LCD TV's

[furrycute]

Is it me or almost all of the plasma LCD TV's I have seen in store have horrible video quality when playing back broadcast TV signals?

The resolution just looks wrong, the lines are jagged. They are nowhere as smooth as on CRT screens.

I am referring to LCD TVs, not rear project LCD TVs.

 

[Rob Babcock]

So far, every large LCD direct view I've seen was atrocious. I agree some of the LCD RPTV & FPTV sets look very good. Hopefully the quality will improve and costs will come down, but I wouldn't be surprised if OLED is ready for prime time soon and kills off traditional LCD.

 

[BMXTRIX]

You may have been looking at a low quality signal put up on a LCD or plasma television screen. This is very common for in-store displays and always looks like crap. Really, to appreciate what HD can offer, you have to view HD content on those displays.

Standard definition television (SDTV) looks bad, on a plasma or lcd flat panel display (FPD) it looks even worse. Now, how does that compare to CRT screens? Well, CRT is still a better format. It is not your imagination that CRT looks better than LCD or plasma. It DOES look better. But, you don't get a cool thin display you can hang on your wall either. You also don't find many CRT screens in the 42"+ size. It's all a bunch of trade offs these days.

There is a lot of information on LCD and plasma FPD technology on the Internet, and on this site, that can help answer any questions you may have about quality and reliability.

 

[nick_danger]

but I wouldn't be surprised if OLED is ready for prime time soon and kills off traditional LCD.

Not too likely... late 2006, perhaps?

I purchased a 17" widescreen LCD HDTV recently and the picture quality was decent. However, the problem with the TV and most LCDs is ghosting. They just don't have the ability to turn the LCDs on and off fast enough to provide a solid picture. This gives LCDs a "fuzzy" look. Distortions are not typical though and are usually a sign of a poor connection or an unstable refresh.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'm basically only referring to the larger ones, Nick. The ghosting problem is much more obvious on large screens. However, the newer sets with the 12 ms response time are a lot better. Unfortunately, large LCDs are shockingly expensive, often more than plasma. Anyway, I don't really expect LCD bigscreens to be ready for prime time by '06, either. That gives OLED some time.

For the record, BMXTRIX, I never said plasma doesn't look good, and I don't think meant to either, as he only said it once. It looks like he misspoke. At any rate, the best plasmas are tolerable with a very good signal. But I'll never buy one. I doubt they'll ever really lick the burn-in problem and the cost is just too high. Being single I have no WAF issues to contend with, so I use an FPTV with a DLP engine.

I could be totally wrong, but as hot, fragile, heavy and expensive as plasma is, I think there's an excellent chance that OLED (or something we can't even conceive of right now) will replace it, too.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I realize that it was probably an error on the original posters part to say 'plasma LCD' as they are two different technologies.

The reality is that plasma looks better than LCD, but doesn't look as good as CRT. With a really good signal, it looks close though. I have looked at fully calibrated 20K Runcos installed and there it is: banding. That damn dithering effect that I haven't seen a single plasma display avoid.

My front projection LCD doesn't have that issue, nor do the DLPs I have seen. But, I like that I can run my plasma 8 hours a day (or more accurately: my wife can) without worrying about it blowing a bulb. I went ahead and got the Best Buy 4 year warranty - so should it fail, it will be fixed. Price I paid was very, VERY good though. Otherwise, I may not have bought it.

For daily watching, plasmas actually are a pretty good buy if size is of issue and price is of issue. At 42" with a decent EDTV at about $2K. That's close to the same price of a lot of rear projection and a lot smaller than CRT technology. 10 or 15 years of use, plus no bulbs to replace. It's a reasonable deal at least.

 

[Cuteman]

You've gotta consider the fact that HD or STD imput coming in, most commerically available LCD Flat Panels have a MUCH slower reaction time than say, a plasma of similar size.

Thats what you lose, there are always balances.

Plasma is cheaper, better brightness, better for fast action (i.e. sports)
Lasts not quite as long, higher power consumption

Whereas

LCD, is more expensive 1-2k more than a same size plasma, lower brightness, better for still motion high resolution images (only thing except very high end plasmas available on the market that do a true 1080p {then again, nothing is really transmitted in 1080p]), lasts forever, much lower power consumption.

You buy an LCD for life, resolution, and the ability to hook it up to a PC.

 

[Cuteman]

Did I mention that I work at best buy in the TV department?

Careful. Plasmas under the best buy warranty cover outtage, cell leakage, but NOT NOT NOT Burn in!! Thats user error/abuse. Don't let her play video games, or watch 4:3 cartoons with the kids, or watch the CNN channel with the stock ticker 12 hrs a day.

Anything else should be fine.

 

[Rob Babcock]

For me the need to avoid gaming is the deal-breaker.

 

[tedmjr2]

LCDs are Actually Brighter than Plasmas

Plasma TVs range from 500-700 cd/m2, but are measured based on a different standard than LCD TVs. When compared under "real world" circumstances, plasma TVs brightness is typically closer to 100 cd/m2. Measured under the more stringent "real world" standards, LCD TVs average a brightness rating of 450 cd/m2. In the "real world" situations, LCD TVs are four times brighter than plasma TVs.*

http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp

 

[BMXTRIX]

Careful. Plasmas under the best buy warranty cover outtage, cell leakage, but NOT NOT NOT Burn in!! Thats user error/abuse. Don't let her play video games, or watch 4:3 cartoons with the kids, or watch the CNN channel with the stock ticker 12 hrs a day.

Thanks - hopefully others will read that and get some good info. I am quite aware (working in A/V) that burn in is basically never covered by any warranty. We watch all our 4:3 stuff in wide/stadium mode and HD stuff is as it should be. Video game time is limited on the set.

I am very fortunate that I basically have zero WAF to deal with as she watches way more than I do and appreciates a ton more than me. I like a good movie and prefer the projector over the plasma. But, the plasma doesn't use a $400.00 bulb every year... and now that we have a plasma, the bulb should last at least 2 years or more I would think.

 

[mike07]

Wrong

The problem with LCD screens and is why they are mainly used in computers and small portable devices is because you can only view them at a certain angle and achieve that high def look. The problem is the angle, you must be looking at them straight on with no slant. Otherwise you'll get blurring. Why do you think LCD is not used very widly and the price is so low.

-morrons.

 

[Duffinator]

Do you live under a Rock?

The problem with LCD screens and is why they are mainly used in computers and small portable devices is because you can only view them at a certain angle and achieve that high def look. The problem is the angle, you must be looking at them straight on with no slant. Otherwise you'll get blurring. Why do you think LCD is not used very widly and the price is so low.

-morrons.

First, you must be the moron if you can't even spell it correctly. Secondly, I guess Sony, Samsung, Philipps, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, AU Optronics, Sharp, and ever other electronics manufacturers on the planet must be morons as well. They are investing Billions of dollars building manufacturing plants to make large screen LCD TV's. You DO NOT see this type of investment in plasma or any other technology at this point in time. But maybe you know something they don't and they are just wasting their money.

And who stands at the side of their TV and watches it anyway? While the viewing angle may not be as good as a CRT or plasma it's not much worse and certainly no worse than a CRT based RPTV. Have you ever looked at the larger Sharp LCD's? They look terrific and the viewing angles are not an issue.

And LCD's are in almost every electronic product on the market these days. MP3's players, cell phones, calculators, printers, PDA's etc. Inch for inch LCD TV's are the most expensive monitors at the moment, but once all the new manufacturing plants come online that will change.

 

[Rex]

I just bought the New Samsung LCD which has a brightness of 500 and doesnt have the burn in problem that Plasma has from what I hear.

 

[docferdie]

Plasma is cheaper
LCD, is more expensive 1-2k more than a same size plasma.

I don't think you are making an apples to apples comparison. LGs 71 inch true 1920x1080p plasma costs 75000 dollars while the sharp AQUOS 45 inch 1080 p LCD is only 8000 dollars. Even if you adjust for screen area, three sharps would only cost 24000 dollars. The "cheap" plasmas you mention are the ones with 480p resolution.
LCDs are the cheaper flat panel alternative which is precisely why they are so prevalent.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Yes, he is - The Sharp, 45 inch plasma is about 8 grand while most HD 50" plasmas are about $5,000-$10,000.00 - though the 10 grand ones are VERY expensive. A good Panasonic 42 inch 1365x768 plasma will run about $4,500.00 So, the equivalent LCD technology, right now, is considerably more expensive at the same size - or near the same size - as plasma technology.

The top reason why, in a similar installation, people don't use the NEC 40" LCD instead of the 42" HD plasma, is because the LCD costs 50% more. The 2" is negligible, but the cost is not. This is something I deal with on a daily basis and the reason is the same: LCD costs to much compared to plasma of equivalent size.

LG's 71" plasma is a gimmick, much like a Lamborghini. It is not a high production run product like 42, 50, and 60 inch plasma are. So, that is not in the ball game. Sharp's 45" LCD is a high-run product as is the NEC 40" LCD. Those are good products to compare directly to plasmas.

I don't want to eat the apples you munch on if you think a 71" display is comparable to a 45 inch display. In the world of plasmas, when 60 inch sets first were available they were $25,000 while 42 inch sets were $5,000.00 That extra size is like diamonds - it is more exponential, than direct.

Likewise, a 20" lcd can be had for under a grand while a 40" version cost 8 times as much for twice the size.

 

[Rex]

I bought an HD-Grade LCD recently and now realize that I might have made a mistake given that the TV is not HDTV. Tomorrow I get my HD Box from the cable company. I wonder if I should take it back and get something else?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Rex - see comments in your thread about your LCD.

 

[Vancouver]

RE: Burn In on Plasmas

as an avid gamer and owner of a HDTV Plasma I have noticed some things and can offer some good input on the issue. Playing video games on plasma's is OK as long as you are aware of static images. I have noticed that some of the new games i.e. Star Wars Knights of the Old republic 2 seem to be Plasma burn in friendly in that nothing is static. Scores, health bars etc appear and re-appear. Also video scenes every 10-15 minutes also changes the picture on the screen.

If you play any XBOX live games since the games dont last langer then 10 minutes before ending you normally go to a lobby there by changing the image on the screen on a consistant basis.

Just be aware that things don't stay on to long. Personally I am more worried about black bars durring movies because they will last 2 hours + while nothing in a game will be that static for that long.


I am curious ...are there any Plasma owners that have a 6th generation or higher plasma and have still noticed burn in?

 

[docferdie]

A good Panasonic 42 inch 1365x768 plasma will run about $4,500.00
.

From your own example its definitely not an even comparison as the sharp model I mentioned has a resolution of 1920x1080p. If somebody can point me to a plasma screen set that has a resolution of 1920x1080p with a diagonal size of 45 inches and a price of 8000 dollars or less then that is an awesome bargain worthy of advertising on this board.

Like I said in my previous post LCDs appear to be more expensive because they are being compared to EDTV plasmas or much lower resolution HDTV plasmas.