Plasma TV vs LCD TV

[565]

Hey if we can have a thread about fighter jets here...

[The Pirate]

I haven't a clue...

[giant_mtb]

Someone please explain to me the pros and cons of each and briefly compare the two without being biased, and I shall then muster up a decision within my mind. 

[Laconian]

plasma: deeper blacks/better contrast/more "pop". ghosting is/was an issue with lots of activity. image burn-in, eats electricity

lcd: worse contrast, [generally] faster response rate, no burn-in, more expensive

[Soup DeVille]

LCDs are said to be generally better for gaming because they won't burn-in.

[dazzleman]

A few years ago, LCD was available only with small screens.  I have a 5-year-old LCD TV that is a 20" in my upstairs TV room.  That was about the largest available LCD at that time.  Later, bigger ones became available, but the prices were astronomical.

But now LCD is available with larger screens at more reasonable prices, and has pretty much overtaken plasma.  Plasma is dying out.

[The Pirate]

plasma: deeper blacks/better contrast/more "pop". ghosting is/was an issue with lots of activity. image burn-in, eats electricity

lcd: worse contrast, [generally] faster response rate, no burn-in, more expensive

Is projection a whole different animal?

[omicron]

I haven't a clue.

[Laconian]

Is projection a whole different animal?

Yeah, there's LCD projection, CRT projection, LCoS, DLP...

[Raghavan]

LCD

[Raza]

I have a 37" LCD.  The picture is great.  Very high contrast, clear picture, works great with HD.  My brother has a 42" plasma.  It's better.

[MrH]

LCD definitely.  Having owned both, I definitely prefer LCD.

[sandertheshark]

I have both.  My LCD has better picture quality, but it's only half the size of the Plasma.  I'll probably get a big LCD when I decide I need a 50"+ 1080p screen.

[565]

Here are a list of pros and cons.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6485_7-168-110.html

"1. Plasma and LCD technology - what's the difference?
Plasma and LCD panels may look similar, but the flat screen and thin profile is where the similarities end. Plasma screens, as its name suggests, uses a matrix of tiny gas plasma cells charged by precise electrical voltages to create a picture. LCD screens (liquid crystal display) are in layman's terms sandwiches made up of liquid crystal pushed in the space between two glass plates. Images are created by varying the amount electrical charge applied to the crystals. Each technology has its strengths and weaknesses, as you'll read below.

2. Is there a difference in picture quality between plasma and LCD screens and normal CRT TVs?
It's not what's happening behind the screen that's important - it's how the screen performs as a television that matters the most. In that regard, both plasma and LCD sets produce excellent pictures, although many home entertainment specialists and gamers still say CRTs produce the best overall images (although the latest plasmas are particularly good, and LCD sets are quickly catching up in terms of quality).

Those same home entertainment specialists will tell you that for basic home theatre-like usage, plasma screens have a slight edge over LCDs. This is because plasma screens can display blacks more accurately than LCDs can, which means better contrast and detail in dark-coloured television or movie scenes. The nature of LCD technology, where a backlight shines through the LCD layer, means it's hard for it to achieve true blacks because there's always some light leakage from between pixels. This is steadily improving with every new generation of LCD, however.

3. What advantages does plasma have over LCD?
Apart from better contrast due to its ability to show deeper blacks, plasma screens typically have better viewing angles than LCD. Viewing angles are how far you can sit on either side of a screen before the picture's quality is affected. You tend to see some brightness and colour shift when you're on too far of an angle with LCDs, while a plasma's picture remains fairly solid. This is steadily changing, however, with more and more LCDs entering the market with viewing angles equal to or greater than some plasmas. Plasmas can also produce a brighter colour, once again due to light leakage on an LCD affecting its colour saturation.

Plasma pundits will also tell you that some LCD screens have a tendency to blur images, particularly during fast moving scenes in movies or in sports. While that was true for older generation LCD screens, newer models have improved significantly -- so much so that the differences in performance between LCDs and plasmas in this regard is almost negligible (here's a tip -- if you're shopping for LCDs, check the pixel response time, measured in ms. The lower it is, the better the image quality in fast moving scenes). 

Traditionally, the biggest advantage plasmas have had over their LCD cousins is price, particularly in the large screen end of the market. In the past 12 months, this has changed, with LCDs matching plasmas in both resolution and price. Plasmas being sold in Australia generally run between 42-inches and 63-inches wide, with the cheapest standard definition 42-inch selling for approximately AU$2,300 (although you can expect to find sets cheaper than AU$2,000 in real world prices). 60-inch and above plasmas can go for as much as $25,000.

LCDs, on the other hand, top out around the 52-inch mark -- though there is a 65-inch Sharp available -- but are price competitive with similar-sized plasmas. Sony's high end 52-inch KDL52X2000 LCD, for example, retails for AU$9,999, while Pioneer's top of the line 50-inch PDP-5000EX plasma goes for AU$10,999.


4. What advantages does LCD have over plasma?
Apart from being price competitive, LCD has the edge over plasma in several other key areas. LCDs tend to have higher native resolution than plasmas of similar size, which means more pixels on a screen. If you're a true high-def junkie who's keen to see every pixel of a high-res 1080i/p image reproduced pixel-by-pixel (providing you have a source that high, of course), then LCDs are seemingly the way to go. However, top-of-the line plasmas will also display 1080p content, so the choice isn't as easy as it once was.

LCDs also tend to consume less power than plasma screens, with some estimates ranging that power saving at up to 30 per cent less than plasma. LCDs are also generally lighter than similar sized plasmas, making it easier to move around or wall mount.

LCD pundits also point to the fact that LCDs have a longer lifespan than plasma screens. This was true of earlier plasma models, which would lose half of their brightness after more than 20,000 hours of viewing. Later plasma generations have bumped that up to anything between 30,000 and 60,000 hours. LCDs, on the other hand, are guaranteed for 60,000 hours.

You might have also heard that plasmas suffer from screen burn in, an affliction not as commonly associated with LCDs. Screen burn in occurs when an image is left too long on a screen, resulting in a ghost of that image burned in permanently. Newer plasmas are less susceptible to this thanks to improved technology and other features such as built-in screen savers, but burn-in is still a problem. But after a few days of use most burnt-in images will fade -- they are no longer permanent


5. Which is better value for me right now: plasma or LCD?
If you're in the market for a big screen television -- and we're talking 50-inches and above -- then we'd suggest plasma as a safe bet. Plasmas give you more bang for your buck at the big end of town, and while LCDs can give you better resolution, plasma still has the edge in terms of picture quality. One other thing to look for, whether you opt for plasma or LCD, is an integrated tuner -- many TVs still have analogue tuners, which look pretty terrible on a large screen. Try to get a model with an inbuilt HD tuner if you can.

At the smaller end of things (15" to 42" TVs), LCD is the only way to go if you want something slim and tasteful. And the best thing is that LCDs are getting cheaper all the time. "


Here are a list of the 5 top HDTV's rated by the same magazine, the Plasmas tend to dominate on the higher sizes while the LCD's on the smaller sizes.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6485_7-168-110.html


I think the concern with burn in with plasma's have largely been relieved with modern plasma's.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R2VPLE6GWXNOR0

Plasma Myths
There is a fear that plasmas will "burn-in" an image left on the screen. This is possible if you leave a very bright image in place for a long time, but most modern plasma screens counter the effect with a sweep or refresh of the display. For the first few months, take care not to leave the set on CNN all day, and you should never see a problem. The life of the modern plasma screen is rated for over 60,000 hours, so you can watch it 8 hours per day for 20 years before it dims to half the original brightness. Also, plasmas are sealed units and never need to be refilled with gas.

So basically the summary is this.

Plasma
Pros: better picture quality, better motion response, tend to be larger size, cheaper (except for 1080p models), excellent viewing angles.

Cons: burn-in problem (though pretty much non-existant in modern plasmas under normal viewing conditions), very heavy, fragile, prone to glare.


LCD:
Pros: Lighter and more durable, 1080p models available in small sizes, very bright screen,  zero burn in chance but rare image sticking .

Cons: less constrast and black levels resulting in less faithful pictures,liquid crystals have slower response times than the instantanous reactions phosphors of the Plasmas.


I think if you want a amazing picture over everything else, a high end 1080p Plasma can't be beat.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/1107piokuro6010/

"Conclusions
While the most expensive product is not always the best, the best will nearly always cost more. The new Pioneer plasma sets are clearly the most impressive consumer digital display's I've yet seen, lacking only the immersive impact of the best 1080p front projectors.

Highlights
? Striking blacks, great shadow detail, and the best contrast ratio we've yet measured on a flat panel display
? Vivid yet natural color
? Exceptional off-axis performance"

[CJ]

LCD.

[Tave]

I have something like this:





Fifteen inches of fun.

[ChrisV]

I'll say LCD is better, but for my money, the DLP was the best bang for the buck. I was looking at a Samsung 61" DLP 1080p set the other day and it was outstanding in picture quality, and only cost $1800. Newer DLP sets have excellent contrast ratios for deeper blacks. Even my older 50" Panasonic DLP has crisp blacks and a 100 degree viewing angle (and in fact has a wider viewing angle than you can get to in the room it's in).

But of you have the money, LCD is the way to go these days.

[etypejohn]

I'll say LCD is better, but for my money, the DLP was the best bang for the buck. I was looking at a Samsung 61" DLP 1080p set the other day and it was outstanding in picture quality, and only cost $1800. Newer DLP sets have excellent contrast ratios for deeper blacks. Even my older 50" Panasonic DLP has crisp blacks and a 100 degree viewing angle (and in fact has a wider viewing angle than you can get to in the room it's in).

But of you have the money, LCD is the way to go these days.

I've gotta' agree.  We bought our 50" Samsung about 3 years ago.  It has held up well and the picture still compares favorably with what's on the market today.  If we were to buy a replacement today it would be a 56" Samsung 1080 DPI.

[TheIntrepid]

I like my LCD.

[Submariner]

Is projection a whole different animal?

Projection has been around for a while.  The picture, while excellent, is dark everywhere except for dead center.  LCD projection offers just as sharp a picture, while having a much broader viewing angle.

[Submariner]

I'll say LCD is better, but for my money, the DLP was the best bang for the buck. I was looking at a Samsung 61" DLP 1080p set the other day and it was outstanding in picture quality, and only cost $1800. Newer DLP sets have excellent contrast ratios for deeper blacks. Even my older 50" Panasonic DLP has crisp blacks and a 100 degree viewing angle (and in fact has a wider viewing angle than you can get to in the room it's in).

But of you have the money, LCD is the way to go these days.

DLP is a big no no if you're doing any gaming, however.

[TheIntrepid]

DLP is a big no no if you're doing any gaming, however.

Why?

I don't like DLP much anyway, but just curious.

[Submariner]

Why?

I don't like DLP much anyway, but just curious.

The color wheel produces lag.

[etypejohn]

The color wheel produces lag.

I don't think they all suffer from that.

My son and I used to play The Simpsons Road Rage or whatever it's called on ours and we never noticed a problem like that.

[ChrisV]

I don't think they all suffer from that.

My son and I used to play The Simpsons Road Rage or whatever it's called on ours and we never noticed a problem like that.

Never noticed a problem playing GT4 on it, either. And our viewing angle is bright in every direction except from the very sides (where you never would be watching ANY TV from).

[SVT666]

I was told LCD has better picture quality over 50" and Plasma is superior under 50".  I don't know if it's true or not.  I have a 42" Samsung Plasma and it's incredible.

[Raza]

The color wheel produces lag.

Didn't notice that on GT4, CoD3/4, or RFOM. 

[565]

I was told LCD has better picture quality over 50" and Plasma is superior under 50".  I don't know if it's true or not.  I have a 42" Samsung Plasma and it's incredible.

You got it reversed, Plasmas dominate the higher sizes while LCD's do better at smaller sizes.

[Raza]

I did not expect to see this kind of landslide.

[Laconian]

Multi-chip DLP doesn't have the lag issue, but those projectors are spendy.