Home audio & video forum: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies

And I'm sure you still enjoy your music from your 8 track player too.

When she's done, maybe you should have her proof read your writing.

I bought a 42" Samsung plasma last year. There wasn't as much 16x9 programming available, and I watched much in 4x3. The TV burned a pinkish haze in the 4x3 (middle) of the screen. So when I watch 16x9 the middle area is clearly visible with a white background or sky. Samsung is aware of this problem, but does not clearly and loudly warn about the hazard - i.e. you apparently should watch 4x3 in expanded mode (which distorts the 4x3 image). I can't name any manufacturer who warrants against it - i.e. they specifically exclude any burn-in problems. I wouldn't have bought plasma if I knew, but I can't say whether a LCD would not have similar problems.

Samsung has screen burn set-up features "All White" and "Signal Pattern" which they suggest will correct burn problems. Samsung suggested running for 1-2 hours. It did little to nothing. I talked to a A/V tech and he suggested running it for "Days". I have been running both nighly for a month and have had some improvement - i.e. fading of the colored haze.

Bottom line is that sceenburn is real, makers know it, but rather than warn about it, they make specific exclusions for it in their warranty.

If somebody tells you it can't screen-burn get a guarantee in writing.

FYI: I recently bought a SAMSUNG LCD in the UK. The manual DOES print a warning about leaving static pictues on this TV. Especially from game boxes. If you must leave them on for long periods, it suggests turning the brightess control down. In common with other manufacturers, their warrantees will NOT cover burn-in screen issues.
TD

Look I am very open to any technology be it Plasma, LCD, RP LCD, LED LCD, DLP, Laser TV (future). All I want is the best bang for my top dollar.

When these TVs get rated even on Cnet, not everything is accounted for. For example, the editor's choice right now on Cnet is the Pioneer Kuro PDP-5080HD. Best blacks, excellent picture and on and on...I go look and the darn thing is not even a true 1080p. 1,366x768? Excuse me, so maybe right now there aren't that many sources that would make a difference but what about 3 years from now, what about 5 years.

I just spend 3,500 on a top rated XBR4. Do you think I plan on getting rid of this TV in 3 years? Not even, I plan to get 5 years warranty from Sony and have it around 7-10years if possible. I want the technology of tomorrow to look good on my TV. I want the crispness and detail of 1080p...I want to see blue ray how it's meant to be seen.

So what that a few plasmas on the market can delivery slightly higher blacks. How many people will see a big difference between blacks on XBR4 and the above mentioned Pioneer...and they are closely matched in price...

Until the Plasma manufacturers themselves start claiming that their TVs WILL NOT burn-in when used like computer monitors, I am sticking to LCD. That's just my five cents.

I'm not partial to LCD's or Plasmas. I've owned both and they both have their peaks. I now own an LCD because my LCD DID have burn-ins form video gaming. I love the pictures on both LCD and Plasmas, they are both amazing and if you think back to 10 years ago, they are jaw-dropping compared to what we used to huddle around. I respect the post, but seems like your pretty angry pal, like you have a grudge against LCD's? They weigh even, the bad thing about a plasma can be a great thing about an LCD, and visa versa. I will agree that there are many, many...many lies about plasmas that are just foolish, but many you listed I have never heard and I've owned one rear projection, three plasmas and two LCD's now. All-in-all PLASMAS AND LCD'S ARE BOTH GREAT TELEVISIONS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT! No reason to get uspet or complain...or take the time out of your day to rant and rave about why LCD's are bad and plasmas are god's greatest gift! Try buying one or the other, trying it out in your 30-day return window and retuen it if your not satisfied! Enjoy whichever you have and be glad you aren't still watching that 27" Zenith in your grandparents living room that crackled and got a fuzzy picture and sometimes smelled like a burning 'rubber band' factory...or maybe your families was a wopping 32" RCA T.V.!

One thing I haven't seen anyone talk about is glare. I realize that Plasmas now come with an anti-glare option but if you have your set in a bright room, from what I've seen, the Plasma seems to have a lot more glare than an LCD.

You are partially correct, all Plasma panels are glass panels and as such, reflect light. This is usually addressed by adding anti-reflective coatings on the glass (makes the reflections look purple).

LCD screens are made of plastic and as such can be matted to minimize reflections. However, matting appears to decrease sharpness, and impact picture quality somewhat. This has led to many LCD screens now being made glossy. You can see this on laptops, computer monitors and LCD TV display panels in any office or electronics store.

Sony, HP and many others have made screens that are glossy that appear to have better picture quality, but the side effect is increased glare. They are often called Brightview and various names do distinguish them from their matte counterparts.

On my last visit to various stores, about half the LCD's are now glossy. At the same time Panasonic for example, has added the PX77 line which got excellent reviews for their anti-reflective screens here on Cnet.

My recommendation is to check your tv room. Ff you have many windows, you either have to choose a lesser reflecting screen, or get some curtains or blinds for daytime viewing.

There are however both LCD and Plasma screens that are available now that work well in light rooms. The good news is since the screens are flat, the reflection angle is narrower than in the old CRT days, so finding a working angle is easier now.

Just 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.

I believe he is talking about visual distortion and/or artifacts produced by the machine rather than the signal.

I 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

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. 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!!!

I 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.

Bet I'll buy a better HDTV in 2009 for half of what you paid for your so called great deal in 2006.

"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.