PDA

View Full Version : plasma v LCD


D SQDRN 97th IOTC
25th Aug 2008, 15:19
which is better now?
and if you had 1500 quid to spend on one....46"....what would it be?

frostbite
25th Aug 2008, 15:28
Plasma has more downsides than LCD as far as I'm concerned - not that I'd spend 1500 or even 500 to get the same old same old, but bigger.

Eboy
25th Aug 2008, 15:31
Plasma consumes more power than an LCD.

Rainboe
25th Aug 2008, 15:37
Plasma has an undoubtedly, far and away, better picture. Go to a showroom and walk around and see for yourself. It's sheer perfection compared to a computer monitor LCD!

VH-MLE
25th Aug 2008, 15:49
If you have children that like to play computer games (Play station etc) and have a habit of walking off leaving the same image on screen for a period of time, I'm advised that that image can be burnt into the screen - to what degree I have no idea.

Based on that advice I went for an LCD (which apparently doesn't suffer from the same effect) because my kids do just what I described above. I've had a 46" LCD for around 6 months now and thoroughly enjoy it.

Good luck with your purchase.

NIGELINOZ
25th Aug 2008, 15:57
I recently had to make the same decision and a friend sent me the following.

Summary of pros & cons:

PlasmaScreen SizePlasma screens tend to be larger, with screen sizes up to around 71".WeightHeavier than LCDs, Plasmas often need to be wall-mounted by professionals, incurring an additional expense as well as the extra delivery cost.Picture QualityPlasmas tend to have deeper blacks and better contrastScreen Refresh RatesBetter motion tracking Burn-in or Stuck PixelsPlasma TVs are more susceptible to burn-in of static images however new technology has significantly reduced the effects.Energy usagePlasma uses slightly more power than LCD screens.Performance at High AltitudeHigh altitudes can affect the performance of plasma displays LCDScreen SizeGenerally up to 46", though there have been larger screens made, these are not yet readily available or affordable.WeightLCDs weigh less meaning they are cheaper to ship and easier to wall mount.Picture QualityLower contrast ratio, not as good rendering deep blacks. LCD TVs reflect very little light, allowing them to maintain levels in well-lit rooms.Screen Refresh RatesLCD refresh rates have improved greatly so there is only a slight edge to plasma technology these days.Burn-in or Stuck PixelsThis is not a problem with LCD screens, but they can suffer from dead pixels.Energy usageSlightly less than Plasma screens.Performance at High AltitudeLCDs are not affected by high altitude.

If you PM me I will send you the website link.

Bushfiva
25th Aug 2008, 15:59
All things being equal, LCD = more robust, longer life. Plasma = better contrast in darker rooms. In a couple of years, plasma will be gone from the market.

Spitoon
25th Aug 2008, 16:20
So get your plasma now.




I have a 42" plasma - about 6 months old. Absolutely cracking picture for movies and general viewing. Can't really explain why but much nicer than LCD when compared next to each other.

Jimmy Macintosh
25th Aug 2008, 16:54
As has been said,

Plasma:
Better picture, better blacks, consumes more power. Heavier than LCD. (comment removed due to it being wrong).
Careful use required for the first 100 hours, after this burn in is not an issue. Faster response times (for image update).

LCD:
Blacks are getting better, can occasionally get bleed through of back light and hence slight color variation across screen. No burn in issues. In a brightly lit room still a highly visible image (unlike plasma)

I've had both at 42", given the choice I would go back to plasma, especially with High definition content. But still am very happy with my LCD.

Believe it or not, the biggest issue is to make sure you calibrate the TV, whichever one you get, otherwise the only guiding factor is power consumption. Recommend using DVE calibration disc (takes about an hour)or a professional.

Nowadays, it's more down to personal preference, which picture you like the best. Bear in mind bright isn't a good guideline, I found an excellent article on what to look for in a TV screen, if I find it I'll post a link.

Have a look at the picture, look at the edges of white text see if the colour edge is crisp or blurry, does the edge of the white look pink next to red etc. In large areas of colour see if there is the apperance of block shading (steps in the color gradiation)
Look at diagonal lines to see if they look like steps or straight.

If you go to CNET and read the reviews, they describe the issues some TV's have that are worth looking out for.

frostbite
25th Aug 2008, 18:08
Lots of information and debate at

AVForums : The UK's biggest and best audio visual home consumer electronics forums (http://www.avforums.com/forums/index.php)

B Fraser
25th Aug 2008, 18:32
Plasma requires tubes to be re-gassed

In a couple of years, plasma will be gone from the market.

Bolleaux on both counts. Buy a Pioneer plasma if you have the dosh, Panasonic PZ80, 81, 85 or 800 series are the best of the rest,

Loose rivets
25th Aug 2008, 19:14
Plasma has an undoubtedly, far and away, better picture. Go to a showroom and walk around and see for yourself. It's sheer perfection compared to a computer monitor LCD!


Not that I've seen my T/V for months, but when I wanted one, I spent weeks trying to decide on what to get. I plumped for the Sony 50 projection LCD.

I've told this before, but a British couple were in the store in Tx and he says to his missus, "It's so real, that if you were there, It wouldn't look that real."

I've never seen mine at 1080 p but 720 p or 1080i are very very good. I speak as one who sold expensive monitors for broadcast...well, monitoring.:}

niknak
25th Aug 2008, 19:53
1500 will buy you one hell of a lot of TV these days.
Nearly every point has been covered here, but to get a good idea of the best gear and best value for money, without being hassled by inept sales staff only interested in commission, go to John Lewis.

mixture
25th Aug 2008, 19:57
How about a bit of unbiased advice over at Which?

LCD vs plasma TVs (http://www.which.co.uk/advice/lcd-vs-plasma-tvs/index.jsp)

Nearly every point has been covered here, but to get a good idea of the best gear and best value for money, without being hassled by inept sales staff only interested in commission, go to John Lewis.

Yes, but John Lewis have a very limited range.

Do your research and then buy the one you want based on your own research. Then you don't need to consult any sales rep, whether they work for John Lewis or otherwise.

AntiCrash
25th Aug 2008, 21:24
I'm not sure if this is still the case but the plasma screens can get a burned image. I noticed this on a friends set that was switching between HD and normal. The aspect rations are a little different and the were two visible bars of burn in on the right and left edge after one month whilst in HD.

It is possible that this has been fixed.

vapilot2004
25th Aug 2008, 22:56
Plasma shows motion brilliantly at near-CRT speeds while LCDs take a bit of time (called refresh rate) to change from one color state to the next. Look for refresh rates on LCDs under 6ms to rival a plasmas capability. Some people will notice the difference, while others will not. Fast-changing scenes will be the test.

Plasma - heavier, uses more current and runs hotter

Plasma - the screen is very delicate. Moving, shipping
vibrations or the family metzgerhund can wreck the set easily.

Plasma - better at recreating 'true black' levels in a scene.

LCD sets have superior luminosity in bright settings such as a living room bathed in daylight.

The burn in factor on plasma sets is only an issue with video games
as previously mentioned and flying logos ala BBC or CNN (sorry to put these two in the same category). :}
Newer sets can detect the steady state images and subtly vary the output to the screen to reduce this effect.

Brands:
It has been recommended to me to buy RCA, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba and Panasonic. While Pioneer and Mitsubishi produce great quality TVs, they are more expensive to repair and both companies have orphaned their own products in the past with parts unavailability and by selling only large assemblies rather than the 99p transistor that failed.

When connected via an HDMI cable to a Sony DVD player, the Bravia video engine in a Sony LCD set performs some magical up-conversions from standard resolution DVD movies to a great looking faux-HD output. I have yet to see a better looking result from other brands in this area.

One of our neighbors is a retired engineer (GE) and currently operates a present day oddity,a local TV & Stereo repair shop. Over the odd brew and bit of spirit with this gentleman, I have been educated in the area of consumer electronics. Some of my points above are repeats of already posted advice.

Loose rivets
26th Aug 2008, 01:37
Life of the fans not as important as the collected dust I would guess.

My projector should not be confused with the old projector T/Vs, it really is a different animal.

Three dimensional laying out of pixels. Superb.

Anti glare surface still showing a bit on panning background. Much better than the previous incarnation of this model.

Depth at base needs about 18" space, really not a problem in the average American home, but for a small English home it could be. In the US, the wood stud wall can often be modified to sink the unit in. Must be vented however.

Has a powerful bulb that has to be changed after so many hours. I run mine on low bulb setting, makes a huge difference, and sets the picture for a not too bright room...which is what you want IMHO

Loose rivets
26th Aug 2008, 01:41
Hee Heee.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Rejection.jpg

She shunned me she did.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/17thSept06089.jpg

Just snapped off the screen, but you would expect to see every eye-lash and strand of hair, every pore of the facial skin when at life size.

Bushfiva
26th Aug 2008, 02:05
Bolleaux on both counts. Buy a Pioneer plasma if you have the dosh

This is slightly old info (because the relationships between screen manufacturers are labyrinthine and change frequently), but may want to check if your Pioneer comes off a Pioneer or, say, NEC production line, then. Sony screens come from the Hitachi/Fujitsu JV or NEC. Philips is Hitachi/Fujitsu chassis with its own bezel. Panasonic also supplies Toshiba, JVC, Hitachi/Fujitsu. Although Hitachi/Fujitsu have their own plasma factory, only the 42" Fujitsu has a Hitachi/Fujitsu screen in it.

So if you're buying Hitachi, it may be a Hitachi/Fujitsu, NEC or Pioneer screen. Toshiba is OEM from Panasonic. Going way off-brand, Runco for example is OEM from Pioneer and NEC, but saves a wodge of cash.

Matsushita/Panasonic is about the only brand where you can be sure everything is made by that manufacturer.

Plasma has something like 5% of the manufacturing capacity of LCD/OLED, and declining.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
26th Aug 2008, 06:46
quad LNB?

there's a difference between 1080p and 1080i ?

sounds like for a bright room, I should be going for LCD

Anyone out there got a view on the Sony 46" Bravia?

Bushfiva
26th Aug 2008, 07:12
"p" = progressive scan. "i"=interlaced scan. All things being equal, "p" will look sharper and (side effect) moving objects will be crisper IF you also have a 1080p/24bit data source. Right now, that's pretty much Blu Ray only. (And HD DVD, I forgot :-)


Last I heard, hi-def broadcasts were 720p or 1080i. I don't know if anyone's broadcasting 1080p either over cable or over the air.

If you're watching broadcast movies, then you also get pulldown artifacts (basically the conversion between 24fps of film to 29.97 of NTSC. With PAL, they frequently just let the movie run 4% faster).

With live sporting events, there are other considerations such as lossy compression at various points in the process, from the camera right through to transmission.

So yes, 1080p looks better than 1080i if you have a genuine 1080p source which arrives at the screen as 1080p. Right now, that source will probably be another piece of equipment in your house rather than an outside signal.

Rainboe
26th Aug 2008, 10:22
Why spend 1500? Heard on the radio today Samsung 42'' plasma 499 now. Whatever size you decide, because of the price drop, go bigger! I worked out the right size for my room, got a 42''.....and my first thought was 'I should have got a 50''!'

Flap 5
26th Aug 2008, 10:56
I am waiting for the 58" Panasonic plasma to come down in price. I have a 43" Pioneer and upgrading to 50" is just not a big enough step up.

LCD's not so good above 40". But they are probably better for smaller screens.

The Real Slim Shady
26th Aug 2008, 11:55
I'm with Loose Rivets on this.

We have the 50 Sony projector LCD, which replaced a Panasonic 42 Plasma, and it is superb. Much better for watching the footie as the refresh rate seems higher.

They are available for around 1000 which leaves you enough dosh to buy another TV for the bedroom!

parabellum
26th Aug 2008, 12:31
Heard that they are thinking of banning plasma here in Australia as they are not 'green' enough, it was a small article in a newspaper about a year ago, so they could go off the market, especially in countries that have a very active 'green' lobby.

Loose Rivets - That lady in the pictures has a nice face but she is much too skinny!

CargoMatatu
26th Aug 2008, 13:08
Having also undergone this agonising study of all types/models over the last eighteen months or so, I finally took the plunge this weekend.

Got myself a Samsung Series 6 LCD.

Totally brilliant! :ok:

I was swaying back and forth between the series 5 and the series 6, both looked the same in the showroom, but the screen update of the series 6 of six milliseconds as opposed to the series 5's eight milliseconds, together with the series 6's plasma equivalent black shades did it.

Actually enjoying watching tv again now! :confused:

Of course, it's all a matter of personal preference. Enjoy whatever it is you choose to buy in the end.

Saab Dastard
26th Aug 2008, 13:18
On the subject of burn-in of static images, I saw a plasma screen in a rugby club bar that was obviously acquired vvv cheap, as it had the previous owner's corporate name and logo burnt-in.

The previous company?

....Enron

:}

Checkboard
26th Aug 2008, 13:52
If you want real performance, then wait for an OLED TV of decent size! Another year or so :ok:

B Fraser
26th Aug 2008, 19:35
Heard that they are thinking of banning plasma here in Australia as they are not 'green' enough

Strange comment from the land of the ute, barbie, freezing cold beer and the Holden V8 :ooh:

Back to the plot, Pioneer will shortly source their plasma displays from Panasonic linking their market leading picture processing to the market leading panel.

One of the most competent blu-ray playing SD dvd upscalers is the Sony PS3 so now the kidults have a perfect excuse for buying one.

Who else watched Olympic beach volleyball in HD :E Sue Barker on the other hand :yuk:

parabellum
27th Aug 2008, 02:05
"Strange comment from the land of the ute, barbie, freezing cold beer and the Holden V8"

20 million people in a land the size of North America! Our footprint on the environment is a fraction of 1% of the rest of the world.

andyandlinda
27th Aug 2008, 11:17
I have a top of the range Pioneer Plasma 50" with full surround sound etc cost in total was 5800 the tv was 3500 alone although it can now be bought for around 2600.
It is total perfection and blows everyone away when they see it i never regret buying it picture quality is amazing.

If you want to see the best TVs supplied by what i think is the best dealer check out www.tlcbroadcast.co.uk (http://www.tlcbroadcast.co.uk) it is run by a nice chap that edits a lot of HD stuff for the BBC etc. There customer service is outstanding.

Loose rivets
27th Aug 2008, 12:56
Skinny??!! You're talking of the Lois Lane that I love.:E

YouTube - Sexy Legs: Teri Hatcher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZtTDdXjv-I)


Bravia. I was baby-sitting at me son's house and he had decided not to go with the projector. At first, I wondered if I'd made a mistake, but after an hour I was sure I hadn't.

The later version of the projector was so much better than the first, that...well, I got one. Mind you... the $4,500 had gone down to $2,400 by the time I pounced. When I get back, it'll probably be about tuppence.

Having said this, the Blue-Ray was $1,000 (the only thing that would drive my unit to 1080p) so perhaps that'll be down to a reasonable level by now. Mind you, Net Flix will have to be stocking a lot more fillums than they were earlier.

I suppose that Blue-Ray having won, the fillum makers won't have to supply the competition Hi-Def, and it will make it cheaper to produce the B-R product. Hopefully I'll know in a week or two.