TV's Plasma vs. LCD

When we bought ours DLP was the way to go. But that was a year and a half ago.

 

I assume you are talking about LCD TV not a projector right?

 

We own both types of lcd. The flat panel (Sony) is sleek and has a great HD picture. Standard cable is just ok. The 42" lcd projector (also Sony) has an HD picture as good as plasma, does not suffer burn-in, is lighter weight, and runs considerably cooler while using less energy - like the prius
However, lcd projectors also suffer from a narrow viewing angle, especially if the tv is elevated (i.e. you are not viewing the tv screen straight on). Having said that, I'm happy with both purchases.
My next tv might be plasma. Panasonic has been leading the plasma pack for a while, and prices have dropped considerably from just a year ago. Newer plasma tv's are also not as susceptible to burn-in as earlier models.

 

Yes, Plasmas and LCDs will play regular cable/satellite programming---there's simply not enough HD programming out there yet---although I did recently read about an all-HD channel (which would have to be quite a mix of stuff).

plasmas: more vivid colors (usually); consume much more power; heat up a lot more; can get "burn-in"; gas cells can "fall out" (no fix for that!); will support larger screens (though the gap is narrowing); can be viewed from a wider angle (though that gap is narrowing, too); has totally black blacks, thus better contrast (again, gap narrowing)

LCDs: more expensive per square inch; run cool and use less power; as indicated, catching up to plasmas wherever there were deficiencies Beware of LCDs that were manufactured a year or more ago. NEVER buy a set you can't return (usually no problem). Many sets do NOT include the HD apapter/tuner. Technology is evolving rapidly.

Info is from online comparative tech sources (e.g., C-NET) and Consumer Reports. Suggest reading entire recent Consumer Reports article on "state of the art".

Most common buyer's remorse: people buy too small a screen because it's so expensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Dec, 08:43 PM) [snapback]367521[/snapback]</div>

We get many (a dozen or so) HD channels in our cable package. Some of them are the HD broadcasts of the major networks ABC, NBC, etc. There's also Discovery HD, HDnet, ESPN HD, PBS HD, and a few others.

 

I've had a Pioneer plasma for three years now and no burn in issues. We don't leave static images on it though. I suggest spending some time at this site for tons of info to decide what might be best for you:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/index.php?
Scroll down to the appropriate forum. Costco has some great deals and is carrying quite a few flat panels and have a great return policy. Where ever you end up buying use a charge card that adds to the warranty.

 

Have you considered a projector? You get a much bigger image from a much smaller device, and you can mount a retractable screen to the wall. You can even mount the projector itself on the ceiling, and then the whole arrangement occupies virtually zero room space. I don't know the comparitive costs.

 

There isn't much of a contest anymore, LCD (the really expensive kind) looks better than Plasma. But do you really want to pay that much?

Plasma uses dots that are either Red, Green, or Blue. Side by side, each combination of 3 represents a pixel. In other words, it translates to a deep, rich combination... but it's still not as pure as the single "pixel" per color from LCD. It is an approximation, not exact. That does look pretty darn good though. And you may not exploit that ability for years anyway.

You'll be quite disappointed with VHS tapes. A regular DVD upconverted (using just a $99 player) looks amazing in comparison.

 

So what is the consensus on DLPs now? 2yrs ago Plasma was the best but most expensive with questionable shelf-life. DLP had the best contrast and therefore was the choice for home theatre people. LCD was bright but had bad contrast compared to a DLP (500:1 vs 1500:1)

I'm very happy with my Samsung 50" DLP but you do have to have a good player to take full advantage of the picture. The first time I hooked up regular cable I was very dissapointed. Until I went in the other room and tried watching the same show on my 35" CRT TV lol.

 

Personally, I would never buy a plasma display because of burn-in issues. Even though I get about thirty HD channels between locals and my Dish Network HD pack, I still watch plenty of SD content, and I'd prefer to not have to stretch/zoom the picture just because the display is susceptible to burn-in. I used to do that with the first HDTV I bought seven years ago and it got old really fast.

Although there are some inexpensive plama sets available, 1080p models are still quite a bit more expensive than LCD. I can get a 46" Mits 1080p LCD panel for $2499 locally, but 1080p plasmas start at $8k (Pioneer Elite and Panasonic only at this point I believe). The cheap plasmas that are price competitive with LCD panels are either 1366x768 (square pixel) or 1024x768 (rectangular pixel). I find the difference between the low-resolution panels and 1920x1080 quite noticeable, so I'd never buy one of the cheap low-res plasmas.

I know you're looking at flat panels, but I find that LCoS displays have the smoothest, most natural film-like picture of any of the display technologies. The latest JVC HD-ILA displays are a match for Sony's SRXD sets in picture quality and haven't suffered the horrible QC issues that Sony's sets have (the green blob problem). I've owned two Mitsubishi Diamond series DLPs and I like the picture of the LCoS displays better.

If you want to get answers from people who really know their stuff, check out avsforum.com.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Dec 27 2006, 09:49 PM) [snapback]367560[/snapback]</div>

Where do you come up with this crap?

You obviously have no clue how LCD display technology works. Each pixel in an LCD display is made up of a red, a green, and a blue sub-pixel, just like in a plasa display.

Close-up of LCD display

I love how you attribute the difference in picture quality to something that doesn't even exist. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 28 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]367555[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that is the way to go. I plan on doing that in 2007, after doing a ton of research.

Since I have to update anyway from my 'old' 56 inch rear projector HDTV, with only a DVI input...

 

I just recently made my first big A/V purchase, a 50" plasma TV. I did tons of research over a period of 6 months and reached what I think was the best overall decision for my particular application.

First of all, there are a LOT of myths about plasma displays out there. The biggest one is burn in. True, older plasma displays were prone to burn in (as old projection displays were) but that concern has been really totally eliminated providing you calibrate your set properly. Out of the box the sets are run extremely bright for floor display, either pay a professional or do it yourself with a calibration disc but they need to be adjusted properly. Once you do that, you'll never have an issue with burn in. I've watched mine for 3 months now, SD content in 4:3, movies in super widescreen, video games, zero burn in. My father has a 2 year old Panasonic plasma and he isn't careful at all and even still has it set super bright out of the box, he has zero burn in. Burn in is a thing of the past.

The second myth is lifespan. Modern plasma displays have a half life of 60,000 hours. That means the set will be half as bright as when new after 60,000 hours of use (and remember, since you calibrated it you can always turn it up). Now, if you watched the TV constantly, 24 hours a day thats 7 years until it reaches its half life. If you watch it 5 hours a day (still a lot) thats 33 years. Remember, thats until the display is half as bright. How old is your TV now? 33? Probably not.

So, for me the plasma was the best bet. I wanted the thin profile, the ability to wall mount eventually even though its on a stand now, the wide viewing angle, the whole nine yards. Didn't want to pay for a flat LCD, and they didn't come big enough for my room.

My next peice of advice is if you're not interested in HD content, don't buy one of these TVs. Standard TV does not look great on them, even in 4:3 format. If you're going to spend $1500-2000 on a TV and don't want to spring for the extra $10 a month for an HD box from your cable company, your money is better spent elsewhere. Or, buy an ED-plasma instead of an HD-plasma. Better yet? Just buy an ordinary TV.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Dec 28 2006, 12:46 AM) [snapback]367574[/snapback]</div>

So how do you explain difference?

It is very, very easy to see the separate RGB in Plasma, that is not true for LCD.

And yes, I'm well aware that RGB electronic breakdown still exists. But that image you linked is certainly not from the newest LCD technology. Division within each pixel is definitely not detectable like that anymore. I can see the difference clearly, just by a simple observation at Best Buy. Plasma RGB is similar to the high-quality CRT, but with the obvious advantage of being larger & thinner.

Regardless, LCD is more than just a trend. All large computer monitors use it, rather than Plasma. Sony has exclusively went LCD, dropping Plasma manufacturing entirely. And most noticeably, the angle viewing has improved quite a bit recently.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Dec 27 2006, 11:58 PM) [snapback]367591[/snapback]</div>

First of all, I would not claim that LCD flat panels produce a better picture than plasma. Most video afficionados prefer the picture from a plasma display over that of an LCD. And my personal preference is for LCoS over all others.

It's a huge waste of my time to try to explain this to you - I may as well be trying to explain this to my cat. You're about on equal footing when it comes to understanding technology. Nevertheless, here is one reason why plasmas are considered to have superior picture quality to LCD: black levels. LCDs are transmissive devices (they allow the light from the backlight to pass through them). In order to produce a good black, they have to block out all the light from the backlight. Since the individual picture elements never get completely opaque, some light still leaks through, and black levels are usually a weak point with LCD displays. You could put a dark tinted screen in front of the panel to improve black leveks, but then you would lose precious peak light output, since even a fully "on" LCD picture element blocks some of the backlight. So contrast ratios have been a problem with LCDs too. Plasmas emit light when phosphors are excited by UV photons, so to get black you just shut off the photon source and no light is emitted. So plasmas are considered to produce better black levels than LCDs currently.

See, it's not the simple picture you paint, and it's not even in agreement with you.

More rubbish from an uninformed source. Consider the pixel density of a 42" LCD flat panel display. The pixel density is about 8x less (2.7x less in each dimension) than the pixel density of a typical LCD computer monitor. That makes the pixels very large and easy to see. Also, given equivalent panel sizes and panel resolution, the pixels are going to be the same size on plasma or LCD. Duh.

Dell 2001FP: 20" LCD 1600x1200 = 100ppi or 10,000 pixels per square inch.

Typical 42" LCD TV: 1366x768 = 37dpi or 1390 pixels per square inch.

Pixel substructure is hard to see at typical computer monitor resolutions of 100dpi. It's easy to see at typical TV resolutions of 37dpi.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Dec 27 2006, 11:24 PM) [snapback]367581[/snapback]</div>

The lousy SD quality is due to a crappy deinterlacer/scaler. You can buy an outboard scaler and get much better SD quality on your HDTV. There was a powerbuy on AVSForum for a Key Digital iSync HD recently. Regular price was $1500, powerbuy price was around $699. There's also a guy on Videogon.com who is selling a one-month old iSync HD for $649. Both of these are very good deals and I'd urge anyone in need of a low cost scaler to take a look at the iSync HD. Reviews of it rate it as good as any scaler costing $3k.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Dec 27 2006, 08:43 PM) [snapback]367521[/snapback]</div>

Do you realize that every scripted prime time TV show on the networks is in HD, and has been for several years??? There is probably more HD programming out there than you realize. I just counted - my HD pack with Dish Network has 35 HD channels, and that's in addition to a half-dozen or more HD local channels.

Just to name a few: Discovery HD, TNT HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, FoodTV HD, HGTV HD, National Geographic HD, NFL HD, Starz HD, Showtime HD, HBO HD, Universal HD.