Plasma vs LCD

[isajoo]

OMG the extra $4.16 per month

"You take your $4.16 and you go to the dollar store and buy 4 $1 items. now thats a LOT of money"
russell peters. LOL
x 12 months =a LOT of munchies for watching movies on your 50" plasma.

not to mention the excessive heat build up which u would have to compensate by running your A/C for longer.more $$$ ,another visit to the dollar store.

[oilblue]

Uh, I never said the dollars were astoundingly different, or that it would break the bank. I'm trying to point out that power consumption differences may in fact exist.

As for the PS3 tangent, its competition mainly comes from the XBOX360. The 360 and PS3 have fairly similar power consumption (see here). The Wii consumes about a tenth of what the 360 and PS3 do, but it's not really a comparable since it has drastically different capabilities. Besides, title sets are what sell game consoles. Throwing the PS3 into this conversation is a red herring. It's like mentioning that people buy BBQs even though they're less energy efficient than a microwave.

To be clear, what I said before:

Lower power consumption between two comparable choices is a good thing in and of itself.

OK? A 46" LCD and 50" plasma are quite comparable. And the difference in power used--while not excessive in dollar terms--is striking. Therefore, it does belong in the pros and cons columns of the two formats. That's the point. Power consumption is not the sole factor, but it *is* a factor. The difference is real, as opposed to a fallacy as stated in the article.

It's then up to everyone to determine how to weigh those factors as part of their purchase as an informed consumer.

[57]

A 50" TV is almost 20% larger (in area) than a 46" TV though.

[Hab4life]

Im the happy owner of a 37" Plasma which the article does not recommend due to the lowish pixel count.I believe it has all the same benifits mentioned for the >42" units and those where the exact reasons for my selecting it over LCD's with which I compared it.
Now please correct me if Im wrong, but yes it does have less pixels but the individual pixels are smaller therefore detail should be as good as the bigger sets should it not?I find the picture to be very detailed.
Also would the fact that it's native resolution is 720 as opposed to 768 mean that there would be less scaling needed if using a 720p source?

[WayneH]

There's a huge difference in a 46" vs. 50". Saying most people can't tell the difference between the two is an outright lie. The only way you would hardly tell the difference was if you stood about a mile away. I notice a BIG difference between my 50" and my daughters 52" when I go over to her place. I know for a fact I wouldn't go any smaller than 52" next time around. The verdict is still out though which format I'd choose. I think in the next couple of years, the real men vs. the boys will be obvious. Interesting that Sony refuses to consider plasma, although when you look at their past (VHS vs. beta for example) they just have to be different.

[hugh]

Wayne, this thread is about Plasma vs. LCD, not whether someone should get a 46" or 50" television.

Please lets stay on topic, which is for members to objectively discuss the merits of Plasma vs. LCD.

Posts that do not address the question of Plasma vs. LCD and the pros and cons of each will be removed.

[BerinG]

A 50" TV is almost 20% larger (in area) than a 46" TV though.

I understand that this comment was mentioned already.. but you simply can't compare a 46" LCD to a 50" plasma and claim that no one will notice the size difference. Factoring it in might be a better bet.

I have to agree with most advantages of plasmas over LCDs. Better blacks, better viewing angle, colour... but when I read "lower pricing", I wasn't totally convinced. The main advantages i see with LCD is cheaper 1080p support (more competition=less $$) and the non reflective panel.. I use a direct-view HD CRT and DO have reflections which can be a nuisance sometimes.

When comparing HD 42" screens, I have noticed that the plasmas are only slightly cheaper than LCDs and that some brands were actually the same price as their LCD counterparts. But even at that size, I have found 1080p LCDs that were more or less 100-200$ more than the 1080i plasmas which i think is a better "value" if you already have an HDTV, and are looking for FULL HD as your next purchase. Also, the 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma, is more expensive than almost all of the 42" 1080p LCDs and even more than 46"-47" LCDs (yep, even some 1080p are cheaper). This one is an exception as I think it is the only 42" 1080p PDP available.

When you start going up in sizes, it depends if its 1080i or 1080p. I am not sure why this was not covered in the article. The 50" 1080i PDP are in most cases, MORE than 46-47" 1080i (but 50" IS also bigger). When head to head with the 46-47" 1080p LCDs, the 50" 1080i PDP are still slightly more expensive which is a small advantage for LCDs I think.

Then when we finally head into the 1080p 50" PDP, they are pretty even in price with the 52" LCDs 1080p panels which to me gives a small advantage for LCD screens. The LCD screens also go on sale pretty often making them sometimes as much as 500-600$ cheaper. I cannot imagine someone buying a screen at retail price nowadays with the number of sales and deals on LCD.. or just shopping around.

As for more than 52", I won't compare because plasmas are the way to go.

I understand the whole "Plasma vs LCD" but to me, the "lower price" advantage given to PDP is not true in most cases. Back in the day, BIG LCDs (40") were much more expensive than plasmas and offered considerable savings for the size.. but it seems that they are on pretty even ground now when considering price. As for the other "factors", well I guess I would agree that plasma will give a better picture overall. (and CRT even better :P)

[hugh]

Thanks for the thoughts BerinG and thanks to others like oilblue who are looking to provide some factual information!

It's nice to see that some thought is being put into this discussion.

The primary purpose of this article was to answer the innumerable number of newcomers to the website who continue to ask "what is better: plasma or LCD?".

For reasons outlined in the article, I believe that Plasma is superior. (note: I do not own a plasma flat panel nor an LCD flat panel)

I encourage others to continue to "objectively" discuss the issue in this thread by presenting facts and well reasoned opinion as opposed to the more typical and subjective "oh yeah your mother wears army boots" type discussion.

Once again, in an effort to dispel the myths, I welcome any consumer electronics company who would like to rebut the arguments in a feature article, to contact me.

Cheers,
Hugh

[utah]

Off topic perhaps, but please allow me to rebut the statement that I stated an 'outright-lie'.

I've revised, and revised again my response to that statement a few times.

I've revised it once again. Let me just say that the statements I made are my opinion, and I don't consider my statement an 'outright-lie' by any means. It is in fact, stated truthfully, given in good-faith and based on plenty of first-hand experience.

That said...

I think the better aproach to this question isn't to debate what most folks notice or not notice, but to endorse the point made by BerinG, which is to state that the difference between 46" and 50" is often factored-in, along with pricing, features etc....when consumers choose what to purchase.

[shabbs]

I see this article made it up on engadgetHD:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/08/27...asma-over-lcd/

Nice.

[BerinG]

What I meant is that people can identify what is "worth" it for them when they compare prices and sizes...paying 100$ to go from 46" to 50" might be worth it but not necessarily 50" to 58" (which has a much bigger price margin).. that's why i meant that you can't disregard the size of screens even if its only a little bigger/smaller.. its still on a TAG somewhere at the store and people will prefer it.. specially if its the same price but bigger..

I have 2 friends of mine that both got 53" and 51" CRT RPTVs (2years ago).. for around 1000$... there were plasmas and crts available that were better/more expensive..but they picked those because they were big, HD and cheap.

I opt for a more expensive (1300$) 34" CRT direct-view because i liked the quality, and I could not get over the "greyish" overall image from projection... I like nice bright colors.

[avhed]

If this article, if one depends on a calculator, they should read it more carefully
1080 X 1920= 2,073,600 pixels or 2.07, not 2.7 million

Quote from article: " Each pixel on a plasma display has three cells (one for red, green and blue respectively) therefore a plasma display panel with 1920 x 1080p resolution has over 2.7 million pixels (8 million cells) on its surface! "

[otown47]

A year ago I was reading articles with conclusions such as this one....before 4ms, 120 hz LCDs, and before 1080p plasmas.

This spring I had to replace my old HD RPTV and spent time looking at and reading about the new generation of flat screen TVs. As a result of my efforts I came to the conclusion that many of these conclusions are now myths...they just don't apply.

So I suggest before you spend your hard earned dollars you do the groundwork and research the subject yourself...its not rocket science. Go compare the various products you're considering in your price range in the stores, read up on the products...there's lots of info at DHC and on the Internet both factual and anecdotal.

Spend the time and you defintely won't be disappointed.....

[hugh]

Otown47, how are improved response times and higher native resoution going to alter contrast ratios and colour reproduction?

Not even LCD manufacturers would argue that contrast ratios fall as you go off centre! This is something that is inherent the fact that the liquid crystals can't block all of the light. This is also true of contrast ratios. Just look at an LCD and Plasma in a dark room with no image on the screen and you can see why the contrast ratios of LCD are nowhere near plasma. Please show me these studies that have shown that!

You may argue that image persistence has been greatly reduced and perhaps eliminated by faster panels but the rest? C'mon!

[utah]

Faster response time isn't going to improve contrast. But, it is going to render moot, this reason why Plasma has been recommended in the article:

The second reason for greater clarity is plasma’s faster response times. Although response times vary, plasma panels typically have much faster response times than LCD. Slow response times mean that fast action onscreen can lead to a trail or shadow effect as something moves quickly across the screen. A hockey puck for instance will have a momentary trail when it is shot. Plasma’s faster response times mean the absence of trails or shadow effect.

Of course, contrast-ratios ( while important ) aren't the only factor to consider when choosing a television. Instead of a darkened room to point out the shortcomings of LCD, how about comparing LCD to Plasma in a sunlit room. It's hard to see that contrast advantage when the screen is washed out on your Plasma.

As for colour reproduction, newer LCD TV's can rely on 10-bit panels and Wide Colour Gamut backlights to render moot the argument that Plasma achieves better colour reproduction.