why does LCD look better then plasma to me???

Do you view in total darkness, with lights on in the room, during the day with sunlight, etc.? Do you like a super bright punchy picture? How close do you sit to the TV? There could be any number of explanations.

LCD-LED's can easily look better than a PDP in a bright room, as the super dark filters that a bright LED affords can preserve contrast better than a PDP that washes out much more easily under ambient lighting.

I preferred my B8500/C8000 LED's for daytime viewing, with ambient light in the room, and my Kuro 500M was superior for watching content (especially film) with the lights off in the dark.

They do produce a different looking image.

The image that plasma produces resembles CRT in a lot of ways since a plasma produces its own light and LCD's require a back-light to produce the light. The end result is quite different producing a lot of different effects (plasma easily attaining a good black level while LCD's look "grey" with the lights off etc).

One thing a lot of people don't talk about in these forums is that LCD's just have an unreal level of "clarity" that plasma and CRT can't match. So much so that many LCD owners around these parts drop their sharpness settings all the way to zero in an attempt to "fix" the issues that pop up from this "unnatural" level of clarity. You see, all this clarity shows us the flaws in the source material we've been using all these years, especially in SD programming and highly compressed sources like Cable and satellite programming. The end result are an ungodly level of compression artifacts etc that don't appear or are less-evident on the less sharp PDP sets.
The benefit to this however is that on lesser-compressed sources such as DVD-9 movies that have been remastered or on true HD sources such as BD and HD-DVD, they look phenomenal. Now mind you, plasma looks good playing these sources as well, and the difference when playing a good HD or near-HD source is minimal when the sets are properly calibrated, but there is a difference in the basic look between the two and thats probably what you see and your eyes just happen to be attracted to the specific look of LCD.

In addition to this, LCD's can be insanely bright due to the back light placed in them. This crazy level of brightness, while partially responsible for the reduction in black levels can make the colors on the set pop like nobody's business, so as long as you aren't watching the LCD in a totally dark room, the sets can look damned good when they are properly adjusted. The colors are insanely bright and couple that with its unnatural clarity and you get that "pop" that people talk about and associate the "look of HD" with.

PDP's and CRT's "less clear" picture actually blends in with the medium of film better than the ultra-sharp LCD's do. This is why many film fans prefer the look of plasma to the look of LCD. If you watch a movie on both PDP and on LCD at the same time from the same source (say a BD). Lets say it was an older film with a lot of film grain (which is natural to the medium of film and not an "artifact") you will notice the grain more in the LCD, because of its clarity. It will "blend" into the background better on the PDP which will make the film look more natural, like how its supposed to look in the theater. I've done such side-by-side viewing tests in various environments and in almost every case, the LCD showed more film grain than the equivalent PDP.

Its not wrong to like the look of LCD over that of PDP or CRT, though there are many here who would try to convince you otherwise. It just means you aren't an old-skool HT fan, you are part of the new generation who is more open to digital technologies that embrace a newer way of filming content in a way that is different from the legacy to which the film industry adheres. As more and more film makers embrace digital, and the old 24fps standard of shooting film goes the way of the dodo, LCD will become more viable as the technology of choice for serious HD enthusiasts as it will be in line with the technology just as much if not moreso than PDP and the legacy CRT technologies. At least until the next "big thing" breaks into the scene. Well, that is if LCD manufacturers can solve the black level issue and motion blur issue (as far as I'm concerned, they've already solved the viewing angle issues).

LCD sets have a much tighter dot picth than plasma. This is why they look sharper than plasma.

As far as in the dark it really doesnt matter. On 2010 sets black is black even on low end ccfl sets than plasma now. The only exception to this is out of the box the panasonic set has blacker blacks but after some time the panny will indeed have similar if not worse black than the lcd counterparts.

All sammy and sony ccfl and local diming 2010 sets now have better black level than the 2010 plasma sets. The edge lits are a different story.

An excellent post with very clear and understandable explanations.

some of it itsnt quite accurate and is slanted with plasma bias although I dont believe the poster thinks it is or realises that he/she might be. In other words it wasnt dont intentionally.

Samsung's Plasma sets 58inches and over still hold an advantage to LCD when it comes to blacks. They measure .006 to .008 on average with some minor variance from one unit to the next. Most LCDs still can't do that in actual content. (without any dimming the entire image) and the few backlit sets still have enough blooming to eliminate their advantage. Then again, once the lights are on, any LCD will look black while the plasma will look grey...

Which part isn't accurate? Don't want to give out patently false info.

PDP's and CRT's "less clear" picture actually blends in with the medium of film better than the ultra-sharp LCD's do. This is why many film fans prefer the look of plasma to the look of LCD. If you watch a movie on both PDP and on LCD at the same time from the same source (say a BD). Lets say it was an older film with a lot of film grain (which is natural to the medium of film and not an "artifact") you will notice the grain more in the LCD, because of its clarity. It will "blend" into the background better on the PDP which will make the film look more natural, like how its supposed to look in the theater. I've done such side-by-side viewing tests in various environments and in almost every case, the LCD showed more film grain than the equivalent PDP.

Mostly this. If you properly calibrate and lcd with around 35ftl you dont get noise unless its in the source. I am a film fan and I find that a matte or semi gloss screen of the lcd provide an image (when calibrated properly with meter) that more closely resembles a film projector. The soft image of plasma combined with the gloss or glare that home enviroment often provides along with sever tinting processes makes the image look alot less like film.

I have gone to several new movies recently closely examining the images. My theaters have new dlp projectors and they are crisp clean and look much more like lcd than plasma.

I know what you mean about the grain but it just aint there when properly setup.

The sharpness of the lcd doesnt come from the image being sharpened by processing. It simply comes becaus eof the tighter dot pitch of the technology. Which is also what makes it a better pc monitor than a plasma. It also makes it easier to see defect in source when backlights and contrast is driven to high.

Pen, I hadnt realized that sammy plasma BL was that low. Earlier reviews I had seen this year had em at .012 to .015. My bad there. Still though, local dimmers are better than that and although they have some bleeds there are negatives about plasmas too to counter that

Id like to add that my perceptions or yours are neither right or wrong its a preference as always the right choice is the one that makes the user happy.

Its Chevy/Ford Iphone/Droid Plasma/LCD Its just a choice and no one is right or wrong.

One thing that has bothered me about plasma sets is the tremendous amounts of dot crawl. Something mostly absent in LCD's unless original source has it and even then LCD's show it less it seems. Also LCD's tend to have superior color pop and because of this look more vivid.

I will say this though the current generation of plasma's look the best that they ever have. Also noticed that the dot crawl issue is practically gone in most plasma sets now. I am actually considering a plasma for my next big TV. However I still prefer LCD for the brightness and vivid colors not to mention power consumption. So I am waiting it out at the moment for LCD's over 60" to become more common.

I believe on paper that plasma actually provides a superior PQ over LCD but I have grown accustomed to what LCD's look like and prefer it.

Not sure if posters realize sharpness is great for static pictures or PC applications but also pose an issue with motion which is why calibrators tune sharpness down. Too sharp an image can be a liability in motion.

I equate this how people in the know prefer to look through slide films vs any kind of printed magazine/photograph. Plasma just look too uniform, too perfect. No "pop."

They had a firmware update that lowered the blacks. Makes you wonder why Samsung could do that, and Panasonic couldn't.

LCD simply shows a sharper, cleaner picture. My Sony 60NX810 came by default settings too bright, once I dialed the settings (lowered backlight to 1, lowered color settings, and turned off all image enhancers), I got a clean natural image.

My Panasonic 58S1 plasma did very poorly during the morning/afternoon but very good during the evening. Also the plasma has dithering which is picture noise while the LED LCD is crystal clean. I don't why Panasonic did not make their tv's with one layer of glass until recently while Pioneer and Samsung have been doing it for years.

Even the blacks are no longer an advantage to plasma tv. Take a look at this UK review of the 40EX700, with the Sharp UVA panel. BTW - The EX700 series is a side-lit LED.

Black Level
We were somewhat concerned that Sony’s movement away from SPVA panels would harm their TVs’ ability to produce satisfyingly deep black levels. SPVA is renowned in the LCD world for its contrast performance, and this is the first Sony BRAVIA display we’ve reviewed that features a competitor’s panel instead (Sharp). The good news is that once we configured peak luminance output to our usual target, black level on the Sony KDL40EX703 measured at 0.04 cd/m2. This is a very nice result which is slightly deeper than Sony’s SPVA-based TVs, and all but identical (to the eye) as Samsung’s darkest.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/index...0EX703U+Review

I was just getting ready to gush over this response when I saw that ruadmaa already did. Well done, NuSoardGraphite!

Except when properly calibrated there is no inane color or insane brightness. Alot of the info in that post may be true of uncalibrated store set lcd tv's but some of the bests sets in 2011 are indeed now LCD such as the local dimming 8500 and 9500 lg sets and sony xbr local dimmers.

Problem is so few knoww what an lcd set really looks like. In store plasma looks closer to natural because they are incapable of going nearly as bright. That does not mean they actually produce a better calibrated image.

Might want to run .04 cd/m2 through a converter for ftl, the blacks are much brighter on the Sony LED LCD than on the Samsung Plasma.

The Samsung 58inch and 63inch plasma sets fall into the .02 cd/m2 range.

http://www.convertworld.com/en/lumin...t-lambert.html

So you prefer an LCD for it's over saturated "fake" colors, and fake looking picture, crapy processing and horrible ghosting " that is why LCD manufacturers had to keep upping up the HZ on their sets so they can become watchable", and let me not start with the off-axis viewing, nothing comes close to producing a more REALISTIC picture than a PDP, nothing. I would not buy an LCD for everyday use if you gave it to me. The only thing that uses LCD tech is my laptop, even my desktop is hooked up to my PDP.

You couldn't buy an LCD if someone gave it to you, brilliant. Plasma's kick but on 3D, what good is that when everyone I know gets a headache when watching 3D. Plasma's dithering, phosphor trail and dejudder which drives some people crazy. If Plasma displays were truly 600 hz they would blow away LCD 240 hertz so bad that nobody would purchase LCD. To myself and many others, we like the soft smooth 240 Hertz LCD over jerky motion dithering plasma's. We like them so much more that we have to sacrifice viewing angle and black levels.

LCD's are not as realistic as PDP, they are like a painting of the image, sometimes paintings look better to some than reality.

you really have no clue what your talking about. you are spewing old info, biased untrue info off as fact and well, its not.

There you plasma guys go again, you guys never debate on facts you only attack. Look at the facts, plasmas are cheaper, larger, perform better 3D and have the best black levels. If they were not plagued with all the issues I stated they would not be being outsold 20-1 by LCD.

serialmike is the owner of a Sony KDL-60EX500 >_>

Sorry my mistake.

1 word for sales figures, marketing. People like to buy what is "new" and "cool", the average person has no idea if PQ is good or bad. They just know that it is new, so it must be better. I would also believe that based on cost, and LCD is cheaper to make.

I don't think any set to date can go toe to toe with an Elite Kuro.

Looks like we've got another plasma Fanboy. Why don't you simply stay on the plasma threads where you belong.

the myths about plamas also has a big negative sales impact
average joe "hears" all about plasma burn in problem and the need to be recharge the plasma over time like freon

Hm, I'm not sure if it's worth entering this discussion. Much of this PDP vs LCD 'information' is completely wrong.

1. Sharpness should be set to the neutral position (typically 0) on all displays; LCD, PDP, CRT and others. The sharpness setting controls the amount of digital sharpness processing added to the image, it should always be disabled.

LCDs are not overly sharp, they display the source as-is.

2. Noticing the grain/noise more with LCD. Actually, this is the opposite of reality. LCD will display the source as-is. If there is grain in the source, there will be grain on the screen. If there isn't any, there's none on the screen either.

Plasmas on the other-hand, especially Pioneer's sets, have to use considerable amounts of dithering to make up for their lack of precision. (they are not even close to 8-bit native displays) With Pioneer plasmas there is always noise in the image, even if there was none in the source.

3. Most LCDs sold now are capable of accurate colour reproduction, it's just that they are also capable displaying image in a wide gamut mode that oversaturates everythingthe way they are typically set up 'out of the box' and in stores. With most, putting them into the 'cinema' mode will usually sort this.

4. LCDs are capable of going much brighter than PDP or CRT. This is what makes them much better suited for viewing in brighter rooms/daylight than either technology.

They can also be set to lower brightness levels better suited for watching in a darkened room as well.

The big difference is that LCD is capable of maintaining its brightness regardless of the image being displayed onscreen. With Plasma, brightness can drop as much as 80% when comparing an image with a small area of brightness to an image where most of the screen is bright. CRT also does this but a good CRT would be less than 10% between a mostly dark and mostly bright image.

I have not found it possible to set PDP to a comfortable brightness for watching in the dark as a result of this. Either scenes where there are only small areas of brightness are displayed too brightly, or if set to display them correctly, scenes where most of the screen is bright are then too dim. With LCD the brightness level stays where I set it.

5. Motion blur, black level are basically a non-issue on high end LCDs.

6. Viewing angle is better on PDP, you will have no arguments from me there. It's usually not a major problem on LCDs now though, as long as you're not watching at an angle in the dark.



There is no 'best' display technology though. LCD, CRT, PDP and others all have various compromises. What might suit one person might not suit another. OLED might finally be something that is objectively better than all other current display technologies, but we won't know that until it's available in large sizes at affordable prices.


Personally, I prefer the flicker-free, noise-free image you get from LCDs to PDP. I find motion handling to be better on my 480Hz LCD than any plasma I've owned, mainly due to the lack of phospor lag, but also the judder reduction that 480Hz brings. I no longer have to worry about image retention/burn-in when playing games (something a friend of mine has had problems with on his Panasonic G20 since GT5 was released) and can use it as a PC monitor without worry. There is almost no noise from the panel itself (all PDPs I've owned buzzed loudly) it runs cool (the PDPs could have been used as a radiator in my small room) and is very energy efficient. (60W with a full 50% grey screen)

Other people prefer plasma. There are no viewing angle issues, and it's much cheaper. Some prefer the look of it as well. (though I'm convinced most that say that, haven't seen a properly set up high-end LCD)

Sure, I say this as a recent LCD owner though, so I'm obviously 'biased' and you will probably disregard my opinion. I've also owned a Pioneer KRP500M and had several other plasmas in my home, all of which I got rid of. (and went back to CRT until my 46HX903) As much as I like this screen, I can see that it wouldn't be for everyone, but it's the first flat panel I've owned that seems good enough for me to keep, and replace my CRTs.