1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LCD vs Plasma

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs' started by gingerone, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. gingerone

    gingerone
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,307
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +237
    I've heard a couple of people saying that LCD displays will be the future of home cinema and will overtake plasma.
    Now having seen quite a few LCD displays running next to plasma displays it's clear that at the moment they are nowhere near as good as the plasma panels.
    Any ideas why there is this push to make lcd screens as a competition to plasma?
     
  2. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    I work for an LCD/Plasma repair center, and have a decent insight into their strengths/weaknesses:

    LCD's will never be as good in the home. The polariser material on the surface is designed to let light pass through it. Unfortunately it lets it pass both ways allowing ambient light like sunlight destroy any kind of contrast.

    They also have poor performance when creating true blacks, mainly due to the fact that the polariser material is grey itself, meaning the best it can do is to not light up.

    The manufacturing processes will need to be significantly improved for zcreen sizes to get much bigger, and that will take time.

    As for cost, again it will take many years before they can beat plasma for pounds per inch.

    LCD's can't suffer from screen burn however, due to the LCD chains returning to their normal state on power down. This means they will almost certainly replace plasmas as the commercial information display type of choice, but for home entertainment plasma will be king IMO.
     
  3. gingerone

    gingerone
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,307
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +237
    I did'nt know the technical info but that sounds pretty much as I expected.
    So why are companies pursuing the home entertainment market with displays then?
    Bit of a waste of time!
     
  4. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    I suppose because LCD production has been going on for around 15 years, and a lot of the equipment and processes are already setup. Whereas in the case of plasmas, OEM's still need to design and buy a lot of new equipment to really commit to plasma.

    Not sure myself, but plasma seems the obvious choice IMO.
     
  5. Miron

    Miron
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,408
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    Ratings:
    +49
    It's all about money anyway. LCDs are much cheaper to make - that's it! Even if they react slow just put out some nice adverts and people will start buying them. That's awful reality.
    They should finally start to make plasmas with TV & HDTV resolutions and stop selling us computer resolution screens!
     
  6. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    There are far too many factors for anyone to say, simply, that one TV technology is 'better' than another for any given application. It ends up being a matter of taste.

    I like LCDs. I prefer them to Plasmas. When i buy my next TV it will almost certainly be LCD.
     
  7. Miron

    Miron
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,408
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    Ratings:
    +49
    Nigel,
    there are some facts, and one is that LCD is definitely "cheaper" technology, therefore more affordable.

    For the rest there are different tastes, and everyone should follow his own.

    Speaking for myself - I had a chance to compare two of them directly and I stay on plasma side. But , still, I'll wait a bit longer before I decide to buy one.
     
  8. Tim Ashdown

    Tim Ashdown
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2000
    Messages:
    593
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East Sussex
    Ratings:
    +78
    One thing I don't understand is, if LCD is so much cheaper to make and has been around for a lot longer, why are the prices so extreme. Example the samsung 40" in what video comes in at £7000. No doubt it can be had for a lot cheaper, but when you can pick up a 42" plasma for 2k, around 3k for a top end one then whats the point. Apart from screen burn and resolution are there any other benefits over plasmas. At this rate, by the time LCD prices are competitive, OLED will be out!
     
  9. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    I'm not convinced of Miron's statement. I do not believe LCD is a cheaper technology - at least, not at larger screen sizes.

    Of course, nothing in the electronics arena is fixed, and new, better manufacturing techniques are surfacing all the time.
     
  10. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    LCD's represent possibly the least value for money technology at the moment. £4000 for a 30" TV or £7000 for a 40"? No thanks.

    They are not better value for money, and cannot come anywhere near a similarly priced plasma for either screen size or contrast.
     
  11. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    ....but, at smaller sizes, you only get the choice between LCD and traditional CRT. Last time I looked, the smallest Plasma available was 32 inch (from a few sources) priced at GBP2500 and up.

    Whereas, you can get a 30 inch LCD for about GBP3000. So, at that size, it's in the same ballpark.

    And, at 22 inch, you can get LCD for around GBP1600. But no Plasma.

    At 15 inch (4x3) you can buy LCD for GBP 500.

    These are all high street store prices - a fair bet that most can be bettered on the web.
     
  12. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    Possibly but most visitors to forums like this wouldn't be seen dead with a screen size below 40". For desktop or advertising applications LCD's have the market sewn up, but for home cinema it still needs to do a lot to be convincing alternative to plasma.
     
  13. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    At the present time the biggest problem with LCD is colour reproduction; it's just not accurate and doesn't display a wide enough range. Although you may see many LCDs in offices where colour reproduction is unimportant, you will only see CRT or plasma in design/production studios because they can accurate reproduce 24/32 bit colour (although some after calibration). Just try displaying photos on your laptop, or playing DVDs and you'll see what I mean.

    AFAIK...

    LCD works by blocking light: backlit where 0% lets though all light (white) and 100% blocks light (black). Simple example, but essentially works in inverse to CRT and plasma. Therefore no deep black and limited colour contrast range.

    Plasma works by emiting light: no backlight where 0% emits no light (black) and 100% emits light (white). Therefore bright and deeper black with better colour contrast range.

    StooMonster
     
  14. symanski

    symanski
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +8
    Light emitting polymer (LEP) is probably the best option, but it's still in the lab at the moment. It has the potential to be cheap to manufacture but perform every bit as good as a plasma with none of the drawbacks of LCD.

    Thinking about the merits of plasma vs LCD made me wonder if the ideal solution would be a hybrid solution? The plasma providing the light and the LCD more control over the colour reproduction. Just a thought.

    All the best,

    Dr John Sim.
     
  15. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    It still works on the same principle as a technology like plasma, where each pixel is controlled by a matrix of transistors. Transistors on full = white light, off = (supposedly) black. I don't find colour reproducctions too much of a problem, but more the poor reaction time and contrast.

    It does indeed attempt to block light coming into the panel via the material on the surface which only lets light travel outwards. It's not always effective, and is still very easily masked by ambient light.
     
  16. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Leaving aside the price issue I was at a shop last night where I could compare a LG (42") and ELEO (46") plasma with a Sharp LCD (30").
    All were showing the same hi-def source material and all did look good, hooked up via component.
    But to cut a long story short the LCD would get my thumbs up - much better contrast and color reproduction, giving it a more 3D feel than both plasma.
    However the LCD suffered from what I would best describe as pixel-judder (?) on close inspection, not as obvious when being a bit further away.
    Yes, LCD is not perfect but neither is plasma. I also had a loog at the Panasonic 5G models and new Fujitus models (37 -50") - they all did look great with a hi-def source but aren't perfect.
    A direct comparision to the LCD and the cheaper plasmas from LG and ELEO was not possible though.

    My 2 cents.
     
  17. sounddog

    sounddog
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,349
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    107
    Location:
    Leicestershire, UK
    Ratings:
    +447
    The question I keep wondering is ... why is a 15" LCD for AV use over £600 when I can buy a 17" LCD with VGA input for £300 and add a Pro-V box for another £100. Surely by now they should be able to make 15" LCD TVs for around £200-£250.

    Until we get "portable" sized TVs at sensible prices no-one is going to buy them!!

    Vikki
     
  18. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    You CAN buy a complete 15 inch LCD TV for nearer GBP350 if you look in the right places. Even Dixons (never knowingly oversold) are selling the LG item at GBP500, and another post in this forum suggests that some House of Fraser are doing them for even less.
     
  19. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    £500 for a 15" is still an absolute joke, considering a 15" CRT could be bought for well under £90. Plasma is far closer (at least when comparing 42" models) with similarly sized CRT's. LCD "TV" pricing is a joke.

    Then we only have to think about what use a 15" TV would be in anyone except The Borrowers house. I couldn't honestly watch a TV below 40" without getting eye strain, and I don't have that big a living room. It just takes so much more concentration to watch a TV of that size.

    I find selling a 15" TV regardless of the underlying technology a bit of a farce. It's simply unuseable.
     
  20. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    It seems to me, Mr Dyson, that if everyone shared your views, manufacturers wouldn't make 15 inch TVs, and people wouldn't buy them.

    Neither of which statements is true.

    It wouldn't do for us all to be the same.

    About 7 years ago, a 14 inch Sony CRT TV cost about GBP300 with teletext.

    Now, you can buy a 15inch LG LCD job for GBP350 at House of Fraser.

    So, it's just that LCDs have a bit of catching-up to do.
     
  21. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    I saw a 37" Sharp LCD last weekend, couldn't judge the quality as the source was a live concert and no price was given. But at least the size becomes more competitive to plasmas.
     
  22. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    530
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +5
    The far east sees LCD technology far sooner than us in the UK. As most of it comes from Taiwan and China, you're in a prime location. I'll expect to see the same set in 1-2 years.
     
  23. harrisuk

    harrisuk
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,322
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +58
    The contrast and brightness of LCD screens available at the moment cannot match even the budget plasma models such as the LG 17 let alone the top end units.

    The also dont have the viewing range of Plasma screens (180 degree etc) and dont fair well in well lit enviroments. And their cost per inch is more at the moment. Alot more. So I dont really see what the point is of people saying that they are better quality or value. This just is not the case. If you look at an LCD screen and even a budget Plasma panel side by side with the same connections and source material you wont be able to say the LCD is better quality.
     
  24. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Not if you see the prices here. ;) Electronics ain't cheap here at all. :(

    I beg to differ: Every LCD I saw in direct comparision to plasma - both showing the same hi-def source - looked way better, the colors much more vibrant. But there was a drawback: if you go off-angle the plasma will remain it's picture quality while the LCD becomes overly bright (certain colors) and thus the picture becomes pretty poor.
     
  25. harrisuk

    harrisuk
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,322
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +58
    You say they had the same source picture but how were they connected (Component, svideo etc) ?

    Because the LCD screen you are talking about only seems to have a Brightness of 430 cd/m2 with a 500:1 contrast ratio :

    http://www.800stereo.com/prods/sharpLC-30HV2U.html

    It is also £3500 for 30". Give me a break.

    I am sure you will agree this compares very poorly with even an LG 17 witch has a contrast of 1000:1 and brightness of 750 cd/m2.

    Quite clearly even this lower spec plasma is far superior in terms of picture quality than the LCD screen you are comparing it to as well as being half the cost in terms of size per inch ? (£116 per inch for the Sharp LCD £59 per inch for the plasma)

    I am pretty sure you were looking at the the LG 14 model which has a similar level of Contrast and Brightness to the LCD screen you were looking at.
     
  26. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    Even this is becoming less and less true. Recent models (as seen here in the UK) from both Samsung and Sharp have a viewing angle of at least 150 degrees in both planes - more than anyone is likley to need.
     
  27. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Component. All were showing a HDTV source.

    Maybe another argument ala "technical specs alone don't matter"!? ;)

    What was my first sentence earlier? And how much did plasmas cost when they were new?
    Give it time and prices will drop, thus LCDs will IMHO be a good alternative.
     
  28. harrisuk

    harrisuk
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,322
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +58
    You have not said which LG model it was you are comparing it with. I dont think it was the LG 17 model because this panel blows away any LCD screen I have ever seen.
     
  29. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Can't remember. 42" it was though and it did look rather good on it's own (the pciture quality I mean).
    Maybe I check later tonight when I go back, the shop is just near my house.

    And just to clarify: I don't take any side here, just saying what I see and that I think LCD can rival plasma (when prices come down). But both aren't perfect yet, each technology having their own drawbacks at this point in time.

    PS: I need to investigate a bit more on the new Fujitsu Plasma with iDet (?) technology. Unfortunately all the signs here are in Chinese but it said something about "1500i", obviously related to the resolution. Made even look the Panny 5G models "old" in comparision.
     

Share This Page

Loading...