Home audio & video: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies
Hey, LCD is crisper
by claynot - 11/14/07 7:05 PM In reply to: Hey, LCD is crisper by Jefferis PetersonI own a Samsung 62" DLP for my main TV and am very happy with it.
I can't imagine a better HD picture is available over what I have.
I also own a 46" Visio Plasma for the bedroom...which I only watch
about 30 mins every night. I have it set for auto cutoff after 1 hour. I can't comment on burnin, but the damn thing is noisy and
runs hot! If I hadn't gotten such a great deal (floor model for
$699.00) I woulda considered something else. But the picture is
good, considering I couldn't stand standard TV after getting the
Samsung DLP.
My 2c on plasma
by omikeyboy - 11/14/07 7:26 PM In reply to: Hey, LCD is crisper by claynotJust over a year ago I bought what was then a top of the line 42" Pioneer Plasma. I must say that I found optimal calibration settings online and adjusted them slightly for my bedroom. I couldn't be happier with the picture and have not had any burn in issues. I do use full screen modes when possible, but it is my understanding that like a car, these TV's have a break in period. I believe if i recall correctly it is 100 hours. After that, unless you keep a still image for hours on the screen you stand little chance of burn in.
As far as glare, I have it mounted on an adjustable mount and if there is any glare I simply tilt the screen slightly and I am fine.
LCD's are sharper as they simply for the most part have higher resolutions. Plasma's have deeper blacks and more vivid colors. It's a matter of preference and the playing field is becomming more equal. HD looks wonderful at 1080i and on a screen size such as 42" you will not see much difference between 1080i & 1080p. The plasma is rated for 50,000 hours. That's a mighty long time.
Vizio Plasma noisy?
by pwoon - 11/14/07 8:27 PM In reply to: Hey, LCD is crisper by claynotWhen you say that the Vizio Plasm is noisy, what do you mean?
noisy plasma
by someoldguy - 11/15/07 1:50 PM In reply to: Vizio Plasma noisy? by pwoonI believe he is talking about visual distortion and/or artifacts produced by the machine rather than the signal.
DLP-problem in viewing&LCD's R big energys users as U go big
by Bdubslawman - 11/15/07 4:44 AM In reply to: Hey, LCD is crisper by claynotRelatives got a DLP nice glossy black finish etc and then I noticed it... I forgot what the name of the issue is called but its something like rainbow effect? Basically some people see it but it seems that most don't. When I watch something on their DLP, as I follow the action on the screen I briefly & repeatedly see Red,Green,&Blue color pattern. Too me it makes a movie/content watched more about trying not to be distracted by that. That killed DLP's for me (although truth in Cnet posting 
dictates I say I never tested whether it happens to me with all DLP's). The Added floor space they still occupy already had me looking elsewhere.
I feel guilty about running a Plasma TV because of the energy it uses 300 Watts philips ambilight (ghod I love the ambilight features), but I hate to burst the bubble that seems to be in this thread (I've read so far 3 pages of 5) LARGE LCD TV's are big energy consumers.
I run 19"-20" LCD's and they run at a meager 35 Watts, so what happens between there and say a 42" inch LCD I don't know but add 300 Watts to that and up! In many cases LCDS run similar power usage rates as Plasmas. Buy a P3 Kill-A-Watt energy meter and bring it into the show room and ask to run it.... I was shocked!
While my guilt isn't eased, because I know that it's not good environmentally (I am an energy miser & bicycle rider) I have a modicum of relief knowing that I wanted a HDTV & no matter what I bought it's big energy whether it's a big LCD, Plasma, or high end overhead projector - Don't kid yourself that a BIG LCD = power savings & low heat output. Small monitors? - YES.
LED-LCD & OLED / flexible screens (like you see in future sci-fi movies) will definitely be an enormous advancement.
When it comes to picture quality, I prefer the Plasma & High Gloss LCD's. Before getting the 42" Philip's Plasma, I bought a 32" LCD with a matte screen like my monitors' had. The contrast ratio was very weak and black colors looked more dark-grey than black. Also at night in a dark room I could see light coming through the black areas of the screen, ( found out there's a term for that but can't remember what it is either)...doesn't matter I think you can grasp the idea without the proper label.
The new coatings & other modifications to current LCD displays have dramatically changed their look for the better. Just as a reference it's like comparing an older plain laptop screen to the newer ("bright view," "true bright," or whatever your preferred manufacturer calls their copyrighted technology. It makes those fish tank screen savers look like the screen is wet glass...
46" Vizeo Plasma TV - NOT
by astrobuf - 11/18/07 7:33 PM In reply to: Hey, LCD is crisper by claynotI think you must really be confused. No one (there are only 5 PDP OEM's) make a 46" HD PDP module. the TV you think is a PDP is either a really old technology ED grade (852x480 res) PDP, or it is actually an LCD if it really is a 46" set!
As to it being hot, certainly likley for LCD TV's to be hot. Some of them have 400W backlights that are always on!
Astrobuf
Re:46" Vizeo Plasma TV - NOT
by Pannylover4ever - 11/18/07 9:37 PM In reply to: 46" Vizeo Plasma TV - NOT by astrobufI think he is probably referring to the Vizio P4, which is the 46" ED Plasma screen. That would explain the price of $700 as a display model. It is the only Vizio Plasma I could find in that size.
Vizio is a second tier brand, and typically is a generation or two behind the leaders in Plasma and LCD, which allows them to offer lower prices.
I think for many people posting, they are comparing Apples and Oranges here. Comparing your $500 Westinghouse screen to your Panasonic or Pioneer screen is no comparison. Comparing your Sony or Samsung LCD against a Maxent or Vizio plasma is also no comparison.
For comparing picture quality, reliability, features etc. people kind of have to compare name brand to name brand, and no name brand to no name brand.
Anything else is pointing out the obvious, and kind of a moot point for most people here.
Plasma vs. LCD
by taustin2 - 11/14/07 7:15 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesIf 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. In 16 months the current technology will improve even more, prices will come down and new HDTV technologies will emerge that will probably blow away what's out there right now. What's the rush? If we've waited this long for HDTV, what's a few more months? Go ahead and buy that 60 inch whatever now for four or five grand, I'll wait until 2009 or later and buy it for under a grand. A 19 inch LCD computer monitor used to sell for over $2000 three years ago. They can be purchased for under $200 today. Response time is down from 26 ms to 6 ms too. So tell me why I should buy any HDTV today!!!
Plasma vs. LCD
by zypher.the.one - 11/14/07 7:28 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2Thanks, taustin2!!
You've settled my confused mind. You're absolutely right to wait.....and I will too. This whole topic reminds me of the BETA
debate. It's a good idea to wait until the technology improves and the prices come way down.
Re: Plasma vs. LCD
by Glenn_20 - 11/14/07 7:36 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2I think it IS worth buying high definition right now. First, because the difference in picture quality is amazing! Second, because cable companies are now offering a lot of high-def channels. I am absolutely blown away every time I watch a football or basketball game in high definition. But I don't have Plasma or LCD. My new 65" television is a DLP. You see, I do agree with the guy who brings up cost issues. Most tech people focus more on technology than on costs. A good DLP costs less than half of what a plasma or LCD costs. Is it worth paying 100% more money for maybe a 5% difference in clarity? If you're looking for the best "bang for your buck" DLP is the way to go.
that's ridiculous taustin2
by Brons2 - 11/14/07 8:25 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD by taustin2I just got a 2006 model 56" LCOS for $1199, online. It's 1080p and accepts 1080p inputs. Looks fantastic especially with the PS3 and Blue-Ray movies. Found some nice calibration settings for it on CNET.
Good values can be had, check the CNET price finder thingy. My TV is a JVC HD56FH97.
Actually, it's still $1199 with free shipping from BuyDig according to CNET Shopper...the stand is an extra $150 and if you order it at the same time as the TV it ships free also.
http://shopper.cnet.com/projection-tvs/jvc-hd-56fh97/4014-6484_9-32037309.html?tag=pdtl-list
So you say!!
by taustin2 - 11/16/07 9:57 AM In reply to: that's ridiculous taustin2 by Brons2Bet I'll buy a better HDTV in 2009 for half of what you paid for your so called great deal in 2006.
Not realistic...
by Pannylover4ever - 11/18/07 7:12 PM In reply to: So you say!! by taustin2I bet I'll buy a much better screen in 2012 for quarter of what you paid in 2009. I bet someone will also buy a much better screen, for much cheaper than what I paid in 2012, in 2015 etc. etc. etc....
Using that logic, we would all still be listening to screenplays on AM radio and waiting for the perfect technology to appear.
I also would be using Abacus at work, riding a horse drawn carriage and reading by candlelight.
Now if they only would perfect that printing technology, I could read some books while I wait...
re: plasma vs. LCD
by Matthias99 - 11/14/07 9:10 PM 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."
You actually left out quite a few -- first off, there are also LCD projectors, and DLP projectors. And then you have front vs. rear projection for both of those. Plus you could differentiate between conventional and LED-backlit LCD panels. CRT is also still kicking around, and is a viable option in the 30-34" range if you don't mind a set that weighs 150+ pounds.
LCOS is only for front/rear projection, and is still a bit unproven. OLED still seems to be a few years out -- and they were saying that five years ago.
There's one other major technology on the horizon -- SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display). Canon bought the rights to it, and is currently in the middle of having the crap sued out of them by a Japanese firm that claims they violated their licensing agreements. I saw the demo units at CES a couple years ago and they looked fantastic. But it could easily be several years after the lawsuit gets settled by the time they hit store shelves, and I have no idea what they'll cost.
"And for my two cents worth, why buy any of them now. The switch to digital does not happen until February, 2009."
Regular (non-HD) over-the-air broadcasting is switching to digital (not HD, just digital!) next February -- unless they push the deadline out again (it's already been bumped back twice.) Current HD content (via antenna, satellite, digital cable, or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray) is already as digital and HD as it's going to get.
"In 16 months the current technology will improve even more"
Yep. Although the rate of improvement has been slowing lately.
"prices will come down"
Yep. Although further price drops probably won't be as dramatic.
"and new HDTV technologies will emerge that will probably blow away what's out there right now."
Maybe in 3-5 years (maybe), but not in 16 months.
"What's the rush? If we've waited this long for HDTV, what's a few more months? Go ahead and buy that 60 inch whatever now for four or five grand, I'll wait until 2009 or later and buy it for under a grand. A 19 inch LCD computer monitor used to sell for over $2000 three years ago. They can be purchased for under $200 today. Response time is down from 26 ms to 6 ms too. So tell me why I should buy any HDTV today!!!"
Well, presumably you want to watch HD content *today* and not in 2009. And of course in 2009 there will also be some new unbelievable technology on the horizon -- there will never be a "perfect" time to buy.
I also think you're overstating how much the prices will decline. I doubt you'll be able to get a 60" plasma for $1000 in 2009 (IMO, more like $2000-3000.) And you're *really* overstating how fast LCD panel prices fell; I bought a 19" LCD computer monitor two years ago for about $500, and it was one of the more expensive ones. In 2001 (six years ago) you could get a 20" LCD computer monitor for somewhere around $1000.
I'd say you could probably expect prices to be roughly halved every three to four years. Whether having an HDTV now versus three or four years down the line is worth saving a thousand dollars or more is something that needs to be taken into account when making a purchasing (or non-purchasing) decision.
re: actual "Plasma vs. LCD":
Both look pretty damn good these days.
One key factor, which many people completely neglected to mention, is resolution (the number of discrete pixels in the display). A lot of older plasmas and LCD panels were either 720p (1280x720 pixels) or "768p" (1367x768 pixels) -- which they often still call "720p". "768p" panels tend to look slightly blurry, whether LCD or plasma0, because both 720p and 1080i/1080p content have to be scaled to fit the panel properly. Some TVs let you not scale 720p content, which makes it a lot sharper but also gives black bars on all sides of the image.
IMO, you want a 1080p display these days; 1080i/1080p content (where most things are headed) looks amazing on them, and 720p being scaled up to 1080p looks very good as well. 1080p LCDs are (relatively) cheap these days, at least up to 42" or so. 1080p plasmas are still pretty expensive, especially in very large sizes.
Beyond that, general observations about them:
Plasmas (generally) have better black levels and contrast. Emissive displays (plasma, CRT, OLED/SED) tend to have better black levels -- with an LCD the backlight is always on, whereas when a plasma displays 'black' it is emitting no light whatsoever. Well, almost; usually the pixels are still left slightly charged to improve response time, but it's a LOT darker than 'black' on an LCD panel.
In a well-lit room, a plasma TV will (generally) provide better results when viewing dark scenes, and will maintain better brightness and contrast. In a very dark room, the not-quite-blackness of an LCD panel can stand out more when you're watching something dark. LED-backlit LCDs (which are VERY expensive, and just starting to become available) have great color reproduction, and somewhat better black levels. All that said, a high-quality 1080p LCD that is calibrated right still looks *very* good.
LCDs are cheaper, at least in ~40" sizes. LCD manufacturing doesn't scale up well, while plasma display manufacturing doesn't really scale down that well. That's why you don't see many 60"+ LCDs (yet) and why there aren't any plasmas much smaller than 40". 1080p LCDs are (except at big sizes) much cheaper than 1080p plasmas right now.
Plasmas are (generally) more susceptible to burn-in -- but LCDs are not completely immune. Newer sets of either type are (generally) better at resisting it. Not running it at 100% brightness/contrast helps. You don't want to run it like that anyway; it makes the colors look like crap, regardless of how much "pop" (as one previous poster put it) it gives the image.
LCDs have a slower (higher) "response time" than plasmas. This means that moving images on an LCD TV get blurrier than they do on a plasma or CRT. Newer LCDs are much better than older ones. A response time of under 10 milliseconds (ms) is very good; over 25ms is not as good; over 40-50 is dreadful.
Plasmas (usually) have a significantly better viewing angle than LCDs. Both are generally better than a rear-projection TV of any type. Newer LCDs are better, but if you plan on watching at a sharp angle regularly, a plasma TV is a better choice. This also varies considerably between different TVs, so check it out in a store if this is a concern.
Both have long-term longevity issues. Plasma displays can lose phosphor brightness over time (like a CRT), and LCD backlights will eventually dim and/or burn out. However, with new sets you're talking at least 5 years before you should have any real problem, and even that assumes fairly heavy (4+ hours per day) use. LCD lamps can be replaced; there isn't a whole lot you can do with a dim plasma display (they cannot be "recharged"; I have no idea who comes up with these things.) Of course, if your LCD HDTV needs a new lamp 10 years from now, it likely will not be worth replacing -- assuming you can even *find* a replacement!
Both can suffer from dead or stuck pixels. Most manufacturers or stores will replace a set with such pixels under warranty; sometimes there has to be a certain minimum number of them to qualify.
LCDs are lighter for the same screen size, and also use less power (and generate less heat). This makes LCDs somewhat easier to wall-mount. Big plasma TVs get quite warm.
Cliffs notes:
You want a 1080p television. It costs more, but looks way better when you watch 1080i/1080p content.
Plasmas generally look a little better (especially in a brightly lit room, or at an angle) but usually cost more and generate a lot of heat. Burn-in can be a problem if you play a lot of video games or leave it on the same channel all day every day.
LCDs are lighter, cheaper, and more resistant to burn-in. But black levels are worse, and so are viewing angles.
Rear-projection systems are a LOT cheaper for very big (60"+) screen sizes. But generally the image quality is not as good, and the viewing angle is definitely not as good. Front-projection makes for a truly 'cinematic' experience, but a really good setup costs a lot.
HD CRTs look fantastic and are cheap, but only go up to about 30-34" and weigh 100-150+ pounds.
If you're willing to wait a few years everything will get cheaper and some new display technologies may be available. But this is always going to be the case, so don't hold out just because it sounds like some awesome new technology is about to come out. It's always overpriced at first, and doesn't always turn out to be so awesome. If you think the current prices are too high, waiting will help.
Buy now or later
by adonna - 11/14/07 10:53 PM In reply to: re: plasma vs. LCD by Matthias99I read people saying to wait, that there will be more improvements and that we'll see changes, and yes, that's true. But for me, I wanted to see what I could experience now, so first of all I got a nice small little Vizio for my office. Love it, like the options that you have in these televisions that you didn't have in TVs before, like, for instance, the option to change the display type, or the color and intensity. Those are worth enjoying now. I'm contemplating buying a few more soon, not too large. They'll both be LCD, because after having LCD for over a decade (mostly computer displays) I know how sharp they can be. Not as big as Plasma, but I don't think big is mandatory. I think you can keep it whatever size seems comfortable to you.
And I fully expect that as changes occur, I'll be sampling them too. Looking forward to it in fact.
If I really wanted BIG, I'd go for a cinema style screen and projection unit. Maybe later on.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
