[Archangel]

I asked this for plasma....so I am also asking it for the bigger

sized LCD flat panels. Where are good sources of info...on who

makes what...and how the technology works ?


Is it easier to make a plasma panel or a flat panel ? Trying to

understand why a Sony XBR LCD 42-inch flat panel is $2K

more than a Sony XBR Plasma flat panel? Heard there was

a shortage of LCD chips...is that the reason ?


Can not just be the resolution difference.


There are LCD panels with higher pixel resolutions than plasma

models within the same size. Is it easier to increase the pixel

resolution on a LCD than on a Plasma? Does one take a major

revision of the factory? Is that why you do not see better than

1024x768 in plasma sized at 42-inches?


Should the Sharp LCD panel at 1920x1080 blow away any other

LCD panel ?


Thanks

 

[rogo]

It is more expensive, inch-for-inch to make an LCD panel than a plasma panel. The mfg. is harder.


That said, it is nearly impossible to economically make a plasma panel below 30 inches, where it's possible to stamp out tons of LCDs.


It is easier to squeeze more pixels into an LCD because it is farily routine to make very small pixels for them. The transistor drivers are small and the cell barriers are easy to create as they essential need 3 color-filtered regions and the ability to trap some liquid crystal. A plasma cell has the 3 areas, but each needs to be capable of ionizing some inert gas and letting the freed electrons hit some phosphor to make pretty light. The size of an individual cell is -- therefore much larger today.


":Should the Sharp LCD panel at 1920x1080 blow away any other

LCD panel "


The new Sharp is terrific. But resolution is so unbelievably overrated as a determinant of picture quality that the answer here is neither obvious nor easy. I'd be skeptical of the opinions of people who worship resolution over all else -- especially when their viewing distance exceeds their capability to discern the resolution.


Again, did I mention the new Sharp is terrific?


Mark

 

[Archangel]

Thanks....Mark


Can you recommend some links or sources of info...so I might be

more informed on the issue...instead of asking you 1000 questions.


Your opinion...if I equalled out the price and pixel resolution specs...would you prefer a LCD or Plasma Panel ?


Personally just going on what I saw of that KDL-32XBR950....I would love the 42-inch model...because the picture was better than that of the plasma...albeit....I must take into

account the HD loop I was looking at...and would need to connect a plasma panel to the same

source....to make a better informed decision.


But if all were equal...the LCD has an advantage...at least from what I have read...I do

not have to baby the panel...no worry of burn-in...can play video games...less power

consumtion...and I think just as long lifespan...although some reps have told me

conflicting stories...depending on what technology they prefer to sell.

 

[cjv123]

the sharp tvs are magnificent, but incredibly pricey. for pure HDTV viewing (i.e., not hooked up to your computer) you can get far more TV for the money with an RP/DLP or even a PDP.

 

[Paul Bigelow]

I view my 22" Panasonic LCD at very close distances. For me the pixel density is extremely important -- it creates that "window to the world" effect.


Paul

 

[cjv123]

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Bigelow I view my 22" Panasonic LCD at very close distances. For me the pixel density is extremely important -- it creates that "window to the world" effect. Paul

i do a lot of side-by-side PIP viewing on my LCD (2 sports games) and the pixel density is absolutely crucial to this.

 

[rogo]

"But if all were equal...the LCD has an advantage...at least from what I have read...I do

not have to baby the panel...no worry of burn-in...can play video games...less power

consumtion...and I think just as long lifespan...although some reps have told me

conflicting stories...depending on what technology they prefer to sell."


But lower contrast ratio. Lower black levels. Lower effective viewing angles before contrast ratio weakens. More $$$.


All else is not equal. Each has its own pros and cons. That's why both exist.

 

[Archangel]

You are right...all is not equal now...but how about in the coming months and years...do you not see LCDs coming down in price as did plasmas...maybe at a faster rate...and the contrast levels and other specs having more improvement room than plasmas ??


The 42-inch Sony comes in at a MSRP of $9999 and 1365x768....this is really the first generation of big LCD panels...at least to my knowledge...the first gen of plasma panels were coming in with $15K and $20K MSRPs if memory serves.


You mention LCDs....inch for inch....are harder to make....but I ask....do you think over the next months and years that the manufacturing process of LCDs has an easier road to be streamlined for cost efficiency...as opposed to plasma panel manufacturing? Will each company have its own manufacturing process...in house...for LCD panels....or will it go the route of plasma....where there are only so many glass and parts manufacturers...that companies will buy parts from other sources and just assemble them in house. I think one process will lend itself to better improvements and quicker price point decreases....than the other....at least it sounds somewhat logical.


Then there is the bottom line....what the consumer sees....and what he is willing to pay for it.

That 32-inch Sony XBR LCD panel....which was being fed that HD loop signal....was the best picture I have seen on the flat panels...at least to my eyes...and having the ability to look around the showroom and compare to many other displays....including plasma....at that time....gave me a good test.


I assume the 42-inch panel would perform just as well as the 32-inch if hooked up to the same HD loop. They had the 42-inch display on the floor....and it was producing the same DirecTV HD picture as the plasmas.


I do not know....Mark....the spec sheets might state a lower contrast ratio....and it may indeed have lower black levels....and the viewing angles and other specs may not be what the plasma is on paper....but the bottom line to my eyes the LCD panel just looked better....besides the obvious sharpness improvement...the colors were spectacular.


Just talking MSRP and Sony for now...$8K for a 42-inch 1024x768 XBR plasma panel....as opposed to $10K on a 42-inch 1365x768 XBR LCD panel. I do not think...if I were budgeted for this amount...that I would allow the amount of $2000 dollars...to settle for something that was less pleasing to my eyes...just my humble....uninformed opinion.


And with the release of the Sharp 1920x1080 panel....it seems the LCD panel has a quicker and more well defined road to full HD resolution....than does plasma....and if I understand you correctly...a 1920x1080 plasma panel would consume a whole lot more power....whereas an LCD would not.


There is a lot to consider....it just seems to me that the large flat panel LCD technology is just starting

down its road to success and future improvements...whereas the plasma technology....is a lot further down its road....where improvements have already been made...and future advancements do not look as exciting as they do in LCD.

 

[Archangel]

Plus....how can I compare the contrast levels if no one will list the Sony numbers.


I was trying to compare the contrast levels between the LCD panel....KDL-42XBR950 versus the

KDE-42XBR950...plasma panel.


According to some sites the Sharp Aquos LC-45GD6U 45-inch 1920x1080 LCD panel....has a contrast ratio of 800 to 1...a high brightness of 450 cd/m2...and a 170º/170º vewing angles....60,000-Hour Lamp Life.


Someone told me the Sony KDE-42XBR950 has similar specs to the Panasonic plasma panel TH-42PHD7U which is cited on some web pages as having a contrast ratio of 3000:1 and a brightness of 550cd/m2...and a 160º/160º viewing angle.

 

[orogogus]

well, trusting your eyes is really the best thing in the end since you will be watching the TV at the end of the day. That being said, the specs are more or less crap anyway- however, it is fact that LCDs have lower contrast ratios and brighter absolute blacks than current brand-name PDPs.


Now whether or not this concerns you is really up to you. Just like some people are resolution fiends, others are contrast fiends. But contrast does tend to be more pleasing to the eye and create more of an illusion of depth for an image. Where you see the major differences in LCD vs PDP is in the dark. Watch dark scences in a dim room with both and you will immediately see the difference in black level and contrast ratio. But like you said, with bright, colorful images in bright rooms, LCD can and do 'pop' which is what your eye is likely picking up on (especially based on store viewing conditions).


About the other questions about LCD vs PDP you have posted- I suggest doing a search on the topic in the forum and you will get many, many, MANY hits on the subject (usually flame wars, but there is good info there- look for rogo's posts concerning projected capacities, pricing etc. for good tidbits about manufacturing and pricing).


IMO (although this is skewed because are ARE talking about Sony here which is well known for treading on their name and styling over substance) I'm in agreement with you that there isn't a $2k difference between the two (but if I was going to drop 10k on a TV I wouldn't short-change myself on my own perceived PQ). But they really are apples and oranges.

 

[rmcgirr83]

Quote:

Originally posted by Archangel I do not know....Mark....the spec sheets might state a lower contrast ratio....and it may indeed have lower black levels....and the viewing angles and other specs may not be what the plasma is on paper....but the bottom line to my eyes the LCD panel just looked better....besides the obvious sharpness improvement...the colors were spectacular.

Specs are specs...what matters the most, or should anyway, is which you prefer.


You prefer the LCD panel, that's all that matters.


Enjoy!!

 

[rogo]

".do you not see LCDs coming down in price as did plasmas..."


I do see that.


"maybe at a faster rate..."


My belief -- based largely on industry forecasts from mfrs. themselves as well as analysts is no, not at a faster rate, therefore a gap will remain.


"and the contrast levels and other specs having more improvement room than plasmas ??"


Not really. So far no one can make black on an LCD appear at all black. Until there are modulated backlights, that appears unlikely to change.


Also, I really think comparing 32-inch screens to 42 and 50-inch screens is kind of pointless. The smaller the screen, the better the picture -- pretty much every time so long as all else is even a little bit equal.


That said, buy what you like and don't worry about what the specs, myself or anyone else says. Rich and I are in violent agreement on that.


Mark

 

[Paul Bigelow]

I agree with Mark.


"buy what you like"


I did the education, went out, and bought what most closely met my needs and wants. If I was depending upon this forum (or any forum) to truly make a "decision" on purchasing an item, I'd have so many conflicting opinions my head would spin. The education took a little while but the process of selecting the set took only about two hours.


Arm yourself with a DVE or Avia, a decent, highly rated in "Secrets of Home..." player, learn how to use it on the current set, and go out and start adjusting and evaluating.


There is no substitute for going out and having a look at these TVs. Can it be time consuming? Yes, but if the homework was done beforehand, it isn't time wasted. It shouldn't take very long to find an acceptable set.


If money is truly the reason for indecisiveness and so-called "fence sitting" then perhaps a large flat panel set shouldn't be purchased at this time. Perhaps a CRT could be considered.


The process of selecting and buying a TV should be fun, not distressing, and not full of "not buying the right set" syndrome.


Just have fun!


IMHO


Paul