Plasma vs. LCD - which is better

[sholling]

BTW I've seen one ad for a name brand 46" (SHARP AQUOS) LCD for $1400 shipped this week, and Buy.com is blowing out the 50" Samsung LED powerd DLP sets for $1000 shipped. Two excellent choices for a mom on a budget.

 

[Midcow2]

Nice TV prices

Nice prices

 

[Midcow2]

The new LCDs are much different!

I just roll my eyes at anyone that says that plasma is an older technology.

LCD is a much "older" technology. LCD screens have been on digital watches, calculators, notebook computers, etc etc, for 30 years.

...

However, those LCD displays were much different; they were small, had poor illimination, low resolution, were slow switching and we basically a mono color block; i.e. black or screen color. There was a half-color gray, but thta was it!


That is akin to saying ICs are old technology because they were invented almost 60 years ago (April 1949, the German engineer Werner Jacobi).

 

[jonnythan]

However, those LCD displays were much different; they were small, had poor illimination, low resolution, were slow switching and we basically a mono color block; i.e. black or screen color. There was a half-color gray, but thta was it!


That is akin to saying ICs are old technology because they were invented almost 60 years ago (April 1949, the German engineer Werner Jacobi).

Full-color active-matrix LCD screens (the things you use now as TVs) have been used for displays on laptops and other devices for far, far longer than plasma.

My only point was that calling plasma "yesterday's" technology or "old" compared to LCD simply doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not to say that plasma is necessarily better because it's "younger" technologically, of course.

 

[sholling]

My only point was that calling plasma "yesterday's" technology or "old" compared to LCD simply doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not to say that plasma is necessarily better because it's "younger" technologically, of course.

The point in calling plasma yesterday's technology is that it is yesterday's technology. Five years ago plasma was the only affordable large flat screen technology. They were hot energy hogs with burn in and gas leakage issues but they were relatively cheap.

Times have changed and LCD technology has caught up in size and speed (for all real world intents and purposes 4ms is instant) and the price has dropped to the point that the consumer can now buy an energy efficient high performance LCD with a great picture that will outlast a plasma for just about the same price. That's makes plasma yesterday's technology, and not who invented what when. With the exception of a couple of hold outs the manufacturers have realized this as well.

There will always be people that prefer plasma (half still watching SD TV) and I'm happy for them. But I can't recommend plasma to the average viewer.

 

[jonnythan]

Well, I guess sometimes progress isn't.

I'll take a Pioneer plasma over any LCD television ever produced, thankyouverymuch

 

[Duffinator]

Each has advantages over the other but plasma is yesterday's wonder technology and most companies are moving away from it in favor of LCD.

Both technologies have been around since the 70's.

I own a LCD for my bedroom and will be buying a plasma for my main viewing room very soon. No doubt plasmas have a better picture but I still like the LCD technology better. Regardless of the back and fourth of the nuances between the two technologies look at as many sets as you can and decide which looks better for your application. Have fun shopping!

 

[stratman]

I own both techs, I'll stick to plasma. I know my Panny manual inside and out, it has stern warnings about burn-in, I also own a five year old that doesn't know/care about what Panny says, my plasma is going on 5 years now (ancient as far as CE is concerned) and trust me junior has given it a workout that would have the attorneys at Panny cringing in fear of litigation. I have no problems with burn-in, ghosting, picture retention or other maladies we're warned about, sometimes manufacturers overstate or "exaggerate" to cover their collective behinds on the advice of attorneys. I'm not saying to go out and abuse your TVs, but come on where's the common sense. Now for my LCD in the master bedroom, it's never worked properly, after about 14 months the darned thing goes on when it "warms" up, quite frustrating to say the least. My 5 year old has a Sammy in his room, but he prefers mine, no doubt due to screen size, 26" vs. 42". I know MDS' logical reason for the irregularities of quantifying PQ, but to be frank both my LCDs look like crap next to my plasma. I really have no ax to grind on this, it's just my experience. I would venture to say that the majority (I know MDS, it doesn't make it valid) of flat screen owners here are plasma owners. By the way BOTH techs have basically reached their end-of-life cycle and no doubt not just plasma, but LCD will go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[Gatsby191]

Did no one read my "Simple Test" post?!

You know, it is so frustrating AT TIMES, to see people who keep denying obvious things. Okay, LCD is better equipped than it used to be, now that it's been out a while. Okay, BURN in does happen with Plasmas, when you, or someone else that is using it, forgets that it is an EXSPENSIVE toy. Usually turns out, that those who own these exspensive Plasmas, that do let those sets get used without issueing any rules or warnings to follow, to their young ones, or perhaps their wives, don't really give a sh#t when something bad happens to their set(burn in, fingerprints, scratches), and they just get in either their BMW or their Land Rover and go get another one. Now, on the other hand, we have the Home Theater Enthusiasts(This is called "Audioholics Home Theater Forums") who scrimp and save, go out and research, go through demos that include the viewing of an HD movie, or a Blu-Ray movie, and yes, even a regular DVD movie, in hopes of finding a PQ quality that looks as sharp and as vivid as possible. because they want the best HOME theater experience that they can possibly have without having to go to the ACTUAL theater , and they also want to be able to have that quality come from the same set(or projector)that they are going to watch regular TV on. COMPRENDE?! So the whole notion that the AVERAGE consumer doesn't care about the specifics, but rather the price, the "Burn IN", the energy efficiency, is BullSh#t! Bring one of those guys over to a plasma equipped HT the night after he watches T2 on his LCD equipped HT, and make him watch T2 again, and if he is a real HT enthusiast, he will definitely feel regret in his gut, though his pride may not allow him(or her) to admit it. So here it is: PLASMA SHOWS a BETTER PTCTURE HANDS DOWN!! And Yes,LCD will last longer, and be more energy efficient in the long run, and have no burn in, which only refers to those who don't pay attention to their beautiful new Plasma set, and yes there are a few of you out there that have a legitimate exuse for letting the TV stay paused for a day, or falling asleep while a constant image stays on for 8 hours. But, lets all be honest here. When you have been planning that Home Theater for a while, and you're buying all the great components that you have saved up for, and you start to envision that great Star Wars, or Terminator 2 Movie on opening night, if you don't have a Projector in mind, do you really want to play that Blu-Ray, HD, or even that Standard DVD, on a LCD instead of a PLASMA?!
Just My 4 cents. Joe B.

 

[annunaki]

Both Panasonic and Pioneer disagree with you. If you don't believe me, visit their web sites and download their owner's manuals for yourself. You will see that they both warn you about burn-in, which they would not need to do if it were not a real possibility with their sets.

I have seen a still image on a Panasonic TH50px75U for over 5 hours continuously. After turning the image off, the set was completely image free in under 30 minutes.

My parents have a TH42PX600U and have had still images on it for well over 4 hours and it has no hint of burn in at all.

Panasonic's will have some image retention, but burn in on them IS a thing of the past, unless of course one were to disable the anti-burn in features.

Can one intentionally burn in a plasma, of course. Does it happen under normal instances with Panasonic and Pioneer, no. The other plasma manufacturers I cannot vouch for in that regard.

 

[1tribeca]

I find it amusing that the same pro/con argument keeps popping up about the two technologies...that argument is the weight/power consumption point.

Firstly, the plasma cells are only using energy when "lit" which is about 50% of the screen, on average, at any given time. So, the power consumption argument is silly at best. Not to mention, that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of consumers who bash plasma for this reason went to pick up their LCDs in a 7-seater, 8 cyl SUV!!! Now THAT'S power consumption!!

I've seen a Sony XBR4 set up quite nicely running a Blu-ray disc...it looked great. I've also seen the plasma counterpart set up in a similiar fashion...also looked mind-blowing. I prefer the "look" of plasma, and I agree that a true film/movie watcher would prefer the look of plasma.

LCD still looks "false" to me somehow...hard to describe, but something ain't quite right.

 

[jonnythan]

So, the power consumption argument is silly at best.

You just used an extremely simplified explanation of the technology to come to draw a conclusion about reality.

Problem is that it's incorrect.

Those plasma cells require a boatload of energy to be illuminated. LCDs use fluorescent backlights and a low-power panel with pixels that don't require constant excitement.

The fact is that LCD televisions use significantly less power than similar-size plasma panels. Plasmas often use many times the power of an equivalent LCD. It's true that plasma panels use more power in brighter scenes and LCDs use essentially constant power no matter what's on the screen, but even in relatively dark scenes plasmas use more energy.

Not to mention, that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of consumers who bash plasma for this reason went to pick up their LCDs in a 7-seater, 8 cyl SUV!!! Now THAT'S power consumption!!

That's an incredibly spurious argument.

I prefer the "look" of plasma, and I agree that a true film/movie watcher would prefer the look of plasma.

LCD still looks "false" to me somehow...hard to describe, but something ain't quite right.

I agree with you there.

 

[Nuglets]

As somebody who hated ALL(and I mean all...Plasma, DLP, LCD, etc.) flat-screen televisions because I could see the pixels being drawn on the screen and motion always looked like crap on every single display I could possibly find at any store or at anybody's house that I know I can safely say that as of right now if you observe critically you will not find a better television than the Pioneer Pro-950. I am not a plasma fan-boy I honestly wouldn't even consider buying ANY flat screen tv up until my roommate decided we needed a new TV and I started doing a bit of research and read a bit about the Pioneer and while we were at Best-Buy(not looking for televisions) we went into the flat screen department. The didn't have the PRO model from pioneer but they did have the 42" model below it and it was obvious to me, that television looked much better than any flat-screen I had ever seen in the past. That said...we ended up at Ultimate Electronics and purchased the PRO-950 a few days later and since then we have had absolutely no issue's and I'd say that we use it far more than the average user, probably play more video games than watch TV, and sometimes my roommate will fall asleep with it on and then continue to watch it all day the next day. Wide-screen mode with 4:3 material looks normal(I don't observe any abnormal stretching) so we never have grey bars on the sides(which is what everyone i've heard of that has experienced burn has attributed it to). Basically, I'm a hater and I finally found something I consider decent and I personally can't understand how people can tolerate anything less and enjoy it.

 

[bandphan]

where is the op?

 

[stratman]

where is the op?

It looks like troll droppings to me.

 

[Jack Hammer]

It looks like troll droppings to me.

Why would you say that? He posted 2 days ago thanking everyone for their replies and asking about screen size. No ones really answering his next questions, just throwing out the same tired debate over whether they feel plasma or lcd is superior.

Jack

 

[stratman]

Why would you say that? He posted 2 days ago thanking everyone for their replies and asking about screen size. No ones really answering his next questions, just throwing out the same tired debate over whether they feel plasma or lcd is superior.

Jack

Well he could have been more proactive with input, not just throw a loaded question into the air and see what happens.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Well he could have been more proactive with input, not just throw a loaded question into the air and see what happens.

Didn't we all ask those types of questions when we first go into HT? I don't know about you, I sure did.


As for proactive, after one reply to her saying both had advantages and disadvantages and major companies were moving toward lcd, she replied in post #3

So pretty much you are saying that LCD is the way to go? As far as size of screen for the size of room I have, would 42" be a pretty good size. I kinda think if I go any bigger, I will feel as though I am sitting right on top of the screen. Any ideas?

That was answered with some of the advantages/disadvantages of each.

Then the next day in post #8 she said,

Thanks to all of you for your information. I will continue to do research. It was mentioned what my budget would be. Well of course, I want the best for as little as possible. I am a single mom on a limited budget so below 1500.00 is ideal.

A recommendation or two was made then the thread got hijacked into the same tired, beaten to death debate about which format is superior, with few if any recommendations to help the op.

I would have left too.

Jack

 

[klh1]

Thank you all again for your information. It is not that I dropped a loaded question and then sat back to see what happened. . .it is that I got a lot of good information and feel as though I am able to go out there now and make a some-what educated decision as to the best system for my money and needs.

I appreciate all of the information again.

 

[cooley]

People think plasma is better than LCD because they like the word plasma.