TV's Plasma vs. LCD

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 28 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]367810[/snapback]</div>

If you buy it at Costco you can return it anytime.Its like a free extended warranty .I had a defective cell phone that their sales pitch was that I could return it anytime if it breaks.They said someone returned one after 2 years.Sure enough after a year I needed to replace mine.
They have a 42 Panasonic $1299 before $200 rebate .#TH-42PH9UK

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Dec 28 2006, 12:34 AM) [snapback]367594[/snapback]</div>

As noted, for a fair comparison, one should compare LCD and Plasma TVs of the same size. Otherwise, the pixel density becomes an issue.

Currently however, plasma displays can look slightly more "pixel-y" compared to LCDs of the same size. This is because the metal mask spacing between plasma cells is larger than the spacing between LCD cells due to the high voltage involved. Hitachi has however been making advances in reducing the inter-pixel spacing on plasma sets, as have other manufacturers.

Regarding plasma screen burn-in, it should be roughly the same as a standard CRT, because the phosphors in a plasma display are similar to those found in a CRT, and are stimulated in the same way. The major difference between plasma displays and CRTs is that each pixel in a plasma display has it's own tiny dedicated electron source, while a CRT only has a single electron gun (actually, a triple for RGB) shared by all the pixels.

Also, one should note that while Plasma/CRTs are prone to "burn-in" over time, LCDs are prone to "burn-out" over time. This is because LCD pixels are lit by a cold cathode lamp that sits behind the liquid crystal layer, and this lamp slowly fades over time. This will result in the display getting progressively dimmer as the TV ages, just like LCDs in laptops do now. Whether or not the lamps in the current generation of LCD TVs can be replaced in the future is anyone's guess.

Peter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Dec 28 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]367821[/snapback]</div>

There is a rumor going around that the Costco return policy is going to become much stricter on Jan 1, 2007, due to abuse. A few people would keep returning TVs or computers just to get a new one.

Here is a link to the story: Stricter Costco return policy?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Dec 28 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]367797[/snapback]</div>

Plasma sets consume more power, as much as 2x more than equivalent size LCD panels. For instance, a 50" Pioneer plasma set consumes 525 watts, while a 46" Sony Bravia LCD uses only 227 watts. Standby power is usually just a few watts, if that. Just enough to run the IR receiver so it can turn on main power.

As far as which is greener, I can give you one data point. If you're familiar with RoHS, plasma displays have a waiver until 2010 for compliance. Very few plasma manufacturers are RoHS compliant now. On the other hand, many LCDs were already RoHS compliant in 2005.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Dec 28 2006, 02:24 AM) [snapback]367581[/snapback]</div>

To SW03ES - Thank you for your information. Would you mind telling me which plasma model you purchased?

 

Plasma TVs have a much shorter lifespan than manufacturers report... I've been told by TV techs about 6 years for average use. Also, images, such as station logos at the bottom right on almost all channels that remain on the screen a long time, get permanently "burned" in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Ed @ Dec 29 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]368216[/snapback]</div>

I have not found this to be true on my three and half year old Pioneer. I watch a lot of news and have not seen any logo image retention, let alone burn-in. The newer panels are suppose to be much better than mine. Many of the logos are now transparent looking. Also I have not had any retention or burn-in with movies that have a different aspect ratio than the screen where there are black bars top and bottom with higher contrast differences. My plasma has the ability to shift the images a pixel or two periodically to help cut down on burn-in. The plasma should be calibrated since out of the box they tend to be way to bright. It's easy to do with a special DVD or even the THX set up menu on any Pixar DVD. This will extend the life of the plasma also.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ Dec 29 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]368261[/snapback]</div>

Regarding burn-in, at work they purchased two low-end EDTV plasmas almost a year ago for cycling corporate videos. Unfortunately, nobody noticed a white "frame" around the video that didn't move. In less than 3 weeks (@ approx 8 hours a day), there was significant burn in. White being the "hottest" colour, probably accelerated this process a bit.

Personally, I have a 44" Toshiba DLP that I love. I appreciate the picture quality on the flat panel models as well, and like that they can hung on the wall, but I just don't like the fact that nothing can be done about burned pixels or the limited life expectancy, granted it is quite long. With DLP, there is NO chance of burn-in, and should the picture fade with time, simply change a bulb (~$200) and it is a brand new TV again.

My only observation is that DLP using sharp HDMI input is not very kind toward SD programming, and exposes the low-resolution content for what it truly is... <_<

Just my opinion...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 27 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]367500[/snapback]</div>

I subscribe to Consumer reports. Their report states plasma sets won't last as long and cost more. I would stay away from an HD "ready" set- I have one and it will be antiquated soon enough. The only way you can get an HD signal is through a 1/2 nice person convertor/receiver. Buy an HD set. All you will need to get local HD TV stations is a good roof antenna with your new HD set. A friend of mine bought a Sony 42" HD set 6 months ago and it has a very nice picture with straight cable and looks superior to my HD ready set. (No cable co. card or cable box). It's a very impressive set and is LCD. My next set will be a Sony XBR 60" LCD HD.

I personally take much stock in most of what Consumer Reports says. Hope this helps.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarge @ Dec 30 2006, 05:08 PM) [snapback]368692[/snapback]</div>

I would expect this to happen. The set was probably on torch mode and didn't have any other content played on it. You might check the menu and see if there is any mode for reversing the image (changes colors to opposite like a negative) and run at night and see if that helps. Also running other content like a movie to fill the screen might help make it look better.

 

Aware of the fact that the response to my original post was actually an attack on my credibility, rather than a constructive reply, I wanted to know how the things were manipulated to their favor. It took until now to figure it out...

That linked photo was suspcious. It's finally obvious why. There's way too much space between the pixels. In a new LCD, the horizontal & vertical black spacing are absolutely equal. That most definitely is not true in the photo. It's very easy to see that too.

That black between is almost non-existance in a LCD compared to a Plasma, even when comparing a very large LCD to a very small Plasma. The advantage for LCD is undisputable. Imagines look cleaner, due to the tighter pixel arrangement. Just ask the typical consumer. They'll mention a less grainy look in the LCD.

The other contributing look factor is the RGB separation itself. Even in the really high-quality Plasma, you can still see it. In the LCD, that just plain is not the case. However, the photo showed subpixel division despite that. Why? The answer is surprisingly simple. Just turn down the brightness to the point where images are so faint you can barely see anything. When you take an extreme close-up photo that way, the seperation is distinguishable. But that's an LCD optical effect not normally seen, unlike Plasma where it is plainly visible at normal operational brightness.

Of course, at this point, it doesn't matter much to those reading the thread. Others have pointed out the obvious power-consuming advantage of LCD. All of the industry uses LCD exclusively for smaller displays, and Sony has abandoned Plasma entirely. The technology advances are definitely making LCD more attractive.

Lastly, how come the reflective surface of Plasma doesn't get mentioned often? LCD has an undeniable advantage with its matte surface.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Dec 31 2006, 11:04 AM) [snapback]368994[/snapback]</div>

The statement that you made that I attacked was this:

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

This is just flat out wrong. You state that plasma displays create colors through separate red, green, and blue pixels but LCDs do not - you contrast plasma with "the single pixel per color from LCD". Those are your exact words.

How can you have any credibility when you write such ridiculous crap, and then refuse to admit when you were wrong? It really does a disservice to the readers of this forum when people, either deliberately or through ignorance post misinformation. Longtime readers of this forum can figure out on their own whose posts to trust and whose can't be relied upon, but new readers don't have that luxury.

 

It should be clear that there is no single display technology that is best for all screen sizes, all budgets, all applications and all viewers. As far as flat panels go today, plasma and LCD are fighting it out in the 42"-50" range, with LCD owning everything below 42", and plasma owning everything above 50" (mostly due to price advantages and disadvantages of LCD at both ends of the scale, IMO). Given what's happened over the past few years, it's reasonable to expect the plasma vs. LCD war to continue up the screen size chart as LCD displaces plasma. As far as I can tell, the most lusted-for flat panel display for videophiles is the Panasonic 65" 1080p plasma display @ $10k (I'd still take an LCoS RPTV or projector though).

Gary Merson is a long-time and well-respected writer covering HDTV and display technology. He wrote this article comparing LCD and plasma, and I believe it is still valid today: http://hdguru.com/?p=16

Interestingly, he claims that the power consumption of plasma and LCD sets of the same size is comparable. When I posted my numbers showing plasma requiring about 2x the power of LCD I was going by numbers published by the manufacturers.

 

I'm punting on LCD or Plasma for another year or two. I need a 46-52" to hang over the fireplace, I am a sony bigot, and I am not ready to toss 3.5-5.5K on an XBR3 at the moment, especially with some of the large size cloud/mura issues I am reading about on larger size LCDs. Also, I am estimating that mounting it in brick is going to cost me 800-1000 just to get that done so I am in no hurry.

For me, I am honestly considering a sony 34" TUBE sony wega hdtv as an interim step for the everyday room. It will go in the family room to replace the 27" tube, and will eventually go into the bedroom to replace the 27" there when upgraded in '09 or '10. This tube tv weighs 200 pounds. It probably sucks a lot of juice. However, I consider the quality of the sony tubes to be a steal at the current prices (about $850) and much much better than a lot of the LCDs out there. Again, I have never gone wrong with plopping down $ for a top sony, I just don't like to plop down too many $ at once.

As for projectors, take a look at the Infocus IN74 (about 3K). It is 720p DLP. I have it ceiling mounted projecting on a 110" fixed mount screen. The lumens are high enough to project 12 feet onto this screen with ambient lighting. I upgraded the screen to a high-gain (1.3) one and it makes a world of difference. The infocus is a good interim step projector until the 1080p ones come down in price.

EDIT: I'd be interested in anyone's suggestions for a good AV receiver. I have 2 Denon's that I need to upgrade as I start to flip over to HDTV. I've been a long time Denon fan, but I think I would consider other brands moving forward.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Dec 31 2006, 06:31 PM) [snapback]369053[/snapback]</div>

I have this very TV and let me tell you... it's amazing. 200 pounds is a bit on the light side, I think it's more like 240 or so, and it was a bitch to get down the stairs. I choose this TV over a 48" Samsung DLP and the various LCD TVs I had looked at. It just has the best picture available that I saw in that price range, bar none.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Dec 31 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]369053[/snapback]</div>

Check this one out Yamaha RX-V2700. Not outrageously expensive and fully loaded.
I have an older one (RX-Z9) and it's still in astounding shape, therefore I am even hesitant to upgrade, and my projector doesn't have HDMI so I don't care anyway at the moment until I get a new projector.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Dec 31 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]369053[/snapback]</div>

Denon is pretty much still top of the heap when it comes to receivers, though I have Marantz and Pioneer Elite receivers in two secondary HTs. The next step up is really separates. Anthem is very nice and moderately priced. I nearly went for some new Anthem components back when the Canadian dollar was weak against US currency, but I never pulled the trigger, and sometime later acquired some used Lexicon equipment off Audiogon.

When you get above the $2000 level for a processor, you want to make sure you have some kind of upgrade path, whether it be replaceable cards, or upgradeable software. Sucks to spend that much money and have your equipment obsolesced overnight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Dec 31 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]369069[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. That ethernet jack seems promising. I am going to compare it to the Denon AVR-2807. They seem to be in the same price category.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Dec 31 2006, 07:01 PM) [snapback]369088[/snapback]</div>

I hear you. I have no upgrade path with the Denons. Granted they are 10- and 8- years old; they both still sound great (all optical on one of them), though I am stuck in Standard TV land with them with respect to video.