Simple Question: Plasma vs LCD - Page 5  

LCD as a technology does not burn. I can say this because its true. LCD is not the coating technology that some manufacturer puts on their set that may get burned. Just because the samsung may burn and it is an LCD does not mean the LCD itself burns.

LCD does not burn.

Samsung LCD sets can burn. People as a whole don't know the difference between coatings or screen materials that might make one model or brand more prone to burn in. They read a blanket comment like "LCDs don't burn" and sadly believe it.

LCD is more than just a panel technology. Consumers don't care about nuances in panel technology.

Ok samsung sets burn because of crappy coatings. LCD technology does not burn. buy a Sony, LG, Olevia, Vizio, Panasonic Dell or any other LCD it does not burn.

Sometimes (actually the condition is extremely rare) LCDs can acquire permanent markings from defective LCD panel driver circuitry. That is a circuit defect that should be covered by warranty, as long as the set is still under warranty. Once the effect has happened, the panel needs replacing, so the real remedy is to get your warranty credit and go shopping for a new HDTV.

The electrical effect that causes the visible defect is called "electrophoresis". Basicly through a circuit defect a "DC offset" is applied to the panel, causing a minute electric field to exist that seperates some of the molecules used to comprise the liquid crystals. Once those complex molecules are torn, there is no healing the panel.

The normal DC offset in a properly working panel is zero (i.e. the applied voltage is AC and perfectly balanced either side of the zero voltage), no net electric field exists to damage the crystals, and the panel life is almost infinate. (The typical LCD display defect is either a power supply failure or a backlight failure but the mean time to failure for most CCFL backlights is 10+ years.) (Both backlights and power supplies are easily replaced.)

Those panels most prone to a damaging electrophoretic voltages are the so-called "overdriven" panels used for computer monitors where the main application is gaming. Overdrive is literally what it says - an over-voltage applied to the panel to speed performance. Thus when a small DC offset exists, the overdriven panel shows the effects of the electrophoretic damage fairly rapidly.

To my knowledge, overdrive techniques are not used for HDTV video displays. That would make the failure commonly called "burn-in" almost unheard of, an extreme rarity.

In a plasma panel, the burn-in phenomenon is caused by an excessive amount of current flowing through a plasma cell, accelerating the phosphor decay that causes the eventual death of all displays containing phosphors (CRTs and plasmas). But in ALL plasma panels and all CRTs the phosphors are aging continuously as long as the set is in use. Instead of being a rare failure, the effects of phosphor aging and wear are the inevitable end of all plasma (and CRT) displays. The trick is to use the display under conditions of reduced brightness and contrast so as to slow the phosphor aging to a minimum. That is why one of the few HDTVs I would avoid is last year's model that has been a floor sample, running in "torch mode" for a year or more - lots of phosphor wear in that case.

Overdrive has been, and still is, used in LCD HDTV. From what I've read, it is almost required for high refresh LCD panels for obvious reasons.


In Plasma displays, true burn-in is caused by Solarization.

Boy, did somebody successfully sell you that worse is better.

Film is a means of delivering an image. Better film stock, and photographic techniques do this better than not.

Film has it's built in advantages and disadvantages.

Video and digital recording has opened up an new level of transparency to recording images that film was never capable of delivering.

Film is akin to the old 78 rpm records. Saying that film isn't supposed to look real - which is what you said (I'm guessing with a straight face) - is like saying that an old 78 record is the way music is supposed to sound.

Time marches on. Film's days are numbered, just like black and white and soundless features.

What do you mean by coating technology?




(4.2) Overdrive (LCD):
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Overdrive was invented by various manufactures to accelerate gray to gray transition times by increasing the voltage and amp levels of the driving circuitry. If the overdrive mechanism is incorrectly configured or over used, it would cause pixels to malfunction and may even result in permanent screen damage. In most cases, it leads to [image retention] (IR), grayscale banding and motion related artifacts (such as smearing).

The cause of IR in LCDs is relatively simple: Each pixel consists of capacitor and transistor, which governs position of the liquid crystals. Due to the nature of the current LCD technology, the picture elements continue to receive power when active. Overdriving such elements adds additional (unwanted) stress, which often leads to IR.

Unlike phosphor based displays, IR on LCD can occur at any given moment and prevention is sometimes futile. In addition, as the LCD module ages, it'll become more prone to such phenomenon.

From experience, I have witnessed numerous manufactures continue to push the limits of overdrive without perfecting the algorithm. The 32” 1080p S-PVA module found in Toshiba 32RV635D and Sony XBR9 suffers from serious motion smearing and mild form of IR from the very start. The Panasonic 32S10 suffers from overdrive related phenomenon now commonly referred to as [‘black ghosting’].

Manufactures must accept the fact that incorrectly configured overdrive is not acceptable regardless of how they wish to portray it. It is a flaw and therefore must be rectified.

Providing overdrive is correctly configured, it usually doesn’t pose a problem. So before purchasing an LCD display, make sure it doesn’t suffer from over-drive related issues.

Note: If image retention occurs, unplug the LCD from all connected devices including the mains for 24hours.

More information regarding image retention can be found at [behardware.com].


PS: xrox, if you find any errors above, please let me know.

Yep. Someone tell all those artists to throw away their paintbrushes and canvases. Don't they know that we have cameras now? And I hear that the Mona Lisa will be removed from public display and a model is going to pose for a photographic replica which will be put in place of the original.

Technology demands it!

P.S. I'm not discounting video on any level nor am I claiming that it's a worse medium than film. But there are qualities of film (and other "outdated" technology such as 24fps) that are pleasing to many filmmakers and viewers alike. Reference "300", a movie shot on video with grain added digitally in order to provide a more film-like picture.

does the sony XBR9 use a SPVA for sure or does it use a AMVA panel,i taught toshiba only use AU optronics apart from the IPS alpha.since i remember reading about toshiba placing orders from AU optronics rather then samsung.

Toshiba will use anything ^-^

As for the XBR9, it may also contain A-MVA, but a friend of my confirmed his version contained an S-PVA panel.


PS: The attachments are from the Toshiba 32RV635, which I'm currently reviewing.

those image surely look likes a SPVA,then i guess there input lag won't be anywhere near IPS or even a AMVA.
looks like you have upgraded to a camera that takes better macro shots,much better then the macro shots of B750 and 32S10

It's the same camera ^-^

i think he means there are no phosphors in the screen to burn in. there are only color filters which make no light themselves (and can't burn in). phosphor coated backlights wear but won't make ghost images appear since its global illumination.

No dogs are black.
This group of dogs has black fur.
They don't have black skin, therefore, no dogs are black.

You misunderstood, I yearn for the day when film is gone. I was more or less insinuating that film directors don't use it for realism, they use it for the "dream" like effect it creates. Video is much more realistic IMHO. 60fps video has been around for a while now, directors know it looks better and more realistic yet they continue to use film.

BTW I'll take vinyl over any overcompressed crap CD (except a select few) that is being made today

Because movies are stories and not intended to be realistic.
If movies were shot at 60 fps Id never go to a theater again.

It will happen sooner or later. Get used to it. Film is antiquated technology, when all movies are shot in digital at 60fps we will all be much better off. I don't understand how someone would want 24fps over 60fps or higher.

Say no to motion interpolation, but not higher frame rates, that's backwards thinking.

Let's put it this way, if they had the 60fps video when film was invented they would have never bothered using it. Film right now is more about tradition and creating ambiance then it is about giving the viewer a better picture.

I don't mean to be insulting, but this is just plain silly.

Movie makers go to great detail to recreate sets and costume actors to create realism in telling their stories.

Some go overboard and stylize their flicks to enhance the mood of their films and enhance the sense of realism.

Recently hand held cameras are used to create that "you are there" sense.

I wouldn't give up movies just because they change technology. Sound, color, stereo, multi-channel sound are all technological changes that have made movie viewing as popular as it is today. No reason to think that continued evolution within the film industry will ruin things.

The hand held camera is about the worst thing to hit movies in decades. And, I agree if movies switched to video format I'd quit watching them too. There are hundreds of hours of reality crap done on video, feel free to watch all that dreck if you like the look of video. Video is flat and lifeless, it is incapable of presenting depth and subtlety. It's a basically in your face format that certainly meshes well with a number of members of these forums.

Video vs film is certainly a preference item - no universal right or wrong.

Video does come close to the actual "looking out a window" experience. Viewing things as we do in real life isn't bad, and some would argue that this is the end goal of any video recording.

With audio, we tend to think that eliminating the scratching sound and pops present of early 78 rpm recordings is a good thing, as it get us closer to the live sound of music. With film, eliminating these same scratching sounds and pops (film grain) is akin to treason to the arts.

It is somewhat ironic that all the major TV manufacturers are working hard to offer features that make film look more like video. These are the same people who are revered here for there sets, by people who can't wait to pay extra for these features so they can immediately turn them off.

Strange.

Whose to say that filmmakers couldn't recreate the feel of film on video. I haven't seen one good post justifying film use. Saying is "us vs.the video guys" is just plain out childish. "Oh you don't agree with me so your are stupid!"
Please explain instead of just using baseless blanket statements.

well i hope they switch to video format.since it will save a whole lot in power consumption,since plasma owners like you will stop watching.

Interesting statement, do you save truly any power consumption by using a specific display to really make a difference? How many of you home lighting fixtures have you upgraded to be energy efficient? How many miles to the gallon does your car get? Is your house totally sealed to maximize heating and cooling? Is your furnace/boiler a high effieciency type? Do you use electric heat? Is any of your appliences really energy efficient? Seriously now, people state the energy consumption is so huge yet the newer displays are all so relativly close that every time you leave a 100 watt bulb or two on for no reason you are wasting more electricity than the displays do. Sure some older plasmas sucked up some juice but still not that much. The energy that is wated in all other aspects of our homes well outways what any of our displays waste. This does not apply to everyone here so do not start ranting on here if you do do alot of energy saving. Anyone complaining about the energy consumption should stop and take a good look at other aspects of their home wasting energy before they worry so much about a couple of light bulbs at the most!

I have not seen one show/movie shot on video that has any depth of field. Every aspect of images shot on video is in sharp focus unlike real life. The lighting affects it differently and shadow detail is missing, the simple fact is there is not subtly to video.

well yes i do have energy efficient lighting,99% of the light bulbs in my house are cfl,the rest are led based.yes most of the appliances are high efficiency ones.
the fact is even new plasmas consume around twice as more, compared to a normal ccfl backlight lcd and led edge/backlight based are even more efficient.
you need to start somewhere in saving energy.

ok, so if some new study comes out showing that blu-ray consumes a little more energy than DVD players, are you going to stop watching BD-rom because you might save a dollar or two a month?
after all, you have to start somewhere.

Or that using an outhouse will save water consumption over a standard toilet, are you going to get an outhouse??
After all, you have to start saving water somewhere.

I mean come on, this logic is flawed.

Maybe I could understand if a plasma costs you a noticable amount more on your energy bill, but its so small you wont really notice it unless you get out a calculator and start comparing to find that 3-4 dollar difference.
And for most of us, our time is worth more than that.

If you are spending thousands of dollars on a TV, then quiveling over a couple bucks a month seems pretty pointless to me.

You might want to have your vision checked. Video has the advantage of looking more like natural vision than film.

well its not about saving 1 or 2 dollars ,i am saying in terms of going green.
in dvd vs blu-ray ,the image/sound quality difference is significant,but in a plasma vs lcd ,the image quality difference ain't much,it all comes dowm to what he or she prefers.

So if going green is the issue then quit using dishwasher, no more a/c systems, toaster ovens, hair driers, curling irons, and other true power hogs. The power consumption is already so low that it is not much different than having a couple of 100 watt light bulbs on for a for a few hours. Also come on due to the PQ difference it would be ok to use an energy hog, seems like a strange bit of logic to me. If I remember right if you are using a PS3 to do blu-ray you are using as much or more than your average plasma or LCD.

Exactly, so maybe you should allow others to do just that.