LCD or Plasma? Plasma or LCD? and why those Black Bars? Discuss it here only Please - Page 10

Plasma is the better choice unless your putting it in a sunroom. It's more realistic with much less picture noise, and doesn't have the flat look that LCD's do.

If you are talking about artifacts, your statement is incorrect. There are different issues for LCDs and for Plasma displays but "picture noise" is not one of them. It the the electronics behind the display that are responsible for cleaning or messing up the signal sent to the display. This has nothing at all to do with display technology.

I have a question. If I'm sitting about 7 - 8 feet from a tv, will a 42" set look better than a 50" set assuming that both sets are 720p (1366 x 768) and the same brand, contrast ratio, etc. ? It seems like since they have the same amount of pixels that the 42 would look clearer since it is spreading the pixels over a smaller space.

Is this correct?

I can not see the pixels on my 50" 720p plasma until I am less than 6 feet from the screen. Go with the 50" set. Go in a store and measurre off the distances and compare. You will see that we can not differentiate the pixels at 7-8 feet on either set.

Thanks for the input. The problem is that I did buy the 50" but I'm not happy with the PQ at all, specifically with DVDs and standard def tv. I thought maybe the 42 might look better since it wasn't spreading the pixels across such a large space. Is that not right?

Which brand 50" did you buy? I have a 50" panny and the PQ with SD and DVD looks great.

Will your local A/V store allow you to play a dvd on one of their floor models? This could be a good way to check.

I have a 40" LCD and my SD (DVDs and SD tv), as well as HD, looks great. SD tv is nearly as good as a DVD. The larger the set, the larger the pixels - or the space between them. I would bet a set with smaller pixels would give you a nicer picture.

Depends on the quality of your vision. I can see some pixel structure as far back as 7.5ft-ish, after numerous showroom measurements. But that's under the worst case screen content scenario (or ideal case, depending how you look at it), i.e., I'm only seeing it on flat and lighter, stationary patches/expanses of color, and only when looking specifically for it. If pixel structure totally disappeared for me at 6ft., then I would be 98% sold on a 720p resolution. As it stands, I'm still 78% sold on 720p because of my typical viewing distances of 8ft.+, but I do worry sometimes about those occasional under 8ft viewing situations I sometimes find myself in. I really need to make some more 50" vs. 42" 720p panel checks to see if there is a significant enough difference in viewable pixel structure from the same respective distances.


In any case, some can see pixel structure even further back, like 9-10 ft back, etc. I pity them. Their decisions are even harder and possibly more expensive (1080p required for them). Perhaps zooey74 is one of those unlucky ones.

I bought the new model Panasonic 50px75u.

The DVD quality really bugs me. I put in Saving Private Ryan and the amount of "fuzz", for lack of a better word, around the characters faces was really noticeable. I put in Kill Bill and when a character's face is close up it looks clear but when they are sort of in the middleground and background they become blurry. And these are in scenes when I know the person's face should be clear and in focus.

Right now we are viewing at about 6.5ft but that will probably move to 7.5 once we are finished getting everything setup. I don't see any pixels on the 360 at this distance but I see lots of noise on DVDs, specifically when characters are in the middleground to background. I purchased a 1080p upconverting dvd player and HDMI cables hoping to improve this but if anything it looks worse. Granted I didn't exactly buy the most expensive DVD player they had.

That's kind of what I was thinking. The only thing is that if I drop down to the 42" Panasonic it won't be true 1366 x 768 it will only be 1024x768. Something about having my HDTV the same resolution as my old CRT monitor makes me uneasy.

What set top box are you using? Your display is very much like mine. If you use the SA8300HD we could perhaps exchange settings. I'm looking to get the 42px75u for the bedroom so now I'm a little concerned.

Sorry, I'm new to all of this so I'm not sure what you mean by set top box. It sounds like you are asking about my HD cable box but the image quality I'm complaining about in the post you quoted is coming from my DVD player.

Also, I don't know if you should let anything I say concern you if you are already comfortable with HDTVs. This is my first one so I'm sure a lot of my problems are due to my own ignorance, not necessarily the tv. I just want to figure out what's causing the display issues I'm seeing, whether they are common, and what I can do to fix them.

I'm thinking of exchanging this one for the 42px75u, the only thing that concerns me is the 1024x768 resolution. I'd rather it be 1366 x 768 which from what I understand is "true" 720p.

Oh ok, got it. I missed that point. Well, since it's the DVD player picture you're having concerns with perhaps it would be easier to purchase another DVD player rather than return your TV for the 42. You can simply return the DVD player if you still experince the problem. Another thing to try, does your DVD player have a setting for "progressive"? If so, be sure it's set. This can improve the picture. Yes, the set top box is the cable box.

Also, I believe the display size dictates to resolution, 1024x768 or 1366 x 768.

"True HD" is 1280x720p or 1920x1080

Yeah, I plan on returning the DVD player tonight. I didn't see a setting for "progressive" but there was a setting where I could change the picture from 480p to 720p or 1080p. Would that have the same effect? I tried changing those but didn't see a distinct difference between either setting.

Ah, I see. My current tv has a resolution of 1366 x 768. So it isn't "True HD" yet it has more pixels than True HD does? I'm not sure I understand the difference. And the 42" one I may end up getting only has a resolution of 1024 x 768, which seems much less than True HD. I'm confused.

Hi all

I thought I would give my impression of the LCD, Plasma debate.

I own a 46" Samsung LCD, for the past few days I have had a 42" samsung plasma sitting right next to it.

During the day the LCD is far better but at night the plasma is far superior, I have a room with lots of uncontrolled light.

During the day on the plasma's blacks get very gray and the screen gets washed out not to mention the reflections, making it very hard to watch. The LCD during the day looks great the brightness of the TV really helps plus the matt screen, black for the most part is just as black as it is at night.

During the night with very little lighting the plasma looks awesome lots of shadow detail (as much or a little more then the LCD during the day) unbelievable depth, black is BLACK, I get a Y 0IRE reading of 0 . The LCD looks a little better at night then during the day but side by side it looks washed out compared to the plasma, black is black but not as good as the plasma, Y 0IRE reading .08 to .1. Plus the LCD "bleeds light" if you have white and black lines on the screen, on the LCD the black lines are a bright black on the plasma at night they are black.

Other then the black/shadow detail, the LCD has very bright/vibrant colors, the plasma has very dark/rich colors. The plasma has a sightly softer PQ but a "smother" PQ. I noticed motion blur before but side by side it is very noticeable on the LCD.

Technically the plasma is very close to the standard; color gamut, gamma and such are good almost out of the box, with just some black crush that could be easily adjusted out. The LCD's color is over saturated, gamma is generally higher on the top end and lower on the bottom, lowend grayscale is bad. But for the most part this would be IMO a personal preference regardless of what the calibration police might tell you.

All that said I would love to have a plasma for night time viewing and a LCD for daytime viewing but as I can only have one it will be LCD for me, because of my room conditions and the LCD has a more consistend PQ (very good) The plasma goes from OK to awesome. The Plasma will be going to mom for mother's day as she has a darker viewing room.

The TV's and stuff:

LN-S4692
HPT4254
PS3
Sony DVD
SA8300HD
Vision HDP-only used on the LCD, yes giving it an advantage but I did remove it some of the time.
IBM ThinkPad

Some day maybe some one will make a TV that will look awesome in all viewing conditions but I am not holding my breath LOL

Don't get to hung up on the "True HD", "Full HD", "Super HD", "Super Duper HD" they are marketing terms that are made up by TV manufacturers. The NTSC sets the "standard" once you get a screen that is 16:9 and display => 720 it is HD. I believe (but could be wrong) that PAL is slightly different something like => 1280x720 and 16:9.

Yes, set the box to output 720P for the HD channels and 480i or 480P for the SD channels (4:3 override).

Right, but I'm just talking about the DVD player. I didn't see anywhere where I could select "progressive" but I was able to change it from 480p to 720p. I assume this has the same effect as being able to select "progressive"?

Progressive is that little p after the #, i would be for interlaced, so yes it has the same affect.

Let me start by saying the both sets should look great.

Neither display has a native resolution that maps to what is broadcast or defined by ATSC. A 1024 display is incapable of true 1:1 pixel mapping. A 1366 set 'may' be capable but would display with a border on all four sides. The 1366x768 set has to interpolate an extra 86x48 lines. A 1024 x 768 set will lose the equivalent of vert 256 lines and interpolate 48 additional horiz lines of pixels. Note, the sets do not add or remove "lines" but adjust by the equivalent number of pixels. This normally is not a major issue and both displays should produce an excellent picture. Just not a picture that maps 1 to 1 (pixel to pixel) to what is transmitted.

BTW, ATSC develops the standards/specifications for digital broadcasting. It was the manufacturers that pushed for including only the horizontal resolution and ignoring the vertical.

Laptop displays were/are 1024x768. If you retain the same pixel shape, 1024x768 becomes 1366x768 when stretched to 16x9. Sets with 1024x768 achieve 'widescreen' performance by changing the pixel shape - making them wider. Take this to a foolish extreme, current display 'standards' would allow a 1x768 display, as long as the 1 pixel was wide enough.

I went to Bestbuy today just to look. I must say they have a much better display of HDTV's now. They now show HD programs on all of their HDTV's instead of SD. I use to hate walking into Bestbuy and they would have SD programs displayed on Plasma's or LCD's. Today they had Planet Earth showing on all Plasma's and LCD's. It was great because I was able to see them side by side. I must say I really like the LCD picture now. The brighter picture would probably do better in my bedroom due to the fact that my bedroom has a lot of light. The Plasma was definitely darker. The 50 Plasma I currently have in my den does well there because my den doesn't have a lot of light. In terms of picture quality it was very hard to tell the difference between the two. The LCD did better with cartoon type graphics (for lack of a better description). Close facial shots looked better on the plasma. The LCD had more color, more red in the face. Perhaps it wasn't adjusted correctly. Anyway, for now I'm back to the LCD for the bedroom. The Samsungs had a great picture.

I spent a good part of the weekend watching my 50" plasma and I honestly don't have any problem with viewing in a very bright room. At times and depending on the programming, I actually think that with good ambient light the plasma looks better than in a totally darkened room. I'm wondering why that is? Differences in the surface of the displays?

I was at a friend's house yesterday watching his LCD and the reflection of light from outside just killed the picture. Not on my plasma though. Strange, considering all the posts I've seen here saying the darker the better for plasmas.

Chris

After reading TONS of posts about plasma reflection vs lcd reflection on this forum, I've determined that it really all comes down to personal taste.

That may seem like an obvious statement, and in some ways it is, but.. when you have bunches of examples of joe bloes saying their plasma reflection isn't bad at all, even with several windows and/or lights situated opposite of their panel and then you have the polar opposite where many many people are driven to complete distraction even if they only have a single light or window situated opposite the panel, along with every variation of opinion in between these two extremes, it suggests to me that this is an issue that simply cannot be confidently answered for you by the balance of opinion provided by others.

I think the collective posting evidence has shown that tolerance for screen reflectivity is an individualistic issue just like DLP color wheel sensitivity, plasma "trailing greens" sensitivity, LCD motion blur sensitivity, Sony SXRD "silk screen effect" sensitivity, etc. In other words, only your own eyes and brain will be able to answer this question to your satisfaction. You really cannot seek advice here on the forum and come away confident as to which camp you will fall into.

So are you saying there are no differences in screen surface types that may play a part in reflectivity?

Chris

It does come down to personal taste. For me it's not a huge issue right now because as I said, my plasma is in a room where there isn't a lot of light. Currently I can see my reflection and my kitchen area if I look at my plasma screen which is in the den. It really doesn't bother me. Most old school TV sets have this and no one really complained about it. If my plasma were in a room with more light might it be a bigger issue? I don't know. The other fact here is TV's are larger in size which could be the reason this reflection issue has come the light. When I visited Best Buy the other day it was clear the reflection on the LCD was not present. That being the case I decided an LCD would be best in my bedroom due to the fact that more windows as well as two skylights exist.

I am sure TV's are different some LCD's use a glass screen and get more reflections then a matt screen

Here is a pic of a LCD (LN-S4692) and a plasma (HP-T4254)

specific to the plasma category? Up until recently, their have been some very moderate differences in screen reflectivity among the various brands and model years (some getting a little darker than others, helping moderately). To this extent, there has been mild variation in screen composition, I suppose, i.e., whatever it takes to make the glass darker than the average. But for the most part, they all give off the same or nearly the same amount of reflection that any slight differences have been rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Personal tolerance levels play a much larger determining role, I think.

Now, with the introduction of a couple new Panasonic models, one already out and I think one yet to be released, (both of which have supposedly improved this aspect, each in a slightly different way from one another, but both to a more significant degree than ever before), and, the new 8th gen Pioneers on the horizon, which will supposedly show vast improvement here as well, but are at least a few months away from release... things may be changing in a major way for the plasma category.

oh, and as a tip that has worked wonders for some plasma owners: if you are wall mounting, get a tilt mount which allows you to tip your plasma down a little bit. This can effectively eliminate a significant degree of reflection from windows, lights, etc., as tilting will point the screen more towards the floor where there are no windows and lights.