60,000 hrs at full Response rate: Sony 8ms Sharp 12ms (if you know about response rate you know that 12ms will not display a visual blur during fast action. Power: Sony 550W Sharp 330W Aspect Ratio: Sony 1365 x 768 Sharp 1920 x1024 Broadcast: Sony up to 1080i Sharp up to 1080P Cost: Sony $6500 Sharp $7000 Conclusion: Personally I would purchase an LCD tv over a plasma anyday because of longevity and the ability to use a PC with it and have it still look great. But there have been a lot of other improvements in the LCDs that bring them up to par with Plasmas in their weaker categories, I.E. response rate and cost. These improvements I believe will continue to occur and LCD will beat out Plasma technology unless something else is done. |
||
|
Moe Nawaz Unregistered guest |
If you ask me, I would prefer LCD over Plasma. If you look at plasma, you'll understand that it works like a light bulb. It uses gas to show the colors. But as we all know, light bulbs start to run low on gas and eventually start to fade and die out as time elapses, and that is what will happen to Plasma. Plasma may have better specs, but it will start to loose it's quality after a year or so, and like Mr. Dave Bergeron said, LCD has a better longevity than plasma. |
||
|
The whole truth Unregistered guest |
• Musical mission July 2: "Millions, and perhaps billions of eyes were focused Saturday on Live 8. Can star power fight global poverty? NBC’s Ron Allen reports. Nightly News" Until the people of Africa help themselves, then this won't even come close to eliminating poverty. How can the people of Africa help themselves? They can curtail their habit of breeding because if they continue to breed at this prolific rate, then all the food and medicine in the world won't do a damn bit of good. |
||
|
More Money than Brains Unregistered guest |
Ok, My brain is officially cooked! I can't believe I read this thread from front to back. But with the few fully functional brain cells I have remaining, I would just like to say this... Sold my 36" HDTV Panasonic Tau. The picture was great, particularly with DVDs. Unfortunately, I never did get to see the picture in HD. So why did I sell it? Because the thing was a friggin Tank, that's why!! Almost 300Lbs and over 2 feet deep! Absurd. Anyway, after reading all of the above I have decided to purchase a Panasonic RP LCD. In my humble opinion, RP LCDs are without question, the best bang for your buck. I apologize in advance for my language, but Michael Boyer, but you really are a Knob! hahahaha Thanks for the great read everyone! In essence, I learned that none of you are more educated than I, with regards to the 'great debate'. I also LMAO a few times, which is always great fun. Thanks again, and good luck with your purchase. |
||
|
Anders Holten Unregistered guest |
Hi everybody, I just surfed on this site to look at peoples opinion on the LCD vs plasma issue. I'm an engineer in Computer Technology with speciality on displays, currently working with a team at a television producer, can't really tell wich, I hope you understand. The guy that said "it's not the technology but the implementation of the technology" is actually the only guy that is right on this perticular issue. I personally believe that in a timeframe of 1-3 years most flat TV's will be LCD, the reason for this is not the architecture, cost nor performance but the TV resellers. Plasma televisions had to be cheeper (remember that they where first on the consumer market) when LCDs came strolling along with their high performance figures and this had a big impact on the consumer. The reseller ofcourse noticed this and started pushing LCD TVs. If you look at the settings on televisions in the stores you often find that the LCDs brightness is set higher than the plasmas. Don't ask me why. Here is my tech advise. Architecture wise I would go for the plasma solution because of it's KIS architecture. But LCDs support-technology is far in front of that of a plasma. If we talk lifespan of the set I would go for the LCD because of the endurance of the transistors. Someone mentioned that the phosphors in plamsma would deteriorate, that is not true. You all know what happens if we put thing into a vacuum?. NOTHING, absolutely nothing. What do you think will happen to the backlights of an LCD screen, do not put lighting into consideration when choosing LCD or plasma it's the same. The price of a plasma is lower than the LCD, why is that?. Could be because of the resellers because generally the production cost is more or less the same. Don't worry about how much it costs to use the set, either way you're better of than if you have an old CRT screen. It's funny that you mention dogs, we have actually used animals in testing what they prefer in the lab, usually it's the same, but sometimes dogs seem to prefer LCD. Remember that you are the one watching television in your own environment, some times the surroundings will give plasma the better performance other times LCD takes the victory. It's impossible to tell, but a dark frame around the TV set is better than a white frame. So go to your favourite electronics store and buy whatever suits you!. That is the best advice I can give you!. |
||
|
The whole truth Unregistered guest |
Has anyone ever wondered how long it takes a p o o p to reach it's final destination after being flushed down a toilet? |
||
|
More Money than Brains Unregistered guest |
Ok, I lied. I publicly declared I was going to buy the RP LCD, and I just can't do it.... Read on... Today I walked into Futureshop to have one last look before deciding... The best RP LCD in the shop was the Sony Grand Wega 955 Series. But it's HUGE! Need a dedicated Home Theatre for that puppy. The best Plasma - The Pioneer Elite. No doubt about it. The Picture in HD was Stellar. As we continued our walk we soon came across what is for me, the show stopper - The Sharp Aquos 37" - WOW! Unbelievable. Truly. So sharp, bright, and concise, I wanted to climb right in. $4300 CDN. Ouch. BUT! 60,000 Hrs! You simply can't beat that. And, it's not taking up half of your living room. The decision has been made - Now, where to buy? Good luck All! |
||
|
Hernan R Unregistered guest |
I'm in the market for a less than $3000 HDTV, and am considering a 44" or 50" Panasonic Rear-Projection LCD. However, I don't want to make a bad choice and would consider waiting if there's a better option that I could save more money for (within reason)... I like the Panasonic because it seems to be very configurable in terms of "stretching" a 4:3 picture to fit the widescreen, because the image quality just seems better IMO than any competitors in the $2000-$3000 range I've seen in the stores (including higher-priced Sony), and because it has an RGB input to work as a computer monitor. I need a display that will work well as a computer monitor, since I will have a computer connected to it all the time and use it in the living room with a wireless keyboard and mouse (the panasonic has a nice split-screen feature to watch TV and use the comp. at the same time). As far as TV goes, I have Time Warner digital cable and an HDTV box (Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HD). I've seen an HD signal on these Rear Projection LCD sets in the store and they looked great, but my biggest concern is SDTV programs.... Will non-HD channels look worse on a Rear Projection LCD display than they do on a regular TV? And if so, would plasma, DLP, or CRT be a better choice in this regard? Also, can I use plasma, DLP, or high-end CRTs as computer monitors? Another question, related to an earlier post - how many bulbs does a Rear Projection LCD use? I thought it was just one... Thank you everyone in advance! |
||
|
Reality Unregistered guest |
Ok, Here Goes. I went into a large TV store, looked at the quality of everything that was on, and decided that the 42" LG HD Plasma was the best. So I bought it and its great. |
||
|
Lightsabre Unregistered guest |
Quote: I wonder what buyers remorse, and/or second guessing, was like before we had the internet. Although many seem to do research via the internet, many others seem to go out and buy something on impulse (brain f*rt) and then go shopping for validation of their decisions. There is quite a bit of truth to that statement. I've spent the last few days reading this entire thread. While Slink had my interest peaked for a RPLCD Panasonic PT-50LCX64, I think I'm leaning towards LCD. However, with that being said, having digested this thread, I've decided not to buy now. I think I will take my time, peruse the local electronics stores, come up with a short list and make a purchase when the price is right. For now, I will live with my 2500lb 36" Zenith CRT. |
||
|
benjy Unregistered guest |
i have a 65 inch sony rear projection. looks like I'll try a new lcd hi benjy |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
I have a 65 inch beaver, so there! |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
I read some, skipped some and I have come to the following conclusion: I'm still confused! I think I'll keep my two 35 inch TVs for now, they're just fine. |
||
|
Mr. Leadbottom Unregistered guest |
I read some, skipped some and I have come to the following conclusion: I'm still confused! I think I'll keep my two 35 inch TVs for now, they're just fine. =========================== That's a good idea Elizabeth. Save one hundred a month like I'm doing and when your TVs wear out, you'll have no choice to buy replacements. Take care Elizabeth and good luck! |
||
|
Doggy Dog Unregistered guest |
I have a tube top tv that is good for viewing mostly B&W videos, mostly vintage stuff. What I need is a way to upchannel these into a HDTV format. Would I be better off with a LCD or plasma torch tv for viewing the resultant images? Thanks! Any recommended vendors appreciated too! |
||
|
BlueJacks Unregistered guest |
You guys should try watching less TV |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Bluejacks, why don't you stop playing with your p o o p chute. |
||
|
Lightsabre Unregistered guest |
I spent some time this past weekend at BB and CC. I've changed my mind on which platform I'd like to pursue in the future. I was not impressed with DLP or RP LCD. This is mostly due to viewing angles. While the colors were nice, there was to much smudging for my taste. I would say the same for the larger LCDs. For 27" and smaller the LCDs seemed to perform better, but that's probably because anytime you increase the size the chances for noticeable loss is greater. Therefore, I've decided on plasma as my next purchase. I was very impressed with the Pioneer elite model as well as the the Phillips and Panasonic models. LG had a nice model as well - it had a built-in 160 GB DVR! Nice touch. Even though I'll mostly use the plasma for movies, my biggest concern will be watching SDTV. |
||
|
EL Grande Unregistered guest |
FACT: There is no cure for Plasma burn in. So why take the risk and have to think about it? Why worry about settings or if you have the same image on for more than 15 minutes? Why spend all that money and not be guarunteed that you wont have burn in? Just for the burn in issue alone I would NEVER buy a Plasma! |
||
|
Brian Douglas Unregistered guest |
Read all the posts here because I too was undecided. Choice was between LG 37" LCD ($3499 circuit city)or LG 42" Plasma ($3099 circuit city), both with built in HD. The bottom line ended up being pros and cons. Plasma having several cons, burn in, shorter life, colors darken over time, less economical to operate and runs hot. The LCD the only con I came up with was a lag. I ended up chosing the LCD. Paid more but I think in the long run it will pay off. One thing that kept coming back was with the LCD the same bright picture I have today, I will also have years down the road when I turn it on. Oh and a tip for anyone purchasing the Circuit City protection plan with a flat panel. Show the associate that Best Buy offers a 4 year plan for $399.99 ($99.99 per year) and they will honor that rate. I wanted the 5yr plan which Circuit City charged $899.99 for, but based on Best Buys rate of $99.99 per year I only paid $499.99 for the warranty. Circuit City can't take the cost off the warranty so they show it on the television. So instead of $3499, it was $3099. Good luck with your purchase. I am happy with mine. |
||
|
Anonymous |
here is what I think: instead of spending 3K on good 32' lcd or 40' plasma TV today, why not buy the Sony XBR CRT now for 1500 and in 3 years buy a 32' LCD TV for another 1500 - by that time the LCD TV will be as good as the CRT is today (or maybe even better), and the price will be 1/2 of what is today. So for 3k you will end up with 2 good tvs. Am I the only one that thinks rationaly here? Who cares that the CRT is 200 lb. Flat screen are only to impress housewifes... think about it: if you buy hifi components, will you buy the best looking amp or the large, ugly, better performing amp? This is a no-brainer to me... |
||
|
msTATz Unregistered guest |
To add something a bit different. I own a 17" Samsung SyncMaster 172X TFT for PC use. It is 12ms refresh. I use the digital connection. For the most part i do not have any complaints as I use it primarily for typing and reading etc. However.. when using the scrollbar(in any program)there is a small lag or ghosting, same occurs with the mouse when dragging it across the screen. Whenver there is a white image on a black background you get ghosting (watching a movie). It is not major and it doesn't bother me, but it is there. Playing games is fine. Much better on the eyes than the CRT. I paid $850AUD. 1 AUD = .75USD (roughly) |
||
|
Lightsabre Unregistered guest |
Glad to see this thread is still alive. After some discussion with the wife and reviewing our viewing habits, I'm going to wait on the Plasma for the living room and replace my 20" CRT in the bedroom with a 27" LCD. I really like the Sharp Aquos, although it's pricer than others. I'll get serious about making a purchase in mid/late October when the stores gear up for Christmas. In the meantime, I'm working on a setup in the bedroom that will allow me to connect my LCD to the cablebox and PC in another room. This way I won't need to have bulky components in the bedroom. I've seen the infrared cables that can tie back to a device. Does anyone have experience with these? |
||
|
Aussie10 Unregistered guest |
Well as far as I'm concern if anyone comes to this thread for knowledge about Plasma V's LCD then don't. I can honestly tell you no one knows what they are talking about you will only get more confused. If you want a laugh in some cases ok or most of the time you will just shake your head. We've had dogs licking screens to someone who likes pickle onions. And the "FACT IS" well how many times have I seen that. Most of us are all experts ohhh please I just want to know someones experience but you won't get it here. My experience is no different however unlike everyone else we all visit the store and have a bit of a browse in my opinion which is most probably no different than anyone else I tend to lean towards the LCD than the Plasma. Why ? - well because I believe the LCD is more natural it does'nt have that gloss and/or slight electric figurine that Plasma has. LCD in spite of what you hear does last longer but both do have there faults and the last time I heard so do humans, funny things aren't we. The LCD is cheaper to run but the Plasma does look nice mmmm do we walk down the street and see someone glossy unless we are suddenly turned on I don't think so the LCD again is that flat natural look. I can go into the real technical jarger but I think we have had enough of that haven't we?!! I've done as much homework as I can do but my eye catches the LCD sorry Plasma I love you but LCD is my choice the only thing I have to do now is try sport to make sure it is not disorted, a game of footy or something. Well thanks everyone for your posts I enjoyed reading them have a great time viewing. )) |
||
|
Robin Bobbin Unregistered guest |
And now Dell has entered the market with LCD's and plasma's at what seem like really good prices, + no interest til Jan 2007. Any thoughts anybody? |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
And now Dell has entered the market with LCD's and plasma's at what seem like really good prices, + no interest til Jan 2007. Any thoughts anybody? ================================== Robbin, if they had no payments and no interest until Jan. 2007, I would buy a large screen TV. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
Well folks, seems like an interesting debate! I work at Best Buy, and can shed a little bit of light on this subject, but it's probably all been said before. LCD's are not shipped "with the brightness turned up" as someone said. They are shipped with the brightness at mid-level, the factory default level. LCD's are lighter. LCD's ARE brighter by nature, having a rear lamp instead of a burning gas. Quote from El Grande - "FACT: There is no cure for Plasma burn in" This isn't exactly true. In some cases (not all) there is a color barrage display method that can, sometimes, correct a screen that wasn't burned in for long. This only works on light burns, and ppl who know plasmas know burns have different degrees. The BIG thing for plasma tv's is that they display a wider range of the color spectrum than LCDs can. You'll having more various shades of reds, blues, and greens as compared to the LCD, but the LCD is sharper around the edges of pictures. A decent trade off. One thing many of you seem to misconcieve on is the DLP. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 2nd rate technology. It came out about the same time as LCD and has had time to develop. DLP is the best option if you can't decide between LCD or Plasma. They've just as many uses as LCDs because you can't burn in the screen. Better viewing angles. They're light. And, if you get one from Mitsubishi, you have a quality product. Many people are dissatissfied with the Samsung line of DLPs. There's a huge reason for this. Samsung uses a poly-acrylic (plastic) lens and other components inside. Mitsubishi, on the other hand, uses the more expensive glass inside, also for it's lens. This give a sharper, more clear image with clarity and color unlike anything else. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by email, z.beck1@comcast.net Put LCD vs Plasma as the subject so I know what it's about and don't junk it, lol. Enjoy! |
||
|
Anonymous |
The bigger the screen size the more likely you are to see the pixels?. Right |
||
|
UG Unregistered guest |
There has been so much discussion about plasma/ LCD/ CRT that I am confused. Can we have some discussion on the technical superiority of LCD/ Plasma over a Black & White diode TV that I use for my TV viewing? If there really are advantages, then I will switch. The question is how much will I get for my old set - 21" black & white with diodes? |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
There has been so much discussion about plasma/ LCD/ CRT that I am confused. Can we have some discussion on the technical superiority of LCD/ Plasma over a Black & White diode TV that I use for my TV viewing? If there really are advantages, then I will switch. The question is how much will I get for my old set - 21" black & white with diodes? ============================== My guess is you will get about one dollar for that B&W TV. |
||
|
paulopocas Unregistered guest |
After all the reading I came to a final conclusion. Gonna buy a 32" HD CRT, wait about 3 to 5 Years and buy what's best then. In my view the only problem is the size it takes in the room, and in 3 to 5 Yrs most of the problems with the other formats will have been corrected and the price will get alot lower. |
||
|
coco Unregistered guest |
Ebay Stores in the UK has lots of plasmas at really low prices compared to shops (even online ones)....do you think they are trustworthy? If not can anybody recommend a good outlet? |
||
|
New member Username: MonkeybrainPost Number: 1 Registered: Jul-05 |
Has anyone heard about the new 37" LCD widescreen TV made by Sceptre with HDTV built in and a resolution of 1920 x 1080? Anyone familiar with this manufacturer and their reputation? |
||
|
Anonymous |
Does anyone know about the Marantz 42" Plasma TV? How does it compare quality, price, etc? |
||
|
Isochroma Unregistered guest |
My opinion: LCDs will drop in price much faster than plasma displays. Due to their cheaper manufacturability, and to the massive investments in LCD manufacturing being made in Asia right now, very large LCD panels will become very cheap in the next few years. Plasma can barely display 1024x768, and there are few (does anyone know of any?) that can show anything higher. There are no plasma displays on the market that can show 1920x1080p. Due to an inherent limitation of the technology - the minimum size of gas cells (about .5 mm, but as implemented about .7 - 1 mm) prevents HD resolutions from being achieved with panels of reasonable size. LCDs, however, can attain very high resolutions because the transistor arrays are made on a lithographic process (same as ICs). Thus, you can easily buy 37" LCD displays that show 1920x1080p. Even if your source resolution is lower, good bicubic or lanczos3 upscaling will make the image look far superior to native resolution display. This is due to antialiasing, and smaller pixels producing better color purity due to the eye's better integration of more samples. Try viewing some HD or SD video on a computer monitor - you'll see what spacial supersampling via lots of extra pixels can do for definition. The future of plasmas is pretty dim: as LCD prices continue to drop precipitously, plasma will lose market share until it reaches its final resting place: a niche product for very large (ie. >50" displays). Due to plasma's more complex design, the materials cost and fabrication complexity will never be able to compete with LCD's ease of production. Only the initial cost of LCD manufacturing plants is keeping LCD prices up - and that is already decreasing rapidly. |
||
|
Anonymous |
Why is it so difficult to find pixel response times for large LCD telelvisions? The only model I saw recently with a published response time was an Acer 32 inch with a response time (grey to grey) of 11ms, which looked a damned good TV for the price. Does any know where you can find this informatin for other brands such as Sony, Panasonic, Sharp etc? Or are the manufacturers deliberately keeping us in the dark? |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
http://www.projectorcentral.com/video_signals.htm here, check this site out for a little more info on HDTV, EDTV, and SDTV. I myself have my computer hooked to both a 19 inch LCD monitor, and a Samsung SPN4235 42 inch Widescreen Plasma Flat Panel HD Ready TV...Specifications 852 x 480-pixel EDTV (480p) resolution; built-in image scaler accepts 720p and 1080i signals and scales them for 480p viewing 42-inch widescreen high-definition plasma display with DVI input and 16:9 aspect ratio; 40.4 x 24.8 x 3.1 inches (W x H x D) Extraordinary 1,200:1 contrast ratio, high 700 cd/m2 brightness 10-watts-per-channel speaker outputs (for use with optional matching speakers, model PSM4230); subwoofer output for a direct sub hookup NTSC dual-tuner, split-screen PIP lets you watch two programs simultaneously List Price: $4199.99 if you want maximum video quality, make sure to buy a TV or projector that is 480p compatible. I Have both the 19 inch LCD and the 42 inch Plazma hooked up simultaniously.. through a ATI Radion 9800 Pro - 256MB video card that controls all of my video inputs and outputs. I am a hard core gamer, and a movie buff.. as well as being a graphic artist.. I myself prefer using the Plazma.. the plazma is more prone to burn-in's.. the manufacturer actually warns against even watching CNN (among other channels) where it has the "CNN" constantly on the bottom left corner.. mine actually has "CNN" burnt onto the screen, but it can only be seen under certain conditions..for example.. right now, i cannot see the burn-in.. only on a certain grey color it can be seen. in most cases, the burn-in only occurs when a bright white image in left on the screen for a long period of time. Like i said.. i use my plazma with my computer mostly.. i have cable hooked up to it.. but really only have the cable for the cable modem.. (they require I pay for basic cable to have my cable modem) so i have it hooked up.. but mostly view everything thought the computer itself.. my movies are played from my compuers DVD ROM and any TV I watch is played through the video input on the computer.. i have the cable hooked up for the PIP mainly.. I myself.. am not too worried about the burn-in.. like i said.. it takes a bright white image.. for a long period of time.. i bought the tv used from a bar that closed that had CNN on it constantly.. and if you ever watch CNN they are "bright white letters" in the bottom left corner as i mentioned earlier.. but i very rarely see the burn in.. my particular plazma is actually set to the low level as far as brightness goes.. while reading the forum I actually checked my settings.. it gets much brighter, but the low setting is just fine.. for everything I do with it. My computer desk sits right below my plazma, which is hanging from the wall.. and my LCD sits on the desk directly below it.. and honestly, my LCD hardly even gets turned on.. I am actually considering just taking the LCD and putting it away to clear off more room on my desk.. and putting it in the closet just incase something happens to my plazma... I am not bias toward the plazma or the LCD.. but when i can get the same quality picture.. even with text out of the 42 inch plazma compared to the 19 inch monitor.. I'd rather go with the 42 inch.. it's just more viewing pleasure for myself.. and actually easier to see, when you consider text on a 19 inch LCD at 1024 x 768 is aprox. 1/8th of an inch, and the text on the 42 inch plazma at the same resolution is aprox 1/4+ of an inch..slighly more than double.. it makes a difference.. and as far as the burn in.. I have been using the plazma as a monitor for about a year.. along with my LCD and have no burn-in from using it that way.. and I am on here a lot.. of course, when I am not.. it is nice that the screen saver kicks in.. I try to turn it off when not in use.. but sometimes.. I leave it on.. but no burn-ins have occured from the use.. and the screen saver is my back-up if i forget to turn it off.. I have read a lot of the stuff in the forum here and can dispute some of the facts given here.. but I am just stating my opinion right now.. I'd rather not get into a battle of the screens with anyone.. I am just stating my opinion.. and the facts of my partiular usage.. and I know some of the things I have stated have been a needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression..but I am just stressing my point, or opinion. Thanx Mazzin UhMazzin1@hotmail.com |
||
|
rdudley Unregistered guest |
As with any product vying for the consumers' dollars, there are going to be many slants on which type of TV is better. Some may pose as salesmen, or end-users, when in reality they are industry insiders, doing anything to get their product sold. I would much rather read the articles in Consumers Digest, as they don't accept advertising dollars, and thus, are in a much more validated position of giving one the straight dope on the issues. I have stood in many stores looking at the various TV's on display, and, to be honest, without knowing squat about the technology, they both look world's better than what I am currently viewing in my home. |
||
|
Anonymous |
what after plasma life time... is it possible to refill plasma or fix it?? cause my tv is on 16h on day so thats about 8y of watching! What after? tnx |
||
|
New member Username: Rf186Post Number: 4 Registered: Sep-04 |
LCD's have a longer life than plasma athough that gap is shortning due to advances in plasma technology. I guess it all boils down to what do you need a tv for? Is price or size a factor? As lcd's get bigger & bigger I believe that they will eventually replace plasmas. |
||
|
SERGENT3 Unregistered guest |
WHY SPEND 5000US ON LCD WHEN YOU CAN SPEND 2000US ON PLASMA OF THE SAME SIZE. THEN WHEN PLASMA RUNS OUT YOU SPEND ANOTHER 2000 ON AN UPGRADED VERSION AND YOU STILL SAVE MONEY...WHAT IS THE POINT, PLASMA IS CLEARLY THE BETTER CHOICE IN MY OPINION BECAUSE AT LEAST YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS GET A NEXT LVL UPGRADE WITH BETTER STUFF LATER ON AND STILL SAVE MONEY.WHY WASTE YOUR MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT IS QUICKLY GOING TO BE OUTDATED WITH PROMISES OF 10-15 YEAR LIFE SPAN WHEN LATER ON TECHNOLOGY IS JUST GOING TO RENDER IT OBSOLETE.. SO THIS IS WHY I GET A NOTABLE PLASMA AT AROUND 2000$ OR LESS AND HAVE DVI SO CAN USE AS MONITOR AND WHEN OTHER NEWER TECHNOLOGIES COME OUT I CAN UPGRADE TO BETTER ONE.. IF I GO AND BUY 5000$ LCD I WASTE MORE MONEY AND AM STUCK WITH IT FOR A LONG TIME..THIS IS WHY MANY PPL WHO WANT THE BEST DONT REALIZE THAT IN COUPLE YEARS THE BEST WILL BE THE WORST AND THEY WASTE THERE MONEY. ALSO PLASMA DOES HAVE BETTER MOVEMENT AND BLACKER BLACK WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE EXTREMELY GREAT WITH STREAMING VIDEO..BURN IN IS NOT AN ISSUE AS MUCH ANYMORE |
||
|
Anonymous |
Altitude problems with Plasma TV? I heard that there is a 'buzz' or other noise on the plasma TVs over a certain altitude (I am in Denver - a mile high = 5280 fet.) I heard that the screen gets fuzzy (the noise didnt mean sound.) Any truth to that? |
||
|
J York Unregistered guest |
Okay,it is obvious that there are differences between Plasma and LCD. Alot of things have been exagerated in my opinion. I made the choice of LCD simply because when viewing both side by side in the stores I always preferred LCD. In almost every case I met another customer or sales person that disagreed with me for his/her own personal reasons. The fact is that they are both a vast improvement over standard definition. There is no wrong choice if you walk away happy with your own personal purchase. I do believe that LCD has a much crisper defined look, but that doesn't mean it is better. Somebody else may prefer the warmer look of the plasma. I believe the debate over the response time is also misunderstood. I have experienced the same fast motion artifacts on plasma although it was less noticable due in part to the softer images on the screen. I also believe this affect has more to do with your HD source than the display itself. I never see this when watching DVD's but I do see it when watching HD Satellite broadcasts. Displaying high definition at 80 or 90 frames per second requires alot of data so the artifacts you are seeing is because the broadcast image is slow to refresh. I truely believe as data restrictions become less of a problem that LCD will improve. Due to the sharpness of the image of LCD it is merely showing you the shortcomings of your carrier and their high rate of compression. This is why standard definition is so disappointing on HD televisions. You are seeing the image as it is broadcast and not being masked by the low resolution of an analog TV. I don't believe Plasma TV's will last 15 yrs any more than I believe LCD will last 20. My local American Eagle store installed a new Sony Plasma about a year and a half ago and it looks awful already. The screen has faded so badly that it nearly appears black and white. While I am sure it was on much more than 4 hrs a day, it still is far from 30,000 hrs of use. I also purchased an LCD screen myself and had to ship it back for repair within 6 months due to an unexplained black line down the center of the screen. Electronics all wear out and are only as good as their weakest component. My point is that I choose LCD because I find it more pleasing but you should do research and make your own decision because just because one is pleasing to me it may not be pleasing to you. |
||
|
Mike Skiffy Unregistered guest |
"LCDs give off no radiation" -Mike Chandler Is this guy dumber than a brick? radiation=ligth by the subsitution property of equality: LCDs give off no ligth Yeah that's right! I dont wanna hear it from u idiot LCD ("oooh but the brightness is better...") freaks. You better get ur act togeether. From this comment it is obvious that half these people have no idea what they-re tlaking about |
||
|
Mad Nomad Unregistered guest |
Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 05:16 pm by Best Buy "Fact: LCD's DO last longer and you can replace the bulbs in them, ..." ----- FACT!!! : LCD screen (Liquid Crystal Display) does not have a BULB! The Projection TV has a bulb. You just lost credibility as you have no idea what you are talking about. |
||
|
Anonymous |
Actually, All LCDs do have a fluorescent bulb - a backlight. I believe the only LCD TVs that you can change the bulb in are the Sharp Aquos but it has been a couple of months since I last checked. Plasma TVs have a great picture but I would not want to worry about Burn-In which is done very easily, especially when new. Nobody realizes how often you have a static screen up now that we have TIVO and the like. LCD TVs are better suited for computer use including Home Theater PCs. Just make sure you get one with low refresh rates. Beware when looking at TVs in BB, CC and others becuase they all split the signal to the point they all look terrible. Everything should look good in your home compared to in the store. Your TV is only going to look as good as what you feed into it. |
||
|
Dinos Unregistered guest |
Mad Nomad writes: "FACT!!! : LCD screen (Liquid Crystal Display) does not have a BULB! The Projection TV has a bulb. You just lost credibility as you have no idea what you are talking about." You just lost credibility, dude. LCD's have bulbs. |
||
|
Skeptical Karl Unregistered guest |
Let talk real life here, rather than theoretical advantages. My take: LCD's use less power, and produce less heat. But they are somewhat more expensive, and their blacks levels aren't quite as good. Plasmas are heavy and fragile, and some do make a buzzing noise in high-altitude places like Denver and Santa Fe. Everything else is more or less a wash. The picture from either is about equal, though certain LCDs are better than certain plasmas, and vice versa. Response time is no longer a factor, at least that I can see. Jaggies are caused by another problem like the video processing circuitry or the source, not by the fact it is LCD. 16 million colors is more than enough (from perceptual neuroscience. The brain and optic nerves don't have the bandwidth, if you will, for more. If people think plasmas have better color, it is for some other reason, like brightness, contrast, balance, etc.) Burn-in is inherently a problem for plasma, though there are technologies to reduce (not eliminate) it and LCD's can have a type of burn-in, kinda. Call it a wash. Screen life on both is plenty for most people (unless you are a professional video person, or use the TV as a computer monitor.) Viewing angle is about the same, and anyway about 90 degrees is all I need. LCD's will have higher resolution, but as with colors, all you need is enough resolution, and you certainly don't need more than your source has. Some EDTV's look better than some HDTV's. Resolution is not all there is. I don't need a huge screen, and prices have fallen so much that LCD's in the 30-32" range are comparable to CRTs. So LCD it is. |
||
|
MemphisMuseum Unregistered guest |
We have been using plasma tvs in our museum since 1997, they have been lasting an average of 3 years with 24/7 usage. Plasma tv is the way to go! http://www.plasmahouse.com is where we buy all our plasma displays from, we save thousands of dollars. |
||
|
RichardG Unregistered guest |
I heard that LCD TVs last longer than plasma's is that true? |
||
|
Rog61 Unregistered guest |
ok I want an hdtv for watching football plain and simple....I don't want to pay the extra money for the hd box from my cable company when the football channels are already in hd...and I don't want a huge tv in my small livingroom...I also might want to hang it on the wall to make my small livingroom seem bigger but I don't want major cables going through my walls to the attic joist just to hold it up...and at the very largest 35 inch will be plenty...with that said will the lcd better serve my purpose?...remember football in hd is what I'm watching....if the lcd screen is gonna smear that punt return back for a touchdown then I don't want it...but if not then it sounds like lcd is lighter to hang on the wall and it might outlast the plasma....given what I just posted tell me people plasma or lcd?....one or the other ....don't tell me why just tell me which for what I'm gonna use it for |
||
|
Rog61 Unregistered guest |
I forgot to meantion my cable company uses fiber optic technology if that matters |
||
|
Richard72 Unregistered guest |
Do you think technology will lead us in the Plasma/LCD direction or in the projection direction? |
||
|
red lizard Unregistered guest |
I have trawled through all the posts up to May. I am suffering from paralysis by analysis and cannot bear to read any more. I would however appreciate any help on ANY of the points below which relate to my specific circumstances: 1. I am a music fan and wish to connect a high quality hi fi to the screen (as apposed to a cheapo all show no go surround sound system). 2. I will be using the PS2 on the screen. 3. I want the option of connecting the laptop to the screen. 4. HDTV will be available in my area in 2006 -hopefully. If I buy an HDTV unit but have a non HDTV input will the HDTV screen bring out more 'defects' than the CRT screen? ie will it actually make the viewing experience worse?! 5. I want something that will work with for at least 8 years with fairly heave use. My wife watches a lot of daytime tv while I finance her extravagant lifestyle. I'm sure she'll leave the thing on while she goes out to do important things like her nails. By the way, is power consumption an issue? 6. I like watching football, motor racing etc. 7. Minimum size I want is 40' 8. Budget is $3500. 9. I am also considering RP TV options. Space saving is not an issue with me. Should I also consider front projection? 10. Reliability/quality of manufacturer is important for me -I don't want hassle and I don't want nasty unforeseen bills. I'd rather pay more and get peace of mind. Any ideas anyone as to what would best suit my purpose? Thanks in advance. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
You guys have it good over there, I'm from England and our High Defintion Signal won't be up and running until early 2006, from SKY. I'm also in the process of looking to purchase a HD Ready Plasma or LCD but can't decide which. I know alot has been written on the subject but I still can't decide. I enjoy watching soccer mainly, along with movies (DVD's too). My young daugther watches alot of cartoons. The technology in the US is ahead of ours so please help me decide |
||
|
LoneWolf367 Unregistered guest |
Hello, I keep pretty close watch on technology and decided to do further research on true statistics of LCD's vs Plasma's and so far information all seems rather skewed. I am a owner of a 42" Plasma and it's a little over a year old. It's amazing how far we've come as I can go into stores now and see that they still have the one I have compared to newer Plasma's and LCD and there have been great improvements in quality and at the time I went all out and spent several months shopping around getting the most high quality one I could find. I was in Best Buy today and met some family members shopping for a TV and I was suprised to find out that it was a LCD. I hadn't been paying attention to them for a while at first glace I couldn't tell the difference! I work at a production studio with high definition editing suites so I look at TRUE HD straight off the film all day and we have both LCD's and Plasma's there. Both plasma and LCD look amazing and it really just comes down to price vs size. The common consumer thinks those large flat CRT's look good so all most see is "wow, they save space". Go with what you need. I would almost recommend LCD's however simply because of the lifespan and less chance of burnin. With plasma's you do need to be careful to not leave images on for very long periods of time. I've had a few scares myself with irrisponsable family members leaving the TV on for very very long periods at a time. And if you don't have the need for a HD display right away if you're in the US wait until the end of 2k6!!! The government will be making all TV places switch to true digital signal instead of all that analog converted crap and vice versa currently going on. TV in general will be higher quality and technology will have made even more advances. I have a HD box and rarely do I see true HD broadcasts on TV, half of them are nothing but scaled up images to match the resolution and they look like garbage. |
||
|
Alde_nyc Unregistered guest |
When people say not to leave imgaes on for a long time, what time period are we talking about here? 5 min, 15, hour???? |
||
|
asdfg Unregistered guest |
to Alan Smithie u r just pissed bcause u got plasma and not lcd so stop bagin lcd bcause i hav a plasma and lcd (both middle of the range samsungs and the lcd is far better only bad thing is my lcd is only 40" and plasma is 50" |
||
|
NW Bill Unregistered guest |
Just to help keep the string going and a few posters' shorts in a twist: At the 2005 SID conference the big buzz was about color saturation improvements which produced eye popping image quality on LCDs. LED backlights, improved CCFL tubes and tricks with CCFL phosphors and color filters that produced color gamuts exceeding 100% of NTSC had people standing and staring for long periods of time. Samsung had regular CCFL lit LCD shown next to LED lit LCD in bright show floor ambient light and it was no contest. Color saturation is the next big advance in producing eye popping image quality and is only a year or two away. Fact: Asian flat panel capacity is ramping up with Gen 6 and larger fabs coming on line producing an oversupply state in 2006; this will provoke a price war for volume; all the big players (Samsung, Philips, etc) predict this; so if you want to buy a new large flat panel LCD or Plasma tv and can wait for the 2006 X-mas selling season you will save (I love the "Fact" format, it gets people's blood boiling). Fact: The Toshiba/Canon SED technology (Surface Electron Display) has been demo'd at 36" diagonal and will be out in 2006; the current LCD and Plasma leaders are nervously watching to see if SED finally brings a highly competitive, simple to manufacture new emissive technology to the market; the CRT's revenge! P.S. why don't some posters take 30 seconds to reread their posts for errors in spelling and syntax? I am still cracking up over the post equating LCD radiation to something called "ligth". Is ligth dangerous? Any mis-spellings in my message are there on purpose. |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
I presently have a Sony 32" PIP. It has a unique feature of having not only two tuners but two audio outputs the second using headphones. This allows two people to watch and listen simultaneously. Do any of these new plasma or LCD units offer this feature? |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
What do you think of the Dell 42" Plasma? Prices are falling. Is this because theya re going away from the technology?? Do they suck? Is some one else making them for Dell? Help! |
||
|
Anonymous |
LCD wins because LCD front projectors win e.g AE700u presenting selling around 1800 dollars, also the Sanyo Z3 selling around 1500 dollars - either will produce a blow-away 100 inch picture - way beyond any plasma PLASMA'S overpriced undersized obsolete technology |
||
|
Anonymous |
Why do you all dwell on lifetime? Do you realistically think your going to be watching the best current plasma or LCD display 15, 10, or even 5 years from now? The best display will result from a combination of marketing forces, business decisions, and other matters unrelated to the best technology. Whatever wins will eventually be quite good, but not necessarily what "might have been" if dictated by technology alone. Beta vs. VHS is a good example. |
||
|
woodman Unregistered guest |
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. -- from admin at top. We have been using plasma tvs in our museum since 1997, they have been lasting an average of 3 years with 24/7 usage. Plasma tv is the way to go! (=26298 hours including leap years) Huh? |
||
|
ejm Unregistered guest |
just read that the samsung 32" lcd (new 1) has 3.2 billion colours. go to this site and read http://www.dtvcity.com/samsung-lcd/samsung-lnr328w.php#USER_REVIEWS |
||
|
Unregistered guest |
I have just attempted to read this entire thread, but I have to admit that about halfway through I was reaching my pain threshold. It is obvious that everybody has some sort of favourite and opinion on whether Plasma or LCD gets their vote. Some offer technical reasons why one is superior to the other. Some are more simply more subjective and offer no more reason other than that they "prefer" one more than the other. Also, the vote seems to be pretty well split. Neither seems to have the edge over the other. One is therefore led to assume that both are "good enough" and we just have to live with it. Over time of course one may emerge "the winner". Even that may not define which is "best". And I refer to the now ancient battle between Betamax V VHS as reference. VHS won over Betamax, not because it was technically better (it wasnt), but because of economic interests of large corporations. However, having just written all that waffle, I have just invested £599 on a Crown 32" LCD set. And very good it is to. After adjusting the sound and picture to suit my tastes, it gives a good account of itself. OK, its not HD ready and its "only" 50Hz picture. BUT......for the money its excellent value and - IN MY OPINION - is better than a similarly priced plasma. |
||
|
New member Username: Jakov_calderonPost Number: 1 Registered: Sep-05 |
Talking about Lifespan of Plasma and/or LCD, in the end, what is the Lifespan of each? |
||
|
verytalldave Unregistered guest |
That question has already been answered many times..................see "woodman" above for a typical reply. |
||
|
verytalldave Unregistered guest |
Out to "Anonymous".............. This thread is titled "Plasma vs LCD". What has your opinion on another persons mental health got to do with that subject? In my limited experience, I have usually found that its the accuser who is the one with the problem. However, I can see where this thread is going fast. It will rapidly descend into the normal forum slanging match and the original subject will be lost forever in a barrage of expletives. Shame. The point remains - which is best? In my opinion its all down to 2 things. 1. Your personal choice - and - 2. What you can afford. Manufacturers are selling both Plasma and LCD side by side. Both are good. Both will work well and reliably unless you are unlucky. Thats it. |
||
|
chikat Unregistered guest |
you are all bunch of jerks,collectively you all hv already spent more in terms of time,brains,energy than the products or technologies discussed herein.Its in mind,not in product.Both LCD and PDP are developing technologies,and are not perfect(like everything else).The bottomline,use yr judgment,test both products at buying and return if you are not happy with your buy.Don't be so critical of this useless comparison,These are not god's creations afterall.Hope this will put some sense. |
||
|
Vancer Unregistered guest |
Without regard for the technical pros and cons of Plasma vs LCD, I made my choice because of the fact that to my eye, LCD screens seemed to reflect glare much less than plasma. Therefore during the day, when the room has lots of light coming in the windows, the LCD is more comfortable to watch. The lower glare is a big deal to me. |
||
|
WayneUSA Unregistered guest |
I own a 42" NEC plasma TV. HD Football & DVD's are a whole new world!! XBOX ROCKS! MyPC is networked to the NEC as well. Life is good!! |
||
|
JC Carter Unregistered guest |
I have been in the market for a flat paneled TV for a while now, and was also unsure if I wanted LCD or Plasma...have finally made my purchase. Bought a 32" Sharp LCD ($1709 + tax) , though tempted by a 42" Magnavox plasma ($1699 + tax. My reason to go with the smaller monitor (LCD)ended up to being 3 simple things. 1) I have a lot of windows in my living room, and the glare off of the plasma screen was INSANE compared to hardly any glare from the LCD screen. I had the salesman hold a flashlight for me, as well as aim the TV's towards different angles where the other TV's were at in the department. Try it. The glare is amazingly different. Anyone who does not live in a dungeon environment, with lots of day, afternoon, and early evening natural light coming in, should really lean towards LCD. 2) A friend of mine bought a 50" Panasonic plasma tv about 9 months ago, and already has suffered from a very faint burn in....if you are a sports fan (as my friend and I am, and will be watching a lot of sports on your new TV, REMEMBER that most sporting events post the score board in the upper corner of the screen for the ENTIRE game. Thus, my friend always remembers that his beloved Atlanta Braves played the Phillies at some point in time while he own his TV. I guess for the movie buffs that suggest plasma, take it from a couple of sports buffs....LCD is the better option. My buddy regrets not getting LCD. 3) While in Circuit City shopping for which LCD I wanted, as guys who were not employed by Circuit City walked by, I stopped to ask opinions from them,and not one person recommended plasma, a few recommended LCD, and 3 (thats 3) guys had plasma and said they wished they had gotten LCD. This sealed the deal for me. So, I sugest you look at the glare situation of YOUR home. Also, besides movies, what other type programming you'll be watching (nothing like a burnt in scoreboard or first down indicator forever on your screen). Most of all, I suggest you do what I did...stop other consumers in the store you'll be making your purchase, and ask for an opinion. More than likely, a customer in CC or BB has some knowledge of electronics or has puchased something similar. I find that everyone wants to voice their opinion, and will be more than happy to drop their 2 cents in. Also, while they are in the store, they will usually be happy giving their negative feedback to help you avoid their mistakes, or give you reasons as to why they rave about the product they purchased. |
||
|
coman Unregistered guest |
can i ask a simple question?? i am interested in all that has been said, some of it is quite obviously complete crap, it must be if even i can see that, and i am not a specialist in the area by any stretch, but i was just wondering if there is anybody out there that can write a thread and give actual facts that cannot be contested by someone else that THINKS that they know more???? I would really like to know which is better technically speaking |
||
|
Anonymous |
I BOUGHT A 32" SONY PLASMA TV AFTER 7 MONTHS THE SCREEN WENT AND I WAS TOLD IT HAD TO BE REPLACED I CALLED SONY AND WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WERE NOT MAKING ANYMORE SCREENS FOR THAT PLASMA AND WERE EVENTUALLY GOING WITH LCD TECHNOLOGY. THEN SOMTHING UNBELIVABLE HAPPENED THEY OFFERED TO SWAP MY OLD 32 FOR A NEW LCD 32" WITH THE SAME 2995 PRICE TAG.i AM BLOWN AWAY A COMPANY LIKE SONY GIVING ME A BRAND NEW LCD TO REPLACE MY SONY PLASMA, IN MY OPINOIN WHATEVER YOU BUY BUY SONY WOW I MEAN IAN JUST SITTING HERE BLOWN AWAY. |
||
|
Mr James Bond Unregistered guest |
Having worked as a tyre fitter and girls school headmistress after my sex change I think I am more qualified to give advice on this matter. Fact - Eastenders is less depressing if watched on an LCD screen. Fact - LCD screens show less colours because YELLOW is not supplied as a standard colour - you have to spend extra to get yellow. Fact - If your plasma has burn in, hold it face down, tap the back and shake from side to side. The burn in is removed. Plasma is only an extension of 'Etch a Sketch' technology. Fact - forum members who ask for advice on which is best should be told the worst option. Anyone who can't make their own mind up should be given the worst technology. This will enable you to buy the best technology cheaper - supply and demand laws - its also funny to hobble someone like this. Fact - rather like virtual dolby - a new technology called virtual large screen is being developed by matsui. This will make a 15 inch screen look like a 42 inch screen when viewed from a 45 degree angle. Fact - using the word fact to emphasise your points does not indicate any truth in statements. Please understand that the word fact is used in this post in the true sence of the word. Fact - spending several grand to watch last of the summer wine, my hero, or indeed eastenders is not a wise lifestyle choice. Fact - debating the merits of TV's is a rather boring read after 20 pages (see first post and read to here) |
||
|
New member Username: AlandPost Number: 1 Registered: Sep-05 |
i agree with chikat,hvg read all posts i am more confused on this issue now.A typical consumer wouldn't care so much to be technically enlightened before buying.New economies demand constant updates and new technologies will hvto keep coming to ensure survival of electronics industry,When CRT was around,it was the only choice.Now we have many,each hs merits/demerits and future looks like we will hv many more forums like this one crosscomparing various technologies. i hv both kind of friends owners of PDP and LCD,some are happy and some aren't.I hv also noticed that the placement of the TV and background,wall color..etc can also incfluence,how well a pictures from a screen appears to you.Anyways,I am not for complicating my life further by going more technical in these kind of subjects.What suits your pocket,satisfies yr AV needs,ultimately replacable in 3-4 years,is what is good for a normal consumer like myself.It depends on individual,could be PDP or LCD.a comparison is meaningful only when there are one of two parameters. |
||
|
Anonymous |
For my money, unless you really need flat the new Sony 50 inch KDS-R50XBR with SXRD Technolgy looks fabulous in all area and has 1920 X 1080p high definition resolution. New anti glare screen looks better than LCD or Plasma |
||
|
New member Username: DavidintelPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
I would buy a plasma if it wasn't for the "burn-in" problem. Every tv station just about has their logo in one corner of the screen or the other nowadays. Watch any of these channels a lot and you get burn-in. Lcd and Dlp has the bulb burn out problem. It's your choice, burn in or burn out. Looks like consumers will get "burnt" either way!! |
||
|
New member Username: PandabearVancouver, BC Canada Post Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
Wow! This forum is full of assumptions that claimed specs from manufacturers are to be trusted. One would think that anyone with some intelligence would suspect foul play when contrast ratios of 3000:1 are claimed by a certain Plasma TV manufacturer when CRT's and LCD's contrast ratio are much lower. Go take a look at these "high contrast ratio" Plasma TVs and compare them to others. Don't just look at black and white levels, look at the gradients within the grey scale. If you still think that these Plasma TV's still look better in the grey scale area, get your eyes (and brains) checked. The 3000:1 contrast ratio was cooked up to make you think that Plasma TVs do not have problems with contrast ratio. The truth? Plasma TVs have very poor contrast ratio!!! I find the initial article by Phillips far more truthful than most of the bullshit bantered about. Although Phillips was obviously trying to promote LCD TVs over Plasma TVs. SPECS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED UNLESS THEY ARE DERIVED FROM SAME METHOD OF MEASUREMENTS IN A CONTROLLED TEST. Please don't quote manufacturers' specifications without verifying if they are measured under the same conditions. For those of you citing millions, billions and zillions of colours as being so much better, where do you get your source from? I suspect not from any existing source in this planet. For some of you who are using this forum to brag about your purchases of LCD front projectors, various rear projection TVs, LCD TVs or Plasma TVs, I've got news for you: in a year or two, your proud purchases will be hopelessly outdated. So the differences you think certain technology has over another is relatively unimportant. I don't need to tell you what I own to affirm my buying decision. Seems like everyone who has access to a computer is an expert. "A little knowledge is DANGEROUS!!!" |
||
|
Anonymous |
I liked how the one of the first Plasma supporters referred to the 'one of the guys who invented plasma.' Excuse me... Who's gonn'a have the most bais? A manufacturer(which most manufacturers probably produce both) or the guy who invented it? Of course, the guy who invented it will have the most bias, because he made it. You think the guy who invented Coke is gonn'a say Pepsi is better? The answer is no. |
||
|
New member Username: IliketvsPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
im not on either the plasma or the lcd side, i like both. what i wana know is, has any one seen the new sony sxrd. i dont know the model but its in sound and vision this month. they took the lcos technology that they were charging 27k for and made it rear projection and the price came down to about 4k for a 50''... thats where my moneys at !!! screw a wall tv the picture on that thing is sick!!! |
||
|
New member Username: MrbigNew York, Ny Usa Post Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
Can anyone comment on the following two plasma 50" TV's I am doubting between the Pansonic TH-50XVS30 or Pioneer Elite Pro 1130HD |
||
|
New member Username: JoeblowPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
Dude, this is like politics. No one is ever going to win, they both have their pros and cons, and for anyone to say different, then your crazy. Seems like everyone who bought their kind of TV loves them and wants them to be the best. I like the thought of, look at the TV's, the one you like and works for your needs. BUY IT! End of debate. |
||
|
New member Username: GrvaPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
Help, I am so confused!! If you had between $2000 and $3000 to spend, would you buy a 42" Plasma, a 50"-60" DLP Projection, or a 50"-60" LCD Projection. |
||
|
New member Username: Umpopo_obadinaNiger Nigeria Post Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
What's a television? |
||
|
New member Username: MickdownunderPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-05 |
Fact: Cheap & Cheerfull is the way to go. That way you won't fall victim to some of these experts.No matter what the technology TVs don't last as long as they used to. Buy what you like and can afford with a reasonable warranty. |
||
|
New member Username: SphincterPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Screw plasma *and* LCD......I'm waiting for high definition ocular implants so I can watch TV while walking around. |
||
|
New member Username: FoxphyrePost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
werd! the thing people fail to realize is that choosing sides in this conflict is retarded. you like what you like and the others like what they like simple as that. if you want to compare them you have to compare them in context. you cant just say well lcd's do this and plasmas dont, or vice versa. you have to say well plasmas outperform an LCD when used in this fashion, whereas an lcd might whoop the crap out of a plasma in a completely different application. some people cant watch plasmas because it hurts their eyes. some people are the same way on LCD's. my mother refuses to use my LCD TV because the sharp edges give her a headache. but people being biased is normal, forcing your ideas down someones throat and calling them idiots if they feel different than you is also normal, but that doesnt make it right. and if you are trying to justify your purchase of a substandard piece of equipment by professing how much better it is when you secretly wish you had gone with the other, then you need to go find yourself and no amount of banter on this board is going to help you my friend. if you want to compare facts then compare facts but dont throw your opinions out as facts. unless you can prove your sources, you need to label it as your opinion. on with the show then eh? in my "opinion" LCD's are better for MY application. I do alot of console gaming and play lots of computer games, especially MMORPGS and the static info bars and the like may stay on screen for upwards of 10 hours at any given time. i dont care how good the plasma screens are at preventing burn in now, because there is still the chance. i previsouly used an LCD monitor 17" for these games and left the game on for over 24 hours one time and theres no burn in factor so it never mattered either way to the monitor. also i have a tendancy to fall asleep when playing console games. i have already ruined two CRT TVs with this smooth move but it wasnt a big deal either since they are relatively cheap. however for me, upgrading to a 32" or bigger was going to be a big investment. one that im not willing to waste on something that falling asleep while playing could jeapordize. many in this forum have already noted that the plasma technology is advancing and that they are less likely to burn in than previous plasma displays; however as long as there is phospher involved there is a chance for burn in and no mater how many safety features they put in i will still fall asleep playing my games and i will still ruin the display. i learned exactly how bad it is with the burn in from the company i work for. i work for a major US airline and they purchased loads of 36" plasma displays for use at their terminals to display flight information. in less than a year the displays have become hard to read because they are on 24/7 displaying static information and while the programming that they display changes screens every two minutes and was desinged to prevent the image from being burned in, there is still residual information areas that are burned in simply because more information was displayed in that area than others and while it may not be a solid burn in from one screen displayed for long periods of time, the phospher in the certain areas that were used most was noticably worn out while the less used areas of the screen were still vibrant. for my uses this is unacceptable. i think plasma displays are great, however, if you are only going to watch movies or HD programming on cable/sat (granted that your model is HD and not ED as so many lower priced models are) because it gives the colors a rich and warm quality. while i do use my 32" LCD to mainly play games and surf the net and whatnot, i also like watching movies just as much as the next nerd. especially with high quality picture. its easy to say that plasma has better quality picture than LCD or vice versa when its a matter of opinion. but the main problem is that everyone overlooks the fact that they are both HIGH quality. did anyone really need to gripe about whether casette tapes were better than 8-tracks when both provided better quality than LP's in the long run. now that we are into CD's and DVD's would that argument have even mattered everyone has already traded in their old for the brand new. its like arguing about whether XBOX is better than PS2... why?!? they are both better than an NES or SEGA so what are you proving? i tend to lean toward what someone else noted in here "MY dad is bigger than YOUR dad". anyway back to the topic at hand. if you are like me and like to have the most well rounded and versatile platform for entertainment then you might want to lean toward and LCD. that is if you arent rich and cant afford to replace your plasma every few years. if you are a hardcore movie or HD sports fan, go with plasma. that is if you dont mind not being able to use it as a computer/console/DVD/HD/dynamic picture-frame/etc. .. without having to change the channel or stay awake so you dont burn an image into it. pretty much thats what it boils down to. you compare apples to apples. not apples to IBM's. the plasma and LCDs came from different backgrounds. the LCD's were meant for static images and computer displays with vibrant bright colors with the sacrifice of not having the color nuances provided by plasma. while on the other hand plasma was designed for pure video entertainment with the sacrifice of not performing well with static images or as a computer monitor. while both can technically perform all of those duties, each is better in its own field. dont buy a hummer if you never go off-road. dont buy a sport-compact if you do. both can technically do either but one will stand up better in its own. a hummer will never get better gas mileage than a civic. a civic will never get very far from the roadway before its useless. but everything is not so cut and dry. some people need or want to do both and are willing to budget more money for gas because they want to go off-road. while others may spend most of their time in the city and go off the beaten path once a week and they are willing to pay for more maintenance costs on the car in the long run. this analogy directly translates to this war between LCD'ers and plasma junkies. if you want to watch movies and occasionally want to play a video game. buy a plasma. if you mostly play video games and dont mind watching a movie once in a while even though the color may not be as true, or the blacks may be a tid bit grey. buy and LCD. now of course as technology improves, eventually one may eclipse the other but what good are you doing to sit here and "what if?" all day? what if the moon were the sun? whoopdie doo... i hope that any people who have been reading the thread asking specific questions about the different applications for each type of display have had their questions answered if they were not already. im sorry you had to sit here and listen to people attacking each other's credibility over something as childish as whos TV is bigger. because remember [sarcasm]"Bigger is better, everyone knows that!" [/sarcasm] |
||
|
New member Username: Hst96001Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Hi Everyone, it seems like a viscious battle between lcds and plasmas. I came across this intersting article that helps clear up some misconceptions people have on plasma tvs. I love my LCDs but after reading this, plasmas aren't as bad as what ppl say it is.... |
||
|
New member Username: MikepurplePost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Just to clarify a common mistake in the writing I keep seeing: Film displays one image for a 48th of a second, followed by black for a 48th of a second. The concept that light hits the image twice is simply wrong. The light is continous, but broken up by a rotatiung shutter that creates a flicker due to a lack of light, not a second dose of it. The next image is pulled down and then the shutter rotates to allow light to hit it. The effect is called persistence of image. The same effect exists for all images no matter how wonderful the machinery reproducing it. Arguing one technology over another is silly, they each retain the image longer in visible manner than any film ever would. The image is retained longer before the next one longer by nano-seconds. Comparing that to the 24th of a second that film does it for is silly. Sorry, but this was bothering me as I'm sure none of you have actually seen how a projector works to speak to it's performance abilities. |
||
|
New member Username: NishskiQuebec City, Quebec Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Quote: "and as far as the burn in.. I have been using the plazma as a monitor for about a year.. along with my LCD and have no burn-in from using it that way.. and I am on here a lot.. of course, when I am not.. it is nice that the screen saver kicks in.. I try to turn it off when not in use.. but sometimes.. I leave it on.. but no burn-ins have occured from the use.. and the screen saver is my back-up if i forget to turn it off.. I have read a lot of the stuff in the forum here and can dispute some of the facts given here.. but I am just stating my opinion right now.. I'd rather not get into a battle of the screens with anyone.. I am just stating my opinion.. and the facts of my partiular usage.. and I know some of the things I have stated have been a needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression..but I am just stressing my point, or opinion. Thanx Mazzin " Hi, I just read your article on the LCD vs Plasma forum with great interest. At last some real life experience versus theory. I would like to know how long your screen was on on CNN in its firts career in a now closed up bar? I just bought a Panasonic Viera and reading the user's manual, they warn the consumer that listening to 4:3 TV for long periods of time would be enough to burn the screen. And that such practice voids the warranty. I'm seriously thinking of sending it back (30 days, full satisfaction or money back) because I plan to listen to say, 2 - 3 hours of 4:3 TV a day, plus maybe 1 or 2 movies in panavision (aka Lord of the Rings, Starwars etc..., that means 2 black bars on to and buttom of the screen) every day. Reading through the discussions on the forum doesn't help much, you are the first to give an example. Do you think that with the usage I plan, I risk to have a burned screen in 10 years? Thanks for taking the time, Nishski |
||
|
New member Username: BobjNew Smyrna Beach, FL Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Wow...What a riot. I can't remember ever seeing such a long continuous thread anywhere. Question 1) Have seen screens that stretch the picture of a standard TV signal to fit the screen. Hated it. Is this a necessary side effect of plasma or has that problem been corrected? Question 2) Can both screens double as a computer monitor? Hopefully these can be answered without stirring up a hornets nest. It may have already been answered, but I could only read through a couple of months of all that back and forth without getting seasick. Peace, BobJ PS: I think both technologies are good enough to replace my antique CRT. |
||
|
New member Username: VerytalldavePost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE...... ************************** Q1.....All modern flatscreens are user adjustable to allow you to switch between the various screen formats. I have mine set to "auto" to allow the tv to detect the aspect ratio of the transmitted signal annd then switch itself automatically to retain the correct perspective. For example, "Friends" is recorded in the older 4:3 ratio, therefore you get a black bar down each side of the screen. When the adverts come on (which are always in widescreen format) the TV switches to suit and you lose the black bars and the adverts fill the screen corner to corner. When Friends comes back on, the TV switches back to the 4:3 format. Its a bit strange at first, but you soon get used to it. Display TV's in shop windows and instore displays are often set up to take advantage of all of the screen regardless of the format being broadcast at the time - which is why heads sometimes look a little squashed or elongated. Its simply because the set hasnt been setup properly. Dont worry, its a simple matter to readjust the screen settings to make it OK. Q2.....On most modern flatscreens, yes. Its now very unusual not to have this facility. My Woolworths "cheapy" has this and is even supplied with a PC connection lead. I hope that answers your questions......... |
||
|
New member Username: Gonzo1212Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
I want to buy a 42" Maxent Plasma at best buy. Cost is $1600. Anyone know about the quality of a Maxent plasma |
||
|
New member Username: VerytalldavePost Number: 2 Registered: Nov-05 |
Anything is only ever as good as its guarantee. Use your eyes, ears and brain to judge the set yourself before you buy. Compare its performance against others and if it meets your criteria, then go for it. Decisions on what is basically a "budget price" set such as these nearly always come down to cost. At the end of the day its gonna be your choice. |
||
|
New member Username: FinickyoneMelbourne, Victoria Australia Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Phew! I too was looking for an opinion on whether to go Plasma or LCD & came across this "little" message board... My head is whirring with information & I think I might just about scare the pants off some poor unsuspecting salesperson when I go in picking his or her brain & sprouting all sorts of technical (nonsense) in order to find the best TV to take home with me. I don't care what anyone says - I'm a girl that says "Bigger is DEFINITELY better", sorry guys & I want more bang for my buck. Personally, I'm going the jugular on a 42" Plasma; I like the clarity of the picture when it's sitting next to an LCD; the colours are truer (is that even a word...?) & I DID notice the jigging. This coming from a person who until 15mins ago, when I first starting reading this "blog", had very little understanding of the technical side of things. I just wanted a techie's reassurance on what I was about to spend my hard-earned on, but I can see there are too many differing opinions on the subject & thus, I'll just have to rely on gut & what my eyes like. Thanx for the entertaining bantering though ;) |
||
|
New member Username: YoonewPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
Just like everyone else.......I'm more confused after reading these years of posts...QUESTION???? CHOOSE ONE: (I'm buying one of these soon) LCD SCEPTRE X37SV-Naga Black 37" 16:9 8ms LCD HDTV w/ Built-in ATSC Tuner - Retail http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16824112174 or Plasma Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Black 42" 16:9 Professional Series Plasma Display - Retail http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16824187064 Thanks!!!!!! |
||
|
Anonymous |
Reading the comments is such fun. I admit that I own a new 42 inch Panasonic plasma and love it. I've owned it for 3 months. My decision was easy-- in my research based opinion: 1. Plasmas look better. 2. I needed the extra viewing angles and LCD colors wash-out. 3. Plasma black is much better-- LCD black is grey or purple. 4. Panasonic claims 60,000 hour half-life- that should be enough. 5. All of my laptop LCD's have non-uniform bright spots and/or constantly on pixels. 6. Panasonic seems to have it right. I can't speak for other brands (Pioneer looked good too). I couldn't be happier. |
||
|
New member Username: HamnetukPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 |
I bought a panasonic 42 inch plasma and its the best buy ive made in a long time! Heard panasonic were the best so i bought one of the net from empire direct for £1300 with wall bracket! The panasonic shop in glasgow wanted £1900! Great picture and from what ive read should last me 10 years! And lets face facts by then something new will be out by then and will be getting us all excited!My mate got a sony lcd 32 inch at the same time as me and paid the same money (and it looks crap compared to my TV same money for 10 inches smaller) Dont be tempted by brands that are a couple of hundred pounds cheaper as panasonics are the best and good value for money if you shop around i saved £600!!And dont go for hd ready as my tv hd ready would have cost £800 extra and for what 10% better picture! So i say get a plasma 42 inches enjoy the football and go for panasonic!! |
||
|
New member Username: Tv_sucksPost Number: 3 Registered: Dec-05 |
I heard from people in the video/tv biz that I should go with an lcd tv because plasmas have to be recharged every couple of years and that it is expensive. |
||
|
New member Username: Big_kenScunthorpe, Lincolnshire England Post Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
I've been marooned on a desert island for the past 45 years. Do you mean to say that there are more than 2 channels in the UK now. |
||
|
New member Username: CrfPost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
Forget Plasma, LCD, and LDP. Meet SED: http://www.canon.com/technology/display/ Ok, it's not out yet and will be expensive at first, but when it's mass produced it will cheaper, faster, clearer/sharper, and more efficient than Plasma, LCD, or LDP...and yes that's a FACT. :-) |
||
|
New member Username: Red_davePost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
i'm thinking of buying a philips lcd 32" 32PF5320, can anyone tell me please if this is good or bad? |
||
|
New member Username: LylekiraPost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
I actually read 1/2 this thread before my head went spinning...so much hostility about what boils down to a personal and financial preference. Very amusing social experiment if you ask me. As far as the comparison, I want to eliminate all the techie jargon, and add a few other "real world" factors that I have come across in my research... Cost- Whats your budget? Knowing this will eliminate A LOT of the options out there...unless you have A LOT of disposable income. Size- Rule of thumb as of now..the bigger the screen you want, you'll need to go Plasma (although LCD is catching up) For smaller you can go LCD, but plasma enthusiasts might opt for the EDTV which is a nice alternative, and if you are looking at 37-42" EDTV's compared to 37"-42" HDTV's, the distance from the TV seems to be key. If you are less than 8ft from the TV, having a cost effective EDTV seems to be a great alternative. Manufacturers- Pick a brand that actually does the manufacturing. Its a pretty simple business concept that the company that manufactures more Plasma's will make better Plasma's, and the same goes for LCD Manufacturers. (For Plasma- Samsung, Panasonic, Hitachi, and Pioneer are the leaders, for LCD's Sharp, LG Phillips, Samsung are the biggest producers) Altitude- Yes altitude! Apparently Plasma's are prone to a slight buzzing at high altitudes. "That noise is the mechanical 'buzz' created during the plasma's on-off imaging cycles. At low altitudes, the air pressure is sufficient to keep the glass from vibrating very much. But at high altitudes, air pressure is lower, so the glass vibrates more – and you hear it." In the end, if you have whittled down your choices based on finances and size, I agree that the rest is up to the personal eye test. Go with the one you like best, and enjoy...either way your gonna have a much more fabulous picture than you have without it! |
||
|
New member Username: BchantPost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
Okay, here's my 10 cents worth. I have abut 15 years in the TV quality monitoring industry, and I have seen the differences between analog, plasma and lcd. First of, consumers 'cannot' rely on their own observation because most of the differences only matter to 'expert' eyes. It's like buying a car, unless your a buff, you just don't know, and you don't notice until it's too late. This is life. That's why opinions on this web page are so important. Most users will want to take the stance of buying a car or pc computer. "I don't know much about it, but I want the 'best', even if I don't notice it or if I'll never use that part". Most of the electronics behind the screen can/will be evenly matched e.g input,output formats, refresh, HDMI 720p.. standards..etc..etc. This is because they have little dependency to the actual 'screen', From my observations, plasma is still better in terms of motion blur. For lcd, 16ms maybe a small amount of time for the pixel to turn itself off, but it still leaves a blur. For contrast, plasmas have 'pure' black. On the other hand, plasma still suffers on the white-end of the scale. It's not that it can't do pure white, it can. But getting there is a not a smooth jump. What you get is white-burn (bright white when it shouldn't be) and can be very annoying. Lcds do nicely at white transition but suffer horribly at the black-end. There is no black, just a dark grey. Conversly lcds suffer from 'black-burn' or 'black-crush' which leads to detail loss. As a result plasmas rule dark scenes and lcds rule bright. At this stage I guess most people would opt for plasma, I mean who wants 'grey' and 'motion-blur on their evening movie? But consider that most plasma TVs have built in fans for heat dissipation. The no.1 complaint from most hifi enthusiasts is fan-noise, however low, will always be at the back of the audiophile's head. If they aren't hot, why do they install fans? And now for a few tips at the shop; Becareful of units that try to mimick analog TVs too much. A flat panel display should have no 'strobing' effect that analog TVs suffer from. You can tell this by staring at the station logo at the corner of the screen, it should never flicker. TV flicker causes a strain on your eyes. For some strange reason, some manufacturers try to mimick this effect. Always 'feel' behind the unit to sense the amount of heat given off. Some models give off so much, you can fry an egg on them! The 'off' button must be easily accessible. Always ask what type of ratio manipulation you can get 4:3,16:9...Zoom..etc, the more the better. Quality movies don't usually get transferred to 16:9, they're usually wider. If you like to fill the screen, you need as many of these effects as you can get. |
||
|
New member Username: Speed_grapherOak Harbor, WA USA Post Number: 1 Registered: Jan-06 |
I've heard some biased reviews, especially people who vouched for LCD's and one thing they've told me is that they've had a friend who had to have a Plasma serviced 5 days after not maintaining it (dust) and so he had to send it in for maintenance. |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 1 Registered: Jan-06 |
I have both actually. I have a Maxent 42" HD plasma and a Sony 60" Rear Projection HD LCD TV. To me the Sony is a much better TV for HD and DVD's. It has much better color and black levels. Pictures just look more natural rather than too much picture or dynamic on the plasma. But the plasmas do have better contrast ratio. But I can always turn out all the lights and the sony contrast ratio improves. I'm not just talking about the maxent but most plasmas. Because I have a brother who owns a Samsung and a sister with a Hitachi and all three have either too much or too less picture and color, none in between and perfect. The bad things about the Sony LCD Projection is the lamp has to be replaced every 2000-3000 hours. I've owned my Sony for 2 years now and already had to replace the lamp, which costs $200. Another con, is when viewing standard tv, picture looks grainy and blurry compared to the plasma. Plasma is great for standard tv because of the contrast ratio. So I just use the Sony to watch my Sports in HD and DVD movies and the plasma to watch my standard TV news in my room. The Best TV: I was in costco the other day and too me the best TV I have ever seen so far is the Sony 40" LCD TV(not Projection). The picture just amazed me the sharpness and the color accuracy of TV is just like looking outside a window. |
||
|
Anonymous |
I have been selling TVS for over 15 years and find that on a true HD feed (1080i / 780p) LCDs are far superior. Unfortunately HD programming is limited and with basic digital feeds(480i) and regular cable/ VHS and DVD, Plasma TVS cannot be beat. Less than 20% of my wiewing is HD, so that is why I bought a Panasonic Plasma. Burn in is my only concern and I am very careful not to watch a channel that shows logos through commercials. T-Bone |
||
|
New member Username: FluxcapPost Number: 1 Registered: Feb-06 |
So....since when did all of you get your PHD in LCD/Plasma fact research. Until one of you shows me credentials that you actually contributed to the inventing of either of the two technologies, I suggest you pull your heads in and stop bagging each other. Opinion, OK. Fact or not, who cares. But don't go posting messages to others claiming to be the world's biggest expert just because you disagree with the last comment. Til next time, take care!!! |
||
|
New member Username: Rappy30Ulaan Baator Mongolia Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-06 |
Just to clarify to everyone LCD screens DO give off radiation. The key is that they only give off photons. All light emmiting products give off photons and as far as I know they are not harmful to humans. Tube tvs DO give off ionizing radiation (low-level X-rays) although this is not much of a concern, unless you sit two inches from your tv screen, as the radiation levels drop dramatically as you move away from the source(the screen). I am an electromagnetic physicist working at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and I spend a lot of time studying radiation. |
||
|
New member Username: JethangarTivoli, NY Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-06 |
Reading the comments is such fun. I admit that I own a new 37 inch LCD and love it. I've owned it for 3 months. My decision was easy-- in my research based opinion: 1. LCD's look better. 2. I needed the extra viewing angles and Plasma colors wash-out. 3. LCD black is much better-- Plasma black is grey or purple. 4. Samsung claims 60,000 hour half-life- that should be enough. 5. All of my laptop LCD's have worked perfectly over the long haul. 6. Samsung seems to have it right. I can't speak for other brands (Sony looked good too). 7. I have enough gas already. I couldn't be happier. |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 2 Registered: Jan-06 |
How much are you looking to spend? I like the Vizio 37" LCD I think i'm gonna trade my maxent 42" HD Plasma for it. And it's only 1,500. It was sitting right next to a 37" Panasonic LCD and I thought it had better color accuracy. That's why I like buying at costco if your not happy with your TV in any way you can exchange it or get your money back. Re: Has anyone purchased the Costco Offered: Daytek DT4040 LCD TV? I am thinking about purchasing it and would like to hear some reviews. Thanks, Jack (not my real name...duh! ) |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 3 Registered: Jan-06 |
I just traded in my 42" Maxent HD Plasma for a Vizio 37" LCD TV (L37) and I love it. It's got better picture, better onscreen menu and great sound. And for $1500 only too. I would rate the maxent video quality as a 7 out of 10 better than samsung and pioneer. Only panasonic, sony and pioneer elites plasmas are better than the maxent. The vizio 37" LCD gets 8 out of 10. Only the sony bravia in my book gets a 10 out of 10. But the Price for $1700 for a 32" just wasn't appealing. There are some models out there that are in between like the panasonic and others. I also seen another 37" LCD (Sceptre) that does 1080p (1920 X 1080) that i thought was pretty good in video quality but I did not like the onscreen menu. The set was also $100 more that the Vizio. Once again if your looking to buy a TV 42" and under I think you should go for the LCD(non Projection). The Colors, black levels and sharpness to me is soooo much better than plasmas. I think plasmas are only better, but not by much in watching regular standard analog TV because of the glass and contrast ratio. But in HD, hands down the LCD's are the best. I also suggest buying a TV from Costco because of the warranty and return policy. If you do not like the TV in any way or there is something wrong with it you can always return it. If you don't have a membership I encourage you to get one it's only $45 a year rather than $400 for a two year warranty from goodguys or circuit city. I hope this is helpful to someone out there looking to purchase a TV. |
||
|
New member Username: SixreffiePost Number: 1 Registered: Feb-06 |
The Answer to the long un-answered question: Plasma vs. LCD...which is better? The correct answer to that question is: There is no kind that is better. If you are looking to buy a flat pannel TV (stop calling them flat screens, a flat screen is thick flat glass on a standard tube) the better tv is going to be case sensitive to your needs. Things to keep in mind when buying: Who's going to be watching it? What is going to be watched on it? Are video games going to be played on it? What are the lighting conditions like where it will go? How far are you going to sit away from it? Is it going to be hooked up to HD cable right away? You have to answer all of these questions and more if you want to find what's going to be best for your home situation. If your kids want to play video games: You might not want to go with plasma because you can end up with image burn, which no warrenty will cover If you want to watch a lot of movies: Plasma has a better screen for veiwing movies do to the contrast ratio. Lcd's tend to be more gray than a true black. Size: Plasma generally run from 32" to 60" Lcd's run from 13" to 45" the amount of space you have may already be the deciding factor. But if you are in that grey 37" to 45" area that both types of tv come in, keep in mind that most Lcd's of that size cost more than plasmas of the same size. Lastly, whenever you are buying a tv to get the best picture, keep in mind that it isn't just up to the tv. Line conditioners (belkins are pretty good), the right cables (monster thx are great but can be costly), and give an extended warranty serious thought. They can add on to the sale, but after working at best buy full time in the home theatre department, i've seen a lot of angry people that didn't buy the warrenty, and i've seen some pretty happy people that bought them. Remember that electronics are no longer made by hand, it is all just assembly lined over seas. Why do you think standard tube tv's used to last 20 years and now you are only expected to get 8 years. One last thing: HD Tubes are capable of a better picture than plasmas, lcd's, and dlp's. The crt is still the best picture. Reffieprod@hotmail.com |
||
|
Anonymous |
I am thinking of buying a plasma because it's cheap. $988 for 42". |
||
|
Silver Member Username: SpankPost Number: 324 Registered: Oct-05 |
The best advice I have seen online is to just walk into a store and compare the two pictures and both sides of the argument agree it will be obvious which one is better. It is a personal preference with such high end technologies. |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 4 Registered: Jan-06 |
Pioneer Elite or Sony |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 5 Registered: Jan-06 |
Which is the best 50" Plasma in the market ? Pioneer Elite, Sony or Panasonic. I would go for the Panasonic because of the price. If I won the lotto I would go with the Sony cuz it's stylish and superb picture. |
||
|
New member Username: Magnus99mCedar Rapids, IA United States Post Number: 1 Registered: Apr-06 |
There have been many good suggestions made and many dumbass comments made. The fact of the matter is this: Personal preference is the #1 thing to remember when purchasing a new TV. You have to go with what makes you happy. Both LCD and Plasma TV's have their pros and cons. I've worked at Sears for a while now in the home electronics department. No matter how many people I talk to, everyone has their personal preference. In certain situations each TV will have their benefit. You have to take into consideration who will be watching the TV (single, couple, few, etc.), what you are watching (movies, sports, sitcoms, etc.), when you will be watching TV (day or night), where you will be watching it (brightly lit room, sunny room, dark room, basement, etc), and how long you watch/how often you watch the TV. These are only a few of the considerations to be taken into account when deciding between a plasma and an LCD. |
||
|
New member Username: Electronic_guyPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-06 |
Both is great. Go to the store, look at both and visually compare. Choose what looks best to you at a price you can afford. |
||
|
New member Username: SeltzerjonesPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-06 |
It seems to me that Sony has the best class of LCDs while Panasonic makes the best class of Plasmas. Samsung is not too far behind when it comes to LCDs..... The best overall LCD (non-projection) from what I have deduced from this board is the Sony Brevia LCDs (non-projection). Pansonic makes the best overall plasmas with connectivity and capabilities. Would you all agree with me here or is there anything else I missed? |
||
|
New member Username: Magnus99mCedar Rapids, IA United States Post Number: 6 Registered: Apr-06 |
Sony is one of the top rated when it comes to LCD, yes. The Sharp Aquos actually has the clearest picture that I've seen. I don't know exactly where Sharp ranks according to the critics, but if I were to go out and buy an LCD TV today, I would definately buy the 32" Sharp Aquos LCD. If you have a chance to check it out, you'll clearly see the difference. As for the Sony Brevia, they are nice LCD's. They would probably be my second choice for top picture quality on an LCD. Panasonic I wouldn't say makes the best. Actually, the best plasma that I've seen is Hitachi. With Panasonic in second. However, that's my opinion. According to the critics, yes, I think you're right when you say that Panasonic is on top for Plasma. |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 6 Registered: Jan-06 |
Now how bout if someone was gonna give you a TV and you had a choice from two TV's. A Panasonic 50" HD plasma or a 40" Sony Bravia LCD since they pretty much cost the same. I would choose the Sony. Why you say" To me the picture looks better. I like the color accuracy and the sharpness. I also prefer LCD technolgy over the Plasma. I don't like the glossy screen plasmas have. I do not like seeing my reflection on my TV. I also don't like the heat plasmas Dissipates. Remember bigger isn't always better. It's how you work it. |
||
|
New member Username: Magnus99mCedar Rapids, IA United States Post Number: 7 Registered: Apr-06 |
If someone were giving me one of those TV's, I would definately choose the Sony Bravia. The picture is clearer, IMHO, on the 40" Bravia than the 50" plasma. The other thing that I look at is that LCD is much cheaper to repair than a plasma. Equally, the plasma, as versatile as it is, also needs additional venting that a LCD doesn't require. The plasma's do give off quite a bit of heat. Don't let anyone kid you on that. In fact, when I get cold at work, I go stand by the plasma TV's to warm up. Back when I was ignorant on TV technology, I would have chosen the plasma just because it was plasma. Now that I know better, I'd take the LCD over the plasma any day. Equally, though, I would take an LCOS over any of them. You want a nice clean, crisp picture, LCOS is the way to go. They're still relatively new and expensive, but if you get the chance to check one out, you'll be as impressed as I was/am. They are SWEEEEEEEE-EEEEEEET!!!! |
||
|
New member Username: SeltzerjonesPost Number: 2 Registered: Apr-06 |
I'm trying to figure out what the most important things I need for a HDTV are.... Most SONY hdtvs don't have 1080p signals - is that important. The Sony Grand Wega supports 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i. Most SONYs have only 1 HDMI - is this a major problem. I have cable tv, a dvr recorder and a PS2 game console so let me know if I will have issues with an HDTV with only 1 HDMI? What other features in a HDTV do I have to take into consideration before I finally take the plunge and spend a lot of money? |
||
|
New member Username: SeltzerjonesPost Number: 3 Registered: Apr-06 |
Thanks guys for answering my first post - it has helped me to narrow my choices further. I have a small room - about 20 feet with the sofas on one side of the room and the space on the other side where the HDTV will be so I think a 40 inch hdtv is better than a 50 inch for viewing distance purposes. So far I have 3-4 HDTVs I'm still looking into... they are.... 32" Sony Brava 42" Sony KDFE42A10 42" WEGA 32" Sharp Aquos If you had to choose - what would it be, the 32" Sony Brava, the 42" Sony WEGA LCD or the 32" Sharp Aquos? |
||
|
New member Username: ThaddyusmaximusPost Number: 7 Registered: Jan-06 |
Costco has the 32" Bravia for $1699 if that helps. I have a grand wega 60" and I love it. I don't think you need 1080p yet but will need in the future. Right now I don't think any TV stations broadcasts in 1080p. I know Fox is 720p and ABC & NBC is 1080i. |
||
|
New member Username: Magnus99mCedar Rapids, IA United States Post Number: 8 Registered: Apr-06 |
From my knowledge, I will answer the last few posts. (1) The 2006 Sony Grand Wega does have 2 HDMI ports. Right now, you will not need more than 1. In the future, 2 might serve useful. It also supports 1080p. Also not too terribly important right now, but in the future may be. (2) ATSC and NTSC tuners. Built in. You don't want to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a monitor. Make sure you get one with a built in tuner - a true HDTV. (3) Inputs/Outputs. If you don't have a receiver, you'll want to make sure your TV has enough ports on it. You'll also want to make sure that you have a minimum of composite inputs. Component is much better and probably found on most 32"+ TV's, but you don't want to go any lower than composite. Also, when purchasing the TV, you want to make sure that you purchase Monster cables (or an equivalent). Most people think that the cables that come with the TV are sufficient. They aren't. You loose alot of your sound/video quality with standard RCA cables. (4) Hands down, I'd buy the Sharp Aquos. They have the clearest pictures that I've seen to date. In your choices, you only suggested the 32", but they are available in 40" (and possibly bigger) as well. The 40" is just as sweet as the 32". I don't know if that would fit into your budget, but I'd definately go with the Aquos without hesitating. The Sony's are really nice. The Brava would be my second choice. Bigger is not necessarily better. If you're going for picture quality. IMHO, you can't beat the Aquos. (5) I don't know of any stations broadcasting in 1080p as of yet. However, it won't be that long before it hits the airwaves. Almost all of the 2006 models are coming in with 1080p capability. That will push the TV stations to upgrade. |
||
|
New member Username: SeltzerjonesPost Number: 4 Registered: Apr-06 |
Whoops, my computer saved the wrong settings - and I entered in as Jack Dundonian. The most recent posting above is from me (Rob M.) |
||
|
|
