Touch the Future Now at Staples
Home audio & video: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies
Yes, Plasmas use more electricity, hence I choose LCD
by sdc100 - 11/15/07 1:39 AM In reply to: A televisions news story about banning Plasma by WizentubWizentub wrote:
> Recenlty on sky news Australia I came across a news story which
> indicated that plasma screens were to be pulled form sale and
> banned from next year. The reson given was the excess amount
> of power useage these screens take. I would have thought theold
> fashioned tube televisions used much more power than a plasma
Yes, plasmas take up more energy because plasma, by definition, is superheated ionized gas. When we normally talk about solid state electronics, heat is a wasteful (and unwanted) by-product. That's not the case for plasmas because heat is necessary for its functioning. It's an indirect and inefficient way to light each pixel. In other words, energy is consumed to produce heat AND light. Since each pixel is a small vessel of pressurized gas, energy consumption adds up.
On the other hand, the fluorescent tubes used in LCDs are only used for lighting; the heat is an unfortunate by-product. A good analogy is halogen lighting vs. fluorescent lighting. The latter is much cooler and energy efficient since what the TV viewer wants is light reaching his/her eyes, not heat. Backlighting an LCD set with LEDs will be even more efficient because LEDs produce almost no wasted heat. All the energy goes into lighting.
A CRT also relies on heat to energize the electrons, which hit the screen's phosphor causing pixels to glow. Unlike plasmas though, the heat is concentrated in a small spot in the back of the CRT. In contrast, plasmas require that each pixel be heated so heat is distributed throughout the panel. Hence, modern CRTs are theoretically more energy efficient than plasmas.
The four reasons I would not choose plasmas are energy use, excess heat, size (thickness) and weight. LCDs win in those areas while their disadvantages (i.e. contrast, black level, viewing angle, etc) are imperceptible by the majority of viewers. When laser TVs hit the market, it'll be a whole new ball game.
There's a lot to it, and very little matters.
by batman823 - 11/15/07 7:02 AM In reply to: Yes, Plasmas use more electricity, hence I choose LCD by sdc100The Liquid Crystals in any LCD require a very, very small amount of current at a low voltage to align the crystals. This causes the crystals to reflect or block the light as desired. A good example is any calculator. Those are monochrome LCDs.
The Plasma technology requires a much higher voltage to create light from the gases used in the sealed panel. They use a bit more current and the higher internal voltage is accomplished by transformers. That makes the power supply heavier than the LCD systems.
Those are the 'primary' actual differences in how they work and what they are.
Realistically, you won't see a substantial difference in your power bill if you use LCD instead of Plasma, unless you watch TV all the time and have the brightness turned up all the way. What youu will see is that LCDs have sharper edges and most mid-range LCDs will have lower quality black-levels when compared to their equivalent plasma. But the plasmas generally have more of a life-like appearance because of the better color deepness. But now, the difference is minimal. Anybody will be extremely pleased with the upgrade to HD. Nobody sits at home sobbing because they could have better sharpness with the LCD or better black level with the plasma.
We all go home with our new HD toy and are blown away by the quality.
I notice people are concerned with sharpness and blur. The only thing that can cause a current GEN LCD tv to slow is bringing the LCD TV to a very low temperature. It's really not until you get below 40F or 60F that the liquid starts to thicken. Just don't watch your TV in your front yard in the snow.
Also, people are afraid of plasmas and mounting them. You're not going to break it beyond repair unless you're trying to install it on the ceiling and drop it onto the floor. No, you won't have to refill it. No, if you're the type of person willing to shell out $2k or more for a brand new HDTV, then you're not going to have to watch the dim screen as your plasma dies because you're going to be drooling over the next technilogical thing in a few years when there's a bigger and better one out there. Mounting is easy and if you could move your old CRT or 480 DLP out, you can handle the comparatively lightweight machine you're bringing into your home. If you're not sure you can do it or are afraid of it, then have a friend help and follow the directions. Or you could just pay the extra bit of cash for the installation service.
Down to the very basics for consumers and HDTVs.
Buy one that fits you're liking and price range. See the TV with a proper HD source before you buy it. I recommend Westinghouse. They build nuclear reactors with much more complicated and intricate electronics than a TV, and they are very reliable. They, like KIA, are just not as popular yet and well-known as other high-end brands so they cost quite a bit less.
Don't worry about 720vs1080 unless you're buying a VERY large TV. You will not be able to see the difference unless you have a true HD source on everything you own and sit within 4ft of your average-sized TV. If you happen to be buying bigger than 40", then you should be inclined to go with 1080i/p. Even then, you would be satisfied with a resolution of 720; But you would be able to tell a difference if you had a 1080 res TV next to it from a 1080 source.
Just keep in mind that the cost of the TV isn't your only expense. There's also every machine that you use to consider. The HD technology is useless if you don't have an HDDVD or BR player and HD television services. Along with whatever gaming system you use and the necessary cables to pass along the 1080 signal. Most video sources only put out 720 over the 'component'(YPbPr) connections. This is intentional. So you must purchase an HDMI cable for all those neat gadgets.
Just for the sake of keeping up with the Jones', you'll probably want to go with a premium sound system along with the cool video stuff because of the newer 7.1 surround sound that comes on the HD media.(moreso with BR than HDDVD because of BR has more disc space available) This can cost quite a bit of money as well.
So all-in-all, you'll either blow up to $5,000 to update to the latest-and-greatest or you'll piece them together over a long period. By the time you save, then buy, then save to buy again and again, there will be another new "must have" TV or whatever. So please don't get yourself into that spiral.
Hope somebody finds this helpful
LCD vs Plasma
by chillyb9 - 11/15/07 8:43 AM In reply to: There's a lot to it, and very little matters. by batman823batman823 - thank you very much for the best breakdown on pros, cons & understandable info on both. My sister wanted to buy a year old plasma & I told her "do your research, save your money, and buy what's best for you & your budget" I've been inclined to go LCD because of cost & the urban legends out there. After reading many of the comments, but most importantly yours, I still would, as only a millionaire can keep up with the constant changes in technology. Again, thank you much for an insightful overview and common sense thinking that I've forwarded to my sister. 
flat screen tv or regular
by hpcn - 11/15/07 10:14 AM In reply to: There's a lot to it, and very little matters. by batman823hi everyone, my question is, i have a remote cabin that only has heat when i'm there & also power which is solar gen. if ness. i would like to have a flat screen tv but the in winter gets below freezing would this damage an lcd tv? i'm not looking to go large, 19'' or so . any imput on this would be great thanks steve
no problem
by batman823 - 11/26/07 4:53 AM In reply to: flat screen tv or regular by hpcnYou shouldn't have a problem. With a small TV, you don't need to worry about power consumption. Your TV with the heavy bulb that makes it so big has an ERG. That Electrode Ray Gun uses much more power than even a larger plasma.
I don't know how small they make the plasmas, but I'm sure you can still get that small of a size. I am certain that the plasma will handle the cold temperatures. It will not affect the gases' performance.
If you are considering LCD, the cold temps can affect the performance if it's cold while you're using it. Especially if you live in a colder area where <20F is not uncommon. But it should withstand the temps. I would look up the specs if I were you. They should be easy to find on the manufacturer's website once you find a brand you like.
Good luck to you.
Huge FUD - there's no "banning" going on
by 3rdalbum - 11/15/07 5:12 AM In reply to: A televisions news story about banning Plasma by WizentubI hate the war between plasma and LCD manufacturers - it just leaves consumers confused and less likely to buy something that suits their needs.
Anyway, the thing you say about "plasmas are going to be banned" is completely untrue. There are a lot of things that would be banned before plasma TVs, if the main concern was power usage. The people spreading this FUD are blowing power use out of proportion - on average, plasmas use about 15-20% more power than a similar LCD. If you watch Prison Break, Battlestar Galactica and Lost (very dark shows), your plasma will use about as much power as an LCD at that time.
However, I'd like to make a correction about "LCDs are sharper". This can be true. High Definition LCDs always have exactly the same resolution as high definition DVB standard, so there is no image rescaling necessary, and each pixel in the DVB stream corresponds directly to a pixel on the screen. However, I know that Hitachi and Panasonic plasmas use strange resolutions - the Panas have too few pixels across the screen, and the Hitachi has too few across and too many down. If you look closely at an HD broadcast on those TVs, you will see jaggies.
LCD vs Plasma scaling issues
by Pannylover4ever - 11/16/07 11:47 PM In reply to: Huge FUD - there's no "banning" going on by 3rdalbumIn response to 3rdalbum
I think we might need to correct your correction a bit. Every LCD and Plasma screen has one "native" resolution. In the US, it is 480P, 720P or 1080P. If you have a LCD screen that is 1080P, it is 1920×1080 fixed. If you have a Plasma 1080P it is the same 1920×1080 fixed.
This means that everything less than 1920x1080 is scaled to fit the screen. On 720P screens, 1080i and 1080P sources are down scaled to fit the screen, SD-DVD's at 480i are de-interlaced and then up-scaled to fit the screen using interpolation algorithms. On 1080P screens, 480i, 480P and 720P is all up-scaled to fit the 1080P screen.
All screens look their best if the material being displayed is the same as the native resolution, hence LCD makers like to show you 1080P LCD screens using HD-DVD or Bluray players. This is due to scaling adds artifacts and blur to the image, especially when up-scaling.
Your statement that LCD's are always exactly the DVB standard is wrong for two reasons:
1. There is no single DVB standard, current HD broadcasts are in either 720P or 1080i depending on the network.
2. A 1080P screen would have to de-interlace all 1080i material for 1080P, and up-scale all 720P material to fit the screen. So it would be the correct resolution half the time but still need to de-interlace the material, converting it from 1080i/60 to 1080P/30.
720P is 60 frames per second (720P/60), 1080i is 30 frames per second after it is de-interlaced. This causes the 720P standard to be better for sports/action movies since the detail is captured 60 times a second vs the 1080i 30 times a second.
There are no and there will be no 1080P broadcasts anytime in the next several years (or decades) for several reasons:
1. The bandwidth of 1080P is too great for SAT/Cable infrastructure
2. All current broadcast gear is either 720P or 1080i.
3. The MPeg4 codec needed for 1080P broadcasts is not supported by any cable or satellite box currently in use or any broadcast equipment currently in use. Basically, 1080P is technology and cost wise almost as expensive and complex as the NTSC to ATSC conversion.
Hope that clears things up a bit.....
LCD vs PDP scaling issues
by astrobuf - 11/18/07 3:41 PM In reply to: LCD vs Plasma scaling issues by Pannylover4everPannylover4ever has it spot on. The LCD industry's drive to convince everyone that 1080p devices are required for Digital TV is a borderline lie. As he points out, any 1080p device which displays a 720p image will incur a scaling artifact, it may be small, but it will be real.
TV and Movie image quality needs to be thought of in many dimensions. Spatial resolution is just one, and perhaps the least important dimension. Honest Videophiles agree that the most important dimension is contrast ratio. Most would then agree that image latency is perhaps next most important for general purpose TV and movie watching.
I have seen many 720p sets which look better than the 1080p sets that sell for 2X the price. Personally, I'd buy a Pioneer Kuro 720p set over a Panasonic 1080p set at about the same price!
Astrobuf
Re:LCD vs PDP scaling issues
by Pannylover4ever - 11/18/07 6:08 PM In reply to: LCD vs PDP scaling issues by astrobufYou are correct astrobuf, to notice one thing that many people gloss over and forget, and that is that contrast ratios decrease significantly when increasing resolution when the screen size stays the same.
Everyone knows contrast ratio numbers are meaningless between different manufacturers, but they can be a reference point between models from the same manufacturer.
Take two 9th generation Panasonic PRO models for example. The 50" 720P TH-50PH9UK is listed as 10000:1 while the 1080P TH-50PF9UK is 5000:1 in the same size. You will see the same data from most other manufacturers, increase resolution and you loose contrast.
The simple reason is that it is easier to make fewer big dots bright, rather than many small dots, since each dot can only contain so much of the Argon, Neon and Xenon gas the plasma needs for each pixel color of Red, Green and Blue.
The 720P screen has 2.76 million pixels made up of 3 colors each (1280x720x3) while the 1080P screen has 6.22 million pixels (1920x1080x3). So the 1080P screen has about 225% more pixels for the exact same screen area. This results in many smaller pixels, with more cell walls on the screen, causing lower brightness and less contrast.
This is the reason why, people when they go into stores and see the screens from across the room, see the lower res screens actually look significantly better, with brighter colors and more lifelike image. When they get up close, they prefer the higher res screens with more resolution. They forget however that they are not going to be looking at a 50" or 58" screen 3 feet away, you are more likely to be 8-10 feet away. Recommended (optimal) viewing distance for a 50" screen is 8.3 feet, and for a 58" screen it is 9.7 feet. This is actually farther away than you can really see the difference in resolution for 1080P.
At that distance, the difference in resolution is not perceptible to the human eye, but the difference in contrast and color is. Even with a 60" screen, you have to be less than 8 feet away to really notice the difference between 720P and 1080P. You can see this here:
http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/HDTV_Viewing_Distance.htm
So, therefore one could argue scientifically that unless you are going above 58" screens, (the next size up in plasma is often 65"), 1080P does not make much difference, unless you are going to be sitting closer than 7 feet away.
So your point about the Kuro is correct. Many people will find themselves on the plasmas under 58" preferring 720P. For me, the Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas are so close in picture quality, that choosing either one is more a matter of brand preference.
According to my December 2007 Consumer Reports, the repair rate between the two is a statistical tie (Panasonic 2%, Pioneer 3%), so I don't think you can go wrong with either one.
Proofreading is essential
by sponeill - 11/15/07 8:31 AM In reply to: Yes there is a lot FUD out there. by jcrobsoSome valid points may have been made in this posting. However, I found the spelling, typographical and grammatical errors so distracting that I was unable to appreciate the points being made.
Spelling
by alexworden - 11/15/07 10:40 AM In reply to: Yes there is a lot FUD out there. by jcrobsoGet a dictionary. Learn the difference between "to" and "too" if you want ANYONE intelligent to take your seriously.
haha
by masterying01 - 11/12/07 8:34 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesreminded me of the time when an elderly lady returned a new 42" panasonic plasma because it was a little warm and she was afraid that warmth will give her cancer. she upgraded from a crt in a wooden enclosure.
then there are these customers who bring their "tech friends" in to help them shop. when i offered them a plasma, their tech friends immediately jump in and say things like "no plasma. they suck. you need to refill them every few years"
(NT) Just write free refills into the sales contract.
by NM_Bill - 11/13/07 9:58 AM In reply to: haha by masterying01re: (NT) Just write free refills into the sales contract.
by boxfresh151 - 11/14/07 7:40 PM In reply to: (NT) Just write free refills into the sales contract. by NM_Billor you could tell her that her old crt is going out because she her body has absorbed all of the tvs xrays leaving the set depleted. haha j/k.
plasma refill myth
by boxfresh151 - 11/14/07 7:43 PM In reply to: re: (NT) Just write free refills into the sales contract. by boxfresh151at one time, Sears's service plan included "plasma recharge" "as needed" as a value prop. that explains that persistent silly myth.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
