plasma vs lcd

[newguy1]

Is it worth buying a plasma big screen anymore now that lcd is at 120 hz and the picture in virtually equal?

 

[gus6464]

Is it worth buying a plasma big screen anymore now that lcd is at 120 hz and the picture in virtually equal?

LCD no matter what anyone tells you is no where near equal to a quality plasma like Panasonic or Pioneer.

 

[Warpdrv]

Pioneer first... hands down.... and then the Panasonic...

I own 2 Panasonic Plasma's... they are awesome... You have to take in account of your viewing area... If its really bright with alot of windows make sure your plasma has a anti reflective screen...

Try to watch a sports game on a LCD sometime and watch for the motion blur... I couldn't stand it. Then watch the same material on the Plasma, if that doesn't convince you, not sure what will.

 

[WmAx]

LCD television equal to a Panasonic or Pioneer plasma? LOL

Not of which I am aware.

Some computer monitor LCDs can almost match a really good CRT. But these tend to be limited to special application monitors intended for professional graphics use -- and are extremely expensive. Try $1500-$2000 for a 20". And while they may match the color depth and gamut of a CRT - and even match the off axis viewing angles -- they will still have motion blur. However, some consumer level LCDs for computers have started to come close to CRTs. I have a Samsung 220WM 22" LCD(a recent model lower cost general use LCD), and side by side to a professional graphics CRT, it's nearly a match in all regards. It has almost no motion blur and has almost the same color depth. However, it has off axis issues. Move 5 degrees up or down and the brightness/contrast of the LCD changes substantially.

-Chris

 

[jlahk]

Is it worth buying a plasma big screen anymore now that lcd is at 120 hz and the picture in virtually equal?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "worth". It isn't as though the plasmas lose to LCDs when it comes to price.

 

[The Dukester]

As mentioned above, you just can't beat a Pioneer or Panny plasma for picture quality. Not sure what you are calling big screen, either, but the larger you go on the readily available screen sizes, the better value with plasma, also.

 

[Duffinator]

LCD no matter what anyone tells you is no where near equal to a quality plasma like Panasonic or Pioneer.

IMO they are very close in quality. Buy a plasma if you like to see your reflection in the screen (and everything else in your room).

 

[1tribeca]

I love how everyone's only slam against plasma is the "reflection in the screen". Does anyone recall how we've been watching CRT monitors for the last 55 years???

Too much light in your room? Here's an idea...buy a set of curtains for $100...you just spent 3k on a TV!!! Sheesh.

I've seen Sony XBRs everyday for a while now, great panels, but not even in the same realm as a Pioneer (Elite or otherwise) Unless you plan to do a lot of computer work on your TV, I don't know why you'd buy an LCD...they just don't look "real" to me.

 

[newguy1]

Even the cnet/ecoustics reviews are saying that the lcds with 120 hz are (although not exactly) extremely close to the plasmas in picture quality. I don't dispute what you are all saying when compared to the old 60 hz technology. Screen size I was refering to was 50"+.

 

[avaserfi]

Believe what you want, but...

Even the cnet/ecoustics reviews are saying that the lcds with 120 hz are (although not exactly) extremely close to the plasmas in picture quality. I don't dispute what you are all saying when compared to the old 60 hz technology. Screen size I was refering to was 50"+.

That statement makes no sense. Speeding up the refresh rate from 60Hz to 120Hz does nothing for the majority of picture quality at all it just helps remove motion blur. Tonal balance and black level are unaffected by this upgrade.

Quality wise between LCD and Plasma there is still a level attained by plasma that has yet to be touched by LCD despite this it seems LCD will outlast plasma because it is easier to market with buzzwords that Joe Six-pack will never bother understanding.

You came here asking which is better right now there isn't a single area Plasma is being beaten by LCD on in the quality department especially with the release of anti-glare screens. In some areas LCDs are close, yes, but they are still being beaten in the quality department.

Edit: BTW I saw this as an LCD owner (look at my signature). I purchased my LCD before Plasma anti-glare reflective screens were in my price range and now regret it every time I see a Panasonic at the store.

 

[jlahk]

Even the cnet/ecoustics reviews are saying that the lcds with 120 hz are (although not exactly) extremely close to the plasmas in picture quality. I don't dispute what you are all saying when compared to the old 60 hz technology. Screen size I was refering to was 50"+.

I'm not sure what those reviewers are comparing. When it comes to motion details, plasmas still put LCDs to shame.

"The 1080p displays' static and motion tests should be of great interest to anyone who watches sports and action movies. With the lower-rated displays, for example, the pinstripes on the New York Yankees' home uniform disappear as the pitcher moves on the mound, and numbers on the sides of the NASCAR racers become a blur as they whiz by the camera. The displays' performance went hand in hand with the technology. Flat-panel LCD had the lowest performance when it came to motion detail, with a range of 360 (an exceptionally low score) to 600. The rear projectors using LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) or DLP (Digital Light Processing technology) were the next best in performance, with motion scores ranging from 650 to 700 lines. The plasma sets produced the best motion detail, with a range of 830 to 880 lines."

http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

 

[klondike]

I'm not sure what those reviewers are comparing. When it comes to motion details, plasmas still put LCDs to shame.

"The 1080p displays' static and motion tests should be of great interest to anyone who watches sports and action movies. With the lower-rated displays, for example, the pinstripes on the New York Yankees' home uniform disappear as the pitcher moves on the mound, and numbers on the sides of the NASCAR racers become a blur as they whiz by the camera. The displays' performance went hand in hand with the technology. Flat-panel LCD had the lowest performance when it came to motion detail, with a range of 360 (an exceptionally low score) to 600. The rear projectors using LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) or DLP (Digital Light Processing technology) were the next best in performance, with motion scores ranging from 650 to 700 lines. The plasma sets produced the best motion detail, with a range of 830 to 880 lines."

http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

That is very interesting and consistent with what I have viewed.

 

[Hi Ho]

Plasma is, hands down, better than LCD. When I look at an LCD I feel like I'm looking through a slight haze. The contrast of LCD simply doesn't compare to a good plasma. Plasma simply looks much more natural with better color tones than LCD. That's not to mention there is no motion blur on a plasma.

 

[BMXTRIX]

LCD is a compromise. That is the bottom line.

There should not be a slam fest about LCD in general, but it needs to be considered carefully before purchase.

1. Is this a primary display or a secondary location?
2. What are the light conditions in the room - and can they be changed?
3. What size display are you looking for?
4. What will be the usage of the display?

Those questions really come to mind when I consider a recommendation of a display for people. It isn't simple enough to say that 'plasma is better' - because a piece of junk plasma won't typically outperform a decent LCD (Sony/Sharp/etc.) - but a good plasma (Pioneer/Panny) will almost always outperform the best of the LCD world for overall image quality.

Yet, some rooms are very bright - and that can't be controlled. This may put a lean towards LCD for some people.

LCD is also very forgiving for people. It's a non-thought display. Got windows? It works! Got long term static images? No issues! Need it bright? No problem! Got a wall that can't support a ton of weight? LCD comes in a lot lighter! Need a smaller screen? Can't even find a small plasma!

Yet, the issues detailed in prior posts are flat out truth. LCD can't match plasma in image quality. The best lcds on the market are still lcds, and they won't best the better plasmas out there. I have three plasmas and one LCD, and my newest plasma (Pioneer Kuro 60") was one that I debated long and hard about because it is in my family room and exposed to some large windows. It is a phenomenal display, but if it was only $500 more to get the anti-reflective coating, I probably would have spent it. For the $1,000+ more it would have cost me, it made no sense.

At least at 50" there are finally a lot more choices for LCD available.

It also seems like plasma is disappearing from the landscape, which really stinks. Pioneer and Panasonic seem to be staying strong though.

 

[annunaki]

I love how everyone's only slam against plasma is the "reflection in the screen". Does anyone recall how we've been watching CRT monitors for the last 55 years???

Too much light in your room? Here's an idea...buy a set of curtains for $100...you just spent 3k on a TV!!! Sheesh.

I've seen Sony XBRs everyday for a while now, great panels, but not even in the same realm as a Pioneer (Elite or otherwise) Unless you plan to do a lot of computer work on your TV, I don't know why you'd buy an LCD...they just don't look "real" to me.

Not to mention heavy drapes and curtains can help with reflection of sound in your room adding more benefit as well.

 

[annunaki]

It also seems like plasma is disappearing from the landscape, which really stinks. Pioneer and Panasonic seem to be staying strong though.

Based upon their offerings shown at CES it looks like they could bring Plasma back to the forefront.

With displays at 9mm and 15mm thick from Pioneer and Panasonic respectively, they will be big sellers. With both companies improving there already good black levels even further and offing even better real world contrast ratios, LCD is going to have a big hill to climb to even come close in terms of picture quality. Especially since Pioneer is boasting the best black level from any set orientation period.

 

[ewitte]

I was dead set on Pioneer because to be honest Panasoic didn't do much for me this year. I was going to get a 600u last year but the 7xx didn't look anywhere close to the Pioneer 5080HD IMO. That was until I saw the Samsung 5064 and went with that because I really didn't have the money right now. To me it looks way better than 7xx panasonic and 90-95% of Pioneer for 60% less.

Fortunately from what I hear the 8xx series Panasonic for 2008 is a much better set. But then again I love the pics of that ultra high contrast 9mm Pioneer.... mmmm. Thats not going to be fore a couple of years though and I already held out 6 off my old RPTV.

 

[funked up]

I recently purchased a panny plasma. I have no regrets. TV looks awsome. Whenever I visit a friend who owns an LCD it always reassures me that I made the right choice. The plasma just plain looks better. That was until I recently visited my grandfather who has a 52" Sony XBR. We watched some football in HD, I have to say that tv did an awsome job. Yes the sony was a larger tv so I'm sure that made a difference, and I'm not saying the Sony has better PQ, but i think it was right up there with the panny. As far as price goes, the sony being doube or more, I still think I got the better deal. If you want the best PQ for the money, you just can't beat a plasma.

 

[rded]

I still believe that plamas will give you a better overall PQ. Blacks are definitely deeper especially with the kuro. Sound and vision continues this match up- round 2! Ding-ding!

[

 

[rded]

here's the link!

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii.html