[schmidrj]

I'm trying to understand what the differences are between plasma and LCD.


From reading other posts here, it appears that the following is true:


- LCD has significantly less chance of burn-in than plasma

- Plasma currently has cheaper/larger sets

- picture quality is about equivalent


Is this correct? Any other important differences?


If so, I think I want to get an LCD panel. When would you expect that an HD 32" - 40" LCD set be available for under $3,000?


Thanks in advance!

 

[Seanster]

Actually most here would say plasma looks better than LCD, espescially if you're getting a tv above 32 inches. With new models I don'tthink plasma burn-in is even an issue anymore, as long you don't leave CNN on for days, & also helps to tune down the visual setting if it comes in with super bright settings on.


Sean

 

[Bob Dycus]

I am a directview owner, so I will give you an unbiased answer.


LCD looks much better than plasma. I saw a 30" the other night that had the BEST picture I have ever seen on a TV.


There is no burn-in on an LCD. What you have to be concerned with is the lifetime of the backlighting device, an electro-luminesent panel. The lifetime I have seen quoted is 60,000 hours.


I would expect it to be several years before those sizes of LCDs are below $3000. The 30" I saw the other night was in the $5000 range.

 

[divvy]

I am a directview owner, so I will give you an unbiased answer.


plasma looks much better than lcd. I saw a 50" the other night that had the BEST picture I have ever seen on a TV.


Must be true then.


For a rather more studied opinion, take a look at Pete Putman's review here. He summarizes the main issues with PQ with his comment about black levels and motion smear. I must admit that there is something extremely compelling about the Sony 30" xbr900 even with its relatively high (against plasma) black levels and motion smear. The sharpness of the image and vivid colors really makes it stand out. Doesn't mean that it has the best PQ though, just the most obviously arresting.

 

[rogo]

30" TVs "look better" than 50" TVs. I am with what divvy was doing, I just find it ludicrous that people keep dredging up this, "I saw this 30".... " stuff.


I watched HDTV on a 20" screen the other night and it was a 4:3 screen, so the HD area was even smaller.


Well, it was the best picture I have ever seen. From 3 feet away.


I too like the Sony, and the Mitsubishi, 30" models, but they have serious issues., too.


Oh, fwiw, the 30" LCDs will certainly be available from major brands below $3000 next year -- barring catastrophe. I thought we'd get to $2000 on some mail-order special this year, but with $800 to do and

 

[tc828]

I have both the mits 3020 and the fujitsu 50. There is no comparison. The Plasma wins hands down. The best picture Ive ever seen right out of the box.

 

[elvisdoc]

Quote:

Originally posted by tc828 I have both the mits 3020 and the fujitsu 50.

You are the luckiest man on the planet. I am up for adoption, by the way. I don't eat much and my vaccinations are up to date.


thanks for you consideration,


elvis

 

[Maurice2]

When is an LCD 44-46" HDTV going to be available? That's the one I'm waiting for.

 

[PooperScooper]

ROTFL Elvis!


larry

 

[rogo]

Elvis, that was great.


Maurice, I just posted a thread tonight about the new Samsung 46", due first quarter of 2004. MSRP $10,999, includes ATSC tuner.


Mark

 

[brvheart]

My general thoughts on LCD flat vs Plasma.. I think that LCD is very striking. The colors are very bright and vivid. The detail and clarity looks more crisp. But I feel the LCD's lack a sense of depth, and therefore realism. I generally notice a good amount of artifacts as well.


Sitting side by side with a plasma, the plasma generally looks more balanced, with more "believable" color. Very much less proned for jaggies. With more depth. I don't think either of these technology's have a great sense of depth.


My evalutations are assuming two equally sized displays.


I would lean slightly toward the LCD myself. But I would of course think hard about it.

 

[xrox]

LOL


Divvy,


No offence but you're about as unbiased as a mother is to her son! Especially if you hang off every word Mr. Puttman writes.


Schmidrj,

Bob,


I agree that if you are truly unbiased the first thing you will notice in a store is the LCD panels as they are sharper and look better up close than any other panel.


But, the problem is that as soon as motion is introduced that beautiful picture breaks down. Also, when you look from about 10' away Plasma will look just as sharp as LCD. Not to mention Plasma is generally bigger than LCD which also up their wow factor.

 

[Malachy]

LCD flat vs plasma is a tough question. A number of us have been struck by the detail, clarity, vividness three dimensionality of the best LCDs (Mistubishi/ Sony XBr) when showing well lighted material. That wow effect is also enhanced when you see one of the 30" LCDs beside a 42" plasma that may not be calibrated to best advantage. When I have seen a well set up 42 "Panasonic or 43" Pioneer plasma next to one of the better LCD flat or slim monitors the difference is significantly less, but still there. Would love to see a 40 or 42 inch Mitsubishi LCD to sense how much is the effect of smaller size. Similar size would also allow a better judgment about the superior quality of the light of the colors etc. which many of us see in the better plasmas. No question there is a difference, but not sure how great it is.


In any case, the two down sides of even the best LCDs are: 1) dark scenes on the LCD don't seem as good as on top plasmas and 2) there is a definite smearing effect on the LCD when the camera pans rapidly. Some claim they can see this smearing even when viewing a player racing across the screen. I don't see it. But it is quite visible when the camera moves quickly. It is not so annoying that it would rule out an LCD, but it might for some sports enthusiasts. The best LCDs seem to have more or less sloved the distortion problem of earlier LCDs when you move your viewing postion up or down or to the sides. So, for the time being I would choose a top 42 or 50 inch plasma over a 30" LCD. But that may change as the price and performance and size of LCDs improve. The robustness of the LCD, lack of fear of burn in, lower energy consumption, lighter weight and that 3 dimensionality in bright scenes are important factors. What is interesting is that there seems to be lots of room for improvement with the LCD while plasma seems to be more of a mature technology. Does plasma have room for significant improvement? If so the race could go on for a number of years.

 

[jflegert]

xrox,


You are obviously biased against Divvy's unbiased opinion of Bob's unbiasedness.


John

 

[xrox]

jflegert,


LOL, possibly.....


But when you have 1200+ posts on a predominently plasma forum you might get a liitle biased towards plasma. Divvy, if you don't already own a plasma I'm sure you want one bad about now.


Cheers


P.S. - If you took 100 people who have never layed eyes on a flat panel and took them to a store, what would be the most 'wanted' display at first glance????


LCD IMO (at least until they see motion blurring)


After spending a couple of years on this board???


Plasma of course.........

 

[markrubin]

I am currently comparing 30" LCD's: I have the Mits/Sharp/Sony : the LCD's look great in a brightly lit show room but next to a P50 in a HT the difference is striking:


advantage plasma


Sorry- wife says we cannot adopt anyone

 

[Andrzej]

Quote:

Originally posted by xrox P.S. - If you took 100 people who have never layed eyes on a flat panel and took them to a store, what would be the most 'wanted' display at first glance???? LCD IMO (at least until they see motion blurring) After spending a couple of years on this board??? Plasma of course.........

Yes, but it is not just a matter of time spend on this board. It is a matter of education, information and personal and others experience. If you are going to spent several thousand $$ it would be unwise to make your decision based on your "first glance". Don't you agree xrox?


Andrzej

 

[xrox]

Andrzej,


But spending time here is all of that right????


I do agree though......


cheers

 

[R Harkness]

brvheart,


I mostly agree with your assessment of plasma vs LCD. In a store-lighting scenario those LCDs really grab the attention with their brightness.


Although it's interesting you find neither technology has a great sense of depth. For me one of the most striking aspects of a good plasma display is the solidity and depth to the image. When guests view DVDs on my plasma probably the most frequent remark (next to commenting on the detail) is how startlingly 3-D the image appears. I've heard "it feels like I'm wearing 3-D glasses" more than once.


Just yesterday I was able to compare a large Hitachi CRT RPTV to a Panasonic 50" plasma, both playing the same HD signal in a room with controlled lighting (dimmed). The Hitachi gained a sense of depth mostly through sheer size and immersiveness of the image. The plasma achieved depth through clarity, solidity and vividness of the image. Overall the plasma looked decidedly more realistic - the Hitachi looking like a projection image, the plasma looking closer to real life through a window.


I'd add that, while I find the Sharp LCDs to have black levels that can really impede depth on many images, the new Sony 30" LCD seems to do better on that count. In fact, with bright images I find the Sony LCD image has a more direct, palpable feeling of depth than any of the CRT devices. By that I mean that an actor's face can take on a sculptural dimensionality, with a feeling of nothing between you and the image (no glass) that surpasses any CRT tube set or RPTV I've seen.


LCDs still have picture artifacts such as scaling noise, not deep enough blacks and motion lag, which for now keeps them off my buy list. But they are showing some intriguing strengths at this point.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[divvy]

Quote:

Originally posted by xrox LOL Divvy, No offence but you're about as unbiased as a mother is to her son! Especially if you hang off every word Mr. Puttman writes.

None taken as I was being ironic.

BTW, I have criticized Pete Putman's methods in the past - I simply wanted to provide another source for the OP that would be less suspect (due to certain perceptions of posters here) than my own biased viewpoint.
Quote:

I agree that if you are truly unbiased the first thing you will notice in a store is the LCD panels as they are sharper and look better up close than any other panel.

Darn it! Then I can't be biased (which is it to be?) cuz that is exactly what I wrote when I wrote what was probably the first favorable review here on the Sony 30" xbr900 LCD earlier this year. So with 1200+ posts in 2 years and now looking at a 30" LCD for the bedroom I don't know which way my bias is supposed to be now because I am also biased against Sony.


xrox, brvheart and Malachy: good set of posts on the differences though I do agree with Rich on the sense of depth given off by some plasmas. Can't wait for the detailed results on the LCD shootout from Mark