TV: LCD or Plasma?

[Dan Neely]

Also plasma has much wider good viewing angles. If your room requires some people to watch at a relatively sharp angle LCD isn't going to be acceptable.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

[faiselj5]

My 3 year old LG 42" plasma has started showing red after-trails of images, especially with titles and channel logos on screen. Also there is 'redness' on parts of the screen when when the screen is supposed to be black. The picture itself used to be great but now I think the plasma is going and I'm going to have to get a LCD TV soon. My friend has a 42" Philips plasma TV which he says is good but later he also bought a 37" JVC LCD for the spare room, which he likes very much. He says the LCD picture appears slightly sharper (maybe because the screen is smaller). He was worried about viewing angle on the LCD but says that has never been a problem.

[cjb110]

For PQ plasma, as it has much better black levels, and hence a properly high contrast ratio (without needing the annoyingly useless dynamic contrast) However there is a large price premium, and they can be noisy. Also for the majority any decent modern LCD will suite them fine, as they won't notice the difference. For Plasma, the Pioneer Kuro Reference Panel (KRP600A) is probly one of the best displays you can get your hands on at the mo. If your in the states, then the Mitsubishi Laser RPT has had outstanding reviews, but its not super thin like lcd/plasma. Oh and if your going for a decent set, don't bother if your not going to be feeding it a decent HD source like Blu-Ray.

[Zhat]

I have a 42" LCD, a 36" LCD and a 52" Rear Projection...the LCD's rock compared to the 52". Paid ~$1200(us) for the 42", ~$600(us) for the 36.

[SomeGuyThatIsMe]

Below is the CodeProject site for the Home theater world, I've never had a question go unanswered. Personally i like the picture plasma's get, and a lot of the burn-in problems have been fixed, but it still happens. Most manufacturers are starting to move to LCD because its cheaper to produce and they're starting to make them in larger sizes (110" is the record so far i think). They're also looking at new ways to make LCD better like the new one sony put out that doesnt use a backlight, it uses that OLED stuff so each pixel can make its own light. Mitsubishi is also working on a laser projection tv that looks really promising, I'm not sure how exactly it works but its supposed to be able to actualy shut off parts of the screen by simply not projecting there(a problem with any DLP or LCD, i think even plasma's have backlight but i may be wrong). The best picture quaility in my opinion is a good ol HD CRT Rear projection, blacks are blacks, colors are very very nice. Unfortuatly the sets are large, heavy, hard to find and hard to fix. My sony 57" crt does 1080i and 720p perfectly, i had a brand new lcd 32" vizio that could keep up with the sony's in the price range and couldnt touch the picture on my CRT. http://www.avsforum.com/[^]

Please remember to rate helpful or unhelpful answers, it lets us and people reading the forums know if our answers are any good.

[jonmbutler]

Not sure what CRT's are like in your area, but my 7-year old 36" Sony Trinitron 300-pound monster runs 1080i like a champ. And still better than LCD, Plasma, or DLP, in my opinion. Unfortunately I'm still healing from the hernia it gave me when I moved it upstairs, and will likely just leave it here when I move to the next place. :(

[David Knechtges]

Yep, second that.... I have a 73" Mitsubishi. Fabulous picture - best on the market right now..... Only drawback is the lamp replacement - which I might have to do soon on mine. Went to CES though - the LED backlight LCDs with 240Hz refresh.... Wow.... Those are amazing.

[z974647]

I can relate (the heavy Sony 36"). I've got a 32" Sony and it takes 2 men to move it! Thought about putting it on ebay but shipping costs would be more than what I'd make off of it! :omg:

What does an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac do? He lies awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

[Brad Stiles]

I chose LCD. My reasons were mostly related to the room I was putting it in. Had I wanted to use the downstairs room, I likely would have chosen a plasma. 1. The room I put it in is pretty bright during the day, and I wanted to be able to watch TV during the day. 2. The room is relatively narrow, so the whole "bad viewing angles" issue doesn't apply, at least not from any of the furniture likely to be used to watch the TV. 3. It had enough HDMI and component connections to hook up all my stuff, including two game systems, satellite box, DVD player, antenna and computer. 4. It was inexpensiver than the plasma. Wal-Mart had them on sale. :)

[Nathan Rose]

I chose LCD. I have a 52 inch that I got last year. LCDs don't have the same problems as Plasma. LCDs are more portable, you just plug them in and they work, just like your normal TV. Plasma is a little more complex. They advise that you have them professionally installed. They're also a lot more fragile. And with my 1080p resolution, I couldn't tell the difference between the LCD and the Plasma at the store. Bluray looks awesome. LCD is less prone to screen burn. LCD TVs are also said to last twice as long (50,000 hours vs. 20,000 average).

[Hardik Varma]

40" CRT and it takes about three people to move it.

[Jordan Marr]

I recently bought a Samsung 46" LCD. Many of the typical arguments against LCD screens (viewing angle, contrast, etc) have been improved to the point where they may not even bother you. After comparing many LCD screens to plasmas, I decided that I preferred the LCD picture in most cases, as it was sharper. My only dislike, after having it for about a month, is the motion blurring. After going back to the store and comparing it with the other plasmas again, I perceived the same blurring in the plasmas (even though the online reviews led me to believe that plasmas did not have this problem). Overall, I am very happy with my choice.

[JasonCordes]

Older LCDs have something of a viewing angle problem and don't display blacks very well. Plasma's display blacks beautifully, but don't have the contrast necessary to be used in sun lit rooms (there is tremendous glare). As noted by others, most LCDs and Plasmas cannot deliver the quality of picture that a CRT can, essentially because they cannot refresh quickly enough, so they have to compensate for lost frame rate. Newer LCDs with 120 or even 240HZ refresh rates mostly eliminate the difference from CRTs. And with newer LCDs using LED back-lighting instead of fluorescent, you get much higher contrast rations (1million:1 or higher) which leads to blacker blacks, brighter colors and being able to watch a picture with even direct sunlight on the tv. The best of the best of the new LCDs are the OLEDs, which frankly are amazing. The one I saw put the best CRT to shame. Unfortunately they are prohibitively expensive. I am in the market for a new tv. I am likely to get either the Samsung 120Hz or Sony Bravia 120Hz with LED backlight for best compromise between cost and quality. On another note, Plasmas run VERY HOT, so they can affect your cooling bill (an interesting side affect not many people are cognizant of).

[Fahad Sadah]

LCDs last longer.

[FMpol]

I say if you like to watch sports or movies, then go with a plasma. If you're going to do more gaming, go with an LCD. They both have a great picture though and if it comes down to price, then for the same size tv, the plasma will be a little cheaper but the prices are equalizing. If you want great bang for your buck, go with the Panasonic THPZ50... (somthing like that). A 50", 1080p can be had for a little over a $1000. Pioneer's are great also, but you'll probably have to shell out twice as much. For LCD's, I like the Sharp's they seem to be pretty good, but I don't know anyone who has it. The picture on the Samsung LCD's look great, but again the price is a yowza.

[GuyWithDogs]

Have to agree. I work for a company that makes software used in public space signage. Burn-in was the biggest problem with plasmas. We've managed to burn LCD screens in testing, too - leave an image on over a long weekend and you get burn-in. If you watch a lot of the same TV stations, you can even start to get hints of the little "bug logo" in the corners. A lot of stations have started bouncing that around now to prevent this, I think. I bought an LCD for home. Wouldn't touch a plasma. I find plasmas are really hot, too - put your hand in front of the white areas on a plasma screen and feel how warm it is. We had a test room with a couple of plasma screens in, and we never had to have the heat on in there in the winter. And it could get a tad unbearable at times in the summer.

[Dan Neely]

viewing angle's probably the most variable one. There're 3 types of LCD panels with very different performance levels in that factor. The cheapest TN is what's used in laptop displays, cheap LCD tvs, and mass market LCD monitors. Everyone knows how badly they suck on viewing angles (The 160/170* claimed in the specsheet is where it falls to a 5:1 contrast ratio :wtf: ). The only thing good iabout them is the cost and power consumption. Sub5ms response times are also a giveway but since 60hz video is 16ms anything faster is useless. The second PVA/MVA (the difference only is relevant if you're a patent lawyer) has much better viewing angles and the highest contrast ratios. The problem they have is that when viewed from dead on (as opposed to an angle) the first 5-10% of the greyscale is all shown the same shade of black(black crush). They also have a bit of gamma shift that differs depending on if you're looking from the left or right. Unless you're doing something color critical like photo editing you're unlikely to notice this effect. These generally are marked as having 176* viewing angles, and actually look good at sharp angles. The third is IPS. These have the best viewing angles (178*). They need two transistors per pixel instead of one like the other types. This makes them the most expensive and means they have the lowest contrast ratios. They're the only type that can have their color calibrated to be perfect. Dead pixels on IPS are black instead of white which tends to be less noticable. They don't have black crush so you can often ID them this way. Older panels tinted black areas purple at sharp viewing angles, newer ones don't. Less expensive new IPS panels instead have black areas glow white at sharp angles. More expensive panels eliminate the glow with a "True White" polarizing filter.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

[Member 96]

Yeah they do burn in but mainly when they are new so you have to be careful not to leave something on pause for a long time, as they get older they still burn in but it's washed away pretty quickly by something else. There are a lot of people out there under the misapprehension that plasmas no longer burn in as if it was something fixed that was a problem in early models only, that's simply not true, but if you are aware of it and take steps to avoid it in the first few weeks of owning a plasma it's not that big of a deal.

---

"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson

[Dan Neely]

GuyWithDogs wrote:

We've managed to burn LCD screens in testing, too - leave an image on over a long weekend and you get burn-in.

The LCD equivalent to burning shouldn't be permanent; to speed it going away play a video instead of a different static image.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

[patbob]

Chose LCD -- Sony Bravia strain. Strong tuner and slow to boot, but heck, firmware source is supposedly available (if the GNU license flyer is to be believed) :) Do you have digital signals into your house? Right about now people may be panicing or thinking they'll get benefits if they go digital, but if you have cable and you don't pay for the digital channels, you'll get no benefit other than the larger screen (with the same old 480i signals displayed on it). To pick the TV, go to Best Buy where you can look at a wall of TVs and compare their pictures side by side. Pick the one that looks the best. Pay attention to how bright the whites are, how dark the blacks are, and how much detail you can see in the lightest and darkest areas. Watch them for a long while and look for wierdness in fast changing motion (excessive blockiness, skipped frames, etc.). TVs vary widely, you are picking the best specific model in the size you want, not a technology or brand -- even two brand-X models side-by-side will show marked differences in these areas. BTW, bring the wife and kids if you can -- let them do the aestetic assessment while you examine the specs and interpret them for them (don't be suprised if they couldn't care less about specs.. that what you want them to do). Does it have enoguh inputs of the types you'll need? Are thay all independent or did they combbine some (like the old compositie video and S-video inputs -- you got both connectors, but could only use one or the other per input). Talk to the sales people about their installation and tweaking service -- we chose not because it looked to me like they had dumbed down the gamma, giving everything a gray cast. Probably all that could be done with the demo TVs to get the best tonality range. If you're doing free air, try your existing antenna first before buying anything. A lot of them seem to work fine with the new digital TV signals. Do you have an upconverting DVD player or a blue-ray player yet? If not, you should consider one at some point if you watch many movies. How about the VCR or DVR? Have a digital-tuner one yet? I've been having fun trying to find a DVR recently. Prefer HDMI interconnects over component video if you can afford to -- digital vs. analog through the cable is slightly better picture, and tons more convenient (1 vs. 5 cables to connect) but not enough to compell the expenditure. Will you want a component/HDMI cable for the game console? Wii with component cable is awesome on a 42" widescreen :) Again