LED or Plasma?

Originally Posted by MojoDrew32

...I saw LED and it's absolutely beautiful, I heard it's like an LCD with viewing angles and it has true blacks but I can't find more information about the LED pics.

Originally Posted by greenjp

The "LED" sets are simply LCD with light emitting diode backlights instead of the typical flourescent backlight. It is an LCD. The name change to just "LED" is simply Samsung marketing. These work exactly the same way as other LCDs, just a different backlighting method. The primary benefits appear to be lower power consumption, thinner profile, and a price premium (as you've discovered)

Check out CNet.com for some recent reviews of Sony and Samsung LED LCD and the new Panasonic plasmas.

jeff

Originally Posted by MojoDrew32

Quick Question, does LED have bad color bleeding like the LCD had?

Originally Posted by localnet

Like I said, it is sometimes painful to watch the Samsung 120hz LED set I own. Is it the LED or 120hz? Probably a combo of both. My new 600hz plasma is much easier on the eyes, better PQ, and the cost per sq. inch was cheaper by far over the LED.

Just my .02

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours. But in the case of plasma, what that means is that at the end of that period the set has fallen to half brightness - plasmas dim over time as did CRTs, and for the same reasons - the phosphors wear out. In the case of a conventional LCD, at the end of 60,000 hours it is just as bright as new, but you have a 50% chance that one of the multiple CCFL lights will burn out (they are replaceable but expect to pay $200-$400 labor). LED LCDs have much longer rated lives than either CCFL LCD or plasma but repair costs are not known. Still, if you care about video quality, you would pay for recalibration on the plasma as it fades away, and the LCD just needs calibration once - advantage LCD.

Originally Posted by tbird8450

Somehow I can't picture myself scheduling a recalibration of my plasma in 60 years. Maybe I should have bought that LCD after all!

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours...

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

You'd be surprised - the stats say that between the kids in the day and the adults at night, 10-12 hours per day of ontime is not unusual. At that rate it would take 16 years to fade to half brightness. Still, the phosphors fade fastest when new - if you care to keep the set calibrated, you might pay for three calibrations on the plasma vs. one on the LCD.

But I agree, if you are the less critical viewer who never pays for ISF calibration, or cannot do it yourself, there is little difference - you would keep cranking the brightness on the Plasma. But realize that as the Brightness control is advanced, the plasma loses one of the oft-quoted advantages which is black level. It could even be considerably worse than the LCD at the end of it's life - but chances are that a videophile would have long since replaced it before that happened.

Where these factors matter most is in 24X7 commercial applications such as airport displays and sports bars. The LCD has taken over many such markets.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

Well the same old differences between LCDs and Plasmas still exist:

Brightness - LCDs are best for moderately bright to bright rooms. Plasmas are best for Dark to moderately bright rooms. There is considerable overlap in the center which happens to be MOST ROOMS where either can be used comfortably. Still - advantage LCD.

Hardly, in a dim room the LCD tends to fall apart with clouds and viewing angle issues becoming much easier to see. With Plasma, in a very bright room you loose a bit of the blacks but the picture still maintains it's pop. Advantage Plasma

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours. But in the case of plasma, what that means is that at the end of that period the set has fallen to half brightness - plasmas dim over time as did CRTs, and for the same reasons - the phosphors wear out. In the case of a conventional LCD, at the end of 60,000 hours it is just as bright as new, but you have a 50% chance that one of the multiple CCFL lights will burn out (they are replaceable but expect to pay $200-$400 labor). LED LCDs have much longer rated lives than either CCFL LCD or plasma but repair costs are not known. Still, if you care about video quality, you would pay for recalibration on the plasma as it fades away, and the LCD just needs calibration once - advantage LCD.

Again not true, Panasonic plasma sets are rated at 100,000 hours till half-life, and yes CCFL lamps do dim over time since they too have a phosphor to produce their light. And LED bulbs are rated at 50,000 hours until half-life, which is lower than both CCFL and Plasma, and since LED also uses a phosphor to produce light, they dim as well and Local dim sets are also subject to the same uneven wear problems that Plasma suffers from, probably more so due to the lower half life of the bulbs. - Advantage Plasma

Dynamic brightness - Truth to tell, almost all manufacturers have undersized the power supplies on 2009 plasmas to reduce power consumption in anticipation of the 2010 California "Tier 1" power saving requirements. This means that in bright scenes the current limiting on the power supply crushes the whites. This did not happen on the 2008 plasmas, and it does not happen on the few Pioneer plasma units left unsold. Advantage LED LCD which uses far less juice than either plasma or CCFL LCD.

Actually, this does happen on the Pioneers, quite badly infact. (at least it did on mine) Considering that I had to turn the backlight way down on the LCD to make it look decent, the whites on the LCD are now dimmer than my old 42px75 running in cinema mode (which didn't have this "white dimming" problem, as a matter off fact, you are the first person I heard mention this so far in all the Panny threads.) and LED LCD has so many issues right now that they aren't even worth a single look for at least 3 more years. Advantage Plasma

Motion Blur - This mattered a lot as late as two years ago. But the latest 120Hz and 240Hz LCD panels have so little blur that there is little difference to notice.

My 52a630 has terrible blur, they haven't even come close to fixing this issue, sure ghosting has been reduced to the point that it is almost gone, but motion blur is still in full effect. It is sad that my Panasonic 42px75 has far better motion performance than the 52a630.

Off-Axis viewing - The LED LCDs look worse to me than the CCFLs. In my viewing environment all the room seating is less than 15 degrees off center - I could use plasma, LCD, or LED LCD and never notice a problem. Still - advantage plasma.

This one you got right, however, it is worse than you let on. If I sit dead center in a bright room I have a near Kuro picture, if I move one seat over the picture starts to wash out (even worse when in the dark) so plasma holds a HUGE advantage here.

Frame Interpolation - I use it on high motion sports like Hockey, and I also like it for movies on Blu-Ray and DVD - but Digital TV broadcasts don't always benefit, sometimes I bother to cut it off which takes a few button presses. It is purely a matter of preference but the feature is rare on plasmas and not so rare on LCDs. The best implementations of FI are from Samsung and Sony, LCD only.

I thought it was neat at first, until I started to feel very sick one night, I quickly realized that the AMP feature was making me sick, I turned it off and haven't felt sick since. I rarely get motion sick, but this sure managed to do it. (and it was a slow paced animated movie so it was the accelerated look of AMP that caused it)

The best examples of both technologies are very good televisions with outstanding video quality. Between the two there is room for personal preference. The AVS members fight to absurd lengths about performance problems that WERE significant two years ago but don't amount to much today.

I'll admit that the 52a630 does produce a nice image when the lights are on and I am sitting dead center, but there is so much room for improvement that I can't consider a LCD for any kind of viewing, even when I am the only one watching it.

and since LED also uses a phosphor to produce light,

Originally Posted by duvetyne

Why are they using white LEDs instead of RGB?

Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON

Motion Blur - This mattered a lot as late as two years ago. But the latest 120Hz and 240Hz LCD panels have so little blur that there is little difference to notice.

My 52a630 has terrible blur, they haven't even come close to fixing this issue, sure ghosting has been reduced to the point that it is almost gone, but motion blur is still in full effect. It is sad that my Panasonic 42px75 has far better motion performance than the 52a630.

Originally Posted by StinDaWg

You are confusing sub-field drive with lcd refresh. The plasma is actually 60hz not 600hz. Plasma makers are just starting to use that spec because it sounds better than lcds 120hz even though the two numbers are unrelated.

Oh, and I know you threw a fit on the owners thread, but I told you that you should have waited for the 1" thin Samsung plasma. Samsungs LED sets are not ready for primetime this year and they are ridiculously overpriced for what you get.

Originally Posted by aim120

well 120hz tvs like sony xbr8 and other sony 240hz tvs achieve full 1080lines of motion resolution.

but everyone else uses white LED because they are much cheaper to produce.

Originally Posted by duvetyne

Red Green and Blue Leds are very easy to manufacture. White LEDs ARE Blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor...a two stage process. They generally don't contain much red light either, which is why RGB sources would be better.

Originally Posted by duvetyne

Red Green and Blue Leds are very easy to manufacture. White LEDs ARE Blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor...a two stage process. They generally don't contain much red light either, which is why RGB sources would be better.

Originally Posted by gary mccoy

i say again, to the average user there is little reason to prefer one technology over the other. Get what looks best to your eyes. You are hearing from the technology fanboys now.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

I say again, to the average user there is little reason to prefer one technology over the other. Get what looks best to your eyes. You are hearing from the technology fanboys now.

Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON

That coming from a well known LCD fanboy who bases all plasma's off of an old 2005 Plasma. I've owned high quality sets from both sides now, and Plasma quite simply smokes LCD in most areas.