Home audio & video: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies
Good post
by Chiatzu - 11/14/07 11:14 PM In reply to: re: plasma vs. LCD by Matthias99The first I noticed to bring up blurring, which I thought was a major issue with LCD monitors. It was a reason computer monitor companies were trying to create faster and faster LCDs, and herald their progress in advertisements. Maybe they've finally cracked the blur barrier and action sequences don't pose a problem for LCDs, or maybe not depending on your eyes. Walking into a Best Buy and comparing monitors, I notice a few that look blurry on action scenes. This wouldn't be acceptable for my viewing pleasure. However, a lot of this is subjective. What might bother one wouldn't bother another. Try to view a television in surroundings similar to your own before buying, if at all possible.
You mentioned reducing brightness and contrast after getting your new toy. This is good advice and called the plasma break-in period. That's about 100 hours of initial time where the factory set high brightness and contrast is dropped about 50% into a custom mode. This supposedly reduces the chance of burn-in, which is decreased after this break-in period. A bit of an inconvenience, but why not if even the manufacturers recommend the procedure.
After all is said, read, and done, I think I'll buy plasma. LCD is fine in some cases, and better where reflection is a problem and bright rooms, but for my use, the richness of picture quality is paramount and the deciding factor.
Consumer Reports in this year's November issue has an excellent article on buying LCDs and plasma HD televisions. The usual tests and ratings also. Highly recommended reading before you buy either.
Good Consumer Reports (CR) Reference
by newros - 11/15/07 9:39 AM In reply to: Good post by ChiatzuI purchased a 46" Samsung DLP 3 years ago. We had a chip replaced under warranty, but no other operational issues. I purchased a spare lamp on e-bay, but have not needed to use it. Can't detect any drop in brightness.
The picture is great on high def sports and bright scenes. We have not seen rainbow effects. However, the picture is horribly splotchy (pixelated?) on dark scenes with low contrast, whether regular or high definition. The cable company even added a signal amplifier, but little improvement. After reading the CR article, I purchased the Panasonic 1080p 42" plasma for $1050 net. (See this post for the same deal:
Hotter than Black Friday
Sale! Sears has the Panasonic 42" Plasma HD 1080p Television
(TH-42PZ77U) on sale for $1199.99 ( http://bfads.net/Link/256 ). They give you $150 off if you get a Sears card. My store took a check for the purchase at the same time, thus the $1049 net price, and I can pick it up and avoid shipping.)
My plasma vs. LCD selection logic was: We watch primarily at night, and the set is in a room with blinds, so daylight viewing in a bright room was not an issue. Power: CR says the difference might be $2/month more for a plasma vs. LCD with extensive viewing. Considering the other costs, minor.
The 1080P vs 1080i difference was minor in the 42 inch, but once the price was within $100, then why not go for the better spec? (Sort of a future-proofing approach.) The 1080p Panasonic set has inferior sound to the 1080i Panasonic, but I use a sound system, so not an issue.
Finally, we play no games or plan extended viewing of a single channel, so the only burn-in issue for us is 3 x 4 mode, as discussed with other posters. I decided to risk it. As for life, CR says the expected life of LCD and plasma is about the same at 10+ years, so another non-issue.
In the end, 42" seems to be a significant dividing line between price and quality of LCD vs plasma, and 1080p versus 1080i viewing quality. I'll move the DLP downstairs and give away the 27" CRT.
By the way, the Sony LCD, about $3000, had a better in-store picture, but not $2000 better to us.
black
by Gatorelf - 11/15/07 8:25 AM In reply to: re: plasma vs. LCD by Matthias99the black inhansment has been corected with the modles in the last year. The Aquos even had this beat 4 yrs ago..but only the Sharp Aquos.. now at 1080p they all are excelent seems. still just have the power and heat issue now with plasma... the new 120 Hz LCD is in a class by itself now...
Wait until its perfect?
by Michael too - 11/14/07 10:05 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2Taustin, suggests waiting until its perfect. However, I'm afraid that won't happen. TV's have joined the computer age.
With computers there is always a new chip, a new wireless technology, a new storage technology, and a new operating system -- all coming at once. If you wait for a static situation, you'll never buy a computer.
On the TV side, you've mentioned a few things but you left off a few. 120Hz LCDs? What about Laser? Cable cards? Are there more interactive cable cards in the future. How about the newer 3D technologies? The newer HP's come with wireless networking - you'll want to download your videos in real time from the net -- this'll let you bypass the Blu-ray vs HD wars. But, the HP wireless is only 802.11g -- what about n or faster in order to download those 1080p videos? 1080p at higher framerates? How exactly will your media extender and your Network Attached Storage and your slingbox and your DVR all interact with each other and with all of the TV's throughout your house? Do you have to set parental controls on each TV or can you monitor what the kids watch from one central TV?
Of course, I'm looking forward to the flexible displays that can be applied to my walls like wallpaper. Then I can have video calls with the grandparents and grandkids where the wall appears to disappear, and they appear in the same room. I can change my wall into a picture window with any view I want -- real or imagined. Or how about the ability to dynamically configure my TV-wall into multiple 'windows'. I walk up to my wall and draw a rectangle with my finger and tell my "TV-wall" to display the orange bowl in the rectangle, then I draw another rectangle, and tell it to put the sugar bowl in that space. I draw another rectangle and set up a video call with my high school buddy so I can rag him about his college team missing all of the bowl games. Now I have three different windows going on the same wall. With little earbud headphones, everyone in the room may be listening to different soundtracks associated with different windows.
The bottom line is that TV's have entered the computer age. In the old days, I had a 35" CRT and it lasted for 15 years. Right up until the end, I was still happy with my choice. These days you may end up buying a new TV every three to five years. And the new features between upgrades may be significant.
You misquote me!
by taustin2 - 11/16/07 10:12 AM In reply to: Wait until its perfect? by Michael tooNo where in my post did I say that anyone should wait until the technology is perfect. I said that the current tech would improve over what it is today, and would be cheaper. I also said that there are HD/digital technologies in the pipeline that will surpass the current technologies. If you all want to go out and blow big bucks on HD now, be my guest. Competition and manufacturing advances will drive prices down and picture quality up. BTW, CNET was not particularly impressed by 120 mhz LCD sets.
Digital TV and HDTV Unrelated
by markdoiron - 11/15/07 3:57 AM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2"If we are going to talk about HDTV, let's talk about all the formats, LCD, plasma, Lcos and OLED. ... And for my two cents worth, why buy any of them now. The switch to digital does not happen until February, 2009."
What does the switch to digital TV have to do with HDTV? Answer: Nothing. Just because all stations will be converting the digital in the future doesn't mean they will be broadcasting in high def. The two are unrelated.
As for your prediction that prices will drop in the future, I'm certain you're right. A prediction like that will almost always be right. So, when does one finally jump into the pool?
digital and hd
by scorcher409 - 11/16/07 6:50 AM In reply to: Digital TV and HDTV Unrelated by markdoironWhile it is true that there is no mandate for networks to show HD, the mandate is specific to transmit digitally. Direct TV in my area is now advertising 70 HD channels and others will continue to transition to HD as the consumer's appetite for quality broadcast continues to grow. It is only a matter of time before we are watching every channel in HD. I Love Lucy may not show the same detail that a newer program will show but it will look better than ever on my big screen tv, after all that is what it is all about.
Analog broadcast were designed for a 17" screens and our desire for larger TVs created a need for higher quality. As for me and many others people, I still like to go to the movie theatre to watch movies on the big screen, some people even have to see it opening night. Sure I could wait until it comes out on network TV and watch it for free on a 17 inch screen. I can also forget about the HD transition for a few more years, but while I live, breath and want to be entertained, I'll continue looking for the latest HD TVs and buying today instead of tomorrow.
Actually
by taustin2 - 11/16/07 10:16 AM In reply to: digital and hd by scorcher409The government wanted all the frequencies freed up by switching to digital that they could sell for big bucks. I've heard that it's already sold and 2009 is etched in granite for the switch.
Why buy an HDTV today?
by TKirsch - 11/15/07 12:10 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2<So tell me why I should buy any HDTV today!!!>
Six years ago I bought a Sony WEGA 32" XBR TV. It has native 480i, 480p and 1080i (HD) resolutions. It gives us a great pictures for DVDs (480i). Three years ago I bought a Sony SAT-HD100 satellite receiver from a friend who was upgrading and a $100 antenna so I could receive off-air HD signal (there are over 20 "free" off-air HD channels in the San Francisco area). All I can say is "What a difference!" If you spend any time at all watching TV, viewing 1080i HD images far exceeds DVD images or the standard broadcast signals you are presently watching. The widescreen image adds another dimension to your viewing enjoyment. Comparatively speaking, I would say watching a HD image is easier on your eyes. I have seen Blue-Ray 1080P on a Pioneeer set and saw an improvement over my 1080i images.
This country was originally going to have mandated HD broadcasts in 2006 which has been postponed to 2009, but ask yourself why are they "mandating" the change? Someone sees the benefit you apparently do not see. Believe me, you would not be wrong in buying a HDTV to enjoy what is available today.
I Challenge Anyone Out There....
by joup4 - 11/20/07 4:27 AM In reply to: Why buy an HDTV today? by TKirsch...that has the latest plasma or LCD to beat my picture.
I, like TKirsch, bought a Sony Wega 36XBR400 6 years ago and have enjoyed HD almost from it's very beginning stages. Granted, it is a 250+ pound dinosaur, but I defy anybody to beat it's picture with the naked eye. I too, use the Sony SAT-HD100 receiver for over-the-air broadcasts which also requires a good UHF antenna for all your digital broadcasts.
I recently upgraded my system with Onkyo's A/V receiver TX-SR605 for 400 bucks...and with Toshiba's HD DVD player HD-A2 for 200 bucks. My TV of course has no HDMI hookups but the component hookups work great and my 1080i PQ is incredible. My new receiver of course does have HDMI hookups, so I now enjoy the latest 7.1 digital sound. My new HD DVD player also upconverts standard DVD's which is another nice addition.
So for a grand total of $600, I can now enjoy the latest digital video and audio technology. OK, so I don't get 1080p, but I dare anyone tell me the difference!!
So when my dinosaur dies, I'll jump into the LCD/plasma craze...but for right now, I'm a happy camper!!
Re:I Challenge Anyone Out There....
by Pannylover4ever - 11/20/07 8:57 PM In reply to: I Challenge Anyone Out There.... by joup4The Sony 36XBR400 is an excellent screen, and in the 36" size will not really be beaten by anything. If Sony knew how to make anything, it was an excellent CRT screen.
I might be mistaken here (and feel free to correct me if I am), but your HD DVD player is probably only putting out 480P through the component connection. As such it might be of a limited use except to de-interlace your old DVD's and down-convert your HD DVD's to ED.
Every source I have checked so far appears to indicate that HD DVD (and Bluray) players only pass anything above 480P through the HDMI connection due to HDCP requirements.
I have seen a 42" ED plasma screen with a standard DVD player that everyone could swear was HD-DVD. The key of course is that the SD DVD material is native to ED screens, making them in some cases better suited for SD TV and SD DVD's.
The only limitation you would experience at this point in time wouldn't be PQ issues, but screen size and 16:9 material limitations on a 4:3 screen.
Re: I challenge anyone out there....
by joup4 - 11/21/07 4:41 AM In reply to: Re:I Challenge Anyone Out There.... by Pannylover4everYou make a very valid point Panny and I appreciate your expertise.
I did do some research and found that video disc creators have the option to include copy protection instructions in their discs that prohibit high def output (720p or 1080i) from the COMPONENT OUTPUT jacks!! This blew me away and made me think....doesn't this defeat the purpose of getting a new technology to catch on?? Makes no sense to me!!!
I checked the front display on my player while playing an HD DVD movie and it says that 1080i is my output. So I figured maybe this is because I got the HDMI output connected to my receiver...so I disconnected the HDMI cable and it still read 1080i on the display. I'm not sure if this is a defect of the player or because I have the video resolutiion setting configured to "up to 1080i"...of which my TV set is capable of handling. Either/or, I really have no way of knowing what resolution my TV is actually receiving...any suggestions?? Thanks...Joe
Re:Component vs HDMI on HD DVD players...
by Pannylover4ever - 11/21/07 11:11 AM In reply to: Re: I challenge anyone out there.... by joup4Without seeing your setup, and knowing the model of your DVD player, it is a bit difficult for me to say with absolute certainty this is a fact in your case. It depends if the Image Constraint Token (ICT) flag is set on your HD DVD's.
It appears that the studios have agreed not to use this flag until after 2012, and in that case your player can show HD material in 720P and 1080i through the component connection. This appears to be due to the fact that older HD TV's along with XBox360 HD DVD players did not come with a HDMI connection. On screens and players that play ICT flagged Disc's, you would only be able to see 480P through Component and non-HDCP compliant HDMI.
Your HD DVD's are required to have a marking on the case and probably the disc, showing the ICT logo, if that flag has been set on the disc.
So it appears that you are seeing 1080i on your screen using component, and I was mistaken in my previous post.
If you want to read more about this rather confusing state of HD technology, you can find some more information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_Constraint_Token
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
In the meantime, relax and enjoy your screen....:)
Re:Component vs HDMI on HD DVD players...
by joup4 - 11/21/07 5:44 PM In reply to: Re:Component vs HDMI on HD DVD players... by Pannylover4everThanks for the reply and research Panny.
In my original post in this thread I did mention all my equipment in my setup. I am using Toshiba's 2nd generation HD-A2 player. Two of the main reasons I went with the Toshiba was, of course, it's half the cost of a Sony Blu-ray, and it's ethernet connection made it very attractive to me.
You can plug in your ethernet cable in the back of the unit and update the latest firmware available. In the short 2 months I've owned this unit, I've already upgraded 3X...with the last one being today as a matter of fact, to their latest 2.7 firmware. I'm not sure what that upgrade actually improved on my unit, but it still runs flawlessly with the same properties I previously mentioned.
When you mentioned the "confusing state of HD technology", I had to really laugh. This new technology is still in diapers and there's going to be growing pains. I truly believe the manufacturers are more confused than we are!! Every model has their own little tweaks and even features on individual HD movies require new firmware. It's all pretty crazy right now...but once you're there, there's no turning back...I love it!!
Joe
Re:Component Vs HDMI
by Pannylover4ever - 11/21/07 10:16 PM In reply to: Re:Component vs HDMI on HD DVD players... by joup4Thanks joup4...
Hope you enjoy your setup for a while longer. I paid over $2k for my Sony 36" in 2000 and somewhat less than that for my plasma. I was planning to hold out for a while, but my little brother needed a TV in his condo so I figured it would be time to send my 36" to a good home and get a 42".
When he gets itchy again about a new TV, I'll probably give him my 42" and get a 50". That way its a win-win situation for both.
I think I am way off from HD DVD or Bluray though. There appears to be at least 18-24 months before that gets sorted out. By then, who knows what we want at that time.
Watch out for those flags appearing though, currently there appears to be some secret voluntary agreement among studios not to use the ICT flags, but that could all change overnight.
At least they are required to tell you....
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
