Plasma vs LCD

[hugh]

utah, please read my post.

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

You are not reading my words.

Instead of a darkened room to point out the shortcomings of LCD, how about comparing LCD to Plasma in a sunlit room.

I did hence why it was under the discussion of LCD superiority in a brightly lit room. Although it is cited as an "advantage" of LCD, its only an advantage under circumstances where the ambient light is significantly higher than your average living room. In normal lighting situations and lower light situations, the edge clearly moves over to plasma. Recall in the article, I never said this was a reason for picking plasma, I merely suggest that this LCD advantage is ephemeral.



Finally, I have seen nothing from manufacturers that suggests LCD is as good as plasma.

I agree the quality of LCD has improved significantly in the last few years (although so has plasma) but it still has a ways to go.

FWIW, a couple of anecdotal notes that I think are quite compelling:

• I have contacted LCD manufacturers on these issues and when I tell them I want to discuss the LCD vs. Plasma debate, they don't want to have a frank discussion.
  
• I have spoken to many retailers who sell both technologies and ask them what type of television their sales reps own and you'll get one answer!

Not scientific but certainly very interesting.

[otown47]

I was commenting from my point of view.....the results of my comparison of the two groups of products. I spend many days over a period of weeks in coming to the conclusions that I did.

My comment re 4ms 120 hz LCDs was in the context of the latest generation of product. While these features don't directly affect contrast ratios and colour reproduction, I found the colours to be vibrant as compared to plasma. WRT field of view, I can hold my head next to the side of the screen and see the picture clearly. The response of the LCD was as good as if not better than plasma in action shots.

Other considerations are less weight than they used to be (you don't need as big a mount), and ease of set up and operation. Its great not to have to play around with stretching any more...the TV senses the signal and adjusts the picture as you set it up to do...even thru HDMI.

So my point (again) is to spend the time doing the research yourself...don't rely on the opinions of others....then you won't be disappointed.

[hoodlum]

I think we sometimes need to revisit the importance of the various aspects of PQ. Contrast Ratio/Dynamic Range (Black level) is still the most importance aspect that impacts what we see (both on and off-axis). This is not the contrast ratio that Manufacturers report.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-...?tag=cnetfd.mt

"Ultimately, we agree with the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, when it says that the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second-most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Though resolution may be the most talked-about spec these days, it comes in fourth on the ISF list, and after you sit watching five TVs lined up side by side, you understand why. The fact is a relatively pristine high-def source such as Mission: Impossible III looks sharp on just about any HDTV, and your eye, when looking for differences, is drawn first to things like depth of detail in shadowy material (black levels) and the color of the actors' skin tone and how natural it looks."

[jwt873]

FWIW, I just bought my first HDTV a couple of weeks ago.

I did lots of homework and read all the pros and cons of plasma vs LCD... I also read a lot of personal opinions about the two types of sets... Based on what I read, I decided I didn't want a plasma set. I drew up a short list three LCD models that I wanted and then headed off to the big box stores to shop.

Most of the Future Shop & Vision's type stores have product displays with all the sets lined up in rows on a wall. They are all on and usually showing the same TV channel. This allows you to see the image quality and directly compare models.

It might be subjective, but to me the plasmas generally had the best picture.. I was sold.. Despite not wanting one, I wound up coming home with a plasma set. I also spent a couple hundred less than what I had budgeted for.

I think the "5 reasons" article is right on.

[57]

Most of the Future Shop & Vision's type stores have product displays with all the sets lined up in rows on a wall. They are all on and usually showing the same TV channel. This allows you to see the image quality and directly compare models.

This is simply not true. The TVs are typically in lighting that is not equivalent to home lighting and are not set up/calibrated. Some may have even been "adjusted" by other customers. Comparing PQ in a big-box store is useless or worse - gives you a wrong impression.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=17713

I'm not saying plasma is an incorrect choice, however, your method of comparison is what is "incorrect".

[hugh]

deleted some posts.

This thread is about Plasma vs. LCD.

If you wish to present some information that provides some evidence for supporting why one technology is superior to the other then please feel free to present it or discuss otherwise please post in other threads.

[oilblue]

Originally Posted by 57

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

OK, let's presume that larger screen size completely accounts for the higher uncalibrated consumption. Fair?

If there truly was no difference in power consumption between the two formats--as suggested in this article--then consumption should drop a similar percentage after calibration. It didn't (see my previous post which referenced "Juice Box" numbers from CNET reviews):
averages from four 50" plasma sets:
default settings: 322.37 W
calibrated: 237.12 W
power savings from calibration: 26.55% (-85.25 W)

averages from three 46" LCDs, and one "47":
default settings: 243.49 W
calibrated: 118.79 W
power savings from calibration: 51.21% (-124.70 W)

Using those averages, and taking the DHC article's stance that no power consumption differences exist, let's start both sets at 250 watts. After calibration, the plasmas would drop to 183.625 watts (saving 26.55%). Meanwhile, LCDs would drop to 121.975 watts (down 51.21%). Even when giving plasma the benefit of starting from the same default consumption, the LCDs would theoretically average 33.57% less power consumption than plasma. That difference isn't necessarily big in dollar terms, but it is significant nonetheless.

Of course the numbers varied from set to set...so unfortunately it's a difficult one to gauge as a consumer (these kinds of numbers aren't listed in spec sheets and such). Still, the LCDs consistently dropped the most, with one LCD dropping to less than a third of its default consumption after calibration. Impressive.

BTW, that set just happens to be the highest rated LCD on CNET (unlike the plasmas, where the biggest power savings came from the worst plasma).

With that information in hand, I still have to disagree with DHC's assertion that power differences between plasma and LCD are a "fallacy".

For some of the other factors (black level and colour reproduction), it might be worth distinguishing between LED backlit units and CCFL backlit units. Not all LCDs have the same faults. Or is LED backlight not available yet?

Then again, if the manufacturers can't step up to explain...

[Jungle Monkey]

Heres a link to a great article on Motion Blur on LCDs.

Goes to show talking about response times on LCD is useless although 120Hz is a great step forward.

http://hometheatermag.com/gearworks/707gear/

Knowing this info and then comparing price points, one should be comparing a 120Hz LCD to a plasma and not a 60Hz LCD regardless of response time. Also taking into account hoodlums quote from CNET about the ISF stating that resolution is the least important aspect of good picture quality, then the Digital Home point that plasma still has the price/performance advantage is true.

[gnunn]

I'm considering buying a new TV and am pretty much on the side of LCD. It seems to me the achilles heel of plasma is still burn-in. The article states a 24 hour torture test resulted in only temporary burn-in but even that is too much burn-in for me. I don't spend big bucks on a panel to endure the after-image of my son's gaming session slowly fade while I'm trying to watch a DVD or have to view that bars from constant 4:3 viewing. When your spending $3K-$4K on a TV who wants to deal with even a temporary effect?

[hugh]

Burn In does not exist, its temporary image retention and that was a 48hr (not 24hr) torture test on plasma built three years ago.

A two or three hour gaming session with the new panels is not going leave any effect. I had a friend whose kid played gamecube (4x3 image) for months on his new plasma (often leaving it in a static image for several hours and he never encountered any image retention whatsoever. )

[57]

Burn In does not exist. (on Plasmas)

Wow, I believe it's incorrect to make this broad stroke remark, especially since Plasma manufactures say it does exist and explain how to avoid it.

It is less prevalent in newer plasmas, however, I believe it's incorrect to say it doesn't exist and watching 4:3 upconverts with black bars on the sides for months on end would prove the point. (I've seen the effects many times on CRTs and Plasmas - first hand)

Game playing is not a fair comparison, unless it's the exact same game with exactly the same graphics up for months (without other programmes on to "balance" the wear.

Burn in is cumulative and is not seen in days or weeks. It takes months and will occur on plasmas and CRTs which have the same static image - like black bars on the sides on them for months at a time. If you accept that the image fades on Plasmas and CRTs over time (which I haven't heard anyone argue against) then you must accept the principle of burn in, since that's what causes it - uneven phosphor wear.

Burn in discussion:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=53080

Specifically the following post from Panasonic.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...0&postcount=97

[hugh]

What exists is image retention, I have replaced the period with a comma to clarify that the correct term is "image retention" and NOT burn-in.

[57]

As we have been discussing it on this forum (and elsewhere), image retention typically implies - short term and reversible - by turning off the TV for a few hours or watching something else for a few hours the "image retained" is gone.

Burn in, or uneven phosphor wear, is permanent and will remain after a few hours or days of the TV being off or watching something else. The latter takes months or sometimes 1-2 years to manifest itself and is therefore not reversible.

[hugh]

I should note that LCDs can also suffer from image retention
See this gizmodo article.

But again it can removed in the same fashion image retention can be removed from plasma.

[57]

Agreed, image retention can be "removed". Uneven Phosphor Wear, also known as burn in cannot. LCDs do not have phosphors, therefore they can't get uneven phosphor wear. LCDs in home use do not get burn in - as evidenced by computer monitors.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=65174 Posts 10, 12, 13

PS, I added some more background to post 41...

PPS. Although you CAN get burn in with a plasma, I'm in no way saying that you WILL get burn in, with proper setup and operation, burn in is not a concern. So, don't be paranoid, but don't be cavalier either.