LCD vs. Plasma TVs
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. |
||||
| Relevant Product Info | ||||
| 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 | |||
