are plasmas always superior to lcd,s

irishh_bob

everyone ive talked to seems to think so , i can buy a 42 inch S20 plasma for not much more than 900 euro , it has 600hz and three million to one contrast ratio or i could buy a G 20 32 inch LCD for the same price which comes with pro motion tech and also features free sat HD , i do like the idea of being able to cancel sky ( only have basic package anyhow ) so the LCD with free sat is attractive , plus id have to hang the plasma on the wall as cabinet isnt big enough for a 42 and size is not the number one priority for me , picture quality is , im trading a lower spec lcd due to poor sound and motion blur but according to site reviews , the G20 lcd has none of theese problems
my question is this , the G20 LCD is the top of the range LCD but is it still inferior to cheaper plasmas ,i.e , S20 or even the entry level X20

crosstownk

In my humble opinion, plasma is superior to LCD. I've a 10 year old 50" plasma display (1280 x 768) connected to a Sky+HD box via component and the picture is way better than any new LCD I've seen in similar size. Plasma, to me, appears a lot more natural whereas LCD alway has a hard, cold look - even in HD.

Based on what I've seen, if my PDP packed in tomorrow I'd be replacing it with another plasma - probably a Panasonic. I know there are issues with burn-in on a plasma but mine is 10 years old with almost 13,000 hours and the picture is immaculate. HD is so clear even though the display takes the Sky 1080i, converts it to 1125i using a built in video card and then the display scales it back to 768. I won't be replacing my plasma display until it gets up and dies.

irishh_bob

crosstownk wrote: »

In my humble opinion, plasma is superior to LCD. I've a 10 year old 50" plasma display (1280 x 768) connected to a Sky+HD box via component and the picture is way better than any new LCD I've seen in similar size. Plasma, to me, appears a lot more natural whereas LCD alway has a hard, cold look - even in HD.

Based on what I've seen, if my PDP packed in tomorrow I'd be replacing it with another plasma - probably a Panasonic. I know there are issues with burn-in on a plasma but mine is 10 years old with almost 13,000 hours and the picture is immaculate. HD is so clear even though the display takes the Sky 1080i, converts it to 1135i using a built in video card and then the display scales it back to 768. I won't be replacing my plasma display until it gets up and dies.

did you find the plasma hard on power , conflicting reports as to how much more electricity they use than LCD , some claim they use twice as much while others that you could power a house for a year with what it takes to run em

crosstownk

irishh_bob wrote: »

did you find the plasma hard on power , conflicting reports as to how much more electricity they use than LCD , some claim they use twice as much while others that you could power a house for a year with what it takes to run em

They are harder on power - that's for sure. My 50" plasma has a power consumption figure of 380W. My 32" LCD's power consumption was 142W. That said, I didn't notice any major increase the electricity bill after I installed the plasma.

The Ritz

Talk of plasmas consuming more electricity than LCDs is really a complete side issue. If you want to save electricity, at worst its about the same as turning off a table lamp for the same length of time as you watch tv.

If you are interested in picture quality I would always go with a plasma, I know that this is a bit of a generality but like many others I find that they have by far the most natural looking picture quality and no blurring or smearing on fast motion. I know that some people will compare X's motion processing with Y's Net access or freesat, or Z's 14billion:1 contrast ratio, but if your main interest is picture quality plasma is the way to go, its as simple as that.


Ritz.

Klingon Hamlet

I find it difficult to watch a plasma. There's some sort of flicker that hurts my eyes. I find the same difficulty with 50hz CRT tubes. (And the weird things is I'm talking about upto 200Hz plasmas). I stumbled across a technical term for the problem before but I can't remember it.

So I have to lean towards LED/LCDs.

cnocbui

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I find it difficult to watch a plasma. There's some sort of flicker that hurts my eyes. I find the same difficulty with 50hz CRT tubes. (And the weird things is I'm talking about upto 200Hz plasmas). I stumbled across a technical term for the problem before but I can't remember it.

So I have to lean towards LED/LCDs.

That would be because the response time of LCD is so slow and pitiful it couldn't reproduce a flicker in the signal if it wanted to. ;-)

irishh_bob

The Ritz wrote: »

Talk of plasmas consuming more electricity than LCDs is really a complete side issue. If you want to save electricity, at worst its about the same as turning off a table lamp for the same length of time as you watch tv.

If you are interested in picture quality I would always go with a plasma, I know that this is a bit of a generality but like many others I find that they have by far the most natural looking picture quality and no blurring or smearing on fast motion. I know that some people will compare X's motion processing with Y's Net access or freesat, or Z's 14billion:1 contrast ratio, but if your main interest is picture quality plasma is the way to go, its as simple as that.


Ritz.

so even if one was to buy an entry level plasma like the panasonic X20 , it should be superior in terms of picture quality to a top of the range LCD like the panasonic G20 , the panasonic X20 42 inch plasma is three hundred euro cheaper than the G20 32 inch LCD ( comes with free sat ) which is the top of the range panasonic LCD

cdb

unlike LCD's, Plasma's do not consume the full wattage rating when they are on but vary depending on the picture being displayed. The darker the picture the less pixels illuminated hence the lower number of watts consumed.

I've a 7th gen Panasonic Plasma so in my biased opinion I'd have to agree with the posters above that Plasma produces a better more natural picture than LCD

padi89

Im looking at the moment to buy a new TV. Yeterday i spent hours in a few stores in Galway looking at various sets from different manufacturers. Initially the LCD screens did grab my attention with their bright screens and saturation but the more time i spent with them the more unnatural they looked, The turning point came when the british open was displayed, on LCD the panning and movement of the ball was very poor the smoothness and sharpness just wasn't there even in the top of the range sets. I don't watch much TV but when i do it would be sport but this type of display just didn't look good at all even on golf, what happens when i watch hurling ?
I then took some time with the Plasma sets while they don't grab you straight away the picture they produce is much more natural, color rendition was excellent and there were no panning or movement issues.. I looked at the panasonic s2042 and it really impressed. The x20 model was also on display but il need to return to view this again, it had 100hz double scan so not sure how this looks in reality to the 600hz of the s series. The sales staff were excellent in two stores yesterday both said after owning both formats plasma is the better choice all round. The only thing im hesitant on are the issues i have read on rising blacks and IR issues. They are reported on the V and G series havent read much about issues on the S and none on the entry level X.

irishh_bob

padi89 wrote: »

Im looking at the moment to buy a new TV. Yeterday i spent hours in a few stores in Galway looking at various sets from different manufacturers. Initially the LCD screens did grab my attention with their bright screens and saturation but the more time i spent with them the more unnatural they looked, The turning point came when the british open was displayed, on LCD the panning and movement of the ball was very poor the smoothness and sharpness just wasn't there even in the top of the range sets. I don't watch much TV but when i do it would be sport but this type of display just didn't look good at all even on golf, what happens when i watch hurling ?
I then took some time with the Plasma sets while they don't grab you straight away the picture they produce is much more natural, color rendition was excellent and there were no panning or movement issues.. I looked at the panasonic s2042 and it really impressed. The x20 model was also on display but il need to return to view this again, it had 100hz double scan so not sure how this looks in reality to the 600hz of the s series. The sales staff were excellent in two stores yesterday both said after owning both formats plasma is the better choice all round. The only thing im hesitant on are the issues i have read on rising blacks and IR issues. They are reported on the V and G series havent read much about issues on the S and none on the entry level X.

selecting a tv sure involves carefull consideration nowadays , no matter what choice you end up making , you wonder could i have done better

crosstownk

The Ritz wrote: »

I know that some people will compare X's motion processing with Y's Net access or freesat, or Z's 14billion:1 contrast ratio, but if your main interest is picture quality plasma is the way to go, its as simple as that.

Well said. The way I work it is that the display is just that - a display. No receiver, no audio, no net access, etc. Just a top quality picture.