Plasma vs LCD - Page 4 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #46 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-29, 02:52 PM Thread Starter
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Deleted some posts.

If you wish to learn what Burn-in looks like etc; please see the Burn-In discussion thread and lets keep this thread for the discussion of objective studies and proof that support or disprove the claim that Plasma is superior to LCD in 42" plus sizes

hugh is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #47 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-29, 06:47 PM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Plasma VS. LCD

I have a panny 42" plasma so I'm a bit bias towards plasma. I did a lot of research and comparison before my purchase and chose plasma because it looked and behaved just like a good quality CRT. When you have a good HD signal or watching an HD DVD, a side by side comparison between LCD and plasma will not reveal a heck of a lot of difference on comparable models. A slight edge to plasma, but unless you're watching side by side, you won't complain about the quality of either one.

However, when you're watching regular programming on TV that is not HD, Plasma is bar none the best. LCD bites, especially when watching sports or fast moving programs.

That's my experience from watching sports/tv on my buddy's sharp aquos compared to my vierra.

Like many have pointed out, it also depends much on what you will use the TV for. If you just want a great TV, that behaves like a TV, buy a plasma. If you want a computer monitor/tv/gaming, maybe LCD is the way to go.
New2HD is offline  
post #48 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-29, 06:57 PM
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 132
Pic of IR from a Toshiba 47LX196 LCD from a Best Buy store. Looks like the store was running some sort of split screen demo for long periods of time.
Jungle Monkey is offline  
post #49 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-30, 11:10 AM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 36
Ok, so DigitalHome recommends Plasma over LCD with a pretty good explanation why.

I'm in the situation where I made up my mind on what to buy (Samsung LCD 40" LCD4061F) and I'm just waiting for the price to go to 1500$.

Now, I read this article and I think, F__k! What do I do? Since I value what I read here, I start to search what plasma model would have the same features (40-42", good SD, 2-3 HDMI and 1080p).

The big surprise I had was that there seem to be a price premium to be paid for anything plasma with 1080p. I did not do an exhaustive search but the entry price seemed to be around 3000$ for plasma compared to 1800$ for LCD!

I have an open mind and the article convinced me that Plasma would be a good/better choice but there is no way I will pay 1200$ more for it! If the price range was about the same, I probably would have switched to plasma but not at this price.
malquin is offline  
post #50 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-30, 11:38 AM Thread Starter
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
malquin, see post #33.

Native resolution is only one piece of the puzzle and frankly at 42", it really shouldn't be a factor!

The fact that you believe 1080p resolution is a requirement over other factors such as colour accuracy and contrast ratio will likely make plasma more expensive.

I recommend you read and review threads in this form discussing (but not this one) discussing whether "Full HD" is really relevant at this screen size.

I should also note that this article was really done to present an answer to a very common question. "whats better plasma or LCD?"

One reason for choosing plasma was price because most plasmas being sold today are cheaper than equivalent size LCDs. With the advent of 1080p panels it certainly is fair to say that many 1080p LCD panels are cheaper than 1080p plasmas (but not cheaper than lower resolution plasmas) so the pricing reason may not be valid in all situations.

For reasons highlighted in post #33 and elsewhere in other threads, I would argue that at 42" the 1080p feature is pure marketing and not visually discernible at viewing distances outside a few feet.

If you believe that native resolution is the most important factor in buying an HDTV' and you believe that on a 42" panel that 1080p resolution is discernible to the human eye outside of a few feet, then I would concede the pricing reason is NOT valid.

Last edited by hugh; 2007-08-30 at 11:54 AM.
hugh is offline  
post #51 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-08-31, 03:09 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 27
I should also note that this article was really done to present an answer to a very common question. "whats better plasma or LCD?"
This question is almost of a religious nature and thus will never be answered to the satisfaction of all. Since you know this your article is tantamount to flame bait. But heh, it's _your_ web site so "bait" away. And here's my nibble:

The first four of the five reasons given in the article all concern picture quality (PQ). If PQ is not the most important or even a primary requirement, then they cease to be reasons to pick PDP. I'm not being trite - there are other factors that can be important in the selection of a TV, such as environment and uses other than watching broadcast TV.

Note I haven't even argued that LCD can also achieve high PQ (IMO it can in some cases). I'll spot you the superiority of PDP's PQ uncontested. But I can't spot you your fifth reason: cost. I'm not seeing, at least in stores like BB or Futureshop, a strong price advantage for PDP in the 42-inch to 50/52-inch range (which accounts for the majority of sales) among the same tier of manufacturers. Unfortunately, except for 42 inches, the technologies do not share the same screen sizes, making apples-to-apples comparisons difficult. The 50-inch LCD referenced in the article does not exist for direct comparison to a 50-inch PDP (closest is 52, followed by 47). One thing is clear - if someone should want 1080p in this size range (for reasons _you_ may not agree with) LCDs do tend to cost less.

Regarding page 2 of your article, arguing against some of the "common reasons cited for picking LCD over Plasma" I will say that IR is less common on LCD than PDP and hence there is less _worry_ (unfounded or not) over the issue of so-callled burn-in with LCD. Admittedly psychological, but real as a consideration nontheless. Regarding room brightness, I don't know what a "typical" living room brightness would be. Is that at night or during the day? And would it be considered typical to leave the drapes open during the day? I can tell you that's typical at my house and a PDP image wouldn't fair well under those conditions.

I like to say there are good reasons to choose PDP and good reasons to choose LCD, but they're not necessarily the same good reasons.
AlenK is offline  
post #52 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 10:00 AM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 1,006
Research shows plasma trumps LCD in consumer preference

Research shows plasma trumps LCD in consumer preference

I thought this was the most surprising.

"The reproduction of black is of pivotal importance to the overall viewing experience. Before seeing the video sequence, plasma was deemed to have a slight lead (37 per cent to 30 per cent for LCD), while a third of people felt that both formats provide similar black performance. After seeing the comparison, the majority of people who felt that the 'best black quality' is created by plasma shot up to 72 per cent."
hoodlum is offline  
post #53 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 10:49 AM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 76
"The study was commissioned by Panasonic and Pioneer."


Given who paid for the errr........research, the only surprise is that 100% of the viewers didn't prefer Plasma.
utah is offline  
post #54 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 11:13 AM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 1,006

The survey results for the black performance only restate what has been measured in many reviews, that LCD cannot produce the same low level greys (not really black) that Plasma can. This is an inherent limitation of LCD that is not going away. What I found interesting is that before the test there was a relative even split between LCD and Plasma when it came to black level. It is obvious there are still misconception that LCD can provide a similar black level experience as Plasma. This is due to marketing (Sony??) and store viewing limitations.
hoodlum is offline  
post #55 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 12:37 PM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 76
The survey itself is a form of 'marketing'. I find it funny, how often LCD manufacturers are accused of 'marketing' to sway opinions, as if the Plasma manufacturers engage in no marketingthemselves. Yet, here is a 'study' which was financed by two major Plasma manufacturers that finds its way into the public domain. If that isn't a form of marketing...what is it?

As for the survey itself, The survey side-by-side tests were conducted in 50 lux lighting conditions. That's hardly typical of living rooms in my opinion....although it may be typical of a downstairs home-theatre room or a dim-lit living room at night. As has been stated many times, one of the drawbacks to Plasma is the high refectivity of the screens. 50 lux lighting would certainly help Plasma in that regard....which is no doubt why it was used verus a brighter room standard for the test.

As I've stated before, it's hard to appreciate better black levels if your Plasma screen is washed out by ambient light or sunlight. I've never suggested that one technology is better than the other. Quite simply, my opinion is that depending on one's own home theatre application, one technology might offer an advantage over another.

Last edited by utah; 2007-09-05 at 12:42 PM.
utah is offline  
post #56 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 02:13 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 27
Good points, utah. And bear in mind that the study states a conclusion not warranted by its own research results. The results show that under the limited conditions of the test, viewers preferred the image quality (or PQ) of PDP, not that they preferred PDP in general. The sales figures for LCD vs PDP clearly show which technology is "preferred" by consumers. PDP fans will say that LCD marketeers are simply more successful. The existence of this study would indicate that that is much like the pot calling the kettle black, as the saying goes. And I see no sign of that when I look at flyers from BB and Futureshop, nor walk in the stores themselves. LCD and PDP seem to be equally well represented, and in my experience the sales people don't seem to push one more than other if you're on the fence.

This study only reinforces my point about _other_ factors besides PQ being important, and about the _real_ "typical" viewing conditions for TVs. I like PDP, I really do. But LCD has a place - in more people's homes than PDP, it would seem.

PS. I should also add that this study was done a year ago. Today, the PQ gap between LCD and PDP has narrowed, on average (please note the "on average", 'cause I'm not talking about the best PQ from either technology).

Last edited by AlenK; 2007-09-05 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Added PS
AlenK is offline  
post #57 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 02:13 PM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by utah View Post
As for the survey itself, The survey side-by-side tests were conducted in 50 lux lighting conditions. That's hardly typical of living rooms in my opinion.
"Respondents were asked about their viewing environments at home and 75 per cent of respondents agreed that the conditions were identical or very similar to their home environments."

Since this survey was done in Europe, I would suggest that the vast majority would not have a basement, never mind a home-theatre system.

Last edited by hoodlum; 2007-09-05 at 02:23 PM.
hoodlum is offline  
post #58 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-05, 02:43 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 27
Since this survey was done in Europe,...
And therein lies a clue. Light levels from TVs, and hence the ambient light levels in living and family rooms, has always been lower in Europe to counteract the lower 50Hz refresh rate, which would otherwise cause noticeable and objectionable flicker on CRT sets. Not much of a factor for flat-panel displays, in general, but the practise is well ingrained.
AlenK is offline  
post #59 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-11, 09:59 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 910
I recently got hands on and cozy with 2 42" budget displays :
1. VS 4280p 1080p LCD
2. Akai Plasma 1024x768

The plasma won at the end because :

1. a little better PQ especially color and black level in the plasma, both are really quite good displaying HD OTA, the plasma is very CRT like, though the 1024x768 plasma suffers occasional moire effect. For SD, well it's SD, neither one is good but then they are no worse than a much more pricey panel like the 1080p Sony LCD when it comes to SD feeds.

2. the whole rig is in the basement rec room and no windows directly facing the panel, so reflection is not as issue for the plasma for me. For the LCD, there is minor backlight bleed in black screen. Neither planel has any problem when something in on.

3. HTPC application : this is what I wanted the 1080p. The LCD won hands down in text display (though very small text for 42" 1080p) and 'real estate' of course. Photos are similar, SD videos are similar (edge to plasma), I can't discern the difference playing the recorded 1080i Bikini Destination by either panel :~) FYI:the AKAI is set to 1280x720@60hz and the VS @ 1920x1080 of course.

4. These are pertaining to these particular panels, the AKAI has a better ATSC tuner and guide system, also more sensitive and picks up the channels better. The VS is not bad either. Both are better than my ATI650 card.
Lastly, I figured @ 42", 1080p is really not that useful. The TV is huge and I can't imagine anyone would put it on a desk and sniff at it...I can see a 32" 1080p on a desk to take advantage of the high rez.
PPL4GOLF is offline  
post #60 of 335 (permalink) Old 2007-09-12, 06:43 PM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vernon, BC
Posts: 57
LCD owner

I purchaced a LG 42" w 1080p about a month ago. Reasons: bright room, burn in scare, thought I had to have 1080p...
Generally happy but the blur in moderate to fast moving sequences is there. 5ms resoponse times? Meaning less...
Question - does higher def inputs result in less blur? IE 1080p hd/b.ray.
Consumers can't get any sort of idea what they're buying in 99% of stores because they can't do side by side comparo's.
Next tv will be plasma unless 50"+ lcds leap forward in their pq speed.
Dang, wish I'd gone with plasma...
nlitend1 is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome