LCD or Plasma? Plasma or LCD? and why those Black Bars? Discuss it here only Please - Page 19

Do you want content you view to look realistic or "enhanced"? Plasma is more likely to give you a realistic picture and LCD is better if you want colors to look brighter than real life.

I think LCDs often tend to look "photoshopped", but that's just my opinion.

Very true. I have yet to see an lcd that looked "as 3d" or "real" and any plasma. I have calibrated some of both and i will never buy an lcd. For the money plasma is a no brainer to me. I used to work at cc and EVERYONE was drawn to the sammy lcd xx71 with a blu ray demo playing. But once you flipped it to the loop that runs on everything, they realize they can get a better pic for half the money in plasma. Especially once you point out the lag that lcd has, everyone sees how smooth plasma is. just my 2 cents.

Hey everyone, I'm reading through this thread and there is some great information. Thanks to everyone for contributing to it. In my particular case, I have an apartment with a large skylight and two windows. I rarely have to turn the lights on in my apartment during the day, I get a lot of natural light in my living room, and I like it that way. There is no shade on the skylight, so this might be an issue. The windows are not in a position to reflect on the TV, nor will there be any direct sunlight on it from the skylight.

I'm trying to decide between plasma and LCD. I want to use the TV for some minor gaming (I'm getting a wii) and mostly for movies. I don't watch much during the day, but I don't want the screen being completely washed out either.

Also, do Plasmas generate significantly more heat that LCDs? Specifically I'm deciding between the Samsung 5084 50" plasma and the Samsung 4661F LCD. If there are other TVs in that price range you'd recommend more highly, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks!

Sorry about the sarcasm.

If you're watching a lot (90%) of 4:3 material (remember, horizontal, then vertical) I'd go with "not plasma." Plasma has come a long way from the initial sets, but that kind of use will cause uneven wear.

Regarding the choices from there, go with LCD if you want a thin, easy, no-hassle setup that will work great in brightly light areas.

Go with rear-projection if you've got a desire for bigger screens, and are willing to make the compromise on physical placement.

And if you've got the room to set it up, the ability to control lighting, and the time to drill some holes in your ceiling and wall, you should be able to find a genuine 4:3 projector for a pittance these days.

Thanks for the correction.

Yes, this is what I'll do.

However, I've been told that SD content looks like crap on most HD LCDs.
Is that indeed the case? Are there screens are good for both SD and HD?
(Looks good in the case of SD means: not worse (or only slightly worse) than a CRT).

Thank you!

This is what is keeping me from replacing my 910 XBR tube with an LCD. I have yet to find a flat panel that is "as forgiving" as this CRT for SD content. Maybe it's not fair that I compare them, but more likely it's not fair the consumer doesn't have much of a choice anymore! In all honesty, I'm hoping one of two things happens in the next two years: 1)LCD comes up on par with my XBR, or 2) there is so much HD available that I won't be watching much SD content. That way, I won't have to move this 200 lb. behemoth BACK cross-country.

The only way for SD to look good would be if someone would produce a 960p native display.

I really think they missed the boat when they formulated the standards--there shouldn't have been 720p or 1080i as the standards for broadcast--the standard should have been 960p.

Why can't a 1080i/p LCD only use 960 lines for SD content?
The image will be about 11% smaller than the screen height but that doesn't sound like a big problem (especially if it's optional).

I am looking at recommendations for a display to use specifically with my PIONEER 3575 (which I am loving). I am currently in the stone age with a 32 inch 10 yr old CRT television. (by the way the 3575 tuner has improved the picture on this old box). I also get extended analog cable from Charter Comm. There is only 1 over the air RF HD signal available to me because of my location in the country and I live in a valley. I do however receive some unscrambled digital on my analog cable. I do not have space to put anything bigger the a 37 or 40 inch display.

Thanks in advance.

Because then it would also be 11% skinnier.

The problem is of scaling - 480 to 960 would be a 1:2 scale, which involves less artifacting than 1:Non-Integer-Value scaling. If "HD" was considered 1706x960 (an ugly horizontal number) then SD could just be doubled in both dimensions and look fairly good (obviously it's not that simple, but I'm paraphrasing here.)

For your initial question, most LCDs do have poorer SD PQ than other display types, but it's a matter of the trade-off between that and the uneven wear from 4:3 viewing.

uneven wear is in my opinon the only thing making me afeared of the plasma, since i despise the idea of strecthing, and between my PS2 and the SD tv content there is still plenty of that kind of stuff to be had.

but if you use grey bars then it really shouldnt matter (i personally dont like grey bars either, i find they cut up the picture).

Not if you make the black bars 11% fatter.

Excuse the trans-post, but I originally wrote this in the plasma "burn-in" forum . . .


I couldn't agree more. And, this, coming from an owner of both Sharp LC-52D64U 52" and LC-65D64U 65" LCD displays. But, I do tend to do all the things that you're not supposed to do with plasmas (gaming for hours, letterboxed for hours, falling asleep, etc.). I have a 50" plasma in the living room, and it's gorgeous. But it exhibits IR even if I'm just fooling around with the menu for a bit (admittedly, an older set). Still, I kinda wish I had bought plasmas all the way around for their superior contrast and viewing angles. But, I also do really enjoy "not caring" about any IR issues with my Sharp Aquos LCD displays (leaving DVDs/DVRs on pause, using them as computer displays, etc.). My girlfriend tends to watch tons of 4:3. That alone would make me a nervous wreck. Seeing 4:3 pillars, temporary or not, on my brand new, $5,000 plasma display, would just make me feel "not good." Pick your poison. Both display technologies have their merits and demerits.

A small consolation of the Sharp LC-65D64U 65" LCD over say, the Panasonic TH-65PF9UK 65" plasma, is that the Sharp uses 1/3 less energy (525W vs. 790W, respectively). That's good, because I have this thing on a LOT. Still kinda wished I had the Panasonic plasma instead, though . . . plus, the Panasonic is only $1,000 more than the Sharp "Friends & Family" price I paid for the Sharp 65" LCD.

Not true. SD can look horrible on either plasmas or LCDs. For example, SD looks horrible on my low-end 50" plasma, and great on my expensive, large-screen LCDs. It's in the quality of the scaler.

I just replaced my 30" XBR 970 with a Panasonic 42" 700U plasma with a Toshiba A2 HD player.

The first DVD I put in for the break-in period was a SD disk of computer animation. I was SO DISAPPOINTED with the lack of image quality, I almost gave up on the plasma right then. However, when the plasma had aged 100 hours, I set up the set to my liking. Now it seems to me that the picture is getting better every time I use it!

My point is that even as good a plasma as the Panasonic still took quite a while to get even close to the image quality of my XBR. It's still not quite there, and I doubt it ever will be; but the difference is getting so small that the extra screen size of the plasma makes up for the slight reduction in PQ. (FYI: I sit about 3.5' from the screen).

My finer point is that I think it will be (unfortunately) a long time before a LCD comes even close to your XBR.

Yep, my setup in the basement is a home theater feeding a Panasonic 42PZ77U. You're right; after break-in, the Panasonic does a VERY good job. So much so that if I get my asking price for my 910 on Craigslist, I will be replacing it with the 42PZ700U (Costco is blowing these out right now). If not, I will be happy just keeping it and enjoying it for a few more years.

To quote the great Jamie Hyneman:


You're sitting at the average distance people would be from a computer monitor, never mind a 42" TV. Listen to your mother and sit back away from the TV ... not because you'll ruin your eyesight, but because you'll see artifacts!

Hey guys,

I'm new here, this is my first post!!

I am needing some help, I am seriously thinking about getting my first HDTV, and I am looking at the Pioneer 5010FD. I am so new to all this stuff, but I love this set!!! I need help deciding if it is a good buy or not! I need help, because until reading this stuff I didn't realize that the type of use makes such a big difference! I am going to use it for a bit of gaming (by a bit, I mean I like to play and I play at least 10 hrs per week or more). I will get an HD feed when I move, which will be in june, but until then I am planning on using it for Blu ray video and gaming. SO there's my dilema, what should I do. I love this TV I think it's brilliant, but I need to know if it is going to serve me well, or if I will damage it...

Please any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks!!

Is there a better option, should I get a Bravia XBR, I hear those are incredible as well?? Also, is an LCD a better option for me?

Hey Ghost...DO NOT get the XBR. I was soooooo disappointed in the response time for Sonys TOP OF THE LINE tv. Of course this is my opinion.

Look at another posting by me.... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post13412926

Someone else asking the same thing in a previous post. I just hate giving money to a manufacturer that seems to be praying on the consumers lack of knowledge. Someone a little earlier also mentioned that consumers have no choice and this is sort of true. We do have a choice BUT a MAJOR problem I see is that there is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING on the market that comes close to the performance of a crt. No one can say that my Sony HD Superfine pitch crt can out performed by their lcd OR plasma. I don't the cr but it's way higher than both. oleds are rumored to be around 1,000,000:1

Um....if that is the next or one of the next big techs....why settle for 2000:1 That's a pretty big difference to me. Also there is NO respose time issues with crts. 0!

granted as I mentioned in my other posting....techs are getting better. IMHO....wait! Much better performing lcds are just around the corner.

Ghost,
Don't listen to Sony bashers. Go look at the sony XBR4/5 and make your own desicion. Don't get caught up in responce time numbers. The sonys motion is very good. I actually had an LCD with a better responce time and perferred the sony hands down. The Motionflow of the Sony is the best motion enhanser of all LCDs IMO. I think the Sony is still the best LCD on the market. The LNT5281F samsung has better black levels but still falls a little short of the Sony IMO.
But hey, Don't just take my word for it!
CNet also agrees with me.

Check out this article titled "whats the best 1080p LCD?"

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6482_7-6591614.html?tag=ms

Personally if you want the best flat panel, I would wait until the 9th generation pioneer Kuro plasmas come out in a few months.
They will by far destroy the competition IMO.
good luck,
-Chadmak09

I'm not a a Sony basher....I HAVE a sony!!!!! If you read the posting and the link I provided to another one...you would understand that first, I am bashing lcd tech...and then here I'm bashing sony TOP OF THE LINE tv. Why dont you read before you post something ignorant! Look at the specs...Sony 8ms the Sharp d64 series..4ms! Which one is faster? SHARP!!!!!!!! I'm not bashing Sony....I'm saying I'm disappointed that Sony (supposed to be one of the best if not THE best tv maker in the world) Is praying on the LACK of consumer knowledge in lcd tech. Maybe you didn't quite understand what I wrote.

Read up on "MotionFlow"... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/s...d.php?t=615615 Some good reviews, many bad ones!

Response time is one of THE most important functions of a lcd...do you argue against that? If you do you are an idiot! A completely brainwashed consumer!! How do you think a lcd tv functions? by turning on and off its pixels. That is response time. What do you mean ignore it? Are you stupid? It's like saying don't pay attention to the tires on tyour Ferrari...they aren't important because its a Ferrari and it has a great engine. that's just a plain and stupid uneducated remark on your part! Motionflow? What kind of crap is that? It's a marketing ploy to say "Hey, our rt sucks, but we put other software in the machine to fake you out to make you think it's not important to the performance of our tv."

The speed at which a lcd pixel turns on and off is a basic function of a lcd tv. Are you saying that is incorrect? It's like saying the motor in a car isn't as important as the radio, or the air conditioner.

Yes it is up to you....it is ultimately your decision. If you look at both machines with the same video source, you will DEFINATELY see the difference. It is there, plain as day!

I just wanted to also make 2 other points...It's funny you mention looking into the newer Pioneer plasmas....they have no motion issues...IT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF A PLASMA TV !!!!!!!!!!

Plasma pixels don't turn on and off...basically,the plasma gas inside is electrified and depending on the speed of excitement through the phosphor, you get colors. This is at the speed of light(electrons). It does use more power.
In lcd tech, the backlight is ALWAYS ON!!!! It never turns off!!!!! You need a backlight, a light difuser, liquid crystal, color filter, all in that order like a sandwich. So think about that, the light is already behind 3 walls! before it gets to you. It will NEVER be as bright as it was when it left the backlight. When you electrify the liquid crystal at various levels, it changes polarity and the polorizer blocks the light which in turn changes that particular color. You will NEVER have good blacks on lcd tvs because the light is always on.

With all the LCD bashing I have done in my posts, I DO agree that it's not a terrible tech, just way over rated as a great alternative to crt tvs. The ONLY ONLY ONLY advantage that they have over crts is that they are thinner and lighter(thats 2, sorry!) My main point in ALL my posts is that DONT BUY THE HYPE OF SONY TVS!!!!!!. CRTs were the best. Sony made the best! Period! Everyone knows that. LCD is a totally different tech and Sony DOES NOT have the same corner of the market as they did with crt tvs. If you look at the specs and compare the specs and not your crappy eyes, you can see plainly that they are not equal! Yes Your eyes are important and what you see obviously is important. But when it comes to lcd tech, DONT think that a Sony that is priced $1000 more than a competitor means that it is a better tv. You're an idiot if you think so!!!

I hate to be so mean but dag gum it! I hate to see people spending their hard earned money with a company that just ISNT making XBR calibur tvs anymore. I'll give you one example... My Sony KD-30XS955 30 inch HDTV CRT tv. It has the LAST Super Fine Pitch CRT tube Sony ever made! The model that came after my tv which I believe is the XBR 910, DOES NOT HAVE THIS TUBE. It has an inferior Trinitron tube. My tv and the XBR of the same model year has the SAME TUBE!!!!! The difference in the 2 tvs is some features like pip and some programming stuff. The TUBES are the same!!!!!! The XBRs they made after my model year DO NOT have the Super Fine Pitch tubes in them. Mine was the last that Sony made with that tube. So they started dumping on quality after my model tv. The XBR is supposed to be the best right? Then why did my tv have the same tube as an XBR? OK fine....they made an in between product that had a better tube but with less software stuff like pip, I get that....but why did the new XBR NOT contain the Super Fine Pitch Tube? Because Sony was relying on their name to get them by.

I TOTALLY love this tv I have! It is THE best HDTV you could have gotten at the time including the xbrs that had the same tube. Nothing compares to it even 3 years after that model year. XBRs are supposed to be THE BEST SONY MAKES!!!!!! PERIOD!!! Am I wrong??? Is there a better Sony tv you can get besides the XBR at least for consumers??????? NO NO NO NO NO!

I'll finish with this....If XBRs are supposed to be the top of the line, the creme of the crop, the best of the best, then WHY do their specs not match up to other tvs in their class?????? Specs don't matter? The don't even list brightness levels or RT on their website. I wonder why....Educate yourself before you spend $2000 on a tv! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The CRT love fest has gotten old. In fact its been old for years now.

Discussing CRT TVs is pointless. I mean its the same as discussing vinyl records, and how some people argue that the music off of a vinyl record cannot be matched.

The old technology may have some benefits, but they are now just talking points for people who refuse to move on.

Now as for 1080p LCD HDTVs, the fact of the matter is, while Sony does not meet the specs of some other LCDs, I am left to wonder as to why that is, simply because their performance is not hindered by it.

I mean Sony LCDs consistently win awards, and are consistently rated higher than most other LCDs.

Not only that, it passes the eye test every time. When your at your local audio/video store, I DO NOT MEAN BEST BUY OR CIRCUIT CITY, I mean when you are at your local smaller higher end audio/video store with calibrated LCDs, Sonys almost always, at least to my eye, have one of the best, if not the best picture.

Sony TVs may not be worth the extra cash, in terms of actual hardware, but I believe they do make some of the finest LCDs, despite the fact that they are SEEMINGLY lacking when it comes to some of the numbers.

Not to get too far off-topic, but the XBR 910 DOES have the Superfine Pitch Tube. The 910 was the forerunner to the 955 and XBR960 which were the last to include the SFP tube. BTW, no complaints on my Panasonic Plasma....

Packhater,
After reading a rant like that, all I can say is maybe you should consider resuming your medication.
Actually when you are refreshing the screen at 120hz, responce time importance decreases. (not to say its not better to have a faster responce time, )
this is the function of 120hz. Lcd cannot keep up with the pixel responce time set forth by plasma and other technology, therefore it "cheats" by refreshing the screen twice as fast. So, between two LCD's that both have 120hz refresh rate, you will be VERY hard pressed to tell which has 8ms and which has 4ms responce time if you can tell at all.
The sony's motionflow is the best out there. Period.
Look at the reviews! (And I don't mean the reviews of places like ROTTEN TOMATOES.com LOL).
Oh and by the way, I am not looking into buying a pioneer plasma, I already own one and I think the Pioneer plasmas are not only the best flat panels out there, but the best TV's Period.

Packhater, maybe you should switch your Forum username to "SonyHater". Yes, there was a time when Sony's XBR line was semi-pro, and their models seemed like they came off the Broadcast & Professional assembly line rather than the consumer division, but those days have long been gone. The CRT XBR models you listed was at a time when Sony was winding down its entire CRT production, as they stopped all R&D and began concentrating their efforts on other video technologies. In my mind, that was a mistake and way too soon, but then I don't crunch the profit numbers at Sony HQ, and I imagine they took the best road to more profitability. As you can easily see, Sony is presently producing one of the best LCD displays out there, along with one of the best HT front projectors, and now advancing OLED video tech.

I was at CC the other day and they had a 71 Samsung with Blu ray Pirates playin and yes it did POP out at ya more than anything. A few sets down on the same feed was a 42PX80 and it looked horrible. All the other sets looked grainy except that 71 series, you could see it stand out from 15 ft back. I started watching it though and everytime someone moved it was like it took awhile for all the pixels to catch up, it was driving me crazy as it became more and more noticable to me. If thats what I'd have to put up with I couldnt watch that set.

tl;dr

Do you have a point to your whining, or do you just need to flush the sand out from your shorts?

I'm trying to decide between plasma and lcd for tv/computer in the 42ish range (strickly 1080p). I was all set on lcd but now I'm having second thoughts. One of my concern is electricity. I always thought that plasma used 2x lcd but best buy sales guy insist that on average plasma uses a bit less. He said the reason was that the new lcd increase the power on the back lighting - also the newer lcd were wearing out faster. Anyways, any comments/suggestion? Also if plasma which models are good starting point for a search (I was thinking pionere or panasonic but know very little about plasma since I spent all my time looking at lcd). Btw I was leaning towards samsun 550, 71f if I found a cheap one (last year's model) or perhaps one of the new toshiba with regards to lcd.

subscribe