Poll: If you had only one HDTV choice, which would you pick?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 5/1/08 2:27 AM
If you had only one HDTV choice, which technology would you pick?
-- Plasma (Please explain why.)
-- LCD (Please explain why.)
by: Lee Koo (ADMIN) May 1, 2008 2:27 AM PDT
0 people like this thread
LCD for me.
by 8IronBob - 5/1/08 6:29 AM
I'd still give LCD a chance, especially a Samsung or a Sony, since they deliver probably the best picture qualities, and they are better with gaming, which I do a lot of, and are equally good in that you don't have to worry about burn-in, or suffering from brightness issues over time. Plus LCD prices in the larger sizes are narrowing to those of the plasma counterparts. For example, I did see the Samsung 46A650 in the stores, of which Cnet just gave the 52" an Editor's Choice Award. Comparing that to a Pioneer Kuro, it seemed like Samsung was equally as impressive as a Pioneer, which surprised the wazoo out of me. So, yeah, LCD is still a strong going format, and may continue to be impressive throughout the days to come.
by bevillan - 5/1/08 6:37 AM
The one past drawback to plasmas is that they have screen burn-in risk. Well if you buy either Panasonic or Pioneer nowadays, they have virtually eliminated that same risk. Plasma has the best blacks, best viewing angle, and is slightly cheaper in the larger sized displays than LCD.
Also, LCD still has dead pixel risk. I, for one, would be driven crazy by a small accumulating number of dead pixels on my expensive display as I waited for the portion to reach a certain level before the manufacturer would even service it.
YOU CAN BASICALLY DROP "BURN-IN" AS A PROBLEM...............
I BOUGHT A 58" PANASONIC PLASMA; MY BIGGEST GRIPE IS THE POWER
CONSUMPTION. YOU NEVER GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING MY DAD ALWAYS SAID.
NOW THAT PIONEER HAS COMMISSIONED PANASONIC TO MANUFACTURE ITS "KURO"
SCREENS; THE CHOICE SHOULD BE OBVISIOUS. PANASONIC!!!
Where do you find one?
I want the 58...800U, and Panasonic just says "sometime this summer!"
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
by JohnMarat - 5/1/08 7:05 AM
I'm currently in the market for a new flat panel. After much research and visiting BB or CC. I've come to the conclusion that Plasma is the way to go and here's why.
First, No motion blur. The motion blur on LCD's is so hard to watch. I watch a lot of sports and the LCD just can't handle the motion like plasma.
Second, Plasma has realistic colors and brightness. Whenever you go into BB or CC you'll notice how pretty and bright the LCD's are compared to the plasma's(like moths drawn to the light). This to me is unrealistic. While the picture LCD's give off is pretty and bright this isn't enough justification.
Third, The viewing angles on LCD are horrible. Everyone can't sit right in front of the TV.
Fourth, The black levels are insane on plasma. If you like that washed out greyish blacks of LCD's go for it.
With the only real negative plasma has for it is Burn-In and Image Retention. After much research this almost never occurs anymore if it does its fixable.
I do agree with LCD black levels, but they are better...
Have you seen the Samsung A650? I believe you'd agree that's the best LCD on the market, period. I noticed it first hand, and I compared it to a Pioneer Kuro. The blacks actually looked darker on the Samsung, and that 120Hz Auto-Motion Plus was indeed the cat's pajamas as far as reducing motion blur. So, the gap in plasma and LCD performance is indeed narrowing, imo, and that's the reason why.
by gretzkyv99 - 5/1/08 7:54 AM
In Reply to: I do agree with LCD black levels, but they are better... by 8IronBob
60 Pioneer Elite (Cmon its a Pioneer
I agree the A650 Lcd's are gorgeous but if I want a shiny screen, I'll take a Pioneer.
Until everything is broadcast in 1080p I'll chose plasmas anyday. Imo plasmas look better in SD, and lastly most large Lcd's (52+) look bad to me, but that 65Se Sharp looks pretty sweet.
Pioneer`s KURO line have the best picture I`ve ever seen.
My Sony has a 178 degree good viewing angle. I tested it and it's true. I just have to make sure I am at least 5 feet back to get a good picture. And I do get a good picture.
I don't know if this is still an issue (or ever was for that matter), but I heard the life expectancy of a plasma could be 4 - 6 years. To me, that's rather short for something in the 4 digit price range. I don't own either so I can't speak from experience. Any thoughts?
I've been researching for the best 50'' HDTV flat panel. After what i have considered over plasma and LCD, I have gone with LCD. You may ask why...
My opinion on the picture quality of an LCD screen has really no comparison.. I do agree that plasma has a slightly better picture although you would have to place 2 tvs side by side to see a difference. Plus, Plasma screen tvs use more energy, cost more and are heavier (i tend to place my tv on my wall). The TV that i have now is a 50'' 1080P LCD Sony Bravia which cost around 2 grand compared to a Plasma of the same size which costed about $2700-3200 average. Far best picture that I have seen from an LCD screen. The only downfall is the viewing angles which is not a problem in our living space. Basically you would have to look at the tv at an extreme angle to notice it.I play my Playstation 3 and watch Blu-Ray disks without motion blur in 1080p mode. Motion blur occurs on this tv mostly in 1080i, which again is minimal.
No doubt that a plasma has a better picture. But really, you cant notice it unless you place 2 tvs side-by-side and study them for an hour. Really folks, if you want THAT MUCH BETTER picture and spend an extra 1000 bucks than thats just great.
Stick with the Plasma
by OccamMD - 5/1/08 10:21 AM
I have a Pioneer Kuro 50" 1080p and couldn't be happier. The blacks are excellent and blu-ray looks far better to me than on my HD LCD. I was afraid of plasma in the past, but burn-in seems to be a minimal issue for normal use now and the lifespans are quite good. They definitely both have their place, but the picture of the plasma definitely wins hands down. And, the plasma can runs 1080p 24Hz @ 72Hz where my LCD is stuck @ 60Hz. Granted some are up to 120HZ, which works this out, but the plasma is quite crisp and quick.
LCD TV, Quality is only part of the issue
by Bruce Burns - 5/1/08 10:23 AM
As you mentioned plasma takes more power there for adds to global warming even if indirectly.
We must take responcability for our carbon footprint and that begins in the home.
Do not let your senses dictate your priorities. Use your head and be responcable for your excessive energy usage.
I love my Plasma Panasonic 57". The blacks are fantastic and I don't miss the LCD blur one bit, especially during a soccer match. As for the eco footprint, I intend to leave not a foot print but a four lane paved highway so Al can continue to prosper with his mission to mislead those incapable of thinking for themselves. Heck he might even invent something else besides the internet and derision. He might even get another second rate nobel prize that he earned this time. Politicians are like motorcycles. If you ain't good or fast be noisy.
Quality vs weight & efficiency
by punterjoe - 5/1/08 10:30 AM
Although the gap is narrowing, I will concede a slight edge to Plasma. It is still not enough to offset the difference in weight (and therefore ease of mounting) and energy efficiency of LCD screens. As for quality, I'm confident the near future holds more giant leaps in performance & quality from technologies still in the R&D labs or early limited (& expensive) release.
At this moment, LCD would be more than adequate for my needs. ...but I'm a pragmatist, not a purist.
Plasma the best
Cnet said: "If they did die, I would be very sad to see them go. Why? Because I love my plasma HDTV. While I do own a LCD HDTV of almost equal size to my plasma, in my opinion the plasma TV picture is far superior to that of the LCD (remember folks this is my personal opinion). While it's not comparing apples with apples, my eyes do tell me what's true."
I own both a plasma and an LCD TV...and plasma wins hands down!!!!
Size is a consideration
by cbfifi - 5/1/08 10:40 AM
I need smaller sizes for my small home. Plasma isn't really an option since I want the screen size to make sense with the overall size of my room and my rooms have to be multifunctional. Not a technical answer - but still part of the overall consideration.
I definitely would have went with a plasma, but couldn't because I needed a 32 inch TV. I simply don't have room for a bigger one. After two weeks, I have yet to get my LCD to look anywhere as good as my old Sony 27 inch WEGA I sold to help pay for my Sharp AQUOS LCD. It's just not the same. Here's hoping I won't always feel that way!
Why get the equivalent of a "gas guzzler"
by Themisive - 5/1/08 10:41 AM
Plasma TVs are really power hungry, most of which is lost in the form of heat. Some will say "so what", the answer is why pay through the nose!
There will always be some sort of case for having them, but it all boils down to "keeping up with the Joneses", after all they are not much better than an LCD unless they are around 42" or more, and who needs something that size in their living room?
While everyone is talking LCD versus plasma I have heard that there is a laser projector on development which is supposed to be far better than anything available at the present, of course this could be just an urban myth and there is no such thing.
CRT tv's are better.
by dandan68 - 5/1/08 10:42 AM
If I had to choose between Plasma or LCD I would pick
the Plasma technology. But in my opinion, the CRT HD sets are better than both of them.
I own a 46" Sony Wega rear projection Tv that beats them
both. It is too bad that they are phased out. Yes they
are big and use a lot more power but my vote still goes
I have spoken to several technicians that delivered my
LCD set and they readily agreed.
by Ken Jr. - 5/1/08 10:51 AM
1. There's a depth to a plasma TV picture that you don't see with LCD. I would liken the LCD to looking at a picture of, for instance, a pastoral scene. I would liken the plasma to looking out the window at that same pastoral scene.
2. My 50" Panasonic Plasma TV's blacks are indeed black, not some shade of gray or purple but a good honest black. It makes all the difference in the world in the sense of a feeling of reality, of being there.
3. I can get far off angle from my TV's face and still see the picture just as well as someone sitting in the sweet spot. That means a lot in my house.
One might wonder whether it was Panasonic or Pioneer that first proposed the idea of Panasonic manufacturing Pioneer's plasmas. After all, chances are good that Panasonic, in this deal, also gained full rights to Pioneer's advanced plasma technology.
Until there's a technology that yields a picture that matches the quality of the plasma's picture, you can bet that plasma isn't going anywhere.
Are you guys forgetting there is another HDTV option.. DLP.
Ive had a 50'' DLP for about two years now and it rocks. I left it on for a week by accident and went on vacation and there was no burn in.
Cant believe this was left out.
I totally agree. I worked at Best Buy for awhile and decided after looking at those TV's for hours and hours that DLP was the hands down winner. Unfortunately, my space doesn't allow for a DLP. My dream one day (looks wistfully at the sky) is to turn my basement into a home theater and you can bet that I will be installing a DLP projector!
LCD still isn't equal to plasma
by snidely9447 - 5/1/08 10:59 AM
Have had one of our plasmas for many years - long before you could buy them at a local store. A 42" Panny ED that cost $5K. No burn in. Also have 2 later model 50" Pannys (one in each home) HD models.
1. Plasma is more lifelike and realistic.
2. Handles action better.
3. Contrast (black levels) better
4. Still cheaper.
Someone mentioned the energy saving of LCD. That is one compromise I am unwilling to make to quality. I use florescent bulbs to excess, drive small compacts, recycle - but won't give up a quality picture so save a few watts.
I suppose if we had kids who used the main display to play games, i would think LCD. OTH, if we did, I may just get him (do females play) a smallish LCD so as not to interrupt normal TV viewing.
Don't forget that virtually all retail stores have all their displays configured to settings that aren't normal. To compare I would suggest visiting friends who have the various types and models. Or go to CES in January where the mfrs. take great pains to show their products in the best possible way<G>.
Sony sets aren't at the factory default, they are set to vivid. one setting different than out of the box. you can set it that way too.
I LOVE PLASMA!
by darkoon - 5/1/08 11:14 AM
I also have a Kuros 50inch plasma. One word: AWESOME.
No LCD has reached the potential of the plasma tv, even though not all plasma TV's are alike, they are still more vibrant than LCD. I got a PS3 with many blu-ray movies and my games look excellent on the Pioneer. I hereby clap my hands to the greatest plasma I have ever seen (clap clap clap). I wish Plasma improves more instead of giving up on the technology.
Plasma for me
by Piper30 - 5/1/08 11:16 AM
I have one of each too and there is no comparison as far as the picture quality between my LCD and my Plasma. The Plasma picture is far superior!!!