plasma vs lcd resolution difference - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 01:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
bfuerst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
why is it that a plasma and lcd of same size have different resolutions? ie Lcd=1366x768 and Plasma=1024x768. Isnt the lcd resolution more native for widescreen and does this have any effect on image quality?

Also, for those who answer, what is your preference?lcd or plasma and why?


Any help is appreciated.

Thank You
bfuerst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Neo1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CANADA!
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
LCDs are cheaper to make, and in the long term, based on economics alone, LCDs will win out. The LCD fabs are now squeezing out many pieces of glass that are suitable for 1080P displays. 1080P on plasma is still very expensive. The digital processors on plasmas can be the same on both. Trident/Genesis are companies that seel in this space.

BUT. And this is a big but. Visually today, I think the current gen of top LCDs still do not look as good as an average plasma in a few key areas, so I will wait for the next gen to see if they improve.

I was hunting for a good LCD display from last summer to this fall before giving up. I tried tried looking at the 1920x1080P LCDs with a comparable sized plasma with only 1366x768 and was very susprised that the lower resolution plasma was able to render midrange with more detail than the higher res. This means that with HDTV from PBS/Discovery, if you have scenes with clouds and human faces, the higher res LCD actually looks less detailed than the lower res plasma. Something I did not expect to see.

This xmas, I am looking at the panasonic TH65PX600, a 1080P plasma.

Key criteria would be if it handles native 1080P@24/48 through HDMI as that is now a key feature for me.
Neo1965 is offline  
post #3 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
richard korsgren's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1965
LCDs are cheaper to make, and in the long term, based on economics alone, LCDs will win out. The LCD fabs are now squeezing out many pieces of glass that are suitable for 1080P displays. 1080P on plasma is still very expensive. The digital processors on plasmas can be the same on both. Trident/Genesis are companies that seel in this space.

BUT. And this is a big but. Visually today, I think the current gen of top LCDs still do not look as good as an average plasma in a few key areas, so I will wait for the next gen to see if they improve.

I was hunting for a good LCD display from last summer to this fall before giving up. I tried tried looking at the 1920x1080P LCDs with a comparable sized plasma with only 1366x768 and was very susprised that the lower resolution plasma was able to render midrange with more detail than the higher res. This means that with HDTV from PBS/Discovery, if you have scenes with clouds and human faces, the higher res LCD actually looks less detailed than the lower res plasma. Something I did not expect to see.

This xmas, I am looking at the panasonic TH65PX600, a 1080P plasma.

Key criteria would be if it handles native 1080P@24/48 through HDMI as that is now a key feature for me.


..and I was looking at the Panny 50 inch and Sony..42 inch.. just today. The Sony was 1080p by the way. And, at 12 feet plus, I was unable to see any noticeable differences except in the pure white of the Sony and the added brightness of the Sony. Overrall, tho slightly different, I would not say one had an advantage over the other. However, if they had been the same price, and if I were buying today, I may have purchased the Sony.
richard korsgren is offline  
post #4 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 03:29 PM
Senior Member
 
e_e_emarpea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1965
Key criteria would be if it handles native 1080P@24/48 through HDMI
i just bought a pdp-6071 and it says it will accept a 1080p signal. does this mean that although the panel will not display a true 1080p image i can hook up a hd-dvd or bluray player thru hdmi and i will get a picture?

it might sound silly but i'm in the dark.

thx

Gamertag: esaesid
PSN: fistfulofsteel
Xfire: thediseas3
e_e_emarpea is offline  
post #5 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_e_emarpea
i just bought a pdp-6071 and it says it will accept a 1080p signal. does this mean that although the panel will not display a true 1080p image i can hook up a hd-dvd or bluray player thru hdmi and i will get a picture?

it might sound silly but i'm in the dark.

thx
You will get a picture scaled to whatever resolution is native to your set (720/768)
Nmlobo is offline  
post #6 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 05:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Resolution should not be the #1 question about a display. ;)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #7 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snowmoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 1,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1
Resolution should not be the #1 question about a display. ;)
The real difference is PQ is almost always the video processing rather than resolution ( assuming a good source or better ).

Eric

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced" - corollary to Clark's Third Law
snowmoon is offline  
post #8 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
johnnybrulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I personally think contrast and colors is the main PQ difference... once you get to 720p of course. :)

I don't know what I am doing! AHHHHHHH!!!!
johnnybrulez is offline  
post #9 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 10:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PhilipsPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rockland County, NY
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 12
LCD's are NOT easier and less costly to make -- same size panel costs 15% more on average for an LCD.
PhilipsPhanatic is offline  
post #10 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 11:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Norse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
a 1366x768 plasma will be better for movies, tv, etc than any lcd no matter what its resolution is. Maybe I should say a Panny or Pio plasma would. Dark movies especially.....lcds are great for htpc displays and gaming. But I would say a plasma is just as good for console gaming as a lcd. Just my opinion.....right now plasma is a better bang for the buck.

Samsung 4665f 1028/1008 flawless
Xbox 360 Elite
PS3
8300HD
onkyo 605
panamax filtration
Norse is offline  
post #11 of 14 Old 11-16-2006, 11:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipsPhanatic
LCD's are NOT easier and less costly to make -- same size panel costs 15% more on average for an LCD.
Material costs for 40-inch class LCD panels have fallen below than that for PDP (plasma display panels) of the same class in the fourth quarter of 2006, according to the latest report from Displaybank.

Total material costs for 40-inch class LCD panels has dropped to US$617 in the fourth quarter, down nearly 30% from US$874 during the same period in 2005. Cost for PDPs at the same size fell to US$631 this quarter, down 21% from cost of US$800 in the fourth quarter of 2005, Displaybank said.

Although both LCD and PDP makers are striving for lowering production costs, prices for major component for LCD panels such as glass substrate, backlight units (BLUs) are falling faster than those for PDP, the research firm explained.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061116A1001.html

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #12 of 14 Old 11-21-2006, 09:05 PM
Member
 
shaftnjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
so no one really answered the first question the original poster asked: whats the deal with the different resolutions for LCD and plasma of the same or comparable size? if a 42" plasma is only 1024x768, how does it display 720p? I thought 720p was 1280x720?
shaftnjc is offline  
post #13 of 14 Old 11-22-2006, 12:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Tigershark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaftnjc
so no one really answered the first question the original poster asked: whats the deal with the different resolutions for LCD and plasma of the same or comparable size? if a 42" plasma is only 1024x768, how does it display 720p? I thought 720p was 1280x720?

Same way a 1366x768 displays 720p, rescaling. A 1024x768 plasma is still widescreen because the pixels are rectangular, not square. Strange, but somehow it works.

Resolution is only really important to get 1:1 pixel matching when using a PC. Otherwise, the scaler in the TV is just as (or more) important than the native resolution.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tigershark is offline  
post #14 of 14 Old 11-22-2006, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Having a widescreen does not mean a set is an HDTV (ie an EDTV widescreen). A set with a resolution of 1024x768 does not meet the minimum resolution called for by the ATSC spec which refer to 1280x720 and 1920x1080. On a small set this should not make much difference, the picture should be fine as long as the video processor correctly scales. These sets are throwing away 20% of the horizontal resolution.

A set with a resolution of 1366x768 has 100% of the horizontal resolution identified in the standard but has 86 more horizantal lines (6.5%). The set's video processor will have to create the missing line to fill the screen.

So neither set meets the ATSC standard. One set is short horizontal lines, one set has too many. Both sets have 48 'extra' vertical lines. Both of these sets will have to deinterlace (most signals) and scale every signal it receives. How good a picture you see will really boil down to how well the video processor performs its job.

But, as others have written, resolution is only a part of the PQ equation, contrast and color repoduction are very important. (let's NOT start the 'who has better black levels' argument).

Bottom line, find a set that YOU like!! A decent set will have good contrast, good color rendention, and good deinterlacing and scaling capabilities.
Nmlobo is offline  
Closed Thread LCD Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off