Simplify your laptop buying
Home audio & video: LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why
LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why
by Morpfious - 4/17/08 1:14 PMI was recently thinking about buying a new LCD model tv until I read about the OLED and Laser TV's that are coming out soon. I figure that the OLED tv's will be small for a while and probably have a bunch of bugs (not to mention the price!), and thus not a good deal at first. I am not as sure about the laser tv's. Maybe it's the idea of having a bunch of lasers pointed at my eyes. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on whether it is worth the wait to get one of the newer technologies or go with the LCD, or wait until the new technologies are out and then buy the LCD (old technology)!! 
laser
by bevillan - 4/17/08 1:21 PM In reply to: LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why by MorpfiousLaser TVs were a blip on the radar last year with that one company releasing a press note about how great they are, but I haven't heard much about them since that. I'm willing to bet laser tv's are still a ways off from mass market. OLEDs will arrive sooner in varied sizes but will be hella expensive for a while, and who knows about their reliability.
Out of everything available right now, I think a Panny or Pioneer plasma are the best displays under $5000.
Plasma
by ldonal - 4/18/08 12:42 PM In reply to: laser by bevillanI agree with you. I have had my 42 inch Panny plasma for almost 3 years, and the picture quality is as good now then it was when I first purchased the tv. I know that there is a big push for the 120 hertz LCD tv's. Personally I do not think those tv's are that much better than the panny plasmas. The person that is considering an LCD should consider the panasonic plasma. Once I save enough money, I am going to purchase a panasonic 50 inch plasma and put the 42 inch in the bedroom, hopefully.
Laser will be out this fall
by kcfvegas - 4/18/08 11:32 AM In reply to: LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why by MorpfiousMitsubishi did a big intro of the new Laser TVs at this years CES and they got very good reviews. They are going to be in the stores this fall, and are supposed to have a very attractive price point.
OLED TVs are a very good technology, but they are at least five years away from being viable as a home TV, with a price you can afford and a size that is worth watching. Right now $5,000 wont even buy an OLED TV as big as the 20" monitor that I'm using right now to write this post.
Why couldn't SED have a second chance at life?
by 8IronBob - 4/18/08 11:43 AM In reply to: Laser will be out this fall by kcfvegasI don't know why, but out of all the announced technologies, I always thought that SED was about to become something to admire, up until both Toshiba and Canon backed out of it recently. That looked like a promising technology, imo. Just couldn't see what went wrong with that one...
legal stuff
by givemeaname - 4/18/08 12:02 PM In reply to: Why couldn't SED have a second chance at life? by 8IronBobhttp://news.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029698,49286466,00.htm
see the last paragraph
LCDs and OLEDs
by Dr. Planarian - 4/19/08 5:25 AM In reply to: LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why by MorpfiousLCD TVs are really very, very good, and use so little current (compared to plasma) that they really need to be considered. The newest from Samsung are backlit with LEDs and so can display something VERY close to a true black, giving them constrat ratios in the millions, but even the fluorescently backlit ones give a picture that knocks your socks off in 1080p (or even 1080i). I've have a 52" Sony XBR4 for seven months now and the quality of its picture still startles me.
I assume that, a decade or so down the road when my Sony is ready to migrate to the bedroom, large-screen OLED sets should be priced well within reason. They should be basically ideal because they are not transmitted but emitted light, and should be both brighter and darker (with an actual TRUE black) than anything available now in any technology. Furthermore, as long as they aren't shaken around they should be extremely durable -- there's not a lot to wear out.
I cannot imagine laser TVs having the viewing angle most people want, because in the end it's only just another type of projector TV.
LCDs and OLEDs - power consumption
by Ruie - 4/19/08 8:07 AM In reply to: LCDs and OLEDs by Dr. PlanarianI'm glad that the previous poster mentioned power consumption. LCDs consume far less power than a LED set. In some cases 1/3 as much. Plasma burns 2x as much as a LCD. My Sony 52" LCD consumes 250W, whereas a plasma typically would consume 400 watts. LED sets are off the chart.
welcome to the forum, Ruie
by jostenmeat - 4/19/08 2:04 PM In reply to: LCDs and OLEDs - power consumption by RuieN.S. said something very interesting about this issue. There is a big difference between your unit's "specs" and real world usage. LCDs actually use more energy than plasmas, assuming the quoted text to be true:
"Plasmas consume less power than LCDs. Although the wattage rating on the back of the panels is higher, one must take into account the dynamics of a plasma set versus that of an LCD set. When producing darker sequences on the screen, plasmas consume little to no power. When consuming an entirely white screen, plasmas consume maximum rated power. On average, plasmas consume about 20% of that rated power when viewing movies, and 40% of that rated power on sports or video games. LCD's consume maximum rated power all of the time, as their CCFL backlight never turns off (Bar the Samsung LN-T81F series."
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=60&threadID=290517&messageID=2751136&tag=mcnt
Amazing what you learn here after spending some time
Possibly for American TV
by 3rdalbum - 4/20/08 2:19 AM In reply to: welcome to the forum, Ruie by jostenmeatWhat you say *could be* possible for American TV as the pictures are darker and softer, but it definitely isn't true for non-NTSC colour systems.
It sounds like anti-LCD FUD anyway. I hate FUD.
To answer the original poster's question: Laser TV is vapourware until models become available. OLED is terrifically expensive. LCD or plasma are what you want until a realistic alternative actually shows its head and proves itself.
Nice post
by gabereyes - 4/20/08 9:10 PM In reply to: welcome to the forum, Ruie by jostenmeatI also agree that plasma uses less power then what is stated on the back of the set, but not sure about less then LCD.
Im sure they are not far apart and soundnt be an issue for any type of TV, its just more crap to confuse consumers.
I have customers all day that worry about glare, viewing angles, brightness, colors, contrast ratio, resolution, etc.
its all crap most cusomers have a round CRT or CRT projection at home that has lower res, viewing angles, lower brightness and a higher chance of glare then any of the newer types of TV's.
but yet they still worry about this crap.
sorry I need to blow off some steam
thanks
gabe
Agreed, gabereyes. The public is so easily confused.
by NM_Bill - 4/21/08 9:00 AM In reply to: Nice post by gabereyesThey hear of something mentioned as a factor to be considered & often immediately misinterpret that as something to obsess over.
Some of us are former hippies who tend to be tree huggers. It is perfectly OK to think green. A factor like one more light bulb on worth of electricity to enjoy ones plasma experience can be accommodated in everyday life. There are many opportunities to lessen the weight of our footprint on the planet.
Avoiding unnecessary amounts of heating & air conditioning use. Avoiding excess auto use by planning to combine trips. How many have not replaced inefficient incandescent bulbs that are frequently used? On the other hand, I will not throw out those goodones that are infrequeltly turned on.
I see my neighbors largely ignore or pay scant lip service to voluntary recycling. We don't even take glass here, but my larger trash container ought to be the recycling one. Yes, I bundle most all my paper, & include all the acceptable plastic containers. True, I barely rinse cans though my brother carefully washes them like to be reused. Keep it out of the landfills, people. Please.
Of course, gabe, those other factors you list as hearing constantly from potential customers are more often that not, non-issues if they would only put them in perspective. Get a good nights sleep every day as the customers will not stop with those concerns. To do your part well, you have to sort of owe them a smile. Sorry, that just won't change. Your responsibility is to be pleasant. They can get ignored, preoccupied store staff or crankiness at many other places. How many of those WalMart employees seem to be working hard or cheerful? Few enough so that those who can do so, stand out.
OLED!
by QuietStormX - 4/19/08 10:00 PM In reply to: LCD v. Laser v. OLED TV's - Which is better and why by MorpfiousOLED is much more efficient than LCD. More power efficient plus you don't need back lighting... And less parts. Like LED lighting over incandescent lighting.
Before OLED becomes more of a reality...
by 8IronBob - 4/20/08 6:01 AM In reply to: OLED! by QuietStormXDon't forget that we still currently have LED-backlit LCDs, which are backlit by LEDs, thus allowing the best that LCD HDTVs can be picture-wise. If you ever saw the LNT81F in person, you'd know what I'm talking about. This year, you can easily expect more manufacturers to follow in LED-based LCD technology, like Sony's XBR8, Samsung's A950, LG and Toshiba are both developing something, so we'll have to go through that phase before OLED officially takes over.
Plasma beats LCD
by bnlkmtka - 4/21/08 8:17 AM In reply to: Before OLED becomes more of a reality... by 8IronBobI am waiting for the OLED in larger sizes, hopefully 40" or more with prices under $5,000 for my fourth HD TV. I was aware of the OLED technology when I bought my first HD set in 2006 but knew it would take at least 5 years to be commercially viable in the sizes consumers want. I didn't want to wait that long to watch HD so I made the plunge into flat panel HD.
I have a Panasonic plasma, a Sony LCD and a Samsung LCD. The Panasonic plasma has hands down superior picture quality HD and SD. It is the TV I prefer to watch. In addition I can see the picture clearly at any angle. A plasma tv uses about 50% more power inch for inch. In the case of the Panasonic the difference is like having one additional light on, not a big deal.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
