Plasma vs LCD

[hdguy20060207]

I was at Visions, BestBuy and FutureShop today - just looking around at
the TV's. The plasma's were outnumbered by the LCD's roughly 70-30.
To be honest, on the high end LCD's I had a hard time telling if it was LCD/
Plasma.
Whenever I have to replace the TV on my main level I may just replace it
with a LCD due to the light levels (reflections on the screen), great picture
lower energy, less risk of burn in from CNN and kids shows.
I've considered myself a Plasma fan for a long time, but I think now both
have great pictures.
I asked the sales guy why plasma's were outnumbered, he said that they
simply sell more LCD's these days.

[zyad]

Wow, sorry guys, but I don't really see the need for such a huge debate about this. It is an obvious fact that plasmas have better blacks and better colours than LCD's (this is something which is quantifiable, not subjective), but Hugh, at the same time, it is also a fact that these IS such a thing as burn-in when it comes to plasmas. I have seen it first hand on enough friends' TVs to know this as a fact, and yes, the burn-in (or "Permanent Image Retention if you prefer to call it that) IS permanent.

So it's just a matter of personal preference on which of the 2 types of TV is better.

Personally, IMO, NOTHING can excuse the fact that one of these technologies has a panel that can suffer permanent damage that affect the picture under much less "hostile" viewing habits than the other.
Furthermore, I don't buy all this marketing talk by plasma manufacturers that the problem of burn-in has been virtually solved through more durable phosphor pixels, or pixel-shifting of the image. The pixels are still phosphor-based and the way they work (which is a big reason for burn-in) is still basically the same as the first generation sets. As for pixel-shifting: shifting the image a few pixels over is useless when you are dealing with the big black bars on the sides of 4:3 programming, or (like in the case of one of my friends) you can see channel CP24's borders permanently burnt into his plasma TV (which is less than 4 years old and is not on all day every day), and that TV only shows that channel every morning for less than an hour before they leave home for work. Pixel shifting is even more useless when you think about the fact that even a small-sized image (like a station logo)
is a hell of a lot bigger than whatever small number of pixels it is getting shifted by, essentially meaning that most of the pixels in it won't change colour even after they are shifted.

Burn-in is real and is a huge no-no in my book.

So it just boils down to this:

If you want a TV that has better colour depth and contrast, get a plasma.
Just remember that the slight colour depth and contrast advantage you might be experiencing over LCD should probably be a lot less of a priority than having a TV that won't rapidly suffer from burn-in and leave you staring at a couple of visible vertical bars on the sides after a couple of years (unless you like watching everybody on your TV stretched with fat heads and wide bodies).

[dinkeye]

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

I own three technologies, a 60" Sony XBR2 RPLCD, a 42" Panny Plasma, and a 26" Samsung LCD. Out of the three I love my plasma the most. The main reason - SD looks the best on it. The majority of programming is still SD so the Panny is the clear winner in my opinion. And at the price point for 720P Plasma sets (picked mine up for $1400) how can you go wrong. 1080P is just not needed at these sizes.
Don't get me wrong the LCD looks great with HD - really great. But as soon as I watch a hockey game or a round of golf on it in SD, it really sucks!!

At the end of the day there is no right answer, it comes down to one's personal preference!

[hoodlum]

It looks like plasmas may have an inherent resolution advantage over LCD.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...red#post608674

[avhed]

Since you can use the source component's upconversion, how many people will that matter to?

[Yaamon]

Hugh pretty good write up.

I can say owning both a LG42" plasma and a LG37" over all the plasma has a better picture. The plasma shows a significant advantage in blacks while the lcd at a certain point just crushes.

HD on both tv is great but the lcd still suffers from slow processing on certain scenes. You see this as pixel break up on the screen. Its still there on the current lcd's on fast action scenes.

On SD the difference is even greater. A lcd is great for playing Xbox360 or PS3.

One negative Hugh forgot to mention is the heat the plasma produces compared to a lcd tv. This summer in my study the room about 12x14 and I had to upgrade the ceiling fan from a Hunter 44" to a 52".

The small room felt like a sauna it was hot with the fan on full speed even when the ac was on.

I found what dinkeye said is true. "At the end of the day it comes down to one's personal preference!"

I think sales of lcd will eventually surpass plasma, because of the brighter picture the lcd produces. In stores on display, this draws customers eyes towards them.

[avhed]

LCD sales surpass Plasma years ago.

[hugh]

LCD have surpassed Plasma but in the 50" plus category (which includes many here) 83% are still plasma. Source: NPD this week

[Yaamon]

When they say lcd sales, they are talking sales from different sizes 27"+.

I was referring to sales of 42" and larger competing against plasma.

Sorry.

[hoodlum]

Originally Posted by Yaamon

One negative Hugh forgot to mention is the heat the plasma produces compared to a lcd tv. This summer in my study the room about 12x14 and I had to upgrade the ceiling fan from a Hunter 44" to a 52".

The small room felt like a sauna it was hot with the fan on full speed even when the ac was on.

I found what dinkeye said is true. "At the end of the day it comes down to one's personal preference!"

I think sales of lcd will eventually surpass plasma, because of the brighter picture the lcd produces. In stores on display, this draws customers eyes towards them.

That could change depending on how each Japanese Plasma manufacturer implements the big jump in Lumens/Watt (going from 5 to 10) that will be announced at CES in January. We will see large improvements in cost, power usage and/or brightness.

[hugh]

I think sales of lcd will eventually surpass plasma, because of the brighter picture the lcd produces.

Sadly that is true. It appears people equate torch mode with quality!

[hoodlum]

Here is an interesting presentation on the future of Plasma. It is all based on increasing the Lumens/Watt.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...1/ifa02_12.jpg

[Jamis1979]

I've read this entire thread. This is what I have gathered:
1) PQ is better on plamsas
2) There is burn in on Plasmas but it's not something to get paranoid about, just don't be stupid about it and leave some videogame on for a month on the same thing.
3) I could really care less about power consumption...really.
4) Plasmas with the 1080p or i resolution (can't remember which one) are quite a bit more expensive.

All in all, I'm still on the fence and this is why. I want to use my TV for computer related stuff. For me, that is a big issue and I want to know if a plasma would do just as nice a job for browsing, gaming, and watching downloaded TV shows as any LCD would. If I could get some opinions on this and the arguement would still be for plasma...I imagine the decision would come down to cost in the end and I'd probably go with a plasma if I could find the right deal.

I hope there are some good boxing day deals this year cause I plan to get my TV then and start in with Bell HDTV with the new mpeg4 recievers they are getting.

Opinions please?

[oilblue]

Power consumption is more than a dollars out of your pocket issue. I try to minimize consumption where I can, but that's a personal choice. You're definitely free to ignore that however.

How much computer use? I don't have any comparison info other than to say there's probably a reason computer monitors are LCD. The level of computer usage will probably help those with comparison info though.

Also, how close would you be sitting to the display while doing the computer work? As you get closer, 1080p can make a difference.

Sounds like a fun New Year. Cheers.

[Jamis1979]

Ok I'll give you this much...if for whatever reason I found some crazy deal on two different TVs and they were both exactly what I wanted for the right price but one was less power thirsty than the other...I'd take the less power thirsty one to save my money AND to help out the environment. You have made your point.

Now, as for sitting close...could be anywhere from 7 feet to 15feet depending on what way my wife has arranged the living room that month.

Honestly though...I'm still hoping to get some more opinions on my previous post before people go on another tangent about power consumption, sitting distance, and all that. I suppose some points like sitting distance should be considered as I never thought about that...but all in all...I don't want the meat of my question to get lost. So for those who are confused at this point...please just scroll up to my original query which is only two posts above this one.