Plasma or LCD?

Johnny Bitte

hi all,
I ve been reading a lot of stuff online about Plasma and LCD and wanted to ask people opinions on Plasma in particular.

I know they have had problem s with "burn" but I believe with newer problems this has been resolved.

Would anyone here recommend plasma's over LCD's?

Rew

Pick a budget and stick to it. Go to the shops and view Plasmas and LCD's in that backet, narrow it down and do some research online. What looks good to you is whats more important. When it comes down to it there is little in it between Plasma and LCD in the current gen of TV's. One of the things I have looked at is the power consumption because you could end up paying for the TV twice over in ESB bills!

big_moe

plasma all the way.

i have both at home and look at both all day long in work. LCDs just dont have the same quality of picture that plasma has.

andy1249

Side by side , a plasma will outperform any LCD in terms of picture quality.

Rew

Ive looked at them side by side and prefered LCD. I think you wont go far wrong with a decent make/model of either

adox

Without doubt plasma.

LCDs are horrendous.

travelman

The LG 37LG6000 isn't!!! I love it, and can't wait to get SKY HD delivered...............

Vic Vinegar

Plasma!

I've a 42 inch Samsung, the picture quality is fantastic, black levels are far far superior to any LCD i've seen. You just have to be more wary of screen burn with plasma (not a problem if you don't leave static images on the screen for hours on end)

Rsaeire

Although viewing with your own eyes is an enviable option, most retail stores selling TVs leave the picture settings on max brightness and colour to entice customers. In this instance, you cannot trust your own eyes as you are viewing these TVs under the glaring lights of the store, and not under the lights you’d normally find in your own living room.

I would recommend, if possible, going to a store that has a demonstration section that mimics a living room i.e. dimly lit, comfortable screen viewing distance etc, so you can make an objective opinion.

Bar that, you can trawl the usual sites like AVForums, Boards etc for user reviews and find what is most popular. Also HDTVTest.co.uk is an excellent, independent site that reviews TVs objectively and honestly, with none of the marketing blurb you usually hear.

With regard to Plasma vs. LCD, it all depends on the use. For fast motion content, such as sports, Plasma TVs win hands down; even with LCD TV's motion compensation i.e. 100/200hz. If however you plan on using your TV primarily as a monitor for your PC, then LCDs are the way to go. You have to take into account the different pros and cons of both technologies before making a decision, in my opinion.

The Ritz

I've cast my vote for plasma - I have a Panasonic TH42PZ81 and it's a cracker. No viewing angle issues, no backlight uneven-ness or clouding, superb colour rendition and handles fast motion flawlessly. Freesat built in, BBCHD a delight, UEFA Cup soccer on ITVHD a revelation. Gotta love it !


Mod hat on now:

The LCD vs. plasma debate has the potential to throw up very divergent opinions, to say the least. Lets play nice. Blanket "X is crap" type comments are meaningless without some explanation for you opinion.


Ritz.

chrism2007

do plasma screens last as long as lcd screens? has anyone gone to long lengths to read up, maybe while planning on buying one.

i read everywhere that plasma is much better to watch, but everywhere i look plasmas are cheaper.

why are they cheaper if there better?

SeekUp

If it matters to you, LCD is much more energy efficient:

"Because LCDs use florescent backlighting to produce images, they require substantially less power to operate than plasma TVs do. LCD displays consume about half the power that plasma displays consume. The reason: Plasmas use a lot of electricity to light each and every pixel you see on a screen - even the dark ones. Though plasma manufacturers have improved voltage consumption requirements a plasma TV will consume around a third more power for the same size display."

More Music

So if LCD is cheaper than Plasma to run, how does LCD compare to CRT? I'm thinking of changing my 32" Sony CRT.

gamer

PLASMA is much better ,better range of blacks,shadows,tones,natural color,no pixellitation in fast moving scenes,better conrast ,warmer color tones.LCDS are ok for pc games ,xbox 360 consoles.and websurfing/pc use, ie is your main use is tv,films,dvd then it has to be plasma,theres a small range of firms making plasma,so it tends to be more expensive,due to economy of scale/mass production,its like cd versus mp3 ,the sound is much better from cds,but for say a 19inch tv,for ocassional use ,id just buy the cheapest 1 .WHEN I look at lcds in shops showing tv ,they just look like pc monitors,ie a 900euro sony lcd looks awful to me,due to bad color and pixellation.

A 720p/1080i hd tv is cheaper than a 1080p tv,you may not need 1080p unless you want blueray or slymovies hd,eg xbox360 ,90percent of games are designed for 720p hd mode.

Mr_Roger_Bongos

Does anyone know why there are alot less Plasma's on the market than LCD's?

I was talking to a salesman in the Sony shop (where they have older Plasma's still on show) and he was saying they are making more and more LCD's.

Why would they do this if the Plasma's are superior?

Rsaeire

Mr_Roger_Bongos wrote: »

Does anyone know why there are alot less Plasma's on the market than LCD's?

I was talking to a salesman in the Sony shop (where they have older Plasma's still on show) and he was saying they are making more and more LCD's.

Why would they do this if the Plasma's are superior?

If consumers wanted a large TV a few years ago, they would have had to buy a large panel Plasma TV. LCD TVs in large screen sizes, 40” and above, used to cost a lot more to manufacture than their Plasma counterparts and this expense was brought forward to the retail price.

Now that the LCD manufacturing price has lessened considerably, LCD TVs are a more viable option as they have not only increased in size and eroded the sales of large Panel plasma TVs, but they are generally cheaper than a same sized Plasma TV too. Another reason for their popularity is down to how both Plasma and LCD TVs look in stores. Due to LCD TVs' brighter image, however unnatural, consumers deem LCD TVs better, as they are brighter. Once they bring their new LCD TV home, however, they then realise that they need to turn the brightness down to a more natural level. If both a great quality LCD and Plasma TV were side-by-side in a controlled environment, e.g. under normal home lightning conditions, it would be evident that the Plasma TV would offer deeper blacks, a more accurate colour representation and also a wider viewing angle. Unfortunately, such a comparison is very hard to come by and only a few stores have the capabilities and the want to show consumers just how different both screen technologies are.

I have a 32” LCD TV, but if I was going to buy a larger screen size, I would have gone for a Plasma TV due to their better overall quality.

akaSol

The nuts and bolts are to my knowledge as follows:
Plasma television's when they, first arrived had a massive failure rate, 1 panel in ten was scraped causing massive expensive on the manufacturing side and was passed on to us jolly consumers.
Time passed.
Improved manufacturing made plasma affordable. LCD made their first viable landing in this country about 5 years ago, where a massive 27" TV would only set you back IP£3500 where a 42" plasma would set you back IP£4500. What would you have bought?
A very short time passed.
LCD is made on mass, cheaply, and a new consumer market is born- My TV is bigger than yours.
Visually plasma kicks seven shades of the brown stuff out of most LCDs- an average Million to one contrast ratio, .00001 Ms response time and now come in 100HZ.
However.
LCD's lowest response to my mind is 2ms , with a new 200 Hz model, pure LED panels and up to one million to one.
Their are only two major Plasma panel manufactures are Panasonic and Pioneer, with Pioneer looking to exit the market very shortly.
Image wise LCD. ; Colour wise LCD; Depth Plasma; Energy efficacy LCD; Response timing Plasma.
If i could have my way : PLASMA
What I own : LCD

>Sol

cnocbui

I think Plasmas deliver a better image quality, so I bought one.

Their superior ability to display blacks is often mentioned and I came across a photo that illustrates this. The three sets are displaying a black screen, the top set is a Samsung LCD, the bottom left is a Panasonic plasma and the bottom right is a Pioneer plasma.



The bleed through from the backlight of the LCD is quite noticeable.

Capt'n Midnight

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2009/02/pioneer-confirms-tv-business-exit.html

February 13, 2009

And then there were three. This week, both Pioneer and Vizio revealed they were exiting the plasma TV market, leaving just three companies—LG Electronics, Panasonic and Samsung—active in the plasma business. But while Vizio is dropping plasma to focus on LCD, Pioneer is leaving the TV business entirely.

Plasma TV's run HOT , but they use less power when showing darker scenes
and if used extensively with the same image there is the risk of burn-in

LCD's use about the same amount of power regardless of the darkenss of the scene

both of course use less power if you turn the brightness back and reducing the brightness on a plasma it may use less power than a brighter LCD

John mac

i want to vote oled

I have had a lcd for 2 years, great set.
i am now waiting for a plasma to be delivered.
will post my findings at a later date.

Mr_Roger_Bongos

Which Plasma you go for John Mac?

John mac

Panasonic TH42PZ80

from richersounds.

waiting for delivery Friday.

BigEejit

I got a Samsung LCD (LE40A686) and it has a really good picture. It has a stated 50,000:1 contrast ratio and blacks are really black. And when showing a black screen it is pretty black, nothing at all like the picture shown above (how old is that picture?)

Tea 1000

BigEejit wrote: »

I got a Samsung LCD (LE40A686) and it has a really good picture. It has a stated 50,000:1 contrast ratio and blacks are really black. And when showing a black screen it is pretty black, nothing at all like the picture shown above (how old is that picture?)

The picture above is probably a longer exposure, so none of those TV's will actually look like that in real time with the naked eye. The picture is just to highlight that using a longer exposure the amount of leaked light on a black image is significantly higher with LCD than with Plasma. (LED backlit LCD's aside).
LCD's always seem to mention Dynamic contrast ratio rather than Native. So your 50,000:1 contrast ratio is dynamic. The newest Panasonics about to hit the market are 2,000,000:1 dynamic, also Philips LED backlit LCD is about 2,000,000:1. Plasma's usually quote Native contrast ratio though, so while the upcoming G10 from Panasonic (one I'm particularly interested in) has 2,000,000:1 dynamic, it has 40,000:1 native. So on paper you may look at the Panasonic 40,000:1 ratio and mistakenly belive that your Samsung's 50,000:1 is superior, but you wouldn't be comparing like with like.
That's just a heads up, not a dig at your Samsung, which is probably a very good TV too.
I voted Plasma, as that's what I hope to buy, for 2 main reasons - black levels (LED backlit LCD's are still crazy money), and motion handling, 1080p moving picture is unrivalled in the LCD world. However TV's have come on so much in the last year and a half that it's hard to buy a dog of a thing that so many people seem to have foolishly bought 2 years ago.

Jev/N

cnocbui wrote: »

I think Plasmas deliver a better image quality, so I bought one.

Their superior ability to display blacks is often mentioned and I came across a photo that illustrates this. The three sets are displaying a black screen, the top set is a Samsung LCD, the bottom left is a Panasonic plasma and the bottom right is a Pioneer plasma.



The bleed through from the backlight of the LCD is quite noticeable.

Plasmas are known for not having as bright a picture as LCDs, if you put the backlight on low on the LCD in that picture there wouldn't be as noticeable a difference

spontits

Sorry to be resurecting old threads here,

but just came across this one, and wondering is it the same now,
are plasmas better than the lcd's??

was in did today and the chap was putting me right off plasma, says that the picture burns if u put something on pause... like it permanently gets burnt into the screen....

saw samsung 40 inch for 999 lcd, or a 42 inch plasma for about 650....

veruy confusing!!!

dogdig

A good make of plasma beats an lcd hands down IMHO - have a look at some of the Panasonics. These were on offer recently with 5 year manufacturers warranty:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56412653

The 42-px80b is a budget priced very popular model with plenty of support on any number of forums and for just over £600 sterling will do me for the next 5 years or so! OK it does not do the highest spec HD - it does the next spec down - but from 2-3 feet away you cannot tell the difference. Most people like to "run in" their plasmas for 2-300 hours before stepping up contrast etc and it is a good idea not to leave a picture on pause for any more than a few minutes. Best to have a good read on the dedicated forums (such as av forums or digital spy) before deciding. Modern plasmas are pretty reliable and have a screen life of about 30000 hours. And they dont suffer from motion blur like the lcd's do - it seems that even the top of the range lcd still have this problem if the comments on the dedicated forums are anything to go by.

But as always you pay your money and take your choice. If you are into fast action (EG sport) an lcd may not be for you - try and check out the actual pictures on both types - dont trust the salesman - make your own judgement - and dont be rushed. There are pros and cons for both types.

cnocbui

spontits wrote: »

Sorry to be resurecting old threads here,

but just came across this one, and wondering is it the same now,
are plasmas better than the lcd's??

was in did today and the chap was putting me right off plasma, says that the picture burns if u put something on pause... like it permanently gets burnt into the screen....

saw samsung 40 inch for 999 lcd, or a 42 inch plasma for about 650....

veruy confusing!!!

Yes, plasmas are better than LCDs. The burn issue is no longer a problem. The time required to cause a problem is on the order of leaving a still image on for days. I have a Panasonic, and doing that would seem to be impossible. If the set detects no change in the input signal for a few minutes, it reduces the brightness and contrast. If the signal still does not change, after 20 min it will switch the set to standby.

The longevity of the screen is now estimated to be about 35 years of normal use.

We were watching Yellowstone on the BBC the other night and the cat came into the room and started staring at the screen avidly. He then started to stalk some birds that were shown around a carcass. We had to restrain him from trying to pounce into the screen. He wouldn't take no and climbed up on the table the panel is on and again, made as if he wanted to get into the set and get at the birds.

We removed him but he was persistent. We ended up tossing him out of the room and shutting the door.

If that isn't the ultimate accolade of picture quality...

I couldn't really blame him as the image was so 3D it really was more like looking through a window than at a TV screen.

The Ritz

@spontits,


Please don't resurrect older threads when there are more recent threads available for the same topic. I've moved your post and subsequent ones here.

Feel free to open a new thread for a new topic if one is not available.

Thanks,


Ritz.

ynam

My first impulse when confronted with this kind of a question (plasma vs. lcd tv) would be to look at the LCD TV ratings. I know the expert reviews there will see me through just as it did when I pulled the trigger on a Samsung 32" LCD TV.

mikew1985

Hi Guy's looking for some quick advice here.

Im in the market for a new Plasma, I've decided that a Panny is the way to go. I was content to wait for the new G10 model which will be arriving in the next 2-3 weeks in Richersounds but now I've come across a really good offer.
I can get a 46"PZ81B delivered for £1064(Samsyerman), have it by Friday(possibly wednesday). Considering I probably wont be able to get a 46" for such a low price on the new models im seriously considering placing an order.

Does anyone have the above TV and would they recommend waiting or just taking the plunge as the differences in new sets might be neglible?
If the new displays weren't NeoPDP I think my mind would already be made up....

help will be greatly appreciated.

ben101

Mr_Roger_Bongos wrote: »

Does anyone know why there are alot less Plasma's on the market than LCD's?

I was talking to a salesman in the Sony shop (where they have older Plasma's still on show) and he was saying they are making more and more LCD's.

Why would they do this if the Plasma's are superior?

As a (former)owner of a plasma and can honestly say the picture is superior than most LCD'S.BUT as i learnt to my dismay ,they are prone to an early death and i now have a two and a half thousand euro paperweight lying in my hallway.The price to repair them compared to LCD'S is HORRENDOUS!!
P.S. AVOID LG .CRAP CUSTOMER CARE!!!

Moiph

Hmm and I'm thinking of buying an LG plasma tv now too...:(

dogdig

Worth checking pictures side by side as well as warranty and overall reliability - Panasonic takes some beating for build quality and reputation I reckon.