Geek poll ... LCD vs Plasma ? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Topic: Geek poll ... LCD vs Plasma ? Posted: December 19 2008 at 01:29 |
^ simply stick to the big brands, and you should be ok. LG, Samsung, Philips, Sony ...
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: December 18 2008 at 17:08 |
I've got a Westinghouse LCD. I'd never recommend that brand to anyone as after the warranty ran out, it developed these dark bands on either side of the screen past where the picture shows when it's not a widescreen format, effectively reducing it from a decent widescreen to a really disappointing regular ratio high def TV, boo!
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 07 2008 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7826 |
Posted: December 18 2008 at 15:53 |
Plasma's more expensive, and LCD's look much clearer on football and oher sports. One time like 10 or 15 years ago I had a plasma, and I was watching football on it, and it literally burnt the scoreboard into the screen forever. That was the last time I ever bought a plasma.
|
|
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
|
markosherrera
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 01 2006 Location: World Status: Offline Points: 3252 |
Posted: December 06 2008 at 03:16 |
In Venezuela the people prefer LCD
|
|
Hi progmaniacs of all the world
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 12:14 |
^That's right. I have an LCD myself I can't afford a gigantic plasma and I went out of my way to get a 32 sony. And I guess your prediction, sadly, will come true. Even Pioneer will starts to sell LCDS in north america and japan, which shows how the mightiest plasma maker ever has realized market is going the crystal way....
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 04:14 |
^^ that all makes a lot of sense, Teo ... however, I think that plasmas will definitely become obsolete once the next generation of LCDs with dynamic backlights become available. And even now, I really enjoy watching DVDs on my "crappy" 32" LCD ... sure, a plasma would be brighter and the black would be darker, but seeing how well it works as a computer monitor and that it only cost me 900 EUR ...
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 04 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1049 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 03:22 |
Thanks for all that info The T I managed to grasp most of it and I`m refering to my owners manual just to see mine falls within desired specs ... looks fantastic to watch though no regrets so far getting it .. I`ll just avoid pausing games to avoid burning though I`m pretty sure that my TV detects when the image doesnt move and dims its screen before damage can happen.
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: August 12 2007 Location: Bryant, Wa Status: Offline Points: 8602 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 23:55 |
Well, there's my vote for the 2008 PA Forums Double Entendre of the Year. |
|
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 22:59 |
As I was saying, what you have to consider is your budget, your room and your interests.
Considering your environment, you have to check if a room has too much brightness and light, if you have sliding glass doors or windows that will create too much glare. In that case, Plasmas aren't a good choice. LCDS will be better with the exception of Samsung high-end ones (series 650 and over) as they have a shiny coating that adds depth but also glare.
Considering the size, if you want anything smaller than 42 inches, you'll have to go LCD. (There's one 32 plasma -Insignia-) . If you go bigger, you have a choice. Plasmas come in 42, 46 (Panasonic), 50, 58, 60 and 63. LCDS come in 15, 16, 19, 22, 26, 32, 37, 40, 42, 46, 47, 52, 55 and 65. (Sony XBR7 will be 71" ) But considering budget, plasmas that are huge tend to be more affordable than lcds of similar size (except Pioneer elite ones..)
Considering your interests, if gaming and computer-monitor usage are basic for you, then LCD is the choice as no risk of burn-in exists. Look for a good refresh rate (at least 5ms). If your interest is basic standard definition TV and DVDS (480i or 480p) it depends on the quality of the tv: some will do a better job of upconverting the original signal to make it look better (or, actually, bigger). Usually, plasmas do a better job here, but great LCDS can do it too. That job could be assigned to your original video source, though (like an upconvert DVD, a blu-ray player or a receiver/amplifier with a good faroujda or anchor bay chip). If you are a videophile that looks for deeper blacks, better contrast, and great motion, Plasmas are the way to go UNLESS you have the huge amount of money that a led-lcd requires (only three in the market in the current generation of tvs: samsungs 950, sony xbr8 and lg 90). Don't trust too much on 120-hz frame rate, though: sometimes it can make film material look like video.
In general, I've always thought that plasmas look more like tvs than lcds which remind me of glorified computer monitors. But the newer editions are so great, maybe things could start to change (HT magazine finally put two lcds -Samsung 55a950 and sony xbr8- in the same level as the Pioneer Elite Kuro). So, reccomendations:
LCDS: Sony, Samsung, LG, some Sharp Aquos. For budget tvs, Toshiba or lower series in the aforementioned brands.
Plasmas: Pioneer, Panasonic. The latter one has series to fit any budget (px80, pz80, 85, 800 and 850).
Now I'll go back to my job and repeat the same over and over again to customers...
|
|
|
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 18:46 |
^ I'm with you buddy! Though I do have a LCD also, though that's my father's computer, I just use it for Battlefield 1942 or games with more requirement. "My" computer has like 500MB left!!
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67440 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 16:16 |
Nothing can beat the good old tube.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 16:12 |
I have a 46" Bravia (LCD) and I'm quite happy with it. It's really great as far as glare is concerned, which was a must because there's a big window opposite it in my living room.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 16:10 |
I work with TVS, selling them alongside home theater equipment and I can tell you Plasmas may have the edge on picture but LCD's are out-selling them by far. I'll write more extensively at night. In a word: for pure movie-watching experience, get a plasma, but a good one (Pioneer Kuros or Panasonics Th-800/850z series) or even an average one (samsungs pn-5 series or lg's pg). Lcds are far more mediocre in picture quality with the exception of higher-end models like the xsony's xbr8's or samsung's 950's series which use LED local dimming technology and also 120-hz frame rate. In general, plasmas use just a little bit more energy and have lots of glare, plus they are not so great for computer and gaming as risks of burn-in still exist (even in Kuros). LCDS have poor blacks and mediocre contrast (that's why they advertise them so hard with weird numbers, specially samsung) plus the lcd pixels take time to shut of and turn on (refresh rate) so that creates unnecesary motion blur, even though that problem has been strongly reduced.
Life expectancy is rated similar for both technologies now so that has ceased to be an advantage for LCDS. The energy consumption thing is vastly overrated. For years the choice for real home theater enthusiasts have been plasmas, especially Pioneer ones (or the far obscure Fujitsu). These days LED-LCDS are finally starting to get some of the high-end crowd. For mass consumption, yes, LCDS are much more accesible, especially since there's barely any plasma at under 42" screen size. |
|
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 04 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1049 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 08:24 |
^^ Good answer Mr progfreak it concurs with many experts opinions but then theres the other experts who think plasma is the better option as well , Basically if a TV costs $5 - $10 more a month to run but looks better I`m happy with that its about quality for me I like the blacks on the red and black star trek uniforms to look striking.
Edited by Yorkie X - December 02 2008 at 08:29 |
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 08:19 |
LCD, by far. Plasma is much more expensive if you want full hd (1080p) at least in Germany (don't know about the US prices). It also consumes much more energy, and generates more heat (which means that the larger displays need active cooling fans). Also, the cheaper ones often don't have quadratic pixels, which - among other things - makes them impossible to use as computer displays (I happen to use my 32" LCD for TV, gaming and surfing - even for making music). The main disadvantage of current LCDs is that they aren't as bright as plasmas. However, this will change with the next generation of displays which use more backlight LEDs. They'll still not be as bright as plasmas, but they'll consume even less energy and create less heat.
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 04 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1049 |
Posted: December 02 2008 at 08:03 |
I went to the store and I looked and many televisions and I have to admit I actually think plasma picture looks far more organic , better from side viewing and the contrast blows LCD out the water ! and the black is jet black as its meant to be .. so I purchased a plasma though I went in the store in the first place to get an LCD but changed my mind after viewing it seems there's a bit of confusion out there at the moment and many people are going for LCD not realizing its intention was really meant for static images (which is why it is subject to blurring moving images unlike plasma) sure plasma has its draw backs its slightly more expensive to run as it runs hotter and its life span isnt as great though I did read a Panasonic plasma recently clocked up 100,000 hours and is still going strong despite brightness dimming 50% but thats ok because if you only have the brightness set at 50% you got another 100,000 hours left in it and theres another old problem image burning where it can if left paused leave the image burned to the screen but this isnt such an issue anymore thanks to modern technology in design...Remember the old video battle VHS vs Beta those in the industry knew all along Beta was better but the marketting behind VHS was just to clever and Beta suffered a cruel blow (although TV stations still used Beta even though consumers didnt catch on) well the same thing is going down with LCD its the weaker of the two but seems backed and marketed better by the corporate world anyway may the best TV win this geek poll , stay tuned for my next geek poll !
Edited by Yorkie X - December 02 2008 at 08:21 |
|
Post Reply | |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |